Talk:Crusades/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Removing "in Europe"

The following discussion 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.

---

Should §5 In Europe (see this version) be retained or removed? Srnec (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Retained. An article titled "crusades" should cover all that scholars typically cover when they survey the crusades, that includes touching upon the crusades in Europe. Alan Murray's The Crusades: An Encyclopedia covers them. The Routledge Companion covers them. The University of Wisconsin Press's multivolume series covers them. Tyerman's God's War covers them. Omitting them here is misleading and unhelpful to readers. The current weight given to the crusades in Europe (relative to the others) is reasonable and in step with how scholarly surveys handle the topic. Srnec (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Remove;after much debate the consensus was this article's scope was the OED historical and traditional definition A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. The paragraph in the Legacy gives adequate weight to these other crusades as a summary of the after-effects of the crusades to recover Jerusalem. The Europe section presently gives WP:UNDUE attention to events and personalities while failing to cover five centuries of history across a wide geographic reach. The crusades for Jerusalem currently do not have their own summary article, because this is it, many of the European theatres already have summary articles e.g. Northern Crusades, Reconquista, Popular crusades and another could be added for the polical crusades. In effect this section tries to act as a summary article of several summary articles in 1100 words. While Enclyopedias quoted above have the space to do this with equivalent weight, WP articles do not. FWIW it would be possible to create a list of works, e.g Asbridge, that scope the topic to the above definition. In addition a broader article on subject that does give equivalance to all the theatres exists at Crusading. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Asbridge's work is subtitled The War for the Holy Land. Riley-Smith's The Crusades: A History is not so limited. It is a general rule: if the title is general, it covers the general phenomenon. Srnec (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a terminological issue. My understanding that many use "Crusades" to mean the crusades to gain the Holy land. It's a natural title for this subject. There is no need for this to be a big deal. No article on a subject belongs to one specific group of editors or to a particular position on the subject. The article Crusading belongs also to those who work on Crusades and vice-versa. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, but shorten' Essentially I agree there was a consensus to make the Levantine crusades the subject here, but a considerably shorter section should be retained for background/context. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Remove the RM consensus was that the title Crusades should have the traditional scope - the numbered crusades to the Eastern Mediterranean. The "In Europe" section creates a halfway-house between the "traditional" scope and the "generalist" scope, which I think is confusing to readers. I am broadly ok with Johnbod's suggestion; I would propose that the section becomes a one-or-two paragraph summary of our "Crusading" article. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That's about the length I had in mind. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I did add a paragraph to cover this, but it was reverted. Perhaps it needs another couple of sentences to be complete. I have restored it to the legacy section for comment. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. Regarding the one or two paragraph, it is important that it is pertinent to the subject. Even a single sentence is too much if the pertinence is not clear. It will be confusing. It is not the length that is important. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Note added: Remove or retain means little out of context. My proposal is two articles, a top article and another on traditional crusades. The top article should have less emphasis on the traditional crusades than this one and more room for institutions and for a separate article on the traditional crusades. The "Remove" here assume that this article becomes the article on the traditional crusades.
• Retain. I understood that consensus had been reached that this to be the main article on crusades. How can it be that if it omits the many crusades in Europe? If it does omit them it needs renaming: Levantine Crusades or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We must avoid cyclic reasoning: we fix the scope to better determine the titles later or fix the scope given the current titles, but not both. In addition, clearly Crusades is a valid title for the crusades to gain the holy land. This definition of "Crusades" is still often used. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Retain. Like it or not, the term "Crusades" refers to the broader definition considered in the current article. That fact that some people don't think that is the case is irrelevant. Even the more elementary Encyclopedia.com considers the full gamut in their main Crusades article. I'm sure the World Book does too. All modern historians have this view, even if some may have written books on the narrower subject. Historical works back to the 17th century take the broader view, as do the standard references currently in use cited above by Srnec.
  I understand the desire for an article just focused on the period from 1096–1291 in the Holy Land and I support the creation of such an article. But there still needs to be an overall article that covers all the Crusades. And it should be called Crusades.
  It has long been recognized that the Second Crusade and the Wendish Crusade (part of the Northern Crusades) and Reconquista were intertwined. Will we then go and remove Section 2 from the Second Crusade article? How do we deal with the Fourth Crusade--is it really a Crusade against Islam in the Holy Land? What about the Crusades against the Mamluks or Mongols? The popular Crusades? Despite what popular culture tells us, the subject is much more complicated that the Pope sending some Holy Warriors to free Jerusalem. And please stop the "traditionalist," "pluralist" and "generalist" nonsense. Those terms have no real relevance to this discussion. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"That fact that some people don't think that is the case is irrelevant" and what about the fact that some think the opposite . Anyway, if those people that work on the article that focuses on Crusades for the Holy Land, the Crusader states, etc. think that "Crusades" is not a good title, then it could be a different title. My first impression is that there was a consensus that this more specific subject should nevertheless have the title "Crusades". Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

NOTE ADDED: Dr. Grampinator, please do not modify a comment in such a significant manner after it has received a response. People need to be able to easily reconstitute the flow of the discussion. It's not so important here, because it is mostly about terminology and we should stop discussing terminology and choice of titles for a while and focus on content and scope. It was a reformatting of the text by Snerc that I misinterpreted as an addition. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers IIWhat are you talking about? Do you think I have some magical "Wikipedia powers"? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I answer at the bottom of this thread, as we should normally do. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The Europe section is a mess, for example it does not highlight the synthesis between the Second Crusade, Wendish and Reconquista that Dr. Grampinator mentions and it never has. The reason for this is this article follows a fairly common approach of concenting on the numbered crusades and tacking a fairly random collection of factoids about the undoubtedly related campaigns that dragged on and spread wider. So we have a good article about the crusades for Jersualem weighed down with some rather poor sections about the rest. No attempt is made to thread these together. This article could easily be renamed Crusades for the Holy Land and Crusading copied here in its place. Both need work, Crusading already gives greater equvalence to the wider crusade history but needs tlc and expansion, this one needs the rubbish about Europe summarised and the rest of the content refocussed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish I think we're in agreement on most points. Most of us recognize that the current Crusades article is in need of a lot of work. But I still think that its scope should be the broader one. I have no problem with another article on the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095-1291. But, I don't think there should be a separate article on "Non-Holy Land Crusades". I have some ideas but will let them gel while awaiting a consensus. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Grampinator—yep, I think the same i.e. we agree on most points and I certainly don't think that the non-Holy lands should be carved out of general article, rather that the general article should cover evrything crusades related but there is a need for the detail of the holy land crusades to have their own summary article— like the Northern Crusades, Popular crusades and Reconquista already do. I am looking forward to your idea, but I don't think this RFC as constituted is likely to achieve consensus. It is the wrong question. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ignore the Rfc, since it is not going to achieve consensus and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY anyway, and proceed. We only need to agree on which of the two articles will be the starting point as the article about all crusades. It does not matter much which one, because the article will not belong to a group of editors or to a particular position on the subject. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Grampinator, you wrote: What are you talking about? Do you think I have some magical "Wikipedia powers"? I might not have explained myself clearly. I am just saying that your previous comment dated 18:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC) had originally five sentences, but on the 30th of March, you added a complete new paragraph, way after people replied to the comment. This gives the false impression that the responses considered this extra paragraph, which could not be the case. It is OK to modify a vote and provide the explanation, of course, but usually people make sure that the flow can be understood. For example, they strike a previous comment instead of removing it. In this particular case, the best would have been to put this extra discussion at the botton of the thread concerning your vote, which is here at the time of writing. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers II You explained yourself quite clearly and I think I did also when saying that you are wrong. My comment of 27 March had three paragraphs and I have made no changes to them. The link you included showed some edits by Srnec and I doubt he made any changes to what I wrote. Perhaps you are living in some alternate Wikipedia universe, but the only additions to this thread that I made on 30 March was in response to your entry. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I stroke what I wrote. It was only that you did not indent your text in a way that respects usage in Wikipédia and Srnec felt, and I agree, that it was necessary to reorganize the text. It gave the false impression of added text, but the reorganization was needed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Please, be nice in the way you address people in Wikipedia. Saying to someone "Do you think I have some magical 'Wikipedia powers'?" and "Perhaps you are living in some alternate Wikipedia universe" is too much centered on the person and not in a positive manner. Let's focus on the content instead. I believe that there is a potential for excellent articles on the subject, because we have good editors that seem to know well the subject and despite a difficulty that is difficult to well identify, there seems to exist a lot of common understanding. I am only trying to help by bringing out some technical points, such as the fact that forking is not normally encouraged in Wikipedia.

Dominic Mayers II My apologies. I am prone to hyperbole. And I'm inept at formatting, but will try to indent this. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Retain. We can suppose that our general reader (most likely living in China, India or Indonesia, and not in the UK) expects information about the Northern Crusades, Italian Crusades, etc. in an article titled "Crusades". This approach is fully in line with 90% of the works cited in the article. One can hardly present the traditionalist crusades without mentioning further crusades. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Retain (invited by the bot) This is the top level Crusades articles and those are crusades by on of the closely related definitions of the term. Even if this is sort of a "tier 2" meaning. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, if it it is the top article on the subject, then it should retain the crusades in Europe. Isn't it obvious. The only problem is that it was not the context of the question. The question assumed a previous consensus that this was not to remain the top article. Without this assumption, the question can be so obviously answered without Rfc. Because of this confusion, this Rfc means nothing. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Retain - I'm not sure what the question is or proposed change is -- is it to relabel the section, remove the division, or delete the content ? I would say keep the European crusades mentioned here and the title "In Europe" seems usable, I would not delete them as they are generally referred to as Crusades. The historiography of what Crusades are is a topic discussed in texts, e.g. Crusading and the Crusader States and is covered in reputable compendium texts such as The Crusades: A reader or God's Battalions or The Crusades: A History, or Battles of the Crusades 1097-1444: From Dorylaeum to Varna. Simply put, scholars do typically cover events outside the Holy Land and the typical 8 or 9 campaigns and describe them as Crusades, though they vary in coverage or what campaigns they cover. Whether that is in, Constantiople, Spain, Italy, Sweden, or elsewhere -- there just are historians covering them as Crusades and part of the overall Crusading period. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Markbasset, this is a simple situation where it is assumed that we need an article that covers all crusades and to my knowledge nobody disagree that this article, which would cover all crusades, should cover crusades in Europe. This could not possibly be the question. The question was raised in a specific context where this article here would NOT be this article about all crusades, but an article about the crusades to free Jerusalem. In my opinion, if it is an article with this narrower subject, then we can cover aspects of other crusades that are pertinent to this narrower subject and there was no need for an Rfc. In my opinion, these confusing Rfcs result from a disagreement about how to present the overall subject, but without any genuine discussions on the real issues, at the least not recently. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The question was raised in a specific context where this article here would NOT be this article about all crusades, but an article about the crusades to free Jerusalem. No. I am asking about this article right here, as it is right now. It is better to get specific and concrete—as this RFC is—to determine real consensus. If you cannot get consensus to remove that section—which an editor recently removed before I reverted—then you do not have consensus to re-scope this article. You may yet have consensus to create a 'Levantine'-specific article, but it has been gone about completely the wrong way. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Your "No" is a misunderstanding, because me too I am referring to this specific article right here, but what we do with this article right here depends very much on the context. Please do consider the context, because this will help very much. In particular, please consider that there is not even a consensus (see below) on whether there should be one or two articles about all crusades. If there are two top articles and this article is one of them, its scope will depend very much on the outcome of this consensus, because there is a well established guideline against forking in Wikipedia. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Srnec Thank you for clarifying the question, which I take as yours to frame since you are the one asking. My conclusion: Have the traditional numbered ones get more space per WEIGHT, but also include the rest in DUE proportion to the WEIGHT of each, because historians regard them as Crusades. There also seems some misunderstandings above as “Levantine” is just Syria thru Israel and “Holy Lands” is only Israel, and even the traditional 8 are in Europe (Constantinople) and Africa (Egypt). So I oppose any declaration that consensus said only “Levantine” or “Holy lands”. If there is a decision to fork out Crusades (Levant) or Crusades (Holy land), then folks need to say the 4th crusade goes to “In Europe”, and saying where the 5th and St. louis goes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree: give the traditional crusades more space, since they are the paradigmatic crusades, without excluding the others. The result is a broad article that is weighted the same way scholarly works tackling the broad subject weight it. Srnec (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not expert, but I am not convinced that there is a consensus among scholars toward this view in the context of all the crusades. The issue of whether there is one or two main articles on Crusades must be clarified and in doing so, what are the different scholarly approaches to consider all the crusades must be further discussed. Really, there will be no progress, if we do not clarify first whether there is one or two main articles. It seems that there should exist only one top level article and, if that is clarified, the discussions will be more successful. Remember that forking is discouraged in Wikipedia, especially when it is due to different views on the same subject. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What, like we just did? As already discussed at great length, there is no "consensus among scholars". WP:CONTENTFORKING does not apply here; the question is how or whether to divide a huge and unwieldy topic. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if the Crusading article intends to be a top level article about all crusades while the Crusades article remains about all crusades, then it is a forking that requires justifications in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines WP:CONTENTFORKING and this certainly applies here. By "not apply here", you must mean that the guidelines do not say that we cannot divide a subject in sub-subjects and, therefore, the only question is "how or whether to divide a huge and unwieldy topic" (in accord with the guidelines). Yes, I agree. I apologize if I seem to be criticizing. On the contrary, I believe that we have very knowledgeable editors on the subjects here and this should result in one or two great articles that each includes all pertinent view points on the subjects presented in a "neutral" manner, neutral in the special sense given to this word in Wikipedia, i.e., we explain what scholars say in such a way that it is clearly the point of view of these scholars, not an absolute truth or the point of view of Wikipedia. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus among scholars, but most authors cited in this article and in the article "Crusading" adopted a broad approach (I will not list their names again). Recently published general works on the crusades, including the latest general encyclopedia [1] also cover all crusades, including the Baltic Crusades, Albigensian Crusade, Italian Crusade, etc. The topic is much more limited than, for instance, the History of China or Jewish history, so we may solve the problem of size if we do not want to explain all details of each individual crusade in this article. Borsoka (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Markbassett— The OED first/historic/traditional definition is A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. The point being that the primary objective was Jerusalem. That the Fourth and Eighth got diverted doesn't change this, and that said many crusaders continued from these to Acre anyway. The use of Levant is archaic and imprecise; it should probably be avoided. When the question is of WP:UNDUE, there is no one on here that denies the wider geographic and periodic definitions. But there is UNDUE weight given to fighting, dates and personalities. Not enough weight is given to the wider instituitions that are at the core of the wider definitions, most of those involved did not fight and for most of time period crusades were not taking place, but crusading as a socially normative feature of medieval and early modern life was. This article covers none of this, indeed it doesn't even cover all the fighting ouside the Near East or 11th to 13th centuries. It follows broadly the scope of the above definition with tacked on sections for Europe and Later crusades that are incomplete and amount to little more than a incoherent collection of random facts. They could be deleted on quality grounds alone. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish Agree Historians call other campaigns “Crusades”, and that Jerusalem just wasn’t always the reality of or intended destination even if limited to the traditional 8 or 9 numbered Crusades, though I think not after the Third and where folks went after a Crusade failed doesn’t count. Disagree on calling Jerusalem “primary” because of those. The historiography simply varies and is a subject of debate. See also Cambridge definition “The Crusades were a series of wars in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries fought between Christians from Europe and Muslims in the region around the eastern Mediterranean Sea“ or List of Crusades to Europe and the Holy Land. I think “The Crusades” as an article would be just the traditional numbered ones - but when the title is simply “Crusades” then I think it is obligated to be the top-level which includes everything historians call a crusade in proportion to WEIGHT of coverage. Anything from Manzikerf (1071) as a cause up to the 16th century Protestant Reformation causing an end. There just are more Crusades than “The” Crusades and top-level article should cover it all - Papal sanction or not, Middle east or not, 1096-1270 or not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Markbassett and Norfolkbigfish: My suggestion is, again, to stop worry about the various definitions in the literature as mean to attribute a meaning to a term, because that is terminology. The guidelines are perfectly clear that those who contribute to Wikipedia are free to make a synthesis in their own words. The requirement of verifiability does not go as far as insisting that we adopt "the" terminology in the literature, which includes OED, and such a requirement would be non sense, because often this terminology is not consistent. A WP article, as a synthesis of the literature, cannot contain knew knowledge, but it can use its own terminology. In the literature, the terminology that was used in the past and the one that is used today is often discussed in length, but this a sub-subject in itself, which we may cover or not cover in the article. We must distinguish between the issues in terminology as an optional sub-subject and the issue of deciding which terminology we, as editors, we want to use. These are issues at completely different levels and they must not be confused. Most importantly, let us not worry about the choice of terminology at this stage (not more than it is needed to understand each others) and let us focus instead on the content and the scope of the articles. You did that in the above discussion and this was useful. Globally, it was a useful discussion. The point that was not clearly addressed is the weight that must be given in the top article to "the wider institutions [(ideology, architecture, etc.)] that are at the core of the wider definitions". Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with you Markbassett, on just about everything. I would add that Riley-Smith cheerfully extended crusades into the 19th century. But then I would agree because you frame an essential duality to answer this question, the there could be two articles: Crusades as you call it; and The Crusades. At no point do I suspect you are actually suggesting these particular names but they do rather neatly describe an answer to this conumdrum. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever sense it might make, I can't see the wider community living with that. It would be a red rag to many, even more than the present situation. There is surely not enough scholarly support to give Riley-Smith's 19th-century extension more than a very brief passing mention (it was more of a rhetorical flourish really, wasn't it?). Next stop George Bush! Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No argument here Johnbod, I think there are two articles here and couldn't really care less what they were called as long as there was a consensus on it. Although I won't hold my breath, I think this RFC has disappeared down another of those crusade debate rabbit holes. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): Perhaps this proposal could lead to a larger consensus than only three persons, but it fails to address a key issue: what should be the weight given to "the wider institutions [(ideology, architecture, etc.)] that are at the core of the wider definitions" in the reviewed "Crusades" article. In other word, assuming that the current article Crusades is the starting point for the revised article Crusades, does this proposal means that it sections about the traditional crusades, which would be covered by the new article "The Crusades", should become much shorter to leave more room for institutions. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think size wise the Crusading article's sections pretty much nails it. Perhaps needs further summarisation, more topics, more detail and more varied sourcing. This one looks pretty much like what Mark describes as The Crusuades which is why I went Wikipedia:Be bold and deleted the Europe and Later Crusade sections. Look where that led to! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Norfolkbigfish) To express my point differently, Norfolkbigfish, does this means that you are changing your position to "Retain" so that this article can become the revised article "Crusades". I am guessing that it would depend on whether there is also an agreement that there will be more weight given to institutions and less emphasis on MILHIST and on the traditional crusades. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No, Dominic, I remain of the opinion that the sections and the references in the lead should be summarised right down to their legacy impact and this article should be about the numbered crusades, but called whatever suits the community. That opinion extends to there being a need for a wider article to cover the broad range. This could be at a summary level and split into sub-articles. Again, I have no strong feeling on what it should be called. Lastly, having spend a long time discussing this I believe that if the major protaganists of this debate took a deep breath and stepped back they would also agree with this. Although, I am very interested in what Dr G comes up with when this settles down. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I interpret this to mean that you would not start from this article to create what should be a top article in your view and instead consider that it is simpler to make it an article on the narrower subject of the "numbered" crusades. The quotes reflects only my difficulty in dealing with the so many names for closely related concepts if not the same concept: traditional, numbered, Levantine, Holy Land, to save Jerusalem, Crusader states and I am sure there are more, though I noticed that some expressed that they are different concepts. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If it was up to me the answer is yes, Dominic. I would edit out Europe and the Later Crusades, or rather edit those sections back to a summary of the legacy of the "numbered" crusades and move it to a new name. The name I don't care about, but one that reflects the appropriate scope. I know JohnBod probably disagrees on the the rename, but I see no route to that article at this name. I would move Crusading here, it already is at the wider scope, where hopefully its higher profile would encourage active editors would polish it to the level the overarching definition deserves. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What you want to do is clear. Others want to present the overall subject "Crusades" with an emphasis on the numbered crusades and reject an emphasis on a global analysis that put them at the same level as the other crusades. There must be an explanation for this "traditional" approach or whatever we want to call it and I say this with an open mind. I always said since my first intervention here that within generalities there are implicit statements. This is not at all an issue of terminology. It is also not a question of one or two top articles, because both views claim to be a global view on all crusades. Moreover, a valid forking to create an article on the numbered crusades can only help a little, if it can help at all, again because the issue is about different views on all crusades. The question is "What is the subject Crusades in its widest sense, but that is yet sufficiently precise to justify an article in Wikipedia". This should have been the Rfc question and I don't think it can be answered by looking at definitions only. Instead, we should look at the actual content in available scholarly sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please, no one should start another Rfc without some consensus on what should be the question and before we agree on one or two paragraphs that explain the purpose of the Rfc. Besides, we should give a break to those who receive these Rfc. Meanwhile, we should simply discuss the question among us in terms of what is the current status in scholarly sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Retain and expand, rewriting and changing the focus of the article and the lead as necessary to cover all major uses of the term "Crusades". The top-level article on the Crusades has to cover everything that reliable sources generally refer to as a crusade, not just the five "numbered" Crusades covered in elementary school. If people want an article dedicated specifically to the Eastern Mediterranean Crusades, those should be spun off into their own more specific article instead. --Aquillion (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on the meaning of that Rfc

For some people here, the overall subject about all the crusades should have an emphasis on the traditional crusades with some room for institutions. In contrast, for others, especially for Norfolkbigfish, the emphasis on the traditional crusades should take the form of a separate article so that the top article can focus more on institutions. The obvious fact, please take notice of it nevertheless, is that in these two viewpoints, if the current article remains the top article, then the article must retain the section "In Europe". The important point here is that people that voted for Retain did that under the assumption that this article is the top article, so they only confirmed this obvious fact. For this reason, this Rfc means absolutely nothing. There are some that would like to interpret a vote for retain as a vote to keep this article as the top article with the same emphasis on traditional crusades and on MILHIST as we have now, but this was not at all the question asked. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2021 (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.

Proposed global organization for Crusades and Crusading: toward having an RfC

The proposed global organization is that Crusades focuses on the crusades to the Middle East from the First Crusade until the fall of the last of the four Crusader States at the end of the 13th century, their legacy and impact the crusades to the Holy Land (1095–1291) and later crusades in the Levant (1291-1578) whereas Crusading (with a title that may change) focuses on all crusades and refers to Crusades as needed to avoid overlap. This is not saying that Crusades cannot say anything about other crusades, but the subject is the traditional crusades (as stated above) and every added content must be pertinent to this subject. This proposal does not say how this global structure should be achieved. One way to proceed is to merge the two articles and then take out what is needed to create the article on the Levantine crusades, but this is not a part of the proposal. To every one: if your only disagreement is in the title "Crusades" for the traditional crusades, consider that it's only a title and apparently it can make a big difference in getting a consensus. There is also some logic in referring to these crusades as The crusades. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I admire your persistence Dominic Mayers II this is a tricky debate and an example of how WP's ethos doesn't always make sense. Academic specialists on the crusades are incredibly argumentative, put 2 in a room and you get 3 or more opinions. They avoid getting into this debate by avoiding definition entirely, and accepting the widest possible scope, or concentrating on niche research. This article is largely about the crusades to the Middle East from the First Crusade until the fall of the last of the four Crusader States at the end of the 13th century, their legacy and impact. That is a coherent scope. The wider scope is Catholic Holy warfare, all of it, starting from its theological development, it's unexpected success in the First Crusade, the spread of its principles into the Northern Crusades and Reconquista, its influence on Popular Crusades and its squalid use by Popes and other clerics in Political Crusades. This covers two millenia (the Sovereign Military Order of Malta remains a legal entity today) and the perspective is wider. It is facile to say because there are narrative, popular histories written in books that wrap everything called a crusade into single works means that these are academic sources in favour of a particular scope. They are books written to be sold, not an argument reasoned to define a scope. If someone can explain the logical connection between say, the Northern Crusades and the Popular Crusades I would like to hear it, and read their sources. On this basis merging makes no sense, what would make sense is editors editing Crusading into a decent article to cover all Catholic Holy War. That, and agreeing a decent name for it. Afterall, this article passed GA and ACR before failing FAC. It was a decent article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the scope I proposed for this article might not be the best one. You seem to believe that I used books to decide this scope, but I did not and I agree with you that it's not a criteria. I will be happy if there is a consensus toward another scope that is more natural and I just changed my proposal. This scope must justify that there is a separate article for the other crusades, which means that smaller is better. I already taken care of the fact that whatever scope we pick, it does not mean that the article cannot mention other crusades: if some link with other crusades is pertinent, it is within the scope, which is just common sense. Fixing the scope in terms of the covered crusades is not going to resolve all overlaps, but it is a start. So, you should propose a scope in terms of covered crusades (I think you just did) and people who disagree must provide an explanation and a reasonable alternative. We better achieve a consensus, because there will still be an RfC and, if there is no consensus for a global organization of the two articles, the way I see things coming, the outcome will be worst. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod can you clearly state what should be the scope of Crusades in terms of covered crusades in your view, just like Norfolkbigfish did. It's clear that it will be far from resolving all the overlap issues, but it is an important start. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with 1095–1291 in the Levant as the main focus, and a section or two briefly mentioning and linking to other times and places [please don't mess with the indenting and sequence of this comment]. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: An outside editor closed the RFC at Crusading as no consensus and closed the RFC here—on the "In Europe" section—as consensus to retain. It is time to admit that the consensus you thought you had you didn't have. So what is the way forward? My suggestion to you is to propose through an RM a new title for Crusading that reflects what you think it ought to be if this article stays as is. You already admit that the title needs to change. That would be the most productive next step. It does not make sense for editors to edit that article when they are very unsure what exactly it is supposed to be. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish has clearly defined the scope of Crusading and the title is not so important at this stage. Moreover, the RfC that decided to keep Europe was done with no knowledge at all of the global organization. In fact, many in the RfC explicitly gave as reason to retain Europe that Crusades was about all crusades. The RfC was not about scope. Instead, people assumed that Crusades covered all crusades, which is different. So this cannot be interpreted as a vote about scope. So, it will be natural to reconsider the decision after we have a clear understanding of the respective scope of the two articles. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(1) That the crusades were a form of Christian holy wars and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta still exists, does not mean that this subject covers two millenia. The roots of the Holocaust can be traced back to traditional Antisemitism, but the Holocaust as a phenomenon is much much more limited in time. (2) As to the logical connection between the Northern Crusades and Popular Crusades, I refer to all books cited in the article that are not limited to a certain aspect of the crusades. Can anybody refer to a single one that does not mention both types of crusades? Based on those books it is clear that the crusades for the Holy Land make connection between the Northern Crusades and the Popular Crusades. (3) Even if we assume that scholars who adopted a generalist approach were driven by money, we cannot ignore their approach, because their books are reliable sources. If this assumption were right, we should also assume that their readers (who are also our readers) expect a generalist approach. 00:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka are you really saying that you oppose a separate article for the traditional crusades, as we have for example for the Northern crusades and your argument would be that they are central, the glue that connects all the crusades. Well, it is a strong point. Indeed, we cannot argue that the traditional crusades must have a separate article simply because the Northern crusades and other groups of crusades have their own article. Nevertheless, I think there is still a point to be made for a separate article on the traditional crusades, because not every thing about them is central. But you do make very good points and indeed duplication becomes a real challenge, because an article about all crusades will have to refer a lot to the traditional crusades, unless it presents a different perspective in which the traditional crusades are not so central. Still, I hope you change your mind and tell us what should be the role and scope of a separate article on the traditional crusades. Otherwise, it is like nothing was established, not even to have a separate article on the traditional crusades and we will have to first do an RfC about that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

What is sure that we need a general article about the crusades. After this article was completed, we could discuss whether we actually need an article about the Levantine Crusades. Each major individual Levantine crusade has its own separate article. The general article would cover their common features and also their relationship with other crusades, furthermore the general article would mention other aspects of "crusading". So I guess we will not need a "Levantine Crusades" article as soon as the general article is completed. We only should follow how most of the books cited in this article present these military campaigns. We should not start a new RfC, but should complete this article along a generalist approach. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It is hard to see how you can edit together when you do not agree at all on the subject of the article. There is a big difference between all crusades and only the crusades to the Levant up to the end of the 13th century, not the same subject at all. But maybe while editing, you will find that you are not viewing things so differently after all. So, let's see. One possibility is that the milhist and the narrative about the Levantine crusades will be reduced, given that it can be covered in the individual articles for each crusade, and everybody will be happy. (I mean, people who wanted to edit Crusading, will do the same in Crusades instead, because there will be more room for that.) Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious that at its present stage the article is not limited to the traditionalist crusades, and the last RfC suggests that most editors are happy. :) Borsoka (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, @Srnec:—fair point, and very much the result you were expecting I imagine. The status quo has an in-built advantage in RFCs and the above debate shows there is very little consensus on anything. Even accepting the current "In Europe" section is retained, it needs a rewrite. Happy to propose through an RM a new title for Crusading that reflects what you think it ought to be as you point out the title needs to change. I think you have suggested a title before, but what would your suggestion be now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. Most people are happy with the status quo. Some consider that Crusades as it is now is about all Crusades and they want the status quo. Others consider that it is mainly about the traditional crusades and they also want the status quo. The only request was for a new title for Crusading. It has always only been about that. But people came for the RfC for the title and did not understand the global organization, which you must admit is hard to understand given this complete lack of consensus on the subject, and a mess was created. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree Dominic Mayers II, this entire debate is difficult to understand Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: I think the article should be split. So I don't really have a proposal. I don't think another top-level article is needed beyond this one. Sub-articles is the way to go. As I see it, if crusading is to not be merged back into this article it is imperative to define a scope for it. One option is to turn it into a 'Levantine crusades' article and reduce the 'milhist' here. I think there would be a consensus for that, although I don't support it personally. Another broad option would be Crusading in Europe to group together the Spanish, Northern, Italian and Ottoman crusades and reduce the pressure for expansion that the "In Europe" section might have on this article. Another would be something like Evolution of crusading to specifically cover how crusading evolved over time at the military, political, social and theological levels. Whatever we do, there is nothing preventing the writing of Financing the crusades or Criticism of crusading articles. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, Criticism of crusading smells like content fork. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it is a separate sub-subject, like Northern Crusades, Crusading Indulgances, etc. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC) I think Crusading in Europe is problematic: (1) I cannot imagine how one could present the non-Levantine crusades, without referring to the Levantine crusades (2) actually the Levantine crusades were part of crusading in Europe (for instance the Levantine crusades were declared and preached in Europe, they were financed from Europe, etc.) Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of subject X, whatever is X is not encouraged as a subject. This is said explicitly in WP:CRITS. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it is also an option. And this specific case, we could hardly present this sub-subject without a separate article. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Well usually, when there are criticisms, there are also the view points that are being criticized. The idea of NPOV is that these other view points must also be presented in a neutral manner and not in a different article. I don't think that space can justify an exception to this rule. This is explicitly written, in fact. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers II: I'm not sure why you say that. See Elizabeth Siberry, Criticism of Crusading, 1095–1274 (Clarendon, 1985). We're talking about medieval criticism.

I thought that it could be something like that and this is exactly why I used the term "smell". Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Matters for an RM. I think "Crusading in Europe" is sufficiently clear. The more obvious problem to me is that I can't see a strong reason to group together campaigns against pagans in Prussia, Muslims in Spain and the pope's rivals in Italy. They have only one thing in common: they all involve extensions of the crusade idea to things beyond Urban II's original concern. Expansion of crusading is, I believe, a chapter heading in God's War and might make an OK article title. Srnec (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand "RM" (for me it is risk management or raw material). Otherwise, I agree with your remarks. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested moves Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Still a need for a RfC

There should be an RfC, because an article that has no well defined subject (in the following sense that it is viewed as covering all crusades by some and only the traditional crusades by others) must receive an attention of the community. In the "all crusades" view, the article uses the summary style to cover all crusades with a natural emphasis on the traditional crusades. In the "traditional crusades" view, the article focuses on the traditional crusades with some minimal link to other crusades. It might be seen as only a difference in perspective, but it's way more than that. This difference is important to determine how we should proceed ahead, what is the role of Crusading, etc. The last edit war illustrates this issue. The process toward the RfC is as important as the RfC itself. In this process, some text with some consensus must be written to explain the situation. Unfortunately, it seems that most contributors here simply want to edit in accordance with their view and try to avoid conflict as much as possible with the other view. This is not a robust situation. Therefore, as part of this process, I am going to proceed slowly and wait to see if, by any chance, people that follow this article at a distance have something to say about this. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There was consensus in the previous RfC here that the European bit should be retained, and a further RfC now (just a few weeks after the closure of the previous) would be pointless. Let's first improve the article, by adding to the lacking parts (there's still something to be written about legacy, but I need to check more sources; for example), and trying to summarise and make more logical some of the existing one. Also, give me some time to work on what I was proposing regarding merging (might solve more issues than just content duplication). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree that after a series of unsuccessful RfC-s, a new approach should be adopted. Borsoka (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, if there is an agreement toward an approach that makes the subject clear and respectful of WP rules, there will be no need for a RfC, except as a simple, easy formality to enlarge the consensus so that it is more robust. Unfortunately, right now, what I see is only an agreement on having no RfC. I see no agreement at all on the approach or on a statement that describes the subject. I was already aware of this situation and mentioned it just above. Nothing surprise me here. So, I am still seeing what is happening right now, including eventual editing, as a process toward a likely RfC. The main difference with the last two RfCs is that this RfC will be well prepared through a process that is as important as the RfC itself. Regarding the last RfC a more honest statement of the consensus is that the article on all crusades should retain the Europe section, which is not very informative. There is a very strong case to make that this last RfC was not well prepared at all, thus the true meaning of the statement was not clear and the weak consensus obtained is not useful. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

However, it is an undeniable consensus. I assume the best way of achieving a consensus if we respect the existing one. :) Perhaps, if we allow editors who have not been editing this article to edit along this existing consensus the article will be improved without further RfCs. Borsoka (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Which consensus are you talking about? Certainly, we will respect the consensus that the article about all crusades must include Europe. Nobody has ever suggested to violate that consensus. Perhaps you mean the local consensus that there should be no RfC. There is absolutely no rule that says that a local consensus can be used to prevent an RfC. This would be non sense given that one possible role of an RfC can be to contest a local consensus. Besides, I am speaking of a process toward an RfC, so it would be untimely to discuss it. Again, if some people want to directly resolve the issue of global organization through editing, just like johnbod did and others want to do, I accept this as a fair part of the process. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The local consensus was that this article should contain information about all crusades. Yes, edits that are in line with this local consensus could hardly be debated, but edits that are pushing a non-consensual approach could hardly be welcome. Again, I suggest this article should be edited by new editors because those who have been working on it so far failed to propose a consensual version. Borsoka (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You miss the point that an RfC is not a vote that needs to be respected as in a democracy. It does not have any purpose other than to create a consensus. We can blame someone for not doing effort to join a consensus in a RfC. However, again, there is a strong case to be made that this RfC was not well prepared and the context was not clear and therefore there is nobody to blame here and every point of view is still welcome. Whether this article can have information about all crusades, especially if they are pertinent to the traditional crusades has never been opposed. This is why the devil is in the details. Finally, regarding your idea of letting new editors decide the fate of the two articles, I am not sure that the opinions of johnbod, Norfolkbigfish, etc. should be given less weight than the opinions of new comers. To enforce that, a lack of good faith would have to be shown and it is not easy to see who, if anyone, is lacking good faith here. If they want to let new comers take charge of the articles, then sure they can do that, but I am not convinced it will be a good thing. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I did not miss the point. I only say that for the time being we do not need a new RfC: that this article should cover all crusades is a consensual starting point. I did not say that anybody's opinion should be given less weight than the opinion of new comers. I only say that those who have failed to develop a consensual article (including myself) should allow others to work. I think this is a common sense approach. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There is some consensus in the last sections of this page that this article "focuses on the crusades to the Middle East from the First Crusade until the fall of the last of the four Crusader States at the end of the 13th century, their legacy and impact". This view does not imply that nothing can be said about other crusades, but "cover all crusades" could mean that the subject is broadly all crusades and this is not consensual. It seems that you keep repeating that there is a consensus that this article is about all crusades and I keep repeating that I disagree. Anyway, we do agree that for the time being there is no RfC and I also do not oppose editing and I never did. I am only saying that the process of writing the statement for an RfC is definitively needed so that the situation is robust for us and clear for the community, but it does not have to be done now. It may very well be that some common editing will help a lot to clarify things before we start preparing this RfC. In that sense, I view this editing as a part of the process. Hopefully, the RfC itself will only be an easy simple formality. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The solution to the "what is the scope of this article" is to improve it as much as possible and see where that leads - it is unfathomable to speak of the middle eastern crusades without mentioning their consequences elsewhere, but whether such allusions are simply passing mentions in a legacy section or more integral parts of the narrative remains a question. [2] seems to make the point that "the currently prevailing “pluralist” view is that crusading encompassed any Church-authorized “penitential war” fought against enemies of the Church or Christendom". World History Encyclopedia also has separate articles about [3] and [4]. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe that any content-based argument can be used to support or reject a merge (or a split), for the simple reason that the exact same content can be expressed whether there is a merge or not. A split might require some duplication to provide a context so that the article is more self-contained. Similarly, some link with the larger scope and thus some duplication will be required in the article on the traditional crusades. But, such duplication does not break any Wikipedia rules and the same content can be provided. I really invite people to take into consideration the work that was done by other contributors and start from there. If no Wikipedia rules are broken by having two articles, it is more harmonious to take into consideration these two articles when we edit. I am not expert, but I can see (with a bit of help) that the traditional crusades up to the end of the last crusader state is a natural scope for an article. So, indeed the way to proceed is editing, but with respect for the work that is already done. The only reason why I asked that we clarify so much the scope of the two articles is to see clearly that no Wikipedia rules are violated such as WP:Notability and WP:CFORK. I was confident, but it was necessary to do so anyway. I believe now that it is OK, but still it should be clarified by a text and made robust in a RfC. There is no rush for the RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The most important is to remove unnecessary duplication. Both articles should refer to the other for more details and the topic of the article on traditional crusades must be respected: only content pertinent to this topic should be kept. The remainder should be moved in the article about all crusades. In principle, no good work needs to be lost. I don't see why this is a big deal as long as no rules are broken, because the exact same content can be provided. If you have a problem with the content, just edit and discuss your edits if needed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Note added following Srnec's last comment: Snerc proposes that Crusades be seen as a top article covering all crusades, but with no clear proposal for Crusading. It's so sad. His argument is that there is no need for another top article, but there is an obvious one: Crusading was created in view that Crusades will focus on the traditional crusades and this can work and is respectful of the original plan of Crusading. This is something real and concrete to consider. Saying that there is "no need" for a different "top" article does not point to any problem with this proposal. So, we have no idea why Snerc opposes this proposal, which is more than a proposal: the article was created more than 6 months ago. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not sad, it is a logical approach, fully in line with most of the works cited in the articles. An article's creation does not verify its existence, especially because the existence of Crusading as a separate article has been criticized by multiple editors from the very beginning. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument: "in line with most of the works cited in the articles". Are you applying WP:NPOV to subjects and sub-subjects? Subjects are not points of view. So NPOV does not apply. For example, editors can certainly decide to cover less milhist in an article so that it is covered in another article without breaking NPOV, even if it is not what books usually do. There is no rules that say we must do like in books in all respects. Wikipedia is a completely different environment, so it would make no sense. On the other hand, not covering a point of view that is notable so that it has no choice as to be covered in another article is definitively a violation of NPOV.

Could you move the above remark to the previous section? It is out of context here. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You must mean the last two sentences, because every thing else is certainly in context. Even the last two sentences also fit here, but you are right that they also fit very well in the previous section. I have moved them to make you happy. I suggest that you remove your comment and then I will remove mine, because they are now obsolete and useless. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, I have been here for a while and I have not seen any reason to seriously oppose a global structure with an article that focuses on traditional crusades. You are the only one that provided a reason, which is that the traditional crusades are linked to all other crusades, but this only means more duplication of a kind that is not against any rule. It does not restrict at all the content. I have not seen any other reasons to oppose this splitting. On the other hand, I see at the least two reasons to support this proposal: it supports work that has been done by good contributors and it gives to the articles a more specific focus.

Anyway, let see how things progress. I offered my point of view to help: let's support a direction that was taken by contributors, because it breaks no rule and it can work to provide the exact same content. It's simple. If people present some other reasons to oppose the proposal, I will comment, but otherwise I don't have anything more to say. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I am really grateful for you for your contribution to this discussion (although I think our understanding of the term "good contributors" is different :) ). I would rather comment a new version of the article than making new comments here. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

although I think our understanding of the term "good contributors" is different :) Well, they seem good contributors. I have seen contributors that have a very personal understanding of the literature on a subject and it just impossible to agree on any reasonable content with them. The good thing is that they are often impolite so they get banned, but not always. You are very lucky here. You only have a different global organization to accept, which is compatible with any content. Many people will be very happy to have this kind of environment to contribute to Wikipedia. I would certainly not care at all if one moves some content under a different article, adding some duplication, but the organization is still reasonable. I would still be happy, because I know it can be much worst. I really do not understand why it is such an issue here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not feel lucky to be here. The organization of the articles is only a minor issue. For the time being, I am only representing a consensual approach (this article should cover crusades in Europe) and avoid a new series of RfCs before new contributors could complete their edits representing this last consensus. Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, on my side, I am here to represent the much more fundamental consensus that a RfC is not a poll that can force or prevent editors to make edits should be constantly used to claim that there is a consensus. It does not work that way. The way it works is that, if the RfC has created a consensus, then there is a consensus and we do not need someone to enforce it to refer to the poll all the times to say there is a consensus. That's the idea of a consensus. It means that people agree. The only way an RfC can should be used to enforce anything insist that there is consensus is when it shows that some editors do not have good faith in trying to reach a consensus. This does not apply at all here. We are not at all at this stage. On the contrary, the RfC was not well prepared, not clear and if there is anything to blame mention all the times here it is the problem with the RfC itself, not the editors claimed consensus. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. I do not want to enforce anything and I have not stated that an RfC binds anybody. I only propose that we should allow those who have not failed during the last couple of years to work on a consensual version instead of starting new and new RfCs. Perhaps, we want to stop this circular discussion about RfCs. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You are right that I described the issue in an inappropriate manner. So, I stroke what was inappropriate and replaced it by something that is more appropriate and actually a better description of what I had in mind. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Another attempt to summarize the discussion and to reach a genuine consensus.

A key point of agreement is that the current article is a good article, but it needs improvement to reach WP:FA. The views diverge only with respect to the perspective taken for these improvements. In one perspective, this article covers all crusades and the emphasis on the traditional crusades is natural, in particular, it respects what is done in the literature. In the other perspective, this article is about the traditional crusades, but naturally covers the other crusades. These two views have in common that they use the current article as a starting point. Therefore, proposals to start with a new article, a third article, a merge of two articles, etc. are not so much welcome. Currently, contributors are taking a break, but I do not see that FA can be obtained without working with a common perspective. What is needed is that those who defend one perspective argue that whatever are the purposes of the apparently opposite perspective, these purposes can be achieved within their perspective. For example, one purpose of the traditional crusades perspective is to cover the topic in a focused manner and make the links with other crusades separately. Perhaps this specific goal can be achieved within the all crusades perspective, the devil being in the details. In any case, there might be two different paths to successfully reach the goal, but only one of them must be taken. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A sub-question is whether a separate article on the traditional crusades is needed. It's almost the same question. Those with the perspective that this article is the separate article on the traditional crusades are, of course, likely to argue that it is needed. The converse is also true. Those with the perspective that an emphasis on the traditional crusades is natural in the top article are likely to be opposed to a separate article on the traditional crusades, because it implies less emphasis on the traditional crusades directly in the top article. However, again, a key point is that in both cases, the current article is to be used as a starting point, only improved in a different perspective. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Making the perspective on the scope clearer and more neutral in the lead

A rationale to justify modifications of the article is much needed and it appears to be provided by the first sentences in the lead, especially

"Crusades" primarily means "the Eastern Mediterranean campaigns in the period between 1095 and 1271 that had the objective of conquering the Holy Land from Islamic rule.

This suggests that the perspective on the scope is that it primary covers the traditional crusades with other crusades being part of the aftermath and consequences (see this discussion on two perspectives). Unfortunately, the situation is far from being clear, because the way this perspective is stated is not neutral. The best definition of (or view on) Crusades is itself a subject of discussions in the literature and therefore verifiability, neutrality, etc. apply to it. This means that the point of view that a definition of crusades is "primary" must not be stated as if it was a matter of fact in the lead. The list of possible definitions that is stated after is a more neutral approach:

Historians contest the definition of the term "crusade". Some restrict it to only armed pilgrimages to Jerusalem; others include all Catholic military campaigns with a promise of spiritual benefit; all Catholic holy wars; or those with a characteristic of religious fervor.

The lead should refer to this kind of neutral statements about definitions to explain the scope of the article. Of course, it is fine that the scope is primarily on the traditional crusades, but the view that corresponds to this perspective on the scope must be presented in a neutral manner. This will help a lot clarifying the rationale, because it will place the perspective in its context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers II Why are you making edits to this article when it is currently under considerable discussion? I'm not going to reverse your edit as I don't want to start editing wars with unresolved issues re: The Crusades, but I will point out that the sentence it is not likely to survive a careful edit and bringing to the forefront does not help the article.

As to your comment that a rationale is "much needed", I might point out that I made a simple proposal to rearrange the material already in the article to build on what Norfolkbigfish had started. If you don't like the proposal, then say so.

As to your comment below, 1271 was probably put in originally as the year of Lord Edward's Crusade. The year 1291 is usually used as the end to the [traditional] Crusades, although some put it at 1302. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Since when discussions means that we cannot edit? I justified my edit in this talk page and that is sufficient. If any one disagrees, he should first discuss it in this talk page in the same way. Saying that the sentence that I moved in the forefront "will not survive a careful edit" is not an argument. Please, directly provide the argument that you think will be raised in this "careful edit" instead. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers II The sentence in question makes no sense. No historian refers to the Crusades as "armed pilgrimages to Jerusalem." Some have called the First Crusade essentially an armed pilgrimage, but not the other "numbered" ones. Nor were they to Jerusalem, e.g., the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth. Have any historians called Crusades "all Catholic military campaigns with a promise of spiritual benefit"? If so, who? I'm not aware of any. Similarly for "all Catholic holy wars." Does that include the Seven Years War or the Thirty Years War? How about "those with a characteristic of religious fervour". I would say that covers a lot of ground. I understand what this sentence is trying to say. It just doesn't say it correctly.

Should the current debate as to the scope of this article be resolved I would expect the lede to be rewritten to reflect the consensus obtained. In the meantime, factual edits should be encouraged, like the 1291 correction below. Elevating a nonsense sentence to a place of prominence isn't. Again, your original objection to my suggestion has not been explained. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If the sentence that considers the different definitions makes no sense, then improve it. However, the logical location of this sentence is where it is now, in particular because it allows to present the view behind the chosen scope in a neutral manner. I am not changing the scope of the article. I am only presenting the view behind it in a neutral manner. Neutrality is not optional. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Why 1271 and not 1291 in the lead?

I am a bit ignorant on the subject, but many readers will be. In the sentence "...the term refers especially to the Eastern Mediterranean campaigns in the period between 1095 and 1271 that had the objective of conquering the Holy Land" why is it 1271 and not 1291 as it is the case elsewhere in the article? Can this be simplified? Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the answer provided by Dr. Grampinator above, I am going to change it to 1291, because it does not seem to make a significant difference in the context and it makes thing simpler. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It was probably 1271 because that was when the last numbered crusade happened, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The revised first paragraph of the lead

The lead should correspond to the content of the article, which, as acknowledged by all contributors, focuses primarily on the traditional crusades. The revised first paragraph fails to describe this emphasis on the traditional crusades. Only saying that the traditional crusades are the best known does not convey this important aspect of the article. In fact, Crusading also mentions that "the best-known Crusades were fought in the eastern Mediterranean". So, it does not bring out the important difference between the two articles. On this respect, the previous version was way better. Of course, the difficulty is avoided in the paragraph itself, but it is like sweeping the issue under the carpet. Achieving a genuine common perspective on the scope of the article requires that we acknowledge the existence of different definitions in the literature and describe the scope of the article in that context. This is a standard approach when there is more than one definition for a subject and the choice is controversial. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, please can you help here. What are the sources that explain that an emphasis on the traditional crusades is only one viewpoint among others. It will be ideal if the different definitions, their differences, etc. are discussed explicitly in the source. On the basis of the best sources, I will edit the lead to make it neutral. NPOV is not optional. Or you can do that directly. A lead (in fact, an article) that presents only one view point about the meaning of crusades is a big violation of WP:NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

For some time WP editors have used Constable, Giles (2001). "The Historiography of the Crusades". In Angeliki E. Laiou and Roy P. Mottahedeh (ed.). The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. Dumbarton Oaks. pp. 1–22. ISBN 978-0-88402-277-0. and this is put into context in * Tyerman, Christopher (2011). The Debate on the Crusades, 1099–2010. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7320-5.. Both are in the Bibliography and text, although that might meed to be emphasised. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the lede of this article summarizes exactly what is in the article. Look at the summary box on the right hand side. Second, this article is a broad discussion about all the Crusades. There is not consensus that it be otherwise. Third, the paragraph that was replaced was done so because it was factually incorrect. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

"[T]his article is a broad discussion about all the Crusades [and yet emphasizes primarily traditional crusades]" is one perspective. "There is not consensus that it be otherwise" is true, because it is one of two perspectives and there is no consensus on which one to adopt. But, presenting the article under one perspective as if this perspective was the only one known when in fact both perspectives are notable viewpoints in the literature is a serious violation of WP:NPOV. So, I am going to read carefully what the literature says about these two perspectives and make sure the lead (and the entire article) is neutral in the sense of WP:NPOV. Note that this will not require to change the scope of the article. In fact, only a small change in the lead will be enough to solve this NPOV issue. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Reorganization

Norfolkbigfish While I don't necessarily agree with this reorganization, if you're going to do it you should finish the job and fix the current Section 11. Here's what I would suggest:

• Move "Crusader States" to after the "First Crusade" and cut it way back.
• Move "Late medieval and early modern period" to follow "Decline and fall of the Crusader States" (It also needs a lot of work.)
• Add new section on "Albigensian Crusade" to follow "Fourth Crusade"
• Add new section on "Popular Crusades" to follow "Late medieval and early...."
• Move "Northern Crusades" to follow "Popular Crusades"
• Change current "In Europe" to "Other Crusades", to include "Reconquista", "Italian Crusades", "Crusades against heretics...", "Crusades against Byzantium" and "Political Crusades"

I'll forego providing rationale at this point and let commenters chime in. I also have some feelings about the rest of the write-up (e.g., "Finance" is so generic as to be useless, "Historiography" is particularly pathetic as we found out last year), but that can wait. I would suggest you lay out an outline for people to argue about for a while before going too much forward. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have partially implemented your first and completely your last Dr. Grampinator and removed the Finance section completely for now. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I think Later Crusades, Albigensian, Popular and Norhern are all "Other crusades" Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish No problem. On a second look, I agree with that adding them high-level sections would just unnecessarily complicate the write-up. I would upgrade the "Other Crusades" section to reflect the call-out box in both content and organization (e.g., add a subsection on Popular Crusades). I'm glad to see the Finance section gone. It's an interesting subject that maybe could be treated by Crusade--certainly the First, Second and Third had some interesting aspects (e.g., the Saladin tithe). I also think a call-out box on the Kings of Jerusalem would be useful. I personally like to understand who the leaders who when reading a chronology. (Corresponding ones for Byzantium or the Muslim world would not be so useful.) Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Grampinator—cut the Crusader States section back, as per your suggestion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• The restructuring of 20 May 2021 was not an improvement. It does not make sense to have chronological narrative history and non-chronological topical history presented in a single series of sections. It makes it much harder to grasp what is going on from the TOC. Srnec (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The subsection "Contemporary" of the section "Historiography"

The subsection Crusades#Contemporary is problematic. It starts by giving Constable's four definitions of Crusades. Even if we accept to include the "historiography" of contemporary historians as part of historiography, which I find a bit weird (because it's not really historiography anymore, but only a critical view on contemporary studies), why only mentioning Constable's four definitions? Constable himself covered other aspects such as how the origin of the idea of crusade was studied by Carl Erdmann and others. Next, the subsection presents an unrelated and very specific viewpoint of Thomas F. Madden, which cannot even be verified in the reference given. This latter content was copied from the main article Historiography of the Crusades. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Dominic Mayers II

The entire Historiography section is problematic, bordering on the nonsensical. So is the main article referenced. Last year's review of it concluded with "... three experienced editors have concluded that the article is incomplete and incomprehensible." Eventually they will be fixed, but not until "Crusades" is finalized. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of nonsensical, just as you suggest for the article, perhaps I should have waited to make this comment until after I made it (the comment) . Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers II What are you talking about? I was agreeing with you that the section was problematic. As to your reversing my edit, maybe you could identify which historians are debating the motives crusaders had in joining the crusade. Or which crusaders joined hoping for a "mass ascension into Heaven." Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a reason for the smile , but, yes, we agreed on the essential. Regarding the revert, which is a completely different issue, these historians are listed in the body of the article. Every thing in the lead must match with some content in the body of the article. So, I simply searched in the body to find this content. It can be found in the section Causes and precursors. It starts with "Crusaders' motivations may never be understood." and the remainder of the paragraph lists the historians. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This was cited in the body, but was citation and source was removed by another editor for some unexplianed reason. I have restored to support the Lead Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

And to answer "Or which crusaders joined hoping for a "mass ascension into Heaven?", I am not expert, but already after having read a bit on the prevailing beliefs at the time, I noticed that Jerusalem was considered by many as the location for a "mass ascension into Heaven". I even think it was shared both among Muslims and Christians. So, it should not be hard to find historians that say it was one of the motivations. I don't remember where I read this, but here is something I found using a simple Google search: Youssef, Michael (2019). The Third Jihad: Overcoming Radical Islam’s Plan for the West. NavPress. p. 52.. It's not a neutral source at all, but it was the first one in the list. Thomas Asbridge, The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land, part I, sect 3, has an entire paragraph on this. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

OK guys, you have worn me down. I tried to edit a simple sentence essential deleting "Historians now debate" and changing "mass ascension into Heaven" into "salvation" and add something on indulgences, and we get a huge argument lasting several days. The phrase "historians now debate" is meaningless, as historians have always debated everything. Maybe every sentence should start that way. I asked a simple question: who are these historians? No answer. There is some uncited discussion in "Causes and precursors" on some minor topic, but should the lede in a major historical article give the impression that there is a serious disagreement on the variety of reasons people went on crusades? If there is, I've never seen it. The "mass ascension into Heaven" issue is even more extreme. Norman Cohn is not a crusades historian and, as far as I can see, didn't actually say that. His discussion touches on apotheosis for the followers of Peter the Hermit, but provides no references. No other historians have used these terms, focusing rather on salvation. This is part of a bigger issue with this article in that reviewers grasp on a single sentence in a single work and all of a sudden it becomes gospel. This is a general encyclopedia article, not a term paper. I'm done trying to edit it. It's good enough. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Grampinator, I made some edits that take into account your useful points. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies Dr. Grampinator—it wasn't my intention to go down the WP pedantry route. It would be a shame to lose your input over it. The apotheosis/salvation question is interesting but not significant here. Feel free to edit accordingly and I will keep my nose out on this one. On motivation, I do disagree though. There is constant discussion on what it was, and just about all treatments give at least one explanation, often different. Phrasing needs work though, I agree. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Please, let's not talk of WP pedantry. These rules are there to help us. It's useful to refer to them. What would really be pedantry is to adopt an implicit principle that discussing them is pedantry. We need to refer to these rules when needed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Removing the dates in the title "Crusades and the Holy Land (1095–1291)"

I removed the dates, because they are not useful to define the section, in particular, the other crusades can overlap with the period (1095–1291). As a non expert, I can tell you that this kind of things is confusing for ordinary people, because they will naively assume that the other crusades happen outside that period. Dr. Grampinator wrote in his revert that he did not understand what I meant. I had in mind Reconquista. You have to put yourself at the place of people that grasp information little by little. At first, when they see Reconquista, they don't know the dates and they will wrongly assume it is outside that period, if they only look at the titles. I know this as a fact, because it was my case and the confusion lasted until I spent the time to read about Reconquista. However, I am not going to start an edit war on this. We have bigger issues to address. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)