Talk:São Jorge Castle

File:CastleSaintGeorge.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:CastleSaintGeorge.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 20, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-12-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 19:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

name
It seems I've made a mess of the name of this article name. it was completely rude of myself to move the article without opening a request and reaching consensus and I am sorry. we should move it back to the castle of são Jorge, Because standardization amongst articles is always the best way. Thank you and sorry, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have returned the article to its original name. Favonian (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. The Bushranger One ping only 09:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Castle of São Jorge → São Jorge Castle – While the name in Portuguese directly translates to Castle of São Jorge, in English it's just not right. São Jorge Castle not only sounds right its correct by common practice of names in English (using the "X" of "X" is often awkward in English, spare names and officialities, i.e. Henry of Wales, City of San Jose). While I had originally opted for standardization amongst Portuguese castles, there is legitimate reason why this article should not follow this Castle of "X" plan, which I fully support for most other Portuguese castles, this is because the name of the castle is not toponymic. While it's completely reasoned to say the Castle of Beja, as it is the castle of the city of Beja, saying the Castle of São Jorge (saint George) makes no sense. I hope I have explained myself well and that we may change this. Apart from all this, in English its almost purely referred to as São Jorge Castle or Saint George's Castle, the former having higher popularity. Thank you. relisted Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as per WP:UE and the excellent nomination. Red Slash 03:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment is "Castle of Saint George"/"Saint George Castle" much used for this structure? -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Castle of Saint George" is most likely non-existent, and if it exists its absolutely the lowest used term for the castle. Saint George Castle is not popularly used for the castle, the native name usually is used in English sources and my tourguides and such in the city, merely translating castelo to castle. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Due to the interests of standardization. I hate to mention this, but a Google search will find that the above variant is possible (and proper). In fact, opening this discussion generates pitfalls. I am disappointed that you have decided to rehash this name move again, since I believed we had found a consensus on Portuguese fortification naming. Also, Cristiano, if you are going to be involved in editing, you might want to remove the "Retired" from your userpage: it almost smacks of "guerilla"-editing. ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you Zeorymer that standardization is a goal we should strive for here on Wikipedia, sometimes there are exceptions to the rule which cannot be ignored and we cannot look past them blindly in the name of standardization. I am sorry that you are disappointed, but I find that logic compels me on this task. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but relisting to allow consideration of the claim the native name usually is used in English sources and my tourguides and such in the city above, which indicates to me that Castelo de São Jorge may be an even better name. I suppose we could also ask for evidence that the current name is not the common one, but I'm happy to take that on good faith grounds unless anyone produces evidence against. I also note there have been at least two previous moves, apparently undiscussed on this talk page, but rehash this name move again and other text above implies they were discussed elsewhere... where? Andrewa (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How to write the lead section of this article
I just declined a request to protect this article from editing, because it is clear that this is a content dispute and no vandalism is involved. You just have differing opinions about how to write the lead section. You all need to work it out here at the talk page, before you get in trouble for WP:Edit warring. Your dispute seems to be whether to make the article’s lead be about the current building, which I gather is Moorish, or the original fortification, with a presumable date of construction in the year 48 BC. (I note that all of your references, in Portuguese, call it a medieval castle.) I suggest you discuss it here, in good faith and respecting each other's viewpoint, and work out some kind of compromise wording - maybe something along the lines of “a Moorish castle built on the site of a pre-existing ancient monument.” Find some wording you can all agree on, maybe something that gets both the history and the existing building into the lead. Or else keep on edit warring until you get blocked for it. Your choice. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-pinging . -- MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * MelanieN's suggestion of something along the lines of "a Moorish castle built on the site of a pre-existing ancient monument" is much better than the present text, which is badly written English that doesn't agree with what the source actually says, as MelanieN appears to recognize. It's clear from Lehol's edits that English is not his first language. His text says São Jorge Castle "is an ancient monument with a presumable date of construction in the year 48 BC[1], when the castle's first fortification was built; this date coincides with the period in which it was granted to Lisbon the category of Roman municipality". Need I point out that this not a properly constructed sentence in English, and that it follows a raw machine translation of the text on Portuguese government website too closely? Compare his text to the raw Google Translate version of the cited source: "48 B.C. - presumably the date of construction of the first fortification, having been granted to Lisbon the category of Roman municipality." Neither of these is natural English and neither makes sense grammatically. Beyond this deficiency on the editor's part in writing English, the History section immediately following the lede covers this information already. His changes are unnecessary and would be redundant if they were actually correct. Carlstak (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Pertro2 account is single purpose, with only 2 edits, both of which were made to this article, and started at 22:28 hours, 31 minutes after the previous edit. This is behavior typical of a sockpuppet. I would note that user Lehol had already made 3 reverts at that point. Carlstak (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, both are most likely the same, disruptive editor. Rewrote intro based off of some norms I could find in wiki. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I'm glad a trusted editor, one who is Portuguese himself, has written a lede for the article infinitely superior to the nonsense added by an apparent sockmaster and puppet. My only quibble is with the statement "São Jorge Castle has occupied an important place in the history of Lisbon, having served as a fortification for the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, and Moors...", which implies that the structure standing now was extant before Roman times and was used by the Phoenicians, Romans, and Carthaginians. My understanding is that the Muslims built their complex on the foundations of the Roman buildings, which were already in ruins by then, but that the whole complex has been modified many times in the following centuries. This is supported by José Augusto Correia de Campos, who is quoted in the Boletim of the Sociedade de Língua Portuguesa, Volume 18, page 214:


 * Em 10 de Maio, o Capitão José Augusto Correia de Campos, que tanto tem dedicado à exumação do tesouro arqueológico árabe em Portugal, matéria qu virgem entre nós, expôs «O que nos revela o estudo arqueológico das muralhas do castelo de São Jorge», algumas vezes classificado de «árabe» ou «mouro». Patenteou o orador, que fez projectar várias fotografias, durante a sessão, os fundamentos romanos da imponente construção, dos quais restam não poucos elementos.


 * My non-literal translation: "On May 10, Captain José Augusto Correia de Campos, who has dedicated so much to the exhumation of the Arab archaeological treasure trove in Portugal, a matter that has been undiscussed among us, showed "What archaeological study of the walls of the castle of St. George, sometimes classified as 'Arab' or 'Moorish', reveals. This was demonstrated by the speaker, who during the session projected several photographs of the imposing Roman foundations, of which there are not a few elements left."


 * Correia de Campos includes the Castelo in his Monumentos da antiguidade árabe em Portugal, but qualifies this inclusion by writing on page 84:


 * "As modificações sofridas no decorrer dos tempos de tal forma alteraram o castelo de São Jorge, que nem uma simples porta ou muro apresenta caracteres construtivos da época do domínio mouro."


 * My non-literal translation: "The modifications made over the course of time have altered the castle of São Jorge, which does not have even a simple gate or wall with construction characteristic of the Moorish period."


 * This would indicate that it is not strictly correct to call the present-day castle Moorish, but by the same token, it seems to me that it is not correct to assert that the same complex was used over the centuries by the various occupiers of fortifications on the hill. I believe it is safe to say that there are no Phoenician or Carthaginian elements in the constructions today, therefore, I suggest that the text should read "The hill on which São Jorge Castle stands has occupied an important place in the history of Lisbon, having served as the location of fortifications occupied by the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, and Moors... Carlstak (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

← Great suggestion, your rephrasing reads great to me! I support whatever tinkering needs to be done to make the article not only more readable but more accurate. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cristiano Tomás, I hadn't intended to get involved in the content of this article, but your wording of "historic castle" is brilliant! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, means a lot! Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)