Talk:Tower house

British Isles bias

This article has been clearly written by somebody believing tower houses are something limited to British Isles... why? All the world is full of them!!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The article was written, I beleive, about a specific type of fortified dwelling, specific to northern Britain and Ireland, and commonly referred to as a "tower house". There may be similar structures elsewhere in the world, but I am concerned that this page is becoming mishmash of various types of tall buildings. I have never heard of the towers of San Gimignano, for instance, referred to as "tower houses", they always seem to be just "towers". I'm not sure they were even used as houses? The Yemen example also seems out of place. These are more like apartment blocks than "tower houses". If we include them, why not say that the Trellick Tower is a tower house? I fully support efforts to counter systemic bias in Wikipedia, and I acknowledge that the term "tower house" may have a wider use than just for the British isles type of building (I dont know anything about the Georgian examples mentioned, for instance). However, I am concerned that this page attempts to bring too much together, and is presenting things as "tower houses" which are never actually called "tower houses" and have little in common besides a superficial similarity. Some more references would, I think, help greatly. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There's now a specific article, at Tower houses in the British Isles --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but clearly that does not resolve the problems relating to this article, which I have outlined above. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tower house a term of architecture

Specifically of castle building in the British isles. There are indeed articles on Tower houses in the British Isles and on the Fortified House in Scotland. But both Wikipedia articles are short and inadequate. There used to be a 30 to 50 page Wikipedia article on the Tower houses of Scotland. Does anyone know what happened to it?

As for bias, that is a red herring. Either have separate articles on towers by geographical area if you like, or, if you prefer, break the subject up into sections of one long article. It does not matter which you do, as long as you hyperlink things. What matters is that you cover the subject. Large numbers of surviving examples have webpages devoted to them, even if in ruins and are great fun to surf. I particularly recommend the castles of Wales website. http://www.castlewales.com/home.html#Please%20Select But Wikipedia should be able to provide some overview or survey of these websites and their ruins so as guide surfers, and that is what articles like this should do. Web readers need some guidance. That is what the lost article gave. http://www.castles.org/Chatelaine/list2.htm

While there are still many castles and towers and fortlilaces and fortified houses in the British Isles, there are not so many castles in Europe, because they were pulled down by the monarch to break the power of the nobility. As for Ireland, I have never studied the ruins there and do not know. It should be noted that this sort of article should be hyperlinked to articles on castle ghosts. Regards Rumjal. --rumjal 08:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Original Research

The problem lies in the parocial approach of the study of vernacular architecture, setting solutions driven into similarity by a common problem (social insecurity) into geographic contexts. It may be more relevant to apply a different taxonomy, namely autonomous sites and connurbations. Of course, sometimes a castrum becomes a castle becomes a burg becomes a town.

I see, therefore, the fortified town house, whether those of San Gemmigniano, or the clans of Verona, or the Slots of Brussels, as a distinctively different solution to civic conflict within the walls than the fortified farm or country house, or indeed Church tower catering for the local population, needing to face anything from brigandage to the unwelcome attentions of a passing army or the neighbours. For starters, there was less likelihood of needing to resist a prolonged siege, and so less need for large stores to be kept rotated. The forces concerned were likely to be smaller, and the onus of other activities, farming for example, less in a town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.240.109 (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)