Talk:Crusades/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs Malik Shah Y—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Crusades (disambiguation) (redirect page) Crusade (disambiguation) Y—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Crusaders (disambiguation) (redirect page) Crusader[reply]

Crusades links to 1 redirect which point back. Y— didn't know what to do with these so I have removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders (redirect page) Crusades Y— as above Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The term "crusades" is also applied to other campaigns sanctioned by the Church, fought to combat paganism -- how about other Church-sanctioned campaigns fought to combat paganism.

—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urban urged military support for the Byzantine Empire and its Emperor, Alexios I, who needed reinforcements for his conflict with westward migrating Turks in Anatolia. ? confusing: his conflict in Antolia with the westward migrating Turks, or his conflict with the westward migrating Turks of Analatolia?

—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historians have polarised opinions of the Crusaders' behaviour under Papal sanction. ... Really? All? Modern? Classical? Medieval? or does this statement need some modification of universality. For some historians, Crusaders behavior under papal sanction flies in the face of ideology; for others,.... Still others will explain (narrate, analyze, etc.)

—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantines; During... fix punctuation

—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would chose nomenclature and explain it in a note. Crusade. Or crusade. Why refer to it with a capital at one time, and small c at another time. Perhaps First Crusade, etc. should have a capital. This Crusade refers to a specific crusade, rather than one of the many....Anyway, this needs clarity.

— as per talk I have capitalised the lot for consistency Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology...ok I guess. Confusing though. I like the bullets
Eastern Med

Islam was introduced by Mohammad and a new united polity? What was the polity? Or did the introduction create the polity? Very confusing.

—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reconquista was part of the power struggle. These two paragraphs need work.

—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrimages by Catholics to sacred sites were permitted, Christian residents in Muslim territories were given certain legal rights and protections under Dhimmi status, were allowed to maintain their churches and interfaith marriages were not uncommon The myriad of things going on with this sentence.....

—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have someone from GOCE go over this? Because there are massive amounts of grammatical and language structural problems with it. ?? auntieruth (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did, however there has been a lot of work on this since which has probably created new grammer issues. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to put it on hold until someone from GOCE goes through it, okay? auntieruth (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me @Auntieruth55:, do you want to nominate of shall I? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you take care of it. leave a message on my talk page when someone has got to it. If it takes more than two weeks, we'll pull this nomination and get back to it, okay? auntieruth (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to take the traditionalist position, even though I believe most scholars today are pluralists. Its coverage is slanted heavily towards events in the Near East between 1096 and 1291. What happens after that date is relegated to aftermath, while the Reconquista and the various anti-heretical crusades are barely covered if at all. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the article doesn't take a position and is written from a fairly neutral prospective. Historians don't really find Constable's categories very helpful, although they are useful from an analytical perspective. Most historians adopt a position that is a mixture of more than one of the categories. Wikipedians generally focus on the middle eastern conflict and the article does touch upon the other conflicts you mention. Riley-Smith might have disagreed with this, but then again his position is at the more extreme end of pluralism. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the first sentence of the first paragraph. Urban called for help in the defense of the Byzantine Empire and those Christians being mistreated. While this is addressed in the article in a manner I think it important to convey the ideology for the call for a crusade in the first paragraph. The first sentence may reflect a latter mission for the Crusades but not the original call.Jobberone (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Jobberone[reply]

Y—That sentence has been honed by several editors over time ans is the best that has been agreed on. The defence of Byzantium and Christian mistreatment are how seen largely as propaganda rather than Urban's actual objectives. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WORLDVIEW, this article is overweighted towards Western perspectives. I don't mean "Western historians", as we follow the sources and the best historians on this subject are Western, but I mean in terms of describing what happened. It should cover the perspectives of both the Eastern Orthodox and Islamic states and populations at the time with a similar weight as to the coverage of the Western perspective.

Y—Not sure I agree. The artical is largely objective rather the subjective. Furthermore, much work has been done to add the key Muslim actors in this period. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should then do a better job at covering Eastern historiography - the article currently states "Indeed, the Crusades were of little interest to the Muslim world: there was no history of the Crusades translated into Arabic until 1865 and no published work by a Muslim until 1899" - which is misleading, as all it is really saying is that Islamic scholarship did not group these events together until the 19th century. There were many histories written on the individual events.

Y—Paragraph added to address this point Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And finally in Legacy it should cover the way the period is remembered in Islamic countries today. Look at Erdogan in the news today talking about Crusades. Or the impact when Bush used the term after 9/11. Or the numerous Middle Eastern politicians who have used the rhetoric in regards to Israel [1].

Y— Paragraph added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copy edit is now complete. Can this GAR resume please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for heaven's sake....it listed up as failed, but it's definitely passed. Good job. It's heavy on the western approach, but the additional material added from the other perspective makes it more balanced. auntieruth (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]