Talk:James's Fort

James's

The actual location is called James's Fort, not James' Fort, see http://www.flickr.com/photos/theflip/576192666/. This is correct as only plurals are meant to loose the post apostrophe s, not just any word ending with s. See Court of St. James's, St. James's Park MrMarmite (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct in the sense that it's been named such, but the rules of grammar seem to indicate that either would be acceptable [1]; "if the singular noun ends in ‘s’ ... you can either just add an apostrophe (’) or apostrophe 's' (’s)". Alastairward (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there is considerable disagreement on this matter, and thank you for your BBC link. The BBC seem to change their policy on an hourly basis. Either way, as we agree, the place itself uses the post-apostrophe s. Thanks for your response MrMarmite (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I visit this Fort whenever I go to Kinsale, where my father was born. The sign with the history has no apostrophe nor second S, which should be removed from the page heading for accuracy. I could send a photo to Wikipedia as proof. KinsaleAnnette (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star

In a recent edit it was suggested that James Fort is not a "star fort". Ostensibly because it doesn't have outworks(?) There are several reliable sources which describe the fortification and surrounding earthworks as "star shaped". Such as the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage Survey (which describes the fortification as a "freestanding coastally sited 'star-shaped fort"), the National Monuments Service excavation reports (which refer to a "17th-century star-shaped fort with a central inner fortification"), and several others (which variously note that "James Fort is Kinsale's other star fort", or, relative to Charles Fort describe it as the "less visited star fort called James Fort"). I also just pulled a copy of Kerrigan's "Castles and Fortifications in Ireland" from my own shelf, and he refers to James Fort (or in his terminology "Castle Park") as variously a pentagonal fort or a star fort. Notwithstanding these sources, the pentagonal/star/bastion earthworks are visible in the 19th century OSI and 21st century OSI topologies. If I'm missing a nuance or a precise definition (that perhaps distinguishes a "star shaped fort" from a "star fort"), am more than happy to discuss - but am currently unsure of a rationale for stating the fort isn't at least "star-shaped".... Guliolopez (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what you mean. Well cited. See: http://www.buildingsofireland.ie/niah/search.jsp?type=record&county=CO&regno=20911215. Talk page if needed.

Well, @Guliolopez:, I'm unsure what you mean; unless I'm missing something, your cite doesn't say a word about "star forts." While some later usage confused them with any polygonal forts, stricter usage distinguished between them; see, for example Mahan's Treatise, or the equivalent RE works, whichever you have handy. James's Fort wasn't a "star fort" in the strict sense, although the outworks, especially, of the fort facing are. Anmccaff (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anmccaff. Did you see my note immediately above? Guliolopez (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not when I posted it, no; I'd started editing before you'd put it up. Strict use by military engineers of the era, for example Mahan's treatise on field fortifications or Philips or O'Brien or Macauley all make a strong, practical distinction between star, demi-bastioned, and bastioned fortifications. Anmccaff (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. However, while some 19th century writers might (somewhat hypothetically) not have described James Fort as "star shaped", more than a few 20th and 21st century writers and archaeological surveyors have (quite demonstrably) described it as such. So I don't really see why we shouldn't reflect this and describe James Fort as a pentagonal fort to a "star fort design" or "star shaped design". (Given that we are reflecting linked, verifiable and reliable sources in doing so....) Guliolopez (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, I can take this back through the 17th century, and outside British and Usanian sources. Anybody who knew about polygonal fort design used similar ideas and terminology, for reasons I suspect are obvious. Wikipedia has pretenses of being an encyclopedia, and that means it should favor expert sources over, frankly, ignorant ones. There is no shortage of sources describing any military structure with pointy corners as a "star fort," I agree, just as there are no end of morons who believe every small aircraft is a piper cub. We shouldn't be listening to these people. Anmccaff (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really inclined to address the suggestion that the archaeologists attached to the National Monuments Service, or the surveyors associated with the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage, are somehow "ignorant" or "morons". And so I would simply suggest that you take a look at the compromise wording that I proposed earlier.[2] Again, perhaps an edit of mine that was missed before your most recent talkpage addition. In short, as the concern seems to be that "star fort" is some kind of "reserved term" that is not analogous to "star shaped fort", I have changed the wording to use the latter. Mainly as that's the term that the (presumed qualified professionals) in the NIAH and NMS used. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, note that the word "moron" was directed elsewhere, at those who refuse not merely to make fine distinctions, but any distinctions, within broad categories. I'm sure many of them are nice people, but they aren't what you base a reference work on. As for the writers you cite, yes, ignorant, possibly -as are we all, outside of our own niches. If something has a proper name, it should be used, rather than a possibly misleading generic description. Yes, of course it is possible that the writers understood the distinction, and decided to dumb it do...simplify it for the audience; but I think we should not be doing that here...especially when a bastioned pentagon looks a damn sight more like a tortoise from above than it does a star.

Look at, say Fort 96 or Citadel Hill (Fort George) or Naarden and compare. Look at the base of the Statue of Liberty. These things are star-shaped in a way that no bastioned fort is, unless it has ravellins and suchlike other outworks. Anmccaff (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed looking at those. Thanks. However, to my (granted somewhat implied) question: do you think the wording tweak ("star-shaped fort" rather than "star fort") addresses your concern? I hope it does - given that the concern seems to stem from the suggestion that, in 19th century or formal vernacular, some writers use the term "star fort" to mean something something specific relative to "star-shaped fort"? If you're happy with the compromise, can we perhaps close the thread? (Personally I don't see the value in a subjective debate on whether five-pointed (pentagonal) star shapes are somehow less "star-shaped" than stars with more points. Not least when there's multiple reliable references supporting the use of the term "star-shaped"). OK to close/move-on? Guliolopez (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I've seen no reason here why "star" shouldn't go. Anmccaff (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You seem to have gone from a position that "'star fort' is a reserved term" (or at least was in the 19th century), to one that "'star' is a reserved term" (and cannot be used in any article discussing forts in any way). Based on this, I am not sure how to move forward so. Especially where we have:

already compromised on wording (to describe the fort as a "star shaped fort" rather than a "star fort"),
already provided multiple reliable and reputable sources that use the term "star shaped fort" (despite a straw-man argument - entirely without basis as far as I can tell - that the NIAH or NMS are somehow comparable to other "ignorant" "morons")
not (as far as I can see) provided any evidence that the 19th century writers (who seem to be holding more sway than modern archaeologists) described James Fort as anything other than a star or star-shaped fort.
not advised which project policy the current wording doesn't support (in fact, the current wording seems to meet all relevant criteria that I'm aware of - in terms of RS, VER, etc)

Given no positive improvement suggestion is forthcoming (and talk pages are intended to be used to propose and discuss changes), then I don't see the point in continuing. Guliolopez (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have gone from a position that "'star fort' is a reserved term" (or at least was in the 19th century), to one that "'star' is a reserved term" (and cannot be used in any article discussing forts in any way) No. I remain at the position that terms of art should be used with their proper meaning, and that sometimes means being a little careful with phrases that sound too much like them. I also remain at my position that, while some bastioned forts do have a star-like appearance, either because they are small, with relatively large bastions, or because the outworks are built as a star fort proper, this site clearly ain't one of them. Does that really look like Naarden to you? On the other hand, look how much the fort opposite does.

already compromised on wording (to describe the fort as a "star shaped fort" rather than a "star fort"), The goal is to make the work accurate, not to split the difference between wikicators. Given that highly expert sources differ with you, why is it so important to support less expert ones which agree?

already provided multiple reliable and reputable sources that use the term "star shaped fort" (despite a straw-man argument - entirely without basis as far as I can tell - that the NIAH or NMS are somehow comparable to other "ignorant" "morons") That straw man is your own. not mine. If you wish to continue denigration of the NIAH oe NMS as "morons", I suppose you can, but it hardly seems called for. This isn't Lewis Carrolistan, saying it three times won't make it true. Your connection, not mine.

not (as far as I can see) provided any evidence that the 19th century writers (who seem to be holding more sway than modern archaeologists) described James Fort as anything other than a star or star-shaped fort. These aren't some random "19th century writers"; they are experts of the first order. Most British and American fortification was influenced by them in the 19th century, and fortifications in areas where potential enemies had limited use of artillery until the US war in Vietnam and the Malaysian emergency. As for why you feel a general work should specifically adress a particular example, I really can't help you there, but lets's see what a 10 minute search on "James Fort" "kinsale" gives us during the relevant time period. Hmm. First work was built by Paul Ive -a name to conjure by, that, and a better one to search by. I can't find anything in writing calling it a star fort, or even a "star shaped fort", before 1970. You'd think someone mighta noticed, and all.

not advised which project policy the current wording doesn't support (in fact, the current wording seems to meet all relevant criteria that I'm aware of - in terms of RS, VER, etc) Skim across RS a couple more times, then.

Given no positive improvement suggestion is forthcoming (and talk pages are intended to be used to propose and discuss changes), then I don't see the point in continuing. A simple solution. Remove the offending term. Whaddaya lose? A probably innaccurate, and certainly misleading presentism. What else do you think is lost with it? Anmccaff (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the note. And indeed for boiling it down to a relatively simple premise. That helps move forward. To: "what do we lose by removing it"? We lose a reflection of that post-1970 representation. Given the tenets of WP:INACCURACY and WP:BALANCE, (the former seeming especially fitting) what I might suggest perhaps is that we simply: put "star-shaped fort" in quotes, attribute the representation, and move on. Guliolopez (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]