This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 10 years ago32 comments5 people in discussion
All's well that ends well. Perhaps this can be revisited if one of you checks out Kordoses from the library. Settling this one issue is a good thing; I hope that you two can get along better in the future than you have in the past. Thanks also to Juhnuniq and Anaxial. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Calling it a "Byzantine" castle in the lead is POV-pushing. As you say yourself, "nobody knows definitively" when the castle was first built and by whom. The 8th Ephorate speculates that the Despots of Epirus had something to do with it, but adduces no evidence for this. The fact that there were some tombs built in the 5-7th centuries, and possibly a fortification, is not evidence that the castle is Byzantine. Hetherington (a source that you brought in) is skeptical that it is Byzantine: "It may be a Byzantine foundation although it must be said that (for its size) it is not in a typical Byzantine site...". There is no documentary evidence of the existence of the castle before 1272. --Macrakis (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem of accusing others of POV-pushing is that you may be the one who actually pushes your POV and original research and simply cannot see it. Hetherington may be sceptical but does not reject it either and there are so many other sources calling it Byzantine that it would be WP:UNDUE to assign elevated importance to Hetherington. In addition to the many reliable sources in the article which call this a Byzantine Castle, the Greek State, through its official Archaeological Agency, is calling it a "Byzantine Castle". Just look at the noticeboard which has "Byzantine Castle" in all capitals and both in Greek and English. This is as definitive as it gets, your own original research notwithstanding. Most of your analysis on this page consists of synthesis and original research in trying to reject perfectly reliable sources, including the official Byzantine Archaeological Agency of the Greek State, and substitute your own arbitrary standards. This is POV as much as it is synthesis and original research. You cannot reject perfectly reliable sources to suit your own analysis. This approach is original research. If you are looking for WP:TRUTH you can always write your own paper and publish it. In Wikipedia we go by reliable sources. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 15:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is true, maybe I cannot see my biases. But I can't say you've convinced me that I'm mistaken here. Counting sources ("so many other sources") without considering their quality and their independence doesn't tell us much.
As for the national archaeology ephorate, yes, of course their opinion is worth mentioning -- though it would be much better if it were published in a reputable journal. But, like all sources, it is not definitive. And interestingly, though the title of the information plaque says "Byzantine Castle", the text of that same plaque is much less categorical: "reasonable to suppose that...had something to do with the site". Is the tentativeness in that language not clear to you? --Macrakis (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
What is clear to me is that you came here to fuss over points which reliable sources have already determined definitively. What is also clear to me is that you are attempting all kinds of veiled insults toward me. I'm not sure what your agenda is here but to be blunt I am not going to waste my time further arguing with you about your original research and getting insulted by you. I am not going to second-guess, through original research, the official agency of the Greek state which has granted this castle the title "Byzantine". I advise you to do the same, although I won't hold my breath given your replies so far. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 03:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you please cut out the aggressively condescending ("fuss over") and tendentious language?
You are presuming things that are in dispute, namely, what constitutes a reliable source, what exactly your sources actually say (how "definitively" are they speaking?). You are also accusing me of bad faith ("not sure what your agenda is", "attempting all kinds of veiled insults"). I don't understand why you are being so defensive about this article. --Macrakis (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
"A multi-pronged campaign"! And I thought I was just trying to improve the article. Point by point:
"delete perfectly sourced onomatology": as I explained in the edit summary, "Ottoman" is a better term than "Turkish" for the Ottoman Empire and its armies -- this is not a question of sourcing, but of using standard modern terminology for this entity.
"aggressive comments with multiple questions": asking for clarification of "maintenance excavation" seems pretty innocuous to me; I don't believe this is standard archaeological terminology.
"add silly tags"; it was claimed that there are historians who connect the name to Michael I; who are they? Again, seems pretty innocuous.
"break wikilinks"; though the edit you point to doesn't break any wikilinks that I can see, I do remember having made another edit which inadvertently removed the primary <ref>, which was referred to elsewhere. I do make mistakes, sorry.
"accuse me of not asuming good faith"; yes, I asked you to assume good faith, which your comments on this talk page (including this latest one: "multi-pronged campaign"!) do not
"going to an admin's talkpage to pressure them to talk to me": first of all, there was no pressure, just a request for a fresh perspective -- I did not ask for any administrative action, just advice; secondly, wikipedia policyencourages asking for outside opinions when there is an editing dispute.
"Is the tentativeness in that language not clear to you?"; well, is it or not? To my ear, the author was expressing speculation; do you disagree?
I am not sure why you are escalating these rather minor editing disagreements into accusations of a "multi-pronged campaign" and "rude insults". That is why asking for a fresh perspective from other editors could be helpful. --Macrakis (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
"delete perfectly sourced onomatology": you removed the term "Byzantine" from the castle in the lead. I was not referring to the Venetian names.
"break wikilinks" You broke the wikilink to "Greece" at the lead.
"add silly tags"; There are plenty of references connecting the castle to the Komnenoi. You didn't have to put that tag as you were discussing on talk at the time and I could have explained it to you if that were not clear enough.
"aggressive comments with multiple questions": Again, You didn't have to put that comment with the sentences ending in question marlks, as you were discussing on talk at the time and I could have explained it to you if that were not clear enough.
"destroy references" You removed the reference link but you orphaned other occurrences of it and made it appear like a red error link. That's why Anome bot repaired it.
" You accused me of not assuming good faith" because I noted your edit-warring. That was not warranted in the least. It was an accurate observation, not an indication of bad faith on my part.
"going to an admin's talkpage to pressure them to talk to me" That was an attempt at intimidation. I stand by my evaluation of your move.
"Is the tentativeness in that language not clear to you?" is clearly a patronising question.
You forgot your comment insinuating that I POV-pushed for including the term "Byzantine", a term that is fully referenced to the highest quality sources. But here you are still arguing against it. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 14:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This exchange does not seem to be converging. How would you suggest we move forward without asking for a fresh perspective from other editors? --Macrakis (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe you are still discussing if Angelokastro is a "Byzantine" Castle in the face of the clear evidence by reliable sources from top-notch academics, especially since in Wikipedia we go by WP:RS, WP:V and not by WP:TRUTH. But just in case you did not see these reliable sources in the article I put them below so that you can have a look:
Evidence that Angelokastro has been accepted by experts as "Byzantine":
Michaēl S. Kordōsēs (Μιχαήλ Κορδώσης Καθηγητής Ιστορικής Γεωγραφίας, Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων) (1981). Symvolē stēn historia kai topographia tēs periochēs Korinthou stous mesous chronous. Vivliopōleio D.N. Karavia. p. 140. Retrieved 19 September 2013. "Εκτός άπό τό βυζαντινό φρούριο, στήν περιοχή τοϋ Άγγελοκάστρου παρουσιάζουν ένδιαφέρον καί δυό παλιές έκ- κλησίες, πού ...Ο Buchon, που επισκέφθηκε το καστρο, υποθέτει οτι χτιστηκε ατα τελη του ΙΒ' αιώνα από καποιο μελος της οικογενειας των Αγγελων Κομνηνων, σε μια ταραγμένη εποχή που ευνοουσε προσωπα με κυρος να γινονται ανεξαρτητα απο το κεντρο. Τα τειχη του, γραφει, μαρτυρουν βιαστικη κατασκευή.": Michaēl S. Kordōsēs (Professor of Historical Geography at the university of Ioannina (CV in pdf)): Aside from the Byzantine Castle, in the area of Angelokastro there are two old churches...Buchon, who visited the Castle supposes that it was built at the end of the 12th century by some member of the Komnenos family...
Stamatopoulos, Nondas (1993). Old Corfu: history and culture (3 ed.). "On a precipitous rocky peak dominating a wide range of coastline around Palaeokastritsa stand the crumbling walls and battlements of the twelfth-century Byzantine Fortress of Angelokastro, not far from the village of Krini."Angelocastro was probably built during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Comnenos (1143 - 1 180).(p. 164)[...]
A. B. Tataki (Director of Research of the National Hellenic Research Foundation) (Online bio at the National Hellenic Research Foundation website) (1983). Corfu: History, Monuments, Museums. Ekdotike Athenon S.A. p. 20. Retrieved 15 September 2013. "It was at this time that the fortress of angelokastro was built on the west coast of the island, to protect the inhabitants against Genoese pirates.[...] Angelokastro, one of the Byzantine forts on the island. It was built by Michael Angelos I, Despot of Epiros. (p. 69)"
Archaiologikon deltion. 45 part 2 (1). Hypourgeio Politismou. 1995. pp. 260–271. Retrieved 19 September 2013. "... βρίσκεται το Αγγελόκαστρο. Η παράδοση αναφέρει ότι το Κάστρο κτίσθηκε από τους δεσπότες Αγγέλους Κομνηνούς του Δεσποτάτου της ...": Archaeological bulletin: Hellenic Ministry of Culture:Tradition mentions that the Castle was built by the despots Angeloi Komnenoi...
Paul Hetherington (2001). The Greek Islands: Guide to the Byzantine and Medieval Buildings and Their Art. Quiller Press Limited. p. 57. ISBN978-1-899163-68-7. Retrieved 15 September 2013. "as Angelokastro is in the tradition of small but virtually unassailable strongholds that make use of exceptional natural ... In 1386 it was besieged by the Venetians and in 1403 the Genoese regarded it as sufficiently crucial to besiege it for a [...] There are claims that this medium-sized castle may have been built during the reign of the emperor Manuel Komnenos (1 143-1 180), and it must in any case have been established by 1272 as it was then taken over by the Italian Giordano di San Felice...(p. 57)"
Griechenland. National Geographic De. 2002. p. 323. ISBN978-3-934385-56-6. Retrieved 15 September 2013. "Jahrhundert von Michael Angelos Komnenos IL erbaut, dem byzantinischen Despoten von Epiros. Er veranlasste auch den Bau des Angelokastro, der heutigen Festungsruine in der Nähe von Palaiokastritsa an der Nordwestküste" National Geographic Deutschland: Gooogle Translation: ...century by Michael Angelos Komnenos IL built, the Byzantine despot of Epirus. It also prompted the construction of the Angelokastro today's ruined fortress near Paleokastritsa, on the northwest coast
Society of Byzantine Antiquities of Greece noticeboard And of course the picture of the 8th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities of Greece (Corfu Office) which is a recognised authority of the Greek state on the subject and calls Angelokastro a "Byzantine" Castle right on its noticeboard in front, of all places, Angelokastro itself. What exactly do we have to discuss? Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 00:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we still disagree on the contents of the article. But more importantly, we seem to disagree on the way to use and interpret sources and how to collaborate effectively on this page. --Macrakis (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Please be more specific: Let's start with "Byzantine" first. This section, which you started, has "Byzantine" in scare quotes in its title after all. Do you still disagree that Angelokastro has been accepted by the experts as a Byzantine castle? Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 00:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I have presented my arguments above, and you have not answered them. By the way, those are not "scare quotes". They are quotation quotes, just like the quotes around "scare quotes". They indicate that I am citing a particular word or phrasing. --Macrakis (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I've quickly looked over this page and I'm not seeing much of a response to the points produced by Dr.K. as evidence. In particular, the comment just above at "00:16, 20 September 2013" has no engagement at all—it looks like a debating tactic of trying to drive off an opponent by showing them that the time they spent collecting and presenting evidence was totally wasted as it was dismissed without consideration. I imagine that, like everyone else here, standard links like WP:DR are familiar to you—there is no need to use this page to speculate about how to get WP:3O views. I was puzzled by the request at Future Perfect's talk—extremely neutral and polite, but the reason most editors go to FPoS is that they want some kind of WP:AE action, and phrasing it as "asking for outside opinions" is a bit of a surprise. As normal, it would be best to focus on a small number of issues related to developing the article, so perhaps you wouldn't mind clarifying "presented my arguments above". Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree with the points raised by Johnuniq. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 01:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Johnuniq, thank you for looking in on the page. I think if you read the whole page (I know, it's a lot), you'll see that I have discussed why I thought various of the sources brought in by Dr.K. were not reliable for the particular claim they were supporting, and in fact have addressed several of the specific sources he repeated in his most recent comment. One central claim I am making is that the sheer quantity of sources is not a substitute for reliability. It is the weaker sources (newspaper articles, tourist guides, etc.) which tend to unequivocally claim that this is a Byzantine castle. The stronger sources -- and let me give credit here to Dr.K., because he was the one who added all of them to the article --, on the other hand, all express uncertainty (my emphasis below):
"the site may have already been fortified and occupied...in the Early Byzantine period"; "there is no supporting evidence in the sources... it seems reasonable to suppose that the Komnenian emperors had something to do..."; "they may well have built fortifications here"
"Tradition mentions that the Castle was built by..."
"There are claims that this medium-sized castle may have been built..."
"Buchon, who visited the Castle supposes that it was built..." (Buchon wrote in the 1840's)
Even the source that Dr.K. considers the most reliable and definitive, an information panel at the site put up by the Greek archaeological service, says:
"the site may have already been fortified and occupied...in the Early Byzantine period"; "there is no supporting evidence in the sources... it seems reasonable to suppose that the Komnenian emperors had something to do..."; "they may well have built fortifications here"
Dr.K. emphasizes the fact that the title of this information panel is "Byzantine castle of Angelokastro", but seems not to accept the uncertainty expressed in the text of that same information panel.
As for my request on FuturePerfect's page, I have interacted with him in the past and have found him to be level-headed, helpful, and scholarly, and knowledgeable about Greek issues. --Macrakis (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Your objections are groundless. If the experts believe that most probably the castle is Byzantine, and they call it "Byzantine", per WP:RS and WP:V this is enough. Absolute certainty is not required. For instance Michael Kordoses calls it a "Byzantine Castle", same with Argyro Tataki, Stamatopoulos etc. etc. But you seem to want to second-guess all these experts. And you seem to forget yet another thing: For the castle to be Byzantine all one has to do is establish within a good probability that it was built sometime during the Byzantine era of Corfu. There seems to be near-unanimity on the fact that the castle was built during the Byzantine era in Corfu. Who built it makes no difference. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 03:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the article should reflect what the experts say. So let me propose some language for the lead that reflects exactly what the most reliable sources say (the body can go into more detail of course):
Angelokastro is a castle on the island of Corfu, Greece built sometime before 1272, probably by thea ByzantineDespot of Epirus in the 12th13th century.
As for "near-unanimity on the fact that the castle was built during the Byzantine era in Corfu", I agree that many sources (mostly the weak ones) call it a "Byzantine castle"--none seem to mention the possibility that it was built by one of the many Latin rulers of the 11-13 century. That said, I have found an additional source supporting the probable attribution to the Comnenoi, though it is old: William Miller, The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece (1204-1566). I have added it to the article, along with a ref to its 17th-century source (which isn't RS in itself but is worth citing nonetheless).
I hope this new source and the proposed language above will allow us to close this long discussion. --Macrakis (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The article Αγγελόκαστρο: Ιστορική-Αρχιτεκτονική μελέτη [1] by Giannis Petsalis was apparently published in ΚΕΡΚΥΡΑΪΚΑ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑ Τόμος ΧΧ. It argues that it was most probably Michael II who built it. --Macrakis (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your additional sources. They look good. But your proposal is flawed. You say, none seem to mention the possibility that it was built by one of the many Latin rulers of the 11-13 century First, there is no source that even attempts to speculate that any other entity, other than Byzantine, was responsible for building the castle, so it would be WP:UNDUE to consider this option. Further, the site was occupied in the early Byzantine period, so its origins are early Byzantine. There are marble slabs, pictured in the article, bearing a Byzantine cross from an earlier Basilica, according to Stamatopoulos. The site origins are clearly Byzantine. This fact added to the the site's probable builder as being one of the Angeloi, and the naming by experts of the castle as Byzantine, is enough. We don't have to speculate.
I agree that many sources (mostly the weak ones) call it a "Byzantine castle". Who cares if (mostly the weak ones) call it a "Byzantine castle" if also the very strong, reliable sources, call it "Byzantine" as well and there is no source which claims anything to the contrary, i.e. that the castle was built by someone other than a Byzantine. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 23:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I never suggested that the article should mention the possibility that any of the Latin rules built it -- quite the contrary. Since none of them mention this possibility, the article should not mention the possibility. We agree on that. No need to argue or to invoke WP:UNDUE etc.
Yes, there was building on the site (and possibly even a fortification) in the 5-6th centuries. But (unsurprisingly) no source claims that that was the Angelokastro that was mentioned in 1272 or that we see today.
I am not sure why you object to making the specific claim that the castle was "probably built by a Byzantine Despot of Epirus" -- which is well supported in good sources -- and would prefer the vaguer claim that it is Byzantine. --Macrakis (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Because it is much more certain that it was Byzantine, than non-Byzantine. As soon as we introduce the qualifier "probably" then you open the door to other "possibilities" including, that it was built by someone other than a Byzantine, which we both agree that it is not probable at all and a fact no one argues against. "Byzantine" is also inclusive, in that it includes all the proposed builders of the castle, including the early ones during 5-7th century AD. Let's assert the strongest facts first. Then we can go into the details about who amongst the Angeloi built it etc. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 00:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Clearly it is more likely that it was Byzantine that that it was Byzantine Comnenian (A is more likely than A and B). So you would rather say that it is "probably Byzantine" than that it is "probably Comnenian"? Of course there is the possibility that it was built by someone other than a Byzantine -- Latins controlled Corfu for many years in the 11-13th century, and were enthusiastic castle-builders, especially on high points. Moreover, Hetherington (one of the strongest sources we have) explicitly raises doubts that it is Byzantine at all: "It may be a Byzantine foundation although it must be said that (for its size) it is not in a typical Byzantine site.." In fact, he seems to be the only source that explicitly addresses the issue; others may use the term 'Byzantine castle', but they don't justify it.
I know that the Ephorate's info panel calls it "Byzantine", but (a) they don't offer any evidence for that; (b) even government agencies can be mistaken; (c) this is just an information panel for the general public, not a professional publication. --Macrakis (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Your quotation of Hetherington is incomplete. He says:
It may be a Byzantine foundation although it must be said that (for its size) it is not in a typical Byzantine site, as Angelokastro is in the tradition of small but virtually unassailable strongholds that make use of exceptional natural defences; ...
So Hetherington points that this castle made use of its natural surroundings in its design and, according to Hetherington, that does not make it typically Byzantine. So what? It doesn't have to be "typically Byzantine" for it to be "Byzantine". The Byzantines might have wanted to save some time and money and used the natural surroundings instead of building all around. Who knows? The pirates may have been just around the corner. Buchon seems to reinforce that point by noting that the construction of the walls seemed "rushed". I am just speculating, but this is immaterial, because noone has come up with any credible alternative to it being of any other origin. Also Hetherington himself didn't propose an alternative theory about its origin. He just commented that it was not a typical Byzantine castle, but he did not reject it being Byzantine. So, even Hetherington, never mentions any other plausible non-Byzantine builder. That fact and the support by the other expert sources which call it Byzantine, makes a compelling argument in favour of using the adjective "Byzantine" per WP:RS and WP:V. I know that the Ephorate's info panel calls it "Byzantine", but (a) they don't offer any evidence for that...: Why are you ignoring all the other experts who call it Byzantine and mention the Ephorate in isolation? The expert quotes are just above so please don't mention the Ephorate again in isolation of all the other sources which I have provided you with. The Ephorate is just one source. But we have other expert sources such as Kordoses who is a specialist in the field and so is Tataki. They both call it Byzantine. Stamatopoulos does the same. The experts agree on the naming. Let's not go around in circles.
So you would rather say that it is "probably Byzantine" than that it is "probably Comnenian"? This is a false analogy. The probability of it being Byzantine approaches near certainty to the point that any other theory has not even been seriously proposed or advanced. Any challenge of the premise that this is Byzantine, is clearly fringe and unattested. But the same degree of certainty about it having been built by any one in particular of the Komnenoi does not exist, as there are various serious claims about each of them. So "Byzantine" is a far stronger proposition than any other claim, and in addition, it is inclusive of all the other construction claims by each of the despots. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 05:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Further, according to Kordoses, there was a Byzantine settlement in the area whose population could have used what he calls, "the fortified hill" during times of crisis: [2]. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 23:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't have access to the full text of Kordoses, so I'm not sure what period he's talking about. I see that Patima is 1.5 km south of Angelokastro -- what evidence does he present of a fortification? --Macrakis (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't have the full text either. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 00:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the sources used, all of which seem reliable, describe the castle as "Byzantine" in their summaries, titles, and so on. The majority of the doubts aired, such as they are, concern who exactly built it, not it's general status as Byzantine. Since there doesn't appear to be any clear evidence that it could be anything else, I think it's perfectly reasonable to describe it as such in our own lede.
This is not to say that any doubts about its origin should not be covered in the bulk of the article, although I'd like to see a more clearly referenced explanation of what the alternatives might be, and why they are not considered fringe views. But unless there's a major dispute among the experts, I don't think the lede is the place for that.
If you want a more vaguely worded "probably Byzantine" phrasing in the lede, then I think that would have to be supported by references to a serious debate between the experts in the pro- and anti-Byzantine camps, or at least an academic article on the alternative theory. As well, of course, as sources showing that the pro-argument is more widely accepted, but we already have those. Anaxial (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Anaxial. I fully agree with your thorough and accurate analysis. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 09:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Anaxial, thanks for looking in here. Unfortunately, Angelokastro is not much discussed in the scholarly literature. Another source on Byzantine fortifications I've just found (and will add to the article) mentions that it has "Frankish or South Italian influence", implying that it was nonetheless Byzantine.
Given the thinness of the evidence, my tendency would be to be less definitive in the lead, but I respect your judgement, and accept the phrasing "Byzantine castle" there. --Macrakis (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Response to third opinion request: