text:
Talk:Galley

Untitled
I have put back a paragragh on the reduction in complexity from the most sophisticated galleys associated with the Hellenistic period. Something ought to be said about this, even if someone does not like what I say Iglonghurst 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have eliminated the following statements because 1) How does one prove a negative? 2) Galleys never went away 3) False 4) How do guns along the side point forward?

1) By AD 325 no more galleys with multiple rows of oars existed.

2) Galleys saw a European comeback in the 14th century as Venice expanded its influence in the Mediterranean in response to increased Turkish naval presence after 1470, but medieval triremes used a simpler arrangement with one row of oars and three rowers to each oar

3) which were no longer profitable after the introduction of "round ships" (sailing ships which were the precursor of the galleon type).

4) As converted for military use they were higher and larger than regular ("light") galleys, and mounted a large number (around 50) guns, mostly along the sides interspersed with the oars, and pointing forward. Galleys saw a European comeback in the 14th century as Venice expanded its influence in the Mediterranean in response to increased Turkish naval presence after 1470, but medieval triremes used a simpler arrangement with one row of oars and three rowers to each oar

I am not sure "medieval" is the right adjective in the article's "they forced changes in the design of medieval seaside fortresses." Probably best to just get rid of it or mention the century instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.240.241.5 (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Skeptical of 40-reme
I really don't want to say anything about things I know nothing about, but the "polyremes" section seems a bit ridiculous to me. The part about a 40-reme having space for 2000 marines in 100s BC seems unlikely, and the section is missing a citation. Should that part be taken out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sswan (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Against Large Sailing Ships
''Large high-sided sailing ships had always been very formidable obstacles for galleys. As early as 413 BC defeated triremes could seek shelter behind a screen of merchant ships (Thucydides (7, 41), Needham 4, pt3, p693)''

Could someone elaborate why? I don't doubt the claim as such, I'd just like to know the reason.

I see why it's a bad idea to point the longitudinal axis of a slim and fragile but heavily crewed ship at the broadside of a ship of the line and close to point-blank range. But even the thick timbers of the Napoleonic ships-of-the-line wouldn't have been enough to stop a ram with the momentum of a hundred ton ship behind it and it can't have been easy to fix that holes in the middle of a battle. So why would ships that don't have a broadside gun battery be a formidable obstacle? Because galleys attacking them were vulnerable to being attacked themselves by the enemy galleys garding the merchant ships? 82.135.2.210 (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * First, Trieres had about 40 tons (including the crew), not 100 tons. Secondly, there always is a risk of the galley becoming entangled, either by accident, or intentionally. In any case, galleys who are close to large sailing ships are subject to projectiles coming from above - arrows, spears, heavy stones. Given the light build of galleys, they were quite vulnerable to this kind of attack, and offered little shelter to the crew. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your reply. =)
 * On the displacement: The figures I know are 80 tons. The Olympias is listed as 70 and if that's without crew then 80 with crew sounds about right. Those hundred tons were meant as order of magnitude anyway. 82.135.67.59 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, my copy of Morrison/Coates has 50 tons fully loaded and crewed. I think I have the 40 tons from an old Scientific American article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Well trieres were around for a long time and built by dozens of States with differeing philosophies for naval warfare so 40 tons might be a lower limit (in that case a third of your weight would be rowers) while 80-100 tons was the upper limit (because every ton that wasn't rowers or kept the ship from falling apart when ramming was wasted).
 * Perhaps against an enemy who had mostly bigger and more solid ships like quinquiremes you'd want heavier triremes so they'd have bigger staying power in the kind of close quarters combat you described above. Or conversely you'd want ships as light and as manoeuvrable as possible.
 * Or heavier ones for power projection and longer stays at sea while the light ones where for shore protection where their lack of seaworthiness wasn't a problem.
 * Would be interesting to think about those possibilities.
 * Of course there are the more mundane explanations of lack of data or a conflict between tons displacement and tons burthen or something like that. =) 82.135.67.59 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Adventure Galley
Why is Captain Kidd's ship treated as a galley? Is it just because it had oars? Other than that its design looks fairly typical for a circa 1700 oceangoing ship - it has a good broadside and what look to be reasonably high sides. I imagine it had no permanent oarsmen and was under sail power almost all the time. Boris B (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "galley" was used in the late 17th and early 18th century for a sailing ship equiped with a deck of oars. Consider it as a frigate with an extra deck and you're not far out. As you suggest, the oars seem to have been an auxiliary form of propulsion - useful for getting out of a port when the wind dropped. The "Cinque Ports" that took Alexander Selkirk, aka Robinson Crusoe, to Juan Fernandez was a galley, as was Sam Bellamy's "Whydah". --Boulet rouge (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Penteconters original research
This section seems to have much original research, but also shows lack of understanding of how ships work. For example, the statement about how a bow wave constitutes all the drag on a boat is obviously incorrect (I removed it.) That a formal ram "changed the nature of naval warfare" is OR. Of course boats used to ram one another before then...e.g., freighters with no special reinforcement in the bow tried to sink German submarines in WWII by ramming on a regular basis. It doesn't matter whether a ship is "slow" or not -- "staving in its sides" ruins fast boats, too. "Galleys were hauled out of water whenever possible"? What does that mean? They beached them during the night? This isn't quibbling: there's a fair chance they left the boats in the water except when they weren't going to be used for a long time...otherwise the wood might dry out, and leaks would develop.

Finally, and this is more subtle, there's no such thing as a "peak of development" for ships. They're adapted for one purpose or another, built from poor or excellent material depending on economics, and especially, change to match expected need. That boats are technically advanced doesn't mean they were "appropriate technology". They might have been White Elephants. (For example, like the dozens of fighter planes built by the US, Russia and NATO built at colossal expense to dogfight one another, but when events overtook them, they became less useful than expected.)

Piano non troppo (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In line citation
Get rid of it. This well written article is destoryed by the sloppy and interupting citation. Footnote it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.241.86 (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm currently working on a major update. I'll make sure to replace all inlines with notes.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Critique
There is a long description about the galley in this Wikipedia article and the "design and construction" part of the article is very thorough. The article gives readers a history of the galley and why and how it was used. Though the article does say there are some unknowns about how the galley was made and actually constructed. Also, this portion of the article fails to lack citations. There are only a few citations listed after some sentences and that makes a reader like me skeptical about where the author got this information. The sources that are listed do seem credible and actual good primary and secondary sources. The sources are not just some random website. There are some pictures of early galleys but there are not many showing the actual construction of a galley. Some of the illustrations and picture are interesting and make for the reader to get a better understanding of how the galley looked. The article does cover the subject thoroughly and there does not seem to be are portions of the article that have been marred by frivolous or spurious contributions. This entry, unlike a conventional encyclopedia, could be accessed and updated by just about anyone, making Wikipedia seem always not 100% accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10osloan (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rehaul
I've had material on hold over at user:Peter Isotalo/galley for over a year now and I felt that it was time to start getting into mainspace. One of the reasons I've held off for so long is because I've tried to figure out how to integrate as much as possible of the old material. I've found this to be very difficult. The previous structure was very much focused on the galleys of antiquity, with even more focus on Greco-Roman terminology (biremes, triremes, etc). I've tried to work around this by splitting the history section into several themes: "(General) history", "Design and construction", "Strategy and tactics" and "Economy".

I decided to be a bit more bold and start zapping content that was already explained elsewhere or with different sources. I don't know if I zapped too much, but I do feel that the old content was rather unstructured, speculative or overly focused on minor details. I'm very much open to discussion if anyone feels any particular info should be kept or returned. However, I believe that direct use of ancient primary sources like Pliny and Herodotus, without an intervening interpretation by professional historians, should be avoided. It can easily lead to editorial interpretations (basically original research) and will not take into account contradictory evidence or consensus among modern historians.

Peter Isotalo 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I've tried to swap round the Middle Ages section into something that could be worked on further - it's a bit full of random facts at the moment. There is some obvious nonsense to be removed - the 1405 Jersey bit for starters.  The contest between English northern style oared ships and Mediterranean types, often manned by Genoese or Castillians, needs to be developed.  I don't have time to work on it now but can add some material in future Monstrelet (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Sounds good. If you want to add anything, you might want to check that it isn't already covered over at my sub-page staging area (link above). I already have enough material to fill the article two times over, but I want to round it off in all major areas, clean it up, and then edit it down some. With so much useful, referenced additional material there's no need to push this article much further than the 10,000 word limit (currently at 10,051).
 * If I don't get too distracted, I could start The Big Revamping by the end of this month. Might be nice to get it done in time for the 440th anniversary of the battle of Lepanto on 7 October.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look - see what you mean about the amount of material. Your various tables might be hived off into something of a separate list article perhaps?  Anyway, back to this article.  You could do with a few lines on the development of the northern galley tradition - mention Nydam boat, Sutton Hoo, a bit more on Vikings?  There are some sources on English galleys at the end of the 13th. early 14th.  Then lots of stuff on balingers (and their popularity with pirates) and barges, through to Tudor rowbarges.  There is an interesting battle in the 15th. century between the balingers of the Calais garrison and a Genoese (IIRC) carrack.  The carrack sees off more than a dozen of them because of her height making it impossible to board - a theme you are developing under mediterranean galleys.  So, if I add anything it will be something in the northern galley department Monstrelet (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about at least including a condensed version of the table in the article. Glete's statistics are immensely useful, though the full figures are definitely better off elsewhere.
 * Viking ships, balingers, barges and the likes are in my experience not really included in the galley category. The northern tradition is treated separately quite consistently. The defining characteristic of galleys among the writers I've read so far is that they belong to the Mediterranean tradition, especially in more recent works. There are some overlapping instances, like when the English used the term for what was essentially clinker-built descendants of Scandinavian longships, but that's kind of an exception. This is definitely worth mentioning, but maybe not in great detail. I don't know exactly where to draw the line, but I'm personally a bit skeptical towards including extensive descriptions of northern oared vessels in this article if recent sources avoid doing just that.
 * How about settling for mentioning the most important aspects and note their similarities to Med-style galleys, but to provide useful "For more details"-links?
 * Peter Isotalo 10:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, as it gives you some more clarity. You would need to pick up the French use of mediterranean style galleys in the channel in more detail though.  The main thing is you need to rewrite the lead paragraph to make it clear you are focussing on the Mediterranean galley and it's decendents, otherwise someone else may just drop it in later or you will be pulled up for coverage as you take the article through the review process.
 * On the general subject of where to put the northern galley material, I've hit a slight problem of overlapping wiki articles. Longship or Medieval ships perhaps.  Longships at present seems to cover the same ground as Viking Ship but in less detail, so I'm not clear why we have both.  However, to extend out beyond the Viking era to the evolution of the clinker built oared warship seems like a plan.Monstrelet (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a temporary fix to the lead. You had a good point there. I've just gotten hold of The Age of the Galley once more, so I'm going to start working on filling in various gaps.
 * Viking ships (plural seems a lot more appropriate) is probably a good place to add general info, perhaps accompanied by minor additions to medieval ships. At least to start with. I don't really know that much about how longships are defined. It might not be something recognized by ship design scholars, so that's worth looking out for. What I'm pretty sure of is that the historical evidence is probably much more lacking than for galleys.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is probably a fair bit of info on northern oared warships if one knew where to look. English records are fairly accessible and doubtless the Scandinavian ones are if you in that part of the world.  The Scandinavian ones would probably allow access to Baltic material (the use of oared pirate vessels in the Baltic would be a good topic).  But the French make a lot of use of northern style oared warships in the channel as well as mediterranean galleys.  Anyway, I will look into it and see if I can rehome those two now intrusive paragraphs.  I look forward to seeing your rewrite having seen the collected material.  One last thing on the archaeological remains section at the end.  It should mention the Lake Guarda galleys.  These are in Bass A history of Seafaring, which is in the references to the article and I presume you have.  If you don't, I'd be happy to add a referenced line or two.  Monstrelet (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Crewing Galleys
I've done a little bit of bridging work to fill the gap between ancient and early modern galleys in the section rowers. It occurred to me that this is in the wrong place - it fits under propulsion, perhaps? But then I thought again and perhaps we should have a section on crews. Galley crews were basically split into three parts;rowers, sailing crew and fighters (there were overlaps of course, especially in the Middle Ages)- should we have a subsection considering each? It would also be a place to consider galley logistics. The strategic employment of galleys is heavily limited by the need to feed and water the crew. Alas, while I know the basics of this from my reading, I don't feel able to do the subject justice. Can anyone help? Monstrelet (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I have quite a bit of content in my user mainspace at User:Peter_Isotalo/galley. I've been working in content for quite a while now, but you're free to pick out anything you like and incorporate it here. I'd be more than glad to see others working on the article as well. I don't think crew member subsections are really necessary, though. The distinctions varied somewhat over time and it's probably better to keep it general and reasonably short.
 * I've been advised to keep an eye on the size of the article, btw. It's already at nearly 12,000 words of prose. A lot of content, both existing and planned additions, could likely be moved to various other articles on maritime history and naval warfare.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have I think a fair point on length, and the fact that ships crews could be part of a more generic case. However, the rower is the unique factor to the galley, so some discussion is inevitable, though it doesn't need to be vast.  On the logistics question, I think it deserves a mention (it is not immediately obvious that a galley, especially in the Med, is strategically constrained by it's water consumption). Monstrelet (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected
I have semi-protected the article due an ongoing edit war including IP 114.75.*. The changes you made to this article have been contested but you kept reinserting them. Wikipedia articles are built on consensus which is established by discussing controversial edits. IP 114.75.*, you are still able to edit this talk page, so please engage in a constructive discussion and explain your proposed changes to the article so other editors may understand your motivation. De728631 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Transition to sailing ships" speaks of the the Battle of Gibraltar which it incrorrectly dates in 1476, the correct date is 1607. Secondly, this battle was between Atlantic class broadside armed ships on both sides, and it is at the very entrance of the Mediterranean, not in it, where the often weak and unreliable winds made using heavy all sail warships more difficult. It does not follow that this battle marked the beginning of the end of galley dominance within the Med and the reference used for this battle is really about the growing naval power of "northern" Europe (Dutch, English and French} compared to the Iberian powers who had long had extensive fleets of ocean going broadside armed sailing ships (see Battle of Diu for instance). The battle of Gibraltar does not belong in this article.
 * The link was incorrect, but the article text isn't. There was a completely different battle in 1476 which doesn't have its own article. There is a very clear reference to this in the article (Mott in Hattendorf & Unger). If you find contradictions in an article, you should at least attempt to consult any referenced provided those before trying to correct the article content on the basis of links to Wikipedia articles.
 * In a lot of cases, references can be verified through Google Books.
 * Peter Isotalo 05:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're mostly right, but the sentence, "During the early 15th century, a transition in naval warfare in northern European waters began", is incorrect, as the battle was in the south and involved only southern European powers. If you read the context of the reference it's clear that it is about a more general transition in Atlantic waters and not only in northern waters, where using sailing ships (especially cogs) had long been the norm.
 * That sailing ships were the norm in northern waters isn't quite true. They played a less important role, but had not been scrapped altogether. I've taken your point that the paragraph was not entirely clear, so I've tried to fix the problem. Thank you for the critique.
 * I encourage you to engage in discussion in situations like this. If an edit you've made gets wholly or partially reverted, I recommend that you take up the issue on the article talkpage. It's much easier to dissect the problem and come to a reasonable solution through consensus.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Egadi wrecks
Given the growing significance of the finds from the Battle of Egadi Islands in discussions of the construction of Roman and Carthaginian galleys, should the article mention of it? If so, in which section? If someone would like to put something in as appropriate, there is a good academic reference here http://www.journalofromanarch.com/samples/v25.Royal.pdf Monstrelet (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Kinda new to me, so thanks for the tip. Seems like most of this would belong under "Construction". I guess it depends on how it complements existing knowledge.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Southeast Asia
I don't see the merit of the content under the heading of "Southeast Asia". I've checked Reid (2012), and it's quite clear that these aren't Mediterranean-type galleys. Reid quite specifically refers to "galley-type" vessels and in captions puts "galley" in quotes. That Europeans referred to oared ships with similar function as the galleys they were familiar with does not actually mean that they are galleys.

If it's cleaned up or shortened, I believe some of the content is very relevant under "Definition and terminology". There's a pretty extensive discussion there on how even Europeans used "galley" to refer to all forms of rowed vessels.

Peter Isotalo 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing content
This article completely ignores (1) the (West) Highland Galley. There is a Mariner's Mirror article on this: DOI: 10.1080/00253359.2002.10656825 Also a book by Denis Rixson. (2) the Ship's boat type of galley (yes, the article linked is deficient and needs a re-write). You can find a brief mention of this type of ship's boat in Gig (boat) (3) the traditional British inshore craft called a galley - examples existed particularly at Deal, but also Selsey (and, of course, the Highland Galley falls into this class).

Given that this article is already overlong, these other vessels that went by the name galley should be covered elsewhere. Does that require a rename of this article, since it is largely about the ship-sized galleys and not the open boats that went by the same name? Any thoughts? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 * This is thoroughly discussed under "Definition & terminology". After reading quite a lot different sources, I believe it's fairly clear what historians in the field generally include under the category "galley". From what I've read, "galley" is one the one hand a lineage of large rowed vessels of fairly similar purpose, shape and roles, and on the other hand a European historical catch-all term for just about anything with oars, especially in war.

 * I don't consider that to be a strong argument to describe every imaginable large-ish rowed vessel a "galley". An alternative might be to try to describe rowed vessels in a completely separate article with a different, more generic, name and scope.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 * This isn't a case of an editor deciding to call any vessel a galley - it is the demonstrable fact that the term galley is used to describe vessels other than the ones discussed in the article. Perhaps I should have included the link to West Highland galley. The other two types are discussed in, for instance, Boats of Men of War and Inshore Craft, Traditional Working Vessels of the British Isles. Books about Bronze age, classical era and Mediterranean galleys quite clearly are not going to cover other meanings of the word. A broader reading of maritime history shows a broader meaning of the word. This is just a case of Wikipedia being what it is meant to be: an encyclopedia based on its sources. One could argue that this article should make clear that it is limited in its scope. Alternatively, links to the other subjects should be available at an early stage. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 * My interpretation of general source is that there's a very relevant distinction between how the term "galley" was used and how it's used to describe a specific lineage of ship type. If you try to include what was at any point in time was described with the word "galley" (or its cognates), you could probably include any slightly larger rowed vessel that has ever existed, from the Southeast Asian kelulus to North American row galleys. If you're looking to create an article like that, using the term "galley" does not seem appropriate since it should focus generally on mode of propulsion, not a specific term of European origin.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that even a source used in the article uses a wider definition of "galley", which is somewhat misrepresented in the article: "Classicist Lionel Casson has used the term "galley" to describe all North European shipping in the Early and High Middle Ages, including Viking merchants and even their famous longships." (The misrepresentation is that Casson does not apply the term to "all North European shipping", but simply says that there were merchant galleys in northern European waters.) I really do think that you are arguing against reality. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * If you think part of the Casson reference is irrelevant, by all means adjust it. But as for the general issue of what is or isn't a galley, you have to look a the section as a whole, not simply dissect each source and statement in complete isolation. The point is to try to present a general overview and to balance the usage of the word "galley" with how it's used as a specialized term. If you disagree with the definition of a galley currently in the article, what definition do you propose yourself? Do you believe the article should include summaries of all vessels that have ever, at any point, been called "galleys"?

 * Peter Isotalo 08:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Referencing
The referencing in this article means that it is arduous to determine where text is sourced - it is a long article and the only way to track the meaning of, say "Casson 1995", is to have the article open in two tabs and used edit find to locate the work in the bibliography.

Sticking with the example of "Casson 1995", at least two usages of this actually refer to the updated version of Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, which was published in 1995. All the other cites refer to his chapter in The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times - also published in 1995. You can only discover which source is intended by using the page numbers in the reference and seeing which book contains the content that is in the article.

Then we have mixed reference styles, with cite book, cite web and cite news templates being used in the body of the article.

Since the referencing of the article needs a good overhaul, would it be worth converting to the sfn template, used with the cite book template in the bibliography? This would make it a lot easier for the encyclopaedia user to see where material is sourced. Whatever happens, a substantial bit of fixing is needed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 * The citation method suggested would give: "... there is no evidence that ancient navies ever made use of condemned criminals or slaves as oarsmen ... " Merchant galleys in the ancient Mediterranean were intended as carriers of valuable cargo or perishable goods that needed to be moved as safely and quickly as possible. This example would resolve the issue of "Casson 1995" referring to different works and, if you scroll so that the references in this talk page section are not visible, you would see the full benefit of the sfn template: hover over the ref number and you get the short reference, hover over that short reference and you see the full reference - all without losing your place on the page. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 * bibliography

 * I never used the updated version as far as I can recall. It's not in the bibliography either. They're most likely typos.
 * I never used the updated version as far as I can recall. It's not in the bibliography either. They're most likely typos.
 * I never used the updated version as far as I can recall. It's not in the bibliography either. They're most likely typos.

 * Should also note that I'm not favor of the sfn/efn templates. Nothing against applying templates, but I'm not supporting artificially splitting different types of notes. If anyone can point to splitting notes as being proven to benefit readers, I'm ready to reconsider. But as far as I'm concerned it's not a slightly weird standard invented by Wikipedians.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by I never used the updated version as far as I can recall. The example I gave of an ambiguous "Casson 1995" is because there are two works by the same author published in the same year. (Anyway, who knows introduced the ambiguity - there is more than one editor to the article.) Or did you mean something else? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 * The bibliography only includes one "Casson (1995)" and that's the chapter in Age of the Galley. You're assuming that it refers to a work that isn't actually mentioned.
 * I recommend checking the version history. I'm responsible for the vast majority of the current article content. This isn't the first major overhaul I've done.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I respectfully suggest that the issue of the type of referencing being used (with the suggested solution of the sfn template) is the reason you are unaware of the problem with the ambiguity of "Casson (1995)" as a reference. If you take a look at the references for the article, you will see that "Casson (1995)" appears 6 times in the section heading "References". Working through these: the first instance (numbered 8 at present) is for page 123. Looking at the two sources, this is Conway's History of the Ship publication titled the Age of the Galley, which is listed in the bibliography. (How a user is expected to easily find that in the bibliography is beyond me, as it involves reading the entire bibliography to find the relevant chapter. The sfn template would avoid this problem.) The second instance is numbered 18 in the current article version, is for pages 57-58. This is clearly not from the Age of the Galley, whilst the content of the 1995 updated and expanded edition of Ships and Seafaring in the Ancient World neatly matches the text in the article. The last reference (number 173) is for page 325-6 - so clearly is not from the Age of the Galley, as that book does not have that many pages. I do not understand why I am having to repeat this explanation at greater length.
 * What is the issue is with you having written 72% of the article? Maybe the remaining 28% is the source of the problem. This is not relevant. The issue is that at present the referencing of the article is about as impenetrable as it could be. I suspect that the guidelines for referencing individual chapters are not being followed accurately (hence the problem in finding the Casson (1995) reference in the Age of the Galley). I have suggested a solution, which seems to have been rejected by one editor on grounds of personal preference of not using a method with greater functionality.
 * The bibliography does need to have the later edition of Cassons Ships and Seamanship added to it - but I am reluctant to mess with the referencing set-up whilst this discussion is ongoing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I think the most constructive approach to this is if you first list the specific notes that you believe are erroneous. I'll start checking them and see where corrections are needed. I think there might be a few instances where author and page numbers have been switched around by accident.

 * Then we can try to tackle the formatting issue and try to find a workable consensus.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have highlighted the errors that I have detected. Whether there are any others is very laborious to determine due to the citation method used in the article. I have even pointed out that the revised version of Casson's Ships and Seafaring should appear in the bibliography. I have also suggested that the method of listing the various chapters of the Age of the Galley in the bibliography does not fit with the style guide for referencing, as the primary identifier of each of these chapters is the author of the chapter. This would put the entries in an order which enables the reader to find an item in the bibliography (and also highlights to the editor that the problem raised here is present). I am not sure what else I can do without making the corrections myself - which I resist as I think the citation method should change so that this article is a better read for the user. This is the original point that started this thread. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I believe the specific issues have been fixed now:
 * I corrected two instances of Casson (1995) which were simply supposed to be Casson (1971). The issue was never that someone used the revised version and forgot to include it in the reference section. It's simply that "1995" and "1971" were switched around by mistake. I checked the history and as far as I can tell, the error was mine.
 * Listing the individual chapters of The Age of the Galley was an attempt to make the notes less burdensome to read. I've now converted this to the standard format of  instead.

 * The use of sfn really has nothing to do with these two issues. I welcome the use of templates, but I oppose having "extended" notes separate since I don't consider this the least bit helpful to readers.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Whilst I hate to drone on about the subject, I am still concerned about the reference to pages 325-326 of Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the section Galley slaves. I only have one copy of this book, the 1995 edition, so am unable to check this precisely. The later edition, described by the publishers as having "new material", still has the text that supports the article content at pages 325-326. Given that this is a substantial distance through the book, the "new material" must either be particularly concise or located after page 326 for the page numbers in the 1995 edition to match those of the 1971 version. If any editor has the first edition available, it would take just a moment to check whether the page numbering still matches in that edition, thereby confirming that the page numbering for that reference in the article is correct. If it is not, then the 1995 edition must have been used as a source for that part of the article. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

 * If you don't believe that I was the one who added the content based on the 1971 source, feel free to check the edit history regarding who added the content originally. If you disagree with the interpretation of the source, or if you think the 1995 version has more relevant content (or whatever), then just correct the article and adjust the referencing.

 * Peter Isotalo 22:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Date for invention of rowing?
Galleys rely on rowing, but the article has no date for its invention. Casson gives a date of 2400 BC for the introduction of rowing on all larger craft on the Nile (pg 18. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World). Do other sources give a date? Presumably the Nile is the location of this invention (as far as anyone can tell). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I don't recall "the invention of rowing" as a concept that was discussed in sources on galleys. I'm guessing it's very hard to nail down and historians probably prefer to focus on when specific types of vessels first appeared.

 * Peter Isotalo 19:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Rowing versus paddling is discussed in the first chapter of Conway's History of the Ship volume titled The Age of the Galley. It is broadly consistent with Casson, though a little light on being clear on the dates intended. Casson is so widely cited that I think we can take him to be a good source. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Galleys are very advanced technical applications of the concept of rowing. I'm assuming that between the invention of rowing and the invention of galleys, there are quite a lot of intermediate technical innovations. I think it might be more relevant to expand on the history of rowing in the article about rowing.

 * Peter Isotalo 19:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The comment is simply that we have an article about a subject that relies on a particular invention, but without saying anything about that invention. The guidance on whether or not to mention it comes from sources - notably Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World and the Conway Age of the Galley. I suggest that these are both key sources in the subject.
 * Compare this article with, for example, Chariot, which mentions the invention of the spoked wheel in the lead and more general content on the invention of the wheel in the body of the article. Just as chariots would not exist without wheels, galleys would not exist without rowing. I think the remark Galleys are very advanced technical applications of the concept of rowing is not a sensible argument. In their later forms, of course they are developed. The early single banked galleys were still galleys, but did not have the sophistication of more developed types. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Introduction of gun armament on galleys
I am currently trying to untie the knot of whether or not heavy gunpowder artillery was carried on broadside aboard sailing ships as the first commonplace / successful application of the technology aboard warships. I thought I'd quickly check what this article has to say on the matter of when black powder artillery first appeared aboard galleys. But the section regarding this aspect seems to be a discussion of relative tactical merits of different warship types.

I read through four paragraphs until, in the fifth paragraph I found this: "The ordnance on galleys was heavy from its introduction in the 1480s". To me, that seems like a long trawl in a section about the introduction of the weapon. Would it be possible to impose some sort of brief historical timeline at the start of the section? Or does this, perhaps, warrant becoming a little article in its own right? Perhaps the whole subject of gunpowder artillery afloat?

Just trying to highlight this in an effort to help. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:3063:2CFA:2CBB:6B4C (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 * An illustrated timeline would be most welcome, for example as a picture. I'm not very good at that myself.

 * Just want to clarify article is about galleys, though, not gun powder artillery. The place to find this kind of info more quickly would be in naval artillery.

 * Peter Isotalo 16:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Defining opening sentences
The article starts with A galley is a type of ship that is propelled mainly by oars. The galley is characterized by its long, slender hull, shallow draft, and low freeboard (clearance between sea and gunwale). Virtually all types of galleys had sails that could be used in favorable winds, but human effort was always the primary method of propulsion. These two statements that oars are the main or primary method of propulsion are contradicted by some of the sources used in the article. For instance, Rodger, in his Safeguard of the Sea, discusses this in text starting He goes on to say that "Usually galleys sailed". He also mentions the increase in drinking water requirements if rowing was extensive, which in turn demands stops for water to be collected. The question of drinking water logistics for galleys is raised in chapter 4 of Sailing into the Past. Here we also learn that the sailing performance of the experimental archeology replica was "impressive". It really seems that the sources do not support the idea that rowing was the primary method of propulsion. (We are perhaps looking at something more similar to the early steam powered warships, that sailed as much as possible to save coal for use in battle.) At the very least, the absolute and confident statement of the article's opening needs a substantial rewrite. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking for a simple definition from knowledgeable sources, I find McGrail defining a galley as "a vessel capable of being propelled by oars and by sail" This is given in the glossary to his Boats of the World from the Stone Age to Medieval Times. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead is supposed to summarize the article. If you think the lead is off or misleading, compare it with the article content and see if you think anything should be adjusted.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"Most common warships in the Atlantic"
There is still a problem with the assertion in the lead that the galley was the most common warship in the Atlantic (as seen in the revert by User:Peter Isotalo). The article text in the section "Middle Ages" says A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the High Middle Ages. This does not specifically refer to the Atlantic. The reference supporting the section does not make this point about Atlantic warships either.

It may be that the problem is one of interpretation of another source that says that vessels built specifically as warships were galleys – but that is because of all the vessels that could be used as warships, only galleys were not dual purpose. Therefore kings tended to build a few galleys and commandeer sailing ships as warships as the need arose.

The tag in the lead has not been satisfactorily resolved. I am not going to edit war on this, but it should be reinstated unless a more useful explanation can be provided. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 * As I noted above, I believe you would gain more by focusing on matching the lead to the article as a whole. The point of the lead is to "summarize" content and to give it "appropriate weight". There's plenty of leeway to paint with a broad brush in a lead, and sometimes it might be better to simply reword certain statements rather than debating whether they are "right" or "wrong".
 * Regarding the matter of most common warships, my takeaway from the sources used in the article about the Middle Ages is that galleys (and other oared vessels) were the most common fighting vessels. If you think this is wrong, consult the sources.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I presume that I have not made the problem clear. In the lead, we find a sentence that starts: Galleys were the most common warships in the Atlantic Ocean during the Middle Ages.... This refers to a place (the Atlantic Ocean) and a time (Middle Ages). I do not see a cited source, in the lead or in the article, that says that galleys were the most common warships in this place and time. This is a simple question of verifiability. I fully understand that the lead is a summary of the main body of the article, so that is where I have looked for supporting references, but without finding any. The sources do show that galleys were the most common warships in the Mediterranean during the Middle Ages, but that is not the issue here. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 * The section that describes the transition from sailing vessels as the most common warship is in the first section of "Middle Ages". This is referenced to Rodger (1997) pp. 64-65. Have you consulted this citation?
 * Peter Isotalo 12:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The section headed "Middle Ages" has, as its first sentence: A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the High Middle Ages (c. 11th century). This is not limited, in the article, to any particular place, so does not support the lead's mention of the Atlantic.
 * Looking at pages 64-65 of The Safeguard of the Sea, I can find nothing that supports the text in the lead. Subjects covered in these pages include the windward sailing abilities of the single-masted sailing vessels of the time, the skeleton-first construction sequence of Mediterranean galleys, the theoretical short-duration maximum speed of Medieval or Renaissance galleys, the short voyaging capability of war galleys, and the way galleys were outmatched in fighting by sailing vessels (due to the greater height of the latter's hulls). None of this mentions the relative commonness of galleys versus other types of warship.
 * What this adds up to is: (1) a statement in the lead that is not supported by the rest of the article; (2) a section of text ("A transition from galley to sailing vessel...") which, though not something I would dispute for accuracy, is not supported by the reference given; (3) no mention in this source of, specifically, the ratios of the types of warships to be found in the Atlantic area. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 * I reread the pages after your comment and I agree that those particular pages don't cover the issue succinctly. They cover part of the technical development and the differences in building styles for 1066-1455, as does all of chapter 5. However, if you look at the rest of the chapters relating to the period before 1509 (especially 4, 6, 7-8), it's clear that galleys or oared vessels dominate a lot of the operations and that war fleets based on the Atlantic coast, or sent to Atlantic waters by Mediterranean powers, are very heavy on oared vessels. This is also very much something reflected in other sources, like Rose 2002 (p. 27). Larger sailing vessels ("round ships") start being used more in warfare in the north around the 1300s. My view is that sources like Hattendorf & Unger (2003), Anderson (1962) and Rodgers (1940) overall say the same thing and I'm not aware of any contradicting sources.
 * So the point of the statement in the lead is basically to underline the fact that sailing warships, even in the Atlantic, weren't really a thing until at the very end of the Middle Ages. I think this is pretty important to point out, because people tend to default to the idea that warfare at sea before the advent of steam was all about sailing vessels. At the very least, naval warfare (both sea battles and amphibious operations) was very much an oared affair since sailing ships were suitable for transports, but not warfare as such. With this in mind, would you like to suggest any changes to the lead?
 * Peter Isotalo 18:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am still mulling over a full answer to the above (some further reading is needed), but it seems sensible to give an interim response.
 * (1) (a) On reading quite a lot of Safeguard of the Sea, whilst it is clear that English kings had galleys available, there is only one remark that suggests how common they were relative to other vessels. That is (page 51), talking about King John having the "most impressive squadron since the conquest": "By 1211 he had more than fifty vessels, including twenty galleys, in service." Twenty out of fifty is forty per cent – presuming all the others were used as warships of some description. (b) Looking quickly at Rose 2002, the account of the fighting off Flanders in 1304 talks about one fleet being made up of two squadrons. One is of sailing ships. The other consists of 12 hired Genoese galleys. Whilst we do not know the relative numbers of sailing and oared ships in that fleet, it is of note that the galleys came from the Mediterranean. One must suspect that locally built and manned galleys were not available.
 * (2) Anderson (1962) and Rodgers (1940) seem quite dated sources, which really should only be used with care by later sources. Knowledge of the subject has grown over the past sixty (or more) years and whilst books of this age may hold correct information and be cited by others, I don't think they make an RS for Wikipedia. (A good example of the risks of aged sources that are still cited in the field is Hourani, George F. Arab Seafaring Princeton University Press, which has been completely superseded on the origin of the lateen rig but is still good for others maritime historians to use other information that they know is still correct.)
 * (3) The lead has just one sentence about Mediterranean galley use after the classical period. This seems a little odd as it surely requires a little more emphasis than that. Altogether the whole lead might benefit from a reappraisal. This may break the guidelines for a lead, but four sections covering (a) introduction and definition (b) classical and pre-historic (c) Mediterranean in middle ages and renaissance (d) Northern waters and elsewhere. The need to break the guidelines on the numbers of paragraphs in the lead really comes from the length of the article, which is about 50% bigger than the recommended maximum for an article.
 * I will put some further research and thinking into this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Length of article
This article is about 50% bigger than the maximum guide size. As it stands right now, the main text of the article (excluding footnotes) is 15,221 words. The recommended maximum article size for readability is around 10,000 words (WP:CANYOUREADTHIS). So this article is 50% over-size.

This leads into general readability. See the talk page criticism "Introduction of gun armament on galleys" on this talk page (above). This is where another editor has commented that it is difficult to find expected content in the article. I think this is a very real criticism. The content could do with being more tightly organised.

Having complained about article length, there seem to be some astounding omissions. There is (unless I have missed it) no mention of the logistical problem of providing, in a shallow draft, narrow hull, a large supply of drinking water for the rowers. Nor is there any mention of biscotti, the "hard baked bread" described by, among other historians, Susan Rose in Medieval Naval Warfare 1000-1500 (p. 6). This was a fundamental component of galley operation in the Mediterranean, supplying "many of the calories needed by men expected to row for long periods". As the narrative of Rose explains, insufficient supplies of biscotti could stop a fleet of galleys going to sea. (Other mentions include pg 19, 106 and 113 - all of which give emphasis to the need for this type of food.)

It seems that the article needs either a hard-hearted slimming down to a more concise version (at the same time checking for and including any glaring omissions) or alternatively to be split – the obvious option would be to cover galleys up to the end of Classical antiquity in one article and everything thereafter in another. In fact, it possibly needs the application of both disciplines.

I appreciate that all the above may appear to be passing criticism. However, since posting the previous comments about this article, I have been diligently reading through reference material as quickly as I can gather it, so that I can make further input. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Regarding the size, the article is shorter than a lot of narrower FA topics. Counting kBs is not a constructive way to determine the optimal article size since topics are more or less narrow. You should just work directly with the existing text and cut down on details if you think that's relevant. I'm not sure I agree with the "gun armament" critique, but I'd happy to see someone take a stab at trimming the fat off the prose.
 * But overall, if you want to contribute to the article, work more with the article content. And please lay off the tagging. Your complaints aren't serious enough to merit them.
 * Regarding galley logistics, why not start writing about it? There's more info about it in Age of the Galley if you want to get more in depth than just hardtack.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 2 points. I don't get the resistance on article size. WP:TOOBIG is quite specific. Just because there are examples that break the rules does not mean this article is exempt from complying. Where a featured article is long, I suggest that is because it has a carefully developed structure that assists with its readability. Secondly, I am still seriously reading my way into the subject – it is taking a while to track down sources and then do the physical reading thereof. I will work on the article once I feel I have this done to a useful level. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 * I don't agree that the guideline in question is "specific" on this point and it is not to be "complied" with based solely on your opinion. I've explained quite very clearly why I disagree otherwise. The article is not up for review and you're obliged to seek consensus for these things.
 * Take my complaint about your tagging seriously, please. Focus on constructive content edits instead.
 * Peter Isotalo 05:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have sought opinions on the length of the article at Wikipedia Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest also notifying MilHist. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * MilHist: notified. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 * The article is far too long and would benefit from splitting. The split proposed seems as sensible a one as any and I support it. (In addition the article could do with a thorough copy edit to prune extraneous material and get it into a more summary style. Further down the road possibly a further split into an over-arching Galley article with sub-articles on early classical, Roman era and Medieval galleys? Just a thought.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not being well-read on the topic, I have no opinion on how to handle issue (i.e. whether to split, further summarize, or both), but at 13,753 words of readable prose (per the page size tool), something clearly needs to be done. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is clearly too long. I'd suggest a split based on historical eras or periods. There are a number of topics buried in the article, and the section on tactics seems to rehash what's in the actual galley tactics article (to give one example). Why not just link to it with a very short summary here? Intothatdarkness 16:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong view of splitting the article. Yes, it's long but there is an advantage to having the whole tale in one place. If it is decided to divide it, the historical split, logical though it seems, is actually more complicated than it appears, as the technical sub-categories are somewhat intermixed and unpicking them would be tricky. Are there other overarching classes (e.g. of ships) which are subdivided and can that offer any help here? Monstrelet (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions for target articles?
,, you've suggested moving content. Can you provide concrete suggestions for target articles? Could be either new or existing ones. Doesn't have to be stubs either.

Just want to underline that I've seen my fair share of splits and "exports" of entire sections over the years. When the purpose is simply to get below an arbitrary number of prose kB, the results are often very bad; the source article is left with a rump of a few sentences and the target article reads like it's obviously disjointed and isolated. I believe it's much better to first identify relevant target topics and then identify content that can be moved. Peter Isotalo 11:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm not convinced I'm arguing for a split above, Peter. What I have suggested is looking at other ways topics have been split as context.  You may well be right that arbitrary splits don't work - what are needed are well thought out inter-related articles.  Have others achieved this and if so, how?  If not, the conclusion may be it it better to have a single integrated article.  Monstrelet (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did suggest one: Tactics. There's already a Galley Tactics article, and the section in this article appears to duplicate much of what's there. The linked Hellenistic-Era Warships article also seems very complete, and it makes sense to simply refer people to it instead of having a stub-like construction in this article. But that also gets back to a foundational question: is the article about the history of galleys, the construction of galleys, or something else entirely? Intothatdarkness 22:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you asking what this article is about or Hellenistic-era warships?
 * Peter Isotalo 07:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This article. It seems to wander a bit, including a wide range of things covered in other articles. Intothatdarkness 16:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 * The article is about galleys and covers about 2500 years of history. That's a lot of potential content. We have articles about far narrower topics, like say military history of Puerto Rico that are about the same size. I don't really understand your question regarding history and construction. What exactly are you expecting the article to be limited to?
 * Peter Isotalo 17:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You picked a poor example with the military history of puerto rico (it lost its featured article status due to a number of issues). And it's clear we have different understandings and expectations when it comes to overview articles. To my mind, an overview should include summaries with links out to more detailed articles. Judging from your comments, you seem to feel the overview article should include everything. For example, I would have a very short mention of the various types of galleys used during Hellenistic era, with a link to the main article on those warships for people who are interested. And by short mention I mean a couple of sentences, not a rehash of what's in the other article. The same can be said for galley tactics. But again it comes down to that basic question: what is the article about? Intothatdarkness 19:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I picked the Puerto Rico article because it happens to be a very large article that you have been very active in, but where you don't seem to see any urgent need to cut down its size. I've never heard of the idea of separate "overview articles", btw. And I don't know how you define a "very short mention". If you want to get your message across here, provide 2-3 examples of articles that you think fulfill your ideals in this regard.
 * Regarding your basic question, what exactly are you expecting the article to be limited to?
 * Peter Isotalo 07:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem wedded to a large article, and I doubt I'll be able to sway that opinion. There was an effort to reduce the size of the article you mentioned, but there are also other issues with that article (and others with similar themes) - excessive OWN behavior on the part of some editors involved with them. And I've stated my opinion about this article. Intothatdarkness 12:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

 * I asked a very concrete question above regarding what your expectations are. Twice. I didn't ask it rhetorically but because I honestly don't understand what it you think should be achieved here. Peter Isotalo 14:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The general galley article in my view should be an overview of galleys (oar-powered vessels once in common use but later superseded by sail...putting them in context) and perhaps some brief history of their use organized by historical era (with an emphasis on brief...no more than a simple paragraph or two if there are other articles available to link to). It should not contain large sections on tactics, extensive discussion of types of galleys (this is covered quite well in other articles), and so on. However, I'm starting to sense some OWN here (based in part on the discussions above), so I'll leave you to it. Intothatdarkness 15:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to your personal opinion about what you think is relevant criteria but you have no basis for it in any guidelines or criteria. I have no idea what it is you believe is "covered quite well" elsewhere because you have given only a single example, Hellenistic-era warships, which overlaps partially only with a few paragraphs. If you're seeing extensive duplication somewhere, can you please just provide links to the relevant articles?
 * I can't speak for other editors, but I would absolutely want to work from (and with) whatever examples that are provided. Peter Isotalo 12:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as you're entitled to your personal opinion (also ungrounded in policy) about what an overview article should look like. I've pointed out tactics twice...so there's not just one example. But I gave my opinion. You're free to disregard it. Happy editing. Intothatdarkness 20:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can see for yourself that I did work on the tactics content. The Hellenistic warship details cover no more than a paragraph or two so I don't see what else you believe can be done. If you insist that huge swaths of the article are totally irrelevant or actually belonging elsewhere, you have to either refer to guidelines or point to specific examples. If anything, you should be able to point to a similar maritime article, akin to dreadnought or battleship.
 * If you change your mind and spot any target articles or clear overlaps, though, feel free to point them out. Peter Isotalo 00:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Construction section
Having been drawn back to this article by the length discussion, while considering ways in which the article might be split, I noticed some issues with the construction section. As these don't bear on the length debate, I've separated them. I could do a bold edit but, given the potential for contention, I'll mention them first.

The main issue is an inconsistency of how the section is divided - is it by era or ship type? It could be either. So we could have early galleys, triremes, polyremes and liburnians, dromon and galea, gallea sottil. Or Early Mediterranean, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman, Early Medieval, Medieval and Renaissance. Note this won't change the content, or the length, as they are alternative headings to the existing ones.

The other issue is that the first paragraph under Middle Ages is in the wrong place chronologically. It actually belongs in the current section "Standardisation", as it is a detailed description of the type introduced there, the galea sottil (which it actually says).

I don't think the second is contentious, but the first would need a decision which way to jump. Monstrelet (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

 * The first paragraph under "Middle Ages" was added way back in August 2006. It got an awkward hanger-on statement referencing what I assume is Björn Landström but without specification to any specific work. I removed the hanger-on just now because it doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with the highly detailed specification.
 * Regarding the specification itself in the first paragraph, it's really hard to verify and I don't find it very informative to begin with. The level of details is dubiously specific. The original medieval measurements were obviously not metric and the original units are missing. I'm for zapping the paragraph altogether. Peter Isotalo 15:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

 * While not arguing with the trimming, we do have details for Charles of Anjou's galleys. See for example https://www.academia.edu/4129316/The_tersane_at_Alanya_and_the_galleys_of_Charles_d_Anjou (p.186) which gives them in their original units. Monstrelet (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Trimmed the measurements in this edit. I don't mind someone incorporating that again but it should include the original measurements and should be in a format that's easier to digest, for example a summary table (as in Pryor 1988).
 * I've attempted a fairly extensive overhaul of the structure of the "History" section. To make it clearer, I've tried to clarify it as being more about usage, and split into different types of usage. Thoughts? Peter Isotalo 12:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Rowing geometry
The explanation of rowing geometry is not that simple, but it is well handled in McKee's The Working Boats of Britain. There are a number of issues that all have to come together to work. There are matters like the length of the oar either side of the pivot point. Then there is the angle of the rower's body to the vertical: the feet cannot be underneath the rower's centre of gravity or only limited power can be applied to the oar. More fundamental is the fit of the typical rower's body within the space around the loom of the oar. It must be possible to get the oar into the water without having to lift the loom excessively high: if it is at head height when power is applied, this is inefficient. Then on the recovery stroke, the blade must be lifted clear of the tops of the waves. To do this, the loom is lowered, but it must clear the tops of the thighs of the seated rower. It is these two last points that are crucial in requiring low freeboard. A relatively unsatisfactory solution is to have the oars operate at a steeper angle to the water, but you need shorter oars to do this. That is why low freeboard is required.

I suggest that the to allow the oars to be as parallel to the surface of the water as possible is more of a rule of thumb than a true explanation of the reason for low freeboard. I am not sure if McKee's explanation was available for this edit. I do not think it really does the subject justice – and nor should it because the explanation belongs in Rowing. All this article needs to do is state that issues of rowing geometry require a low freeboard. I think most people with any mechanical sense will get a clue about what is going on. Those who don't will, in due course of time, have a link to the yet-to-be-written section in the rowing article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 * I realize that we both need to start focusing on is to "identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". That's the sole purpose of the lead. So rather than debating this or that wording, what's the "appropriate weight" here in relation to how galleys were generally built? Peter Isotalo 22:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That was behind the thinking of relying on a link to a new section of Rowing that deals with rowing geometry and mechanics.
 * But thinking on this further, this article does not have a "General characteristics" section that discusses the various design and performance consideration of galleys. That could include all the discussion of length to breadth ratios, freeboard (with explanation of the consequences for fighting against other types of vessel) and the problems of rowing geometry (including the spacing of rowers in the trireme floating hypothesis) and the unknown (as far as I am aware) issue of how the oars were manned in a balinger, etc. A general characteristics section would allow some of the existing article content to be removed or reduced, so it should not add significantly to article length. It might also make things easier for the typical Wikipedia reader, as it could group summary content early in the article (we all know that many articles in Wikipedia are rarely read from one end to the other). I am not sure this is a total solution, but it seemed wise to float the idea for consideration. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think content under "Design and construction" and "Propulsion" could be included under such a heading like "General characteristics". Starting such a section with some very broad outlines would address what you're getting at here, I believe.
 * Regarding the "typical Wikipedia reader", you need to check out the discussion here. Published research seems to show that an average reading session is about 45 seconds. Another published article shows readers actually navigate the table of contents quite selectively.
 * Regarding total article length, as long as someone gives specific examples for this article topic, I'm more than willing to both discuss and act on critique of length. I believe the size guideline is problematic as it is, though, and if anyone insists on invoking MOS as their only argument or a random number of printed pages (or whatever) my position is "anything below 100 kB of prose is fine". Peter Isotalo 10:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Propulsion section
The lateen rig was more complicated and required a larger crew to handle than a square sail rig, but this was not a problem in the heavily manned galleys The lateen rig is not so much complicated as heavy – so needing a good size crew to shift the sail when tacking. The whole object of replacing the Mediterranean Square Sail with the lateen was to have a rig with fewer component parts (and so lower cost, both building and maintenance cost). So the word complicated is inappropriate.

To change tacks, the entire spar had to be lifted over the mast and to the other side. I am not quite sure what this is intended to mean. There are three possible ways of tacking a lateen. One is to bring the sail close in to the mast, possibly raising the yard with the halyard so that it clears the deck, and then pass the sail round the front of the mast so that it can be set on the other side. In appearance, the yard goes vertical and the sheet is slackened, the sail is moved and then the yard returned to its normal angle. This might be assisted by the "umbrella handle" top to the mast that was present until c. 12th century AD. The next method is to pass the yard behind the mast. This is presumed to have been done with later vessels, such as some Venetian galleys.. The last method is to lower the sail completely and manhandle the whole arrangement (yard and sail) aft and then forward on the other side. In any situation, I do not see how this is lifting the spar over the mast.

Ancient and medieval galleys are assumed to have sailed only with the wind more or less astern with a top speed of about 15 km/h (9 mph) in fair conditions. I note that this is based on a reference that was written before any of the findings from the Olympias were well known. However, this "floating hypothesis" actually sailed quite well and achieved 65 degrees off the wind, which is certainly not more or less downwind. This article content does not seem appropriate in the light of these comments.

Above are all interim notes, as much for me as for others. Comments are welcome but I hope to come up with some altered article text shortly, but out of time now. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed the wording regarding the first two statements and added a pic that shows actual lateen rig tacking. It was mainly a matter of clarity and wording rather than anything factual.

 * Regarding whether Pryor's estimates are accurate or not, does Rankov 2009 actually say anything about this estimate being off? Are there conflicting estimates?

 * Peter Isotalo 10:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 * A nice clear description of changing tack (by wearing) in Arab lateen rigged vessels is to be found at . This describes the sail (and yard) being taken round the front of the mast. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Just catching up with reality – the picture now added to the article is a great find. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got pretty excited when I found it! It must've been a pretty delicate operation overall considering that the spar with sail could might weigh a ton or more.
 * Despite my naval history interest, I'm a bit of a landlubber with mediocre spatial intelligence. Describing the mechanics of sails and rigging is not my strongest suit. If you find weird wording regarding the practical stuff, it's more often me getting it wrong from perfectly good soruces.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The worst bit of wording ("over" the mast) is almost exactly what Unger says ("over the masthead", pg 49). He should have known better. Incidentally, that entire section of his book, talking about why lateen replaced square rig, is entirely superseded. That one is not so much his fault, as there are still many maritime historians who persist with the myth that lateen (as well as other fore and aft rigs) gave significantly better windward performance than square rig.
 * Re Rankov's comments on the sailing performance of the trireme floating hypothesis – I think he shows a polite silence on comments from those in the field who did not have the benefit of the results of their experiments. This is just another example of how assumptions get overtaken by detailed analysis. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

English version
Does this article need an American English tag on it – that is the version it is written in. (I am presuming that is what is intended.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Go for it. Peter Isotalo 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Galley


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 15:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat
Another article with a weird POV title created by a Shi'a apologist apparently to post anti-Sunni Shi'a polemics OneGuy 19:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep - OneGuy is on a rampage deleting everything i do and write.

The Topic is important, it reflects one major muslims, Alis, feelings toward a important event. It is to long to fitt in a biograpy and since its a "hot" topic, it needs ample referense to prove its validity, something i have included. If OneGuy's problem is that he thinks its not NPOV, then he should address it, preferably with proof, not voting for deletion only because it dosent suite his image of what Ali felt and did. In short: Ali DID opposed Abu Bakr, as is evident in authentic Sunni sources i quoted and its important for understanding the difrent event that emerged from that moment. If OneGuy has a problem with the title, i would have no problem renaming it to "What Ali sought of the first Kalif" or somthing similar.

I challenge OneGuy to bring ONE hadith that shows that Ali supported Abu Bakrs nomination for Khilafa. (unsigned comment by Striver)

 * The title of the article is not neutral "Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat." You moved your Shi'a POV even to the title. The title must be neutral OneGuy 03:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * X opposes Y isn't necessarily non-NPOV. Someone could easily write a neutral and factual article about, e.g., the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control. It's an historical fact that opposition over who would lead the Islamic Caliphate lead to the Shia–Sunni split, isn't it? J’raxis 06:27, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

 * If Sunnis dispute that Ali opposed Abu Bakr, then of course the title is POV. As far as I know, Sunnis accept that Ali did initially oppose Abu Bakr for a short period but then accepted him as a Caliph after that. To make an article out of that is clearly nonsensical. And what's with quoting all these hadith on this minor point? The fact that Ali initially opposed but then accepted Abu Bakr can be written in one line into Abu Bakr's article without cutting and pasting all these hadith. Consider changing your vote after I explained the problems now OneGuy 07:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. It's POV or original research or both, written in a non-encyclopedic style. RSpeer 00:44, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, article as it stands is poorly written and un-encyclopaedic. Needs NPOV if it stays. Megan1967 00:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete OneGuy 02:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete If this was written in more historic terms, that would probably fall under an Islamic history article, but I doubt it warrants its own article from what I remember of my Mid-East history. ScottM 03:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I suppose it needs work, it seems like a good start. Everyking 05:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep iff it can be expanded to be worth its own article, not to mention cleaned up and NPOVed. As it stands it seems as if it belongs as a section on a larger article about Ali, Abu Bakr, or Shia Islam. Striver's intent to create the page as an anti-Sunni polemic doesn't preclude its being transformed into a good article; remember the Sollog affair? The page really ought to be moved to something like Ali's Opposition to Abu Bakr or ...Abu Bakr's Caliphate also. J’raxis 06:27, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
 * Don't Shi'ites have a name for the schism? (no vote) Gazpacho 10:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, merge any useful information into article on one of the participants. Rmhermen 16:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Beyond NPOV problems, does this really need an encyclopedia entry? In its current form it is contextless nonsense. Katefan0 19:58, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Have to agree with Katefan0. The article may or may not have a point but as it stands it is totally out of context.  Surely, at the very least, it needs re-writing to be included under a more general heading regarding Abu Bakr and the Calpihate?  --Marcus22 11:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not an article, agenda promotion of some kind. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Its interesting

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
India–Bangladesh enclaves

The India–Bangladesh enclaves, also known as the Chiṭmahals (ছিটমহল chiṭmôhôl ) and sometimes called Pasha enclaves, were the enclaves along the Bangladesh–India border, in Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura, Assam and Meghalaya. The main body of Bangladesh contained 102 Indian enclaves, which in turn contained 21 Bangladeshi counter-enclaves, one of which contained Dahala Khagrabari, an Indian counter-counter-enclave, the world's only third-order enclave when it existed. The Indian mainland contained 71 Bangladeshi enclaves, which in turn contained 3 Indian counter-enclaves. A joint census in 2010 found 51,549 people who were residing in these enclaves: 37,334 in Indian enclaves within Bangladesh and 14,215 in Bangladeshi enclaves within India.

The Prime Ministers of India and Bangladesh signed the Land Boundary Agreement in 1974 to exchange enclaves and simplify their international border. A revised version of the agreement was adopted by the two countries on 7 May 2015, when the Parliament of India passed the 100th Amendment to the Constitution of India. Under this agreement, which was ratified on 6 June 2015, India received 51 Bangladeshi enclaves (covering 7,110 acres) in the Indian mainland, while Bangladesh received 111 Indian enclaves (covering 17,160 acres) in the Bangladeshi mainland. The enclave residents were allowed to either continue residing at their present location or move to the country of their choice. The exchange of enclaves was to be implemented in phases between 31 July 2015 and 30 June 2016. The enclaves were exchanged at midnight on 31 July 2015 and the transfer of enclave residents was completed on 30 November 2015. After the Land Boundary Agreement, India lost around 40 km2 to Bangladesh.

Since the exchange of territory took place, the only remaining enclave is Dahagram–Angarpota, an exclave of Bangladesh.

History
According to a popular legend, the enclaves were used as stakes in card or chess games centuries ago between two regional kings, the Raja of Koch Bihar and the Maharaja of Rangpur. As far as historical records are concerned, the little territories were apparently the result of a confused outcome of a 1713 treaty between the Kingdom of Koch Bihar and the Mughal Empire. Possibly, the Kingdom and the Mughals ended a war without determining a boundary for what territories had been gained or lost.

After the partition of India in 1947, Rangpur was joined to East Pakistan. Cooch Behar State, with its exclaves and holes, was a native state, whose Raja had the option of joining either India or Pakistan. Cooch Behar district was merged in 1949 with India. The desire to "de-enclave" most of the enclaves was manifested in a 1958 agreement between Jawaharlal Nehru and Feroz Khan Noon, the respective Prime Ministers, for an exchange between India and Pakistan without considering loss or gain of territory. But the matter then worked into a Supreme Court case in India, and the Supreme Court ruled that a constitutional amendment was required to transfer the land, so the ninth amendment was introduced to facilitate the implementation of the agreement. The amendment could not be passed because of objections to the transfer of the southern Berubari enclave. Because of India's deteriorated relations with Pakistan, the issue remained unsolved. Negotiations restarted after East Pakistan became independent as Bangladesh in 1971 following the Bangladesh Liberation War.

Agreement

The Land Boundary Agreement was signed on 16 May 1974 between Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman which provided for the exchange of enclaves and the surrender of adverse possessions. Under the agreement, India retained the Berubari Union No. 12 enclave while Bangladesh retained the Dahagram-Angorpota exclaves with India providing access to it by giving a 178 × corridor, called the Tin Bigha Corridor. Bangladesh quickly ratified the agreement in 1974 but India failed to do so. The issue of the undemarcated land boundary of approximately 6.1 km in three sectors — Daikhata-56 in West Bengal, Muhuri River-Belonia in Tripura and Lathitila-Dumabari in Assam — also remained unsolved. The Tin Bigha Corridor was leased to Bangladesh in 1992 amid local opposition.

The list of enclaves was prepared in 1997 by the two countries. Two Joint Boundary Working Groups were formed to work out the details of enclaves in 2001. A joint census was carried out in May 2007. In September 2011, India signed the Additional Protocol for the 1974 Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh. Both nations announced an intention to swap 162 enclaves, giving residents a choice of nationality.

Under the agreement, India received 51 of the 71 Bangladeshi enclaves (from 51 to 54 of the 74 chhits) that were inside India proper (7,110.2 acres), while Bangladesh received 95 to 101 of the 103 Indian enclaves (111 out of 119 chhits) that were inside Bangladesh proper (17,160.63 acres). Bangladesh retained the 4617 acres of its Dahagram-Angarpota exclave. India acquired 2777.038 acres adverse possession areas and transferred 2267.682 acres adverse possession areas to Bangladesh. After the exchange of enclaves, India lost around 40 km2 (10,000 acres) to Bangladesh. According to July 2010 joint census, there were 14,215 people residing in Bangladeshi enclaves in India and 37,269 people residing in Indian enclaves in Bangladesh. The people living in these enclaves without a nationality were allowed to choose their nationality.

The Constitution (119th Amendment) Bill, 2013 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Parliament of India, on 18 December 2013. Nationalist groups in Assam strongly opposed the bill, which would cause India to lose 10,000 acres of land, but Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi supported it because it would make the border with Bangladesh easier to manage. The parliament panel, Standing Committee on External Affairs, approved the bill in November 2014. The Rajya Sabha approved the constitutional amendment on 6 May 2015, and the Lok Sabha approved it the following day. President of India Pranab Mukherjee gave his assent to the Act on 28 May 2015.

On 6 June 2015, Modi ratified the agreement during his visit to the Bangladesh capital Dhaka. In the presence of Modi and Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the foreign secretaries of the two countries signed the instruments of the land exchange. The exchange of enclaves and land parcels in adverse possession, and the boundary demarcation, was implemented in phases between 31 July 2015 and 30 June 2016. The enclaves were to be exchanged at midnight on 31 July 2015 and the boundary demarcation was to be completed by 30 June 2016 by Survey Departments of the respective countries. The transfer of enclave residents was expected to be completed by 30 November 2015.

Indian and Bangladeshi officials conducted a field survey of enclave residents between 6 July 2015 and 16 July 2015. Seventy-five teams, made up of one Indian and one Bangladeshi member each, were tasked with conducting the enumeration. Twenty-five teams surveyed the Bangladeshi enclaves which would be transferred to India, while 50 worked on the Indian enclaves that would be transferred to Bangladesh. As the enclave residents were allowed to choose citizenship of either nation, by 13 July 2015, 100 families residing in the Indian enclaves applied for Indian citizenship, while none of the residents of the Bangladeshi enclaves chose to go to Bangladesh. New citizenship, if chosen, took effect from 1 August 2015. Nearly 14,000 people living in the former Bangladeshi enclaves became Indian citizens, while about 36,000 people living in the former Indian enclaves became Bangladeshi citizens. Some 1,000 people in the former Indian enclaves chose Indian citizenship and were to be relocated to India by December 2015.

Bangladesh
Dahagram–Angarpota: The largest Bangladeshi composite enclave (combining the first- and third-largest Bangladeshi chhits by area), administered as part of Patgram Upazila in Lalmonirhat Zila, lies within the Indian province of West Bengal. It is separated from the contiguous area of Bangladesh at its closest point by 178 m. The enclave has an area of 25.95 km2 with a resident population of 20,000 people. The enclave lacks basic facilities. The lone health complex remains virtually useless because of lack of power supply, as India refused to allow Bangladesh to run power lines to the enclave. After the exchange of enclaves in July 2015, Bangladesh retained it as an exclave.

The Tin Bigha Corridor, a strip of Indian territory 85 m wide running from the Dahagram–Angarpota composite enclave to the Bangladeshi mainland at their nearest approach, was leased by India in perpetuity to Bangladesh for access to the enclave. It is available for use by the residents of Dahagram–Angarpota.

India
Dasiar Chhara, the fourth largest Indian chhit by area, was the largest stand-alone Indian enclave (i.e., not a composite of adjoining chhits). It lay 3 km from the main part of India and had an area of 6.65 km2.

Dahala Khagrabari, enclave #51, was the world's only third-order enclave, being a piece of India within Bangladesh, within India, within Bangladesh. It was the site of a jute field, owned by a Bangladeshi farmer living in the Bangladeshi second-order enclave surrounding Dahala Khagrabari. As part of the 2015 border agreement, India ceded it to Bangladesh.

List of former enclaves and exclaves
Schematic overview:

Some individual enclaves were composed of several administrative units (chhits and/or mauzas). These administrative units must be differentiated from the enclave as a whole. "This is particularly important for the Cooch Behar enclaves, where the several administrative units which together form some of the larger enclaves are commonly, but wrongly, termed enclaves themselves, or where one component unit commonly lends its name to the whole enclave. ... [T]he official Indo–Bangladesh Boundary Commission figure of 111 Indian and 51 Bangladeshi exchangeable enclaves would appear to count only individual mauzas, even when these consisted of more than one enclave." There is not a one-to-one relationship between enclaves, chhits and mauzas.

All of the information shown in the following two tables has been assembled from Brendan R. Whyte.

Bangladesh
In order to distinguish chhits having the same names, serial numbers established by Banerjee (1966) are shown in parentheses, as (#). The Bangladesh series is separate from the India series.

With 4 exceptions (Chhat Tilai, Baikunthapur Teldhar (#3, #4, #5)), the first-order enclaves, including the 3 composite enclaves, lay entirely within the Cooch Behar District of West Bengal state, India. All 21 counter-enclaves lay within the Rangpur Division of Bangladesh. The Bangladeshi enclaves had an estimated population of 14,215 in 2015.
 * ❋ This chhit was part of a composite enclave and by itself was neither an enclave nor an exclave.
 * † Stated size may not be exact.

India
The 102 first-order enclaves (including the 6 composite enclaves) and the 1 counter-counter enclave lay within the Rangpur Division of Bangladesh. The 3 counter-enclaves lay within the Cooch Behar District of West Bengal state, India. In order to distinguish chhits having the same names, serial numbers established by Banerjee (1966) are shown in parentheses, as (#). The India series is separate from the Bangladesh series. There were 37,334 people living in the Indian enclaves in 2015.
 * ❋ This chhit was part of a composite enclave and by itself was neither an enclave nor an exclave.
 * † Stated size may not be exact.

title: India–Bangladesh enclaves


text:
Lou Antonio

Louis Antonio (born January 23, 1934) is an American actor and TV director best known for performing in the films Cool Hand Luke and America America. He also starred in two short-lived TV series, Dog and Cat, and Makin' It.

Early years
Born Louis Demetrios Antoniou in Oklahoma City of English, French, and German descent on his mother's side and Greek on his father's side (the family name was originally Antoniou), he made a name for himself as a sports reporter on the Daily Oklahoman.

Career
In January 1962, Antonio was a guest artist at Elmwood Playhouse in Nyack, New York, where he directed Enid Bagnold's The Chalk Garden. In the mid-1960s, Antonio began his career as a television actor, sometimes starring in multiple episodes of the same series, as different characters. These series included The Rookies, The Naked City, Mission: Impossible, Night Gallery, Gunsmoke, The Fugitive, Twelve O'Clock High, The Monkees, The F.B.I., The Defenders, The Mod Squad, Dan August, Cannon, Hawaii Five-O, Bracken's World, The Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries, and I Dream of Jeannie. Antonio memorably guest-starred as the human version of a chimpanzee-turned-human on a popular fifth-season episode of Bewitched titled "Going Ape" and played Barney in The Snoop Sisters.

On Star Trek, he co-starred with Frank Gorshin in “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” (1969), which eventually became one of the most popular of the series. In 2016, The Hollywood Reporter rated “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” the 11th best television episode of all Star Trek franchise television shows prior to Star Trek: Discovery including live-action and animated series but not counting the movies. Also in 2016, SyFy ranked Antonio and Gorshin (as Bele and Lokai) as the 10th best guest stars on Star Trek: The Original Series.

As a director, Antonio mostly worked in television, notably including: The Flying Nun, The Young Rebels, Banacek, The Partridge Family, The Rockford Files, Owen Marshall: Counselor at Law, Picket Fences, American Gothic, Party of Five, Dawson's Creek, Chicago Hope, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, and The West Wing. His last work was on Boston Legal in 2007.

Personal life
Antonio was married to fellow Actors Studio member, Lane Bradbury and they had two daughters. The couple divorced in 1980. Their daughter Elkin Antoniou is a writer, director and award-winning documentarian.

Antonio's elder brother, Jim Antonio, and sister-in-law, Hildy Brooks, are also actors.

Filmography

 * 1961 Splendor in the Grass as Oil Field Worker At Party (uncredited)
 * 1961 Macbeth (TV Movie)
 * 1961-1963 Naked City (TV Series) as Charlie Tepperoni / Ernie / Al Machias / Civil Service Applicant
 * 1963 Breaking Point (TV Series) as Paul Knopf
 * 1963 Route 66 (TV Series) as Tony Donato
 * 1962-1963 The Defenders (TV Series) as Danny Norton / Bo Jackson / Sam
 * 1963 America, America as Osman
 * 1963-1966 The Fugitive (TV Series) as Don / Matt Mooney / Vinnie
 * 1965 For the People
 * 1964-1965 Twelve O'Clock High (TV Series) as Captain Bing Pollard / Captain Wade Ritchie
 * 1966 The Virginian (TV Series) as Niles Tait
 * 1966 The Wackiest Ship in the Army (TV Series) as Jocko
 * 1966 Hawaii as Reverend Abraham Hewlett
 * 1966 Hawk (TV Series) as Frankie Gellen
 * 1966Gunsmoke (TV Series) as Harve Kane
 * 1967 The Road West (TV Series) as Mike Kerkorian
 * 1967 The Monkees (TV Series) as Judd in S2:E7, "Hillbilly Honeymoon"
 * 1967 Cool Hand Luke as Koko
 * 1968 I Dream of Jeannie (TV Series) as Charley
 * 1968 The Danny Thomas Hour (TV Series) as Stefanos
 * 1968 Bonanza (TV Series) as Davey
 * 1968-1980 Insight (TV Series) as Burglar / J.P.
 * 1969 Have Gun-Will Travel (TV Series) as Ted Greive
 * 1969 Star Trek (TV Series) as Lokai in S3:E15, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"
 * 1969 Gentle Ben (TV Series) as Kee Cho
 * 1965-1969 Gunsmoke (TV Series) as Mace / Smiley / Curt Tynan / Rich / Harve Kane
 * 1969 Bewitched (TV Series) as Harry Simmons
 * 1970 Sole Survivor (TV Movie) as Tony
 * 1969-1970 Here Come the Brides (TV Series) as Telly Theodakis
 * 1970 The Flying Nun (TV Series) as The Stone Mason (uncredited)
 * 1970 The Phynx as Corrigan
 * 1970-1971 The Mod Squad (TV Series) as Arnold Kane / Case
 * 1970 Bracken's World (TV Series) as Hal Ingersol
 * 1970 Storefront Lawyers (TV Series) as Walter Babson
 * 1971 Dan August (TV Series) as Gordon Krager
 * 1971 Hawaii Five-O (TV Series) as David Harper
 * 1971 Cannon (TV Series) as Arnie Crawford
 * 1970-1972 Mission: Impossible (TV Series) as Rudy Blake / Robert Siomney
 * 1972 Cade's County (TV Series) as Frank Cameron
 * 1973 Night Gallery (TV Series) as Jake
 * 1973 Partners in Crime (TV Movie) as Sam Hatch
 * 1971-1973 The F.B.I. (TV Series) as Parrish / Arlen Parent
 * 1973-1974 The Snoop Sisters (TV Series) as Barney
 * 1973-1974 The Rookies (TV Series) as Jack Lembo / Jay Warfield
 * 1977 Dog and Cat (TV Series) as Sergeant Jack Ramsey
 * 1977 The Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries (TV Series) as The Director
 * 1979 Makin' It (TV Series) as Joseph Manucci
 * 1980 Where The Ladies Go (TV Movie) as Hugo
 * 1985 Thirteen at Dinner (TV Movie) as Movie Producer (uncredited)
 * 1990 Face to Face (Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation, TV Movie) as Dr. Calvin Finch
 * 2003 Frankie and Johnny Are Married as Lou Antonio

As director

 * Heroic Mission (1967)
 * Then Came Bronson (1969)
 * The Flying Nun (1969–70)
 * The Young Rebels (1970)
 * Getting Together (1971)
 * The Partridge Family (1971–1972)
 * Owen Marshall, Counselor at Law (1971–1973)
 * Banacek (1972)
 * The Rookies (1973)
 * Griff (1973; also writer)
 * Love Is Not Forever (1974)
 * Fools, Females and Fun (1974)
 * Amy Prentiss (1974)
 * Someone I Touched (1975)
 * McCloud (1972–1975)
 * McMillan & Wife (1975–1976)
 * The Rockford Files (1974–1976)
 * Lanigan's Rabbi (1976)
 * Delvecchio (1976)
 * Rich Man, Poor Man Book II (1976)
 * Something for Joey (1977)
 * The Girl in the Empty Grave (1977)
 * The Gypsy Warriors (1978)
 * The Critical List (1978)
 * A Real American Hero (1978)
 * The Chinese Typewriter (1979)
 * Silent Victory: The Kitty O'Neil Story (1979)
 * Heaven on Earth (1979)
 * Breaking Up Is Hard to Do (1979)
 * The Contender (1980)
 * We're Fighting Back (1981)
 * The Star Maker (1981)
 * The Steeler and the Pittsburgh Kid (1981)
 * Something So Right (1982)
 * Between Friends (1983)
 * A Good Sport (1984)
 * Threesome (1984)
 * Rearview Mirror (1984)
 * Thirteen at Dinner (1985)
 * One Terrific Guy (1986)
 * Shell Game (1987)
 * Pals (1987)

 * Mayflower Madam (1987)
 * The Outside Woman (1989; also producer)
 * Dark Holiday (1989; also executive producer)
 * Face to Face (Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation; 1990)
 * Sporting Chance (1990)
 * This Gun for Hire (1991)
 * Lies Before Kisses (1991)
 * The Last Prostitute (1991)
 * The Rape of Doctor Willis (1991)
 * A Taste for Killing (1992)
 * Nightmare in the Daylight (1992)
 * The Contender (1993)
 * Party of Five (1994)
 * Diagnosis: Murder (1994)
 * Chicago Hope (1995)
 * The Cosby Mysteries (1995)
 * American Gothic (1995)
 * Picket Fences (1993–1996)
 * Dark Skies (1996)
 * Mr & Mrs. Smith (1996)
 * Spy Game (1997)
 * Roar (1997)
 * Dawson's Creek (1998)
 * Vengeance Unlimited (1998)
 * To Have & To Hold
 * Wasteland (1999)
 * The Force (1999)
 * Get Real (1999)
 * Felicity (2000)
 * The West Wing (2001)
 * CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (2000–2001; also editor)
 * UC: Undercover (2001)
 * The Guardian (2001)
 * First Monday (2002)
 * The Handler (2003)
 * Numb3rs (2003)
 * Reunion (2005)
 * Boston Legal (2006–2007)

title: Lou Antonio