Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem/archive1

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Timeline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem

Featured list candidates/Timeline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem/archive1

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after its peer review I think it may comply with all of the FL criteria without major edits and a timeline for the history of the crusader state in Palestine is useful for our readers. Thank your for your review. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Norfolkbigfish

Nice list Mr @Borsoka. Two flyby comments for you to do with as you wish.

For the quotations and for consistency of citations it would be better if they were also in Harv, perhaps to the translation.
Kedar is in the sources, but not used.

I am sure that @Dr. Grampinator would be able to review in more detail. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. I think the citations are consequent: if the author of the cited work is mentioned, I use Harv, otherwise I do not use it. This is not unusual. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes section is now throwing up the error Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "note" is not used in the content (see the help page). four times. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Grampinator

I'm not sure if this is a call for a review as it has already been peer reviewed and I certainly support FL status as I find the article quite useful in helping to put the subject of the Crusades in context. I looked at the timeline through the establishment of the kingdom and have a couple of comments.

First, the 1080s entry on the hospital should be closer to 1071 according to Riley-Smith's 2012 Hospitaller work. The reference to John the Almsgiver was made by William of Tyre and is not regarded as necessarily true, despite the reference by Tyerman. I would suggest using Riley-Smith as a citation. Also, I think a reference to the Knights Hospitaller here is appropriate as that is regarded as their formation.
Also the 1113 reference is confusing. I'm not aware of them every being called the monks of the Saint John Hospital (also done in 1099...why not use the familiar name).
The same could be said about 1119 where the Templars rather than the Knights Templar are referenced.
Second, I would put the siege of Jerusalem material before the major heading Establishment (1099–1100), but that's not a big deal. Also, you would think the start of the Crusade of 1101 would warrant a timeline entry.
As an aside, I'm never fond of overlinking. Is it really necessary to link to "underage" and "sugarcane" in the introduction?

If you're interested in a detailed review, I'll be happy to do it in whatever format you like (edits, list of comments, etc.)Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Thank you for starting your review. I would be grateful if you could continue it because your knowledge on the subject is immense and extraordinary. May I ask you to write your suggestion in a more structured way to facilitate me to comment them? (I edited your above suggestions.) Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by more structured, but I'll try again on the Hospitaller issue. Here are the current entries:

Before 1071. Merchants from Amalfi establish the Benedictine Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey in Jerusalem. Years later, a hospital, dedicated to Saint John, is founded for male pilgrims as the abbey's dependency.

1099. c. July 15. The Saint John Hospital becomes independent of the Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey.

In my view, the establishment of the abbey is not a significant event, but at any rate the correct timeline is 1063 – before 1070 (according to Riley-Smith). The hospital is the significant event but no one knows precisely when it was established. Riley-Smith again says before 1071. Knights Hospitaller is not ever spelled out or linked. The independence of the two again is not significant. Note 1 to the second sentence is debatable and not necessary at this level. John the Almsgiver is not even discussed in the detailed Hospitaller article (nor does John the Almsgiver reference the Hospitallers). Here's how I would replace these, with a single entry:

Before 1071. The Hospital of Saint John founded as a dependency of Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey. This would later form the basis of the Knights Hospitaller.

1. The establishment of the abbey indicates the presence of western Christians in Jerusalem. 2. William of Tyre says that the hospital was originally dedicated to John the Almsgiver. 3. I am not sure that the knights are to be introduced here, since the transformation of the order started more than half a century later.

The next mention of the Hospitaller is:

1113. Pope Paschal II confirms the autonomy of the monks of the Jerusalemite Saint John Hospital (or Hospitallers).

This is a awkward way of saying:

1113. 15 February. Paschall II issues the papal bull Pie postulatio voluntatis which recognized the Knights Hospitaller and confirmed its independence from lay authorities.

"Pope" doesn't need to be repeated since "Pope Paschall II" has already been used. I also would recommend adding the death of Urban II and election of Paschall II as significant events.

Pope Paschal could not recognize the Knights Hospitaller because they were not knights.

I haven't looked at every entry but the timeline seems generally correct and the issues I have are ones of presentation. For example, the Second Crusade is not mentioned in the timeline. Rather it is paraphrased as "new crusade." Baron's Crusade is also not mentioned rather paraphrased. There is one that I couldn't understand:

Yes, I preferred to paraphrase them. The "Second Crusade" was not the second crusade in fact, so after mentioning a series of crusades, it would be awkward to write of a "second" crusade. The pope did not declare the "Second Crusade" or the "Baron's Crusade", but declared a new crusade.

1100. February 2. Daimber receives the fourth of Jaffa from Godfrey.

I have no idea what this means.

Modified ([2])

If you think these suggestions are good, I'll continue. But I don't want to build a big list that's going to go nowhere. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for your suggestions. I would be grateful if you continued the review. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the level of nitpicking going on has lessened my interest in reviewing this article. Other than a typo (which was just partially fixed), all of my suggested changes were rejected. Of the many statements above, the following stands out:

"The "Second Crusade" was not the second crusade in fact, so after mentioning a series of crusades, it would be awkward to write of a "second" crusade."

After that, I just gave up. Based on this criteria, what must we do with the following timeline entries, which would now be rendered false:

1095. November 27. Urban II proclaims the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont.
1187. October 29. Pope Gregory VIII declares the Third Crusade in his bull Audita tremendi.

The view expressed on "Knights Hospitaller" is also curious and contrary to the literature. The three entries on the subject are incorrect and insufficient given their seminal role in the kingdom. Clearly any changes that I might propose will be met with an argument, many of which defy usual conventions.

I will be happy to offer some thoughts to anyone who might be reviewing the timeline, including its omissions and errors, but my proposing changes seems counter-productive at this point. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to the Third Crusade is valid (the First Crusade was actually the first crusade). Thank you for it. The cited sources confirm the sentence about the Hospitallers: none of them refers to "knights" and one of them uses the term "autonomy". Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the Order itself differs on this: After the successful occupation of Jerusalem by the First Crusade, a group of knights discovered the hospice run by Brother Gerard in 1099....The group of knights joined in the hospice’s charitable works, thus strengthening what would evolve into the Sovereign Order of St. John. On February 15, 1113, Pope Pascal II, through his Papal Bull, recognized this Knight – Hospitaller order as a self-governing organization. https://www.sosjinternational.org/history/ Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Source. Reliable sources do not confirm the knights' claim about their origins.

Malcolm Barber writes of "a company of fratres" receiving privileges from the pope, without mentioning the knights or the order's military nature. He adds that the the 1136 grant of the castle of Bethgibelin to the order "suggests that the order had by this time acquired military capabilities". (Barber, Malcolm (2012). The Crusader States. Yale University Press. pp. 107, 162. ISBN 978-0-300-11312-9.)
The historian Nikolas Jaspert summarizes in the same way the order's evolution: it developed from a hospital that received privileges from the Papacy in 1113, and they assumed military duties only from around 1135. (Jaspert, Nikolas (2006) [2003]. The Crusades. Translated by Phyllis G. Jestice. Routledge. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-415-35968-9.)
Alan Forey emphasizes that the Knights Templar (established in 1120) were the first military order. He writes that "The Hospital of St John, founded in Jerusalem before the First Crusade for the care of the poor and sick, was assuming military responsibilities by the mid-1130s, although not all historians have accepted that Hospitaller brethren themselves had taken up arms by then." (Forey, Alan (2002) [1995]. "The Military Orders, 1120-1312". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan (ed.). The Oxford History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press. pp. 176–210. ISBN 978-0-19-280312-2.)
Jonathan Riley-Smith (himself a Hospitaller) is the only historian who says that the order may have had some military function as early as 1126. He mentions that the Hospitallers' Rule "desribes an Order that appears - as it indeed did to the outside world - to be engaged solely in acts of mercy and in raising the cash needed for its mission. There is no reference to brothers-in-arms or to warfare..." (Riley-Smith, Jonathan (2012). The Knights Hospitaller in the Levant, c.1070-1309. Palgrave. pp. 26–29. ISBN 978-1-349-33162-8..

Perhaps we should accept the reliable sources' approach when presenting the development of the order from a nursing confraternity (established before 1070) to a military order (around 1135). Borsoka (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By continuing this line of logic, the Fourth Crusade, Fifth Crusade, etc., must be similarly caveated. And the statement about the First Crusade can also be regarded as incorrect. And I stand by my statement that each of the three references to the "Saint John Hospital" are incorrect, the 1113 entry grievously so. By the way, the term "Saint John Hospital" only appears here, no where else on Wikipedia or otherwise. The discussion above is interesting, but not reflected in the timeline. The Hospitaller certainly had a military arm before 1121 and likely as early as 1099 as stated above. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are right when referring to the Fourth Crusade and the Fifth Crusade. 2. Please read my quotes from relevant reliable literature. They all contradict to your statement about the Hospitallers' military arm. On the other hand, they confirm the statements in the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are interesting quotes but particularly irrelevant to the discussion about the article since the Knights Hospitaller are not referenced there. As I have said several times, the three references to "Saint John Hospital" are incorrect and seem to be getting worse with each edit. Other areas of the timeline that are incomplete, incorrect or misrepresented are (1) kings and queens of Jerusalem; (2) relevant popes and papal bulls; (3) Crusades and their battles; and (4) Military orders. There is a lot of good work in the timeline but it needs a careful scrub. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are not only interesting quotes, but also relevant, because they prove that we cannot speak about "Knights" Hospitaller before the mid-1130s. The three sentences are verified by reliable sources and you have not cited a single source proving that they represent PoV. I am sure the timeline is incomplete, so I would be grateful if you could improve it, but please remember this is a timeline of the history of the kingdom, not of the crusades or the papacy. I changed the expression "Saint John Hospital" to "Hospital of Saint John" in accordance with the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prawer wrote on the Hospitillers in The Crusaders' Kingdom (1991, p253), and makes the important point: Though charity was written large in the code of Christian ethics and social circumstances made it incumbent on the rich and mighty, these biblical sentiments were never embodied in an aristocratic instituition. Charity by the mighty meant a condescending distribution of alms. A quite different view was held by the small group of knights which gathered around the saintly Gerard almost immediately after the crusader conquest of Jerusalem. They proclaimed charity as their primary task and obligation. Thus knighthood entered a hitherto almost exclusively monastic and ecclesiastical sphere. My bolds. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a red herring. Nobody was talking about when the Knights Hospitaller were militarized. The standard convention is to refer to them as such after the First Crusade because their ranks did include knights. Even later, they included both knights and non-knights. Wikipedia recognizes it and redirects Order of St. John to Knights Hospitaller. Riley-Smith wrote a book on it: The Knights Hospitaller in the Levant, c.1070-1309. Enough. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prawer's statement contradicts all sources cited above. Please read Riley-Smith's work before referring to it. Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

Recent edits on the article do not improve it, so I withdraw this nomination. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: I am seeking the coordinators' assistance to withdraw my nomination. Thank you for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.