Jump to content

Talk:Crusading movement/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Close Paraphrasing & Original Research

If you have come to this page via WP:3O to offer a Third Opinion, thank you. The initial question and request is in the sub-section Talk:Crusading_movement#3O-How_do_you_word_this_point_about_the_identity_complex_of_the_Latin_Church below. Basically the question is A third opinion is required to resolve a dispute of how to render Andrew Latham's following point into this article in a way that is unstandable to the lay reader. . The section includes two separate instances of what Latham wrote and the current rendering in the article. There is a discussion below that provides useful background to how this point was reached. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this article includes close paraphrasing and original research at talk:Crusades#Inability_to_achieve_precise_scopes_for_high_profile_articles_with_ambiguous_terminology. If so this is inadvertent, but if this is the case please feel free to list here and I will remediate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we can assume that the article includes close paraphrasing and original research. In the first section (1.1 Christianity and war) about 25% of the sentences contained unverified statements or closely paraphrased texts four months ago ([1]). Especially disturbing that a sentence copied from a book was verified with a reference to another book, so the close paraphrasing was only by chance detected. As a (or rather the) major contributor to the article you may want to do your homework and secure that the article does not contain original research and obvious or hidden close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I had some free time so I reviewed the introductory part of the article in section Background. 25% of the sentences again contain unverified statements ([2]). I will not continue the review but I suggest you should withdraw your nomination. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Norfolkbigfish: you deleted one of my tags indicating original research remarking in the edit summary that ""a divinely inspired agent of spiritual renewal within the Christian commonwealth" is the forgivness of sin" this was discussed at Talk before and considered more understandable to the reader" ([3]). First of all, I have not found any discussion you are referring to. Secondly, Latham does not refer to the forgivness of sin, but to the church reform movements of the 10th and 11th century, especially to the Cluniac Reforms and to the so-called Gregorian Reform (See Latham (2011), pp. 230-234). Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Borsoka, you yourself suggested that divinely led method of spiritual renewal within Christendom was not easily understandable and I suggested forgiveness of sin as a reasonable synonym. You did not reply. A quick google would have given you some alternatives. If you object to this you can suggest alternative phrasing that I am sure can achieve consensus. In the meantime I will revert so we can discuss here. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I have restored spiritual renewal, replacing forgiveness of sin. Does this work for you? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, the new phrasing was not discussed. I raised the issue ([4]), you proposed an alternative wording with a reference to the forgivness of sin ([5]), but I did not answer it. Probably because I missed your message due to a new discussion initiated by an other user about your original research ([6] and blatant plagiarism ([7]). Now, you are restoring a version although you know that I think it is not easily understandable to our average readers. You yourself demonstrated that you do not understand this statement when interpreting it as a reference to the forgivness of sin by God! For the time being, the sentence is closely paraphrased and even yourself cannot understand what it means. Please read my previous remark before demanding alternative phrasing. Please also remember blatant plagiarism can cost your editing privileges. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Reworked to The reform of the essential identity of the Latin Church into an independent, motivated by God means of religious rejuvenation within Christendom. and additional Latham citation added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Do you really think that an average reader who have not read Latham's cited works can understand the actual meaning of this sentence? Just a side remark, Latham refers to the church reform movements of the 10th and 11th centuries in both cited works. Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Latham does cover the reform movements of the 10th and 11th centuries, but that is not the subject of the sentence. The subject of the sentence is the idenetity complex of the Latin Church. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

3O-How do you word this point about the identity complex of the Latin Church

@Borsoka—this issue has been discussed enough and is no closer to the disagreement being resolved, despite there being only two editors involved so it is listed at WP:3O.

A third opinion is required to resolve a dispute of how to render Andrew Latham's following point into this article in a way that is unstandable to the lay reader. Currently this is worded as:

The reform of the essential identity of the Latin Church into an independent, motivated by God means of religious rejuvenation within Christendom.

Latham writes:

  • Rather, the crusades were made possible as a result of three key conditions that emerged in the eleventh century and persisted throughout the later medieval era. The first of these was the (re)constitution of the fundamental identity of the Latin Church as a divinely inspired agent of spiritual renewal within the Christian commonwealth. The crystallization of this new identity entailed the emergence of new core interests that placed the Church in a structurally antagonistic relationship with a range of social forces within and beyond Christendom. These included the Empire, heretics, various Muslim polities, and pagans who resisted the Church's evangelizing efforts. The second was the construction of a new social institution—the "crusade"—that reconstituted both the Church as a legitimate war-making unit and the armed nobility as milites Christi willing and able to fight on behalf of the Church and its interests. The third was the development of concrete institutional mechanisms for generating military force to advance and defend the Church's interests. With the emergence of these mechanisms, the structural antagonisms generated by the Church's new corpo rate identity were decisively converted into always-immanent violent conflict between the Church and its adversaries. Once these conditions-of-possibility had crystallized in the late-eleventh century, they made possible not just the First Crusade to Jerusalem, but all the subsequent crusades to the East, as well as those within the Iberian peninsula, along the Baltic coast, and against the enemies of the Church within Latin Christendom.9 Indeed, so crucial were these three developments that, counter-factually, it is hard to imagine anything like the crusades occurring in their absence in Theorizing the Crusades: Identity, Institutions, and Religious War in Medieval Latin Christendom from 2011

and

  • I trace the (re)constitution of the core identity of the Latin Church during the eleventh century from a junior partner of the Carolingian Empire to an independent and divinely inspired agent of spiritual renewal within the Christian commonwealth. in 2012's Theorizing Medieval Geopolitics—War and World Order in the Age of the Crusades

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A third opinion is not about wording. It is you who should provide a text based on Latham's work that an average reader can understand without having read the cited sources. I reformed the request because you did not link the discussion but your presentation. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
On the contrary, given that you that feel that it is unclear, it would be very natural that you propose an improvement and it would have been much appreciated. We are all volunteers here. If you limit your contributions to complaining that it is not clear, that's fine, but you go too far to suggest that it's the sole responsibility of Norfolkbigfish to do so. This being said, even though I don't like when we only complain and do not help to improve the article, one should take this opportunity to try improving the article. I assume here that you at the least spent some effort to find a text in the article that could benefit from being clearer. Indeed, it would be nice to see how Latham himself provides more details on this reform. I assume it includes the principle of forgiveness of sins in exchange of military services. It is perhaps the most pertinent aspect of the reform in Latham's view, but this has to be verified in the sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
If you think you can verify that the forgiveness of sins is the most pertinent aspect of the reform in Lathan's view, please verify it instead of sharing your assumptions with us. Please remember this is a GAN, indicating that the nominator has concluded that he understands what he read in its sources and is able to explain what he wrote in this article to an average reader. Sorry, I do not have time to explain and rewrite all the misinterpreted and out of context sentences in this large collection of texts randomly and incoherently copied from encyclopedic articles and other sources. Furthermore, if you had read my above remarks, you would have realized that I mentioned twice that Latham refers to the church reform movements of the 10th and 11th centuries and its effects on the Western Church. If you had read the article, you would have realised that the reform movements and their effects are mentioned in other sections (although in an extremly chaotic way) so the whole section is unnecessary. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, the identity complex of the Latin church is the subject of Latham's sentence. Secondly, this 3O is about getting consensus of the wording of that in a way that is considered as understandable. As such I have restored the sectioning to match the ask. If you do not agree you can express this here, but do not alter what is quite a neutral question and how that is represented. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish suggests that "reform" in the sentence is not the usual reform that many authors refer to in the context of the Church in the 10th and 11th centuries. It's possible that it's not, but I don't think it's the important question. It could be that it is this reform, but as seen by Latham in the specific context of the crusades. Or it could be that in the context of the crusades, a different reform is considered by Latham. In any case, it's not important. The same point is valid: it would be interesting to see if Latham provides additional details about this specific reform, whatever it is. Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish copied the text from the closing summary section of Latham's article. It does not mention the church reform movements (that is why the copied text cannot be understood without context). However, the narrative part of Latham's article is dedicated to the church reform movements and their effects, including monasticism, papal supremacy and the ban on secular interference in church affairs. I mentioned the relevant pages in one of my above remarks. Borsoka (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
In the point that Latham is making the subject is the identity-interest complex of the Latin Church. It is a point based on the seperate works of Erdmann and Morris. It is the reform of this, rather than the entire church, that Latham refers to in the sentences I have quoted above and are rendered into this article. Morris quoted Erdmann (p144) when he wrote The arrival of the reforming party in control of the Roman Church was, in this as in so many respects, an important turning point because the church reformers were the very men who stood for the idea of holy war and sought to put it into practice. Latham used both sources because this was one of the three key pre-requisites for the crusading movement. As he points out it was impossible for the movement to exist before these were in place, and it was impossible for it to continue in any major sense when they were no longer in place. That is why this small collection of words is important.
Now please stop editing my entries on this Talk page & the request for wp:3o, it is simply wrong and should stop. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, all scholars who wants to introduce the crusading movement have to mention the church reform movements. Lathan also analyzes it - the problem is that the text you copied from his summary to the article does not make it clear because it is out of context. I will not comment on your request for 3rd opinion by referring exlusively to your own summary. Just a side remark: editors ′do not have entries, articles in this encyclopedia because editors do not own anything here. Borsoka (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
You are correct @Dominic Mayers. In the sentence used in the article reform is used as a synonym for the (re)constituition that Latham uses. Change would be just as apt. The subject of the sentence is the core or fundamental identity of the Latin church. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I apologize, but this is a discussion regarding content where I cannot help, because I haven't read enough the sources. It may seem paradoxical, because my key point always has been that the focus should be on content and not on how to separate the topic in different articles and now that the discussion is about the content, I say that I cannot help. I could perhaps help, but I would need to know what Latham has written that helps understand what has been modified by the reform in his view, i.e., what was in his view the reform that created the conflicts. The text cited above mentions the consequences of the reform (in terms of conflicts), but says nothing about the reform itself. I also see that the reform is the first of three ingredients. Separated from the reform there is also the construction of a new social institution—the "crusade" and the development of concrete institutional mechanisms for generating military force. I am expecting a description of the reform that shows it as different from these two other ingredients. I am also expecting a description of the reform that can explain the mentioned conflicts that occurred as a consequence of this reform. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
No need to apologise @Dominic Mayers, your efforts are appreciated. The challenge was that the sentence, and only this sentence, was not understandable to a lay reader. So two questions arise: 1) can you understand the sentence as written; 2) If not, why not? Tell me and I will attempt a mitagation. Not knowing the sources makes you perfect for this task, I think. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the sentence can be and should be understood out of context. The sentence is not clear until you know what is the reform and its meaning should be robust, i.e., in terms of concrete changes that were made in the reform. In this manner, terminology does not matter. Even if some other authors referred to it using a different terminology, we would still be able to see that they are talking about the same reform. It might be that for you, the reform is very well identified, but for me it could be any reform whatsoever. The cited text only mentions its consequences. Ok, I know that you claim that "identity-interest complex of the Latin Church" identifies it clearly, but it's not concrete enough for me. You need to elaborate, so that the reform is well identified outside the cited text in a concrete manner and can also be seen as the first ingredient mentioned by Latham in the text: the fact that it was responsible for the conflicts. [User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Bare with me, @Dominic Mayers, I think we are taking baby steps to objective progress. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to that you need to undertstand two things for the sentence to be understandable:
  • 1) The context or background of the change
  • 2) A description of that change
Is this a good approach? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
If by "change", you mean the reform, then yes. I need to understand the sentence that contains the word "reform", but not in an abstract manner. So, the word "reform" needs a concrete interpretation. The expression "identity-interest complex of the Latin Church" is still too abstract. If there was only one reform of the Church at the time and Latham referred to that reform, the problem would disappear, because then we know what is the reform. Of course, there might be different views on that reform, but that something else. If you insist that there are many reforms, at the least two, there is a need to identify the one we are talking about in a concrete manner. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I googled "identity-interest complex" Latin Church and I only got results from Latham. Could it be that it's an aspect of the reform emphasized by Latham, not a different reform? Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The introductory part in section Background emphasizes Latham's PoV and adopts his wording. Those who understand the text can easily realise that Latham only adopted a special language when describing the church reform movements and their consequences. Furthermore, the same consequences of the church reform movements are presented in the article (in a quite original and unclear way) under sections Christianity and war, and Birth. Consequently, the introductory part in section Background adds value only to editors who do not understand it - they can believe that it contains additional information. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure what is the point that you trying to make with Consequently, the introductory part in section Background adds value only to editors who do not understand it - they can believe that it contains additional information. It sounds as if you find it problematic that the introductory part says nothing that is not in what is being introduced. Anyway, if it is the case, as you say, that Latham only refers to the usual reform in his own language, then I don't see where is the problem. Are you complaining that we could convey the same content in a different language and not have to use Latham's language? Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
If the introductory part of section Background were deleted, no information would be lost - the consequences of the reform movements are already mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
In that case @Dominic Mayers, does this give you context & description?
Further information: Cluniac Reform, Gregorian Reform, and History of the papacy (1048–1257)
The period following the collapse of the Carolingian Empire and the onset of the feudal revolution was seen by a counter movement as an era of decline in morals, and religious institutions. It was considered the result of too much involvement in the dealings of the mundus. In the 11th century the reformers responded primarily with the monasticisation and reform of the clergy. This reform was centred on ideals of personal piety, chastity, moral purity, spiritual discipline, and elaborate liturgies. The clerical reformers viewed themselves as architects of a re-established respublica Christiana. Focussed on the monastery at Cluny this became known as Cluniac reform. Thus, an ideological framework was created for a faction within the clergy who saw themselves as God’s agents of the moral and spiritual renewal of Christendom. (Latham:2012 p110). As church historian Colin Morris noted, quoting Erdmann, this reforming party gaining control of the Roman Church was an important turning point because these were men who stood for the concept of holy war and sought to enact it.(Morris, p144) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Places in the article where I think the text is off-topic

This list of quotes seems to me to be off-topic, and better placed within other articles or left out altogether. Thoughts? Amitchell125 (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  1. Military historians such as Hans Delbrück have considered that medieval warfare did not involve good strategy. The decent tactic was considered to be the concentration of force, locating the enemy's major force and defeating it in battle, followed by the ruthless enforcement of supremacy.  Done
  2. [Odo of Chatillon], who took the name Urban II on his election to the papacy - why are the original names of any of the popes detailed here?  Done
  3. He however died in July 1099 without knowing that two weeks earlier Jerusalem had been captured. Done
  4. The truce Calixtus engineered between Emperor Henry V and the papacy through ratifying the Concordat of Worms at the First Lateran Council in 1123 was the high point of his reign.  Done
  5. he fled Roman politics again until Emperor Frederick Barbarossa enabled his return shortly before his death in 1153  Done
  6. Joachim's view was the new century beginning in 1200 would see the riotous evolution to a third epoch in human history, the age of the Holy Spirit. Joachim's view was the new century beginning in 1200 would see the riotous evolution to a third epoch in human history, the age of the Holy Spirit.  Done
  7. The Church also condemned and suppressed heretics like Amalric of Bena who mixed Gnosticism, antinomianism and pantheism. Only a few years remained before the prophesied eschatological deadline. Done
  8. Despite a broad range of research topics including social memory, prophecy, crowd psychology, charismatic leadership, social dislocation, religious enthusiasm, and the place of preaching, processions, and visual culture in conveying religious ideology within medieval society,  Done
  9. He offered Theodore II Laskaris, the Greek emperor of Nicaea, the surrender of Latin-held Constantinople and restoration of the Greek Orthodox patriarchate in return for acknowledgment of papal supremacy and the reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches. But Theodore died in 1258 and his successor Michael VIII Palaiologos regained Constantinople anyway. Done
  10. The near three-year interregnum between the death of Pope Clement IV and the 1271 election of Tedaldo Visconti as Pope Gregory X is the longest gap between papacies. Done
  11. Gregory created a complex tax system, dividing Christendom in 1274 into twenty-six collectorates. Each of these was under the direction of a general collector who further delegated the assessment of tax liability to reduce fraud. The vast amounts raised by this system led to clerical criticism of obligatory taxation. Not done–this was to fund crusading and is an instituition of the movement Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  12. The visit of a large delegation of Byzantines, including Emperor John V Palaiologos, the patriarch of Constantinople, and seven hundred supporters for talks almost bankrupted him.  Done
  13. The visit of a large delegation of Byzantines, including Emperor John V Palaiologos, the patriarch of Constantinople, and seven hundred supporters for talks almost bankrupted him.  Done
  14. Venice feared Hungary, Italian states feared Venice, France, and Burgundy opposed each other  Done
  15. He founded the League of Venice with the Sforza, Republic of Venice, Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor and the Spanish to fight the French  Done
  16. Teutonic, Portuguese, and Spanish orders continued with limited participation in national military endeavours.  Done
  17. In 1936, the Spanish Catholic Church supported the coup of Francisco Franco, declaring a crusade against Marxism and atheism. Not done–they declared a crusade, maybe meatphorical but it looks like a legacy. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  18. The word "crusade" entered the English language in the 18th century as a hybrid from Spanish, French and Latin.
Started on this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Acts of penitence and remittance—overly duplicated?

Hi, I notice that there are lots of places in the article where the idea of acts of penitence and remittance of sins repeatedly comes up.

  1. Prior to the 11th century, the Latin Church developed a penitential system that provided remission and absolution of sin in return for contrition, confession, and penitential acts.  Done
  2. Therefore, it was a revolutionary innovation at the end of the 11th century that provided equal benefits for those who engaged in Church-sponsored violence as a penitential act. in his 1083 Collectio canonum or Collection of canon law. Gregory offered absolution of sin, via penance Done
  3. Pilgrimage and crusade were penitential acts; popes considered crusaders earned a plenary indulgence giving remission of all God-imposed temporal penalties.
  4. the remission of all atonement for those who journeyed to Jerusalem to free the Church  Done
  5. (Urban directed) the remission of all atonement for those who journeyed to Jerusalem to free the Church Done
  6. Crusading followed this tradition, assimilating chivalry within the locus of the Church through... The remission of sin for knights for killing adversaries. This became a penance of itself, and thus not requiring further penance.
  7. The weakness of conventional theologies in the face of crusading euphoria is shown in a letter from the writer Sigebert of Gembloux, criticizing the theory of penitential war that Paschal expressed in a letter to the crusader Robert II, Count of Flanders. Done
  8. The council extended the decrees of Urban II and Paschal II, promising remission of sin and protections for the property and family of crusaders. Done
  9. (Eugenius III) clarified Urban's ambiguous position with the view that the crusading indulgence was remission from God's punishment for sin, as opposed to only remitting ecclesiastical confessional discipline. Done
  10. The cross symbolized devotion to Christ and penitential exercise. Done
  11. Innocent III emphasised crusader oaths and penitence and clarified that the absolution of sins was a gift from God, rather than a reward for the crusaders' sufferings. … With his 1213 bull Quia maior, he appealed to all Christians, not just the nobility, offering the possibility of vow redemption without crusading. This set a precedent for trading in spiritual rewards, a practice that scandalized devout Christians and later became one of the causes of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. Done
  12. Remediation included penitential marches, Done
  13. Writers sought redemptive solutions in the military and spiritually penitent traditionalist wars of the cross  Done
  14. Christendom was a geopolitical reference, and this underpinned the penitential practice of the medieval Church. Done

Perhaps the ideas around penitence could be collected together and copy edited to reduce any unnecessary duplication? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Started on these @Amitchell125, will take some time as I am going to be away but will ping you for an opinion when done. Thank you again. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Got there earlier than I thought, @Amitchell125. Any good? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey @Amitchell125, thanks again for all your feedback. Will there be any more, or is that you done until something changes significantly? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
More to come shortly. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Redundant prose

  • that emerged in the 11th century and persisted during the Middle Ages. - remove 'emerged in the 11th century and'.
  • the use of the lance, armour (instead of chain mail), and short cavalry charges.[14] It was this development of heavy cavalry - remove 'the lance, armour (instead of chain mail), and short cavalry charges.[14] It was this development of'
  • with power too fragmented to form disciplined organised units that enacted orders, executed strategy, and followed plans - remove 'that enacted orders, executed strategy, and followed plans'
  • An emphasis on popular preaching developed in the 12th century generated a wealth of useful resources such as model sermons, manuals of key themes, and exemplars. - remove 'a wealth of useful resources such as'
  • Some, like the character Aumont in the Chanson d’Aspremont, were represented as equals with regards to loyalty, courtesy, and generosity, even as far as being seen as following the chivalric code. - remove ' with regards to loyalty, courtesy, and generosity'
  • this persecution of Christians required repayment, particularly in the Holy Land but also in other territories historically held. - remove ', particularly in the Holy Land but also in other territories historically held'
  • The view was that these injustices demanded Christian action and created an irreconcilably hostile relationship between the two faiths. - remove 'and created an irreconcilably hostile relationship between the two faiths'
  • The crusade's success was astonishing and seen as only possible via a manifestation of God's will; Pope Paschal II described the success as miraculous. - remove 'Pope Paschal II described the success as miraculous.'
  • The Knights Hospitaller, formally the Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, were founded in Jerusalem - remove 'formally the Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem'
  • The Templars, formally the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon, and their Temple of Solomon were founded around 1119 - remove 'formally the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon, and their Temple of Solomon'
  • these required regular missions for their defence – in 1107/1108 (a failed assault on the Byzantine Empire), 1120-1125, 1128-1129, and 1139-1140 – supported by the developing military orders. The movement expanded into Spain with campaigns in 1114, 1118, and 1122. - remove '– in 1107/1108 (a failed assault on the Byzantine Empire), 1120-1125, 1128-1129, and 1139-1140 –'
  • The Pisan noble Bernard Pignatelli became Pope in 1145 in succession to Lucius II, taking the name Eugenius III. Bernard of Clairvaux influenced him - replace with 'Bernard of Clairvaux influenced Pope Eugenius III'

Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

All done @Amitchell125, thank you. Is there more feedback to come? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Further comments about text that wouldn't be missed

The following, whilst being very much connected with the topic, seem to be more to do with warfare in the Middle Ages than the the crusading movement itself. I would consider cutting out such text.

  1. Chivalry was in its infancy when the crusading movement began. There was no heraldry, important in a largely illiterate society that relied on imagery to impart meaning. References in vernacular imagery and song were sparse. No ceremonies existed, and the nobility was reluctant to associate with a knighthood of lesser status in a general militarisation of society. Before the first crusades, Christian warfare was metaphorically described in Old Testament terms as the Israelites' conquest of Canaan and the wars of the Maccabees. This presented wars against the enemies of Israel as being waged by God's people, under divine leadership against the enemies of true religion Done
  2. From the 12th century, tournaments provided knights with practice, sport, wealth, glory, patronage, as well as public entertainment. Done
  3. Capturing opponents to win weapons, armour, horses, or ransom was the objective, not killing. This created a moral code born out of economic necessity that incorporated a social and religious dimension. Acts of ransom raised considerable sums leading to the ethic that the victors spared defeated knights, but this did not apply to infantry, who were often killed.  Done
  4. It was only with the adoption of infantry and gunpowder in the 14th century that military strategy improved. Done

This text seems to be off-topic as well:

  1. Paschal, previously a monk named Rainerius, upon succeeding Urban, took time to establish his authority. He defeated the three anti-popes that followed Clement III, ending the schism in the papacy, but became embroiled in conflict with Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor and Church reformists, led by his eventual successor Guy, archbishop of Vienne (later Calixtus II), over the right to invest bishops.  Done—at least heavily pruned, what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Amitchell125 (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The idea of a just or legitimate war

@Norfolkbigfish: Hi, thanks for the above. Next, there are lot of places in the article where the idea of a just or legitimate war is considered, and which could be collected together into the section already created, and then copy edited to avoid unnecessary duplication of ideas:

  1. The construction of crusading as a new social institution in which the Church was a legitimate war-making entity that the armed nobility fought for as milites Christi.—  Not done the subject of this sentence is the pre-requisites for crusading rather than Holy War Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  2. The view was that these injustices demanded Christian action—  Not done the subject of this sentence is the perception of Muslims rather than Holy War Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  3. The development of a distinct ideology is evident in the texts that described, regulated, and promoted crusades. The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of pilgrimage. Theology merged Old Testament Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God with New Testament Christocentric views on forming individual relationships with Christ. Holy war was based on bellum justum, the ancient idea of just war. It was Augustine of Hippo who Christianized this, and canon lawyers developed it from the 11th century into bellum sacrum, the paradigm of Christian holy war.[39]— Done
  4. Theologians widely accepted Henry of Segusio's justification that holy war against pagans was just because of their opposition to Christianity. Crusades were special pilgrimages, a physical and spiritual journey under the authority and protection of the Church. [39]— Done
  5. Erdmann documented in The Origin of the Idea of Crusade the three stages of the development of a Christian institution of crusade: • The Augustinian argument that the preservation of Christian unity was a just cause for warfare. • The idea developed under Pope Gregory I that the conquest of pagans in an indirect missionary war also complied. • The paradigm developed under the reformist popes Leo IX, Alexander II and Gregory VII, in the face of Islamic conflict, that it was legitimate to wage war in defence of Christendom.[42]— Done
  6. Crusading was a break with chivalry; Urban II denounced war among Christians as sinful, but fighting for Jerusalem led by a new knighthood was meritorious and holy. This ideology did not support chivalry—only crusading.[51]— Not done the subject of this sentence is chivalry Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  7. the Church viewed Rome as the Patrimony of Saint Peter, and  considered crusades as purely defensive wars to protect theoretical Christian territory.  Done
  8. Advocates present crusader symbols and anti-Islamic rhetoric as an appropriate response, even if only for propaganda. These symbols and rhetoric are used to provide a religious justification and inspiration for a struggle against a religious enemy.[122] —  Not done subject of the sentence is propaganda Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Amitchell125 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you again @Amitchell125, I have actioned half and I am happy to discuss the others if you disagree. The ones not actioned are on the basis that the subject was something else although Holy War was referred to. I think there is a risk that much up the article get sucked into this section, as it is ultimately all about Holy War. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy with what you've done, I merely collected together the parts of the article that made references to the just war concept. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @Amitchell125, as ever much appreciated. Would it be cheeky to ask if there is any more feedback (when it suits you, of course)? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
There is, but I want to check before sending it. As it's a wet day here in Norwich, I'll have time to send over some more ideas. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Bright and Blue today, so not expecting more feedback but will there be more to come @Amitchell125? As ever, everything and anthing always welcome. Quite fancy putting this back through GAN when you think it may be ready. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Some other sentences that are imo off-topic and wouldn't be missed?

  1. Urban was receptive, having concerns about the Muslim threat to Christendom's eastern borders, and hoped to restore unity in the Res publica Christiana.  Done
  2. After the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, there had been a dramatic increase in piety.  Done
  3. In medieval times, ethnic identity was a social construct, defined in terms of culture rather than race. In the 9th century, monk Regino of Prüm wrote: the various nations differ from one another in descent, customs, language, and law. Christians considered all of humanity common descendants of Adam and Eve.  Done
  4. The papacy developed Political Augustinianism into actions to remove the Church from secular control and assert ecclesiastical supremacy over temporal polities. Reformers considered the transformation of clerical behaviour, Christian unity, and doctrinal purity paramount, particularly with regard to relations with the Orthodox Church. This was associated with the idea that the Church should actively intervene in the secular world to impose justice.[40] In the 12th century, Gratian and the Decretists elaborated on this, and Thomas Aquinas refined it in the 13th century.  Not done I have copy edited to trim but this would seem fundamental the Lathem's point that a pre-requisite for the CRusading movement was the instituition of an activist church that believed in asserting the clerical over the secualar. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  5. He became pope at Terracina in March 1088 while the imperialist antipope, Clement III, controlled Rome, and he was unable to enter Rome until 1093 when Clement withdrew. He made decisions that were fundamental for the nascent religious movements, rebuilding papal authority and restoring its financial position.  Done but left the final clause for context. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  6. Relations were fraught between the Latin patriarchate and the monarchy of Jerusalem. Paschal organized the Palestine Church through three legations led by Maurice of Porto in 1100, Ghibbelin of Arles in 1107, and Berengar of Orange in 1115.  Done

Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

As ever @Amitchell125, thank you. What do you think of my responses? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
All understood. I'll get back to you anon, currently on another article. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Can the adjective secular be applied to the Crusading Movement?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As the RFC attracted only 4 editors and little clear commentary I have closed as having No Consensus. I hope no one minds. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on the discussion under the First Crusade, does the Crusading Movement use the term secular in a way that can be understood easily by the modern reader?

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

No Per Seraphimblade comment at the RFC on the First Crusade's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
As Seraphimblade put it—At the very least not without explanation of what "secular" means in that context. To that end I have added a Terminolgy section in which the usage of the word is explained. What do you think @ActivelyDisinterested? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I took Seraphimblade point as defining the meaning of its use when it is used, not by way of a terminology section. If someone is looking for information on the crusading movement in the 15th century, and so skips over the terminology section, they will still be caught of guard by the use of secular. It's better to write in terms in modern understooding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
OK @ActivelyDisinterested, which of these need further explanation:
  • This secularisation was based on juristic ideas of just war to which Lutherans, Calvinists and Roman Catholics could all subscribe, and the role of indulgences diminished in Roman Catholics tracts on the Turkish wars.
  • Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius developed secular international laws of war that discounted religion as a cause in contrast to popes, who persisted in issuing crusade bulls for generations.
  • From the Fourth Crusade, it became an adventure normalized in Europe, which altered the relationship between secular motives, devotional warfare, and knightly enterprise.
  • The papacy developed Political Augustinianism into attempts to remove the Church from secular control by asserting ecclesiastical supremacy over temporal polities and the Orthodox Church. This was associated with the idea that the Church should actively intervene in the secular world to impose justice.
  • In the late 11th and early 12th century the papacy became a unit for organized violence in the Latin world order, equivalent to other kingdoms and principalities. This required the mobilization of secular, in addition to military, forces directly controlled by the papacy, using mechanisms of control that were slightly inefficient.
  • Chivalry remained secular and the creation of military religious orders is indicative of this failure.
  • Rodrigo Borja, who became Pope Alexander VI in 1492, attempted to reignite crusading to counter the threat of the Ottoman Empire, but his secular ambitions for his son Cesare and objective to prevent King Charles VIII of France from conquering Naples were paramount.
  • The grounds for this were that the papacy used these in Italy and that secular rulers misappropriated funds.
  • The Hospitallers retreated from Rhodes in 1523 and the Prussian Teutonic Order secularised in 1523.
  • Historical parallelism and the tradition of drawing inspiration from the Middle Ages, have become keystones of political Islam encouraging ideas of modern jihad and long struggle, while secular Arab nationalism highlights the role of Western imperialism.
  • His work described the warrior state the Outremer became as a result of the tension between the providential and the secular.
  • Opinions of crusading moved beyond the judgment of religion, and this secularised vision increasingly depicted crusades in good light or as edifying or repulsive models of the distant past.
Not being positional (honestly) but these are all the references in the article and I am so close to it I can't see any that arn't using the modern and readily understood definition of secular. So any objective opinion on how these can be improved would be welcome. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested, what do you think of the references that remain? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry Norfolkbigfish I've not been able to put the time to this I was hoping to. The issue is the meaning of 'secular'. 'Secular' taken as non-religious and 'secular' as not under religious authority. I agree that as per the second reading something like "the Prussian Teutonic Order secularised" is correct. But the former meaning is what most people will read, and so "military religious orders" being secular seems nonsensical. I think this is what you can see in many of the replies here and at the other RFC. I don't have any easy fix for this. When discussing papal authority and it's interactions with secular rulers it's fine (Augustinianism, Alexander VI, the misappropriation of funds), or similarly jihad Vs Arab nationalism. When it comes to chivalry/military orders and the Teutonic order I would suggest explaining how religious authority changed, for instance how chivalry wasn't part of the church and the religious orders it created weren't under church control. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
No np @ActivelyDisinterested, you have been a great help. I have expanded the Teutonic Order sentence to cover what actually happened and the Chivalry sentence was already expanded so the secular was seperfluous. So I think they all meet your criteria. Don't you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I've not had time to look over the whole article, but the specifics parts look good. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
First item. The full statement in the article is "Pilgrimage and crusade were penitent acts and Crusade participants were considered part of Christ's army. While this was only metaphorical before the First Crusade, the concept transferred from the clerical world to the secular." Doesn't this imply that Crusaders were secular? The modern definition of "secular" is "areligious" which means "not influenced by or practicing religion." You agreed with this argument in the First Crusade discussion. Have you changed your mind?
Terminology Section. Your definitions make no sense. The first sentence is directly contradicted by the Wikilink to secular which states that: "The Christian doctrine that God exists outside time led medieval Western culture to use secular to indicate separation from specifically religious affairs and involvement in temporal ones." Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Rephrased to use wider world whicj I think retains the meaning but makes for an easier read. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Second item. How can secularization be applied to Crusades since, by definition, they are initiated and supported by the Roman Catholic Church? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Well it is not, is it? Tyerman is writing of the change of thinking regarding wars against the Turks and theories of Just War way from the Crusades & the church. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
According to Crusades, it is the definition. Tyerman was writing about the historiography of how crusades were viewed. If you want to open that can of worms again about what a crusade is, be my guest. But for now, the accepted definition is the one given in the Crusades article. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Tyerman wrote Increasingly, both Roman Catholic and Protestant displayed an uneasiness at regarding war as a religious exercise, preferring wars for territory rather than faith, a secularization that revived juristic ideas of just war to which Lutherans and Calvinists, as well as Roman Catholics, could subscribe Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I read that as indicating that war against the Turks at the time increasingly moved away from religious motivation towards territorial, e.g. away from crusading in character. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Removed adjective - it wasn't adding value Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Third item. The entire paragraph is unsupported by a reliable source. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
The whole paragraph is clearly supported by the cite to Tyerman. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Inconsistent Usage. In the discussion on the use of secular in the article First Crusade, @User:Norfolkbigfish made a strong case that the definition used by Crusader historians, in particular, Christopher Tyerman, were invalid. They created an RFC on the subject for which the vast majority of Wikipedia editors agreed. The second and third items are based on Tyerman, and so, by that logic, are incorrect.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Dr. Grampinator, that is not my recollection of what happened. Another editor pointed out that they found the use of the word in a single sentence confusing. This was amended to to make it clearer and reverted a couple of times. The RFC was raised to break that impasse. This is still open, but the consesnsus appears to be that if secular is used its meaning should be explained if not clear. To ease that a Terminology section has been added to this article that uses some of the OED definitions to help the reader. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Let me refresh your memory. A user new to Wikipedia was confused about the use of the word "secular" and suggested a change to what was a tautology. You made the change without hesitation and I reverted it as the original was both correct and part of a mature article that has been extensively reviewed. You then continued to edit out "secular" references despite the on-going discussion. The subsequent dialog that included Adam Bishop clearly showed a preference for the original and so I reverted back again. You continually threw up red herrings and put in an RFC where the vote was "no". I now question whether the use of an RfC was appropriate, as the discussion was just between you and I.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The use of the OED definition is fine, even thought it is at odds as to the definition used by Crusader historians as well as in Wikipedia. It is at odds with what Tyerman uses and I still don't understand how you can use both your definition and Tyerman's work.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
We were, and it seems we remain, at an impasse. The RFC was a method to get the views of other editors and resolve this situation. The RFC remains to be closed, but when it is, it looks like there will a consensus. It is nonsense to suggest the Tyerman, WP or what you call Crusader historians are using definitions of the word secular that differ from the OED. I doubt that you could produce a single example. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Bigger Problem. The arguments above imply that non-religious wars are part of the discussion of Crusading Movement. This seems to be inconsistent with the introduction to the article. In fact, the article Crusades is never referenced in the introduction, which leads one to believe that the subject may be larger that what the agreed-upon definition of crusade is. Given that the term "Crusading movement" is never defined, it is hard to tell.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The short description of this article is This article is about the ideology and institutions associated with crusading. The development of these, or at least the development of the influences of these, began before Crusading began, continued evolving while crusading was at its peak and lingered even after crusading effectively stopped. Warfare is a good example. The ideology of Christian warfare needed to be developed and adopted by a previously pacifist religion, otherwise crusading by its definition was impossible. As this ideology became contested war against Muslims ceased to be religious in nature, becomming instead about territory. This narrative arc explains why when the wester church was under no immediate threat crusading enthusiasm was at its height, yet when Islam was at the doors of Vienna it played little or no part. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I repeat my comment: the term "Crusading movement" is never defined nor does a definition appear anywhere in the literature. Riley-Smith and Simon Lloyd both use the term but never define what it is. Riley-Smith says "It must be admitted that crusading is not easy to define" and he never tries to define it or crusading movement. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Why do you raise this point now in a discussion about the use of the word secular, within the body of an, albeit malformed, RFC? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Good point. Withdrawn. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Fourth Item. Were there secular motives prior to the Fourth Crusade? Also, the term "devotional warfare" appears to be made up. Even though Riley-Smith uses it, the only other reference to it appears to be Freud. Is it the same as the similarly undefined Crusading movement? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Rephrased to From the Fourth Crusade, it became an adventure normalised in Europe, which altered the relationship between knightly enterprise, religious and worldly motivation. Removes secular which seems to be the bone of contention here and admittedly reads more clearly. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Crusading movement/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Godtres (talk · contribs) 10:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    The prose could be improved, but is of a sufficient quality for good article status.
    The page is organised appropriately, including a lead section and relevant headings, and contains a good number of relevant wikilinks.
    The spelling and grammar is weak. I have found a number of typos (all corrected) whilst looking at the page, and the syntax of many could easily be improved. However, it is again good enough for good article status. Godtres (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The short description had a typo, which I have corrected. There are appropriate disambiguation links. The initial picture is relevant, but does require its caption to show its relevancy. It should show make it clear to readers that they have arrived on the right page, and the current image somewhat (but not entirely) fulfils this role. There is an appropriate sidebar on the Crusades. There is a good table of contents.
    The lead sentence establishes why the topic is notable. However, it could be improved: it implies that the First Crusade was the catalyst for the crusading movement, when it was part of the crusading movement. The first sentence should preferably define or describe "the crusading movement", perhaps as the Christian movement (ideology and institutions) behind the Crusades. The page title should be the subject of the first sentence.
    There are an appropriate number of paragraphs in the lead section. It is relatively long for a lead, but this is not a problem. There are no citations. This is acceptable, as the claims are either not far-fetched or justified in the main body. I would question the description of France as "on the periphery of Christian Europe". The section fails to mention "Muslims", "Islam" or the like at any point, except in the image caption. The final paragraph of the section briefly traces precursors to and successors of the movement, but could easily be expanded.
    Overall: passes the MoS lead section requirements, but there is significant room for improvement. Godtres (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    The page passes the MoS layout requirements. Godtres (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    The page, on the whole, passes the MoS word choice requirements. Godtres (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    The page is not bound by the MoS fiction requirements. Godtres (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    The article overuses lists. It fulfils the MoS stylistic requirements for lists. However, "sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose" applies here. For example, Urban II's two directives at Clermont do not require a list. Godtres (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Godtres—I ahve copy edited the lead. What do you think now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    Looks much better! I've had a stab at updating it, but it's not an easy task. Godtres (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    The list of references and bibliography is well-formatted. Godtres (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    All the sources are reliable. Godtres (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    I think that all direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, and counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged are supported by inline citations. Godtres (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    c. (OR):
    Methodology of source spot check: I will take paragraphs from the largest section and the smallest one and check their sources to see whether they sufficiently support the claims made on the page. If the results are unclear or I cannot access the sources, I will repeat this test with similar sections. Godtres (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    The two sections identified were: "13th century" and "17th century and later".
    The first paragraph of "17th century and later" only had one citation. However, this citation did verify all the claims made in the paragraph. The second paragraph used the same source four different times, although under different guises. The page references are all accurate, and the text was supported by the source. This section passes a NOR check.
    Whilst there is a wider range of sources than in the "17th century and later" section and all the sources referenced do support some claims, some paragraphs in the "13th century" (e.g. beginning "There is evidence...") lack citations altogether. Some claims (such as "there is evidence of early criticism of crusading and the behaviour of crusaders" and "Gerhoh of Reichersberg equated the failures of the Second Crusade to the coming of the Antichrist") are entirely unsupported, and need citations. Overall, this section fails a NOR check. A cursory glance of the page as a whole reveals similar deficiencies in referencing.
    Whilst I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the claims within this page, they are not easily verifiable. Godtres (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    I've done another check after the issues identified in the spot check were resolved by @Norfolkbigfish. The referencing is overall fine, although there is room for a diversification of sources used, as identified in "17th century and later". Godtres (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    No plagiarism was found in the source spot check, although (acceptable) loose paraphrasing was observed with the limited number of sources provided. Godtres (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    The article comprehensively covers all the main aspects of the crusading movement. Godtres (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    b. (focused):
    There are numerous tangents that are outside the true scope of this article, which is unreasonably large.
    For example, the "terminology" section is irrelevant to the article. It does not address key terminology related to the crusading movement. I am aware of the discussion regarding "secular" in the talk page: however, in the article this is not linked to the crusading movement. Godtres (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    Hi @Godtres, thank you for the review. With regards to the terminology section would it be better if I removed it completely? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    Hi again @Godtres, the 17th century section got split in GOCE copy editing. It came from Siberry, have added citations to make this clear. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that removing the terminology section was the right thing to do. On the 13th (!) century, thank you for resolving my issues... I'll have a look at the rest of the article in a bit, and get back to you. Godtres (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    There are few disputes/controversies covered in the article, which maintains a neutral point of view for the most part. A few sentences (e.g. "its recovery was on the behalf of God") could be mistaken as opinion. Godtres (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    There are no ongoing edit wars, and the talk page is appropriately used to resolve disputes. Godtres (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    Images are appropriately licensed. Godtres (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Whilst I question the relevance of the image of Pope Pius II, on the most part, the images provided are relevant with relatively succinct, but very informative, captions. Godtres (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    This nomination passes initial checks (i.e. is not quick failed): the article possibly meets all six criteria; the article contains no evident copyright violations; the article is stable; the nominator is a major contributor to the article; there are no active, valid cleanup banners; previous concerns raised in GANs and peer reviews have been adequately addressed. Godtres (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    Overall, I would commend the page's comprehensiveness and content, and would suggest improvement to the lead section, scope and referencing of the article.
    I have placed the article on hold in case the nominator or other contributors would like to make significant edits to the article in the next few days that might affect my judgement. Godtres (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    The lead section of the article has been improved. The referencing is acceptable. There is still considerable scope to narrow the focus of the article, which is something that needs to be worked on in the future. Every sentence must be relevant. However, I determine that this article does now fulfil the good article criteria. It will remain on hold for a few days in case anyone else wishes to comment on the article. Godtres (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    I have now ended the review, and passed the article. I would like to place on record that I had not contributed to the article at all at the time I agreed to review it, although I do plan on contributing in future. Godtres (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Plagiarism and close paraphrasing

Although the article has underwent several reviews and edits, it is still filled with plagiarism and close paraphrasing. Many cases can be read here (under section "specific FAC comments"), but I listed other cases of plagiarism and close paraphrasing from a relatively short section of the article "12th century". The below list contain both the article's text and the text of its source Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  • The first century of crusading coincided with the Renaissance of the 12th century, and crusading was represented through the rich vernacular literature that evolved in France and Germany.:
  • "The period of the first four crusades coincides with the evolution in France and Germany of a rich vernacular literature which does reflect the crusades."
 DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Crusade songs served multiple purposes. They provided material for the poet/performer, variations on courtly love, allegories, and paradigms. Through song audiences learnt doctrine, information, and propaganda unmediated by the Church. These songs reinforced the nobility's self-image, confirmed its position in society, and inspired esprit de corps.:
  • "... crusade songs served several purposes. From the point of view of the poet-performer, they provided material for sirventes, a counterpoint to and a source of variations on the theme of courtly love, a range of allegories and structures of thought. From the point of view of the audience ...they presented, in a palatable way exclusive to their milieu, the doctrine, information, and popaganda that was otherwise delivered by preachers or diffused by clercs. At the same time, the songs reinforced the audience's self-image and showed how the crusade could conirm their possessions of the virtues of nobility, holding up models for them to emulate and to inspire their esprit de corps."
 DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • He also equated the reconquest of Iberia from the Muslims with crusading in the Holy Land....
  • "Calixtus also equated participation in the Reconquista (reconquest of Iberia from the Muslims) with the crusades to the Holy Land.
 DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The Holy Land was considered the patrimony of Christ and its recovery was on behalf of God. The Albigensian Crusade was a defence of the French Church, the Baltic Crusades were campaigns conquering lands beloved of Christ's mother Mary for Christianity.
  • "...the Holy Land was represented as the patrimony of Chrfist that the crusaders were recovering on God's behalf. The Albigensian Crusade ... was called a war in defense of the French church as the spouse of Christ; the Baltic Crusades were conceptualized as campaings to conquer for Christianity lands beloved of Mary, the mother of Christ."
 DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I also remark that several sentences in the section are not verified by the allegedly cited source. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Taking into account that plagiarism has been detected since the article's creation, I think it should be restored to a redirect page: [8]. Borsoka (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
For transparency; this has been listed at copyright problems for review. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @Sennecaster, I have been working through this article cleansing any obvious infringments, if I have missed any please let me know and I will remediate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Norfolkbigfish: your edit summaries do not indicate that you have been working on cleansing the article. Could you make it clear when editing in the future? It would facilitate reviewers' work. @Sennecaster:, do you agree with my suggestion? Borsoka (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    It would be very useful, to us editors who review the Copyright Problems board, if edits that were rewriting infringing content had edit summaries that described them as such, so we can quickly assess whether any problematic content remains. – Isochrone (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    I will explicitly label any edits that are directly intended in fixing content issues in future. Currently I am working my way through the article to reduce the reliance on an Encyclopedia that @Borsoka considers a particular issues, identifying new sources and rewriting the text appropriately. I am not aware of any issues that have been raised and not resolved. If there are any I will address as part of this process. Please do call these out so this can be fixed quickly. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
You have no other work to do than cleansing the article from copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
OK, would you mind listing anything you consider is out standing on that basis? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Right now, I am extremly busy in real life. I have several times repeated to you that it is your responsability. Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, as far as I am aware I have addressed all points raised, whether real or perceived. I remain willing and able to address any and all that I have missed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you sure you are here to build an encyclopedia? It is quite obvious that you still do not take this issue seriously, although you were very close to loose your editing privileges. You have promised several times, that you will be working on this issue. For instance, you stated at 16:40 on April 10th that "I am in the process of clearing the article of any remaining hint, although it apperas to be only fragments of sentences now." Nine days later, I still detected several examples of plagiarism, as it is demonstrated by the list at the very beginning of this section. Your blatant and persistent plagiarism have been detected by at least two other editors ([9], [10]). Still, your sole edit summary referring to your attempt to cleanse the article implies that plagiarism is only my perception: [11]. I strongly suggest that you should not wait for other editors' input because "copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues". Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish, are you saying that you have removed all plagiarism from the article, or that you have removed all the plagiarism that Borsoka identified? I am increasingly concerned about your perception of the issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
What I am saying @AirshipJungleman29 is that I have removed all the plagarism that I am aware, or have been made aware, of. I have run the tool against the article and this indicates that 1) it detects a low risk (<11% chance) of plagarism; 2) That if there is plagarism, the most likely book is one I don't have, I haven't used and isn't cited in the article. I am working way through the article and removing the usage of the Encyclopedia, resourcing, reciting and copy editing as I go. I doubt very much whether this leaves anything outstanding, but I understand it remains under investigation and if anything remains it will be remediated. The level of scrutiny is now such that is over and above what is normal for an article. I acccept that I am responsible for this, but we are now talking of standard academic terms used across all the works cited, fragments, and in one case a 2 word wikilink being cited as signs of plagarism or close paraphrasing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
By "the tool", I assume you mean Earwig, which cannot detect close paraphrasing or check against books (WP:NOTEARWIG) Norfolkbigfish? The trouble is that you have repeatedly claimed that plagiarism has been addressed, only for blatant violations like the last one above to be uncovered. Is this going to happen again? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Earwig. I am endevouring to ensure it is not repeated, it certainly won't be intentionally repeated @AirshipJungleman29. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Further examples of plagiarism and close paraphrasing

I reviewed two further (very short) sections, and found the following examples of plagiarism:

  • Crusade providentialism was intricately linked with a prophetic sensibility at the end of the 12th century. Joachim of Fiore included the war against the infidels in his cryptic conflations of history combining past, present, and future. Foreshadowing the Children's Crusade, he believed that the third of his three ages of history was the age of the Holy Spirit. The representatives of this were children, or pueri. Franciscans such as Salimbene saw themselves as ordo parvulorum – an "order of little ones" amongst a revivalist enthusiasm and a spirit of apocalypse. The Austrian Rhymed Chronicle added apocalyptic elements of mytho-history to the Children's Crusade.
  • "Crusade providentialism went hand-in-glove with a prophetic sensibility. It is not coincidence that the greatest of medieval prophets, Joachim of Fiore (d. 1212), was a child of the crusading epoch an in his alluringly cryptic world-historical conflation of past, present, and future found a place for the war against the infidel. ... Joachim taught that the new century which began in 1200 would see the tumultuous transition to a third epoc in human history, the age of the Spirit. ... symbolic of the third age, that of the Holy Spirit, which was imminent, were children, pueri. Joachim disciples pored over his prophesies. Among the most enthralled were Franciscans like Salimbene, for the Franciscans saw themselves as an ordo parvulorum, an order of little ones, of pueri. Although Joachite prophecy had no impact upon the pueri of 1212, revivalist enthusiasm itself encourages a spirit of prophetic elation. Later writers like Salimbene and the author of the Austrian Rhymed Chronicle added a prophetic element to the mythistory of the Children's Crusade."
 Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Aristocratic family networks and feudal hierarchies played key roles in disseminating informal propaganda about crusades during the medieval era.
 Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • "Most significant was the information about the crusade that passed through family networks and feudal hierarchies." The quote is from an encyclopedic article that is seemingly not cited in the article (Maier, Christoph T. (2006b). "Propaganda". In Murray, Alan V. (ed.). The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Vol. III:K-P. ABC-Clio. pp. 984–988. ISBN 978-1-57607-862-4.)
  • Church art and architecture, including murals, stained glass windows, and sculptures, often depicted themes related to the movement.
  • "Church art and architecture in particular took up themes related to crusading in murals, strained glass windows, and sculptures." The quote is from an encyclopedic article that is seemingly not cited in the article (Maier, Christoph T. (2006b). "Propaganda". In Murray, Alan V. (ed.). The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Vol. III:K-P. ABC-Clio. pp. 984–988. ISBN 978-1-57607-862-4.)
 Not done—this is simply two lists. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • "By the time of the Fifth Crusade this system developed into executive boards with legatine power, while the papacy codified preaching."
  • "For almost every province an executive board was established, with legatine powers in the matter of the crusade, to implement promotional policy."
 Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

What is especially alarming, that in two cases the text in the article was copied from a source (Maier's article from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia) that is not cited which makes the detection of copyvio extremly difficult. Norfolkbigfish already used this tactic to hide his plagiarism ([12]). I think this article should be restored as soon as possible into the redirect page it used to be before Norfolkbigfish filled it with texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

All addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I am torn here. The first example, to me, is straightforward CLOP: it's a lot of text where a lot of the creative decisions about structure, order and presentation have simply been cloned. On the others, I am less sure that they are plagiarism within the meaning of WP:CLOP, at least in isolation. There is after all a tension between WP:CLOP and WP:TSI: it's important that the bare factual information of the sources is communicated without change in the article. In the last one, in particular, it would break WP:TSI to rephrase "executive board" unless we are absolutely confident what the source means by it, and both it and "legatine powers" are two-word phrases which have an established use and meaning: they are not creative works of the cited author. Granted, it's poor academic form not to cite the work which is the immediate source for an article, and there are other, perhaps better, ways to express what has been done, but there's a large gap between "the best way to do it" and "culpably bad enough to get the page WP:TNT'd".
With that said, the problem with plagiarism, CLOP etc is that we can only ever catch a subset of it: it's almost a given that more exists that we don't catch, and there will always be a question-mark hanging over the article that can only really be removed by another editor re-writing it from scratch. My personal feeling is that the content of article would be a loss if reduced a redirect, but equally that we cannot have an article with serious doubts over its integrity, however valuable is contents are.
All that is, I suspect, a lot of words to say relatively little, but I think it would help for some other (relatively) uninvolved editors to weigh in on where they see the balance. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I would not describe large chunks of texts copied from sources as "valuable": it is rather a permanent source of legal problems for our community. From the very beginning, plagiarism has been continously detected, and after more than two years one can still easily find more examples. Some of the above and previous examples indicate that Norfolkbigfish tends to hide plagiarism by not referring to the plagiarised sources in the text, so no one can guarantee that any version of the article is free of plagiarism. Borsoka (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Personally, I also find the third example above rather too close for comfort UndercoverClassicist, especially as it's from a source that isn't actually cited. The others are more borderline. I think there is no question that Norfolkbigfish has a poor understanding of what exemplifies plagiarism, as exemplified by the fact they cited a copyright tool which only checks web sources as evidence that an article which cites a single web source does not contain plagiarism (I can't quite get my head around that one). However, I do think I have a good understanding of copyright processes, and I don't think there is adequate justificatiion for reverting the article to a redirect, although it probably should lose its GA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks @AirshipJungleman29, on that basis I have excised this example. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Do you really want to run the risk of legal problems by keeping a closely paraphrased, poorly edited article? About 50% of the article has been reviewed, and dozens of cases of copyvio, close paraphrasing have already been detected. Borsoka (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
    I must say @Norfolkbigfish I find it remarkable that you have managed to forget what you have and have not closely paraphrased from sources. In significantly fewer words than the above, if the copyright concerns are foundational, then much of the article, even parts that may not have violations, will have to be removed (it is already listed at WP:CP).
    UndercoverClassicist is right in saying that there are certain phrases in which there are limited other ways to creatively express them. However, it is clear from the above examples that the structure and foundation of the source materials is still deeply integrated into some areas of the article.
    It is not impossible for this to be rewritten; a common exercise involves reading a source, going away for a few minutes, and then writing what you remember and correcting errors or supplementing information after. Whether that can be done for an article of this size is questionable. – Isochrone (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
    It is just a question of time @Isochrone, I am busy IRL and I am doing this when possible. Where the article has been reviewed and issues raised I have endeavoured to remediate these as soon as possible. It is a complex subject with many technical terms, a large article, some of it is years old and has been through GOCE, 2 x Peer review, GAR and ACR. The suggestion in your third paragraph is useful/welcome, but that is not going to be a quick job. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing could have easily been avoided in 95% of my examples of copyvio above, because there are few technical terms. I am not sure that Norfolkbigfish is able to rewrite the article in a way that all copyvio would be deleted. For instance, occasionally he does not cite the source from which he copied text but an other source ([13]), or even he dares to delete citations from the article to hide plagiarism ([14]). What is clear that three weeks ago I gave a chance to Norfolkbigfish to rewrite the article, but he failed, as I can without much work find new and new examples of previously undetected plagiarism . His only concern is his undeserved GA badge [15]. Borsoka (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Borsoka I don't think criticising an editor's article achievements if the best way to find a resolution here. @Norfolkbigfish I understand as such, but the main problem here is that you seem to relying on other editors to highlight your own copyright issues, which is obviously going to take much longer than if you just did so yourself.
Unfortunately, copyright is one of the few aspects of Wikipedia where there actually is a deadline. Other editors will never be able to adequately clear an article of copyright violations if you yourself have difficulty in identifying them. I highly recommend you read, comprehensively, close paraphrasing, as it is quite clear that you are struggling to understand what is an is not an issue.
As I said above, the content will have to be removed outright if anything remains (though of course you are free to add it back at any time if appropriately rewritten). We generally have a seven day limit for doing this at CP, but as this seems to be such a complex issue, I think a resolution here is a better solution. Else, it will be removed. – Isochrone (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Isochrone, I am struggling with getting the time on this one and will be away for a week. Resolving here is certainly the best way forward, and I am in the process of working my way through this as fast as I can. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, that does not mean that the content will not be removed, but the fact there is so much that needs to be checked means it is much preferable that a solution is fashioned here. Really, the only way I can imagine to clear this otherwise is by deleting most of the article (which is not permitted by guidelines save some exceptions).
For now, any problematic text should be hidden using the {{subst:copyvio}} template: @Borsoka, as you seem to know more than I do in where there are infringing elements, would you mind doing this as suitable? – Isochrone (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I did my homework: I have indicated several times during the last 1,5 months that the article is filled with plagiarism and copyvio and I offered a period of two weeks to Norfolkbigfish to clean it. I think editors who are convinced that this poorly edited article should be saved should also review it and guarantee that it is free of plagiarism. Good luck. One cannot be sure from which sources are texts copied because Norfolkbigfish sometimes uses false citations to hide plagiarism. If no editor does this irksome and risky work, the article should be reduced to the original redirect page ([16]). Norfolkbigfish's other "achievements" should also be investigated from copyvio perspective: Angevin kings of England, House of Lancaster, House of Plantagenet. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
If no editor does this irksome and risky work, the article should be reduced to the original redirect page: I will defer to those with more experience of copyvio cases, but it would seem bizarre to delete an article because of evidence we assume exists but which hasn't actually been presented. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Your above statement is what sounds bizarre. Borsoka (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Please step back from this and re-evaluate your approach in calling attention to issues. Hostility and strong language towards someone's editing capabilities is not helpful in copyright. If you want to have a systemic review of contributions, WP:CCI is the place to request it with diffs and proven sources, not an article talk page with vague statements of issues. UndercoverClassicist is correct in that articles are not BLARed without evidence. The general exception is a CCI with extensive and systemic copying proven with some combination of paywall, offline, source falsification on a mass scale, or socking. I use PDEL a decent amount, but I find the prospect in this context to not be good. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@Sennecaster: did you review the article? Borsoka (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and it's not something I have time or energy to handle completely myself, I just checked in on the progress since I know Isochrone has been discussing here. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you say that my above examples do not prove blatant plagiarism and the sections I have not reviewed do not contain plagiarism? Borsoka (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not plagiarism, it's copying, and copyright folks treat it differently (the former referring to attribution failures and the latter referring to copyvio). The content should be removed until then. However, the article is not all close paraphrasing and is salvageable, thus remaining offending content should be removed but the article is NOT in a state to be stubbified outright.Sennecaster (Chat) 04:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
You are incorrect, if I'm understanding correctly. Close paraphrasing is a core example of plagiarism, is it not? Remsense诉 06:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I may misunderstand your above remarks, but do you say I could copy texts from the cited sources without violating any copyright law because copyright folks prefer copying to plagiarism? This could ease my work because I am not a native English speaker. Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You are using terms correctly. Copyright violation is the legal aspect, where an entity's intellectual property rights are violated. It is often but not always coterminous in applicability with plagiarism, the ethical aspect where one passes off work as theirs within a given context when it is is not (this includes self-plagiarism). For example, copying directly from public domain sources to Wikipedia without direct attribution would not be a copyright violation, but it would be plagiarism. Remsense诉 06:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Sennecaster, my understanding was that close paraphrasing, such as examples which have been outlined on this page and at the GAR, can constitute both plagiarism, if done without proper attribution, and copyright violations, if done excessively. Is that incorrect? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sennecaster: thank you for openning my eyes: I am a sinful editor who was hostile towards a co-editor who was diligently copying texts from copyrighted material, thus improving Wikipedia. I promise that in the future I will never compare texts in articles with the cited sources, because I do not want to prevent the publication of copyrighted material in FAs. I hope this masterpiece of WP editorship will soon be published on the main page as a TFA. Borsoka (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I poorly explained myself here and I apologize for that. Plagiarism is trying to pass off something as your own work, copyvio is infringing on rights by substantially copying. Typically we refer to everything as copyvio over at CP and CCI for simplicity, but Airship is right in that it can be both and it usually is. Remsense is correct that in that plagiarism is mostly used to explain that you can't just pass things off as your own if it's freely licsened, but the core thing that we deal with is the removal of copying wholesale, whether or not it's attributed properly. Borsoka, I'm going to take you seriously on this regardless if you mean it as snark or not. You are not allowed to add copyvio under any circumstance. Consequences can go as far as indeffing and would warrant this being expanded.
At this point, remove whatever's still closely paraphrased but leave the references in the article (near the reference section) and then rewrites can be moved into place with attribution as they are completed and checked for infringement. The article should not be blanked entirely because as I understand, there is salvageable content. That's the best way to clear this up, but since both Isochrone and myself are busy with both IRL and other onwiki obligations, neither of us will be able to personally handle the removal for a little while. (please do not ping on reply)Sennecaster (Chat) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
There are thousands of WP editors, including myself, whose time is also limited. I have indicated dozens of cases of plagiarism and copyvio in the first third of the article, but I do not want to continue this work because I am fed up with reviewing this article. Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusading_movement/Archive_3&oldid=1234336103"