Talk:Steven Runciman

Untitled

I once had a classics professor who was an acquaintance of Runciman...when Runciman died he told us a story, about a time when Runciman saw a book written in the Thai language. He thought it was beautiful, and wanted to learn it, so, he did. For no real reason he just learned how to speak Thai. Maybe that's not a very interesting story, and I suppose it wouldn't belong in the article, but I thought I would mention it anyway :) Adam Bishop 03:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Might be worth a mention, with an independent verification. Worthy of being on the talk page at least. -R. fiend 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

The following should be on wikiquote rather than wikipedia, unless they can be worked into other sections of the text:

• "Unlike Christianity, which preached a peace that it never achieved, Islam unashamedly came with a sword."
• "I believe that the supreme duty of the historian is to write history, that is to say, to attempt to record in one sweeping sequence the greater events and movements that have swayed the destiny of man."
• "Riches should come as the reward for hard work, preferably one's forebears'."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimhelm (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 December 2006

Hi there, I've now created a Wikiquote page for him. It would be good if you could provide some references over there, though. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

I've just formatted a chunk inserted by Mikets12, there's some cites need doing correctly, I'm afraid I don't know how. I don't know about the content of the addition - I suspect (because of its formatting) that it's copied from elsewhere. TheresaWilson (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I definitely suspect that as well, but nothing shows up on Google. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

After a lot of cuts and re-jigs, it is still over-egged, I think. The old man did a lot more than A History of the Crusades. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You did a good job very quickly, OhNo, I suspect that it was probably original (as Adam says - no Google) but all or part of astudent essay or similar. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity of Runciman critics

Many of the criticisms of Runciman seem to be around his favourable portrayal of Muslims and Arabs, and a number of his critics, notably Jonathan Riley-Smith (ironically in the sources being cited) have stated that this is why they oppose him, not on the substance of his work as a historian. Riley-Smith, in the link cited for his criticism of Runciman, himself makes it apparent that his work is influenced by his Catholic faith and its defense.

The inclusion of the "He told me in a televised interview", an interview which mysteriously cannot be found and only Riley-Smith's word (and actually only Andrew Holt's word) is available on it, clearly should not be quoted, otherwise wikipedia might as well descend into a rumor mill, it's preposterous.

Alfred J. Andrea, and Andrew Holt from the outset call dismiss Runciman as fiction (the above quote was on Riley-Smith was attributable to Holt, yet no reason provided for doing in the book and no proof of the interview is ever provided). Holt's personal website, more worryingly, is not even subtle about his geo-politically aggressive views regarding the Muslim and Arab world and his sympathies for Israel political actions against the Arab world and his equation of Islam with Terrorism (https://apholt.com/about/).

Startling that such slanted sources are being protected by wiki users, seemingly again for political reasons. Recommend expunging for lack of neutrality and poor sourcing of the source documents in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sscloud (talk • contribs) 12:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki editors do not argue with the reliable sources. Instead we report what they say. The issue of "bias" applies to Wiki editors but it does NOT apply to the reliable sources. the statement about Riley Smith is a violation of BLP (he died a year ago) -- nasty words about a recent person with zero sourcing. Rjensen (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rjensen. The recommendation for "expunging" sources that an editor doesn't like is troubling, and the accusation by Sscloud of editors being motivated by political reasons is a borderline personal attack.

Sscloud, sourcing and explaining criticisms of Runciman doesn't necessarily mean you must agree with those criticisms, nor does it mean that all historians necessarily find them merited. But we don't censor them or "expunge" them just because we dislike the viewpoint they espouse. Grandpallama (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Constant mentioning of his "admiration" for the Byzantine Empire

Is the constant reference necessary, again I do wonder why such a reference is constantly made, slanting the reader to assume he was biased as a fact, which I do not think is merited. Surely it would be more proper, for ex examaple in the first section to say "Runciman was a strong admirer of the Byzantine Empire, and consequently considered by some historians to have held a bias against the Crusaders for the Fourth Crusade evident in his work" - How it stands at present is what worries me, it comes across as, Runciman has a favourable opinion of non-westerners - automatic bias! His critics hold an admiration for western civilisation - "yeah that's fine"

The discrepancy is concerning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.16.82 (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rules on "bias" by editors and by reliable sources

(from User:Sscloud) Please don't assume that the reason why I was removing data from partial source was due to personal reasons.

I would just as vigorously object and remove any citation of, for example, Bin Laden as an authority on US foreign policy as I will remove the two slanted anti-Arab historians (one of whom is openly so) from the Runciman page.

It's really very simple, I'm sure you would also object to the inclusion of Bin Laden's views on US/western foreign policy as a legitimate source, for example, and yet you are fighting to keep information from a historian who casts Arabs in a poor light due to sympathies with Israeli foreign policy.

It's a little bizzare in my mind that this is being done, and my question is more directly, are you saying a poor source that can be cited must be included regardless of it's factual accuracy or the very high likelihood of implicit bias. That's a real 'floodgate' moment if the answer is yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sscloud (talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Your last statement is in opposition to the Wiki rules on bias: please read WP:Biased--it states: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. As for a "poor" source, I'm not sure what you refer to, or how you happen to make that judgment. The point here is to avoid bias by WP editors (like you and me) but NOT EXCLUDE bias in the reliable secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sscloud, I'm more concerned by the bias you increasingly seem to desire to inject into the article and your claims (based on nothing else other than your personal opinion) that certain established historians' views should be discarded because you don't particularly like those historians. You seem to have suggested Seven Myths of the Crusades is somehow not a reliable source or not factually accurate, which you will have to make a better case for than "I don't particularly like Holt's position on modern politics." If you feel the article is unbalanced, find other RS that support opposing viewpoints (good luck finding ones that don't agree Runciman was pro-Constantinople and anti-crusader), and include those viewpoint with appropriate citations. But continuing to remove material simply because you don't like it is disruptive. Grandpallama (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There definitely is bias, and it's usually pretty transparent as Sscloud has noticed, but it doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia editors - this is just a reflection of the biases of the most recent generations of crusade scholars. The dominant voices are currently Catholic and/or conservative. I'm sure this is true of all historians, but for the crusades, religious and political biases are rather obvious, since this a subject that is also very divisive for the rest of the world. Someday things might swing back the other way. Maybe in a few years people might be willing to criticize Riley-Smith, now that he's dead, in the same way that Runciman is criticized here. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

And that is at the crux of my concern--the current "bias" in the article against Runciman is representative of the current view in the academic community. Grandpallama (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The more I look at this debate, the more I'm worried that we're colluding to discredit Runciman on somewhat shaky ground. There is a reference to Riley-Smith "denouncing" Runciman which has been drawn from "IgnatiusInsight.com" ("the online resources of Ignatius Press and are meant to assist readers who wish to learn more about the Catholic Church and her teachings, beliefs, practices, and history"). I'm concerned that this is not a sufficiently objective source. Can we not do better? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a statement in the current version that says that Riley_Smith was "one of the leading historians of the Crusades". He might well be but without a supporting source it risks being simply opinion. Can someone fix please. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

OK... " Riley-Smith is seen as one of the leading historians of the Crusades, he and other scholars continue arguing about various features of that historical period. No modern counterpart of Riley-Smith has emerged to argue for the “traditionalist” school...." Damien Peters (2017). The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. Taylor & Francis. p. 66. Rjensen (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Great - thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on in that Google Books link - "The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading" is a book by Riley-Smith, but that link seems to be a course website or something. Peters isn't the author of the book, anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

it's a link to a new book 2017 entitled "A Macat Analysis of Jonathan Riley-Smith's The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading " written by Damien Peters that is a study guide to the Riley-Smith book. it is a totally separate book --see it at https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-Crusading-Macat-Library-ebook/dp/B073RP4FM1/ . Peters also did a similar book about The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives and his own history of Florence Italy. Rjensen (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I don't think you looked at the Google book closely enough--it's exactly what Rjensen claimed. Grandpallama (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I associate that title with Riley-Smith, so I thought Google must be mistaken :) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"Mark K. Vaughn (2007) says "Runciman's three-volume History of the Crusades remains the primary standard of comparison." However Vaughn claims that Tyerman "accurately, if perhaps with a bit of hubris, notes that Runciman's work is now outdated and seriously flawed." Tyerman himself has said "It would be folly and hubris to pretend to compete, to match, as it were, my clunking computer keyboard with his [Runciman's] pen, at once a rapier and a paintbrush; to pit one volume, however substantial, with the breadth, scope and elegance of his three."" We need to do better here - it's a bit messy. It's not clear as to why Tyerman thinks Runciman's work is outdated and flawed - can we be more specific? The bit about paintbrushes seems a bit off-track. Vaughn seems to imply he agrees with Tyerman but again doesn't say why? Can someone go back to the source and bring out the arguments in a better way.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Eamon Duffy is Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge. He wrote "The Holy Terror" "New York Review of Books" Oct 19, 2006 and states: "For all his immense learning, Runciman’s account of the Crusades was limited both by his materials—essentially medieval narrative sources like chronicles—and also by the narrowness of his understanding of what constituted a crusade. He was uninterested in the extensive crusades against pagans and heretics in Europe, and his consequent focus on the struggle with Islam had a distorting effect. Over the last thirty years or so, a generation of British scholars led by figures like Giles Constable and the British doyen of crusade studies, Jonathan Riley-Smith, has transformed perceptions of the nature of crusading. They turned their attention to hitherto unexploited sources...." Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Tidying up of the article, inclusion of Praise / Criticism as separate sections

Recommend adjusting the article in the following manner:

1 - Tone: as has been pointed out by a number of contributors the article at present is appears to be written in a slanted manner. It almost continually implies that Runciman's work should be viewed as entirely bias due to his fondness for Byzantium / and not having an expressly pro-Crusader view. This is not appropriate and should be adjusted to remove this insinuation.

2 - Writing: the article is poorly written in places and a few minor edits to improve the flow are recommended (primarily around Runciman's personal life)

3 - Praise / Criticism: The addition of a Praise / Criticism sections to collate reception to his work as a historian. Currently this sits in 2 segments of the page which would be better served if collated together.

I understand there is already broad consensus on the above, the above changes have been blocked for lacking explicit consensus.

Does anybody challenge the above based on the merit of each change, and can you be explicit about your contention.

The claim that there is "already broad consensus on the above" is a disingenuous claim, since your assertions about bias and attempts to "expunge" (your previous word) sources you disagree with were soundly rejected when you last attempted to make them in December 2017. There is no consensus for the substance of the edits you want to make, as made clear by me and by Rjensen; Adam Bishop also chimed in to explain that the article reflects the position of the sources, not bias from editors. If you need explicit explanations as to why those changes are rejected, please review the prior discussion.

Separately, if you want to copyedit the article and/or condense criticism into a single section, that doesn't need any particular consensus, unless your changes to wording introduce changes to meaning. Grandpallama (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I should add this here, which I copied over from my response to you on my talkpage: "...you were expressly told by more than one editor that the inclusion of reliable sources does not indicate either bias or lack of bias among editors, nor do we try to present a particular viewpoint; rather, we present the viewpoint that is represented by reliable sources. As before, if you want to find reliable sources that support your assertions, that's to be encouraged, but you cannot simply remove supported and sourced text with which you disagree." Grandpallama (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, the substance of the article after my changes remains mostly the same. In terms of content, only 2 changes were made: the toning down of the excessive reference to how Runciman must've been biased because of fondness for the Byzantine Empire and the addition of a summary paragraph in the "Praise" segment which condensed a number of the quotes already in the article. Beyond that, content remained the same. You can read it again to convince yourself of that rather than assume it must be vandalism because of personal dislike of me or based on our previous disagreements, that's an unwarranted personalised attack and completely disingenuous.

With regards to consensus, as far as I can see, it appears that you and RJenson are said consensus (a consensus of 2 is not a consensus). Other people on this page (scroll up) have reflected the exact same point that I've raised. Its not the content per say that's contentious (which again to stress remained overwhelmingly the same after my edits - despite my personal concern regarding cited authors) it's pervading slant of the article that's troubling and it comes across that you're intent to defend. There are ways to highlight criticisms of Runciman without the plastering of it at every point to essentially poison the well for the reader before they even get into the article. sscloud (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rjensen:@Adam Bishop: Before anything, I should ping people I've been citing, since I have been referencing what they said, but don't want to just put words in their mouth. I have not made any accusations of vandalism toward your edits, nor have I said anything about personal dislike, so please do not put such words in my mouth.

Much of the editing you did was of a copyediting nature, but there are a few issues. The first is that some of the text is being moved around in a way that separates it from its sourcing, such as the rearranging of sentences in the lede, which led to the appearance that supported/sourced material actually did not have a source.

The second, and larger issue, is that much of Runciman's work has been evaluated by his colleagues as having been viewed through an anti-Crusader lens as a result of his having personalized the sack of Constantinople and (to a lesser extent) Zara. Recasting this overwhelming view as just a pro-Byzantine bias is problematic, because it does not reflect the intent of his critics. If you want to include sources that focus on him being pro-Byzantine (which is also an important part of his work and clearly indicated in the extant text) while also defending him from accusations of anti-Crusader sentiment, that'd be great. This is important, because I don't think any of his critics denied his pro-Byzantine feelings, but the critiques are not about that; they're about his pro-Byzantine leanings causing him to view the Crusaders as essentially barbarians who bumbled their way through Outremer and destroyed the civilization that was there. This idea is hit so hard in the article because it was so central to his methodology and writing.

Finally, the third issue. There were three people who suggested there was consensus on this article, not two, and the third individual (as I have mentioned before) very clearly explained that the "slant" you perceive does not originate with the editors, but is reflective of the bias of those who criticized (and still criticize) Runciman. Including that material and accurately reflecting it is the NPOV approach, while trying to neutralize that critique would actually be problematic. I love Runciman, and he sits on my bookshelf right next to Riley-Smith, Brundage, Bloch, Queller/Madden, and other medievalists who are central to any academic with a focus on Crusade history. I don't have any particular intent here other than ensuring we accurately represent the sourcing, and language in your edit summaries and reasoning here such as "poison the well" worry me that you are attempting to whitewash these criticisms and are not approaching this in a neutral manner. Grandpallama (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Riddle's Quote

The reason that I deleted Riddle's quote is that it is taken out of context and, when read in its entirety, makes no sense. Here's the full quote:

"Runciman regarded the First Crusade, as he did those that followed, as a barbarian invasion of a superior civilization, not that of the Muslims but of the Byzantines."

This is obviously nonsense, as no one would regard the First Crusade as an invasion of the Byzantines. And why is Riddle being quoted at all. He is not an expert on the Crusades and hardly a reliable source.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The quotation is not at all taken out of context; it correctly identifies Riddle's position as well as contemporary evaluation of Runciman's bias. It's not obviously nonsense, as most historians have written about Comnenus's eagerness to get the crusaders across the Bosporus and out of his lands as quickly as possible, as they were foraging on their way through them and the People's Crusade had caused significant upheaval when it passed through. Riddle is the author of A History of the Middle Ages (the origin of this quotation) and is certainly a reliable source on the medieval period as well as on the historiography of his colleagues. This is not the first time you have deleted a relevant quotation from a reliable source about this topic; I have restored this longstanding quotation. Grandpallama (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

By not including the beginning of the quote, you are by definition taking it out of context. The remainder of his writeup is also telling. Alexios Komnenos' desire to get the People's crusaders out of his hair says nothing about what Riddle is claiming. The objective was Jerusalem, not Byzantium. After the battle of the First Crusade, the siege of Nicaea, the city was turned over to the Byzantines. The Second Crusade was to recover Edessa. The Third Crusade was to recover Jerusalem. Maybe Riddle misspoke and meant the Fourth Crusade. But, how could he possible believe this about the Fifth through Eighth Crusades, as Byzantium had already fallen?

Riddle is an expert on medieval medicine, not the Crusades. A lot of people wrote books about the Middle Ages and the Crusades. It doesn't make them experts in the area. His interpretation of Runciman is nonsense. He also claims it was mainstream thought as of the end of the 20th century. I'm reverting it back IAW WP:BRD.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

So much of what you have written here is problematic that I'm not sure it's helpful to engage with you beyond policy. So let me be clear: Riddle holds a PhD in medieval history from UNC and was the chair of the history department at North Carolina State. He is an expert in, and a reliable source about, medieval history, period. He has a specialization in medieval medicine, which means he has a particular knowledge of it, not that it is the only subject he is an expert in. By your logic, Runciman himself couldn't be an expert on Crusade history, because his specialization was the Byzantine Empire.

Regardless, this quotation is about the historical approach of Runciman, not Crusade history; it's clear (I'm not sure what it is about it that you find confusing), sourced, relevant, and representative of the consensus of the historical community. What you have offered here is an argument against the source, which we don't do, because you disagree with what it says, which is not an acceptable argument for deleting content on Wikipedia.

It's clear from your argument here and your previous attempts at deletion that you personally disagree with the assessment of Runciman. You're free to find RS which contradict this scholarly assessment (good luck with that!), but you can't simply delete the current assessment and the supporting quotations because you dislike them. I've no objection to you including the rest of the quotation if you wish, but please stop edit warring out content with which you disagree. Grandpallama (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Much as I hate to admit, I am starting to agree with you, for the most part. Certainly, my assessment of John Riddle was wrong. His work on the Crusades is quite insightful. I am also not against quotes that I disagree with. I did a little research on the quote and could only find it here and in a Ph.D. thesis on the Fourth Crusade. I looked at Runciman's History and found only two mentions of "barbarian invasion." There may be more, but in the summary to Volume III, he says:

"Like most barbarian invaders, the men of the Fourth Crusade did not intend to destroy what they found." (pg. 476)

But, that section begins:

"The Crusades were launched to save Eastern Christendom from the Moslems. When they ended the whole of Eastern Christendom was under Moslem rule." (pg. 469)

In Volume I, Runciman begins:

"Whether we regard them as the most tremendous and most romantic of Christian adventures or as the last of the barbarian invasions, the Crusades form a central fact in medieval history. Before their inception the centre of our civilization was placed in Byzantium and in the lands of the Arab Caliphate. Before they faded out the hegemony in civilization had passed to western Europe." (pg. xi)

I'm not presuming to try to interpret what he was trying to convey, but I think the latter reference is to what early Crusades historians took sides on. As the first quote shows, Runciman clearly viewed the Fourth Crusade as a barbarian invasion. But the second implies the intention was not originally the destruction of Byzantium.

I think maybe the whole quote should be used because it is a stronger statement. And it certainly generates some discussion. I've e-mailed Riddle to see if he can shed some light on the quote. If he answers me, I'll share the response here.

I do sometimes overreact on Runciman, but generally only when Tyerman's virulent attacks are overused. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"Biased"

I have no position on Runciman's merits or otherwise as a historian, but it is utterly against everything Wikipedia stands for to call someone "biased". Wikipedia can report an accusation by a reliable source that someone is biased, but that accusation must be attributed to the source, not made in the voice of Wikipedia itself. See WP:NPOV. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The lede summarizes what's in the body, and the body covers contemporary evaluations of Runciman's bias toward Byzantium and against the crusaders pretty thoroughly. Grandpallama (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of getting into another losing argument, the lede does claim that "[Runciman] held a bias against the Crusaders for the Fourth Crusade..." The implication is that other historians supported what the Crusaders did at Constantinople, whereas I think it's just the opposite. If everyone believes that, can it be justifiably called a bias? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a misread of the intended emphasis in the sentence. It states Runciman held a bias against the crusaders specifically because of the Fourth Crusade (i.e., the Fourth Crusade events informed his bias), rather than suggesting that Runciman was alone in holding an anti-crusader point of view. That said, there were certainly other historians, particularly during the earlier part of the twentieth century, who had a more favorable opinion of the crusaders. This is generally why Runciman's bias is notable, in that his foundational work of crusade history was also one of the first to suggest the Christians were not necessarily "the good guys". Grandpallama (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe I read your intended emphasis correctly, I just don't agree with it. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but Runciman was criticized for bias generally, not because of the Fourth Crusade. Tyerman thought that he was over-the-top in his view of the Fourth, but all historians have been critical of this Crusade. As to being "one of the first," I suggest you read what Voltaire, David Hume, Edward Gibbon or Charles Mills had to say about the Crusaders. Their view was strongly negative, as were many subsequent historians. I know you're not going to believe me (as you view me as a Runciman apologist), so I suggest you get the opinion of @Norfolkbigfish: who is rewriting the Historiography of the Crusades. The whole discussion of Runciman and the Fourth Crusade throughout the article is suspect, implying that he alone thought this crusade was a travesty. I am not aware of any historian that defends the West's behavior in this crusade. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

implying that he alone thought this crusade was a travesty I just don't see any such implication, which I believe is based on misreading the statements in the article. I see the Fourth Crusade repeatedly called out as the specific reason that Runciman developed his bias, not as a suggestion that he was the only historian who considered it deplorable. I also wouldn't consider Voltaire, Gibbon, or Mills to be comparable; I didn't specify, but when I said Runciman was the first, I was thinking in terms of 20th-century crusade historians who follow modern standards of historical research and writing. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Grover cleveland is correct, it is inappropriate in WP to describe Runciman as biased, furthermore it is not supported by the sources used. FWIW the lead doesn't normally contain citations on the basis that this is a summaery/abstract of the article. Runciman was principly a Byzantist, and as such had a dim view of the crusaders in general not just as a result of the Fourth Crusade. It shouldn't hard to source opinions that Runciman used crude caricature and is now considered flawed, but bias no. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

it is inappropriate in WP to describe Runciman as biased is wholly incorrect. There is a perfectly valid argument to be made that Runciman shouldn't be described in wikivoice as biased, but if the sources describe him as such, it's perfectly accurate for WP to reflect those claims. We describe article subjects the way that they are described by secondary sources. There's always a weird, negative knee-jerk reaction to the word "biased" as it if has some inherently negative connotation; one could just as simply describe it as Runciman's point of view, as all historians view history through the lens of their own biases. Grandpallama (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source that literally says Runciman was biased (I would be very surprised, and I have read a lot of criticism of Runciman)? This article doesn't cite any. Runciman adopted a position based on the evidence as he saw it. You may disagree, many historians may disagree and indeed many question his research. That does not make it biased, used as a perjorative here. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That does not make it biased, used as a perjorative here It was not used as a pejorative. It was a specific description that Runciman "held a bias against the crusaders". The lead stated he had a particular bias and described that bias. This is a nuanced difference, but it is a difference. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That said, I've no objections to the rewrite of that portion of the lead to reflect the modern assessment of his work as flawed. Grandpallama (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That is probably why @Dr. Grampinator pinged me on this question. It is generally accepted that his Crusades work is beautiful literature but (excuse me herie Dr G, personal view) is now considered lousy history. Any bias identified is largely down to the proponderance and uncritical use of Greek sources. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Any bias identified is largely down to the proponderance and uncritical use of Greek sources Again, that's just not true. The sourced statements in the very body of this article about his scholarship don't critique an overuse of particular sources; they critique specifically his negative portrayals of and feelings toward the crusaders. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yikes. I'm alarmed at the rewrite of Runciman's contributions at Historiography of the Crusades, which does not reflect what historians say. Grandpallama (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It is all WP:RS, mainly to Madden and Tyerman (who is probably now the most respected living crusade historian). What is it that Tyerman and Madden have written that you disagree with, and what would your sources be. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Steven-Runciman.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)