Talk:Scarborough Castle/Archive 1

Done

I've taken this article as far as I can, including everything I can think of and relevant sources. Others are welcome to add more, check facts etc. John Stephenson 06:38, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Since I wrote this, I've added more. See below. John Stephenson 07:09, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Destruction of the castle?

This is a very nicely written article. I've done a bit of quick fact checking and found this extract [1] which suggests that the castle was destroyed by Henry II and then rebuilt?

"The castle was begun in the mid 1130s under William le Gros, Count of Aumale. This was between 1135 - 1154, a time of chaos which was essentially a Civil War between Empress Matilda , daughter of Henry I and heir to the throne, and King Stephen , who had claimed the throne on Henry I's death.

Stephen dubbed William le Gros, one of his loyal followers, Earl of York , but on King Stephen's death in 1154, Matilda's son Henry II became king and marched to York, where William le Gros surrendered Scarborough Castle.

One of Henry II's main policies was to destroy many of the castles built without royal permission during the chaos, so-called Adulterine Castles , and Scarborough was no exception. However, after 1159, Henry ordered that Scarborough Castle be rebuilt, and work on the keep continued until 1169. Henry spent £650 on rebuilding and strengthening the castle, a vast sum at the time. The castle was further enhanced during the reign of King John, who added to it between 1202 and 1212, spending £2,291 on Scarborough Castle, more than on any other castle in his reign" Gareth Leng 06:53, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. I think the source you quote is ambiguous - at least, English Heritage's official guide mentions only it was rebuilt, and historians I've quoted elsewhere seem to argue that either the original wood-built castle deteriorated within a few years due to the elements, or Henry did indeed demolish it, as mentioned in the article. The policy of destroying barons' castles ought to go in somewhere, actually.

The page you cite seems to contain an ambiguity - I think it means it was one of the Adulterine Castles, not that it was among those destroyed. I'm going to pop up there now actually, to see if I can find anything more... John Stephenson 08:12, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm back. Having obtained copies of official texts, it seems that this is all rather unclear, but the claim it just fell down is doubted - Henry probably did demolish it. It is not clear whether he destroyed it for being built without permission ,or just because he wanted to stamp his mark on the coast - he did after all quickly rebuild it. I have rewritten that part. John Stephenson 04:18, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

centuries

Hi John, saw your post on the forums so I thought I'd comment. Article looks good overall. The only thing I would consider tweaking is the phrasing of sentences like "the x-century church was covered by an x-century tower". Perhaps it is just me, but it doesn't seem to flow very well. Maybe a better way phrase it would be "the church, built in the x-century was later covered in the y-century by a tower." I apologize in advance for the non-specific example. --Todd Coles 11:15, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Hi John, This is a great article and for an ex-patriot Yorkshire man, like me, it was good to see the North Sea coast again.Trevor Walker 21:56, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for your comments. Will see what I can do. John Stephenson 04:19, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Progress

Have taken a break from writing this article while doing some more research using local historians' published work. There are a few areas which need looking at so, while I am very happy to see so much support for this article at CZ: New Draft of the Week, I would like to stress it's not approaching the approval stage yet; there are a number of controversies to be resolved, particularly regarding the events during the Civil War. I will have a go at it over the next few weeks or so, but I am only intermittently on-line 'til I get back to Japan in a month's time. John Stephenson 07:09, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Still working on this... the history of the castle needs to be beefed up. I have all sorts of sources for this, so no need to seek approval anytime soon. John Stephenson 00:47, 28 October 2007 (CDT)

Introduction

This seems to be a very thorough article which - consequently - is quite long while the introduction is rather short. For the benefit of the reader who just wants to know the basics, I suggest to expand the introduction and briefly summarize the historical periods. Peter Schmitt 09:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought the introduction was sufficient. If there are changes to the introduction, keep it short and pithy. Russell D. Jones 14:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, my thanks to Russell for nominating this. I did try to add some very general points to the introduction (...various civil wars, sieges and conflicts, as kings fought with rival barons, faced rebellion and clashed with republican forces. Once occupied by garrisons and governors who often menaced the town...) in order to try to cover the historical periods, but I was going for the effect of trying to make the reader want to read more. Maybe one possibility would be to link to the relevant sections of the article from the introduction, à la ...as kings fought with rival barons... John Stephenson 03:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, after reading the introduction I was wondering when the castle lost its relevance and/or when it was destroyed. That is, essentially, what I miss. Peter Schmitt 08:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have added a little to try to address those points. The new version is http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Scarborough_Castle&oldid=100581119 John Stephenson 09:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Added Military Workgroup approval

Nice article, which I consider a contribution on siege warfare. Joe Quick agreed with my adding the group. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Great Siege of Scarborough Castle is in the military workgroup too; I have been seeking approval for that as well. John Stephenson 05:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why Just The Article?

I agree this is well done and ready for approval. I'm going to join Russell and Howard to make it a trio of editors, but I wonder why the subpages aren't being nominated also? I can see only one change there that would be appropriate and that would be to incorporate the Timeline template on that page. Everything else looks very thorough and well-done. :Roger Lohmann 17:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something there? I thought it was just content that was being approved. It's too troubling, I think, to have to seek re-approval for changes in back matter. We shouldn't have to re-approve an article just to update the bibliography or related pages. Or, as I said, am I missing something in the policy? Russell D. Jones 02:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

When Chris was working his way through the subpages template, we discussed how this was going to work with subpages and whether they should be locked after the approval process. There was never a final decision forthcoming from the editorial process, but from a constable perspective, we decided that locking the subpages would be cumbersome and make approval requests much more complicated if the editor was expected to keep track of the subpages as well. The result was that I would not lock the subpages and we would not enforce changes to subpages. However, I would consider a request fromt he editorial process that would lock a subpage to keep changes from being made if an editor requested them specifically (such as the timeline subpage of this article). Just make sure that all three editors show agreement and then leave a message on this talk page that asks that we include that in the approval process and Hayford should be able to lock that page, too. D. Matt Innis 03:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible approval on the 4th

Whoever's handling this is going to have to update the Approval information or I can't do the approval tomorrow. Hayford Peirce 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. I also added (I think) the definition to the approval. I'll revise my comments above as I think having a stable definition is important. Russell D. Jones 02:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors and all involved above. I hope the timeline can be approved too! John Stephenson 05:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Protecting definition?

(remark on discussion above)

May I mention that this definition is considerably longer than definitions are supposed to be? Moreover, locking the subpages is not practical (at least) for technical reasons, as far as I learned from previous discussions in the forum. Peter Schmitt 17:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a Cop following the procedures. I dunno what the issues are or how to resolve them. :( But I do agree with you that the definition probably too long. Hayford Peirce 18:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, because I can. Russell D. Jones 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)