Jump to content

Talk:Crusading movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Crusading)
Former good articleCrusading movement was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
February 11, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
July 8, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
September 2, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
June 4, 2023Good article nomineeListed
March 11, 2024WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
April 7, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 10, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 19, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the crusading movement defined concepts of warfare throughout medieval Europe?
Current status: Delisted good article


Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Edge3 (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the Crusading movement created a framework of ideologies and institutions that described, regulated, and promoted the Crusades? Source: Maier, Christoph T. (2006a). "Ideology". In Murray, Alan V. (ed.). The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Vol. II:D-J. ABC-CLIO. pp. 627–631. ISBN 978-1-57607-862-4.
    • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Norfolkbigfish (talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Crusading movement; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Onegreatjoke, many thanks. How about these?

    • ALT1:....that one feature of the Crusading movement was the increasing popularity of models of the prime objective, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, that became embedded in daily devotion, providing a visible sign of what crusading was about. Source: Tyerman, Christopher (2019). The World of the Crusades. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-21739-1.
    • ALT2:....that the crusader states that had been created in the Levant by the Crusading movement became nationalist rallying points and emblematic of western European colonialism in the mid-19th century.Source: Madden, Thomas F. (2013). The Concise History of the Crusades (Third ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-1576-4.

I find it all interesting but have been in amongst it for too long to understand what they lay reader finds interesting. So guidance is welcome. I'll be away for a couple of weeks now, so please be patient with my replies. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onegreatjoke, thanks. I think we are getting there. How about using Levant for the geography? Alternatives would be Near East or Eastern Mediterranean, all of which are pretty much synonyms. I have also wiki-linked what I can.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Norfolkbigfish: Good article, but a much better hook could definitely be made for this nomination. So i'll wait for the new hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: alt2 works though I feel like some wikilinking and clarification would do nicely if it can fit under 200 characters (For example, what is the East?). Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt2 is good now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Norfolkbigfish and Onegreatjoke: I think ALT2 is too long, vague, and winding. Being familiar with the article—good to see it got to GA eventually, how about something like: ALT3 "... that the Crusading movement defined concepts of warfare throughout medieval Europe?" Shorter, sweeter, and more likely to 'hook'. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am ambivalent, what do you think Onegreatjoke Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can approve that. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it is fine by me @AirshipJungleman29 and Onegreatjoke: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke:—I assume all is ok to go with this one? :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just waiting for a promoter, don't worry; neither I nor OGJ can promote it because we're involved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signed for archiving Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV banner

[edit]

This appears to relate to Talk:Crusading_movement/GA4 (GA4) Several scholarly PoVs are overemphasised: The movement enabled the papacy to consolidate its leadership of the Latin church. (A contrasting view is presented by Norman Housley, also cited in the article. /Housley 2006, pp. 147–148/). Housley's historiography mentioned actually appears to agree with the sentence. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Housley writes The one area in which the development of the medieval papacy was indubitably shaped by crusading was the curia's control over the Church at large.
Without wanting to closely paraphrase this looks pretty much the same thing to me. However, would be interested in alternate phrasing suggestions if required. Page 148 btw. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any comment to make @Borsoka? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in the absence of feedback I'll remove the banner. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Crusading movement/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Norfolkbigfish (talk · contribs) 13:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 10:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this under review, as I noted at WT:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: @AirshipJungleman29 and Norfolkbigfish: Where are we regarding the status of this article? It's been a while since this review was updated and with the GANR backlog drive coming up I want to make sure all potential articles are able to be included. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 20:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under review IntentionallyDense. This article has been the subject of significant attention regarding close paraphrasing and copyright, so I'm going through most of the sources to check. As you can see, there are a lot of sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Understandable. Just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten about it. The sources on this article are quite impressive, best of luck to you and the nominator. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Didn't realise that you had started @AirshipJungleman29 - give us a heads up if there remain any areas of concern and we can resolve. It has been redrafted so I am not expecting any, but we will see. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, there are a couple of things I have noticed already, Norfolkbigfish.
      Number one: while the prose is certainly understandable, concise and clear, it is not very well-written. For example, "There was more contractual recruitment. The requirement for intelligence and espionage had grown. Naval warfare was increasingly important. Alliances required grooming. Innovative tactics were developed with different variations deployed depending on circumstances. Expertise in siege warfare were expensive.", with six sentences in two lines, just about meets the GA criteria, but is not "well-written". You will need to work on this if you plan to take this article to FAC.
      Number two, more pertinently for GA and this article in particular, there are still passages that are not supported by sources. For example, in "Legacy", we have:

      "This is a view that was contested. The Latin settlements did not align neatly with the typical definition a colony. They were neither directly controlled or exploited by a homeland. Historians have used the idea of a religious colony in order to accommodate these discrepancies in their colonial theories. A different definition covers a territory conquered and settled with religious motivation. This territory maintains close contact with its homeland, share the same religious views and requires support in both military and financial terms. Venetian Greece carved out of the Byzantine Empire as a result of the crusading movement following the Fourth Crusade offers a better match to the traditional model of colonialism. Venice had a political and economic stake in these territories. Indeed, this was to such a degree that the region attracted settlers that would otherwise migrated to the Latin East. In this way its success actually weakened the crusader states."

      where the latter half of the text is not supported by the provided source, and the sentence "Historians have used the idea of a religious colony in order to accommodate these discrepancies in their colonial theories." I would classify as a misrepresentation.
      This is why, as previous reviewers have noted, the article needs a thorough check for text-source integrity, which I am doing. You may want to conduct your own simultaneous check to eliminate errors before I come across them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How is this misrepresentation? Phillips in the Oxford writes on pages 112 & 113:Some historians believe that the concept of colonialism carries too many emotive associations to be useful when discussing the history of the crusades because it tends to evoke images based upon episodes such as the British settlement of North America or the Spanish invasion of the New World. They maintain that traditional definitions suggest that a colony is politically directed by, or economically exploited for the benefit of, a homeland, or subject to really large-scale migration. These do not fit the Latin settlements in the Levant before 1291.
      Conquest was undertaken to recover and assure the security of Christian control of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and therefore it may be worth putting forward the concept of religious colonization. The resulting 'colony' can be defined as territory captured and settled primarily for religious reasons, the inhabitants of which maintain close contact with their homeland principally on account of a shared faith, and their need for financial and military assistance.
      Looks pretty similar to the point of the sentence, but anny suggestions on wording would be gratefully recieved. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Added page 30 to the citation to support the second half of the paragraph, and reworded as per point one above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Historians" — Phillips does not mention any others, just that this is their viewpoint. "to accommodate these discrepancies in their colonial theories" — there are no disrepancies to be accomodated, just an alternative theory. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I have struck the sentence. I think that addresses all the points raised to date? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusading_movement&oldid=1265562467"