Talk:Irish round tower

message: The sidebar photo at the beginning of the article is NOT the Glendalough towe - it is the Ferrycarrig, Wexford one. Furthermore it is a nineteenth century reproduction of a Round Tower.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.127.126.110 (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Thanks for the interesting contribution. I had no idea there were updated theories, I had pulled this originally from 1911 Britanica. As compelling as Petries theories are, in my mind there are strong counter-arguments that make as much sense. The purpose was not so much to hide, as to present a hard target, so the invader would look elsewhere for somthing easier, since Vikings usually were hit and run and didnt stay around for extended seiges. The ladder height problem is as suggested solvable by external wood structures which could be burned or knocked down before the attacker arrived, or by rope ladders. I'll look arond and see if I can find other material, if you have any sources to cite that would be helpful and appreciated. Thanks again. Stbalbach 22:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petrie's theory 

message: Thanks for the references and additional information, very helpful. I think we have a problem now because it is called "round towers", not "irish round towers", and includes Scottish brochs, and even mentions some Italian towers. Does the origin info apply to pre-christian brochs, or is that information in the article "outdated" as well? Should we limit this to Irish towers only? Stbalbach 15:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish round towers

message: When my wife and I first started researching Irish Round Towers after our first trip to Ireland we were very suprised to find little reference to the towers in the Annals written between the 10th and 12th century that were contemporary to their construction.
Most of the references in the Annals are about the towers being built, hit by lightning or collapsing.  There are little or no other contemporary references available that give an idea of how they were used or why they were constructed the way they were.  I think safely it can be said they housed bells but past that unfortunately there is mostly speculation that may never be resolved!  
I can't believe I forgot to mention Roger Stalley's book!  It is short, concise and presents the history and known information about the towers.  The other books mentioned provide invaluable information and details about individual towers that currently exists and ones that no longer exist.
I'm not sure that the name of the article needs to be changed - perhaps just updated.  Beside what is already mentioned in this discussion, what other types of things are you looking to add or change in the article?  I have no experience with writing a good encyclopedia article but would love to learn more on how to do it! - Frank
Grok00 03:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I assumed the round tower referenced in MA was brought over from Ireland (it was fairly common for 19th and 20th century wealthy americans to take apart European stone buildings, stone by stone, transport them and rebuild them on US soil, many such cases, in particular castles). But have not researched to see if thats the case here, but certainly very believable given Irish traditions in MA, the Irish cultural identity with round towers, and that its deemed important enough to be on church property. Stbalbach 23:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure that a copy warrants mention here; I mean, it doesn't tell the reader anything useful about round towers.  It might feature in an article on its location, though. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's notable that 1) modern buildings exist based on the architectual style and 2) the only one in North America. Theres no reason not to include it, usefullness is POV.  Stbalbach 23:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Round Tower 

message: I don't think there should be mention of Brochs under this heading, as they bear no architectural similarity to the other round towers.  Ideally, there should be a page about Atlantic Roundhouses, which would include broch towers, duns, wheelhouses, etc..  I notice that Atlantic Round House links here, which I also feel is wrong. Lianachan 12:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Understanding of brochs has improved considerably since 1911, particularly within the last 10 years or so.  Brochs do not qualify as towers, as they are all wider than they are tall and bear no architectural resemblance to them at all. I think the best way to classify brochs in here, in a way that reflects modern thinking on the subject, is to have an entry for Atlantic Roundhouses where that class of building are described along with their history and development, with links to modified entries for Brochs, Wheelhouses, Duns, Scottish Borders and Hut Circles.  As for the Irish and European towers - I'm sorry, I don't know enough about them to say anything other than borch's ain't them! Lianachan 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know enough about it, particularly the latest nomenclatures. I do think we need some overall way of understanding all the different "towers" (or whatever the general term would be) for non-experts, because with all the names it's certainly confusing. Perhaps a navigation template, something central, that shows all the different names in one place. --Stbalbach 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I mean by suggesting an article on Atlantic Roundhouses.  It's something I'd happily make a first attempt at myself, if I have the time. Lianachan 23:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now created an archaeology stub article - Atlantic Roundhouses. Lianachan 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brochs? 

message: I suggest we rename this article to Irish round tower and have round tower be a disambiguation page which can point to at least 4 pages: Irish round tower, Broch, Atlantic Roundhouse, Wheelhouses. I'm sure there are other instances of "round tower" outside of Britain and Ireland as well.
--Stbalbach 16:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I've been meaning to overhaul the Broch entry and flesh out the Atlantic Roundhouse one considerably but haven't had time to do much more than sporadic minor edits to other Scottish pages. Lianachan 17:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article 

message: I arrived here looking for round tower churches. These are a group of old churches scattered throughout eastern England, with a few apparently related examples in the countries directly across the North Sea. Aficianados also take an interest in any church anywhere with a round tower. They have quite clear views on how and why these towers differ from the Irish ones.
Websites include: http://www.roundtowers.org.uk/ and http://www.roundtowerchurches.de/
Are these of sufficient interest to be included? Google isn't the only authority, but note that a Google search on "round towers" sorts one of these sites above the Irish ones, although the search for "round tower" in the singular has the Irish Cashel tower top and the RTCS down at number 5. Oak 16:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia currently does not have an article on round tower churches and needs one. They are distinct from round towers in Ireland and Scotland. -- Stbalbach 21:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Round tower churches 

message: The below may or may not belong in the article, but it's not "paranormal mysticism" (although it is poorly written). It is either good or poor physics. The speculations of the author depend on the magnetic (or paramagnetic) properties of the type of stone used for building, the shape of the structure, and whether or not this combination has any interaction with incident electromagnetic radiation and whether this results in an effect on the soil chemistry of the surrounding earth. It seems to me that the decision on whether to keep or discard the segment should be based on references to works in the physical sciences rather than on the assumption that whatever one does not understand or recognize must be some sort of "paranormal mysticism". 
--Ji2rui4 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  antenna for local geomagnetic energies 

message: I added three references to the page's reference section.  These three works are main stream works on Irish Round Towers.  Was it ok to add them straight away or should I have suggested them on this discussion page first?
Thanks - F. Schorr
--Grok00 18:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit boldly. No need to ask for permission. -- Stbalbach 03:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added references 

message: Much of this article with regard to functions of the towers, is quite frankly wrong, and is based on theories which were outdated in the 1840s.  However, I find that there is such a strong tendency for people to alter it back, that I've given up on it. I presume there is a way to deal with this, and suggest that those of you who are avid wikipedians might take the trouble to do so.  Fundamentally, the whole 'rope ladder' theory was ruled out in scholarly journals quite a while ago, and Roger Stalley, in particular in his 'Sex symbol myth' article cited above, quite convincingly argues for fixed stairs.  It's all very well to say we can't rule out ladders while they were buildings the steps, but frankly, that's like saying that many modern two storey houses are accessed by means of scaffolding! It is a true statement (while they're being built) - but my God is it missing the point.Blorgina 18:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply debunk the old theories in the article and provide citations. I'd do it myself but am not familiar with it. -- Stbalbach 14:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this page 

message: Eh. Why is an image of the campanile of an Italian church included here? Surely it's only connection to the round towers in the Irish tradition is that it "looks like one"(?) The campanile at Caorle is quite clearly an example of 12 century Romanesque architecture, and is therefore *totally* unrelated to the Irish towers - except for the fact that it happens to be round. It's inclusion here therefore creates a misleading connection, is unencyclopedic, and borders on a "trivia" style inclusion. (IE: "other randomly round towers include [NAME OF RANDOM OTHER ROUND TOWER]"). I'm going to remove it as a result. Guliolopez (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian campanile in gallery 

message: The "Purpose" section as currently couched looks very like WP:OR. Given the total lack of inline citations throughout the article (yes I added that tag too) it's hard to be quite certain about this. It would be nice to clean up the article, which has lots of good info and evidence of hard work, and bring it up to WP standards. Thoughts, anyone?--Yumegusa (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR tag 

message: I changed the two instances of theory to hypothesis. Yes, the most common meaning of theory is, speculation or an explanation for something seen. If you change hypothesis back to theory, and if I challenge, you will win. So I ask you not to do so for these reasons. You probably would not like your considered explanation to be seen unfounded or idle, just a theory. If you are looking for an explanation in a reference book, you probably don't want to waste time on idle speculation,just theories.
I don't want to turn you into scientists, but the scientific method is so useful. You are arguing about why people put stones in a certain position, not about metaphysics, etc. If you do not have enough historical or physical evidence for your explanation of how some observable phenomenon works or how it came about, then you propose a hypothesis. Given enough verified hypotheses you can put together a theory, which when applied, can lead to new insights on similar systems. But these are only semantic quibbles. I am sure you all can put together a good article (including citations!). Beir bua.Laburke (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory versus Hypothesis 

message: It seems to me that the towers could be multi-purpose but let me take the side of the bell ringers in a round about way. I would like to propose an hypothesis based on observables but also on negatives.
I think we are (at least I am) led astray when we think of the form of the modern bell or the bell in the Far-East. Let's ask ourselves the question, Could Ireland make that type of bell circa 1000 AD? Indeed any place in northern Europe? If it could import bells from southern Europe, how would it pay for circa 100 bells. Now imagine a farm bell, a long flat iron bar, usually curled. A big one could certainly be heard for miles. Now take the Irish word for bell, clog and consider that it also means clock. If you don't like the thought of the tower as a bell tower against marauding Vikings, consider that the Irish were (somewhat) christian for many centuries (but certainly not enough for Pope Adrian). I am not saying they had the Angelus back then but they certainly did have the none (noon) and the Irish have the word tranóna for afternoon/evening. So there you have my unproven hypothesis based on an observable (iron bars that go bong, capable of being made by the Irish of the time) and a reason for having the tower based on religious practice of the time. I don't know if the exact propositions of the hypothesis have not been put forward yet. Please let me know if they are in any of the above references.
Instead of bell tower, you might say that they were some of Europe's first clock towers.
Érinn go brách! Laburke (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bell-Clock-Clog-Clog 

message: I don't know enough about the wiki markup to fix it, but if you sort the list of towers by height, it's doing an alphabetic sort instead of numeric, so 3m is showing as "taller" than 29m. CupawnTae (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be working alright for me.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting by tower height 

message: In the article it is stated that the highest Round Tower is 40 m. No source is given for this statement. In the List of Round Towers the highest one is Kilmacduagh with a height of 34.5 m. Is the source given there (roundtowers.org) reliable?--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height not clear. Reliable source? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish round tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006023530/http://www.freewebs.com/tipperarybarracks/thebarracks191418.htm to http://www.freewebs.com/tipperarybarracks/thebarracks191418.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish round tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070730092609/http://www.kinneigh.cork.anglican.org/KINNEIGH/default.htm to http://www.kinneigh.cork.anglican.org/KINNEIGH/default.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was not promoting anything really. 
The scientific proof of the tower's real age is important to understanding the significance of Derry at this time. Our group page is allowing everyone to view information and documents how the group achieved this discovery, that is the important fact here. 
There is also the possibility that you could add a picture to your page, several of which are available on that site and now on NI press websites.
I trust you will understand the promotion of the tower itself is the intention of our group
Regards  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susman121 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You added the name of your group three times. Wikipedia is not for promotion. The Banner talk 22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree with The Banner's actions and comments. Wikipedia is not for promotion of any kind. David J Johnson (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

text: You can still write the article Derry Round Tower, with relevant info and based on reliable sources. The Banner talk 13:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derry Tower 

message: The article claims that the tower at Kilmacduagh is the tallest in Ireland, but it is only 30 metres tall. The tower at Glasnevin Cemetery is considerably taller, at 55 metres. — O'Dea (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It states at the begin of the article: Irish round towers (Irish: Cloigtheach (singular), Cloigthithe (plural) – literally "bell house") are early medieval stone towers.... The tower at Glasnevin was built in the 19th century. In that way it does not fall into the category of genuine Irish Round towers.--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest tower dispute 

message: I think not: see Talk:Killashee Round Tower#Is this really a genuine Round Tower?--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Killashee Round Tower a  genuine round tower and should it be included here?