Talk:Irish round tower

Untitled

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)

A round tower was essentially a place of refuge or of storage. WHEN?? Kingturtle 08:29 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Round Tower use

User:Grok00 17:34 26 March 2005

There are 5 references in early Irish annals that I feel might help shed some light on possible Round Tower usages:

In 950 references were made to a Round Tower at Slane (Co. Meath) that was burned by Vikings of Dublin. The tower contained a bell, relics and a number of people (who died).

In 1020 the Round Tower at Armagh (Co. Armagh) burned destroying the round tower and "all it's bells".

In 1097 the Round Tower at Monasterboice (CO. Louth) was burned along with all the books and many treasures within it.

During 1126/7 the Round Tower at Trim (Co. Meath)full of people is burnt.

In 1171 reference is made to the tower at Tullaghard (Co. Meath) being attacked and burned while full of people.

From the above references it appears that at least some of the towers had bells in them (the Irish word for Round Towers is cloigtheach or bell house), some people used them as a refuge (perhaps as a last resort?) and some had treasures stored in them.

There are a number of current theories as to the purpose and function of Irish Round Towers and some rather far-fetched speculation - one of the stranger ones being the idea that "round towers may have been designed, constructed and utilized as a huge system for collecting and storing meter-long wavelengths of magnetic and electromagnetic energy coming from the earth and skies".

For further reading on the subject may I suggest the following list of works on Irish Round Towers (list incomplete):

Petrie, G., The Ecclesiastical Architecture of Ireland anterior to the Anglo-Norman Invasion, comprising and essay to the Origin and Uses of Round Towers of Ireland, Dublin, 1845 [reprint 1970 and 2002]

Barrow, G.L, The Round Towers of Ireland. A Study and Gazette, Dublin, 1979 [Reissued 1997]

Lalor, B., The Irish Round Tower: Origins and Architecture Explored., The Collins Press, Cork, 1999

O'Keeffe, T., Ireland's Round Towers. Building, Rituals and Landscapes of the Early Irish Church, Tempus Publishing Ltd. England, 2004

Petrie's theory

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)

places of refuge

One of the problems with pulling references from the Annals which relate specifically to people being burned/killed in round towers, is that it ignores the fact that there are far more references to people being burned/killed in churches. Round towers, like churches, were regarded as places of sanctuary, much as embassies are today - hence you often find annalistic references to important secular people, e.g. minor kings, being killed/burned in churches, where obviously they'd taken refuge when enemies were in hot pursuit. Unfortunately this sanctuary seems to have been violated pretty often, and not just by the Vikings, either, but generally by other Irish kings. A good example is the destruction of the 'dairtech' or wooden church of Killeshin, Co. Laois, in 1041 (Annals of Tigernach), and the killing of 100 people there in revenge for the previous destruction of Ferns, Co. Wexford, the religious establishment of the other family. That's not to say that round towers weren't also used for refuge, they obviously were, though probably less so than churches, it's just the idea of people hiding in churches hasn't gripped the popular imagination so much, as it's not unique to Ireland. No doubt they were also used to store precious religious items, and indeed, they may even have contained some sort of chapel - but that wouldn't have been their primary function. In terms of the doorways being elevated from the ground, it's very possible given that round towers have the most minimal foundations, that this is a structural decision. With regard to sources, those listed above are very reputable, but Roger Stalley would present the most generally accepted viewpoint, some of Tadhg O'Keeffe's theories are extremely controversial. Petrie gets function right, but his dating is all over the place, although not surprising since what he was trying to prove was that they were Christian and not pagan fire temples or representations of phallus worship. But he dates many of them and many 12th c. churches much too early. Barrow also dates them too early, as now generally accepted. Lalor is reliable but a bit uninspiring. The book by Stalley below is a short summary piece, but very well researched & written.

references

• Stalley, Roger, Irish round towers, Dublin :Country House, 2000.
• Stalley, Roger, 'Sex, symbol and myth: some observations on the Irish Round Towers', in C. Hourihane (ed.) From Ireland Coming. Irish art from the early Christian to the late Gothic period and its European context Princeton, 2001, pp.27-48.

Irish round towers

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)

Update

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)

U.S. Round Tower

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)

Should have just googled, your right it is a copy. But if it is to be referenced on Wikipedia, this seems the right article. Stbalbach 23:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

1. It's not a modern building based on the architectural style; it's a copy. And is there any kind of building of which there isn't a copy in the U.S.?
2. What are the grounds for the claim that it's the only one? (Note that, even if it is, my first point holds.)
3. How is usefulness PoV? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, in fact it is a modern building, built in the 19th century, and it is based on the architectual style of round towers. Calling it a "copy" means nothing architectually. The Church where the tower is located says it's the only one, do you have reason to disbelieve it? What is useful on Wikipedia to you, may not be useful to someone else. Usefulness of information is not a criteria, and besides, I think the information is useful. For a US student of architecture that wanted to learn more about Round Towers the article provides practical useful information that modern versions exists in the US, and the name and location where the only one can be found. Stbalbach 15:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Brochs?

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)

One important thing to bear in mind about broch towers is that absolutely all of them are wider than they are tall, which really means that they're not towers at all. This is a point that Dr Ian Armit makes in his book Towers In The North: The Brochs of Scotland, which is a title that anybody with an interest in brochs really should read. I'll edit the article, and my comments here serve as an explanation. Lianachan 08:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The original text was taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 article about round towers, and it seemed to lump broch's in with round towers. I suspect round tower can have two meanings, one is very specific to ireland, the other is more general to any type of round tower, including those in Italy and elsewhere. At least that's what ive seen. If it does have two meanings, it should be covered in the article that two meanings exist, and point the reader to other articles on more specific types. Thoughts? --Stbalbach 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have now created an archaeology stub article - Atlantic Roundhouses. Lianachan 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rename article

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)

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)

Round tower churches

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)

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)

antenna for local geomagnetic energies

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)

---

Moved the below paranormal mysticism out of the article. -- Stbalbach 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

There is much speculation and research into the powers acting some some kind of antenna for local geomagnetic energies that serve to assist in plant growth. It is said that towers of power are paramagnetic antennaes which collect and focus beneficial cosmic energies and direct them into surrounding soil. The circular paramagnetic energy field around them stimulates biological processes in the vicinity, enhancing the health, vitality and wellbeing of plants and animals. Topsoil production is accelerated and bumper crops are often the result. Plants have increased sugar levels, which makes them taste sweeter, while they become more resilient, and less pest and frost prone. Up to one hundred acres of coverage has been observed (on a wheat farm on the Eyre Peninsula of South Australia) with one large Power Tower.

The unique round towers in Ireland have long proved enigmatic, until recently. The American professor Phil Callahan PhD has been investigating round towers for several decades. The local Irish farmers, he discovered, appreciate them for their fertile surroundings. He observed farmers ferry their cows in row boats to Devenish Island so they could eat the lush grass growing around the tower there.

Constructed of paramagnetic stone (that is - stone which is weakly attracted to a magnet), these ancient towers act like giant magnetic antennae, drawing down energies beneficial to soil, says Callahan, well known for his studies of insect 'antennae'. Soils around round towers are highly paramagnetic and enjoy great fertility.

Callahan believes that the Irish towers act as wave-guides or aerials for extra-low-frequency (ELF) radiation from high above Earth (- Schumann radiation) and the sun . Vital to our health, ELF waves are able to penetrate water and soil, unlike higher frequencies of radiation. To amplify incoming ELF, towers must be paramagnetic, and the effect is enhanced even more when paramagnetic and diamagnetic (i.e. weakly repelled by a magnet) materials are sandwiched together. The Irish towers, often made from granite or basalt stone with wooden floors, were perfect for the task.

Some early Towers developed by American Jerry Fridenstine are positioned on Earth energy points to act as Earth acupuncture needles, drawing down the beneficial energies into the soil. Their reported effects are to assist the percolation of water into the soil and reduce its evaporation, therefore extending the growing season; and to improve microbial activity, helping topsoil to build more rapidly.

John Quackenboss of Virginia, USA, developed similar towers. In 1986 he erected a 6' high terracotta pipe of 12" diameter filled with basalt gravel; with 5 pipes covering 1000 acres. He capped the pipes with a cone of concrete, made with basalt gravel and coated in crushed basalt, bringing the total height to 2m. After 6 weeks good effects were observed. The farm enjoyed increased crop yields, despite drought conditions. Properties with such Towers report higher rainfall and less moisture evaporation. There are now hundreds of such Towers on Australian farms.

A Tower that Alanna Moore constructed in Wanneroo, Western Australia, on a 7 acre market garden would send 'tingles down the spine' of farmer Gary de Piazzi whenever he passed by. "Cropping on the sandy coastal plain is a bit like hydroponics, because of the lack of most nutrients there", says Gary, who wanted to reduce dependance on chemical inputs, especially in the winter wet season, when moulds develop quickly in vegetables. After the Tower went up in 1994, at a carefully selected position, and he had spread paramagnetic rock dust all over the cropping land, the next winter was particularly wet, with Perth's main Mundaring dam spilling over. But Gary didn't need to use fungicide and his vegetables were more robust than ever.

Added references

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)

Edit boldly. No need to ask for permission. -- Stbalbach 03:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this page

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)

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)

Italian campanile in gallery

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)

OR tag

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)

I wish I had more time to do more editing of this page. It's starting to look pretty ragged in some ways.

I'm not sure I'm very clear on just what you expect for an general informational article like this. Original research? Quotes out of the 5 or 6 books written over the last 170 years on the subject?

I write a lot of technical articles but I guess I have little experience wriing/editing articles for Wikipedia. Is there an article I can refer to?

Thanks - Frank

--Grok00 (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Theory versus Hypothesis

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)

Bell-Clock-Clog-Clog

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)

Higher resolution <> better quality.

Prior	Armagh
Armoy
Castledermot
Dromiskin
Rattoo
Swords

Someone is pushing his own pictures into the article. He claims that the pictures are better, because they have a higher resolution. Unfortunately, to my opinion it are the lower resolution pictures, that portrays the subjects best. Because mr. A. is willing to editwar over it, I ask advice of others about which photos should be retained. Resolution has nothing to do with quality. The Banner talk 16:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk about twisting words. I made no claim that they are better. I made no claim whatsoever over the quality. The only claim I would make is that greater resolution = greater detail. I am not "pushing" my pictures - I am just availing Wikipedia of pictures I have taken and relinquishing my copyright to them in so-doing. It is not I who is engaging in an edit war - if I was then I would have reverted the changes made by someone who has unilaterally assumed the position of policing this article and determining that his subjective opinion is the supreme arbiter of what is suitable and what is not. JohnArmagh (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

True, you did not say they were better, you just said Revert - all the photos are of significantly higher resolution than those they replaced ([1]). What is, in my opinion, suggesting that the new pictures were better quality. The Banner talk 18:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to get personal, mr. Armagh. The Banner talk 18:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

For ease of comparison, see the table to the right.

I'm not seeing "bigger is better" as a convincing argument. The primary goal here is to make the article page work, with images at "thumb" resolution. Some of these images (Castledermot in particular) might be bigger, but they're less detailed. Others (Dromiskin) just aren't great photos, owing to the lighting on the day. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the previous pics are far better images. I just cannot understand how the others are considered better. "bigger the better" is not a convincing argument. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

At least his replacement of the Killala Round Tower is a serious improvement. The Banner talk 12:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you ever so. JohnArmagh (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorting by tower height

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)

It seems to be working alright for me.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Height not clear. Reliable source?

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Derry Tower

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)

You added the name of your group three times. Wikipedia is not for promotion. The Banner talk 22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Tallest tower dispute

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)

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)

Is Killashee Round Tower a genuine round tower and should it be included here?

I think not: see Talk:Killashee Round Tower#Is this really a genuine Round Tower?--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)