Talk:Raynald of Châtillon/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Raynald of Châtillon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Conversion?

I am unable to find any convincing documentation that Saladin offered to spare Renauld's life in exchange for a conversion to Islam... Can anyone point me in the right direction?

I'll wait a few days, then I'm going to change it up based on the account given in Karen Armstrong's "Holy War: The Crusades and their Impact on Today's World" (Anchor Books, 1988).

That part seems to have come from the 1911 Britannica article...Saladin offered to spare the lives of the Templars and Hospitallers he captures, if they converted (and some of them did), but he planned to execute Raynald all along. (This is according to al-Safadi's biographical dictionary, the al-Wafi bi'l-wafayat, the relevant excerpt of which is in The Age of the Crusades by P.M. Holt.) Adam Bishop 19:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that squares with my understanding of the event. According to Maalouf's "The Crusade Though Arab Eyes", Saladin actually went out of his way to not offer Raynald anything that could qualify him for clemancy (inc. pointing out that *he* hadn't offered Raynald food or drink when Guy passed him some water).

Saladin would not have spared Reynald under any circumstances. The other nobles he captured were just prizes to be held for ransom, but there was a genuine personal antipathy toward Reynald, due to Reynald's breaking of formalized truces and his attack on Mecca and Medina. Jsc1973 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone tell me what is the correct pronunciation of Raynald of Chatillon's name, preferably in both English and French (which I assume was his native language, although this may not mean much)? -- Itai 01:11, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In English, as Raynald or Reynald, I would pronounce it basically the way it looks, rey-nahld, with the stress on the second syllable (and a long "a"). Let me see if I can transcribe it in SAMPA - reI.nAld I think. In French, I'm not exactly sure how to describe the sounds, but, in SAMPA: RE.nAld (with the stress again on the second syllable), or alternately in modern French without the L, RE.no or maybe RE.nod. Of course, in Latin, it's "Reginald", but I would prounounce in a horrible horrible English way, rather than in a Latin way :) I hope that helps! Adam Bishop 21:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! It sure does. Could you, by the way, also transcribe the correct pronunciation of Chatillon? (I'm assuming that "ch" is pronounced "sh", but I'm not sure.) Also - and I promise this is my last question - I suppose in French, the man's name is Raynald d'Chattilon. Is this correct? (This is mostly out of idle curiosity. I suppose the language Raynald spoke was very different from modern French, and am mainly concerned with pronouncing his name right in modern English – it does one little good to mention historical figures if nobody else understands what one means - the meaning of 1, as it were.) -- Itai 02:06, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the Ch in Chatillon is pronounced "sh", and the L's are silent, so it's something like "shat-ee-on". Actually the n is silent too, and the o is nasalized; Sat.i.O~ is my best guess in SAMPA (since it is a place in France with no real English significance, we pronounce it the French way). I think in French his name would be "Renaud de Chatillon." There was some discussion (on user talk pages, not on this talk page) months ago, about what form of his name to use - Reginald, Reynald, and Raynald are used in English sources, and Renaud is also used in French. I'm not sure how exactly he would have pronounced his own name in 12th century French, but there is only one noteworthy Reginald/Raynald/Reynald of Chatillon, so I think people will understand who you mean :) Adam Bishop 06:02, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Far too many silent letters, in my humble opinion, but I suppose little can be done about that now. Anyway, I am much obliged. Let us hope another Raynald of Chatillon doesn't turn up, which would make everybody's life a lot more complicated. -- Itai 09:22, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Arabs called him 'Brins Arnat', Prince Reynald. They also knew King Amaury I of Jerusalem as 'Morri', King Baldwin I as 'Bardawil', Tancred as 'Tankri', and Count Henry II of Champagne as 'al-kond Herri'.Missi 03:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom of Heaven

Why did the creators of the new movie Kingdom of Heaven feel compelled to associate Raynald and Guy de Lusignan with the Knights Templar? There is no evidence of such a connection, and through this association, the movie protrays the Templar Order as a bunch of power-mad lunatics.

The Templars and Hospitallers pretty much hated each other and often took sides with one or the other faction, sometimes only because the other order had taken a particular side. I guess they were trying to show that, with Guy and Raynald + Templars and Raymond and Balian + Hospitallers, which was probably the case sometimes. But I don't know...why did they also make Raynald literally crazy? (Like when he was dancing around his jail cell.) Adam Bishop 06:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of the movie is that religious dogmatism gets in the way of a truly harmonious "Kingdom Of Heaven," and the legends surrounding the Knights Templar have become more ingrained in the popular imagination in the last couple of years (I blame the Da Vinci Code for this). What better way to accentuate the disparity between word and deed by associating inveterate killers and opportunists with the most sanctimonious of all medieval holy orders? Apparently this makes for a better story.

Actually, most members of Hospitallers and Templars were eager to battle (and often newcomers in Levant), and perhaps equally in favor of Guy's and Reynald's party. Therefore I doubt that a relevant demarcation should be drawn re: guy+reynald being in same side as templars, balian+tiberias in same side as hospitallers. Please show me further evidence of incidents where Hospitallers were particularly attached with baronial party's interests. 62.78.126.61 18:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hollywood, guys. It's just Hollywood. They know what they're doing. Augustulus 01:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

show me evidence of a baronial and i'll show you a link ;) there are far greater simplifications and misconceptions in that movie than for us to worry about 'they got the templars on the wrong side'. it's interesting that the question is why did the movie make the templars look power mad not why did the movie make guy and reynald look power mad. Veridis 14:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Saladin and water story

It was interesting to read in Ernoul that Saladin didn't object to Raynald drinking the water, but Raynald refused, and then Saladin killed him anyway, unlike the story in the Muslim sources. I suppose the Muslim sources are more reliable, since whoever the original author was, he was probably there, while Ernoul (or whoever the author was) must have heard about that third- or fourth-hand (presumably from Guy through Balian). Should this be mentioned too? Adam Bishop 20:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Imad

Mississippienne, where did you get that translation of Imad? So far I haven't been able to find one.

Sort of as a side comment, it's interesting that Imad says Raynald needed an interpreter. I always wondered about that, did he speak Arabic or not, after being in captivity for 17 years? I suppose he's the sort of person who would have stubbornly refused to learn a new language. Adam Bishop 02:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind...it's from Amin Maalouf's book, right? Why do I never look in the most obvious place :) Adam Bishop 03:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Maalouf uses as his source for Imad the book Conquete de la Syrie et de la Palestine par Saladin (Paris, 1972). As for the language, I wonder myself. Imad does say Reynald answered through an interpreter; perhaps he had an imperfect knowledge of Arabic, was able to understand but not speak fluently. Imad doesn't mention Guy needing a translator, he may have had a better grasp of Arabic than Reynald. Missi

Modern parallels

I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive a newbie. Is there an appropriate place here (or related sites) for discussion of parallels between Raynald of Chatillon and various neo-cons (Richard Perle, for example), in terms of inciting a war against Islamic forces? Just curious. I know that opinions and POV are not allowed here. Are historical comparisons? This is a sincere question, again thank you for your tolerance of someone who is just learning the ropes here.

You could discuss that here on the talk page, if you think it would be useful to draw such a comparison...it definitely wouldn't fit in the article though. Adam Bishop 03:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these sort of comparisons and discussions are remotely helpful. Mediæval characters and their world-view can't be transplanted and shoe-horned into 21C narratives. It's a tendency that worries me, whoever's doing it. Silverwhistle 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to prove Raynald of Chatillon did incite war before making any parralells. Raynald was not part of the treaty with Saladin so couldn't break it and there's evidence that Raynalds raid on Mecca/Medina served a useful purpose in keeping Saladin from consolidating in northern Syria at a time when the crusader states were weak. But yes medieval world =/= 21st cent so comparisons are a bit misleading. Veridis 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, at least, the raid might have been intended to achieve that. In fact Saladin did consolidate soon afterwards. Andrew Dalby 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok ok. There is evidence that Raynalds raid on Mecca/Medina served a useful purpose in delaying Saladin's consolidation of northern Syria at a time when the crusader states were weak. I think given the forces Saladin had to mobilise in the peninsula it would be agreed that this did slow his progress in the north. But still the main point i was getting at is that this article(and many on wiki) takes the William of Tyre approach(probably the KoH approach now since the movie exaggerates even more), ie blame it all on Guy and Reynald. Veridis 11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, we were getting off the main point. I agree with you completely that William of Tyre must not be treated as if he were objective. He was very close to the events, which is handy, but he was an interested party and he had scores to settle ... which, posthumously, he has very effectively done. Andrew Dalby 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

However, I doubt this: "Raynald was not part of the treaty with Saladin so couldn't break it". I would have said he was a vassal, and therefore obliged to respect a treaty that his overlord had signed, until ordered to break it. But perhaps he was ordered or encouraged to break it, for the exact strategic reason that you have stated. Andrew Dalby 11:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer the OP; no, it's not a good place to draw comparisons. Two reasons; firstly it would be better to make the comparisons on the articles about the modern cases, which might have parallels with this previous example. Secondly, unless someone has made the comparison outside Wikipedia, this is clearly Original Research WP:OR and should not be included. Ewen (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Needs updating

This article needs some major updating, using Hamilton... Again, my hair curls even more than normal when I see Maalouf and Reston cited in sources. I've dismantled the old chestnut about Saladin's sister, anyway - which is not attested by Arabic sources. Also, see Hamilton, p. 226, n. 65. Silverwhistle 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Arabs weren't the only historians, you know. And I think you should lay off of all the historians you seem to hate so much. What have they ever done to you? -Augustulus

From Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 20

The article on Raynald does not fully explain his true significance, and just why he was such a figure of fear and and hatred for Muslims, who known him better by the name of Arnat of Kerak. The Muslim historian, Ibn al-Athir, refers to him as "a violent and most dangerous enemy of Islam." Even today he has some significance, and you will find him in statue form in Damascus, the capital of Syria, together with Saladin, his nemesis. Raynald did much to colour Muslim opinion of the whole Crusading movement. If the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem can be attributed to a single man, then Raynald has better right to that claim than any other individual. His ruthlessness, unscrupulousness, opportunism and brutality were to provoke Saladin into a furious offensive against the Crusader kingdom, that led directly to his victory of the Horns of Hattin.

It is important to understand that the enthusiasm for Crusading in the Middle Ages often owes as much, if not more, to greed and opportunism as it did to religious faith. The path to the Holy Land was the path often taken by the 'poor cousins' and the second sons, those who could expect no inheritance at home, and would only be able to make their way in the world by the practice of arms. In essence these men were little more than freebooters, and Raynald was the greatest freebooter of them all. He served the greater cause only as and when it suited him, and was quite prepared to attack fellow Christians for the sake of personal gain, fully demonstrated by his onslaught on Byzantine Cyprus. To finance the latter expedition he even extorted money from Aimery of Limoges, the elderly Patriarch of Antioch. According to William of Tyre, the chronicler of the Crusades, Aimery, was stripped naked, whipped, his head smeraed with honey to attract insects and then he was left chained in the open under the hot sun!

In November 1160 Raynald set out to seize the herds of Armenian and Syrian Christians, only to be taken prisoner by the Muslim Governor of Aleppo. He was only ransomed after fifteen years, emerging from his dungeon with a hatred of Islam far in excess of any love he had for Christianity. Indeed, there is very little evidence that Raynald had faith of any kind. Soon after his release married Stephanie of Milly, heiresss of the dukedom of Outrejourdain, the easternmost part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which dominated the caravan routs from Egypt to Syria from the castles of Shaubak and Kerak. It was from this point that he became a real nightmare for the Muslims.

By the 1170s there was a mood of relaxed co-existence between the Crusader states and their Muslim neighbours. Many of the Christian lords had adopted an oriental way of life, and were even viewed by the Muslims as possible allies in their own internecine struggles. But Raynald upset this delicate political balance. He was to launch attack after attack, chiefly aiming at plunder and mayhem. It is even suggested by Ibn Jubair that in his pirate raids in the Red Sea, Raynald intended, amongst other things, to make off with the body of the prophet Mohammed and hold it for ransom at Kerak. Peaceful co-existence was at an end, and Saladin took an oath to kill Raynald, whose offenses were made even worse when he tried to capture the Sultan's sister in 1187, breaking a truce to attack a cravan. Saladin was left with no option but to preach Jihad against the whole Crusader Kingdom. In this Raynald had encompased his own death and the fall of Jerusalem. Clio the Muse 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Name of Article

A minor point, but given his ethnicity and the usual naming customs of the time even amongst English speakers in Norman-ruled England, wouldn't his name actually have been Raynald de Châtillon, rather than Raynald of Châtillon, and should this not be the preferred version for the article? I raise this only as a suggestion: being fond of reading (English language) fiction set in the period, the "of" jars with my expectations. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but since it just means "of" and it's not really part of his name, I don't think there is any reason to use "de". I know some people from the same period are referred to as "de" when that was not really part of their name either, but that's just traditional usage, which Wikipedia is obliged to follow (Hugh de Puiset springs to mind). It's not necessary for Raynald. (The only problem is with the possible spellings of "Raynald", I would say.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Weasel

According to WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. ... Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources, or they may be tagged with the "weasel" or "by whom" or similar templates so as to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue)." Anon, please also remember WP:3RR and fix the problem instead of reverting edits. Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the link the source [1] User:Borsoka. As you can see the source itself doesn't specify the identity of the Muslim sources, hence it is not my fault. Please read it yourself carefully and do not make untrue allegations against others. And do remember you have reverted yourself, do not make empty threats to impede others from editing based on what you believe. Please assume good faith and do not accuse anyone without carefully studying the situation first.117.220.19.246 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(1) I have never stated that it is your fault. (2) However, WP:WEASEL is to be applied. (3) Consequently, if the text cannot be improved, it will be deleted. (4) Please read the edit history of the article and count how many times you deleted my tag. You will obviously be surprised. (5) Read your last sentence above and apply it when editing an article and communicating with other editors. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in either the history covered by this article or adding references, but I did look at the recent edits to the article, including the one in which Borsoka re-added the citation needed ("By whom?") tag for the statement about Raynald being converted. I'd like to add a few thoughts that will perhaps help to clarify this discussion and reduce the hint of animosity developing between you. I'm not even sure that citing WP:WEASEL is helpful here. IP 117, you seem to think that the source to which you provided a link is a sufficient citation for the statement

One version presented by some Muslim sources has Saladin offering him a chance to convert to Islam, which he refused.

This sentence is followed by sourced details about the execution. The problem with the source that you gave (unless I missed it) is that, besides the fact that it says, "Some Muslim scholars" without naming the sources, the scholars are describing a general policy followed by Muhammad after military victories – sometimes allowing the prisoners to convert and sometimes executing them – while the statement in our article (quoted just above) is more specific. The way the sentence is worded, "has Saladin offering him a chance to convert to Islam, which he refused", is describing a rather specific event. I don't see support for this specific statement in the source to which you provided a link. I don't think it is appropriate to state something as a specific historical event and back it up with a source that is merely describing a general policy. You can re-word the sentence so that it describes a possibility, or probability, based on that general policy, or you have to find a different source. – Corinne (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Under the definition by Wikipedia you gave, my edits do not fall under weasel wording Borsoka. And please remember that even if we go back, you still have same count of reverts as me. I never assumed any bad faith from you and reverted you only after properly examining your claim. 117.214.157.249 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Corinne, Saladin offering Reynald conversion and him refusing it is mentioned in the last footnote of the page 72: Perhaps the most famous case is that of Saladin, who is presented by some Muslim chronicles as attempting to persuade Raynald of Châttilion to convert, and again killing him when the latter refuses;.117.214.157.249 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User 117, thank you for pointing out the footnote. However, the footnote ends with this statement:

[W]hether this actually occurred or was a later attempt to improve his image is open to debate.

Given that qualification, don't you think starting the sentence with "One version presented by some Muslim sources" is singling out one version without presenting other possibilities (ie., that it didn't happen), thus coming close to the first sentence in WP:WEASEL, "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated", or even WP:UNDUE? (Note that I have no particular reason to side with either of you.) – Corinne (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Corinne it's called a "version". I never said or presented Saladin offering conversion to Raynald as the only correct version. In fact I've presented aother version of his death as well. The sentence before the line about version of Saladin offering conversion says "Accounts of his death differ however they all share the same outcome of Raynald dying by being beheaded."

And just after the line of Saladin offering Raynald conversion, there's another version where he doesn't offer any conversion and kills him after his arrogant reply: "Another version of his death contained in Ernoul's chronicle and the chronicle of William of Tyre has Saladin instead asking him what would he do to him if he was his prisoner. Raynald then replies that he would have beheaded Saladin who replies back that Raynald is in his prison but yet he replied to him with arrogance. He is then struck by Saladin and subsequently beheaded by his aides."

I don't understand how you are saying that I singled out one version and never presented other possibilities, since I never singled it out and I mentioned other versions as well. 117.214.157.249 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to know which sources mention that Raynald was offered the chance to convert, but I wanted to add that Alex Mallett is certainly a trustworthy source. He is/was apparently writing a biography of Raynald with Bernard Hamilton, for a chapter in a book about Raynald, edited by Paul Crawford. The book doesn't seem to be published yet? I'm not sure. These are all very reliable names among crusade historians, so I imagine the "some Muslim sources" are real, even if they weren't explicitly mentioned in Mallett's footnote. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If anyone wants to cite it, Anne-Marie Eddé's recent biography Saladin in French (Flammarion, 2008), which I'd say is a very reliable secondary source by a well known scholar, says without hesitation "To Reynald he proposed conversion to Islam, and, in response to his refusal, decapitated him with his own hand." (Page 250; my translation.) No source is cited for this sentence, but in general Eddé is using Muslim sources in this narrative. She has just cited Ibn al-Athir, Kâmil, XI, p. 536, and is about to cite Ibn Shaddâd, Nawâdir, p. 79, both citations to Arabic editions. Andrew Dalby 11:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew and Adam. The editor Bordoka has needlessly been creating an issue over someone not mentioning the name of their sources, even though the authors book I've cited are reliable historians. Also User:Andrew Dalby does she say about the other versions of Raynald's death? For example, the one where Raynald is instead beheaded by Saladin's aides for refusing to convert and the one where he isn't given any chance to convert and beheaded after his arrogant reply to Saladin's question? I don't think we should use someone who considers just one version while ignoring the other versions. 117.199.95.4 (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No, she doesn't. In general she works from primary sources as close as possible to the events, and I guess the implication is that she doesn't think the versions of other sources (on this detail) deserve serious consideration.

The same decision was made in the multi-volume History of the Crusades edited by Setton (see vol. 1 p. 614). There, also, the other versions (on this detail) are apparently thought not worth mentioning. These are good secondary sources, but whether they are used in our footnotes, and whether we give any weight to their preference, is up to those who are writing the article! Andrew Dalby 17:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not a good practice that someone only conisders one version and omits others just based on what they believe. Regardless, I'm ok with her being as presented as a source for one of the versions since she detailed her sources. She should be simply added as a source for the version of Saladin killing Raynald after he refuses to convert. 117.207.146.117 (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be good to mention the various possibilities, but it's not really a question of omitting some versions and favouring others. The primary sources that we typically use for Raynald's death are Imad ad-Din, since he was standing there and saw it happen, and "Ernoul" (or whatever we would like to call the continuation of William of Tyre in French), since that author probably heard the story directly from Guy of Lusignan (who also saw it, of course). The other sources are later and were not eyewitnesses; although they're primary sources for us, they're actually secondary sources for this particular event. That is why they are given less weight in the modern sources. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I share Adam Bishop's view. Historians who carefully studied the events (Hamilton, Barber, Runciman, etc.) seem to accept Imad ad-Din's narration. Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

We do not judge the sources to be more true or false Adam and Borsoka. I don't see you mentioning Anne-Marie Eddé has used for her book. In addition Hamiliton's work seems to be biased in favour of Raynald and tries to present a favourable picture of him, this defence of Raynald by Hamilton is also talked about in sources of other authors. Also Alex Mallet's source says that Saladin is presented as cutting off Raynald's head to portray him as an Islamist warrior fighting against the Crusaders. And Imad ad-Din's article presents him disgusted by Saladin's generosity. Not only that I do not see any proof whether he was standing right there. But regardless we shouldn't give more weight to any specific version, atleast not by ourselves. Regardless of what the author thinks is more correct, other versions shouldn't have been omitted. But the main point was about identifying the Muslim sources. If it's ok with you then I'll like to edit the page and insert the Muslim sources used by Anne-Marie Eddé in the article in order to remove the "who?" tag. 59.96.135.183 (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above message. The above conversation proves that the overwhelming majority of specialists (including Eddé [2]) accepts that Raynald was offered to convert to Islam, but he refused him. Why do you want to cite Eddé's work to verify a totally different narration? Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't Borsoka, you're just completely delving into "Original Research" now. Let's be clear that none of the sources actually once say which versions is true or which is false or which seems more closer to reality to them. Unless they give a specific reason themselves as to why they cited only one version of events, giving more weight or considering only one version as closer to the real event or saying the authors do so is complete Original Research. Besides I was talking about using Edde's source for citing some of the primary sources used by scholars Saladin offering him conversion, not a different version. The other version's primary sources are already cited. And have you taken the opinion of every scholar of the Crusades on the planet that you are claiming that an "overwhelming majority" of specialists accept it? Not to mention Alex Mallet's remarks about Muslim writers presenting Muslim rulers as giving offering a chance to convert to show them emulating actions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. You're creating yet another meaningless and needless dispute when there was none. Now since no one is protesting against using Edde's source for identifying the Muslim sources about Saladin offering Raynald conversion, I'm going to add it to the article later. 59.91.95.36 (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I still do not understand you. Would you please read this remark again, more carefully ([[3]]): Eddé cannot be used to list Muslim authors in this context, because "No source is cited for" the sentence about Saladin's offer. Borsoka (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka Here's what I meant in short so you understand: Original research which you are doing is not allowed by Wikipedia. That's it. Also thanks for pointing out, I forgot that part where it was said no source is cited. Since there is isn't, we cannot identify the primary sources. The who? tag is irrelevant now. 59.89.46.92 (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, OR is not allowed. However, WP:Weasel is also to be applied. Consequently, as per above remarks, if no other Muslim authors can be listed, the reference to them will be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Raynald's death

Most reliable sources cited in the article agree that (1) Saladin took an oath that he would personally kill Raynald some time before the battle of Hattin; (2) after the battle, Saladin offered the captured Raynald to convert to Islam; (3) Raynald refused Saladin's offer; and (4) Raynald was beheaded. If my understanding is correct, the article now describes alternative versions as well, based on a scholarly work (John Man: Saladin: The Life, the Legend and the Islamic Empire). For me especially surprising, that William of Tyre is one of the cited primary sources (although he died before Raynald). Is the present presentation of the versions of Raynald's death fully in line with WP:DUE? Borsoka (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

These are interesting points. I don't know on what grounds you call John Man's book a scholarly work: it may be, I haven't seen it, but he is not a specialist in this subject. The reference to William of Tyre will be someone's misunderstanding (I don't know whose) because two of the real early sources are Ernoul's memoir (as mentioned by Adam Bishop and others above) and the Estoire de Eracles, which are interdependent continuations of William's work; as you rightly say, William himself cannot possibly be a source for the Battle of Hattin.

My quick view is that Ernoul's version of the story deserves attention because he was close to the event and gives it a very full and clear description. For anyone curious to read it, the Ernoul version of the event is here and on the following page. According to this, it all happened in Saladin's tent, until the moment when Saladin took Reynald outside that tent to behead him. The main detail that Ernoul does not have is the offer of conversion.

I just now found an old Latin translation of Baha al-Din's Arabic narrative. This is treated by our modern secondary sources as one of the two major Muslim primary sources on the event. It gives a similar story to Ernoul, but adding three significant points: that Saladin took Reynald not into the open air (as might be assumed from Ernoul) but into his antechamber; he invited Reynald to convert; after Reynald's refusal Saladin said "Then now I shall act as defender of Muhammad"; and Saladin's stroke did not cut off Reynald's head, the job being finished by others present. Anyone curious to see this text can find it here: screens 102-103, but a good English translation is now available.

The agreement between these two independent sources is impressive. There is really no contradiction between them: no wonder that modern secondary sources deal with it the way they do.

Incidentally, if Ernoul is who he says he is, he was close at hand but not actually present in the tent. He surely had an eyewitness source, but probably one who didn't speak Arabic, and the source would have remained in the main tent at the crucial moment. So, if an offer of conversion was made to Reynald just before the beheading, and if Saladin himself didn't complete the beheading, Ernoul's eyewitness source would probably not have known it. Those who would have known would have been Saladin himself and any of his companions within hearing. Hence, if Ernoul's narrative is good -- and it looks very good to me -- the only reliable primary source on the moment of the beheading would be a Muslim source. -- But this is exactly why the Wikipedia method is so good for us. We don't have to work all that out (and maybe get it wrong). We use secondary sources as our guide :-) Andrew Dalby 12:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Andrew Dalby We don't decide who's a scholar and who's a specialist. Anyone who decides to research a subject can be considered a scholar, we cannot decide who's considered a scholar. Nor we decide which one's the real primary source. That's original research which you are doing in your comments without evidence to back it up. Also Borsoka don't assert what's due or undue. Unless the sources say so themselves, your assertions are complete original research. And no matter how many questions and assertions you make, original research isn't allowed. We should mention all the possibilities, we are not here to conduct any research or find what is true or false. I don't see anything further to be done in this matter as per the rules. 59.89.46.92 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad I was able to help. Andrew Dalby 17:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Anon, I think you misunderstand WP: we have to decide whether a POV is relevant or not, as per WP:DUE. Would you explain why you think that the POV of a single author who "usually write[s] non-fiction, mainly exploring interests in Asia and the history of written communication" (and who likes to "mix history, narrative and personal experience") can be regarded as important as most specialists' scholarly consensus? Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No I don't misunderstand Borsoka. We don't decide whether a historical event or a bersion of it is due or undue especially since we have nothing proving it as undue. You are merely using your Original research. We simply mention the sources and what they say, we do not decide which one's the closer to events or not. Original research which you are doing isn't allowed, not to mention your claims aren't even backed up by any of the sources. Again: Original research isn't allowed at all. So this matter is settled as per the rules. Thank you. 59.89.46.92 (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Andrew Dalby Do you think it's ok to use your source [4] written by Albert Schudens for citing Imad-ad Din's name as one of the Muslim sources in the article? I think it can be used, but it's quite old. What do you think? Should we use it? 59.89.46.92 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

And User:Borsoka before telling me about something, please read the rules yourselves. I do not have to wait for your approval to edit when others don't have a problem. Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus is not a democratic process to enforce something, its a compromise where you take all the valid arguments of all editors. That's it. 59.89.46.92 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No. I do not use my original research, but I would like to avoid adding more weight to a scholarly POV than it has. If my understanding is correct, you have been trying to add the information that not all scholars accept the reliability of the reports of Saladin's offer to Raynald. I added this piece of information to the article based on a unquestionably reliable source. However, we cannot use Erdbury's translation of a primary source (Ernoul's chronicle) without citing a scholarly work to verify the use of that specific primary source. I hope, the present status of the article represent a consensual view. Borsoka (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Borsoka yes you are purely using your original research as you have no proof to the contray which proves you correct. The sources I added about Ernoul and Eilliam of Tyre's version in fact make it clear to identify their primary source. I have reverted your edit. Please refrain from removing other versions and changing the article based slolely on your POV and original research. Your comments are complete original research. 59.89.46.92 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Anon, have you realised that William of Tyre died before Raynald's execution? Have you realised that you are referring to primary sources without verifying them by a citation to a reliable source? Would you explain what part of this edit ([5]) contains original research? Please also remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your entire edit, including removal of sources and presenting only one version which is based on your thinking that scholars agree on it (which you never presented any evidence for) is original research and enforcing your own POV. Also thanks for pointing out about William of Tyre but actually his year and date of death is uncertain, 1186 is the agreed upon year of his death by some schokars, although I did mistake him mentioning Raynald's death. The Edbury source includes multiple chroniclers including William of Tyre and I mistook Ernoul's work to be from William of Tyre. Besides bedore warning me about 3RR, take a look at yourselves first and the edit-warring you are doing. 59.89.46.92 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you cite other sources than Man to show that the other versions are accepted by specialists? You obviously have not realised that all other scholarly works cited in the article present only one single version. To avoid further misunderstanding of primary sources, I suggest you should avoid OR and presenting it as verified information. The present version of the article is not properly verified, consequently it should significantly be modified. Please understand I do not want to present one single version, but your original research destroys the whole article. Try to cite academic works instead of sharing the results of your own original research with us. Borsoka (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You are the one doing OR. You haven't given a single proof for your claims. I've already cited other authors. And while you are claiming me to do original research you haven't read the sources yourselves it seems. You are the one destroying this article. Man and Edbury are reliable scholars and you are taking it upon yourself to decide who's correct or not. Without evidence, your claims are baseless. Please revert yourself and stop disrupting or I'll revert you. 59.89.46.92 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Erdbury is a reliable scholar, but his translation of primary sources cannot be directly cited, as per WP:Primary. Consequently, would you cite other sources than Man to show that the other versions are accepted by specialists? Borsoka (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka I advised you earlier to read Edbury's source. It is not a translation of anyone's work, I think you are mistaking the word in the title "sources in translation". In fact he is simply citing many sources for his assertions about history of Crusades, not giving a translation of them. It is a secondary source. Now unless you have read it which you most likely haven't based on your comments, please do not waste any more of everyone's time with your comment. 59.89.46.92 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what a translation is? Do you say that google.books and amazon.com are wrong when describing the book as "This is a collection in modern English of some of the key texts describing Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem in October 1187 and the third Crusade which was Christendom's response." ([6], [7]). According to books.google., "The greater part of this book comprises a rendering of the 1184-97 section of the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre (from the edition prepared by the late M. R. Morgan). There then follows a selection of texts and excerpts, chosen because they illustrate further the events handled in the main narrative. These include episodes in the rise to power of the ill-fated king of Jerusalem, Guy de Lusignan, accounts of the Battle of Hattin (4 July 1187) that were written directly after the events, reports written from the siege of Acre (1189-91) and letters from King Richard the Lionheart describing the progress of his campaign." Borsoka (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

We are talking about Ernoul's work, William of Tyre isn't used for Raynald's death. How is translation of William of Tyre affecting the events that happened after he died? The book uses Ernoul as a source of Raynald's death. Again as I said, please try to read the source instead of commenting based purely on your original research. 117.228.234.102 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, soon after I draw you attention to the fact that your original research was wrong, you started to ignore William of Tyre. However, you cannot refer to Ernoul's work or its translation either, as per WP:Primary. If my understanding is correct, you cannot refer to other scholarly work than the one written by Man to show that the other versions are accepted by specialist. If this is the case, why do you want to emphasize the other versions based on a primary source (Ernoul's work)? Borsoka (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I never did any OR, infact I have mentioned the text of the sources accurately. You are repeatedly making false allegations without proof which isn't allowed. You however repeatedly make claims based on your own original research. If I wanted to I could use Ernoul's work himself here. Using primary sources is allowed. But Edbury isn't simply translating and pasting Ernoul. His work is a secondary source. And I can bring other sources, but it's pointless since you will likely insist on your OR of only keeping Saladin's offer of giving him a chance to convert over one reason or another. This will also make it seem I'm giving in to your meaningless arguments and regarding you correct and letting you do what you want, even though all you have done is base your assertions purely on OR. Why are you insisiting on removing other versions? It seems that you have no intreset in keeping the other version and just want to keep the one about Saladin offering Raynald conversion based on your OR about it. That isn't allowed. I suggest you move on and stop disrupting this article over more needless arguments. 117.241.118.76 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No. I do not want to remove other version, as it is proved by my edit ([8]) that you reverted. I would be glad to add Ernoul's report as well, but you have been for days unable to verify that his report is accepted by specialists. Would you quote Edbury's view of Ernoul's report of Raynald's death? Borsoka (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Borsoka, Here's your edit where you removed the other version [9], it shows your intentions clearly. I have already verified that it is accepted by specialists, I cited sources for it as well. Yet you are create an inssue needlessly over your OR. Read Edbury's page 48. You claim me of doing OR. Would you please quote any source with a view about Raynald being offered to convert that you never have even once? 117.241.118.76 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you have not named a single specialist and you also missed to quote Erdbury's view of Ernoul's report. Nevertheless, I sought community assistance to solve this problem ([10]). Borsoka (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

What specialist are you talking about? Aren't these sources specialists for you? You haven't cited any author's views to substantiate your claims yet you claim scholarly consensus. You are induldging in double standards and have needlessly extended the issue again for your POV and OR. 117.241.118.76 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You obviously missed my edit two days ago when I summarized my view and named some specialists ([11]). However, you have so far been unable to name a single specialist and to quote Erdbury's view of Ernoul's report to verify your approach. Sorry, during the next few days I will ignore your remarks, because there is no point in continuing our debate. Thereafter, based on the comments of other editors, the article can be improved. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even really sure what this argument is about anymore...is it basically about whether John Man is a reliable source? I would say unequivocally that he's not. We have so many other well-known and well-established sources on the history of the crusades, and of this specific period and even of this specific incident, and you want to cite...John Man? Who is John Man, anyway? (I almost have to think he's one of the anonymous posters here.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, actually, John Man is the subject of the debate, because his book is the only work that has so far been cited to verify that Ernoul's report is to be mentioned here. Actually, a couple of hours ago, I came to the same conclusion about Man's participation in this debate. :) :) :) Borsoka (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems you do not read your own comment. Again you're basing your claims on OR User:Borsoka. Is your summary of your view supposed to be a proof about the views of the specialists? Not only that you said it "seems". I think you've missed the whole point that you haven't presented any specialist's view about various versions of Raynald's death neither you have provided any proof for your claim. Those author never presented any view regarding the various versions, all you are doing is making incorrect claims and OR to push your POV.117.241.118.76 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I've also detailed your double standards, indudgling in OR and removing Ernoul's versions as well as all the new sources from the article at your comment. Try to be truthful and not show others falsely in a bad light to push your POV. 117.241.118.76 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh and User:Borsoka, here's John Man (author). He's a very well-known author however you term him unreliable without even researching about him. I was correct that you have been creating a needless issue and you have proved it with your comments, it's all about you trying to push your ill-informed POV. 117.241.118.76 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I see you've taken advantage of the protection to enforce your POV again. Should have expected that much. I have proven how ill-informed you are. Please revert yourselves if you have any regard for the betterment of the article. 117.241.118.76 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I said that, not Borsoka. This is a common problem on Wikipedia. Too many people believe that "words published in a book" = "reliable source". Or, "person who writes a lot of books" = "reliable source". That's simply not true. John Man may be an excellent writer and a fine gentlemen, but no, he's not a reliable source for this topic. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Adam Bishop I remember you were favor of both Man and Edbury earlier. John Man is a well-reputed author whom Borsoka doubts without researching about him first. Besides I know what you you said, but Borsoka has been raising doubts about him since the beginning, not to mention him thinking Edbury's source shouldn't be used over one excuse or another. Man has written a good number of books about history, this along with his reputation should cement him as a reliable scholar. We do not decide by ourselves what is a relaible scholar, only Wikipedia's policies decide. Sorry but I don't agree at all with you. 117.241.118.76 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favour of mentioning the conversion aspect of the story, but I don't think we should rely on John Man, when we've already mentioned a half-dozen actual historians of the crusades that should be used. On this point we will apparently have to agree to disagree. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I fully agree, but I do not know who could be cited. Could you suggest someone? I also think, we should rewrite the section in accordance with WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is honestly ridiculous, this article's been hijacked and I'm wasting my time here as people here only want to insert what they want solely. I am talking about the other version, how can you decide we can't rely on John Man? He's a reputed historian. That is against the rules, you can't decide who's reliable or not especially without proof. And of course Borsoka will agree to anything since he wants to enforce his POV as evidenced by his edits and earlier complete removal of everything that was added. He's been making excuses since day 1 which by the way don't even exist in the rules and while alleging others of something wrong, has been indulging in it himself. Ofcourse he'll claim he did nothing wrimg and will make mkre excuses. This article's been hijacked by him. Now that 2 people are against me, he'll for sure use that to his advantage as "consensus" is in his side. It is unfortunate how a few people are able to enforce what they want by bending and breaking the rules and taking advantage of them. Not just this article, but the whole Wikipedia's been hijacked by such people. I'm wasting my time and so is anyone else who comes here solely to contribute and make this site better, this place is an anarchy now. 117.214.152.18 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

May I insert a brief comment here? Adam Bishop, I think it would be helpful if you explain why John Man is not to be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards instead of simply stating that he is not a reliable source. This is a really important thing for editors to understand generally, and it might help to diffuse the tension in this discussion. – Corinne (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very good point! I think I'm taking certain things for granted that aren't always obvious to everyone. First of all, I should mention that this is a problem that goes far beyond this article. It's a problem on Wikipedia as a whole and always has been, as long as I've been here. It’s great that anyone can contribute, of course. But that often means that people who know a little bit about a subject are eager to add what they've read. Including me! I do that all the time. Wikipedia probably wouldn't exist without that enthusiasm.

But having said that, it often also happens that people think any source is a good source. If it's been published in a book, it must be accurate; it must be a valid source. This happens all the time in Wikipedia’s crusade articles, since the crusaders are so popular and so many thousands of books have been written, including many by popular historians who aren't really formally trained in the history of the crusades. I don't mean to dismiss "popular historians", they can be a good introduction to a topic, but in Man’s case we can just as easily use the same sources that he used.

Admittedly I don't have a full copy of Man's book, but I can see most of it using the “look inside” feature on Amazon. It's very much in the same style as other popular histories, where substance is sacrificed in favour of style. It’s very conversational, which is not inherently bad, but not typically how historians write.

I'm reading pages 160-165, where he talks about Raynald's death, and it's exactly as I said - more style than substance. He names sources, and there are occasional notes, but no footnotes exactly. It could be hard to figure out what his sources are, but fortunately it’s pretty obvious. For example, the long quote on p. 163 is ultimately from Imad ad-Din, but more directly, it’s from the translation by Amin Maalouf in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (and that book is also a problem). The quote about the "tyrant of Kerak" on p. 164 comes from Saladin: The Politics of the Holy War by Malcolm Lyons and D.E.P. Jackson. That’s just two sentences that jumped out at me and that I could easily check; the whole book is full of quotes like that though, lifted from other books. I’m sure he’s also using the translated sources in Peter Edbury’s The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, and all the other collections of translated sources about Hattin and the Third Crusade. And in fact, all these sources and more are listed in his bibliography, which is better than nothing, but not as good as proper footnotes.

So, when I see that, I wonder why we are using him as a source. Man has just done the same thing that we would do. It’s like he’s writing a Wikipedia article, but book-length. It looks like he’s speaking authoritatively because he’s a bit secretive about his sources, but we know exactly what they are: they’re the good secondary sources we should be using. So why use Man at all?

As I said earlier, Man may be a great writer, and he certainly has written a lot of books about various subjects. But he’s not an expert in any of them. Apparently he’s very good at presenting lots of diverse subjects to a general audience, and that’s great, but isn’t that also what Wikipedia is for? And Man doesn’t even cite his sources, while that’s something we can easily do here. There’s no reason to use Man as a source when we can simply use his sources, the ones written by historians who are experts in the crusades, the ones mentioned earlier on this page.

Lastly, Man mentions in passing the possibility that a captive could be offered the chance to convert, without naming Saladin or Raynald. While I was looking up Man’s sources, I notice that Lyons and Jackson do mention it explicitly. They cite it to ibn Shaddad, the same source that Anne-Marrie Eddé used (as Andrew mentioned). It’s also in the English translation of ibn Shaddad in the Crusade Texts in Translation series.

I hope that helps. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Raynald of Châtillon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Will review. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No copyvio/dablink/external link issues. Fairly well-written, only a few comments: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

General

I think the article should follow BE throughout. If you like I have a script to do this.
We generally mention people by their surnames after they have been introduced. There seems to be some inconsistency on this in the article.

Lead

Most historians have regarded Raynald...nearby Muslim states. Maybe this line in the lead could be more precise in what parties have supported him and who have opposed him.

Early years

but Jean Richard demonstrated Raynald's kinship with the Lords of Donzy When exactly did this revelation come?
Steven Runciman says that Raynald Sounds somewhat informal, "According to Steven..." would be better

Prince of Antioch

Duplink: William of Tyre

Family

Constance was born in 1128. She succeeded her father in Antioch in 1130 Short sentences, can be combined

Lord of Oultrejordain

Subheadings would be helpful.
Duplink: Bohemond III of Antioch

Legacy

Peter of Blois dedicated a book (entitled Passion of Prince Raynald of Antioch) to him When was it published?

Images

I would suggest similar modifications to the captions as in Constance of Antioch. Nothing mandatory, though.

Sainsf, thank you for your comprehensive review. I hope I could properly modify the article. Sorry, I do not understand the expression "BE" in the first sentence. Borsoka (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

BE=British English. Not a necessity for GA, but it is preferable to follow a style. Presently, I will be promoting this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)