This is an archive of past discussions about Crusades. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Is there consensus on taking the following actions to resolve various issues regarding the topic of crusading: the Crusades aricle becomes the top-level article (meaning broad in scope and shallow in coverage), an article on Crusades for the Holy land is created to house the related Near East MILHIST removed as a result of this and the scope of the Crusading movement is reduced to the areas of the ideology and instituitions of crusading? This proposal has been extracted from the discussion at Talk:Crusades#Proposed_consensus and the proposal by @Vice regentNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Support this as I do believe that there is rough agreement among everyone in the section above on these three points. There are still some differences to be worked out, though, on how this would be implemented.VRtalk14:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. This package does not solve the obvious problems of the present structure - the co-existence of two top-level articles - but multiply it. Crusades and Crusades for the Holy Land could co-exist, because their scope is clear and natural. However, Theology and institutions of crusading is no more than an arbitrary collection of topics from theology to women and financing. These topics can be and are presented in separate articles, their joint presentation in a top-level article is useless. Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Not useless in a different perspective than yours. For example, and that is only one way it is useful, it will allow an article with strong focus on Milhist, which is very natural, to simply refer to other aspects with a single disambiguation tags at the top. Given that it has been well supported (and this is well documented), then it cannot be as weird as you suggest. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
You simply denying the fundamental role of milhist, which makes it special among all other aspects, not to mention that ideology and institutions is a natural glue for the other aspects. If you keep denying this natural dual structure, then no discussion is possible. I am not expert. I only see that it was acknowledged by many editors here and references have been given to show that it is also seen in reliable sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I have never denied the fundamental role of milhist. I have always emphasized that military history makes connection between theology, military orders, financing, etc. - that is why an article presenting these topics without military history - like the proposed Theology and institutions of crusading - is artificial and useless. I hope you understand that at least one of the three top-level articles about military history in this field is superfluous. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a big relief for me, because I really felt when I saw your arguments that you don't see the fundamental role of Milhist. I would not say it is a glue, no more than I would say that observations in physics are the glue for the remainder of physics. Milhist in Crusades is analogous to the most important part of observations in physics. In physics, we do have a clear separation between theoretical physics and experimental physics. You can easily find books that are entirely about theories. The connection is still there. The theoretical physicists that write these books see that connection. They are often excellent experimental physicists at the same time. I know it is only an analogy, but it is enough evidence for me to reject your abstract argumentation that says that because there is a tight connection we cannot have a separate article on the other aspects. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you refer to encyclopedic articles in the field of physics that present theory, financing, the building of laboratories, and women's role in physics together? We obviously do need separate articles on all aspects of crusading (Crusading ideology, Military orders, Women in the Crusades, Crusader states, Crusader art, etc), but we do not need to artifitially glue them together in one article. Sorry, I stopp discussing this issue with you, because we should let other editors vote. Borsoka (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, you accept that a tight connection does not imply that we cannot cover these topics separately from Milhist. This really seemed to be your key argument. The purpose of the analogy was to reject this argument. This is an important point established. The analogy did not cover the fact that ideology and institutions is a natural glue for the other aspects. Maybe fundamental principles of physics and their interpretation are the glue that is analogous to ideology and institutions. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Borsoka: it sounds like you're agreeing with 1 and 2, is that correct? And previously you said you would be ok with "Ideology of Crusading". Is that still the case? Would you support RandonCanadian's proposal of two separate articles "Ideology of Crusading" and "Institutions of Crusading"?VRtalk05:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Support In as much as it preserves a lot of the current global organization. It remains to clarify the weight of non milhist content in Crusades — subject to further discussion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Procedural trainwreck An RfC question beginning "is there consensus", based on one proposal launched in the middle of a previous RfC, is not a proper RfC question (beyond the obvious issue with asking participants to judge whether there is consensus - something best left to an uninvolved third party, also since it is a leading question, and since it favours one possible alternative amongst all others). That aside: broadly if not exactly agree with 1 (with the caveat that a top-level article should not need to be "shallow", it just must give the most important details instead of going for stuff that is too detailed for a summary on the subject (for example, most of the current #The Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1147 section, which probably shouldn't be here in this article to begin with); agree in principle although have strong reservations with the specific details of the suggested implementation of no. 2 (the title, for one, the restriction to "only MILHIST" for two); no. 3 should be ideally accompanied with an appropriate move to a more WP:NATURAL title, and if there is enough content to make separate articles about Institutions of the Crusades and Ideology of the Crusades, that would be a more logical structure (possible summarised in a Cultural impact of the Crusades article, which would be the thing linked to from here). Agree that any content which is not about those topics and which isn't already covered here should be merged, though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
No. 1, 2, 3 seems to refer to the previous RfC, but I think the text of this RfC is considered. It's confusing though. I don't understand the separation Ideology and Institution. These two seem tightly connected (way more than Milhist and other aspects). Institutions and Ideology are not separate topics on their own: they are aspects of Women, Finance, etc. and in each case it's better to cover Institutions and ideology together, because these two things goes well together, but splitting if we do the required duplication is certainly possible. I believe that it is always possible to split and just duplicate and use links to make it work. The question is whether it is really useful. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Mild Oppose. The discussion and RFC on this in March thru April 2021 (see Archive 14 and 15) with the chosen result was to not change seems still in force. The ‘issues’ of the current structure just do not justify the change or the issues the changed version would have. I also feel the history and language just is messy and not unified hierarchically - so forcing it into neat bins would be a bit incorrect. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree with @Markbassett that I also feel the history and language just is messy and not unified hierarchically - so forcing it into neat bins would be a bit incorrect. RFC was prompted by a suggestion that this article merged with Crusading movement, the debate on which died without consensus. Currently in terms of weight and coverage the article looks in a good place but with the caveat that without the suggested changes it is unlikely ever to be able to pass FAC or even progress towards it. Agree also with @Dominic Mayers that the RFC that left this situation in place remains current and relevant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Can we stop muddying the waters here? Military history of the Crusader states is not under discussion. It is a merging of three articles that Srnec did years ago and presents some aspects of the Crusades, primarily up to the Second Crusade and is organized by Islamic dynasty. It is of interest but not the complete history of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1096–1271 that would be order chronologically. Nor will it ever be, but the information on Crusader forces and tactics is of interest.
Also, there seems to be agreement on where to focus Crusading movement regardless of title. The ancillary topics (finance, women, art, etc.) would be spun off into their own articles, likely referred to in the "See Also section. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I am thinking that in the previous discussions (not necessarily in the last comment of Dr. G), Crusades has been given two objectives to achieve :
Cover the classical milhist oriented perspective that many people expect when they hear the term "Crusades" and
Be an all encompassing top article covering every thing related to Crusades, including Women, taxes, etc.
By default, to be on the safe side, we must consider them as two distinct objectives, for many incompatible objectives. The RfC proposal does not say clearly which of these two objectives Crusades should achieve, though it seems to suggest the second objective. I think this should be discussed. In my view, the first objective is the most important and it's the one that should be achieved. How much of the second objective can be achieved by it should be left as the subject of further discussion. There is no obligation to have an all encompassing article covering every thing written about Crusades: Women in Crusades, etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
You're second bullet is better explained in the paragraph below it, which I think is what you were trying to say. In my mind, things like women in the crusades, financing, or art are important, but really hard to write a summary paragraph or two on each. That's why I suggest separate articles on each topic with a reference in the "See Also" section. There are good, but incomplete, articles on women and art, but not one yet on financing. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the second bullet was not there because I personally think it should be achieved. It was there, because I think some people think it should be the primary objective and with more than see also on these other topics. In the proposal, this second objective should be seen as subject to further discussion. What is important is the first objective. This is my position. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The alternative solution is to write a summary article which encompasses those topics (i.e. an article about Cultural impact of the Crusades, which would itself have links to articles about "Women in the Crusades"; "Ideology of the Crusades"; ...), and have that summarised with a paragraph or section here, instead of having separate disparate additions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
And it would really help if people could try to stay brief and to the point, this long discussion, stretching across many months and talk page sections, is already quite a puzzle to follow, and the walls of texts don't make this any easier when you've missed some of the latest developments... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Given the issues with the Crusading article as it stands, it would be preferable to start with a fresh and focused article on a clear topic. Nobody said fixing this mess was easy. We already have Art of the Crusades; Women in the Crusades; even List of operas set in the Crusades (i.e. showing long-term impact), and there exists a lot more on the topic (stretching as far as the modern-day, ex. Paul, Nicholas L., "Modern Intolerance and the Medieval Crusades", in Andrew Albin et al., ed., Whose Middle Ages? Teachable Moments for an Ill-Used Past, New York, Fordham University Press, 2019. [1] ; or the impact on contemporary society: Lasker, Daniel J., "The Impact of the Crusades on the Jewish-Christian Debate", Jewish History, vol. 13, no. 2 (Autumn 1999), p. 23-36. [2]; or the impact on modern popular culture [Hayes, Dawn Marie, "Harnessing the Potential in Historiography and Popular Culture When Teaching the Crusades", The History Teacher, vol. 40, no. 3 (May 2007), p. 349-361. [3]];). There's clearly enough content to write a sensible and encyclopedic overview of "Cultural impact of the Crusades", which is currently lacking, no matter how you put it. Bonus, writing that would allow to present all of these disparate elements as one instead of having a large number of single-issue and probably short sections... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The concept that Ideology and Institutions are potentially behind most other if not all aspects of Crusades is perhaps not appreciated. This might explain why we hear things like would be preferable to start with a fresh and focused article on a clear topic, as if "Ideology and Institutions" was not a clear topic. It's indeed abstract, because of its broad nature, but if it's covered by reliable sources, it's the only thing that matters. Perhaps Cultural impact of the Crusades has a similar and complementary role and is also very broad, because Culture is also a very broad concept, but in the context of Crusades, Ideology and Institutions seem as important and relevant if not more important and relevant. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree whole heartedly @Dominic Mayers. As is said above about Cultural Impact of the Crusades, which is a totally different article, There's clearly enough content to write a sensible and encyclopedic overview. @Dr. Grampinator's points below are also valid: this is not a mess, there is one overarching topic article Crusades and the chances of anyone writing an article on Cultural Impact of the Crusades let alone it having any kind of readership is vanishingly small. What is the mess is a debate where a focus on process or whataboutery clouds the realisation that there is an achievable consensus that can be achieved on Crusades being the overview augmented by another article that details the 11th to 13th conflict for the Holy Land (no one suggests that Reconquista, Northern Crusades, Holy League and Popular crusades should be merged into Crusades afterall). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Some comments:
This is not a "mess." There's a lot of good material and some arguments as to how to organize it best.
If anyone wants to write an article entitled "Cultural impact of the Crusades" they should. If you want someone else to do it, well, that's probably not going to happen. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Dr. Grampinator, I suspect that I do not disagree with what There is only one high-level article, Crusades means for you. I know it does not mean that Crusades is an all encompassing article that covers with actual texts (summaries with a link to a main article) all related topics: cultural impact, ideology, institutions, finance, etc. My understanding is that it seems that there is a need for such an all encompassing article and it will not be Crusades. It is needed as a way to use rules such as WP:weight to systematically determine the weight of these different topics. It's a technical need, because of the way WP:weight works. It could be Crusading movement reshaped to cover all aspects as determined by WP:weight or it could be another one. This suggestion does not say how this all encompassing article would be used by other articles, but an idea is that it would be used in disambiguation tags in all relatively high level articles, certainly Crusades. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I can definitely help with those discussion. Please feel free to {{ping|Vice regent}} anytime or leave a message on my talk page.VRtalk14:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Srnec that the title and scope should remain. In a review of comprehensive histories including the Wisconsin project, Murray's Encyclopedia, Riley-Smith's Oxford History, Tyerman's God's War, Runciman, and Routledge, all treat the Crusades as a whole, regardless of location and objective. That being said, where to stop becomes an issue. Most stop in the 15th century, but there are some later activities concerning the military orders that should be considered. I would support a second article where all of the ancillary items, such as art and architecture, political crusades, ideology, finance, criticism, chivalry, etc., could be collected. They could be at the end of the article, but I can think of 20 topics off the top of my head
The big problem I have with the current version is the footnotes. As a summary article, I don't feel it needs to be exhaustively sourced as the main articles will do that....Also, the references that are there represent a very limited set of viewpoints. Of the six works above, only God's War is cited, just once. I would suggest that citations point the reader to a variety of works that are accessible rather that a bunch of books people are not likely to have. With the exception of the Routledge companion, all of the sources above a available on-line. Older works lay Michaud, Archer, Mills and Munro are accessible in English and are surprisingly good reads. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's my cut at them (only 19): Art and Architecture, Military Arms and Armament, Assassins, Crusader Castles and Fortifications, Chivalry, Criticism of Crusading, Economy of the Levant, Financing the Crusades, Archaeology of the Holy Land, Numismatics and Sigillography (coinage, etc.), Historiography, Holy Relics, Itineraries and Travelogues, Ideology, Literature of the Crusades, Naval history, Propaganda, Recovery of the Holy Land, Women in the Crusades.
Worth noting that on where to stop 1798 has become a common view amongst pluralist historians, even then with an Aftermath/Legacy section. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Exactly that @Dimadick, although for arguments sake Riley-Smith extends this to 1890 as there were still military orders being formed. The only dates that actually seem to have common currency is this one and 1291, all others are very vague. I am not making a case for any of these, only raising what historians say on the matter. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Looks like this RFC timed out, in part because of the way it was phrased. Will re-raise with a simplified question that moves towards what appears to be the majority view here Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
No Summoned by bot, so I have no background here. But isn't that what this article is already about? I don't see that any good can come from splitting out more than 75% of the content of a GA. And if the content wasn't to be split out, that seems awful duplicative. When readers search "crusades", they are looking for the crusades in the holy land during this time. I'll admit to being unfamiliar with the broader dispute, but it strikes me as just semantics. Sure, other people may have called their campaign a crusade, but the COMMONNAME refers to 1096-1271. If the concern is that this article is too MILHIST...that is what the crusades were. Perhaps the solution to that problem is to make it clear in the lead that this article is the military history of the crusades, and more prominently link to the crusading movement (which itself is in sore need of cleanup). CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓16:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Neutral. We would need a general article about the crusades (including those fought in many parts of Europe), and we need articles about individual crusades. For the time being we have two general articles, and we have dozens of articles about individual crusades. A new Frankenstein style article could be composed from parts of other articles, but are we sure it would add value? Borsoka (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Mild oppose. As proposed it does would be duplicate of much of this article, and that would just mean doubling the maintenance and editing for any further edits. If unstated it assumes moving that content, then no - that seems already rejected by prior discussions. Actually, the content of this article is focused more on what people mean by generic mentions of ‘Crusades’ and expect so the current seems best. Only change I can see would be to break the ‘Other’ section into subsections (e.g. Northern, Political, etc.) so there are headers in the index and they are more clearly summaries of those articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Mild oppose -- This article is already covering what the nom wants. There might be a case for a short list article, with a very short description of each one, including those other than to Outremer. as this one is so long as not to be easy to use. Alternatively, this article could be purged with material being moved to more detailed articles on each crusade. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Support Splitting, Neutral on How to Split - WP:SPLIT suggests that splitting should "probably" be done when over 60kb of text, and "almost certainly" happen when an article's size exceeds 100kb of text. As of right now, the page is around 113kb of text. It seems unambiguous to me that it should be split... as to how? I don't know. Would splitting Crusades for the Holy Land from other kinds of Crusades be sufficient, or would it simply cause the new article to be too large as well? I'm not sure. All I'm sure about is that this article is currently WP:TOOBIG. Fieari (talk) 07:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Neutral This article and sub-articles on others crusades are quite heavy (far beyound 60kb threshold). I don't think it's possible to WP:SPLIT them easily in manageable manner. Initially I thought this would be a good idea to "unload" some material to sub articles but it seems unlikely. Sub-articles need to be unloaded as well... AXONOV(talk)⚑11:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Clarification. This RFC is whether there should be another article devoted solely to the Crusades to the Holy Land from 1096–1271. There has been no proposal to split the article. BTW, the guidelines are for readable prose, not mark-up text, and are just that, guidelines. To put things in perspective, the longest 10,000 articles in Wikipedia are all above 153k, so good luck in ridding the world of articles above 60k.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
No. I've read literally scores of books about this time period, and WP:COMMONNAME easily applies, meaning that Crusades is the correct title for this article. The disambiguation link at the top to Crusading movement is an easy direct to where the other topics are covered. As for the argument about the article getting too big, there are plenty of other ways to address this, such as by condensing sections and moving to subarticles such as Kingdom of Jerusalem and Second Crusade. --Elonka06:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
No - there were other crusades (for instance, against the pagans by the Teutonic knights) but the everyday usage of "the Crusades"WP:COMMONNAME and the main activity, was in the Holy Lands. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Portugal's independence was made official in 1143
In the article is stated that " By the time of the Second Crusade the three Spanish kingdoms were powerful enough to conquer Islamic territory—Castile, Aragon and Portugal.[192]"
The Second Cruzade started in 1147 when Portugal's independence from kingdom of León was agreed in Zamora's treaty in 1143.
Portugal was not a Spanish kingdom as stated in the article. So I propose to rephrase the statement for clarity. 113.52.64.190 (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Video content
Gesta Francorum - Liber VI (Battle outside Antioch) - one of the major primary sources, read in Latin with English subtitles
I'd like to add this video to the historiography section of this page, as it would give readers a genuine flavour of the original sources discussed, the language and framing of the Crusades by those sources, in a relatively unobtrusive and easy to consume way. The video has English subtitles but is read in the original Latin. This kind of content gets a lot of views - videos usually get watched by around 10% of page readers – so I feel this would get a lot of attention and be a valuable and popular resource. It is also on the Gesta Francorum page, of course, but would be found by far fewer readers there. --Jim Killock(talk)11:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
On a second view, I think this is appropriate for the historiography section of the First Crusade and have added in back in that article. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Reasons and "usuality" of the sack of Constantinople
From everything I read about the fourth crusade and the sack of Constantinople, the stated reasons for the attack and the description amount to absolutely appalling justification and marginalization of a horrendous crime. This has to be corrected.
The first part, "The crusaders were without ships, supplies or food, leaving them with little option other than to take by force what Alexios had promised." is a proven lie. They were neither without food nor ships, they could have returned to their homelands with no problem. That sentence is clearly a mean attempt to justify the purely greed-driven attack and almost complete destruction in the most brutal way possible by saying "well, you have to know, they were a bit hungry".
If you don't have any credible source that demonstrates they were without food and ships, then you must delete that part immediately. Because I have seen this justification nowhere else, also not on any Wikipiedia pages concerning the fourth crusade and the sack of constantinople, both in English and in German, I checked them all. Could it be that the writer is by chance of venecian of french origin?
But then it gets even worse:
"The Sack of Constantinople involved three days of pillaging churches and killing much of the Greek Orthodox Christian populace.[120]"
Well, this is not a lie as such, but all other sources I checked also mentioned the wide-spread raping of women and even nuns. The Wikipedia page "Sack of Constantinople" states: *Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared, not even the tombs of the emperors inside the St Apostles church. The civilian population of Constantinople were subject to the Crusaders' ruthless lust for spoils and glory; thousands of them were killed in cold blood. Women, including nuns, were raped by the Crusader army, which also sacked churches, monasteries and convents. The very altars of these churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by the warriors."
The last sentence then is just plainly ridiculous, you can't be serious?:
"While not unusual behaviour for the time, contemporaries such as Innocent III and Ali ibn al-Athir saw it as an atrocity against centuries of classical and Christian civilisation."
So, you're basically claiming: "Yeah, that's just how it just was back then, raping nuns and completely destroying a city just for the money, we all did it, didn't we?". Apart from that: The Sack of Constantinople was not only condemned by a couple of romantic hippies back then, it was seen as one of the cruelest atrocities in Europe all over the time until today. Except maybe in Venice and in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtas (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Worth baring in mind that Sack of Constantinople is a C-Class article tagged as need of additional citations since 2017, whereas this article is an A-Class Good article. While not unusual behaviour for the time, contemporaries such as Innocent III and Ali ibn al-Athir saw it as an atrocity against centuries of classical and Christian civilisation is cited to Tyerman, possibly the leading living Crusade historian writing in English today. The section in question also includes citatations to Asbridge & Jotischky, both active academics. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the ‘While not unusual’ phrase as that is contrary to the rest of the line mentioning contemporaries denouncing it. And obviously, pillaging Constantinopolis was not the norm for Crusades. Not as clear what to do for the other bit ‘little option other than to take by force’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I have rephrased and restored the meaning that it wasn't unusual considering the norms of the time, indeed the crusaders had sacked Christian Zara only months before. Also elaborated on the lack of options. I removed the rogue Asbridge citation and extended the Tyerman one. As it stands now it pretty much matches the source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Where did you get the "lack of options" bit from? From all I read, there was no lack of options at all, the reason for the sacking was simply driven by the fact that the crusaders were not able to pay the Venetians. Also, your arguing that it wasn't unusual for that time because the exact same party raided Zara month before seems highly strange. Have got any other "usual" sackings of christian cities by christians apart from the two of the fourth crusade, to justify your claim? Timtas (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
It comes from the source. The source is Tyerman, possibly the leading living crusade academic working in English at the moment. That is how Wikipedia works. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Recent Edits
I'm not sure why this material was added back in. It was moved to Crusading movement for good reason and after much discussion. As to the other edits, it's impossible to tell what they are, given the extensive changes to the structure and content. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion it should be restored. But then in my opinion the whole state-of-two-articles is a clusterfuck. I came here to add a link to criticism of crusading, but there is no place for it in this article now. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Everything that is not military history is gone from this article, save terminology and historiography. You can see the edit from 5 February that attempted to restore it. Srnec (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
That is a curious edit, assumption would be that it comes from some previous iteration of the article. Unless of course it was written in a single edit or worked up in a snadbox. Perhaps Worldwar1989 would care to explain. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
When you reverted to an old version, you threw away months of edits, particularly in the military history write-ups. As to the ancillary sections, I have no problem if they're included as long as the write-ups are decent and they are relevant. Most of them in the history would need to be completely rewritten. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I restored a sentence deleted by @Dr. Grampinator with the comment nonsense. It was supported by a source (Asbridge), and the source quoted Abd al-Latif Hamza the struggle against Zionist has reawakened in out hearts the memory of the crusades realting this to the 1948 foundation of Israel. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I know I'm alone on this quest (or should I call it a crusade), but it seems like the legacy of the crusades is a lot more than a couple of these examples. I don't know who Abd al-Latif Hamza is, but he doesn't know much history if he thinks the foundation of Israel resembles the crusades in any way. As to the right-wingers, Koch's paper is actually pretty good (although the links provided don't seem to work), but would we say that the QAnon Shaman of 1/6 is part of the legacy of the Vikings? The KKK reference is interesting though. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
No argument here @Dr. Grampinator, our friend @Srnec restored the additional topics including the Legacy section. Legacy could be an article on its own, so two examples doesn't even touch the sides. The point that Asbridge was making I believe is that Muslim commentators used the historiography of the crusades to create a political narrative on Israel, not that the creation of Israel was a legacy. It fits in with arguments that some others like Madden make about 9/11, Bush and the war in Iraq. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
As of July, does this article strike anyone else as uncharacteristically flowery for a WP article? Relatively few citations for a surprising amount of narrative detail in many sections? They could just be succinct summaries of the more specific articles (individual Crusades, etc.) linked. The writing seems to be trying to capture a spirit and fervor of the subject itself, which is inappropriate and non-neutral. I'm not sure if this is related to these other recent changes but would like to discuss. Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree whole heartedly @Allanaaaaaaa, imho this is the best version of the article: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Crusades&oldid=921736303. The flowery style seems to come from Runciman, more literature than history. Some of the sourcing is now quite dated, the citation style is muddled (it once was consistent on Harvard) and there are works in the Bibliography that are not referenced. That said I am not editing here these days, or trying to stay away, so it is better if @Dr. Grampinator comments. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Allanaaaaaaa: As usual, @Norfolkbigfish and I disagree on Runciman, but that's a different subject. Responding to the "flowery" comment, I think everyone agrees that such writing should be toned down. As a bunch of us have been working back and forth on this for a couple of years, a fresh bit of editing like you've been doing is good. Go for it. A response to the other comments:
The writing seems to be trying to capture a spirit and fervor of the subject itself, which is inappropriate and non-neutral. Any such writings should be fixed to be encyclopedic. Please point any such writings out and I'll help fix them.
Relatively few citation for a surprising amount of narrative detail. True, not every factoid has a citation, but rather are mostly at the paragraph level, but all are supported by linked articles.
They could just be succinct summaries of the more specific articles. This has been discussed much. I like the current level of detail as it allows a reader to see the whole picture. It covers enough of the information in two Info Boxes of Crusades and Battles to make narrative sense. That being said, there's generally a modestly heated argument on the subject every year or so, and we're overdue, so stand by. In my opinion, the article is not overly long for an important historical subject covering multiple centuries and theaters.
Sourcing and bibliography. Again, some disagreements but there seem to be a lot more priorities.
As to the 17 October 2019 version, much of that is now in Crusading movement and I think the "In Europe" section is probably better. I've been thinking about trying a fix in the current version, now called "Other Crusades," but haven't gotten around to it. The Levant Crusades stuff has been significantly updated and I would fight a return to the older versions of that. The Historiography section there is just flat out wrong and has been corrected and enhanced here and in Crusading movement, as well as individual Crusades write-ups. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both! I am not a subject expert here and I may also stay away if it's time for a fiery debate, but if this article is in no danger of major reversion I can keep doing my little edits. Some thoughts for kindling:
My first impression was the need to neutralize the language, spell out things non-Christians may not know, and be more clear about sources' claims vs. facts.
Second impression is that there is work to be done reducing redundancy to other articles. "Reducing redundancy" has the elegant benefit of cleaning up language and limiting some of the harder-to-cite stuff in this article. There is probably an example every few sentences; one, the claim that the crowd shouted "Deus vult!" is more thoroughly and evenly discussed in First Crusade#Council_of_Clermont, but this article does a disservice. (Plus the citation in this article actually suggests it was engineered.) I hope that is a good illustration of where "the current level of detail" might stand some improvement. Some things can't be stated simply without becoming inaccurate. To save a deep dive on every factoid (that is already done elsewhere), cutting things is an expedient solution. (Plus it makes future edits easier, if you only have to do them in one place.....)
Criticism of crusading seems like a fragment and could be folded into one of the two articles; ditto the Islamic views on the crusades. Perhaps into a Legacy section. Women in the Crusades could also use some work (reads like it came from a student essay) and then perhaps merged in to its own section.
Clearer (layman) distinction between the two articles would be appreciated. I find Crusading movement's "This article is about the ideology and institutions associated with crusading" ambiguous, if someone could improve that (and put the improved line at the top of both articles?). I think it indicates that Crusades is (should be) strictly a play-by-play article ("For the expeditions themselves"), which would be good guidance for me and others if so. No desire to reopen the debate from that talk page, just looking for a more decisive phrasing. Perhaps where you're heading is, Crusading movement is the parent article and Crusades is more like "List of the Crusades"?
My first impression...You'll have to be more specific (as you were below).
"Deus volt" was included here because it enhances the paragraph. The more detailed explanations are interesting but don't do much to clear things up. The only contemporaneous source is Robert the Monk (see the explanation in Council of Clermont or in the section in the First Crusade and the existing sentence, I think, is an accurate paraphrasing. The citation used is from Tyerman who includes "probably led by a papal claque". He references Runciman who goes to Robert the Monk's original. I'm not sure where he came up with that and I didn't include it because it doesn't add anything to the discussion in this article. It is mentioned in Deus vult but, again it is an aside. So I dispute your implication that what is said is inaccurate.
Criticism of crusading is a new article that should be summarized here. Islamic views on the crusades is not a very good article and I wouldn't reference it. The subject is treated well in the various historiography write-ups. Women in the Crusades is probably the first article I wrote on the Crusades, maybe 6 years ago. It was intended to be more of a list and I don't think this article needs a section on it.
Your discussion on the difference between Crusades and Crusading movement captures the crux of a long-running argument. Most agree that Crusades is the parent article, some disagree. By the way, there is an article List of Crusades (which, coincidently, I wrote). Curiously, the list article is actually long than the Crusades article. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, "enhances the paragraph" is the perfect way of putting it. Anything that "enhances" can likely be cut; it's basically non-Wikipedian by definition. Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, if we get rid of everything that enhances a paragraph, we won't have much of anything. The "Deus volt" reference is in every book about the Crusades and has its own article in Wikipedia, so it probably deserves a mention. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. The sources for it are pretty unreliable, as written the implication is that there is a certainty it actually happened which clearly is not the case. That leaves the choice of expanding and qualifying the event or excising the reference. The article has a lot to get through in 10,000 words, and it is covered more appropriately in the First Crusade. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
That may be, but it doesn't address @Allanaaaaaaa's challenge that the sentence is flowery and unnecessary. There is more than enough more important content to fill numerous WP articles on the subject. Wisconsin is both dated and error prone and the fact the phrase is used as an epigraph does provide a citation that it was spontaneously cried at Clermont in the way suggested–although it was a general battle cry that is not what its use here suggests. It is clearly not critical as Riley-Smith & Asbridge have written books on the First Crusade without mentioning at all, neither did Tyerman in his last general work on the crusades. Even the briefest of searches across secondary sources suggest it is possibly invented propaganda first detailed years after event by Robert of Rheims and not included in other primary sources. I may have missed something of course, but clearly to write as fact without context is clearly ahistorical and dubious I suspect. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
+1. If Fulcher is more authoritative and Robert The Monk is the "dramatic" one as per the other relevant Wikipedia pages, it seems better than even odds it didn't happen (imagine Fulcher leaving such a powerful moment out?).
I imagine there will be many similar issues of primary source access and evaluation, or citation-laundering (where a large number of modern sources need to be traced back laboriously to one singular claim such as this) given the age of the topic. We can simply sidestep such complicated questions of internal (across WP) consistency by cutting things that need this level of elaborative detail or debate. "Pretty thin on detail" is subjective and I disagree - this article will still have plenty to work with. Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Dead right @Allanaaaaaaa, Robert the Monk is typical in that he was writing propaganda for a purpose, rather than a factual account. This is better examined in thr Historiography of the Crusades than here. There is more than enough objective material to fill this article without including supposition, the subjective and surmised motivations of partcipants. I would go further and say this goes for some older secondary sources as well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
News arrived that the Fatimids had taken Jerusalem from the Seljuks, making it imperative to attack. is another example that seems ahistorical and unjustified. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm only going to address the last comment as the other material above is best discussed in the context of other articles (although I'm intrigued as to how you calculated the odds of Fulcher being more accurate than Robert). The sentence:
"News arrived that the Fatimids had taken Jerusalem from the Seljuks, making it imperative to attack."
is, in my view, a perfectly good summary of pg. 89 of Asbridge, and is neither ahistorical nor unjustified. It could be expanded or reworded...feel free to do so. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
It was a bigger edit than I thought. Expanded the sentence to include who brought the news and what advantage that could lead to. Also ce the rest of the para to improve chronology. All cited to Asbridge 2012. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Inability to achieve precise scopes for high profile articles with ambiguous terminology
I am minded to write a Wiki-essay about the failed effort to reach a decision here about what the scope of this article should be. The same thing has been going on for a few years at Art. Both “Art” and “Crusades” are frequently used with two scopes – one broader and one narrower. In both cases we are stuck with a top level article trying to be both narrow and broad at the same time (for “Art” narrow = Visual Arts and broad = The Arts; for “Crusades” narrow = Holy Land Crusades and broad = Crusading movement).
It turns out there are enough editors who think such imprecision is ok, so we cannot fix this. If anyone can think of any other article groups which have faced this situation, please let me know. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The effort has not failed to reach a decision about the article's scope. There is a consensual view that this article covers the military history of the numbered crusades (including the Fourth Crusade) and the Crusading movement article is dedicated to other aspects of crusading. I think the articles have failed to present this consensus. This article is a detailed history of Outremer, the other article is an arbitrary and incoherent collection of texts copied from an encyclopedia about the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Very interesting question Onceinawhile. One of the weaknesses of WP is the challenge of ambiguity. Academic crusade historians largely ignore definition of the crusades these days, unless they are looking for a contentious fun debate. Simply put there is no consensus among them, so it would be impossible to get consensus on WP. The scope question reached an uneasy truce rather than consensus. Whenever this has been put to the wider community there has been been a plurality based on WP:Commonname that the scope of an article called Crusades is a traditionalist & creationist one that ranges between 1095 and 1271CE and focusses on the objective of winning and holding the Holy Land from the Muslims. Other definitions exist.
I have personally been on a intellectual journey where my opinion started with the above definition, became quite swayed by the wider Riley-Smith view and now rather sit with the camp that believes definition is arbituary and unimportant. The Crusading movement article is an attempt to articulate the wider context, but this is quite gnarly as a subject and some editors find this impossible to understand: touching as it does on mythhistory, memorialisation and historiography rather than kings, battles and dates. This is where academics are researching. The days of Steven Runciman style narrative history is largely gone, replaced by a plethora of specialisms that place the subject within the political, economic and historical context. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
There have been a number of complaints over recent years that adjusting the balance of the actual articles has failed to keep up with the notional scopes arrived at through lengthy talk discussions. I'm not sure there is actually much disagreement about this, more a lack of anyone willing to take on the large task of getting the text to reflect that balance. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod: the reverse is true. Editors are unwilling because writing to a mix of broad-and-narrow definitions based on a "consensual truce" (as Norfolk rightly puts it) is a recipe for long-term instability and poor article quality. It would be a waste of time.
Clear and precise article scopes attract editors; the opposite repels them.
Not really, though the instability on the talk page has put some editors off, as they have said in the past. But I see we are falling into the usual pattern here - lots on talk & nothing done to the article. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
One can hardly say that nothing has been done to the article: one of the articles was rewritten and a new article was created. That one of them should be shortened, the other should be rewritten from the start does not contradict this statement. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Reflecting on Johnbod's comment, I think the problem is "notional scopes arrived at through lengthy talk discussions". If the scope isn't 100% clear from the title, and needed debate, we have a problem. And "notional scopes" discourage editing. I found a couple of other examples of this: (1) Backgammon vs Tables games (the topics are the same; the former refers to the Western Standard, the latter to backgammon around the world); and (2) Arab–Israeli conflict and Israeli–Palestinian conflict (neither of which cover the whole story, so there is no clear "top level" article). Onceinawhile (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile, probably less about the notionality of the scopes but rather some of the behavours amongst some editors that the abiguity causes. Editors just don't want the hassle. The scope qustion (at least as far as WP is concerned, academic historians cannot, and probably never will, agree on what a crusade was. They probably shouldn't anyway, it is irrelevent in historical terms anyway, to have a single all encompassing definition) seems pretty much settled. However, I doubt any editor wants to adjust the balance, as @Johnbod put it, of the articles for fear of oppening up the entire debate again. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Onceinawhile is something of a, er, crusader, for very precise scopes, which is fine, but these aren't always achievable, since we can't make up our own and have to follow RS. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Dozens of reliable sources about the crusades/crusading movement present it within the political, economic, historical, ideological, etc. context. Actually, all reliable sources about the subject provide a wider picture. The principal problem is that the Crusading movement article is not edited based on books about the subject but on articles quite arbitrarily chosen from an encyclopedia about the crusades and on articles of limited scope. A high-level article about the crusades should present the connections between history, ideology, economic issues, etc. based on monographies dedicated to the subject and we should follow their approach. The Crusades article is rather an original and Romantic compilation of texts about the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Borsoka (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey @AirshipJungleman29, I can't claim too much credit for comming up with the idea plethora of specialisms that place the subject within the political, economic and historical context as it largely paraphrases Christopher Tyerman, Professor of History of the Crusades at the University of Oxford. But I don't necessarily disagree with your point. @Dr. Grampinator has been steadily repairing this article to match what is WP:Commonname for the Crusades e.g. a narrative of the Canonical crusades, military history and other campaigns for Jerusalem. @Onceinawhile's pholosophical question then applies, as this article is then a subset, of the total topic rather than a superset under which a number of shorter treatments could sit comfortably. And that total topic is a rather deffuse, undefined and ambiguous one. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that the Crusades article is not an encyclopedic article about the Crusades, but an essay on the history of Outremer, while the Crusading movement article does not present the movement as a whole, but offers us a random collection of texts about seemingly diffuse topics. Borsoka (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish, of course crusading movement is a subset, but it can also be a set in itself—as Borsoka notes, the selected topics are pretty random and discussed with varying degrees of detail, from the superficial detailing of any culture, to the smallest minutiae of idealogical development. Splitting off smaller articles would solve this problem, and I will probably start doing so in around October.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Welcome aboard, sincerely, I look forward to seeing you do this @AirshipJungleman29. Criticism of the Crusading movement has been largely subjective so far, and hopefully this will bring some welcome objectivity to the debate, that article, this one, and the entire topic on WP. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Norfolkbigfish: perhaps you want to withdraw the Crusading movement article from the FAC list. You probably remember that only after reading a sole section many instances of original research and close paraphrasing could be detected ([4]). FAs cannot contain original research and close paraphrasing - these are quite objective requirements. Borsoka (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. It is appreciated, but I will decline in part because it is not on the FAC list. There is no original research (everything sourced to a variety of works, predominently Riley-Smith and the Oxford History of the Crusades), it has been through a thorough rewrite and GOCE copy edit since the quoted edit from back in April 2022. If you want to help please feel free to list any suspect close paraphrasing or original resaerch at Crusading_movement#Close_Paraphrasing_&_Original_Research and I will remediate when I have the opportunity. I am happy to let the GAR take its course for objectivity & wait until @AirshipJungleman29 goes about his work in October. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, yes, it is a GAN. It should be withdrawn from the GAN lists for the same reasons. That a sentence is followed by a citation does not mean it does not contain original research. No, I will not review it now because I do not have time due to real life obligations. Borsoka (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Some editors such as Borsoka say that agreed upon "notional scopes" were not achieved in practice and AirshipJungleman29 suggests that it cannot be achieved and proposes You know, Theology of the Crusades, Ideological evolution during the Crusades, an expansion of Popular crusades, maybe Culture of the Crusades, etc. This started because Onceinawhile has noticed a similar scope issue in other articles and is thinking writing an essay on this issue from a general perspective. His solution is to have articles with clearer focus. Norfolkbigfish and Johnbod say that it's not always possible, because of the nature of the subject itself. However, Norfolkbigfish is welcoming AirshipJungleman29. I will make the same point that I always made regarding scope: there is never only one way to separate a topic in different articles.[1] More importantly, it is so easy to connect a content in one article with a content in another that the way we separate a topic in different articles can not be that important. Of course, the way we connect different contents is fundamental and very important, but that is a different issue. Therefore, my recommendation is always the same: put the focus on content. The only issue if we have many articles such as is proposed by AirshipJungleman29 is that there might be overlaps, say, for example, between Theology of the Crusades and Ideological evolution during the Crusades, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with overlaps. They might even have a useful purpose. If they don't, we should avoid them. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Your chessboard analogy is a very good way to analyse the situation, Dominic Mayers. I would note that at present, we have one article (Crusades) which purports to cover all the rows, and one article (Crusading movement) which purports to cover all the columns. The trouble is, that if you have one article which covers all the rows and one which covers all the columns, you have two articles covering exactly the same whole, which naturally leads to confusion as to which is for what. Crusades has subarticles which purport to cover each row individually; Crusading Movement does not. It is this imbalance which I seek to fix. Thank you.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I can accept the present binary structure with an article about the classical crusading campaigns and a separate article about the entire movement, but for the time being none of the articles covers it subject. The Crusades article could be improved through deleting large chunks of texts form it, but the Crusading movement article is a classical example of original synthesis, or it is rather an original collection of randomly copied, often misinterpreted texts. Borsoka (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Notes on Inability to achieve precise scopes
^Think of the topic as a chess board. Some might want to cover the white squares and then the black squares. Others might want to cover each columns separately. Yet others might want to cover the rows separately. They all cover the same topic. There will be overlaps, but they can be justified, because, for example, there might be things that are better explained in the context of rows. It's just a way to visualize. In our case, the rows could be the different periods and the columns could be different aspects such as theology.
I think the lead image should be from the First Crusade, something from the Salles des Croisades. Two come to mind: Siege of Jerusalem by Émile Signol and Godfrey of Bouillon is chosen as King of Jerusalem by Federico de Madrazo. I don't know if the images are in Wikipedia. Also suggest whatever image is selected, the other one becomes the lead image of the First Crusade. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Any such images are anachronisms. Even without comtemporaneous representation,the use of 19th century images, couched as they are in terms of nationalism and reinterpretation, is misleading and not really encyclopedic wouldn't you think? A diagram, photo of an artifact or one of the Holy Sepulchre as it is today would be far more precise. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
@Dr. Grampinator I don't think it needs to be from the First Crusade as this article is about the Crusades as a whole series, not just the first one. The Salles des Croisades was painted hundreds of years later, and whilst the 14th-century miniature isn't contemporary either, it is closer to the event. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I understand that the article is about the Crusades in general, but if you had to pick a single image to represent the whole endeavor, you certainly wouldn't pick the Second Crusade. My choices would include images of Godfrey of Bouillon, Richard the Lionheart or Saint Louis. They are the "heroes" of the Crusades. These miniatures, while done closer to the time of the Crusades, are not very good as lead pictures. Perhaps the Salles des Croisades paintings are a little over the top, but how about something from the works of Gustave Doré? The photo of Jerusalem is OK or a photo of Krak des Chevaliers might be interesting. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Do we have a medieval map of Jerusalem presenting it as the centre of the world? The crusaders thought they were fighting for the liberation of the Holy City. Alternatively, perhaps a medieval miniature about the 1099 siege of Jerusalem (like this one [5])? Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I like Borsoka's idea of the miniature of the 1099 siege. But I think the First Crusade picture needs to be changed. Peter the Hermit is not indicative of the endeavor. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with moving up the current 2nd pic - it's clear at thumb scale and relatively close in time to the event. There are too many imageless stretches of the article, and some of these other pics not used already could be added elsewhere, avoiding anything after say 1700. All medieval maps need close looking at, & aren't good for the lead - plus they tend not to have north at the top. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Recent Edits to Citations
@ActivelyDisinterested. The edits you made have resulted in error messages, incorrect citations and the section that began with "On 16 January 1120, Baldwin II and the new patriarch..." to be deleted. Please fix this. I don't know why you are trying to "fix" short citations, whereas they are perfectly acceptable. The "fixes" that you are doing provide less information that the original. Please revert back. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
ActivelyDisinterested Hopefully, I fixed all the issues with the sfn's. Let me know if you find any others in Crusades articles, which is what I work in primarily. Sometimes, someone will delete a reference and leave the sfn hanging. Sorry about the mix-ups. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
ActivelyDisinterested Out of morbid curiosity, I did look at the problem list, and went to the First Crusade. I corrected many errors, all likely made my me. You learn something every day. It is very easy to make mistakes on these complex articles. I'll have to check the other articles that I had significant input to. Is there an indicator in a article's talk page that there are structural problems? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Hey @Firsteleventh, I think we may be editing a cross purposes or at the very least over semantics rather than fact.
In The term "crusade" first referred to military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13thcenturies to the Holy Landand along the Baltic Sea. The conflicts to which the term is applied have been extended to include other campaigns initiated, supported, and sometimes directed by the Roman Catholic Church against pagans and heretics, or for alleged religious ends. the highlighted part is covered by the second sentence.
This is a Terminology section and the subject of the sentence is the English word crusade. The usage of the word first in the first sentence is important. The Oxford English Dictionary notes the first known usage in 1577 complies to the sentence as written and this was then later transferred to the wider definition, albeit relatively quickly. Fully accept the pluralist definition that the article uses and your points for the edit but think some of the clarity has been lost lost in this section over time. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Norfolkbigfish As you know crusade grew out of "cruciata" and "crucesignatus", which Chris Maier has pinned to the early decades of the 12thC. The concept of being "on crusade" was established in England by the the time of the Third Crusade and appears in Latin in the Pipe Rolls by 1189. By this point, Pope Eugenius III had already extended crusader privileges to cover the Wendish Crusade of 1147 in his second "Divina dispensatione". It in unsurprising, therefore that the Pipe Rolls specify they were on crusade "to Jerusalem" - there being no need to specify destination if it only meant an expedition to the Levant. This is usefully illustrated by the use of crusade for a Papally endorsed war in England in the vernacular work, The metrical chronicle of Robert of Gloucester (c.1300), "Erles & barons & kniʒtes þer to Habbeþ bi souʒt þe pope croiserie biginne [against King John]..", i.e the First Barons' War. Firsteleventh (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
All good @Firsteleventh, but why extend in the first sentence to the Baltic but not to against the Wends that you mention, Reconquista etc or rather omit? Genuine question rather than passive agression. Doesn't the second sentence account for this? Feel free to edit into the article and I won't revert again, instead we can discuss here. That is without opening up the whole what was a crusade debate which could probably take a whole WP article on its own and if debated by two crusade historians end up with three different opinions. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I see you guys have been busy this morning. I hope it's not too late to jump into this conversation, but I think by revising the Terminology Section by adding material that has long since been deleted without a discussion does the readers a disservice. I am of course referring to the discussion of Constable's thesis, which in my opinion confuses rather that enlightens. In addition, it is neither true nor relevant, despite the fact that there are two sources for it. More on this later.
But first, I am returning the sentence "The term's usage can create a misleading impression of coherence, particularly regarding the early crusades, and the definition is a matter of historiographical debate among contemporary historians." to its original. The phrase "misleading impression of coherence" is an opinion, not a fact. And is dispute that it is being serious debated among contemporary historians. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that's one for @Norfolkbigfish rather than me, but, in my experience, it's not that there is now a consensus amongst crusader historians - more that we've all moved on to other stuff. Firsteleventh (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is opinion. That of Thomas Asbridge as cited. I doubt there is any disagreement that, although historians conventionally use crusade as a descriptor for Christian Holy Wars for clarity this implies a sense of unity and consistency that is misleading. It is easy to agree with @Firsteleventh that historians have moved on from the debate of what a crusade was, except occasionally to be mischievous, without implying there is agreement. The article now says that the terms usage may be misleading but does not tell the average reader why it can be misleading. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Btw @Dr. Grampinator, Thomas Asbridge cites his opinion to heavyweight works by Erdmann, Gilchrist, Edbury, Blake, Cowdrey, Murphy, Flori, Riley-Smith, Morris, and Tyerman. So this is not a glibe phrase that can be lightly discounted. Happy to see any edit that improves the article that takes that into account. The same goes for Constable. It would be wrong to imply through writing a article that takes the pluralist definition that this was uncontentious and that no other definitions are also available. It needs explaining, and that explanation needs citing to WP:RS in order to avoid WP:NOR. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Norfolkbigfish Just because someone wrote something somewhere doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. If you think that the description of Constable's thesis clears things up for the average reader, you are mistaken. For example, the phrase "Pluralists such as Jonathan Riley-Smith concentrate on how the crusades were organised" is nonsense.
Your comment "It would be wrong to imply through writing a article that takes the pluralist definition that this was uncontentious and that no other definitions are also available." is also incorrect. This article does not take a pluralist definition, as discussed by Constable.
This whole discussion might make an interesting article when expanded, but it detracts from a straightforward history.
The key is that the average reader should know that the use of crusade is not a given, that a number of diferent definitions exist.
This article clearly does take a pluralist approach, although heavily slanted towards the East. In that it matches the most commonly understood ideas of crusade.
Constable's chapter is not a thesis, it is just analysis where crusade historians thinking was when he wrote it. That said, with regards to the definition the Riley-Smith comment is not nonsense, it explains the pluralist view albeit in a clumsy way.
I suspect there is nothing straightforward about the history of the crusades. That is why so many historians find it so fascinating and make their life's work in it. This raises the other issue that the article uses many dated sources and as a result ignores much current thinking. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Whilst a blunt instrument as many historians fall between the groups, I think that Constable’s categorisation is a useful way of introducing the diversity of opinion in the use of “crusade”. For transparency, Asbridge was my supervisor and I studied under Phillips before that (so I’m Riley-Smith’s academic grandson so to speak). In my opinion, Riley-Smith sought to place religion back at the heart of crusader studies so his focus was very much on Papal endorsement - the indulgence etc. This meant he was less open to evidence of people considering themselves on crusade without such endorsement. In addition, in my opinion, there is some evidence of a hierarchy in terms of destination with Jerusalem at the peak. Similarly, we have people being papally-recognised as crusaders operating within a predominantly non-crusader force (such as in Iberia, on occasion) and non-crusaders employed within a crusade, i.e. it’s messy. I would hesitate to use ‘misleading’, but think that recognition of diversity should be included under terminology. Firsteleventh (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Firsteleventh I'm glad you're joining the Wikipedia group. It's fun if not modestly frustrating. I am also a PhD, but in math, long since retired, so I have no particular expertise but plenty of time. In the math world, they publish detailed "geneaologies" of who studied with who, and I am the academic descendant of Leibniz. For what it's worth, but not nearly as good as being the intellectual grandson of Riley-Smith. I have been working on the Crusades articles here for a few years, and have rewritten substantial portions of numerous existing articles, including this one and the ones on the First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Crusades. I have also written Historians and histories of the Crusades, Fall of Outremer, The title of Godfrey of Bouillon and History of the Knights Hospitaller in the Levant.
Constable's taxonomy looks good on the surface, but even he admits the problem with calling Riley-Smith a pluralist as he also refers to the popular crusades as such. By his definition, this article is not purely pluralist as we also consider the popular ones. In my opinion, the crusades considered here represent the collective view of modern historians as to what a crusade is. I agree that there should be some mention of the diversity of opinions, but it should be understandable. The Constable discussion does not do that, especially as no one (myself included) knows who Paul Alphandery, Etienne Delaruelle and Ernst-Dieter Hehl are, nor do they care.
"The present volume bears the sub-title, “The Story of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem," in order to make it clear at the outset that we are here concerned only with the Crusades which are Crusades in the proper sense of the word. With the Fourth Crusade, the Latin Empire of Constantinople, and still more with those developments, or perversions of the Crusading idea, which led to the so-called Crusades against the Albigensians and the Emperor Frederick, we have nothing to do."
@Dr. Grampinatorthanks for the welcome. I’ve dipped in and out of the Third Crusade page a few times and need to find time to help more. For a traditionalist, I’d suggest Hans Mayer, but that is based on his work ‘The Crusades’ ignoring any expedition outside the Eastern Med. Firsteleventh (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Firsteleventh I hope you can find the time to "check the work" of this bunch of wannabe historians (especially me). I haven't delved much into the Second, Third or Fourth Crusade articles as there are constant arguments, and they seem to be pretty good. Same for the Barons' and Lord Edwards Crusades. I know Mayer regards himself a traditionalist, but his "The Crusades" does include a section on the Children's Crusade, which is popular not traditional according to Constable's taxonomy. (He recognizes this as a problem in his article.) I'm going to segue on your edits to make the Constable write-up more readable. The names don't need to be there as they don't add anything to the general reader. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I’ll put aside a bit of time each week to offer the odd suggestion, but I can see that the overall standard is already very high. Firsteleventh (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dr. Grampinator-as @Firsteleventh puts it, it is only a tool, useful to explain to the average reader that the definition of crusading, and the numbering of crusades is not emprirical and certainly not black and white as some of the WP artcles imply. If you edit out, and don't replace it with an explanation of the ambiguity then it is misleading as Asbridge put it terms of coherence. FWIW I think you have got the scope of this aricle into a good place, I would be interested to see how it would do if you put it up for WP:FA. With regards to traditionalists Housley considers Flori to be one, although Riley-Smith considered him a popularist. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@Norfolkbigfish, @Firsteleventh. And a happy New Year to you both. As to this discussion, I'm not sure what you are talking about in reference to numbering of crusades as I made no such change (more on this below). What I tried to do was fit a common understanding of Constable's taxonomy into the structure of this article. All I did was delete some names that no one could relate to (Alphandery, Delaruelle and Hehl). If these three are significant enough to be mentioned in an explanation of crusades, then I find myself confused, as I myself have never heard of them. I personally think it reads better now but am open to suggestions.
I think Constable's taxonomy is fine when it comes to "crusades" but not "crusades historians." Even Constable recognizes that Riley-Smith is a pluralist, he also recognizes some of the popular crusades. Same with Mayer. I think a better construct would be: Traditional Crusades (the usual ones from 1095–1291), General Medieval Crusades (later ones, Baltic, Iberian, etc.) and Popular. The use of "crusades" to describe later events is unfortunate but there's not much you can do about it.
Again, in my opinion, trying to over-explain this just makes it more confusing. The last of the Crusades ended in 1272, yet the period goes to 1291. Or should it be 1302? We are certainly not consistent in this article, but does it really matter. A little strategic ambiguity might make people think some.
As to numbering/inclusion of crusades, I can find no consistency among historians. My first book on the subject was Riley-Smith's First Crusaders, where the First Crusade is defined as between 1096–1103. Others spell out the Crusade of 1101, some don't even mention it. After the Fourth, there is no consistent numbering. Some even abandon the numbering at this point.
Having read virtually everything I can find and afford on the Crusades, I think the Wikipedia approach is excellent in terms of scope, understandability and access. Anyone who's brave enough and interested enough will soon figure out that different historians will have their own emphasis and biases. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@Norfolkbigfish I suppose you're right, but when I read the write-up on the Crusades I just couldn't help myself. I went back and looked at the beginning and am convinced that the article is worthless. Quoting "The Great Big Book of Horrible Things" does not seem to be kosher, and in Definition, they seem to equate religious war with war of succession. I'm not going to fall on my sword over this, but my view is that if the Wikilink does not provide any further information, why include it. The opening sentence: "A religious war is a war which is primarily caused or justified by differences in religion" is pretty obvious and the best thing in the article. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Fair point @Dr. Grampinator, agree entirely. There are a lot of sub-standard articles in WP in general and the crusade topics in particular that get w-l because the title exists. Like the slightly humourous metaphor you used not one worth falling on my sword either. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Some restructuring
I did a little restructuring of the latter sections, moving Military orders, Art and Architecture, and Finance to first-level sections. I deleted Female involvement which didn't really fit and wasn't a good write-up, but added Women in the Crusades in See Also. Comments? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
14th-century miniature of the Second Crusade battle from the Estoire d'Eracles
.jpg)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1099_Siege_of_Jerusalem.jpg){kind=link}