Talk:Angelokastro (Corfu)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Anti-Turkish (Personal attack removed) POV in the article

Is not there a little too much anti-Turkish nationalist POV in this article? "Killing, looting, pillaging and burning" claimed on the Ottoman Turks without using a reliable source. I prefer local editors from the area eliminate those POVs themselves; (Personal attack removed)--E4024 (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why anti-Turkish nationalist POV? Do you possibly think the Ottoman Turks went to Paxoi for a sight-seeing tour? During that era looting, burning and killing were the order of the day. Even the crusaders did that to Constantinople. I'm sure the Ottomans did their fair share of these acts like everybody else. So please, again, stop maligning editors based on their nationality. I thought you were making progress in that department but I see now that you resumed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality

I've been struggling to organize this article better. It says the same things multiple times (e.g. that Angelokastro is strategic), yet doesn't have a coherent chronology. Why does the History section start with the Angevins, not the Byzantines? When was the Byzantine castle built and what evidence do we have for that? etc. --Macrakis (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: nobody knows definitively although there are indications from the excavations that it was already in existence between 5-7th century A.D. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The History section starts with the Angevins because the Byzantines are mentioned earlier in the strategic importance section and I haven't found too much more information about Angelokastro during the Byzantine era that I can add to the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Society of Byzantine Antiquities of Greece noticeboard

Several statements in this article are footnoted to the "Information notice board of the Society of Byzantine Antiquities of Greece (Corfu Chapter) at the Angelokastro site". It would be better to source information from verifiable sources which are published and found in libraries. --Macrakis (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it would, in a perfect world. But the Society of Byzantine Antiquities of Greece (Corfu Chapter) (officially: the 8th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities of Greece (Corfu Office)) is a recognised state authority on the subject. I have the picture of that noticeboard taken some years back and I'll try to find it for more verification. And thanks for the link to "verifiable"; although obviously not needed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις}

I just uploaded the pic of the noticeboard. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading a picture of the noticeboard. This clarifies that we're talking about a governmental archaeology organization, not some unknown club (I could not find any "Society of Byzantine Antiquities of Greece" in online sources -- I don't know why the article used that name, as the information board does not use it. I doubt an information board like that qualifies as a reliable source under WP policy, but let's leave that aside for now....

As for the contents of the notice board, it is clear that the archaeologists are speculating that the castle was built under the Byzantines: "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" (my emphasis).

So, many of the statements in the current article are overstated. What reliable, third-party source do we have that the castle existed before 1272, or that it was in fact built by the Byzantines? Did they build it in the 5-6th century or the 12th, or both? The Tataki book says categorically that it was "built by Michael Angelos I, Despot of Epirus". If this is so clear, why didn't the Ephorate mention it? Tataki doesn't seem to footnote this statement. That is certainly plausible, but it remains speculative. For that matter, when is the name Angelokastro (as opposed to Castel Sant'Angelo) documented? The nearby village is called Palaiokastritsa, so it is also plausible that the castle's local name was Palaiokastro. But that is pure speculation on my part, and of course doesn't belong in the article.

The article also relies on other qustionable sources, such as an article in the Travel section of the Observer (a newspaper) and random Web sites like corfuweb.gr (clearly just a tourist promotion site), enosieptanision.gr, and corfu.gr (the site of the city of Corfu). These are not serious historical sources.

We should be able to do better. --Macrakis (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the "we" part, as I haven't been able to find any other "better" sources. As far as the Greek Ephorate of Antiquities being a WP:RS, I think it is, never mind if it is their noticeboard or their website. And please dispense with the links to "reliable sources"; They are not needed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak Venetian but "'Castel' Sant Angelo" sounds peculiar to me. I thought the word "Castle" in Italian is spelled "Castello". "Castel" doesn't have the characteristic Italian ending -o. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner to this comment. The form "Castel" is pretty common in all varieties of Italian (not just Venetian); there is the famous castle of exactly the same name in Rome, but also Castel dell'Ovo (Naples), Castel d'Azzano (Veneto), etc. As for the Angelokastro, when I added the information about the Italian name, I included two footnotes attesting to the Castel form immediately afterwards [1][2] which link to page images showing the name. --Macrakis (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as "corfuweb.gr" it just supports a statement about attacks of Genoan pirates, something that was common and usual at the time and the fact is most likely is correct and should remain in the article. The "enosieptanision.gr" and "corfu.gr" are used to support statements about the Turkish sieges and not about Angelokastro. Again, the statements supported by these two sources are not far-fetched and they should be verifiable by additional sources, although I am not as yet interested enough in finding them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You're saying that a poor source is OK because it agrees with "common knowledge"? That is not what RS (not linked!) is all about. --Macrakis (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I told you and I still don't need any crude special effects like Huh? or even cruder (and repeated) reminders about what RS is all about. I only said that if a fact can be construed as being reliable then, in practice, it can be supported temporarily by a less than reliable source until a reliable source can be found to replace it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as you statements: So, many of the statements in the current article are overstated. What reliable, third-party source do we have that the castle existed before 1272, or that it was in fact built by the Byzantines? Did they build it in the 5-6th century or the 12th, or both?

I disagree. I don't see any overstatements. The statements are qualified where they appear in the article and they don't have to be definitive in order to be included as you seem to believe. As far as having a certainty when the castle was built etc., these events are unfortunately unclear and this is reflected in the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad you agree that the history of the castle is "unclear". In particular, it is not clear that it was built by the Byzantines and not (say) Robert Guiscard or someone else. So it is inappropriate for the lead to call it a "Byzantine" castle. --Macrakis (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As any Google Books search attests Angelokastro is called a "Byzantine Castle" by many RS. As such a few doubts about its status are immaterial per WP:UNDUE. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have now added three additional reliable sources to support the piracy section, which although originating from "corfuweb.gr", a "random website", it turned out to be reliable. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Travelogues are not reliable sources. Guidebooks in general (as you point out about the Blue Guide below) are not great sources in general, though the Blue Guide in particular tends to be more careful about its facts. Also, the "Genoan piracy" section is peculiar. It claims that the castle was built in the 12th century to defend against piracy, but then continues to discuss the 15th century. Chronology matters. --Macrakis (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Genoan piracy section is supported by RS like Tataki, Stamatopoulos and Hetherington in addition to travel guides. There is nothing "peculiar" about the chrono order. These are the facts about the Genoan piracy that I have been able to find. One fact is about the reason for the building of the castle and the other is about the 1403 incursion when the Genoans invaded Corfu and attacked the castle. That there is a gap of about two centuries is due to the lack of RS covering any other incidents in the interim. Nothing peculiar about that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Further, your criticism of The Observer is groundless. The Observer is used to support the following facts:

When the Byzantine empire's domination collapsed in southern Italy in 1071, Corfu became its new frontier with the West. Angelokastro was a substantial bulwark in that new arrangement - with hermit en-suite.

That Angelokastro became the empire's bullwark in its new frontier to the West in 1071 is an undeniable historical fact. That it carried a hermit is also widely known. These facts are easily verifiable and the newspaper is a convenient, high visibility and easily verifiable source, not unlike the "Blue Guide" which you used as a source for the name. I hope you don't consider the "Blue Guide" a serious historical source to use your expression. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I certainly consider the Blue Guide more serious than an article in the Travel section of the Observer. In what way is the Blue Guide not a "convenient, high visibility and easily verifiable source"? Not only is it easily available in libraries, I happen to have a copy sitting right next to me. Anyway, as it happens, those pages of the Blue Guide are available online. [3], if that helps. --Macrakis (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Hetherington, Stamatopoulos, and Freely. As for non-RS sources like corfuweb, the Observer travel section, Tataki, etc., just because they are confirmed by RS doesn't mean that they become RS themselves. The article is weakened by their use. --Macrakis (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think Tataki is not an RS. I'll remove Corfuweb but the Observer is a reliable source which also is verified by other RS and I don't see the need for its removal. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Tataki appears to be a guidebook with no particular claim to scholarly accuracy. The Observer is a fine source for (say) current news, but its Travel section is a terrible source for medieval history. Most guidebooks, including the National Geographic one you recently added, uncritically include tidbits of information vacuumed from many sources, and not footnoted so that the sources can be checked. If the claims it makes are supported by better sources, it's better to rely on them than on the Observer. --Macrakis (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Analysing WP:RS this way and for the purposes of rejecting Tataki and the Observer, while arbitrarily accepting others such as Blue Guides, is in and of itself original research. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not original research. Analyzing sources to determine how reliable they are is central to encyclopedia writing. As the WP guideline you cite (WP:RS) says, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." (my emphasis) So a guidebook may be a fine source for identifying popular beaches, but not a good source for medieval history.

We need to be intelligent in choosing sources as there is no objective "bright line" separating good and bad sources. For example, most cookbooks are terrible sources for culinary history; they tend to repeat the 'received wisdom' uncritically. But some cookbook authors have clearly made the effort to seek out good historical sources, e.g. Marianna Yerasimos or Alan Davidson. Those cookbooks have bibliographic references and quote sources. Similarly, most guidebooks (worldwide) are poor sources for history, typically repeating outdated schoolbook stories. But some guidebooks try harder than that, e.g. the Blue Guides and the Touring Club Italiano's Guide Rosse. Still not as good as a scholarly article, but better than ordinary.

As for the Observer travel section and travelogues like Greek Walls, I'm not sure where you're coming from. The chatty Observer article, typical of a newspaper travel section, is a light-hearted report of the writer's holiday in Corfu, with some potted history thrown in, probably found in a guidebook or maybe even the information panels put up for tourists. It is not a reliable source for history. Piling on large numbers of low-quality sources does not improve the article; and in any case, they're probably not independent of one another -- they're probably all repeating from things like the information panel. --Macrakis (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if you confined yourself to cooking-related articles rather than try to patronise me on this talkpage. By the way Tataki whom you dismissed yesterday, through your original research (Tataki appears to be a guidebook with no particular claim to scholarly accuracy.), as a source, is Director of Research of the National Hellenic Research Foundation and has won awards including from the Academy of Athens. Her bio is here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Perhaps it would be better if you confined yourself to cooking-related articles"! Are you going to claim that this is not a personal attack?

By the way, I didn't say anything about Tataki the author, but the book she wrote. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full text, which is why I said that Tataki "appears to be a guidebook". I am pretty certain, by the way, that Tataki the person is not a guidebook. By the way, you have not answered re the Observer Travel section. --Macrakis (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to add the full sentence: Perhaps it would be better if you confined yourself to cooking-related articles rather than try to patronise me on this talkpage. And don't tell me that your cooking-book lecture was not patronising. In any case, I am also certain that Tataki is not a cookbook. As far as The Observer, I am open to asking at RSN for the facts this source is used to support. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how comparing cookbooks as sources for culinary history to guidebooks as sources for archaeology is patronizing. --Macrakis (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference between a book that has a bibliography and one that doesn't is clear to most people; and that includes cookbooks. A good start would be to not use simplistic examples to demonstrate things. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Source

A.W. Lawrence's "Skeletal History of Byzantine Fortification" references A. Orlandos, Archeion tōn Byzantinōn Mnimeiōn tis Ellados 9 (1961) 54 figs 2,4. It isn't clear from the reference how much detail Orlandos goes into. I will try to find a copy. --Macrakis (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)