Talk:Crusades/Review of the archives

Review of the archives 28 feb 2020 - 27 march 2021

I reviewed again the discussions in the archives of Crusades (and a bit in its current talk page). There was an unanimous support for a second article, but not necessarily for what we could call a split, though it is hard to imagine a second article without some kind of splitting. Borsoka changed his mind, but only after the split. Regarding the two perspectives, one closer to the traditionalists view and the other closer to the generalists view, Borsoka and Dr. Grampinator say the article uses the generalists view. I am not sure about GPinkerton. Others say it is closer to the traditionalists view. In addition, Dr. Grampinator supports a separate (so a third) article with the traditionalists view, but [otherwise] says that the distinction traditionalists, generalists, etc. is not useful. He suggested a similar dichotomy : (1) one article with the generalists view (2) two articles, one with the traditionalists view and the other on every thing else and concluded that the article uses the generalists view. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts of discussions in the archives (and a bit in this talk page) with diffs
Contributor(s)	Diff(s)/Date(s)	Brief description
Onceinawhile, Johnbod	28 feb 2020	Onceinawhile cites different definitions of "Crusades" in the literature. Johnbod says the article currently adopts the traditionalists definition.
Johnbod	28 feb 2020	Johnbod acknowledges the existence of two perspectives (traditionalists versus others) on the article and says that if a choice is made, it must be the traditionalists.
Borsoka	28 feb 2020, 28 feb 2020, 28 feb 2020	Borsoka rejects the traditionalists option, because the name is "Crusades" and say a different article can be dedicated to the traditional crusades. He mentions that the sources (even those cited in the article) are not restricted to the traditional crusades. In response to Johnbod, he asks for sources that are restricted to the traditional crusades.
Onceinawhile, Johnbod	29 feb 2020	Onceinawhile supports Borsoka and cites some author that says the traditionalists are obsolete. Johnbob says Borsoka's argument is based on the name "Crusades" and the name is not the issue now.
Srnec	29 feb 2020	Srnec asks to wait before splitting. Srnec adds that the article emphasizes the traditionalists perspective and that this "matches up perfectly with how modern surveys treat the topic".
Srnec, Johnbod, Borsoka	1 march 2020	Srnec, in response to a question, says that we can organize the topic in two articles Crusader states and another called Outremer (for the original 4 Crusader states). Johnbod asks if the Crusader states beyond the original 4 are uniform enough. Borsoka says "a separate 'Crusading' article could be a good compromise, serving as the main article for the major topics related to the crusades."
Srnec, Norfolkbigfish	16 oct 2020	Srnec is opposed to the recent split, because more discussion was needed before. Norfolkbigfish responds and undo some of the split, but keep the added Milhist arguing that "much of this was in the older versions of the article that passed GA and ACR".
Norfolkbigfish, Gog the Mild & Johnbod	18 oct 2020, 18 oct 2020	Norfolkbigfish again proposes the split with Crusades focusing on the traditional crusades. Gog the Mild and Johnbod support this.
Onceinawhile, Borsoka & Johnbod	18 oct 2020 18 oct 2020	Onceinawhile also opposes the recent split because we must "first nail down what the exact scope of this article should be" and suggests to do this in the context of definitions found in the literature. Borsoka supports this, because we must consider the "recent scholarly approach". Johnbod says this is not needed and we must consider instead "what the various possibilities convey to our readers, and how they match what these are likely to be looking for".
Dr. Grampinator	20 oct 2020	Dr. Grampinator says that the title and scope should remain. He says that major sources on the topic all treat the Crusades as a whole, regardless of location and objective. He adds that the balance and structure is about right, although the section on Crusader states is too long. However, he would support a second article, "maybe something titled 'The Crusades: Additional Topics'".
Johnbod	22 oct 2020	In the context of Dr. Grampinator analysis, Johnbod says again that there should be two articles one [with an emphasis] on the Levant, and one on the whole historical phenomenon.
Johnbod	25 oct 2020	In response to Borsoka who wants an RfC on "What do you think the term 'crusades' covers?", Johnbod says this cannot be used to decide the scope of the article & it is unhelpful to pose it in such misleading terms! Crusades has a broad usage, but that by no means answers the questions of what articles we should have, and what they should be called.
Dr. Grampinator	2 nov 2020	Dr. Grampinator presents the following dilemma: we have to choose between (1) one article that covers all crusades or (2) two articles, one on the traditional crusades and the other on everything else. He previously suggested two articles in a different manner (see above).
GPinkerton	5 nov 2020	GPinkerton says "when I hear 'crusade', I think of the Albigensian Crusade(s) and the Teutonic Knights, ...". He also says "for the crusading article, I oppose the present title, and suggest crucesignatus instead and explains why."
Onceinawhile	13 mar 2021	Onceinawhile starts a request to move the two articles to different names. He presents the traditionalists and generalists definitions of Crusades and says Crusades is close to the traditionalists definition and Crusading is close to the generalists definition.
Srnec	13 mar 2021	Srnec considers the scope of the current Crusades article to be all the Crusades with an emphasis on the east and sees no need to excise §5 In Europe
Norfolkbigfish	13 mars 2021	Norfolkbigfish says there is a risk of WP:UNDUE in Srnec position. He says this can be avoided by presenting this emphasis on the east as one viewpoint and the more generalist approach of Crusading as a different viewpoint.
Randy Kryn	13 mar 2021	Randy Kryn says the name Crusades is fine and "the second article is an in-depth look at Crusading as a broader topic, and the title seems fine as well."
Borsoka	13 mar 2021	Borsoka says that Crusades uses the generalists approach and there is no need for Crusading.
Dr. Grampinator	27 mars 2021	Dr. Grampinator says this article adopts the generalists view, supports the creation of an article with the traditionalist view and adds that the separation traditionalists, pluralists, popularists and generalists is [otherwise] not useful.