Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raymond III, Count of Tripoli/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 July 2023 [1].

Raymond III, Count of Tripoli

[edit]
Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last Count of Tripoli in the Outremer from the House of Toulouse. Raymond was still a minor when he inherited Tripoli from his father. He spent many years in captivity in Aleppo, and after his release he assumed the regency for the underage king of Jerusalem, Baldwin the Leper. His rivalry with Baldwin's sister Sybilla and her husband Guy of Lusignan brought the Jerusalemite kingdom to the brink of a civil war. He made an alliance with the powerful Saladin but his vassals persuaded him to join the Crusaders' army when Saladin invaded the kingdom. He was one of the few Crusader leaders who fled from the battlefield at Hattin in July 1187, but he died likely of pleurisy before the end of the year. Many of his contemporaries blamed him for Saladin's triumph at the battlefield. Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:RaymondIIIofTripoli.jpg wrong licensing, I would use PD-scan The source link is dead; how to I verify that this image depicts what is claimed?

(t · c) buidhe 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

Looked at this at PR, happy to review it here as well. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...pillage the Byzantine coastline..." and "...sent them to raid the Byzantine coasts and islands...": Link Byzantine?
  • Done.
  • "...vengeance on Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos...": Should not it be "...on the Byzantine Emperor Manuel..."? I am unsure myself.
(talk page stalker) Either is acceptable grammatically; they mean slightly different things, but either works here. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left unchanged.
  • Done.
  • "Baldwin reached the age of majority in 1176 and Raymond returned to Tripoli, although the king suffered from lepromatous leprosy": "although" implies some kind of contrast, which is not evident in this sentence.
  • Modified. I think there is some kind of contrast.
  • "Baldwin married his sister and heir, Sibylla, to the Courtenays' supporter Guy of Lusignan and Raymond had to leave the kingdom": Perhaps it is worth briefly noting that Baldwin married his sister to Guy in a sudden panic. Maybe panic is not the right word, but it should be made clear that this marriage was rushed.
  • Modified.
  • "...scholarly opinions are divided with some historians accepting William of Tyre's assessment, while others emphasizing Raymond's selfishness and failures": Some kind of grammar issue here- I think "emphasizing" should be "emphasize".
(talk page stalker) I would suggest either 'with others emphasising' or 'while others emphasised'. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Why is "political agent" in quotes? Are these scare quotes or a quotation from someone else?
@Borsoka: ? Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need to check the source. I will address this issue later. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explained in the text. Borsoka (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Baldwin held an assembly after the burial...": It is understood that the burial here refers to that of Raymond II, but this needs to be said.
  • Done.
  • Done.

I believe the comments from Tim and myself at the PR have sufficiently addressed any major issues with the article, hence my list of minor quibbles. More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • William of Tyre should be introduced in the body; interestingly he is introduced in the lead but not in the actual text.
  • Done.
  • "loyal vassals": Another instance of scare quotes?
  • Modified.
  • "He could persuade Nur ad-Din to release...": He could or he did? Or do you mean "could" as in "was able to"?
  • Modified: he was able to ...
  • "According to historian Kevin James Lewis...": Another false title?
  • Modified.
  • "An other contemporanous Muslim scholar...": Why "An other" instead of "Another"?

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After a two-year absence, Raymond decided to again visit Galilee in April 1182 but Agnes of Courtenay and Joscelin III persuaded Baldwin IV to forbid his entrance to the kingdom": This sentence implies that Galilee was a kingdom.
  • Modified.
  • "Saladin seized Aleppo, the Zengids' last important stronghold in Syria, on 12 June 1183; he soon decided to invade the kingdom...": Which kingdom?
  • Modified.
  • Done.
  • "The king was still alive when Raymond sent envoys to Saladin to begin negotiating an armistice": When was this?
  • The previous sentence writes that we do not know the exact date of Baldwin the Leper's death but he must have died before 16 May 1185. We do not know exactly the date when Raymond sent envoys to Saladin.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "The fall of Jerusalem and nearly the entire Holy Land after the Battle of Hattin was a terrible blow to the Christian world": I agree, but this sentence sounds somewhat opinionated. Can we have a citation specifically for this sentence?

That is all from me at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does not only sound somewhat opinionated but it is clearly opinionated: it reflects the opinion of the vast majority of late-12th-century Christians. Even so, I think we do not need a specific attribution or citation because this sentence is verified by a reference at the end of the third sentence in the same paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I highly appreciate your comprehensive review. I think I left one of your remarks unaddressed. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; once that is complete I will have no qualms about supporting this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka Apologies for the repeated pings, but just a reminder. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pinging me. I have not forgotten the pending issue. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: having looked at this twice now, I am comfortable supporting. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Marking my spot, interesting to see some FACs about the crusader side too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raymond is appointed regent for the child Baldwin V of Jerusalem by the child's uncle King Baldwin IV" Not sure how to solve it, but the repeated "child" is a bit clunky. Perhaps call him "minor" or "underage" instead of the first "child"?
  • Done.
  • I wonder if the ethnic origins of his family should be mentioned? Now this and similar articles just assume the reader already knows many of these dynasties originated in France.
  • Done.
  • "Her husband's jealousy gave rise to scandalous matrimonial strife during the early 1150s." The juxtaposition of this text with the image of another man in her arms leads the reader to believe the two issues were related. Looking at the article about the father gives no further clues about the relation to that image or what the strife was about, so remains confusing. Could be elaborated on in a related article or in a footnote.
  • "report about Raymund's captivity" Raymond's?
  • Done.
  • You mix ise and ize endings, should be consistent.
  • Done (?). Sorry, I am not sure to what you are referring.
You seem to have fixed it by changing organise to organize. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and destroyed the Templars' castles at Halba" Interesting, I have family who live nearby, didn't know there used to be a castle.
  • It was called Castrum Album, according to Lewis.
  • Link Arabic?
  • I think it is a common term.
  • "An other contemporanous Muslim scholar" Another? Also, contemporanous misses an e.
  • Both done.
  • seneschal links to two different articles, perhaps at first mention "seneschal of Jerusalem" (if that's correct) could be spelled out?
  • Done.
  • "the prisoners included the hostages held as a guarantee for the arrears of Raymond's ransom" and "agreed to release the hostages who were surety for Raymond's ransom" Would make sense to mention and link "surety" at first mention of these hostages instead of second? Also, the second elaboration seems superfluous, I assume both sentences are about the same hostages?
  • Done.
  • "Raymond attacked a group of Turkmen and seized considerable booty from them in 1178 or 1179" Where?
  • We do not know.
  • "when the Flemish knight Gerard of Ridefort came to Tripoli Raymond pledged the first wealthy heiress in his county in marriage to him" Comma after Tripoli?
  • Done.
  • I'm not sure what the standards are for these genealogical trees, but perhaps Raymond's name could be bolded to make it stand out more?
  • Done.
  • Anything relevant to link dinar to?
  • Done.
  • "with the assistance of the local Christian garrison" What is meant by local, crusaders or native Christians?
  • Modified.
  • "Baldwin V died unexpectedly in Acre during the summer of 1186." By what?
  • Expanded.
  • "According to Arnold of Lübeck and Ali ibn al-Athir" Stat if they were historians or what?
  • Done.
  • Link Occitan and Franks?
  • Done.
  • You repeat Ali ibn al-Athir at random in full, though you would only need that at first mention.
  • Done.
  • You use both the spellings "Marj Ayyun" and "Marjayoun" for the same town.
  • First option.
  • Present Abu Shama.
  • Done.
  • "regard Raymond as a leader of the pullani (natives)" What is meant by this? Native opposite to what?
  • I think the following sentence makes clear the context.
  • Link Holy Land.
  • Done.
  • Present Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani.
  • Done.
  • As many readers may consider assassin a general term, perhaps say "order of Assasins" or "Nizari Assassins" or similar to specify?
  • Done.
  • You say in the blurb here that he was the last count of Tripoli, but the article only says "after bequeathing Tripoli to his godson, Raymond of Antioch". Could it be elaborated on what happened to the county after he died, and specifically said if he was the last count?
  • Sorry, I do not know where the blurb is and I have not found the text you refers to above in the article. He was the last count of Tripoli from the Toulouse dynasty.
Oh, I mean your introductory text to this FAC. But yeah, I now see he was just the last count of his house, not count in general. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image is very small, and pixel size forcing is discouraged, so you can just remove the 180px and it will look fine on most screens.
  • Done.

Thank you for your thourough review. I highly appreciate your work. I think only one pending issue was left. I will address it by weekend. Borsoka (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, I should be ready to support when the last issue is solved. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support. The sources does not explain it. What we know that Raymond II was jealous of Hodierna and later rumors claimed that Raymond III's sister Melisende was not his daughter. Borsoka (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cplakidas

[edit]

Reserving a spot here, will review in a few days. Constantine ✍ 13:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did some copyedits, feel free to revert/alter/discuss.
  • They clearly improved the article. Thank you for them.
  • the master (or head) of the Knights Hospitaller is the clarification necessary?
  • Modified.
  • The historian Kevin James Lewis argues Lewis has already been introduced
  • Fixed.
  • Bertrand de Blanchefort, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, reminded Louis VII of France (r. 1137–1180) in November 1164 that Amalric would be unable to defend the crusader states alone. what is the relevance here?
  • Context added.
  • spending eight solar years in captivity...imprisoned for twelve lunar years for lazy types like me, can you add which years these two dates would correspond to?
  • The cited source does not explain them.
  • who was Egypt's actual ruler 'who had become the de facto ruler of Egypt'? And it depends on which timeframe we are talking about: after 1171, Saladin was ruler of Egypt in name as well.
  • Deleted.
  • Hmmm, instead of deletion, perhaps 'who had taken over rule of Egypt' or similar?
  • Added.
  • seize the large fief of Galilee in the kingdom I think it bears repeating at this point that the Kingdom of Jerusalem is meant.
  • Done.
  • the bishops unanimously supported Raymond's claim to regency do we know why?
  • blamed Humphrey II of Toron for the crusaders' decision which decision is meant here? To withdraw? What was the alternative?
  • Expanded.
  • made peace with the Zengid ruler of Aleppo add his name?

Have reviewed up to 'Dynastic factions', the rest to come tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 19:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I addressed all but two. I need some time to deal with the two pending issues. Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid response! Here's the comments to the rest of the article:
  • I am not sure whether labelling Jerusalem as 'Holy City' without further qualification is NPOV, or whether this is addressed in MOS. But although in-context it is understandable, Wikipedia shouldn't take sides on which is the 'true' holy city...
  • I think it is not a neutrality issue. Labelling Jerusalem as the Holy City in the article's context is quite natural and common in scholarly literature. Could not we refer to Philip IV of France as Philip the Fair, or to Alfonso X of Castile as Alfonso the Wise?
  • After studying the controversial reports of the events, the historian Bernard Hamilton... does Hamilton's reconstruction of events also represent the scholarly consensus? Otherwise countervailing views should also be included.
  • Expanded.
  • They were crossing Galilee when Saladin invaded the principality it may be unclear which principality is meant here; the Prince of Galilee has been mentioned earlier, but quite a bit of text has elapsed since. I would also suggest adding something like 'the capital of the Principality of Galilee' after the first mention of Tiberias (Raymond, who was staying at Tiberias).
  • Done. (Tiberias is first mentioned in the lead, so I also expanded it.)
  • Joscelin took control of Acre and seized Beirut what is the difference here between taking control and seizing? Was the one peaceful and the other opposed?
  • No difference, so modified.
  • The reports are clear evidence of a "widespread belief"...but their reliability is questionable this is slightly self-contradictory and looks like an opinion/judgment by a historian, can we attribute it to a specific source?
  • I think the two statements are not contradictory. For instance, many of the conspiracy theories represent a "widespread belief" but they are not reliable.
  • True, but then please ascribe this to one of the two sources you cite here.
  • none more excellent in councel may be wrong, but it should be either 'counsel' or 'council' (likely the former)?
  • Modified.
  • The 13th-century Arab historian Abu Shama also regarded Raymond as one of the principal enemies of the Muslim world, and urged Saladin to capture (and kill) him and Raynald of Châtillon If Abu Shama lived in the 13th century, how could he urge Saladin (who died in 1193) to do anything to Raymond (who died in 1187)?
  • Good spot. Modified.
  • Saladin reminded Raymond of his oath which oath? The same one supposedly solidified by drinking blood?

That's it for a first pass. Not much to complain about, the article is comprehensive and reads well. Will do another read-through after these points are addressed, and will be glad to support then. Constantine ✍ 20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: I cannot see the latest changes you mention above. Constantine ✍ 18:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: sorry, it seems that I failed to save my edits. Now I think I indeed addressed all the problems you mentioned above. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka and Gog the Mild: sorry for the delay, had a few really busy days. My points have been taken care of, I had another read-through and found nothing further to comment. Hence I am moving to support. Constantine ✍ 19:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]
Layout
Almost perfect. Why is the primary source the only exclusion from your otherwise crisp sfns? {{sfn|Richards|2007|p=315}} would do the job as well. It will default to calling whatever name is presented under |last=, even if that would be |translator-last= in this case.
  • I have always made a distinction between references to primary sources and academic books.
The FAC criteria require "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is consistent: references to primary sources and other sources are consequently distinguished. Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs are enumerated differently. Make it consistent for the reader, whatever the printers themselves use, so e.g. 978-X-XXXXX-XXX-X.
  • Done.
Sources
The sources currently used are all high-quality academic works from respected authors and publishers. However. I was somewhat surprised to see several general studies of the period used (Barber, Lilie, Lock, Riley-Smith, Runciman), with only a couple touching on the dynasty itself (Hamilton, Lewis).
Yet listed under "Further reading" is a full-length piece on the topic by an acknowledged historian of this field. I can understand, of course, not using Baldwin's 1934 Princeton PhD as a source; that might get some pushback here (ironically, probably less so from me!). But in 1936, he published "a revision of part of his doctoral dissertation" (Zeigler, 1936: The Catholic Historical Review, 194) as a full-length work (OCLC 940049743[2]). (Originally presented in 1934, the part he revised was the critical bit—Raymond in Jerusalem rather than Tripoli.) This received several good reviews. Zeigler, quoted above, called it "a very satisfactory explanation of the situation". John L. La Monte, in The American Historical Review, 1937: 729, describes Baldwin as "accomplish[ing this] with distinction, while Frederic Duncaf (Speculum, 1938: 104) calls it "the best account ever written of the events which culminated in the fall of Jerusalem in 1187". It was republished in 1969 and 1978, and almost (I was unable to access Barber, but I would be surprised if he did not also) every single one of the sources you currently use cite the (published) edition: he has not gone out of vogue. The first edition is available for you to use in its entirety via a free subscription at the Internet Archive.
In fact, it's odd not to see anything by Baldwin in a bibliography of a 13th-century Levantine ruler, considering MWB's output on the subject. For example, his A History of the Crusades: vol I, The First Hundred Years, which IIRC not only contains a couple of articles by Baldwin which could be pertinent in bringing his own ideas up to date), but also by a couple of historians you do cite.

Nice article otherwise, fascinating stuff! Cheers, SN54129 13:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I introduced Baldwin and expanded the article.
  • Thank you for your thorough source review and also for your suggestions. Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Riley-Smith (1973) "Macmillan" needs disambiguating.
  • Done.
Cheers SN. Borsoka, any response(s)? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 would you let me know your proposals? Thank you for them in advance. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very little I suggested (FYI: when a source review of this depth takes the time it did, they're far more than just suggestions) has been implemented. It's nice to see something by Baldwin used, but it's extremely sparse and in many cases appears to merely backing up an extant ciation (why?). SN54129 17:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. So far I have thought that I addressed all your suggestions. I read Baldwin's cited work, compared it with the article's text and completed the article with infomation that it had not contained. Based on Baldwin's cited work, I could hardly expand the article any more. Do you think I am wrong? Borsoka (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's all good. The important thing is that a discussion has taken place, and we have achieved a (mini) consensus among ourselves, which I am happy to confirm as my support—per sourcing—for this fine article. Thanks for your work, Borsoka, the 'paedia is a better place for it. SN54129 10:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again thank you for your suggestions. By using Baldwin's text I could expand the article with relevant information. I am really grateful to you for it. Also thank you for your support. Borsoka (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • There are quite a few cases of "king" which should be 'King', per MOS:JOBTITLE, as a specific individual is being referred to.
  • Done.
  • "The reports are clear evidence of a "widespread belief" in Raymond's ambitions to seize the crown". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Perhaps simply remove the quote marks? It is only two words. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Raymond_III,_Count_of_Tripoli/archive1&oldid=1165716199"