Jump to content

Talk:Crusades/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Featured Article Review

Editing has been quiet on this article for some time but it is worth being aware it is undergoing a Featured Article Review. Support for that would be welcome both in enhancements to the article or comments on the review page

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Ian Rose:—I can't read all of archive 2 after you closed the Featured Article Review it gets truncated. I would like to work through the feedback, resolve and resubmit. Is there anyway you can give access, or post the content here please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There was evidently some mistake in the closing, which no doubt Ian will correct, but you can get it all via "page history" per normal. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@JohnBod:—Thank you for the pointer to the history, I hadn't thought of that. @Jens Lallensack: @Richard Nevell:—I have copied and pasted your FAR feedback below (and thank you btw) so we don't lose track of what has been said and what has been done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Misspelled @Johnbod: above for ping Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack

Reading now, but probably will need a second read. Great to see an article of this importance here. However, I think this still needs work in terms of readability and comprehensibility. Preliminary suggestions below:

  • The background section focuses on the debates of current historians. However, this section should be primarily help the reader without prior knowledge to get into the complicated topic. I would start with introducing all relevant parties (and all important associated information), providing much more basic information as background. For example, the background section could make use of a map showing the relevant empires just before the beginning of the Crusades.
    • @Jens Lallensack:—Can you give examples here please. I look at the background and don't really see current historical debate in the background, or do you mean lede? I am a bit heads down with this so a second pair of eyes is helpful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The background section revolves around the question if the Crusades where a "surprising and unexpected event" or not. This is actually from the first sentence of that section. It thus directly dives into complicated, very specific questions. Consider that this is a Level-3 vital article and thus should be as accessible as possible. A background section is supposed to provide the reader unfamiliar with the topic with the context necessary for comprehending what follows. What do you think about starting with the basics: Introduce the main powers in both Europe and the middle east first (the constellation just before the first Crusade), together with the most important facts and histories that the reader needs to know in order to understand the rest of the article. Only then I would discuss the question why the Crusade actually started, and if it was foreseeable or not. This is my personal opinion, and I might be unreasonable, but I am just worried that the article makes it unnecessarily difficult for, lets say school childs, to comprehend the background section, and I myself didn't found it an easy read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would make sure that every person is introduced at first mention. E.g, instead of just "Peter the Hermit", I would write "the priest Peter the Hermit". I think it helps the reader a lot to get a first impression of what is behind those names.
    • I've gone through the article and tried to do this for everyone who is simply named, or only identified by an epitet, adding "count", "king", and such to give better clarity on why someone mattered in the time. Some figures were harder than others and I chose identifies like "French Noble" or "Franciscan Friar" to help identify them. I'm pretty sure I got everyone. Lord0fHats (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you @Lord0fHats:—@Jens Lallensack: does this cover your points? I don't want to amend LordOfHats fine work if it does—if you still think it needs work how about I work through again and extract some of the names to Notes. If it works for you two it would would read narratively to those who only want a certain level of detail but the detail would remain for those who want more. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • When discussing the Peoples Crusade, I miss some info about the reasons for the massacres of Jews. Similar massacres occurred in later Crusades, so this might be an important point to elaborate on a bit more right at this point.
  • For an overview article of this level, it is loaded with names. This makes it challenging for the reader. Two ideas: 1) Maybe you could check if some of the names could be removed, keeping only the most important ones. 2) When names that already have been introduced are mentioned again later on, it is difficult for the reader to remember "who was that". So it might make sense to remind the reader by repeating their status/function. For example, instead of "visited Zengi's son and successor", you could say "visited the son and successor of Zengi (the governor of Mossul)".
    • I'm going to try and work on this later. I'm familiar with the Crusades, but not so much that I know everyone involved by name and was confused more than once as the article went on. Additionally, some figures don't seem to be named at all (The sultan of Baghdad and the Abbasid Caliph are both mentioned but not named) and someone might need to help with that. Lord0fHats (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The third decade saw campaigns by Fulk V of Anjou, the Venetians, and Conrad III of Germany and the foundation of the Knights Templar. – This article needs to be readable for people without any prior knowledge, especially since the Crusades are such an central topic. This sentence is an example of how the reader may get lost: What is the relevance of the Knights Templar for the Crusades? They need to be properly introduced at first mention.
  • Egypt was ruled by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty from 969, independent from the Sunni Abbasid rulers in Baghdad and with a rival Shi'ite caliph – considered the successor to the Muslim prophet Mohammad. The caliph's chief administrator, called the vizier, was chiefly responsible for governance. – This is the kind of background information that is also needed elsewhere in the article. This specific information comes too late in my opinion; why not moving it to the "background" section?
  • In 1163 the deposed vizier – I can't quite follow, it was previously stated the invasion was halted, so how comes the vizier got deposed?
  • Doge Enrico Dandolo – "Doge" should be linked, and ideally explained, at first mention.
  • However, the French Crusaders eventually had their excommunications lifted. – What "French Crusaders"? I thought it was the King of Germany and the Doge of Venice?
  • When the original purpose of the campaign was defeated by the assassination of Alexios IV Angelos, they conquered Constantinople, not once but twice. Following upon their initial success, the Crusaders captured Constantinople again and this time sacked it – this reads quite confusing. They conquered Constantinople twice and than sacked it? Not sure how to understand this.
  • to prevent an alliance between the Latins and the Mongols – Also, important players such as the Mongols need to be properly introduced. They appear out of nothing in the text.
  • You use both the terms "French" and "Franks", are these synonyms? If so, this is confusing; I suggest to stick with one term.
    • Green tickY—No, they are not synonyms. French is used for the subjects of the King, and residents of France at the time, Frank is explained in terminology, it is the generic term for any Western European/Latin Christian crusading in the Levant. Used to differentiate Latin and Greek Orthodox Christians. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

minor points:

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

second look: Thanks for all the improvements so far. I'm still not completely convinced about the background section though.

  • I still think there should be more general background. I would even start with the spread of Christianity and the Umayyad conquests (Muslim conquests is listed under "Further information", but no word in the text about this). Something similar to the second paragraph of the "Historical context" section of the First Crusade article, but with less detail. Just to get an idea where the Seljuqs and Fatimids are coming from.
  • Frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world existed across the Mediterranean Sea. – Needs a date. Since when?
  • Muslim control for more than four centuries – Also, this needs a point of reference. Four centuries before the start of the first Crusade? The preceding sentence states "From the 8th century", so this has to be assumed to be the temporal point of reference, but this can't be.
  • and Norman adventurers led by Norman nobleman Roger de Hauteville (Roger I of Sicily) conquered the Muslim Emirate of Sicily. – Maybe it does not hurt to mention this, but is there a direct relevance for the crusades?
    • Green tickY— This illustrates the frontier conditions and is analogous to the Reconquista. In addition the Kingdom of Sicily, the de Hautvilles and the Normans conflict with the papacy and the Byzantines are all covered later and have significant importance Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The legal rights of Christians in the Holy Land are explained in detail, but other aspects lacking, I just have the feeling this is still quite unbalanced.
    • Green tickY—@Jens Lallensack: How does it look now. The realtions between faiths at the point of the First Crusade is crucial while other factors of life in the Levant are not. If you explain how and why you think it is unbalanced I will investigate Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Jens Lallensack:—are you able to support this now? Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the fixes, it is much improved. However I still haven't read the rest of the article. First bunch of issues below.
  • The three-month march to Antioch was arduous – should be mentioned that this city was Muslin-held; one can guess from what follows, but it disrupts reading flow.
  • massacring the Muslim and many Christian Greeks, Syrian and Armenian inhabitants – "Greek", because of "Greek inhabitants"? I would also add "orthodox" to the "Christian" for better accessibility.
  • Some Islamic contemporaries promoted the idea that there was a natural Islamic resurgence under Zengi, through Nur al-Din to Saladin although this was not as straightforward and simple as it appears. – This somehow interrupts the Saladin narrative, and makes the text quite difficult to follow. I also does not become clear why it was not "as straightforward and simple". Maybe just delete this sentence.
  • Saladin imprisoned all the caliph's heirs – I cannot right follow here. In the previous sentences we learned that Saladin became ruler of Egypt. Did he really imprisoned the heirs before he seized Damascus and Syria?
  • King Louis VII and Conrad III led armies from France and Germany to Jerusalem and Damascus without winning any major victories. – This is the only information the article gives on the effects of the second Crusade in the Holy Land. Would it worth adding that they were defeated by Seljuks, reached Jerusalem, and started a failed attack on Damascus? Maybe make the point that it was a failure?
  • King Guy of Jerusalem – linked more than once
  • As a result, much of Palestine quickly fell to Saladin including, after a short five-day siege, Jerusalem. – Here it would be helpful to know where King Guy of Jerusalem went (as he remains important in what follows, not clear where his army was coming from when he lost all of his lands).
  • On 28 August 1189 King Guy of Jerusalem besieged the strategic city of Acre – Information appears a bit detached (ok, the bigger picture becomes clearer later). But I think it would be helpful here to state if Acre was under Crusader control but fell to Saladin, or if it was always under Muslim control.
  • The journey to the Eastern Mediterranean was – Who was travelling here? It lacks a clear connection to the preceding information. I suggest to move the sentence "His successor as Pope, Gregory VIII issued a papal bull titled Audita tremendi that proposed a further Crusade later named the Third Crusade to recapture Jerusalem." right before this one, to keep together what belongs together.
  • due to insufficiency of numbers – not sure if this is needed, could be removed?
  • a new military threat to the civilised world – this would mean that the Golden Horde was not civilised. I doubt we can make this point.
  • Baibars had three key objectives – Comes a bit out of nothing, does not connect with the former. Is it possible to combine this with the sentence where Baibars is first mentioned and introduced?
  • The Crusader states were fragmented, and various powers were competing for influence. – Again, no connection. Also, this sentence is so general that it does not really tells us anything new, and seems redundant to the first sentence of the paragraph.
  • The fleet returned to France, leaving only Prince […] This ended the last significant crusading effort in the Eastern Mediterranean – leaving him where? In Tunis? That is not eastern Mediterranean.
  • Religious fervour enabled amazing feats of military endeavour – "amazing" is not neutral, and inappropriate here imo.

@Jens Lallensack:—all done, what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


@Jens Lallensack:—could do with some more feedback before I release the GOCE guys on it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Richard Nevell

In the legacy section, I think it would be worth mentioning the use of crusading imagery by extreme right-wing groups, cf Koch 2017. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There should be room for Carol Hillenbrand’s The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I will have a look and cross check. She was cited as a source but the text the citations were supporting have been edited out over time. Unsure if there is any benefit of adding the source just for the sake of it. When there are detailed comments will look to tie together with this suggestion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: Thank you for bringing this article to FAC. Topics like this are hard to address and it’s encouraging to see someone tackling it. I appreciate it takes a lot of time and energy, and I hope it’s been rewarding. The outcome is that the 130,000+ people who read this page every month have a very useful source of information. Adam Bishop said the topic might be too big to be dealt with on Wikipedia. Given its complexity and impact, it’s possible he’s right but I’m glad we’re trying!

I’ve put some comments below which I hope will help improve the article. Not all of them need to be ‘actioned’, and some of them may just be food for thought.

Lead: The lead mentions the Rhineland massacres, but in such a way that makes it sound like an isolated event. I think it would be worth adding a bit more context that the crusades inspired religious hatred against non-Christians, which was acted out on Jewish communities across Europe on multiple ocassions.

Terminology: On a few occasions the term 'class' is used to refer to different social groups. I'd be cautious about using it, since ideas of class are often closely linked to working, middle, and upper class which are more reflective of early modern and modern society than medieval.

What is meant by 'frontier conditions'?

  • Green tickY—as you asked I have reworded slighly, what is meant, and I seem to remember the source is Asbridge, is that these were the border between jursidictions but in the medieval way this led to occasional friction (typically violent raiding, banditry etc) while inhabitants on both sides actually had a lot in common (socially, economically, politically) and at other times significant contact. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Images: The images relate to the text, but I think could be shuffled a bit. Royal MS 16 G VI is aligned with the paragraph before where Philip II (who is depicted) is mentioned. That's not too big an issue on a desktop, but on mobile view there's a substantial separation between image and text. A whopping 65% of readers of this page are on mobile so it's worth considering.

Of the 14 images, three are maps, ten are illustrations from illuminated manuscripts, and one is a 19th-century painting. It's a nice mix from a range of periods, but it's missing physical things - artefacts from the period which would evoke a sense of the crusades. Some of the manuscript images were created a couple of centuries after the events they depicted, are there options on Commons which are closer in time? I realise we have to work with what we’ve got, but I’d prefer to get within say 50 years if possible.

  • Green tickY—added a couple of photographs, castle & coins. As for contemporary images I have struggled. Unless I am mistaken I suspect they were too busy fighting and there arn't any :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

With the manuscript images, thank you for including the shelfmarks! Would it be useful to include the folio number too, or would that add too much clutter? At the least, it would be useful to have them on the image description pages.

Content: I’m unsure how much to include about the Children’s Crusade since it kind of didn’t lead anywhere – the current text seems enough if we’re sticking to high-level detail, but I think Gary Dickson’s book should be cited. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about how to discuss the Children’s Crusade.

  • Green tickY—Interesting book, so I have added to the bibliography. Don't think there is space for more than the couple of sentences in the narrative though—wasn't Papal sanctioned, dissipated in Europe and never reached its destination. Useful to demonstrate religious fervour though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
My two cents' worth: It's definitely worth including. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but even I've heard of it. Worth a couple of lines to explain it, if nothing else. I haven't checked the text yet for it, I'm holding back on that until I do the CE.
Cadar (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The information on the Baron’s Crusade feels a little light to me. What’s your opinion on including more information, and how would you go about it?

There’s not much about the material culture of the crusades. The crusades led to the construction of castles and churches, and the use of relics (such as the Holy Lance) make for an interesting study which should be mentioned.

Thank you for adding content on the use of crusading symbolism in the present day. It’s a topic which is frankly unpleasant to deal with but is important to address. I wonder if it needs to be more explicit though. For example, ‘certain circles’ begs the question ‘who?’ when we are able to say that it’s the extreme right.

Clarity: 'historical analysis has demonstrated it was foretold by a number of earlier developments' makes it sound like the Crusades were prophesied. If I'm understanding correctly, the point is that there were conditions which make such a conflict more likely.

"... this marked the beginning of politically motivated Crusades" the absence of the French king from the First Crusade was politically motivated, so evidently a concern from the start. Perhaps this needs finessing, though I'm not sure about an alternative wording.

Nit-pick: directions (ie: north, south, etc) are sometimes capitalised, but since they’re nouns rather than proper nouns they don’t need to be.

Overall: The article does a good job of weaving changes in interpretation into the text. It is strong on the political and military history, but I’d like to see more social history woven in. The level amount of information is generally appropriate: detailed without being overwhelming. There are occasions where it would have been easy to go into more detail (accounts of battles for example) but on the whole the article strikes a balance between a high-level view and enough detail to be engaging. That said, I think there are gaps to be filled as outlined above. To keep the article a manageable length, it might be worth considering trimming a little detail from the First Crusade. I can see why there’s a lot of emphasis on it, but that’s also where we’re seeing more detailed accounts of events in the article.

An article like this is fiendishly difficult to write because there are so many factors to consider. What we have here is a good page. I don’t think it’s Featured quality just yet, but that’s not to say it couldn’t be. This is a very important topic, perhaps more so today than five or ten years ago, and efforts to improve the page are greatly appreciated! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell:—could do with some more feedback before I release the GOCE guys on it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Text missing

The last part of the introductory text is unfinished. " Medieval romance, philosophy and literature were galvanised by the wellspring for accounts of heroism, chivalry and piety that crusading..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:983E:4D00:9422:CC30:BCD6:51BB (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2019

The Crusades are erroneously depicted as religious wars between Christianity and Islam. This is not historically correct! The guiding cause of the Crusades was to prevent further Islamic conquest of additional lands Europe! Islamic teaching requires evangelism! Evangelism by combative force is permitted! It is the war initiated by followers of Islam, that caused Europeans to enter into this mischaracterizeed conflict! Contrary to historic fact, the west, and specifically Christianity, is blamed for the "Crusades!" In fact, the "Crusades" were "The Crusades of Islam!"

I am perplexed by the continuing twist in presentation of pivotal historic information regarding the "Crusades!" A proper understanding of what propelled the West to enter into the "Crusades" provides a calming historical clarification of this extended period of history!

The involvement of the European empires that were Christian was incidental to this war! It did provide a rallying cry to motivate recruits! However, did the military draft in the USA cause the war in Vietnam! No, the draft was a means of projecting Western military power into the Vietnam conflict!

The suggested change is at the beginning of the article! The following should be added: """ The Crusades are erroneously depicted as religious wars between Christianity and Islam. The guiding cause of the Crusades was to prevent further Islamic conquest of additional lands Europe! Islamic teaching requires evangelism! Evangelism by combative force is permitted! It is the war initiated by followers of Islam, that caused Europeans to enter into this mischaracterized conflict! """ Tang brav (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please review Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Papal Supremacy

In January 1054 he despatched a legation to Constantinople under Cardinal Humbert de Moyenmoutier, and ordered them to obtain confirmation of his claims to papal supremacy.

  • Davies, Norman (1997). Europe: A History. Pimlico. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-7126-6633-6.

I think you tagged this verification failed by mistake @Borsoka: this cited source covers this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will comment this issue. My concern is that the Great Schism is not the main subject of Davies' work. I will quote texts from specialized works to show that this is a highly simplified approach. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Jotischky 2004, pp. 26–27

Here is what he says:

Alexander II, anticipating the need for military resources, had developed a system of recruitment to the papal cause by means of oaths taken by members of the nobility to defend the papacy. This was extended by Gregory VII, with the result that by his death in 1085 a network of the fideles Sancti Petri had been created throughout Italy, northern Spain and the French and imperial lands.

The investiture stuff is on p. 25:

Although the immediate cause of the conflict known (somewhat misleadingly) as the Investiture Contest was the issue of appointment to bishoprics, the course of the war itself shaped and refined the reform agenda.

@Borsoka: The material is cited. Contrary to your personal view, every sentence does not need a separate citation. If you have a problem with the wording, fix it. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The article says: "This struggle, now known as the Investiture Controversy, was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics. To gather military resources for his conflict with the Emperor, Pope Alexander II developed a system of recruitment via oaths that Pope Gregory VII extended into a network across Europe." Which sentence from the cited work verifies that the Investiture Controversy was "was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials"? Borsoka (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources says "immediate cause", the editor who added this sentence went with "primarily about". The source says "issue of appointment to bishoprics", which is of course meaningless on its own, so the editor supplied context (maybe not enough) by adding "whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials". The issue here is wording, not a lack of citations. "Church officials" was his biggest mistake. Srnec (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
No, the editor's biggest mistake was that he/she thought that the conflict was limited to the Holy Roman Empire. Furthermore, neither the Catholic Church nor the Holy Roman Empire wanted to appoint church officials. Reformist clerics demanded that Church officials are to be elected by clerics and their opponents maintained that the patrons of the churches and the monarchs (not states) are entitled to invest clergymen with churches, bishoprics, abbacies, ... Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Srnec makes a valid point on my phrasing but also reinforces that what the article says matches the source. It also pretty much matches Investiture Controversy which starts The Investiture Controversy or Investiture Contest was a conflict between church and state in medieval Europe over the ability to install high church officials through investiture. Davies goes further the Investiture contest was a straight forward struggle for power noting that Gregory VII threatened excommuinication of all secular rulers who invested candidates for church appointments without reference to ecclesiastical authority. (pp339-442, source in article) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Your text refers to the "Holy Roman Empire", the quote to "all secular rulers who invested candidates for church appointments". The Holy Roman Empire was a single state, the secular rulers in case were multiple monarchs, aristocrats, who invested bishops, abbots, clerics with Church offices. Borsoka (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The main point is that the article is supported by the sources. Where this is relevant to the crusades and the article is the conflict between the Hohenstaufen and the Papacy in the period 1138 to 1254. This relates to the motivations of Popes and Emperors, politics in Italy and the impact this had on the ability of the West to raise crusades to the east. All of which the article refers to in some detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the text of the sentence was not verified and the conflict between the Hohenstaufen and the Papacy has nothing to do with the crusades' background. All the same, the sentence was deleted. Borsoka (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Do you know what is the difference between a single state and hundreds of rulers? Rulers are human beings, states are not. The term "Holy Roman Empire" does not include the Holy Roman Emperor, the kings of England, Hungary and France (who all opposed Pope Gregory VII's attempts to limit their prerogatives relating to Church appointments). Furthermore, the Investiture Controversy was not limited to bishoprics. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The article should have used Emperors rather than Empire, I agree. But the core of conflict was over whether the HRE was the leader of the Christian World or the Pope. It is not same as those other kings. The HRE thought they could appoint Popes, the other kings didn't. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. We are discussing the following sentence: "This struggle, now known as the Investiture Controversy, was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics." Do you see any reference to the control of the Christian world? Sorry, if you do not understand the difference between the emperors' claim to be the supreme leadership of Christianity and the appointment of bishops in Spain, Norway and England, you should not edit articles concerning this topic. Borsoka (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Something wrong with figures in one sentence

Article currently says "He estimates that by 1200 that these figures had risen to 35.6 million in Islamic territory—Anatolia 7 million, Syria 2.7 million, Egypt 2.5 million and North Africa 1.5 million— while the Crusader's home countries population was 35.6 million". I think someone has typed / pasted 35.6 twice here - would someone with access to relevant sources be willing to fix this? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Green tickY—should have 13.7 million in Islamic territory. That would have been a population explosion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I must say, having once looked under the bonnet of medieval estimates for Islamic populations & economies, the underlying data are almost unbelievably thin by European standards, & the estimates should imo be treated with the greatest caution. In particular it is positively misleading to give them an undeserved air of precision by not rounding to the nearest million. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod

Also worthwhile not losing touch of these unactioned notes from @Johnbod: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm loathe to add many points to this page - the quality of comments seems to be deteriorating down the page, not that I have read all. But:

  • we're not linking Lisbon?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "In the 15th century the pivotal events in Christian–Islamic relations were marked by two events: " - stop at "were"?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the crusaders" - "views" better?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "By the end of the 11th century, the age of Islamic territorial expansion was long gone.[23] However, fractious frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world remained across the Mediterranean Sea. The territory around Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries." - Hmm - importantly for the 1st Crusade, Antioch was only taken in 1084, and in the Balkans expansionary efforts continued for centuries. Never mind Central Asia, Russia etc.
Green tickY—well Antioch is 1000km from Jerusalam, but I take your point. Limited the comment by Geography Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "There were several key doctrinal divisions between east and west" - were there? Really only Filioque was "doctrinal", and it is hard to call that "key".
  • I did this. The source refers to theological disputes plural, but names only unleavened bread and filioque as main ones. [filouque = "one of the main points at issue"; It also says these were matters of custom rather than fundamental doctrinal differences, but the politics made the issue worse... It goes on to make the point I quoted above.... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • " This was a turning point in an irreparable split known as the East–West Schism" - hmm, not so much a turning-point as the culmination of several centuries of increasing detachment on both sides. And I expect both sides would have been astonished to find it still unrepaired 930 years later.
  • ENGVAR - "centre" but "This account has fallen out of favor".
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "a thirst for adventure and a general liking for warfare" - some of your sources must say that the acquiring of fame as a warrior was an extremely powerful motive for all kinds of medieval elite foolishness, just as in ancient and later times.
  • "Finally, one motivating factor may have been spiritual – a desire to gain penance through warfare" - seems grudging, and not well-expressed; most historians think spiritual benefit was key for many crusader leaders, and grace better expresses what they were after rather than "penance". I find myself querying lots of points cited to Jotischky.
  • "the Norman community of southern Italy" seems an odd way to refer to this tiny piratical band.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Nicaea - no link
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "the Muslim city of Antioch" - it had only been Muslim-ruled for a few years, and the civilian population was still very largely Christian
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "raised by the general Kerbogha" - he was effectively independent as ruler of Mosul.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The original ideas that Jerusalem would become an ecclesiastical domain and the claims of Raymond were discounted in the face of the contingent of troops from Lorraine" - "idea". The end is unclear.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "forced Bohemond to acknowledge Alexius feudal as his lord"
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Defensive war?

The article currently has an odd passage that didn't sit well with me as a lay reader. It says: "Some historians, such as Thomas F. Madden, argue that modern tensions are the result of a constructed view of the crusades created by colonial powers in the 19th century and transmitted into Arab nationalism. For him the crusades are a medieval phenomenon in which the crusaders were engaged in a defensive war on behalf of their co-religionists". There are two problems. The article says "some historians such as Madden" but cites only Madden. If there are more, they should be cited. However, there may be another solution. These snetences currently occur at the end of a paragraph on 'Legacy'. In which case perhaps the following sentence should be deleted, or taken elsehere in a historiographical diascussion? "For him the crusades are a medieval phenomenon in which the crusaders were engaged in a defensive war on behalf of their co-religionists". I don't think the sentence belongs at the end of this paragraph late in the article. If this is a serious feature of crusade historiography, then this should be being discussed near the start of the article ('causes and precursors'). It seems pretty fundamental. Also, in that regard, I found it difficult as a lay person to discern the meaning of "defensive war" in this context. There is no wikilink. Can this be either linked or explained more fully? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Green tickY—good point, I have moved to historiography. The Madden argument, which is share amongst other US historians, is a bit of an outlier. Important to recognise, but doesn't really fit with current academic consensus. I will add a paragraph to reflect when I deal with other comments in that section. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Verification

@Borsoka:—what edition of Jotischky are you using for verification checking? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I, and the article, are using the 2004 first edition—this may explain some of the failed verifications Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for raising the issue. I think he expanded his book during the 13 years between the two editions. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Onceinawhile

Very important not to lose track of this comment by @Onceinawhile: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I can’t precisely put my finger on it, but the article feels overweighted towards the Crusaders. A good comparator article is the Norman conquest of England - both are about invaders coming from outside, but this article is focused more on the invaders themselves whereas the Norman conquest of England article is focused more on the place being invaded. It comes across in the relative weightings of description of the various protagonists and their armies and institutions, the legacy of the Crusades in Western Europe vs the Byzantine Empire and the Middle East. I realize this comment is vaguer than the others, but it is arguably the most important one to get right given WP:WORLDVIEW. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I second the suggestion. No, it is not vague. Modern historians dedicate pages to the native population in their books (I refer to Malcolm Barber and Peter Lock's books mentioned above). I do not understand why do we need to concentrate on the individual military campaigns, especially because separate articles are dedicated to each campaign and its each commander. Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a summary article, other reviewers have requested that the article fully covers the historical narrative. You must think about a reader coming to the subject without any knowledge and what they would expect to learn here without clicking through to the vast number of articles within the Crusade subject area Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but there are too many details about individual rulers, battles and campaigns, and we have almost no information about the population of Syria and the Holy Land. We can delete plenty of uninmportant details. Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Review

The latest review of the article shows that it most probably does not meet GA criteria. It contains unverified claims, misinterpreted facts, it does not address the main aspects of the topic, but it also goes into unnecessary detail and it is not neutral. Relisting the article could hardly add value to our community work, so I think the article should comprehensively reviewed. I am ready to start a review, but it is not a one-man-show, especially because I am not a native English speaker and I am not an expert of the crusades. As Ian Rose suggested at least four editors - @Lingzhi2:, @Johnbod:, @Norfolkbigfish: and myself - should cooperate to improve the article. I also ping @Auntieruth55: because he/she completed the last GA review more than two years ago. What do you think about my proposal? Thank you for your cooperation in advance. Borsoka (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yuk. Going into GAR would be an unnecessary detour IMHO, whether or not you feel it's GA-worthy. If no one agrees to work toward FA, then go to GAR. If people agree to work toward FA, then WP:IAR, don't GAR, don't delist, leave it GA, on the condition that everyone continues to work toward FA... the goal is article improvement, not rule-following. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I fully agree. We should improve the article, not relist it. @Srnec:, I guess you have deeper knowledge of the crusaders than any of us. Would you join? Borsoka (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with @Lingzhi2: as well. While acknowleding that it needs improvement I disgree profoundly with Borsoka. The claims track back to the sources, facts match current academic thought, the detail has been requested by many viewers and has maintained a NPOV for a difficult subject. What is lacking is more on the Islamic world and response. The last FAR got four supports, not exactly the sign of an article that is below GA. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Worth noting that the article also passed a Milhist A-Class Review for what it is worth Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your readiness to cooperate. I copy my previous review here and I will continue it. I suggest that at least the following new sources should be introduced to secure that facts indeed match current academic thought:

I have access to about a dozen further books about the history of the crusades in my home library, but most of them are too specialized, concentrating to certain personalities or crusader states. I think we should not use too specialized books. What about my above suggestion? Borsoka (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the comments above are pretty largely nonsense, frankly. I have said I'm willing to continue my review. I think sufficient sources are probably already being used, and there are probably too many editors involved, pulling the article in different directions. I think it should return to FAC after a while. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Riding on Johnbod"s "too many editors" comment, let me say that I say without false modesty that I have exactly nothing to offer here except a willingness to work. And since several others are involved, I will now bow out, unless you need a warm body to do yeoman's work. I support your efforts to bring this back to FAC. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod:, @Lingzhi2:, yes, WP is a huge community and hundreds of editors are to cooperate. I am afraid we can hardly avoid adding further sources, if we want to provide a fair picture of "current academic thought". If my understanding is correct, you suggest I must finish my review without your support. Can I ask a last favour? There are many unverified statements in the article. I will place "citation needed" and "failed verification" tags after each unverified sentences. I understand you have enough knowledge of the crusades to review the article without cooperating with other editors. I am sure you could assist Norfolkbigfish to find proper sources to verify those claims, because one editor can hardly finish this work. I want to avoid that editors who are not deeply involved in this proces open the article's GA review to relist it for original research. Thank you for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: I don't think this edit was an improvement. What were you trying to do? Srnec (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. That was the principal reason I reverted a similar edit to the previous version ([1]). Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Illustration idea

Hi Norfolk, if you want another image, the maps at Cartography of Jerusalem#Crusader maps (12th–14th centuries) are worth looking at. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Onceinawhile: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

End of 4th crusade

The continuation of the crusade was now impossible because many crusaders now lacked the desire for further campaigning and the crusade did not have the Byzantine logistical support required. has been tagged as dubious because The crusaders departed from Europe without hoping Byzantine logistical support. They conquered Constantinople and they had the full logistical support of Venice. I know that the title of the section in the cited work contains the words "logistics", but nothing proves that the author draws a similar conclusion than presented in the article. I will look at the paraphrasing and sourcing for this. It is already pretty close to Jotischky's intent and the source. It is not necessary for every sentence in the article to match, although not paraphrase, a source as long as the summary in the article is supported by the source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you open a new section for this part of the review? Thank you for informing me about your every planned actions. Please inform me when you finished each page in Jotischky's work. I am so excited. Borsoka (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Venetian "Plan"

The plan was that when these were achieved, Alexios IV's restoration was the 'just cause' but he would have to repay the debts owed to the Venetians and fund the assault on the Holy Land or Egypt. has been tagged as dubious because The wording suggests that the Venetians' lust for power was the driving factor of the conquest of Constantinople. However, Asbridge only proposes this and other sources cited in the article clearly contradict this claim. We should present a scholarly consensus.. I have looked into this and think that this was a consensus that has now fallen out of fashion. So I think the editor in question is correct. Useful, discussion to expand in the article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you open a new section for this part of the review? Above I suggested a possible solution: Alexios promised something and the crusaders accepted it. Borsoka (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • While factually correct, that is not an academic answer. In fact it is not even 100% correct—some crusaders accepted, some did not. The question is why did the Crusaders attack Christian Constantinople, that does not answer it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You should read the cited sources before making comments. My above suggestion quite closely reflects the views of those specialized scholars who are cited in article. Yes, there were crusaders who did not accept the offer and went to the Holy Land instead of attacking Constantinople. They have not been mentioned yet. Of course, we can mention them. Borsoka (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hussite Crusades

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Remove unhelpful additions". I think it is relevant and should be included.

The Hussite Wars, also known as the Hussite Crusade, involved military action against the Bohemian Reformation in the Kingdom of Bohemia and the followers of early Czech church reformer Jan Hus, who was burned at the stake in 1415.[1] Crusades were declared five times during that period: in 1420, 1421, 1422, 1427, and 1431. These expeditions forced the Hussite forces, who disagreed on many doctrinal points, to unite to drive out the invaders. The wars ended in 1436 with the ratification of the compromise Compacts of Basel by the Church and the Hussites.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Hussite". Encyclopædia Britannica.
  2. ^ Lock 2006, pp. 201–02

-- Tobby72 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Hussite Crusades should obviously be mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Donemention added—FYI the wars continued after 1436, there was another between 1465-1471, although more political, according to Tyerman(page 359) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Reassessment

@Norfolkbigfish:, I will complete the review of the article in a couple of weeks, but I am not sure you will have enough time to address all issues. Close paraphrasing problems should be fixed as soon as possible. If you do not have time to fix them, I will modify the closely paraphrased sentences because even my simple English could only improve the article in this respect. Please, also inform me if you do not have time to complete the article, because in this case the article should be reassessed. We cannot pretend that this article "meets a core set of editorial standards". Yes it is well written and it is illustrated by relevant images. Furthermore, it is much more neutral than at the beginning of the review, but we can hardly describe it as a neutral article. Significant parts of the article cannot be verified because they contain original research or original synthesis. The article does not address the main aspects of the crusades, but it also goes into unnecessary details. Please let me know what to do. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish:, I am glad that you are working again. If my understanding is correct, you think that close paraphrasing is not an urgent issue. As far as I know, WP takes copyvio seriously. I also would like to ask you (again) to concentrate when editing. You made only two edits and made three new errors: [2] and [3]. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

A consensus has emerged among modern historians against the view of a generation of Spanish scholars who believed that a Spanish religious and national victory over Islam was inevitable.[1] was deleted. I think the editor was unaware of the historiographical debate on the place of French and Spanish nationalism in crusader research. I will restore on that basis. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand the continuity of a discussion is intolerable to you for some personal reasons, so I open a new section below for addressing your above remark. My answer will be similar to the argumentation that I provided above in section "Review by Borsoka: Reconquista". Borsoka (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jotischky 2004, p. 188

Restoration of superfluous material

@Norfolkbigfish:, you restored the following sentence that I had deleted: "A consensus has emerged among modern historians against the view of a generation of Spanish scholars who believed that a Spanish religious and national victory over Islam was inevitable." You assumed that the "editor" (I assume it is me) "was unaware of the historiographical debate on the place of French and Spanish nationalism in crusader research. I will restore on that basis." As the "editor" (that is me) explained you above (in section "Review by Borsoka: Reconquista"), they suggested the deletion, because "This is a large article, plenty of details of the crusades are not mentioned. Do we need to provide pseudo-information? "Yes, it was inevitable. No, it was not. But it was. No it was not." Either it is a consensual view, or not, we do not need to mention it, because we do not need to explain the details of this debate." I maintain that the sentence does not provide information: we are informed that there used to be a scholarly PoV, but we are not informed its basis, and we are also informed, that historians recently do not accept that old scholarly PoV, but we are not informed, why the new sholars refuted it. Furthermore, I do not understand why we need to emphasize that Spanish historians' PoV changed during the last centuries if we do no mention that French, German, Italian, Hungarian, Arab, … historians' PoV also changed. Neither do I understand why do we need to mention a scholarly PoV which is not accepted by anybody. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to French nationalism in this context. Borsoka (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead

@Norfolkbigfish:, the "lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article", according to WP:LEAD. We cannot introduce new (unverified) facts in the lead section. Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusades/Archive_10&oldid=929340798"