Jump to content

Talk:Crusades/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Proposal to move toward a common perspective.

The proposal is in two points that complement each other:

  • We start by acknowledging that the "other article" is about all crusades. In particular, Norfolkbigfish, Johnbod, etc. accept that Crusades is about all crusades (i.e. is a kind of generalists view) and, similarly, Dr. Grampinator, Borsoka, etc. accept that Crusading is about all crusades (i.e. is a different kind of generalists view).
  • To take care of WP:Undue issue and related issues, the first section, perhaps called "Definition and scope", presents the different views on Crusades and in that context explains the emphasis used in the current article and points to the other article for a different emphasis. A similar section should exist in Crusading.

This could make the section Terminology obsolete, because the other terminological aspects considered in the section (besides the definition of "Crusades") are about historiography and are not important so early in the article. If people start to work on the new section "Definition and scope" with the above purpose in mind, I think there will be progress toward a common perspective. To arrive at this conclusion, I spent a lot of time to write a Review of the archives. People should look at this review, which is based on diffs, to see a summary of the different perspectives. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice. Neither the discussion above nor the linked summary reflect my views in any way. If anyone can figure out what is being said and proposed then you are smarter than I am. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The summary has diffs. It's a tool. Even my brief description should be seen as part of the tool. It's hard to capture the view of every one and I do not pretend that I have succeeded, but the diffs are there and people can read the context and see for themselves.
As far as the proposal above being not clear, I suspect that it is not clear for you, because you try to find in it a proposal for a specific text to be added in the article. It's not that. It's a framework for a discussion toward a common perspective. It will eventually lead to a text, but only after discussions.
The general idea of this framework should be clear and it is part of the process that we need to clarify the details. The main point that needs to be clarified is whether Norfolkbigfish has an example of one article that covers all crusades without an emphasis on the traditional crusades like Crusading intends to do? The references that he gave to me (see above) are about historiography. When applied to contemporary studies, historiography could be pertinent, but the references fail to discuss the issue of emphasis on traditional crusades, which is our main issue. So, the situation is not clear to me and it was my hope that it would get clarified in the process. BTW, even if there is no article that covers all crusades in the way Crusading intends to do, it does not mean that Crusading is not admissible, but it destroys the argument of WP:undue (mentioned by Norfolkbigfish and later by me) against Crusades being about all crusades while it emphasizes the traditional crusades. It would make a big difference. So, this needs to be clarified. Dr. Grampinator, you should support this process. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The main point that needs to be clarified is whether Norfolkbigfish has an example of one article that covers all crusades without an emphasis on the traditional crusades like Crusading intends to do? This is not the main point, or at least it is not an accurate representation of my opinion. It was always that, in narrative MILHIST terms this article's focus is the traditional crusades (sic), their impact, aftermath and legacy. Crusading was about the wider paradigm, time period and geographical scope. This focus largely excludes the MILHIST but emphasises the ideology, legalities, organisation, historiography and memorialisation e.g less fighting, battles and warriors—more charters, sermons, Popes, theologians and songs. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish, do you have one article that covers all crusades the way Crusading does or intends to do in support of your point that there might be WP:undue in Srnec's view on Crusades: "the scope of the current Crusades article to be all the Crusades with an emphasis on the east"? It's not just me that ask this kind of questions. A question of a similar kind was asked by Borsoka: "Could you refer to sources published during the last decades which limit the scope of the 'term' crusade to crusades in the Levant?" Onceinawhile considered that it was important to answer it. At first, I thought Borsoka was wrong to ask the question, because no rules say that we must follow the organization in the literature to determine a subject. I still maintain the same position if the goal is to determine the emphasis of Crusades and Crusading. But, if in the discussion we mention WP:undue because an article that is about all crusades has some emphasis, whatever this emphasis is, then it's different, because then we must refer to sources: if all articles that are about "Crusades" have a similar emphasis, then WP:undue is not violated. If it is not violated, then I see no argument against Crusades being about all crusades while having this emphasis. It's not important whether it is the main point or not. It is clearly useful to clarify this. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think Srnec view of the scope and mine are fundamentally different. Srnec objected to me completely excising what was the In Europe and in hindsight I recognise that was a mistake. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, you have seen a different violation of WP:undue than I thought when you wrote "there is a risk of WP:UNDUE with this position" and you changed your mind about it: there was no need to completely excise what is in Europe. I am seeing a different possible violation of WP:undue, which is an emphasis on the traditional crusades while the article is about all crusades (and looking at the diff above, it very much appears as if it was your view too, but it does not matter). In that perspective, my point still hold. If there is no violation of WP:undue, then there is no argument against this article being about all crusades and I don't understand why you insist that it is not about all crusades. So, I maintain the question: do you have one article that covers all crusades the way Crusading does or intends to do? Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
As far as I am aware there isn't one article that covers what you call all the crusades the way Crusading does. This is because there is a multiplicity of works by academic researchers, the idea of definition is widely out of favour according to Tyerman. Although if you wanted a starter for 10 "Theorizing the Crusades: Identity, Institutions, and Religious War in Medieval Latin Christendom" by Latham would be a good start.
In Crusades the background is dominated by the situation in the Middle East, then there is a narrative MILHIST of crusades whose objectives are in the middle East, there is then the Other Crusades section which contains an incoherent collection of random factoids before moving onto various legacies, almost entirely from the crusades to the middle East. It is about the crusades to the East, it is not about all crusades beyond the fact that all crusades derive from those to the middle east, they are the aftermath, the legacy. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
You say "the idea of definition is widely out of favour according to Tyerman", but Tyerman is not writing these two Wikipedia articles. Nevertheless, I am curious and would like a reference in which Tyerman expresses this view, so that I can see the context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
2011, p226 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I just read it. He is saying that no or almost no historians exactly fit within one of the four categories (traditionalists, etc.). By extension, the same can be said about studies on crusades (with no specific argument being advanced in the study, because the argument might require a precise definition). But, we know that from our own experience. This is why I suggest that we start to consider that both articles cover all crusades, because in some way it is true. Instead, we should discuss where the emphasis lies and avoid the useless debates about whether or not it is about all crusades. My understanding is that for some, especially Borsoka and Dr. Grampinator, the article is simply about all crusades and whatever emphasis there is, it is simply the normal way to cover all crusades. Why opposing that it is about all crusades? Why even opposing that the emphasis used in Crusades is typically found in the literature, if we do not have a single article that shows a different emphasis of the kind we want to use in Crusading? The only thing that we need to argue is that there is an emphasis on (traditional crusades, milhist, etc.) in Crusades and there is room for another article on all crusades with a different emphasis (based on multiple sources as you say). This should be discussed in a section Definition and scope, because it will be useful for the readers to be informed of that emphasis and the possibility of a different kind of emphasis. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Just some remarks. 1. I think the co-existence of two articles about all crusades is the less ideal approach. 2. Traditional crusades cannot be presented without multiple references to other military campaigns sanctioned by the Papacy and generalist crusades cannot be presented without mentioning traditionalist crusades. 3. We need an article that present the connections between "all" crusades and also their historical, ideological, social, economic background and consequences. Previously we had one article containing randomly collected factoids about the crusades and presenting them under random section titles. Now we have two. Borsoka (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
First, you will need a consensus to suppress Crusading. This consensus is not going to happen. So, this is a lost of time. Second, your arguments against it are based on very abstract premises that I see no reason to accept as fundamental laws. For example, sure, if there are pertinent links to other crusades, they must be included, but I don't accept your premise that this leaves no room for a second article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
We need dozens of articles about the crusades. My argumentation is clear: we do not need two articles about the same topic and we need one single article covering all crusades. Your arguments aginst this approach "are based on very abstract premises that I see no reason to accept as fundamental laws" (just to demonstrate that your above sentence can be quoted without any changes in any context). Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The two articles have different emphasis, both covering all crusades in some fundamental way. This one naturally emphasizes the traditional crusades, which are fundamental. Crusading emphasizes ideology, etc. and remove the emphasis on the traditional crusades, especially its milhist, but yet covers all crusades in a fundamental manner. Having two separate articles is useful so that both emphases shine at their best. Perhaps, your argument (I have to guess) is that there cannot be two fundamental articles about all crusades without a significant overlap. This is true, but this kind of overlap is fine. Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
No, the two articles cover the same topic without emphasizing anything. Lists of random non-English terms and arbitrary sections that ignore basic connections between topics (history-ideology-financing...) cannot be regarded as articles. Based on the article do you understand what is the connection between the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt and the sack of Constantinople? Do you understand what is the connection between the Reformation and the crusades? Do you understand why could European warlords conquer large territories in the wealthy Levant? Until basic connections cannot be detected in a single article we should not discuss the possibility of splitting it. Borsoka (talk)
If these connections are verifiable in the literature and they are not already included in any of the two articles, please add them where you think it is the most pertinent. In my view, the pertinence to one article or another will depend on the kind of connections. I don't see in which way this means that there cannot be two general articles with distinct emphases. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This leads us away from the articles
Regarding, your last point, which tries to return my own argument against me, I was telling you that I do not see a basic principle that says that because there are links between traditional crusades and the other crusades, there cannot be room for another article that covers all crusades in a fundamental manner. I simply don't see it, but I do want the discussion to progress and this is why I am telling you where exactly I do not follow your argument. You can do the same with me, if you don't understand my argument. However, simply saying that you do not accept that I do not accept this specific step in your argument is not useful. I sincerely do not see the basic principle that you use. Please provide more details about this general principle that you seem to use. For me, Crusading is a counter example, but I might provide other ones, if I know what it is. Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your last point please find my paraphrasing of your message: "First, you will need a consensus not to suppress Crusading. This consensus is not going to happen. So, this is a lost of time. Second, your arguments against it are based on very abstract premises that I see no reason to accept as fundamental laws. For example, sure, if there are pertinent links to other crusades, they must be included, but I don't accept your premise that this leaves no room for a second general article." If you do not understand what is the problem with your text, I cannot explain it to you. Borsoka (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the first part, you miss the point that to suppress an article that existed for about six months you need a consensus, otherwise it stays as it is. It's not symmetrical. I don't have to obtain consensus to keep the situation as it is. No loss of time. Regarding the second point, your paraphrasing is exactly what I meant. I meant that despite the need for links between traditional and other crusades, there is room for a second general article. I add that Crusading is an example. So, I don't see where you are going. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the first part, you miss the point that the article was created without consensus and its creation was opposed from the very beginning by a number of editors. Yes, I know you think there is room for a second general article. I am convinced there is no need to maintain two articles on the same topic just to establish our own emphasis on certain aspects of a movement. Sorry, I do not like never ending debates, so I stop discussing this issue. Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I reviewed carefully the archives and what you say is not exactly true. There was unanimously no opposition to a second article before the splitting, in particular you wrote "A separate 'Crusading' article could be a good compromise, serving as the main article for the major topics related to the crusades", but people complained after the splitting that Norfolkbigfish should have waited, arguing that more discussion was needed regarding scope. Despite these complaints, there was still a lot of support for this second article after the splitting. In any case, none of this change the fact that it is still not symmetrical: I do not have to get a consensus to keep the situation as it is. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Just because you quoted my above sentence without adding the context, could you quote anything from me suggesting that I have whenever wanted to create two general articles or supported the creation of two general articles about the crusades? 16:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The diff provides the context for you and for others to make their own judgment. Further arguing with you about what you wrote regarding "general articles about the crusades" would require a common understanding on what is a general article about crusades. My understanding is that there are different views on what it could mean, but they all have in common that they relate to all crusades, as defined in a generalists view, but differ on what is being emphasized. I understand that you do not accept that emphasis matters. You believe that they will be essentially duplicate—or one of them will be badly structured or would not qualify as "general". So, we do not have the required common ground. Fortunately, determining whether or not emphasis can be important is not decided by arguing as we do now in the abstract, but by actually working on the articles. The way I see it, it is going well. If you have specific concrete criticisms, please mention them. I am sure other contributors, especially Norfolkbigfish will be happy to use that to improve the articles. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight

Borsoka wrote "Based on the article do you understand what is the connection between the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt and the sack of Constantinople? Do you understand what is the connection between the Reformation and the crusades? Do you understand why could European warlords conquer large territories in the wealthy Levant?" Though I disagree that the existence of two "general" articles necessarily leads to undue weight (such as ignoring some fundamental questions), I remain concerned that Borsoka might be correct that there is a form of violation of WP:undue at this time in this article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Problematic sentences in the lead

These four sentences in the lead are problematic.

Across all social strata in western Europe there was an enthusiastic popular response. The first Crusaders had a variety of motivations, including religious salvation, satisfying feudal obligations, opportunities for renown, and economic or political advantage. Later crusades were generally conducted by more organized armies, sometimes led by a king. All were granted papal indulgences.

  • With regard to the second sentence, the very first crusaders were peasants with no feudal obligations. They cannot be considered at the same level as other crusaders with regard to motivations.
  • The next sentence starts with "Later", but the first sentence already make reference to feudal obligations, which are linked with these more organized armies. It would only make sense if the first sentence focused on the peasants under Peter the Hermit.
  • The last sentence is not clear. Did the peasants received more than what was said at the Council of Clermont? If not, this sentence is misleading.

I propose to change the order.

Across all social strata in western Europe there was an enthusiastic popular response. Later crusades were generally conducted by more organized armies, sometimes led by a king. These crusaders had a variety of motivations, including religious salvation, satisfying feudal obligations, opportunities for renown, and economic or political advantage. All were granted papal indulgences.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph is fine as written. The second sentence refers to "first Crusaders." That means the participants in the first Crusades as Riley-Smith wrote in his book "The First Crusaders." No one could possibly think that it meant "the very first Crusaders" which would mean the followers of Peter the Hermit. That sentence also uses the conjunction "or" not "and", and so it does not mean that all first Crusaders had feudal obligations, only some of them. Your proposed revised fourth sentence is exactly the same as the original. I haven't a clue as to how to why you think the original is misleading and then propose the exactly the same thing. Let's move on. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

To which impression of Crusading and the Crusader States by Andrew Jotischky page numbers correspond?

I checked that some page numbers do not correspond to the 2013 impression by Routledge or to the 2017 new edition. So, I am guessing that they correspond to the 2004 original impression by Longman. The reference said the publisher was Taylor & Francis (Routledge), which seems incorrect. I changed that, but I wonder whether the situation is a mess, some page numbers using the 2004 impression by Longman, others the 2013 impression by Routledge. Can someone confirm that the page numbers do correspond to the 2004 impression? Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I used my well thumbed 2004 Pearson Longman - ISBN 978-0-582-41851-6. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
What is confusing is that Routledge of Taylor & Francis also uses this ISBN in its 2013 impression. Every ISBN is normally attached to a single publisher. The code 582 is the group-0 ISBN prefix for Longman. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
That I can't explain, I am only copying the ISBN from the physical version I have Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to confirm. I was pretty sure that you did that, especially given that the prefix 582 is attached to Longman. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


The crusades happend in 69bc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.193.213 (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the subject of the article?

For the time being, the article is a mixture of a number of other articles: Military history of the Crusader states, Crusading movement, Crusader states, individual articles about individual crusading ventures. What is the subject of this article? Why do we need to repeat all events in the crusader states' military history? Borsoka (talk)

The objective of my edits is to make this an encyclopedic-level discussion of the Crusades that can be read by a non-expert. It combines summary pieces of the other articles in what I think is a readable format and covers material from a variety of sources, including biographical, political, historical and military. If you want an outline of the Crusades, that exists. If you want a timeline, that also exists. If you want long articles on specific topics, they exist. This is trying to bring them together and is really just an expansion of the existing article. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I like the structure of the military history, but it's too long and contains too much uncited material. Before, I thought the article was kept artificially short. It seems to me the pendulum is swinging the other way now... One thing, though, that remains no matter what: this article is mainly narrative military history. It makes no sense to me to make the top-level crusades article like that when we have articles on all the major crusades and many of the individual battles. Srnec (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the article improved, but it is too long. It repeats too many details of the crusader states' military history, so it is not clear what is the difference between a crusade and a military campaign in the Outremer. In this article, we do not need a detailed description of individual Frankish rulers either, because they were rarely the crusades' protagonists. Borsoka (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

My objective here has been to turn the Crusades article into a comprehensive, stand-alone summary of the subject. It may be long, but I think not when you look at the big picture. At the beginning of June, it was 36 pages and I don't think anyone would be arguing that it was well written, comprehensive or understandable. (When I state page length, it is the number of pages if you printed the article without doing anything. I know its not a perfect measure, but serves for comparison.) It is now 47 pages, and could possibly grow to 60 pages.

In comparison, the Timeline alone is 65 pages; List of Crusades: 44 pages; Milhist: 13 pages; Kingdom of Jerusalem: 34 pages; Latin Empire: 10 pages; List of sources: 93 pages. If you add up the length of the articles on individual crusades (just the Holy Land), the total is 179 pages. The articles on Godfrey and Baldwin I alone total 26 pages.

As another comparison, the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 article on Crusades is 28 pages, huge by EB standards. The corresponding EB articles on Godfrey and Baldwin I total less than a page.

My point is that the subject of the Crusades is a complicated subject and may well be worth 60 pages. I'm trying to make sure that all the salient points on detailed timelines like those in the Wisconsin study or Wikipedia article are considered. There are some areas that I don't think are adequately covering in other articles. For example, there is not a good article that covers Section 3.2 Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1144. Even for the ones that already exist, there are serious problems. When I started looking at the First Crusade, it seem OK, but I ended up spending a month fixing it and the first tier referenced articles. I gave up on the Second Crusade, which gives the impression that wins in Iberia and the North make up for the loss in the Holy Land. Parts are incomprehensible (aren't Unur and Anur really the same person?) The Third Crusade is actually relatively well written except that it's not chronological. The siege of Jaffa began before Frederick and Richard left, and the siege of Tyre is not even mentioned. The Massacre of Ayyadieh is linked but not mentioned by name. And, surprisingly, it was a Crusader victory. News to me.

What I had hoped to do was to rewrite the article to reflect a comprehensive work like Asbridge's "The Crusades" so that I found it understandable. If it needs to cut back, then fine. Go for it, I have no pride of authorship if something makes sense. But the idea that anyone could look at what is currently in Wikipedia and easily understand the subject is nonsense.

As to specific comments:

  • Uncited material: True, but they will be filled in shortly, but with ones from good sources that would be readily available to someone who was interested. There is no reason to have citations from obscure sources when decent ones are available.
  • Just describing the numbered or other major Crusades isn't sufficient to understand the subject. If you're not going to discuss battles like the Field of Blood here, then where should it be? Or, which numbered Crusades article discusses the imprisonment of Baldwin II?
  • If you don't have a rudimentary discussion of the kings of Jerusalem and the Muslim leaders how can you possibly understand this material?
  • The info box has a much better high-level view than the write-up ever did. When you try to fill the article with information on the lesser crusades (e.g., 1129) and battles like the battles of Ramla, you pretty much get what is written there now.

It's not my intent to be redundant with other articles, but have included narrative to try to connect quite a lot of disparate events. Any particular battle should be described therein with: when, who fought, link to the battle, who won and what happened afterwards. The details of the battle are not really appropriate at this level. That being said, in never hurts to put some details in to make the reading more palatable.

I've finished what I was going to do through the Third Crusade and am going to take a break, except for filling in citations and working on the truly incomprehensible historiography material. I did nevertheless look forward to trying to figure out why a discussion of Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale was included in a high-level article on the Crusades, but yet no reference to the Mongol invasions of the Levant provided. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

When writing about length, I did not refer to pages, but to material. I fully agree with you that the pure description of the major crusades is not sufficient, because most crusading enterprise was driven by previous events occuring in the Outremer. However, we do not need more than a "rudimentary discussion" and we should clearly make a distinction between crusades and other events: otherwise the article is not dedicated to the crusades, but to the history of the crusader states. Thank you for dedicating time to the significant improvement of this haunted article. I hope you will have more time to continue your work. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

When you convert this article to PDF, the period from 1095–1197 covers all of 8 pages. Hardly excessive for the history of 100 years of some of most consequential activities of Christianity in history. If you read any history book on the Crusades, this is the material covered. The history of the Crusades necessarily intersects with that of the Crusader states, but notice that this writeup does not discuss the political structure of the states except as it relates to the kingdom. If you think it should be 6 pages instead of 8, great. Just do it. I tried to write it as sparse as possible and, as I said, I'm pretty much done other than citations and clean up. I don't know enough about the 4th Crusade and beyond to do it justice so I'll leave that to others. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, it is not about pages, but about repetitions: we do not need to present the whole history of the crusader states, we only have to mention the most important events in the Outremer that have direct contact with the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW—I think Dr. Grampinator's recent edits have moved this article much closer to what the lay reader would expect/need from it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree as I explained it above, but this is a different issue. Borsoka (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

More than hundred year old sources

Are we sure that books written more than or almost a hundred years ago by Thomas Andrew Archer, Stanley Lane-Poole, Charles Oman, William Robson (writer) represent the present state of scholarly research? They could be primary sources for the historiography section if their relevance is verified by modern historiographic literature, but otherwise all references to them should be replaced. Personally, I like Runciman, but I think neither could he represent modern scholarly approaches. We are not here to revive romantic views of knightly crusaders liberating the Holy Land, but to present a neutral picture about the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your objective is here. Do you want to eliminate all material that is covered elsewhere? If so, why have this article at all. Just do an introduction and a timeline and let all the other articles do the heavy lifting. My objective was to create a readable, single-source history of the Crusades that reflects the material in a standard, comprehensive work. That includes Outremer. Look at Section 2 of God's War if you don't believe me.
I find your comment on using older works puzzling. Have you looked at the endnotes of Asbridge's The Crusades or Tyerman's God's War? Or read what Lock says in the Routledge Companion about older works. Runciman's 1949 paper about the First Crusaders routes has not been surpassed. Munro's work is every bit as relevant as it was a hundred years ago. Lane-Poole's work on Islamic dynasties is not substantially different than Bosworth's in regard to the Fatimids, Abbasids and Seljuks, and it is available on-line for someone who doesn't want spring for Bosworth's book, which is $80 in hardback. Point me please to a better book than Oman, at any price. Do you really think a newcomer to the Crusades should be reading something like Jotischky? I know a little bit about the subject and I have real problems trying to understand him. Also, one of the benefits of having the older books available on-line is that anyone can read them. The material might be somewhat dated, but basic facts at this level are not changing with modern research. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Do you really think a newcomer to the Crusades should be reading books published in the 19th or early 20th century? Should WP summarize 19th- and 20th-century scholars' views on physics, biology and literature as well instead of using modern scholars' works? How do you think these century-old books could represent the results of modern historical and archaeological research? Yes, I want to eliminate all reference to these scholars: a 19th-century scholar's statement that cannot be verified with a reference to a modern historian's study can hardly be relevant in our age. Borsoka (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if you want to change some of the citations to more recent works. The works that you have problems with still have relevance in the historiography section. If you do make these changes, you might want to identify what material in the modern-day works has changed from the original citation. If you want to do this globally, and it sounds like you do, you have your work cut out for yourself, as many of the other articles on the subject have similar references.

What is your position on the proper age of a source for future reference? If it's no older than, say, 50 years then most articles on medieval history would need to be rewritten. And the answer to your first question is yes, I think that the older books are sometimes easier to read and understand. I also think that maybe the views of Einstein, Darwin and T. E. Lawrence might be of interest. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the work may have relevance in the historiography section as primary sources. I think works published before the end of the WWII should not be used. Yes, the views of Einstein, Darwin and T. E. Lawrence might be of interest, but an article which is verified by their works could hardly present modern physics, biology, etc. Borsoka (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Spain vs. Hispania

The text refers "The Siege of Lisbon from 1 July to 25 October 1147, a successful undertaking for Spain". This is a common confusion caused by a translation error. Often Hispania is translated as Spain, which is incorrect. Hispania was the designation for the peninsula, Spain as official designation for the kingdom has only been used by Charles Quint, in the XV century. The same mistake is done when translating Spaniards as Spanish. Spaniards where those originally from Hispania. Portuguese, Aragonese or Castillians (and all other people from the peninsula) would also be designated as Spaniards. In the referred text this mistake is even more misleading as this siege was done under the self-proclaimed King of Portugal (by that time aknowledged as such by Castille but not yet by the Pope) and centuries before the Spanish Kingdom is formed. 91.178.65.64 (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source for this. As far as I can see, "Medieval Spain" is a common expression used to refer to the geographic region encompassed by the modern country during this time period: ex. a whole book on this; a review of another book on this (which shows that the usage of "Spain" is not limited to English, see the citation given at the bottom for a French-language work); and of course there's a whole article about Spain in the Middle Ages here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding. The question is whether the term "Spain" covers modern Spain and Portugal in the Middle Ages, or we should use the term Hispania when referring to both. The first book about Medieval Spain mainly covers the history of lands now forming Spain in the Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Borsoka: "Christian kingdoms in the Iberian peninsula" is a slightly verbose way of avoiding any difficulties about this, if you think that's a good option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
It would be if the siege had anything at all to do with anyone who could be however loosely described as Spanish. The WP article Siege of Lisbon sources the crusade force as 7,000 Portuguese, 6,000 English, 5,000 Germans and 2,000 Flemings using Livermore. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ref format

Withdrawn as pointless at the moment. If and when this goes for FA or GAR, then the format of the refs can be revisited if need be. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

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.


@Dr. Grampinator: There currently seems to be an annoying mixture of {{sfn}} citations (to book/other sources in the reference section which are given using {{cite book}} and the like) and manually formatted references, for example to individual articles in The Crusades – An Encyclopedia. This should be fixed. I'm not doing at the moment to avoid edit conflicts - if you wish to undertake this yourself, give me a notice, otherwise I'll come back to it this evening and read through the documentation of the templates to see what exactly I can do with sfn in regards to this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: If I'm reading you correctly, you want to convert all citations to {{sfn}} format because you find the mixture of the two annoying? Is there some Wikipedia requirement that says you must not have a mix? If so, there are many, many articles that must be fixed to this standard. I use {{sfn}} when different pages of a book are referenced in different spots. What's the point in converting a single use reference to this format? If you're going to convert the Murray and Setton references to this format with just the page numbers you might as well just delete the reference as it will be useless. If you're going to list each article or volume in the references, things will be even more confusing. It seems like a lot of effort for no real gain. Before you spend a lot of time on this, I suggest you pose a question to gather a consensus on the subject. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Grampinator: You might have misunderstood me; and I might have linked the wrong template (fwiw, [1] and [2] give you the same result), but I was referring to WP:CITEVAR, which does say that citation styles should be consistent within each article: The following are standard practice: [...] imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles. (this is justifiable both for code readability and for eventual maintenance purposes). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I understood exactly what you were saying the first time. If you read the first sentence in WP:CITEVAR it supports what I had replied. The Crusades article uses of mix of template and manual formatted citations, as do most of the major referenced articles (e.g., First Crusade, Third Crusade, Kingdom of Jerusalem use a mix, Second Crusade uses only manual). The CITEVAR says don't change it without getting consensus, which is exactly what I said. You seem to be saying that all Wikipedia articles should only use template citations. That is simply not the case. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I said, and don't make hasty (and inaccurate) generalisations from what I say. I said that article should have one consistent style. Switching between manual formatting and templates is inconsistent. Templates are easier since they greatly simplify referencing when using {{sfn}}, and since that already appears to be in use here, I don't see what is controversial about switching to a consistent style. Additionally, citing individual articles/chapters of a work (such as citing individual articles from The Crusades – An Encyclopedia) is easily possible via the parameters of the {{cite book}} template, or via creative use of a combination of harvnb and ref tags.[3] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Don't do a drive-by change; discuss it here first. What the main editors prefer should be the most important decider. I don't think you are one of them, are you? Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
That's exactly what I suggested and what Wikipedia recommends as the preferred approach. If anyone wants to expend the energy to try to convert a list of citations to a format that they don't find annoying, then they are free to go at it as long as it improves the article and stays within guidelines.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
No, they aren't, per WP:CITEVAR. And btw that is where you will find the policy on your question above "Is there some Wikipedia requirement that says you must not have a mix?" - yes, and that's it. Unfortunately WP is full of people who love "expend[ing] the energy to try to convert a list of citations to a format that they don't find annoying", and it's not ok. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I haven't touched the article yet, so I find the above two somewhat comical. Anyway, given how much more pointless heat than expected this has generated, I'm off to wasting my time elsewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Anon 2000, p. 123.
  2. ^ Anon 2000, p. 123
  3. ^ Anon, "Title", in Editors 2000
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.

Section 3.8 and 4 have duplictated text

Sections 3.8 and 4 have duplicated text on why the crusades declined. Can't fix it myself as page is protected too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobeer (talk • contribs) 11:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC) I think you meant 3.7.3 and 3.8, but at any rate, fixed.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: "liberate Jerusalem"

Given the time that had passed since the conquering of Jerusalem, does it make sense to call this "liberation"? Wouldn't something like the following be somewhat more NPOV?

"The best known of these Crusades are those to the Holy Land in the period between 1095 and 1291 that were intended to end Islamic rule of Jerusalem and its surrounding area."

103.9.97.87 (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This was the subject of discussion on 30 June (in main article, not on Talk Page), and I personally wouldn't object to either wordings. But, strictly speaking, neither is completely correct, and "liberate" is a word that modern historians use in this context. It's a tough call, given that the American Revolution is viewed as a liberation, as is the creation of North Korea and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. I wouldn't object to the change, but I don't understand the term "Given the time that had passed since the conquering of Jerusalem" stated above. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Liberate is a weighted term that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. OED uses recover the Holy Land from the Muslims which is probably more accurate and neutral. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I strongly believe that "Jerusalem" should be in this sentence as well as the link to "Islamic rule." I think the fix proposed by 103.9.97.87 (his/her prison number like 24601 for Jean Valjean?) is best. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
How about this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusades&diff=1039910305&oldid=1039555007&diffmode=source Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
OP here from a different IP. This seems much better for NPOV, thanks! 223.29.216.120 (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2021

Under "Terminology" there is an error.

"14th-century miniature of aSecond Crusade battle from the Estoire d'Eracles"

As you see, "aSecond" is the error. OscarAn94 (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge

There is no justification for the current split, which effectively creates two competing articles the purpose of which no reader is going to be able to grasp. Given the overlap between them and the large number of existing high-level sub-articles (i.e. First Crusade), there is no reason they cannot be combined in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with the creation of new sub-articles as necessary for sizing. Srnec (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, it is the same issue but under new circumstances. During the last couple of months two editors have tried to develop two separate articles on two allegedly separate subjects, but they reached practically the same article. Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Borsoka is talking about in describing "two editors have tried to develop two separate articles on two allegedly separate subjects, but they reached practically the same article." The core article Crusades has been around for 20 years and has been continually updated with a lot of interactive input, including from everyone on this discussion. Crusading movement has been in development (and under fierce argument) primarily by Norfolkfish over the last year, trying to reflect some of the ideas of Riley-Smith, Tyerman and Jotischky that go beyond the standard military history provided in Crusades. They are not even remotely "practically the same article."

It seems that Crusading movement has gotten a little far afield with the detailed descriptions of "other Crusades", i.e., those not associated with the Holy Land from 1096–1291. That material could be moved over to Crusades, filling out "Section 4. Other crusades," which has always been a little thin.

Srnec's proposal is a good one and some of the material that's in Crusades could and should be spun off. Seperate articles on the Kingdom from 1100-1146 and the period after the Ninth Crusade until the fall of Acre are sorely needed. But I also think Crusading movement, maybe renamed to Crusading Ideology and Institutions, should be its own article as the level of detail tends to be somewhat obtuse, and definitely not for the novice reader. A short section on the subject could be in Crusades with a reference to the main article. Most of the articles on individual Crusades are in good shape, although the Seventh and Eighth need a bit of work.

There are a lot of articles on the Crusades, some better than others, many with authors that feel they own the article. The best example is Historiography of the Crusades which is stunning in its inaccuracies and the great lengths some will go to prevent corrections. I would hope that we could agree on a roadmap to build a good set of Crusades articles, based on the core article Crusades. This would entail identifying the core secondary articles (e.g., Crusader states, Kingdom of Jerusalem) and making sure they jibe with the main article.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Dr. Grampinator (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course, there are differences between the two articles: for instance, the Crusades article contain too much details about the crusader states' history, the crusading movement has an overly detailed (and out of context) description of the development of crusading ideology. However, the core of the two articles is the same. We need a single general article about the crusades/crusading movement. Borsoka (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, I was just quoting you that they are "practically the same article." You participated in the arguments for and against over the last couple of years and so know the issues.

I don't understand your comment that Crusades contains too much detail about the crusader states' history. It's a history article about the Crusades as shown in the Crusades and Crusades battles Infoboxes. If there's anything there that isn't related to the Crusades it should be removed. There was some drift into the states other than Jerusalem earlier in the year but that material has been removed. Crusading movement is exactly that, ideology and institutions. The history portion in that article should be reduced, and moved to Crusades, as I noted above. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose—as proposed. The fact this has come up for discussion again (and again) indicates that there is no consensus to support this as articulated. As Johnbod is probably tired of pointing out, the common understanding of crusades is those whose objective was the perceived recovery and defence of the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th/12th/13th centuries. This also tends to be the view of the wider Wikipedia community whenever asked, if Crusade "specialists"/"obsessives" are excluded. There is no article for this other than this article, which at its best and currently largely reflects this definition. That is not to say that this definition matches the academic definition of crusades; on that we all agree is much wider in terms of time scale and geography. However, beyond that there is litlle consensus on WP or amongst academicians on what that scope actually should be. If there was to be a high level summary article called Crusades it would look very different to this one; much of the current content would be excised and a greater number of events/personalities mentioned. But then WP would be missing an article on the traditional definition. Crusading movement is a different article, based within the context of the Roman Cathoiic church, covering the development of instiutions and ideologies, many of which were unformed at the start of the MILHIST but continued into the 19th century long after the fighting had stopped. This allowed one leading crusade academic to question whether there were any crusades at all in the 12th century. Rather than one article, I suspect consensus is more likely on three. Although the naming may well open a whole new can of worms. Dr. Grampinator has broadly mapped out a possible route to compromise.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose—as proposed, per Norfolkbigfish. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Norfolkbigfish and Johnbod: The problem with your comment is that it does not present any good reason to have an article about the ideology separately from the military events (and their survival after is, like many things, probably not related to its medieval forebears), especially when much of the content is actually duplicated between the two. It would make more sense to have a section here (at the title from which readers are most likely to approach the topic from) about ideology, in proper WP:SUMMARY style, and have a separate article, say, Ideology of the Crusades, to cover the different topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The ideology and instituitions of the crusades warrant their own article, in this case it is under Crusading movement after usage by giants of crusade academia like Housley and Riley-Smith. This is not for the casual reader whose expectation is usually a MILHIST article on those crusades whose objective was the perceived recovery and defence of the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th/12th/13th centuries which currently resides under the name Crusades. There is currently no WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article for the crusades that matches a much wider academic scope. There is no academic consensus of what a crusade actually is, academics have given up trying to build consensual definition and instead blur this while reaseaching individual components, using new approaches, in detail. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
"The ideology and instituitions of the crusades warrant their own article"; agreed, but that (or those, if two are needed) article should both be at a logical title (which Ideology of the Crusades, meeting both WP:NATURAL and WP:RECOGNISABLE, certainly is) and should also not be a significant duplication of the main topic article (which should also surely exist, and is currently at Crusades, which again is the more logical title in light of the WP:TITLE policy). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This looks like agreement, with your opinion being to Oppose rather than support the merge? The naming is another matter, although it would seem to be hubris to change the title from one cited and used in academic literature by giants of the topic like Housley and Riley-Smith. It also ignores a whole host of topics like instituitions, preaching, propaganda, memorialisation etc etc that the current title encompasses. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
No... What I agree is that there should be independent articles about the ideology, the institutions, ... (one for each if need be). Where I disagree is that Crusading is not that article (it is clearly too broad in scope); and that, if we take the reader in mind (and acknowledge that most of them probably have little knowledge of medieval history beyond broad generalities), and follow WP:SUMMARY, there should be one main article which covers all the aspects of the crusades (whether they be the Middle-Eastern ones, or others), including [but not limited to, the following is not exhaustive] the background which led to them, the military history, the social/cultural/... impact, historiography, etc. This "main article" could probably be modelled something like World War I is (with a section for each significant aspect, with links to more in-depth articles about each specific sub-topic, if such articles exist); and logically, as I was arguing, would be at Crusades, where content from the other should be merged. So, re=iterate support as I was initially saying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Crusading is not too broad, although as Dr. Grampinator points out it requires some pruning/editing. Baring the reader in mind Crusades is currently what is usually in mind when they google the topic e.g. those crusades whose objective was the perceived recovery and defence of the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th/12th/13th centuries with sign posting to the wider topics. No one objects to a WP:Summary article of the entire superset of topics under this banner. There are Strong objections to both editing this article to match what you have articulated or losing the focus of Crusading movement by merging with Crusades.
The naming of the articles involved is a different debate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
You can think your objections are strong, but you don't need to shout it out loud every time by bolding. "the focus of Crusading movement" is something which is rather inexistent as of this time. You claim it is an article about the "ideology and institutions of the Crusades". Yet, it manages to cover A) a background B) a military history C) military orders and finances D) the role of women E) the historiographical and social legacy. Much of this is, without doubt, duplicative of this article, and not closely related enough to the purported topic; and it would require major pruning/merging with here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for the shouting RandomCanadian—won't do it again. There is a natural overlap on all the topics, but this is not significantly a greater issue with Crusading movement and thus require merging. There is a far larger overlaps between Crusades and Crusader States or First Crusade. Neither of which are suggested for merger. Do you not agree that there remains a need for an article that matches the primary and most common definition of the crusades? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
That would be crusades, I presume? I find it curious that you recently changed so many template links and redirects to point away from the article on "the primary and most common definition". What am I missing? Srnec (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Not neccesarilly Srnec, like Johnbod I think it makes sense, but moving it to a differing name that allowed Crusades to be developed in the way RandomCanadian describes might gain consensus. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Srnec that the changes to templates and redirects were unnecessary, and I'm now going to waste away looking for any such changes and do the R step of the BRD process, particularly since, if those changes are widespread, they should have gained consensus before happening. The overlap between Crusades and First Crusade is a logical consequence of WP:SUMMARY, since the second (First Crusade) is a (hopefully, more detailed) development of a topic which logically is also covered in the first. The overlap between Crusades and Crusading, however is not quite so logical, since these two articles are pretending to cover two different aspects (Crusading is, if I understand it correctly, supposed to cover the ideology/institutions of the Crusades: something which is not obvious at all from the title; and which additionally would rather make it a sub-page of this one instead of an independent one which duplicates much of the content). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The fact that there were nearly 30 such links really suggests that this was unnecessary, and the only reason I'm sparing any wikidrama over this is because I have actual stuff to do for my university classes. I've rollbacked due to the links being generally unhelpful, and the change being out-of-process, akin to article hijacking (more skeptical people could call it "link hijacking" - and they wouldn't really be wrong). I'll note that really, if "Crusading movement" is, as you claim, about the "ideology and institutions", then it makes no sense to replace links to "Crusades" with it, in addition to all the scope issues already noted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The present structure - the artificial separation of "crusading movement" and "crusades" - led to an extremly strange situation: connections between military and historical events in the Levant or in Europe and the development of crusading institutions and ideology mainly remain unclear. In this article (Crusades), we are informed about many details of history of the crusader states ("Kingdom of Jerusalem") that had no direct effect on the crusades, while in the other article (Crusading ideology) we are rarely informed about the connection between ideological and institutional changes and historical events. We need a single general article about the crusades/crusading movement written in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Several comments:

(1) The core article is Crusades and should generally be the primary in Infoboxes, etc.

(2) The material in Crusading movement reflects later medieval political and intellectual history first begun by Carl Erdmann and later refined by Riley-Smith in his Oxford essays, Jotischky, and most importantly, Tyerman in his Debate of the Crusades. It is heady stuff that maybe a little too much for someone who is interested in the standard "dates and battles" material found in Crusades.

(3) Crusades is trying to reflect what is in:

.

Many of those battles are not associated with a particular Crusade, but are certainly prominent in all Crusades texts. The article would be pretty lame without mention of Battle of Ager Sanguinis, the Siege of Edessa (1144) or the Battle of Hattin. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Riley-Smith, Tyerman and Jotischky represent the standard literature in our age and they are quite popular. If we ignore their approach, we ignore our readers' expectations. Yes, at least the Siege of Edessa and the Battle of Hattin should be mentioned in the article, but the article is now filled with many battles and events with no direct connection to any individual crusade. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
It seems like you are proposing two things. First, that the Infobox "Crusades battles in the Levant (1096–1303)" be culled by two-thirds by deleting most or all battles in the Holy Land not associated with a numbered or named crusade. Second, that an outline for the article follow that of, say, Jotischky, as opposed to the standard chronological narrative that is there now. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I made no comments on the Infobox. Firstly, I propose that all battles and historical events with no direct connection with the crusades or an individual crusade should be deleted from the general article about the crusades/crusading movement. Secondly, I propose that the article should follow the complex approach of late 20th-century and early 21st-century standard literature. Borsoka (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I realize that you did not specifically address the Infobox, but by implication are saying that many of the battles referenced there are not part of the Crusades. IMHO, the "Crusades battles in the Levant Infobox" is really an outstanding piece of work, and helped me immensely in understanding the subject. I've added a couple of things (Mansurah 1229, Gaza 1239), but for the most part it is complete and comprehensive. Further, most of the battles (e.g., first, second and third Ramla, Field of Blood) are identified in their own Infoboxes as being part of the Crusades. If the main Crusades article does not address them, then there would need to a separate article on "Crusades to the Holy Land, 1096-1291." As I recall, this approach was soundly rejected in the discussions last year.

As to the structure of the article, the only two major books that really address this subject completely are, arguably, [Christopher Tyerman|Tyerman's]] God's War and Setton's Wisconsin Collaborative Study. The Routledge Companion also provides a barebones look. All of these treat the Crusades chronologically, rather than segmenting the Holy Land stuff from Later and Other Crusades (e.g., Northern, Popular). Again, this approach was rejected in the discussions.

I personally find the modern "complex approach" rather dense and hard to understand without a foundational understanding that the chronologies provide. I actually find them hard to follow anyway, but I'm just speaking from an old guy perspective. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not want to make comment on the infobox. We should not edit articles based on infoboxes, but should create infoboxes based on articles. I am also speaking from an old guy perspective and I fully agree that chronology provides us with a natural and neutral framework to present the historical phenomena known as crusades. However, we should present the subject in an encyclopedic article not in a book, consequently we should ignore most battles fought in the Outremer and also the details of individual kings' or popes' life. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Size

This article is ballooning. It needs to be cut down in size per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. —Srnec (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because it has expanded over its principal subject. All events of the crusader states' history that are not directly linked to an individual crusade should be deleted mercilessly. Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the listings of individual rulers. That's just obviously too much information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Well its too late in the evening to continue this little game that you're playing, but I'm glad to see that you are applying your unique knowledge on this subject to single-handedly cut out relevant material. It is certainly a lot more understandable now. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Notwithstanding srnec's valid concerns about size, it would have been more productive to allow Dr. Grampinator to complete his editing before deleting large chunks of content. A thorough copy edit would have probably addressed any concerns. I suggest the article is restored to the point Dr G left it, he is allowed to complete his additions and then consensus is gained for next steps. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Well I'm glad you know more than the historians that write of the Crusades as they all include comparable information. Your initial deletion included a one-sentence write-up on Frederick II (hardly a lengthy biography) who is a key player in both the Fifth Crusade and the Anti-Mongol crusade, and so is clearly irrelevant? You must be considerably smarter than the rest of us as I have trouble keeping track of all these players which is why I included it (following similar constructs in Setton, et. al.).

All of that is beside the point given your propensity to jump in and delete material that you neither discussed nor thought through. @Borsoka: and I may disagree on the scope on this article and may get "snarky" with each other but at least we respect each others opinions and neither one of us would just randomly delete something the other had written. Maybe the article is too long, but there are ways to work around that once consensus has been reached. The fact that you continued to delete portions of the article after I had objected showed a real lack of professionalism, as are your subtle insults.

You imply that I claimed that I "owned" this article. Based on what? Many editors have made changes, but curiously not you. I am working on trying to fix an article that most felt needed fixing. Maybe it went too far, but it's easier to modify once you can see what the scope really is. You claim to have a great new idea for the concept of this article, so let's see it. As far as I can see, you are quick lay out demands in a condescending way, but don't seem to add much to the actual write-ups. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The only condescending thing is you misinterpreting my remarks, and refusing criticism from others. It's not because historians writing books of hundreds of pages in length included this in passing that we must do so here too. We need to summarise what the sources say (so we need to be able to see the forest for the trees), and stick to the most important details; else the article will be too long for an encyclopedia (which is not supposed to cover every single thing that is to be known about the topic). As far as I see, what I did remove was the listing of individual rulers (which also had such stuff as genealogical details, which are not relevant to the at-large topic). That seems entirely in line with summarising only the most important information. The ruler listings could more properly go in an article such as King of Jerusalem, where it is more on point. I'll go ahead and include the information there instead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll also note that the major expansion of the coverage on the Crusades in the Middle East seems to be defeating entirely the purpose of the previous RfC (here), by putting too much weight on this aspect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Would be interesting to see how emphasising the crusades to recover Jerusalem is wrong when this is literally the dictionary definition of crusading (or at least the primary one, both at the time and now). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
All of that "improvement" wasted away into this could have been used to cover the "Other crusades"; where such topics as the Baltic crusades only get a passing mention (with the link actually not leading to the right article). There was agreement at the RfC to retain coverage of the European crusades, so logically coverage of that should be improved. As it stands, the section on Middle East crusades is just too long to be acceptable per WP:SUMMARY - one could almost split it out in an article called Crusades in the Middle East, slightly rewrite an appropriate lead, and it would be a perfectly legitimate article on that topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian:I guess you haven't been paying attention, but your proposal for a separate article on Crusades in the Middle East is exactly what @Norfolkbigfish: proposed doing last year, an idea that was soundly rejected, including by yours truly. However, given the aversion to have an article on the Crusades that provides some level of detail, I now support that idea. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  • If I did oppose that, or if my close of the long-off RfC suggests that, it was solely because of the title (i.e. "Crusades" is not an appropriate title for such an article and should cover more than just that; as per the RfC). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    Should or could? The link, or overlap, between each of the other crusades and each other, and between those and the primary objective is tenuous to say the least if you are only going to consider the MILHIST. Northern Crusades is already a summary article, leading to the possibility of a summary of a summary article which seems redundant. That said there is no MILHIST summary article for Political Crusades and the one for Popular Crusades is underdeveloped, both of which could be interesting and the common criticism has been for some time that there is no summary article for the major focus of the subject, which is the crusades intended to recover or hold Jerusalem. FWIW, I think Dr. Grampinator has made an important and positive impact addressing this with his edits and should be thanked. I think even he realises that size is an issue here, which is what we are discussing, and it appears he is attempting to address this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    It would seem that the debate has come full circle on this subject (again!). WP:Split as suggested by RC above, maybe combined with the WP:Merge proposed by Srnec below in October 2021 is one possible route to consensus? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Yours truly" means me, not you.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC) Now that we're cutting back, the entirety of Section 5 is redundant with the separate article of the same name as well as the subsections, most of which have their own articles. It doesn't really meet with the new thinking to only discuss Crusades, not Crusader states, etc. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The resolution to the various issues discussed here still seem to me best resolved by moving this article to a new name that reflects that as written it takes the traditionalist model of the crusades. Then creating a new high level summary article with the name Crusades that covered the generalist model. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
That strikes me as a backwards approach. Surely, we should just revert this back to a version closer to what we want and then spin off a separate article on the Levantine crusades if there is consensus that we need one. The solution to all our problems is simply WP:SUMMARYSTYLE rather than competing top-level articles like we have now. Srnec (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This debate may need to go backwards in order to progress, there is no consensus on merging and there is never likely to be consensus on this as a first step. That said there is a possibility of achieving consensus around WP:SUMMARYSTYLE if the objections are accommadated rather than ignored or run roughshod over. There is a tendency to treat Constable's models of definition as absolutes; as objective fact rather than subjective opinion. They are simply models that academic intellectuals working in crusade history have used to frame their arguments. As such they are a flawed and inconsistent basis on which to base the scope of a WP article. Tyerman posited the question in The Crusades:A very short introduction about whether the various campaigns the the pluralist argument added to the scope of the subject would have occured anyway, without a Crusading movement. The Crusades for Jerusalem had no material explanation apart from the religious, the territory wasn't contiguous with Western Christendom. The other actions did have material explanations: the expansion of territory in border zones, the political assertion of the papacy and the suppression of beliefs running counter to canon law. They would all have occured, even without the First Crusade. The connection that the pluralists made was what they call the Crusading movement; the organisation rather than the objective. Even then that scope is insufficient for the scope of this article as many see it because it excludes the popular crusades; they were not organised by the papacy, indeed they were largely suppressed by clerical authorities. That leads to this article being based on the generalist approach, as are many of the general works. That is just about all Roman Catholic Church warfare and related instituitions from the 11th to the 19th century. And there is the issue, the primary OED definition of the crusades is the wars in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries to recover or defend Jerusalem from the Muslims. This is also the expectation of the lay reader for the landing page when they type Crusades into the search bar. There is only one article that meets that definition and expectation and that is this one. Merging and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE would destroy this. That is not to say there is no consensus possible for a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article that covered the scope at the largest possible extent. That is not even to say that there is no consensus possible that that article should be called Crusades. As Dr. Grampinator wrote this is a dense, complicated subject whose nuances are not for the novice lay reader. It is time to stop making the perfect the enemy of the good. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I support the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE proposal. The World War II example shown there is a good one. Each of the major topics has a succinct write-up (4–8 paragraphs) with a detailed article supporting the section. The mark-up size of 236k is also manageable. Crusades is close to that now with the numbered Crusades (7 and 8 need to be updated). One exception is Section 3.2 about the period 1099–1147. Some think it doesn't belong at all (I disagree with that), and there is not a good subordinate article. At any rate, it would need some work. Another detailed article on the last days of the kingdom (thorough 1291) would be useful. 5.0 Historiography is another problem area as Historiography of the Crusades is not worth linking to.
I would suggest the current outline with 4.0 Other crusades expanded with subsections and linked articles, and addition of a Crusading movement section, linked to Crusading movement.
Is there some reason this discussion is in the middle of the Talk Page? It would be better at the end. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Norfolkbigfish: I don't think the current setup is even good. The changes you made to links and their reversion is proof positive that we have two competing top-level articles, an unacceptable situation. I find your remark that there is a tendency to treat Constable's models of definition as absolutes odd, because to me it looks like you are the one sifting everything through Constable's models. I have been thinking that Crusading movement should be moved to Evolution and expansion of Crusading. That seems to be the kind of thing you want to write about. Srnec (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree that having two competing articles is not a good position srnec, so at least there is the basis for agreement there. I also agree for the place of a summary article which would look pretty different to this one, but would move this forward. Where I differ from many is that at least I am framing the debate through what Crusade academics have written or say rather than personal opinion: there are a lot of shoulds, unaccepatbles on this talk page and even suggestions that the article structure should follow the contents pages of various commercial popular books rather than what specialists write. I believe if there was an article to cover the crusades for Jersualem many of the conflicts in this debate would disappear. I also think that you don't understand what Crusading movement is about, what Riley-Smith et al meant when they coined the phrase and why that is different from the MILHIST. For me there is a danger that the subject is dumbed down and moved away from the academic by the proposed changes as thet stand. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Although I do not remember that anybody referred to "various commercial popular books", if we want to meet our lay readers' expectations we should follow standard literature of our time. Standard literature has obviously abandoned older academics' "battles, knights and sultans in the Holy Land" approach. If we want to write an article for a wider audience than teenager or ever-teenager boys, we need to create a general article about the crusades that covers all major topics in this field. Borsoka (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "standard literature of our time." Tyerman (2006) and Asbridge (2012) are the most recent comprehensive works on the Crusades and they follow pretty much the same structure as the works beginning in the early twentieth century. Could you suggest an alternative as some of us "ever-teenagers" like to read old-fashioned "battles" articles. And, to answer an earlier question asked, all encyclopedia articles on the Crusades include a section on the period 1100–1144. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Tyerman and to a lesser extent Asbridge apply a much more complex approach. They describe the development of crusading ideology and institutions, write of financing etc. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, and they did it in the context of individual Crusades. Ideology, institutions, financing, etc. are meaningless without the context of the crusade itself, i.e., battles, knights and sultans.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
That is why the two articles should be merged. For instance, for the time being Crusading movement presents the development of crusading ideology in the context of popes' life. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
You have proposed the we delete Section 2.3, The Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1147, of Crusades and now are talking about adding Section 3: Ideological development, of Crusading movement. How will that work giving the latter's discussion of the period covered by the former?
Sorry, I do not understand your question. Why do you think the details of the history of the Outremer are relevant and the principal features of the development of crusading ideology are irrelevant in the article's context? Borsoka (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Let me rephrase. How can you discuss ideological development of a crusading movement between 1095–1291 without the corresponding historical discussion, to include military and political aspects? The write-up in Crusading movement implicitly assumes the reader is familiar with the historical discussion in Crusades. The "numbered Crusades" only cover a small portion of that time period.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
We could not discuss ideological development without the corresponding historical discussion. That is why I supported the proposal about the two articles' merger. On the other hand, all references to historical events that are only tangentially connected to the article's subject are unnecessary (I refer to WP:SUMMARY). Borsoka (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, these are two articles that complement each other and one might need the other. This has already been discussed at length. I don't see any problem with this. WP:summary does not say that we can not have two articles that complement each other. If there is a consensus (which I do not see) to use summary style on one of the two articles, because it is too big, why should this require a merge? It seems contradictory. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
We may say the two articles co-exist, but they do not complement each other. No, there is no contradiction: the articles contain parallel texts and both of them contain irrelevant material. Borsoka (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I have no problem with including a summary of Crusading movement in Crusades and in fact welcome it. But the former needs to mature some, being worked primarily by Norfolkfish while the rest of us are debating the latter. I believe Crusades is consistent with WP:SUMMARY. If you look at the primary example cited, World War II, you can see the similarity. Also, there is a length section on Pre-War Events. How is that any different than including a section on the Kingdom of Jerusalem between the First and Second Crusades? IMHO, it is not tangential, and I believe all inclusive sources on the Crusades have such a write-up. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The section on Pre-War Events in the article about WWII presents events that have a direct impact on the military actions. Furthermore, WWII lasted for 6 years (1939-1945), while the Levantine Crusades for more than 190 years. We are not in the position to add a detailed historical and military background to each crusade if we want to follow WP:SUMMARY. Borsoka (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusades/Archive_17&oldid=1068994064"