Talk:Historians and histories of the Crusades

Military history: Historiography / Medieval / Early Muslim / Crusades Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)
	Crusades task force

Various issues

Dr. Grampinator has requested I take the three issues I had identified with this article (WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY and WP:V) to the talk page here. As we are already talking about virtually the same issues at Talk:List of later historians of the Crusades, however, I recommend we discuss them there so as to keep the conversation centralised rather than fragmented. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good. All too often there are multiple conversations going on the same topic. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the articles

@Nederlandse Leeuw, @Norfolkbigfish. I have restructured the articles as suggested and so we can work from a new baseline. Naturally, I've immediately noticed a problem. List of sources for the Crusades only considers the pre-1291 Crusades to the Holy Land. The Crusades in Iberia and Northern Europe are not covered. The new article, List of sources for the later Crusades, only considers post-1291. I suggest we rename the first as List of sources for the Crusades to the Holy Land and the second as List of sources for other Crusades. My rationale is that the first is already quite long and complicated, and the second could easily accommodate the sources organized by century as they are now. Comments? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the restructuring! I am okay with the title List of sources for the Crusades to the Holy Land.

But (for reasons outlined fully at Talk:List of early modern works on the Crusades#Let's Start Again) I think it's a better idea to split off a List of late medieval works on the Crusades (alternatively, List of late medieval sources on the Crusades). The contents would practically remain the same as they are now, but the scope would change into something far more manageable, namely any sources about any Crusades in general ever that were written between 1300 and 1500. All we need to check now is the date of publication, which is the least controversial and ambiguous of all factors that I have seen so far. This prevents the problem of having to define "other" in the term "other Crusades", which is vulnerable to original research and endless discussions (which nobody wants to have). "later Crusades" has the same problem with "later". On the other hand, there is general agreement about what "late medieval" means: The Late Middle Ages or Late Medieval Period was the period of European history lasting from AD 1300 to 1500. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Silikonz💬 19:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historians and histories of the Crusades → Crusade sources – more to the point, more concise Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What is this proposal? There already is an article called Historiography of the Crusades. Or is it to rename it to Crusade sources? Which is incorrect. Please explain. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Dr. Grampinator: nom's es: "Alt RM since the original target already exists as a separate article" (applied when proposed title was changed from Historiography of the Crusades to Crusade sources). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Historians and histories of the Crusades/Crusade sources/Historiography of the Crusades are not synonyms. The two articles are different, and serve different purposes. Crusade sources would include primary sources that were not histories or written by historians e.g. charters, ledgers, court records, papal bulls etc. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose & possibly snow close? - per above. Estar8806 (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.