Talk:Crusades/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

NPOV discussion

Moved from my talk page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, per your request, I'm asking for a source to justify your comment "Urban was also seeking to reunite the Catholic Church under his leadership by militarily supporting Emperor Alexios I." This would seem an unjustifiable statement since a) the Catholic church was never in "disunity" or NOT under his leadership (a Catholic, by definition, accepts the Pope as head or "leader" of the church) and b) it would call for speculation of the operation of Pope Urban's mind to say that by seeking to militarily support Alexios I he was trying to "reunite the Catholic church" (and as I point out in a) this is an erroneous statement to begin with). Maybe you mean to say "seeking to reunite the Catholic and Orthodox church"? Even if that were true, you'd have to cite Pope Urban actually stating that was one of his aims, otherwise this is mere speculation. Can you provide any source material to back this up? Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente:— Hello, I'll look up sourcing and phrasing when I get the chance. This is nor the best place to discuss, what I meant was to discuss this on [[1]] where other editors can contribute and we can come to a consensus on this matter. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This is for @Norfolkbigfish: Regarding your second request to carry-on a discussion here pertaining to your sentence: "Urban was also seeking to reunite the Catholic Church under his leadership by militarily supporting Emperor Alexios I". I stated my reasons why this is an unjustifiable statement on your "talk" page (which were since removed); since a) the Catholic church was never in "disunity" or NOT under his leadership (a Catholic, by definition, accepts the Pope as head or "leader" of the church) and b) it would call for speculation of the operation of Pope Urban's mind to say that by seeking to militarily support Alexios I he was trying to "reunite the Catholic church" (and as I point out in a) this is an erroneous statement to begin with). Maybe you mean to say "seeking to reunite the Catholic and Orthodox church"? Even if that were true, you'd have to cite Pope Urban actually stating that was one of his aims, otherwise this is mere speculation. Can you provide any source material to back this up? I see it is currently out of the edit, which is best. Do you agree to leave it as is currently?

Also, I see below someone has stated that the Crusades were only a "Catholic" endeavor. This could not be further from the truth. While it is clear the Catholic church rallied the Western European powers towards the cause. Several successive Byzantine Emperors ALSO pledged troops and support (even the sack of Constantinople was an "inside job" with the Byzantine Venetians and other Byzantines siding/providing support to the crusaders). Christian leaders as distant as the Kingdom of Meroe in modern-day Sudan and Axum in Ethiopia offered their warriors to fight with the European crusaders. I will absolutely be taking another look at this, since this was not solely a "Catholic" or even a "Western" endeavor by far.

Trinacrialucente (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A follow-up for @Norfolkbigfish:; it appears the editor, Rjensen has found a quote and summarized it appropriately. I think we should respect this citation and not change it. @Rjensen: , thank you for this addition. A quick recommendation, as it stands, you have: "The Byzantine Emperor Alexis I asked Pope Urban II for help. Historian Paul Everett Pierson says, "The Pope hoped that if the crusaders aided the Eastern Church by defeating the Turks, the Church would be reunited under his leadership." Would you consider slightly rewording it to accommodate "economy of wording", possibly to: "Historian Paul Everett Pierson writes that upon Pope Urban II receiving a plea for help from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I, "The Pope hoped that if the crusaders aided the Eastern Church by defeating the Turks, the Church would be reunited under his leadership."

Your thoughts? Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

yes, fine with me. happy to help out. I have a similar quote from a recent major university textbook w more detail: Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks; et al. (2014). Discovering the Western Past, Volume I: To 1789. Cengage Learning. p. 178. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help). Rjensen (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states that the lead should be a summary of the body. Including a specific quote in the lead also gives undue weight to a single commentator. The quote would be better placed in the body of the article, for instance in the Background section, and then a summary included in the lead. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

it does not have to be a quote it can be restated but the point belongs in the lede, I think. Rjensen (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @Rjensen: think it's fine in the lead. The original dispute with Norfolkbigfish was not whether or not this should be in the lead, but his wording of "Urban was also seeking to reunite the Catholic Church under his leadership by militarily supporting Emperor Alexios I" did not make sense (the Pope was always the leader in the Catholic Church) and would be impossible to prove (saying Pope Urban sought to "reunite the Catholic Church" through a Crusade would call for the speculation of his mind). As it is worded now, this shows a direct cause and effect and by clarifying "the Church" as in "Christendom" instead of the "Catholic Church" it makes sense. So, we have 3 people here who think this quote should be in the lead, and one against. Let's leave it in until/unless someone comes up with a valid objection or proof to the contrary. Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the point should be included in the lead; I agree that it should, as I stated. But at present, the content is not in the body of the article. WP:LEAD states that the intro should be a summary of the body, and "[a]part from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Further, using a specific quote as the second sentence of the article gives undue weight to one particular source. ("Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail ... [and] prominence of placement.") The specific quote should be in the body of the article, then the point should be summarized in the lead, as I stated before. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

OK I expanded the statement, moved one version with quote & cite to the main text, and added a short version to the lede. Rjensen (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we are getting there @Trinacrialucente: and I am sure you'll agree it is easier to get these issues resolved here. A few points that it would be helpful for you to consider though are: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• All the references here are in Harvard format. For consistency can you amend yours to match?
• Are you sure Venice was a Byzantium vassal state? That needs a citation.
• In various talk posts you keep saying that Urban was the undisputed head of the church. The history doesn't seem to back that up—there was another pope Antipope Clement III, Urban spent much of his tenure in exile from Rome after conflict with Holy Roman Emperor and he was struggling in the secular realms in the Investiture Controversy.
• Biblioworm is in the process of copy editing this, so you might want to avoid cutting across his work on this otherwise he might never get to the end!

First, calm down and don't use exclamation points. Second, copy editing what? What is "this"? The crusades page or this talk page? Your ambiguous "here"s and "this" is hard to follow (hence your "talk" page vs the Crusade "talk" page). Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm is copy editing the Crusades page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There you go. Specifics aren't so hard, are they? It would also really help if we got a time-frame such as "copy editing will be complete by XX/XX" so we can refrain from editing until that time and "cutting across his work". But since we don't have this, I'm hoping we'll be notified when copy editing is complete, so we will know when to put back the changes and sourcing we spent immense time in compiling. To your previous point, I of course have all the sources needed regarding Venice as a Vassal state of Byzantium, but will refrain from further edits until this "copy editing" is sorted.Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to stop you putting the sourcing in and adding to the Bibliography, as long as you use Harvard notation to match the other cites. With regards to Venice none of the other Wikipedia pages refer to Venice as a Vassal state at the turn of the 13th century? I can't speak for Biblioworm but I am sure he will mark up this page when he is finished. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I haven't been active on this page for a long time, but I think I can help out with this particular question - I'll have to find some good sources, but reunification of the churches is something discussed in modern histories of the crusades. Basically, Urban II didn't mention that he wanted this personally, and it would have been, er, rather indecorous to say the least to make it an explicit aim of the crusade. But later historians have speculated that he may have had it in mind. I think it's definitely worthwhile to mention how modern historians have discussed it. Also, keep in mind that while it may seem obvious to us that the church in Rome and the church in Constantinople were always separate, that wasn't necessarily how either side understood the situation at the time. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @Adam Bishop:. I absolutely agree with your entire assessment there. I agree that unless specifically stated by the Pope, stating that his aim was to reunite the church calls for the speculation of his mind. I personally agreed to insert the last quote as a concession, since the earlier one was just nonsensical (so this was the path of least resistance).

Wiki editors are not allowed to interpret primary sources. Instead we report what the historians say. In this case we report what they say the Pope's intentions were. We are not reading the Pope's mind (how's your Latin?) we are reporting the scholarship. Historians sometimes "speculate" but not in this case--here they are relying on very close study of hundreds of documents. Rjensen (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Valde Bene loquero in lingua latina : ) I speak Latin very well. If you have something you'd like me to read I would be more than happy to so so.Trinacrialucente (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ok! (I can read that) I had a few years of Latin in school, and then switched to American history and gave it up. To my astonishment, when I went to graduate school fellow students studying colonial American history wanted me to help them translate the Latin that was commonly used by Massachusetts ministers. Well I could read Caesar, but not fancy theology. Rjensen (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you translate this into Latin?: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" (WP:WPNOTRS). Next you could work on the WP:3RR policy, which you have now violated with four unexplained reversions in the past eleven hours. Please stop your disruptive editing. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: From where I sit, you are practicing "disruptive editing" by simply undoing what I have added and cited. I have moved the quote down to the body of the text and added the context there as well. However, the point that the Crusaders were NOT solely Western European or Latin Catholic needs to be made in the lead, lest this Wikipedia entry succumb to the revisionist history that the Crusades were simply a Western European "land grab". Rather than simply undoing what I put up, this is the forum to suggest and discuss an edit as we have been doing. If you would prefer different wording, please by all means suggest it here and we can come to an agreement.Trinacrialucente (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Trinacrialucente, under WP:BRD, the onus is on you to gain consensus for disputed edits before re-adding them to the page: "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante), but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring." Instead, you have now racked up six reverts in the last 15 hours, each time re-adding the same material without engaging in any discussion of the topic. You also ignore policy regarding quoteboxes and your own interpretation of texts. Your edit warring alone could result in your edit privileges being blocked. Please stop edit warring and get consensus before re-adding the disputed content. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: No, you're wrong. Had you actually bothered to LOOK at the edits instead of simply undoing them, I made changes per the guidance/discussion here. The latest is I conceded to changing "Meroe" to "Nubia" and added an reference/source to NEW material by Robin Seignobos, since Adam Bishop would not accept the author Chris Peters as authoritative on the topic of the Crusades...even though he wrote a book on Sudan, which overlaps in subject matter. Once again, the objective is to show non Western European crusaders...and this sourced now (Nubia and Cilicia). What is your objection at this point? Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I've pointed out below that you've misrepresented that source also. You need to address the actual misrepresentation you're doing ... not just the Peters issues, but the issue of the "vassal state" of Venice which your sources did NOT support. (This was pointed out elsewhere on this page.) So far, I've not found a single edit where you've added a source where the source actually states what you're saying it does. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente, the source you've added about Meroe doesn't say anything about the crusades, does it? (In fact it says Meroe did not exist as a state after the 4th century...). Also the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia wasn't particularly far away. It was on the way to the crusader states if someone was travelling from Europe. Certainly Cilician Armenia is a major party in the crusades, and this is a well known fact, but it's not a far-off land. (Et miror si verum est te latine loqui?) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Tua syntaxi Latine peregrinis est. Ego respondebo: "Et miror si verum est qui loqueris in lingua latina". Back to my citation, I'm not sure which page you read, but on page 12 that I cited, it says pretty clearly "There is evidence that the Nubian Knights fought on the side of the Christian invaders (emphasis mine) in the Crusades". So, yes it does say something about the crusades, doesn't it? So, obviously by "as far away" I'm referring to Meroe and Axum. Let's check the attitude, shall we? Trinacrialucente (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, but Chris Peters is a freelance writer, researcher, development consultant, and appears to have no academic qualifications for the time period in question or the crusades. Not sure Chris Peters qualifies as a reliable source for the crusades. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Whereas A History of the Crusades, Volume 3, Steven Runciman, page 168. states the Nubians were fighting for the Turks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The peters book clearly states that the Kingdom of Meroe lasted only until 350AD. Thus, the source does NOT support what it is cited to "While the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I intentionally refused to participate in the first crusade, several other Christian kingdoms from as far away as Meroë" since Alexios I was emperor from 1081 to 1118. This is plainly wrong, and quite honestly makes me doubt all the other information you're adding. The Morgan cite says that Byzantium had "for five centuries treated Venice as a vassal state" ... this is not the same thing as Venice actually BEING a vassal state. The Byzantines treated lots of places like vassal states, which actually weren't. Nor does the Nicol cite state that Venice was a vassal state - instead it appears that Venice pledged to come to the aid of Byzantium, and they got special trading rights, but that does not make Venice a vassal state. Since the bits that are cited are cited incorrectly, I've again reverted your addition of incorrect information. Do not re-add it without having citations that actually back up what you're trying to add. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I know of Nubians fighting on the side of Egypt (both Fatimids and Ayyubids) against the Crusaders, and sure it's possible that there were Nubians who fought on the side of the crusaders too, but this is not in any sense a contribution from "Meroe" which had not existed for upwards of 700 years at this point. And Chris Peters is certainly not an authoritative source for the crusades, when there are dozens and dozens of actual historians of the crusades that are, and can be, and should be and will be cited in this article. (Also not that it matters, but Trinacrialucente evidently doesn't actually know Latin either, in case anyone was unsure.) I would like to "assume good faith", as we are encouraged to do on Wikipedia, but I've been here a long time and it's not difficult to spot a crank. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand the issue here: Meroe vs Nubia. Meroe is actually a kingdom and a designated area and is often used interchangeably with "Nubia" which is also the name of a region and several different kingdoms. This is in fact mentioned on nubia under the section "Christian Nubia". There were Christian Kingdoms in what is now "Nubia" (the region) up to the 14th century I have two books (not available online) which are about Christian Sudan which use "Meroe" in place of "Nubia", but as in the Wikipedia reference, both reference the geographical area/kingdom of "Dongola". There is also a segment on Nubian participation in the Crusades at the end of a youtube video documentary called "Christian Nubia" which show St Maurice as a Nubian Crusader in a German Cathedral. It is unavailable for Wikipedia so I would propose this reference on page 310 which cites Christian "Nubian" participation Therefore, as Northern "Nubia" was in the control of the Fatimids and Muslim, southern "Nubia" was still Christian at the time of the crusades. Whether we want to cite this as Nubian/Meroen/Sudanese/Dongalan participation, is up to you. But it is absolutely worth citing (as is Ethiopian/Axumite) participation, which I can reference as well). Your call.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That article "The other Ethiopia" - does NOT say that there was Christian Nubian participation in the Crusades. What it's discussing is the proposals by various Europeans that embassies be sent to the Nubian Christians to invite them to participate in later Crusades (specifically, after 1291). This does not support the text you're trying to insert, either the already added (and reverted) article text ("While the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I intentionally refused to participate in the first crusade, several other Christian kingdoms from as far away as Nubia" ... which ties the participation to Alexios' reign, which again is 1081 to 1118, NOT the dates discussed in the article) but I see you've once more added that text with that "The other Ethiopia" article as the source. But again ... it does NOT support the text you're trying to make it support. This is called OR, or falsifying sources ... you need to stop it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything substantial from Seignobos' work.

"These eschatological hopes finally turned into concrete expectations after the fall of the Latin States, in 1291. The Nubians then became involved in plans intending to restore Frankish rule over Jerusalem and the Near East." page 310

"The second proposal referring to a Nubian intervention is known as the Liber secretorum fidelium crucis and was presented in 1321 AD to the pope John XXII by the Venetian propagandist Marino Sanudo." page 310

Both appear to be proposals/plans for the involvement of the Nubian kingdom in crusade(s), of which nothing ever actually occurred. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, you're not going to find any evidence of support from "Axum" either, since Axum also no longer existed by the time of the crusades. But if you mean "Ethiopia" in general, then I suppose that makes more sense, but there is nothing like official state-sanctioned support for the crusades from Ethiopia either. There are references to Ethiopians that might actually be referring to people from southern Egypt or Nubia, but there seems to have been actual Ethiopian Orthodox monks in Jerusalem. Still, no actual contact on the scale of Armenia or anything like that. The crusaders were only vaguely aware of Ethiopia at all, possibly as the location of the kingdom of Prester John (before they eventually decided he must be from eastern Asia). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

C Class Article?

Now our friends at GOCE have given this article a good copy edit is it really only C Class? It looks much better than it did six months ago. I am happy to help but I neither have the time or the knowledge to lead but does anyone want to take this through to Good Article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015

"Please change The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages to The Crusades were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands in the Middle Ages" because the information is vague and unclear. To be specific the reason behind Crusades was a defense war against Islam invasion of old Christian lands in Middle East. "Please add Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe" Mobin1985 (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: The Crusades were sanctioned by the Catholic Church. In addition, the first sentence is supposed to be as general as possible. See MOS:BEGIN. The information you want to replace the lead sentence with is included and expanded upon later in the article.

References

• Madden's views, the source provided by @Mobin1985:, are well known and are referred to the body of the article. They have been much discussed by editors and the current wording is the consensus established. Sourcing is there to his books rather than a magazine article which is unsuitable. It is worth noting that this is a minority view amongst historians; the predominant view is that there are multiple root causes, not purely defensive war. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I for one would love to be explained how the random slaughter of Jews and Orthodox and the fact the Crusades happened 400 years after the "invasion of old Christian lands" (man, they sure took their time!) cope with it being "purely defensive". And what the hell does the wealth of the crusaders have to do with it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.113.108 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

article on crusades

there were more crusades after the first and you have little to no information about them i would like if people could add more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.105.219 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I am not sure this comment is accurate. Have you read the article after the First Crusade section. All the major middle eastern crusades are covered, as is much the background, minor crusades, northern crusades, political crusades etc. I suggest you have another look. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Also note that we have separate articles (linked from the main article) on e.g. Second crusade, Third crusade, Fourth crusade,...Ninth crusade and a lot of the unnumbered ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2015

Historyfanatic123 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC) <Please change 'The People's Crusade prompted the murder of thousands of Jews, known as the Rhineland massacres."--> to <"The People's Crusade caused the massacred thousands of Jews for their control of what was considered to them as "Holy Land". It was a battle between the Christians, Muslims and Jews.>

citation
Williams, Ann. The Crusades. New York: Longmann Singapore Publishers. 1975
Tate, George. The Crusaders Warriors of God. London: Editorial Libraria, Trieste. 1991
New Encyclopaedia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1991

Fairly certain there were no Muslims in the Rhineland massacres, and I see no reason for the sentence to be changed. FYI, "sources" without page numbers and/or quotes are virtually worthless. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: ' "… conflict with the eastward migrating Turks." '

The lead paragraph says: “…. In 1095, Byzantine Emperor Alexios I sent an ambassador from Constantinople to Pope Urban II in Italy requesting military support in the conflict with the eastward migrating Turks.”

But the last phrase of this sentence raises two concerns…

1. The ‘Turks’ link is to the Wiki article “Turks”, (understandably!), …but it’s subject matter is too wide to be of much use to the reader.
2. Were they (the Eastern Orthodox Emperor Alexios I Komnenus and Western Church Pope Urban II) really concerned about ‘eastward migrating Turks’?
   Or was it the ruling Islamic Seljug Turks that concerned them?
   

The intro continues to clarify the situation, but the preliminary statement “the conflict with eastward migrating Turks” is unsubstantiated. So I have added “citation needed” to highlight this.

And maybe the phrase “the conflict with the eastward migrating Turks” should be reconsidered and re-worded? Comments welcome!--Observer6 (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start with this article anymore, but I should at least point out that the Turks were migrating west... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

An excellent point Adam Bishop. By way of explanation from 1071 to the conquest by the Mongols of the Sultanate of Rum in 1243 maybe a million Turks migrated to Anatolia, these were predominately not Seljuks. Alexios was after assistance to reverse the defeat at Manzikert and recapture the lost territory. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. The article/sentence link re TURKS is actually to Turkic peoples and which reveals that "Turkic peoples" live... um... in many places, and belong to a diverse range of socio/religious groups, including 'Christianity'.
Also, a key factor which contributed to the First Crusade (against Muslims in Palestine including Jerusalem in the period 1095-1099) was resentment against an increasingly dominant role of the Islamic hierarchy in that area. So, for these reasons, and for the point made by User:Adam Bishop maybe the phrase "in the conflict with the eastward migrating Turks" be replaced with something more accurate, yet succinct. I must break now - apologies -. --Observer6 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2016

Change "After the fall of Acre they relocated to Cyprus, conquering and ruling Rhodes (1309–1522) and Malta (1530–1801)." to "After the fall of Acre they relocated to Cyprus, conquering and ruling Rhodes (1309–1522), and they were eventually given the island of Malta by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (1530–1798)." Gerrychka (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

New content doesn't match source

The Crusades created and perpetuated hate and mistrust between Muslims and Christians that still lasts to this day. The Christians of Europe had already been hostile to the Muslims, but the Crusades helped continue and intensify this loathing. I think there is a problem with this and some of the surrounding content recently added. Firstly having looked at the source it doesn't support this statement at all. In fact the source indicates that the Crusades were largely ignored by Muslim historians until the late 19th/early 20th century. Furthermore, in the 16th century protestant England had significantly less distrust of Muslims than it did of Catholic Spain, to the point of seeking an alliance.

Can anyone resolve this or does it it need editing?

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, some dubious reference to 19th century Zionism which has little to do with the article and no mention whatsoever in the sources provided. Please look into it.

I have removed the references to Zionism on that basis. Also tidied some loose editing on the imprecise use of "Christians" as opposed to Latin or Catholic to avoid confusion with Eastern/Greek/Orthodox. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

suggested style improvements

Historians debate Urban and the Crusader’s primary motivations.

Historians debate Urban and the Crusaders' primary motivations.

One of Urban's stated aims was to guarantee pilgrims access to the holy sites in the Holy Land that were under Muslim control while his wider strategy may have been to establish himself as head of the united Church and bringing together the Eastern and Western branches of Christendom that had been divided since their split in 1054.
One of Urban's stated aims was to guarantee pilgrims access to the holy sites in the Holy Land that were under Muslim control, while his wider strategy may have been to establish himself as head of the united Church and bring together the Eastern and Western branches of Christendom, which had been divided since their split in 1054.

Crusaders often pillaged the countries through which they traveled, and contrary to their promises the leaders retained much of this territory rather than returning it to the Byzantines.
Crusaders often pillaged the countries through which they traveled and, contrary to their promises, the leaders retained much of this territory rather than returning it to the Byzantines.

The People's Crusade prompted the murder of thousands of Jews, known as the Rhineland massacres.
The People's Crusade prompted the murder of thousands of Jews, in what is known as the Rhineland massacres.

The Crusades consolidated the collective identity of the Latin Church under papal leadership, and were a source of heroism, chivalry, and piety. This consequently spawned medieval romance, philosophy, and literature.
The Crusades consolidated the collective identity of the Latin Church under papal leadership. They were also seen as a source of heroism, chivalry and piety, inspiring romanticism in medieval philosophy and literature.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyatte61 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC) 

• All look sensible to me, why don't you copy edit them in yourself? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments, questions from Lingzhi

Will take on copy edit but I often have questions, comments, so will post here (ongoing). This is also the place to let me know if I hose something up. :-)

• I see both AmerEng and BritEng: "criticized", "emphasised " , "scandalised " etc. I see the Engvar is BE so will keep an eye out.
• "In a pluralistic view" How is it pluralistic? WP has scads of articles about different kinds of pluralism; which one fits? Or is pluralism the wrong word?

Y changes to broader Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• "which gives equal precedence to military campaigns undertaken for political reasons" Are we still talking about pope-OK'd crusades in the term "military campaigns"?

Y added papal sanctioned Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• "A narrower view" Narrower how? Does it include fewer wars? How can invading be defensive?

Y expanded to cover geography and purpose Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• " who received the same privileges as participants in the Fifth Crusade" but these privileges were not previously mentioned/explained. Plus "who" is syntactically ambiguous (crusaders, or "opponents of King Henry III")
• " two definitions of the Crusades" distinction isn't clear; first definition is quantitative (every pope OK'd), second is qualitative ("a war against Muslims for the defense of the Christian faith"). Does this passage echo the broader view/narrower view passage in the "Terminology" section? if so it's not expressed clearly.
• Is the "Historiography" section supposed to follow chronological development order? It doesn't. The entire section is mildly incoherent.

Y I've edited this to flow chronologically Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And so have I.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• "a new unified polity" What polity?
• "ebbed and flowed" Over what time period? And gosh, this and following sentences sound like a textbook someone cribbed from... citations needed? Close paraphrase?
• considered Dhimmi so had legal protection?
• "Although he left a growing treasury [to end of paragraph]" OK so I know nothing of the Crusades, but is this info strictly and directly subsumable under the topic of Crusades? I'm sure it's closely related and closely linked, but is it a part of the Crusades?
  • Deleted   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• Nice picture of a recumbent Romanos, but Romanos is mentioned nowhere in body text, which is a logical no-no.
  • Replaced  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• "This prompted the first major outbreak " No logical causal link established, maybe "prompted" is the wrong word? Or did the preaching of Urban include antisemitism? And why no mention of financial motivation: borrow from Jews, then murder your creditors and seize their assets?
• "Inspired by Urban's preaching, Peter the Hermit led an army of 20,000" but people's crusade says 40,000 and why no mention of Walter sans-Avoir?   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Y Tidied, rephrased to thousands as the actual numbers varied over time and it is impossible to evidence the actual number. Considering the bredth of the article the impact of Walter is not really significant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wendish crusade is listed (here and in specific articles) as a Northern Crusade, but Northern Crusades started in 1198? Wendish in 1147? How does that work out  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• @Norfolkbigfish: hey thanks.. The biggest problem by far is the inadequate and inaccurate definition. I actually feel guilty for leaving it up on the Internet as it is, but I may not have many opportunities in the next few weeks to access research materials... What I mean is... One article, was it Northern Crusades maybe, says at least some "Crusades" weren't labeled crusades at all during the Middle Ages but only centuries later, and some were only blessed by bishops (not the pope), and some weren't blessed at all apparently. If those things are true, then the current definition is massively wrong. That actually bothers me. I want to research a really good definition.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• The Legacy section seems quite weak. That's all there is to it? And the bit about Muslims rescuing Greek texts from extinction seems to have been omitted.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For what its worth, we have a separate article on the Greek contributions to Islamic world, which explains various Greek and Byzantine cultural influences preserved by the Islamic world. Dimadick (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah, and that is very good, but the legacy section here needs a better summary of all of this. The bit you just mentioned might only be one or two sentences here, but it should be one or two good sentences. Plus it seems to me that some things must be missing here on this page...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem obvious why this is a legacy of the Crusades; if anything they impeded the process. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

(←) Thanks, Johnbod. Yeah, the whole legacy section.... I want to get some sources and look this stuff up for myself. I don't know fish from trees when it comes to this, so finding sources is a must.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• I hope you don't mind but I quickly crashed through the legacy section to make it read (IMO) a bit more coherently. Legacy wise I think it stands up a bit better but it was a long time ago even if Riley-Smith now considers that crusading through the orders continued until the late nineteenth century. The Muslim world seems to have largely ignored them up until Nassar and the nationalists but there is some interesting stuff about Napoleon and Kaiser Wilhlem using them for political ends. Jonathan Phillips has done some good work in this are and this podcast probably is a good start. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi:—Hi there, do you think you will be doing further work on this (some good stuff so far, thx)? I am tempted to relist on GOCE to get the CE complete but if you are planning to revisit it would seem unnecessary/rude.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Norfolkbigfish I am very interested in this topic. I think I am no longer able to help VvG. I will try to edit in spurts, whenever possible. If you have suggestions, fire away.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitions

Some definitions:

• From Riley-Smith, Jonathan. "Crusades". In Loyn, H. R. (ed.). The Middle Ages: A Concise Encyclopeaedia. London: Thames and Hudson. pp. 106–107. ISBN 0-500-27645-5. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help) we have "War prolcaimed by the pope on Christ's behalf and fought as Christ's own enterprise for the recovery of Christian property, or in defence of Christendom against external or internal foes".
• From Coredon, Christopher (2007). A Dictionary of Medieval Terms & Phrases (Reprint ed.). Woodbridge, UK: D. S. Brewer. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-84384-138-8. "The crusades made up the sequence of expeditions mounted in Europe with the intention of freeing the Holy Land from Islam, and imposing Christian rule."

More later. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• In her book, The Crusades, Helen J. Nicholson gives special attention to definitions and describes the differing views of scholars. See introductory pages xl-xli (section "What Were the Crusades?"). Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 16:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ealdgyth and Biblio: Thanks so much, these resources are very helpful.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I actually think the current article covers the definition very well, and would advise against worrying about it. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes thank you. The definition was rewritten very recently using sources provided by Eadlgyth and Biblioworm.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see now. Better now, but I split a monster para, and several remain elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Tks. I haven't focused on the details of this article for a few days. I actually don't wanna turn my brain on right now. ;-) Maybe two weeks from now. But tks again and your edits are very welcome.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This is all very well, but defining the word "crusade" is the job of Wiktionary. If a word has more than one dictionary meanings, Wikipedia will use disambiguation, and not contort a single page to fit all the word's meanings.

"This broad definition subsumes attacks on paganism and heresy, [...]"

-- it is certainly fine to point this out here, but it doesn' mean any "attacks on paganism and heresy" are on topic here, articles concerned with various aspects of the "broad definition" can safely be linked from Crusade (disambiguation), which presently reads:

"The Crusades was a series of religiously-sanctioned military campaigns undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. Crusade(s) may also refer to: (a) the Northern Crusades [...] (b) the Albigensian Crusade [...]".

Imho, this makes pretty clear what this article is supposed to be about, the primary meaning of "Christian campaigns for the Holy Land, 1090s to 1290s", plus of course their immediate background and aftermath. --dab (𒁳) 05:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is not a question of the dictionary definition of the Crusades but of the academic thinking behind what constitutes a crusade. Very few historians now limit crusades to the definition you use and are largely considered exceptional. As such the scope of this article should include the wider thinking. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes? I understand completely? The term "crusade" is also applied by some/many/most historians to e.g. the Albigensian Crusade. I understand and I agree completely. This doesn't change the fact that this particular parge is not about the Albigensian Crusade, it is about the campaigns in the Holy Land 1095-1291, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you dispute that this is the "primary topic", your course of action is not to edit the page, but to propose that it should be move to a more specific page title. I do see the possibility to write about "the academic thinking behind what constitutes a crusade": I would propose that this is on topic to some extent in the "termiology" section, but any more detailed account on how "historians cannot agree" on definitions etc. would belong on Historiography of the Crusades. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to adduce "European wars of religion": that page is about the wars of 1524 to 1648. Nobody disputes that the Albigensian Crusade was also a war of religion, and also in Europe, but it does still not fall into the scope of the page "European wars of religion". The standard work (one of the standard works) on the topic of this article would be A History of the Crusades: "Encompassing the ascendancy of Islam in the Levant during the early Seventh century through the fall of the Kingdom of Acre in 1291, it offers a foundation for understanding the entire Crusades." This is the primary topic of this article, for better or worse. I do not dispute that the term crusades has been given a wider meaning "by some historians" since. I do not dispute that this should be pointed out here. What I do dispute is that you should change the scope of the page because "historians cannot agree" or because "there are other definitions". This way you are going to end up articles starting out "historians cannot agree what this page is about" instead of "here is what this page is about, see disambiguation for other uses". --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I will further point out that until last year, this article had a perfectly coherent summary (lead section)[2]. This was the product of a full decade of careful deliberation and debate. I will submit that unilaterally changing the scope of a well-developed, decade-old page will be likely to result in breaking the article. I understand that the concept you want to discuss is encyclopedic and notable. But I am advising you that the way you go about discussing it is not the way content should be added to Wikipedia. This is precisely the reason why we have such elaborate guidelines on article naming and disambiguation. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think you have missed the point by a country mile. Firstly, this wasn't my edit but the work of a number of editors over a period of time. In fact there are a number of my edits in the older lead that you laud. The old version only really covers the first crusade rather The Crusades which is the topic of this article and was in need of improvement to reflect the article in its entirety. Runciman's work is a fine source but it is more than sixty years old and thinking has moved on since then (see Riley-Smith). 14:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Roles of women, children, and class

@Dbachmann:—I guess you added the systhesis tag to this section. What do you suggest is done with this section? @Rjensen:— I think you might have something to add to the discourse? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Shall I simply delete the section? I am not convinced it adds much. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a proper section waiting to be written here. It's pretty much worthless as it stands, but it should be transformed into a section on "motivations" comparing economic and religious motivations, and discussing popular support and enthusiasm ("Children's Crusade", "Shepherds' Crusade" etc.) in its proper historical context.

Sadly, I note there is the Women in the Crusades article, which is part of the greater trainwreck that is "Category:Women in war". And "Women and X" category cruft (Category:Women and death...). It is hard to tell whether this obsessive focus on women is misguided feminism or someone's creepy sexual fetish, in any case it is completely unencyclopedic ("Women and death" suggesting that the generic "Death" category is somehow reserved for the death of male organisms only?). There are many clunky aspects of our organically-grown category system, but this has to be one of the worst parts. --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Our job as editors is to report what the RS are saying and they are talking about women, children & gender. Some old misogynists may be afraid of gender --let them edit the videogames articles. Rjensen (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Rjensen:—don't suppose you are in a position to edit this esction into shape, Mr Jensen. Its a bit out of my range. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I dropped the incoherent complaint from someone unaware that historians actually study women, children and class. This is a serious historical topic, not a video wargame. the section in question closely follows the recent published scholarly studies--women's issues have been a major concern in the last 30+ years and the "children's crusade" has been a topic for over a century. There was no OR --every statement is cited to a RS. "the field of medieval gender studies is a growing one, and nowhere is this expansion more evident than the recent increase in studies which address the roles of medieval women in times of war....this change in research has been invaluable." says James Illston (2009). Rjensen (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"to report what the RS are saying and they are talking about women, children & gender. Some old misogynists may be afraid of gender --let them edit the videogames articles." -- I would like to assume that you are being facetious at this point, but, you know, Poe says I shouldn't count on it. "The RS" are the great monographic Histories of the Crusades. We at Wikipedia summarize such sources into a condensed "encyclopedic" account. "The RS" does not include any old paper submitted to any old journal, or we would end up with a huge info dump of a couple of gigabytes. You can't cherry-pick marginal topics and then say "the RS" mentioned them. Also known as WP:DUE. I really hope that this explanation was superfluous and that you were just having a laugh. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Tyerman (2006)

I would admonish User:Rjensen to stick to AGF and avoid namecalling ("stupid military history nerds, trust them to try and make an article on a historical military campaign about military history of all things! let these sad manchildren edit video game articles instead", very charitable). Editing Wikipedia is a question of doing your homework and not about winning an internet argument.

But for anyone willing to discuss the actual question of how to organise the main "Crusades" topic, I would submit the following. WP:RS and WP:DUE means we need to come up with an informed survey of the main scholarly works of the topic, preferably recent, but not to the point of "WP:RECENTISM". This means we should probably start with Tyerman (2006) as the most recent treatment of the topic, and if in doubt work our way back to the work by earlier scholars from there. So here is the ToC from Tyerman (2006), which I submit we should take as our first approach on how to structure and weigh the various sub-topics involved here:

1. The First Crusade
2. Frankish Outremer
3. The Second Crusade
4. The Third Crusade
5. The Fourth Crusade
6. The Expansion of Crusading
7. The Defence of Outremer
8. The Later Crusades

This would correspond to eight separate h2 sections. We are not bound to replicate this structure, but if we cannot agree on how to do it, we will have to take into account that this is how the most recent scholarly treatment has opted to divide it. The point that "crusades" also include Catholic expeditions against heretics and pagans is covered under "6. Expansion of Crusading", with sub-chapters on the Albigensian Crusades, Fifth Crusade, Reconquista and Northern Crusades. Part "8. Later Crusades" is about the attempted revivals of crusading after 1291, i.e. "The Eastern Crudades in the Later Middle Ages", and the general legacy of the crusades in the time leading up to the Reformation, i.e. "The Crusade in Christian Society in the Later Middle Ages". Note how the Children's Crusade doesn't get its own chapter (it being of marginal importance to the topic), but of course it will always be possible to mention it in passing. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Notes" vs. "References"?

This article overwhelmingly uses {{Harvnb}} without further context. This is not advisable, because it makes it very difficult to do fact-checking. Ideally, the citation should be accompanied with a short quote to make clear what exactly is being referenced. Too often, in my experience, people will change a statement in the article but leave the reference in place, so the article ends up with "references" attached to statements that have nothing to do with or misrepresents the reference. It is a nightmare to keep track of this, and many longish articles end in a completely deteriorated state because of this problem. Whenever possible, give some brief context making clear what exactly is being referenced.

Now when I did this with du Cange, the reference was moved into a "Footnotes" category? Why? It's just a reference, but I am doing the reader the courtesy of actually explaining what is being referenced. --dab (𒁳) 10:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2016

Strongly suggest that the first reference to "Urban II" be changed to "Pope Urban II" with a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_II

for readers like me who do not know who "Urban II" is, the amendment makes it much easier a) to appreciate the request was being made to the Roman Catholic Church and b) to access information about him through the link.

Grahame.Coote (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. It's pretty standard to link the first instance of a name in the body of an article, and is permitted by WP:REPEATLINK. Calidum ¤ 05:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Article deterioration

Tempted to do a deep revert here, edits such as this are quite hard to defend. From this it appears that the editor was mainly attempting to "move references to Harvard", which would be fine, if the "move" didn't slaughter much of the well-referenced content. This edit suggests the editor had no idea what he was doing (replacing the relevant academic source on the Middle Latin term with a generic dictionary while saying "better etymology source"). Norfolkbigfish, I invite you to separate your housekeeping edits ("Harvard" or whatever) from sweeping deletions. --dab (𒁳) 17:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

My question would be whether citations using a 100+ year old version of the Catholic Encyclopedia, widespread use of Latin and the derivation of the word in other languages meets any Wikipedia objective criteria. An that is a question rather than a challenge Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Dbachmann: Looking again the sources you have reverted back to all seem very old, don't you have anything appropriate (i.e. scholarly, authorative, English language) that are more recent?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I'll add that "The French form of the word first appears in its historiographical sense in the 17th century" needs a citation to a source that says that the French form of the word first appears in the 17th century. It cannot be sourced to the work that is claimed as the first appearance because it doesn't support the information in the way that Wikipedia needs. A historian can do such a citation, but we're not a historical work, we're a tertiary source and require a citation to a secondary source, not the primary source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I undid the change to lead on this basis & the fact the content didn't match the body 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

there is also at least one instance of the citation included parenthetically instead of as a note. This should be fixed before it will make even "B" class, much less proceed. As much as I enjoy Barbara Tuchman, she should be noted as a popular historian, I think, although I'll accept Ealdgyth's judgment on that. I see several issues with this, but principally they fall in the editing realm. Many of the sentences/paragraphs are confusing. For example: Richard I of England conquered the island of Cyprus from the Byzantines in 1191 in response to his sister being taken prisoner by the island's ruler, Isaac Komnenos.[72] Richard then quarrelled with Philip II of France and Philip returned to France, leaving most of his forces behind. He then recaptured Acre after a long siege, travelled south along the Mediterranean coast, defeated the Muslims near Arsuf and recaptured the port city of Jaffa. Within sight of Jerusalem supply shortages forced them to retreat without taking the city.[73] A treaty was negotiated that allowed unarmed Catholics to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem and permitted merchants to trade.[74] Richard left, never to return, but Emperor Heny VI initiated the German Crusade to fulfil the promises made by his father, Frederick. Led by Conrad, Archbishop of Mainz, the army captured the cities of Sidon and Beirut. However, most of the crusaders returned to Germany when Henry died.[75] I don't know if quarrelled and travelled and fulfil are English spelling. There are a number of people/things here that should be linked. The structure of the sentences is confusing (Richard conquered the island from the Byzantines? He conquered the Byzantines holding the island? He took the island from the Byzantines? If he did it in response to his sister's captivity, then is it truly part of the Crusades? And why was his sister a captive? Richard was indeed a quarrelsome fellow. Within sight of Jersualem supply shortages forced them.... ? Within sight of Jerusalem, supply shortages forced them to retreat.....Merchants to trade...in Jerusalem? or with the unarmed pilgrims? Or merchants to trade with Jerusalem? with Muslims, with??? That's just one paragraph. auntieruth (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I gave up on actually adding much content or doing much with the article a while back - this is probably my last substantive version. It was just too difficult to deal with the competing visions of the article ... and with several other big name/big topic articles on my watchlist on subjects I prefer, I decided to just keep an out for obvious vandalism. I'm not sure who put the Tuchman in - her book, while reliable, is a bit dated at this point. And it's not really about the Crusades - it's anchored firmly into 13th century France. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Removed Tuchman and much of the text as it seemed rather unnecessary detail for a minor event. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Restored sourced definition of Crusades from OED to resolve the parenthetical citation and primary sourced information Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Tidied sentences, not sure I agree with linking though, mostly these are already linked within the article and there is a danger of overlinking Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

While links to the relevant articles should be added, the story with Cyprus is a bit more complex.:

• Cyprus was a part of the Byzantine Empire until 1185.
• In 1185, Isaac Komnenos, a member of the reigning Komnenos dynasty, took control of Cyprus. He rebelled against the Emperors in Constantinople and proclaimed himself emperor. He reigned until 1191, and is described in sources as a tyrant and a rapist of women.
• In 1191, Berengaria of Navarre (Richard I's betrothed, later his wife) and Joan of England, Queen of Sicily (Richard I's sister) were shipwrecked in Cyprus. Isaac took both women captive. In retaliation, Richard I invaded Cyprus and managed to conquer the island.
• In 1192, Richard I sold Cyprus to the Knights Templar. The Knights faced a rebellion against them and were unable to actually hold the island.
• The Knights Templar and/or Richard I sold Cyprus to Guy of Lusignan. Guy established the Kingdom of Cyprus (1192-1489). It remained independent it was taken over by the Republic of Venice in the late 15th century. Dimadick (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, I have tidied the sentence structure but not sure if this level of detail is warranted in this article. What do you think? 09:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Capitalization

Inconsistent capitalization of "crusaders" or "Crusaders" in this article. Which is correct? Sol Pacificus (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Both are correct. Looking at Google Ngram Viewer, "Crusader" seems to be slightly more common than "crusader"[3]. Considering occurrences at the beginning of sentences and proper names like the Crusader tank, it's probably a toss-up. Also, the relative frequency has flipped a few times over time. Looking at other articles, Wikipedia seems to go with the capitalised spelling, so that's what I would recommend. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• This keeps coming up so I have capitalised them all for consistency Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Liked the article but there are a lot of dupe wikilinks, didn't the A class assessors check this? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Opium?

Were not the crusades about opium? A large number of Europeans were addicted to opium throughout the middle ages and the middle east was a the primary place where opium was grown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.47.253 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, no. Do you have any evidence or sources for "a large number of Europeans" being addicted to opium throughout the middle ages? None of the source I have read mentions something like that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Section re: common/popular socio-political usage of the term?

I get that the page as stands is essentially a puritan history-major's version of a wikipedia page, specifically and only relating to the actual historical events. I counter that the term "crusade" does not exist in a vacuum, and we live in a world where the term has very different meanings to different people, specifically in the Middle East and the Islamic umma and diaspora. This should at least be acknowledged in the article? Perhaps a section entitled "Common modern usage of the term"?

Help make wikipedia a bit more informative and inclusive, not just exclusively narrow-defining in regards to terms that are hot-button disputes in non-Western countries? Oathed (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this is more than covered by the first line.....

For other uses, see Crusade (disambiguation) and Crusader (disambiguation).

I understand that there is a wider discussion but the scope of this already massive article needs cutting somewhere Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Structure

This came up in the failed FAC, namely that the article is largelt narrative, and could do with being more analytical. I'll start breaking this out a bit but all comments are welcome Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I have also removed those images with concerns over copyright, can always add some without issues later Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Death Toll 1099

The text on the death toll in 1099 got deleted, I re-entered it with additional reference (Asbridge and Kedar). In the past the numbers have been largely exaggerated but in the last 20 years the scientific discussion agreed on the current figure of 3.000 victims (using both Hebrew and Arab sources). In the past the erroneous numbers have been widely distributed and continue to be used in some quarters. In addition, they have been instrumentalized in some instances. Therefore the exact number of victims is important for this article. --FKSM (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There are grammar issues with the edit. And the biggest problem is the undue nature of the information - you're presenting one side of a historical debate in an article that is really an overview of the entire crusading movement. We don't need this detail on the numbers in an article devoted to the entire crusading movement. There is no 'Scientific discussion" in history - that implies much more precision than how the historical process actually works. You might have a point on the numbers if there had been numbers in the article already - but there weren't. The article correctly notes that the numbers in the past were exaggerated ... without going into undue details of who argues for which numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The places for numbers are First Crusade and Siege of Jerusalem (1099), but as Ealdgyth suggests, this cannot be regarded as a settled question. The lack of sources makes any talk of "scientific" precision inappropriate. I presume it is Joshua Prawer who kicked off the debate of recent years; his numbers were low, but very tentative. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that the specific arguments about the numbers aren't really necessary on the general crusades article, it's a bit unfair to dismiss the discussion as "unscientific". It's what we call "scientific history" (which, on Wikipedia, redirects to historical method). You're right to say that it's not "science" in the sense that we can never actually provide a specific number of people who were killed. It's not chemistry or physics. But it is science in the way historians use the term, i.e. detailed study of the primary sources to find out not only what may or may not have actually happened, but also why the events were described the way they were, what other people thought happened and why they thought that, etc etc (which is the what Kedar's lengthy article in volume 3 of the Crusades journal does). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

Further information: Talk:Crusades/Archive_9 § Article_deterioration

This section has received some reasonable and useful comments, but the problem was not fixed. The discussion was initiated by this edit, and, far worse, this one.

The question is, what do we mean by "the term 'crusades'"? Apparently, the modern English spelling dates to 1760. Fine. This is not equivalent to saying the term dates to 1760. In English, the term was previously spelled as in French, croisade, going back to the 16th century. The modernization of spelling is worth noting, but is trivial compared to the introduction of the term itself. The French term croisade is far older than the 17th century. I accept the criticism that the quote of 17th century usage is not sufficient to establish that the historiographical term originates in the 17th century. It is enough to establish a terminus ante quem only (as it turns out [see below], it actually originates in the 15th).

Ok. Now, the question of the term "crusade" being "contemporaneous": No, the modern English spelling is not medieval but dates to the 18th century, because modern English dates to the 18th century. This is meaningless in relation to the term "crusade", it merely defines what we mean by "modern".

The etymology of the modern French, and therefore modern English, term is Middle Latin cruxata. This term has been used "crusade" since at least 1280, and the modern term is simply a modernisation of the spelling, as with any other latinism. No, the term does not originate with Urban II, but it originates in the late period of the actual crusades. You would think that this is a relevant piece of information to people looking up the origin of the term, especially in view of the widespread misconception that "the term is not contemporaneous [to the crusades themselves]".

The source I have used to establish this relevant fact is the best and most up-to-date academic reference on Middle Latin, a Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch fascicle dated 1999. I honestly do not understand why this piece of obvious relevance to the topic, and the "terminology" section, is even under discussion here. An academic dictionary of Middle Latin is a better source on the philology of Middle Latin than the etymology section of OED, which is great, but written with the focus on the origin of modern English terms. dab (𒁳) 10:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Trésor de la langue Française

Regarding the English term, it is clear (from OED) that it was loaned from French before or in 1575, and adapted to modern English spelling from around 1760.

The origin of the French term, however, is more interesting than hitherto noted. Consulting TLFi, I am informed that:

• the term is in use from before 1475 (Middle French)
• it is formed specifically for the meaning "holy war", and it is not the etymological continuant of cruxata
• the equivalent of cruxata was still in use, as croisata or croisate, in the literal, adjectival meaning of "bearing the sign of the cross"
• TFLi states that the new meaning was probably inspired from Provencal cruzata, in use since the 13th century(!), possibly by assimilation to the Spanish form cruzada, which itself is recorded from 1378
• croisade is thus coined with some certainty in 15th-century French, as a historiographical term specifically for the military campaigns.
• The rhetorical, figurative use of "being on a crusade" is due to Voltaire, 1770s (Voltaire did not like the crusades, and applied the term by derogatory comparison).

--dab (𒁳) 11:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above, it seems clear that the French term first referred to the Albigensian crusade and was (shortly) later applied to the (then still ongoing) crusades in the orient. I have now located the very first occurrence of the term, BNF fr. 25425, p. 8. The text of the poem makes it explicit that the "crusaders" all equip themselves with the cross badge, and the army is therefore purely descriptively referred to as "the cross-bearing thing". In addition, the term first occurs at the end of a line in a stanza all rhyming in -ada.[4]. It does seem likely that the term was coined by the poet, right here, writing in c. 1213 (yes, this is my conclusion, I won't put it in the article without reference, don't worry. I am a philologist, and it is clear to me that this will be the conclusion of the philologist looking into this, so that the task is just finding the philologist who first made this observation in print)

The question now becomes, what is the first reference, in Occitan, French or Latin, to the oriental campaigns as croisades? --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I remember reading an article about this exact question, which would be very helpful for us here. Now, can I remember where I read it... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

looking into this more, it becomes evident that the "language of crusading" developed in the late 12th century. There was specific Latin terminology from at least the 1170s, such as negotium crucis "affair of the cross", which was the term used for the crusades by the church.

The term crusade, by contrast, develops in the vernacular. It is first used in Occitan, as crozada, which explains the -d- in French croisade. Looking back at the Latin evidence, use of cruxata from the 1270s onward is limited to annals and the like, and it is not found church documents, so it is clearly loaned from the vernacular.

Therefore, the specific etymology of the term crusade, focussing on the -ade suffix, is somewhat interesting as it reflects vernacular "crusading language", but it is immaterial for establishing whether there was official terminology for the crusades, as there are unambiguous "crusading" terms used from at least the 1190s.

Ghil (1995) is interesting as she discusses how Innocent III was clearly reluctant to apply the crusading terminology to the campaign against the Albigensians. In what I find comically reminiscent of modern military euphemisms, Innocent called it a negotium pacis et fidei "affair of peace and faith" rather than negotium crucis, but the Cistercian chronicler Pierre des Vaux-de-Cemay in a "a slippage of the pen that Innocent III had been careful to avoid" combines this term with negotium crucis after all.

By the 1230s, reference to the Albigensian campaign in "crusader" terminology had become common, and "propagandists" introduce the distinction of crux transmarina vs. crux cismarina.

All of this exposes the suggestion that "crusade" is a modern historiographical term as very misleading: "crusade" is a term taken directly (only with slightly modernised spelling) from the "crusading language" in the Romance vernacular current around 1200.

--dab (𒁳) 08:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You obviously feel very strongly about this @Dbachmann: but this raises a few issues: 1) Quoting within citations is not good practice in terms of accessability; 2) You cite some very old sources; 3) Quoting the Latin dictionary rather than an academic historian is again not good practice; 4) Your efforts on this far outweigh the value to this article; 5) Wouldn't this be more usefully located in the Historography article? The point here is that the understanding of the term in the English speaking world owes more Sir Walter Scott than any historical meaning, as your reseach indicates much of this language originates in the 13th century, after the best part of two centuries of crusading and at a stage when Crusading had very different characteristics from its origins. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Dbachmann: — I have removed the content which didn't talk directly to the question and had old sources. Where the sources are modern I have used Harvard for the citation and copy edited. Unless there is any objection I will remove the long hidden quote to the Latin dictionary in a few days. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

See above, I've requested a peer review to see how editors feel this article has moved on since the failed FAC. Feedback would be interesting but best on the review page (see above).Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Europeans being opium addicts was the reason for the crusades

Can someone add this to the article.

No, I'd rather not. No matter how qualified Robson is, he is no historian, and not an expert on the crusades. Moreover, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a piece of Fringe Theory WP:OR. we'll need some solid supporting RS before it can be included. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

That book says "Opium found its way to Europe in the pouches of returning crusaders at the start of the new millennium", which, aside from being uncited, is basically the opposite of the OP is suggesting. They might have brought it back to Europe with them, but they couldn't have been opium fiends before the crusades... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

References

this article is a lie

Crusades started because Muslim major army was knocking at the Istanbul door, the capital of eastern church - not because of Muslim "migration" to Europe. After the army was broken by the first crusade, the other places around Mediterranean coast were taken back and peace lasted for 100 years in the area. If the crusaders were not to be established, the Europe would become Muslim. Few hundred years later, half the Europe was under Muslim rule - why there is no link to Ottoman Empire and the Battle of Vienna? The "painted" picture in this article is not complete. The conclusion should be that Muslims were attacking Europe many times for past 1400 years and Crusades was only one of the events that stopped them. This is why more and more people don't read Wikipedia anymore, because lies are mixed with truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.17.161 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This is close to falling under WP:NOTAFORUM. As far as I know the article is not protected, so there's nothing stopping you from making improvements to the article yourself. Neutrally worded and reliably sourced material is welcome. Of you can propose specific changes here and let other editors decide if they are suitable. Of course, since you start of with the premise that the existing article is a lie, I suspect that your changes will be less than neutral. Meters (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC) .

A few issues that need clarifying

At the end of the section on the first crusade the Sultan of Baghdad and the Abbasid caliph are both mentioned but unnamed. I don’t know if the name of the sultan is lost or not, but surely the caliph’s name at this time is known? Should the article not directly name them and link to their corresponding article in this section rather than merely reference them? I’d do it myself but I don’t immediately know who they were.

• @Lord0fHats:—I have added the respective names Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m attempting to help with the articles FA review, namely by “introducing” figures when they are first mentioned. How to introduce Charles of Anjou eludes me, as the man has a myriad number of titles to his name, and while I get that he’s Charles of Anjou, that doesn’t really give anyone any idea who he is. I’m leaning towards Count, as this was his first acquired title of nobility as far as I can tell but I’m not certain. The entire section on him actually feels kind of difficult, mostly because there is clearly a tale unto itself there but the article only mentions it enough to make it obvious that there is more without mentioning quite enough to make it fully understandable. To my knowledge Charles' is one of the those guys who really deserves his own histories but no historian has gotten around to writing one so handling him and this particular section might be difficult for the article. Maybe it should be cut down to improve the overall clarity until more sources can be dragged up to give it proper context?Lord0fHats (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Lord0fHats:—I have attempted to edit this for clarity and just described Charles as Louis's brother—what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Much better I think. Lord0fHats (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit per request at Guild of Copy Editors

Hi everybody

Somebody requested a copy edit of the article at the Guild of Copy Editors, which I undertook to sort out. However, things keep changing on the page subsequent to when I began the copy edit. There was a period of three days where I wasn't online, and during that time a lot of changes were made. There have even been changes made while I was actually busy making the edits. For obvious reasons, and especially since this is a very big article and therefore it takes a while to even read, let alone edit, this is less than ideal.

In light of the fact that there clearly are still things which editors feel need to be done, I'm going to put the copy edit on hold for now. Once everyone is happy and there's a consensus on the current state of the article so that it's stable, then please just notify me (a line dropped here will do) and I can come back and get cracking again.

Thanks! Cadar (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Cadar:— apologies, that was probably me, as I am doing most of the editing here. I will stop, and ask any other editors to stop as well so please restart the copy edit. Sorry again, it was so low in the waiting list I thought it would take weeks before someone picked it up. Please ping me confirmation that this is ok, and let me know when it is done. Oh, and thank you, yes it is a big article and some of the grammar needs your help. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Norfolkbigfish: Thanks. I've noticed you made changes to the actual content, and there's a big list of proposed changes with feedback from other editors which you guys seem to be working through. I haven't checked that to see what the progress is on it (I've been very busy), but I've noticed changes to that on the talk page as well. It's better if those are all completed before the copy edit goes ahead, the copy editor's job ideally being a final clean-up once all content is stable. There's no point in holding back changes until after the copy edit's been done, because then it would need to be rechecked. I think rather get all outstanding changes made and the article stable, then I'll be happy to do it. There's no rush from my side, so whenever you're happy is good for me. I've got plenty of other things to keep me busy. Perhaps you can check with the others that they're happy about the state of it, and if there's consensus then let me know.

Cadar (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Failed verification

"The Arabic loanword Muslim is first attested in English in the 17th century. Before this the common term for Muslim was Saracen,[7] in origin referring to the pre-Islamic, non-Arab inhabitants of the desert areas around the Roman province of Arabia.[8]"

Tolan, p. xv, says neither that the word Muslim is first attested in English in the 17th century nor that the common term for Muslim was Saracen before that. I think the first statement is true, but the second seems false to me. An Englishman of the 16th century would have known that Turks were mostly Muslim and not Saracens. Srnec (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think so - "saracens" were mainly in the Levant, "moors" in North Africa", and the more sophisticated were aware of Persians. But add "Levantine" before Muslim & I think it's ok. Per the OED, "Muslim" is 1615, but nb defined by the source as "one instructed in the beleefe of the Mohammetanes" - not Saracens. "Mahometan" and variants go back to 1508. On "saracen", they doubt the Arabic etymology, & say it is uncertain. It goes back before Islam, as a term for Levantine nomads on the borders of Syrian Roman/Byzantine provinces. OED define it as "an Arab, by extension a Muslim, esp with reference to the Crusades." Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Take your point guys. I have cut this back and referenced to the OED instead (never kean to reference a source uniquely for 1 obliue point). What do you think @Johnbod:@Srnec: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)