Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raynald of Châtillon/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 April 2024 [1].

Raynald of Châtillon edit

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 12th-century French aristocrat who ruled first the Principality of Antioch, then the Lordship of Oultrejourdain, both by right of one of his two wives, in the Frankish East. Notorious for plundering raids and attacks against caravans, he is often held responsible for the fall of the first Kingdom of Jerusalem. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'll have a look soonish. At first glance, the usual script[2] reveals a good deal of duplinks, not sure if they're all needed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for starting the review. A quick cheque shows that all duplinks are connected to individuals who are mentioned in section "Family" in addition to one reference to them in other sections of the article and in the lead. I think this approach is quite user friendly. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but in 1989 Jean Richard demonstrated Raynald's kinship with the lords of Donzy." How? Could warrant at least a footnote, as it pertains directly to the subject of the article?
  • I do not have access to Richard's work.
Seems like it could be worth tracking it down, what is the citation? WP:RX usually works. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestion. I reqested assistance at WP:RX.
  • "Raynald was born around 1123 or 1125." Do we know where?
  • None of the two cited sources name the place of his birth. Britannica indicates that Raynald was born in Châtillon-sur-Loing but I am not sure that this claim could be verified by a reference to a secondary source. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • William of Tyre probably only needs to be linked in the first caption he's mentioned in, but now he's linked all three times.
  • Yes, he is linked in each caption of the pictures. I think this is the usual approach.
But in three different captions, one should be enough in the first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Venetian?
  • Linked.
  • "The crusader states around 1165" State the colour of the area he ruled in caption.
  • Added.
  • Link excommunicated.
  • Linked.
  • Link Genoa.
  • Linked.
  • "Raynald made an alliance with Thoros II of Cilicia." Probably worth mentioning he was Armenian ("the Armenian lord"?) to show shifting alliances, since the previous paragraph tells of him fighting Armenians.
  • Added.
  • "orgy of violence" This sounds a little, err, loaded.
  • Reworded. I am curious how I could create this expression.
  • "Shaizar was held by Assassins, but it had been ruled by the Muslim Munqidhites who paid an annual tribute to Raynald." This seemingly implies that the Assassins weren't Muslims. Perhaps be more specific about what kind of Muslims the two groups were?
  • Reworded.
  • "On Manuel's demand, he and his retainers walked barefoot" I think you could name him instead of the confusing "he".
  • Modified.
  • Link Latakia.
  • Linked.
  • "horses and camels from the local peasants" State if they were Muslims for context.
  • None of the cited sources refers to their religion. I assume they were more likely local Christians.
  • A shame many of the old illustrations are so low res, I wonder if some of them can be updated with higher res scans?
  • Sorry, I do not understand your reference to "res".
Image resolution/size. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the size of most images. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I meant their sizes on Commons, as in the original resolution of the files themselves. But probably not much you can do about it without access to larger versions. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This[3] image has a copyright warning tag that is probably invalid.
  • I think the tag is obviously baseless but I cannot delete it.
Hmmm, that's an extremely annoying template, I'll ask around how to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it up here[4], and seems to have been fixed for at least this image. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link leprosy?
  • Linked.
  • "but he protested when Baldwin confirmed Raynald's position as "regent of the kingdom and of the armies"." Why?
  • Explained.
  • Link Beirut.
  • Linked.
  • Link Arabian desert.
  • Linked.
  • Link Medina.
  • I am not sure it is necessary.
  • Link Holy Roman Emperor.
  • Linked.
  • It seems Saladin needs a proper introduction in the article body, now he's just mentioned without any context, unlike for example "a talented Turkic military leader Imad al-Din Zengi".
  • Introduced.
  • The long quote under Kingmaker seems kind of isolated, but could benefit from some commentary, if available, or introduction for context.
  • "Saladin sent blaming him" Not sure what this means, something missing?
  • This is a quote. I checked, and the quoted text contains the same wording. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against ships delivering pilgrims" Specify Muslim.
  • Added.
  • Perhaps link Saracen, though it is only used in quotes.
  • You spell out Bernard Hamilton many times, when his full name would only be needed at first mention in the article body. This may possibly also be an issue with other names.
  • Modified.
  • "of French origin... a French noble family" Should be stated in the article body as well.
  • Added.
  • "he was the only Christian leader to pursue an offensive policy against Saladin" This does not seem to be explicitly stated in the article body.
  • The first sentence in section "Fights against Saladin" verifies the statement.
  • Link Red Sea in intro.
  • Linked.
  • Have to say it's fun to read these real accounts of characters I mainly know from the film Kingdom of Heaven hehe... Hope to see more!
Thank you very much for your comprehensive review and for your suggestion. I think I addressed most of the problems you mentioned above but I need some days to deal with the pending issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, left some further replies about last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk thank you for your support. I added an explanatory footnote about Raynald's ancestry ([5]). Please let me know if further explanation is needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

  • He was released for a large ransom in 1176 but he did – maybe you can drop the second "he" for better flow.
  • Done.
  • He even refused to pay a subsidy to Raynald. In retaliation, he captured and tortured – the second "he" here does not refer to Raynald, but it should, right? Write "Raynald" instead?
  • Done.
  • Aimery excommunicated Raynald as a consequence between Antioch and Genoa – What does this mean, "between Antioch and Genoa"? I cannot follow.
  • Fixed.
  • and all other Christians prisoners – "Christian"
  • Fixed.
  • Manuel I Komnenos – Before, you referred to him as "Manuel" or "Emperor Manuel". I suggest to stick with one name, it makes it much easier for the reader to follow. There are already enough names that a reader need to keep in mind here.
  • Changed (now he is referred to as either Emperor Manuel or Manuel).
  • Hamilton proposes, these words suggest that Raynald led – "Hamilton proposes that"?

Thank you for your review and comments. Borsoka (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Raynald whose stepfather, Balian of Ibelin was Guy of Lusignan's opponent – needs a comma behind "Ibelin"?
  • Done.
  • Regarding the quotations, note that WP:QUOTE states Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. Readers should not have to follow a footnote to find out the quotation's source.
  • Done.
  • Saladin tried to seize Aleppo after As-Salih Ismail al-Malik, the Zengid emir of the town, died on 18 November 1181.[85] Raynald stormed into Saladin's territory, – a bit hard to understand how these actions are connected. Was Saladin's attack of Aleppo the cause of Raynald storming the territory? Or did those happen at the same time, independently?
  • Modified.
  • Thank you for your suggestions. Please let me know if any further modification is needed. Borsoka (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support, and also for your thorough review. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan edit

Hi, some minor comments on source formatting:

  • Sources #73, #121 and #156 will have to be formatted using sfn.
  • Reference style is consequent: primary sources are not cited by using sfn, whereas when citing other sources sfn is used.
  • Primary sources subsection: Consider linking to Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, Al-Kamil Fi'l-Ta'rikh, Ashgate Publishing? Also, wouldn't the second source be listed first in the alphabetical order, which you have followed for the secondary sources subsection?
  • Alphabetical order introduced and the publisher is linked. I would not link names in the title of books.

Secondary sources subsection:

  • Why do some of the ISBN numbers use different formats? You should use just one, ideally the one you intend to use in the Primary Sources subsection and the Firther Reading section.
  • I converted all ISBN (10) to ISBN (13).
  • You should sort out the ISBN for Baldwin 1969. It leads to to another work, Setton 1969, in some catalogues.
  • The same works: Setton is the general edition of the series A History of the Crusades, whereas Baldwin is the editor of its first volume.
  • Could we have a translation for this chapter title from Makk 1994, Anna (1.); Béla III? Also, consider linking to Gyula Kristó and Pál Engel?
  • The translation would be the same because these are two names. The two editors linked.
  • The Jean Richard link leads to a disambig page. I gather you meant to link to Jean Richard (historian)?
  • Fixed.
  • Further reading section: Consider using the standard ISBN format you decide to use in the previous section. Also consider linking to Chase F. Robinson, Amin Maalouf, John Man (author), Random House, Gustave Schlumberger. As you have specified in the previous section if a work is in another language, you should also do thjs for Schlumberger 1898, translate the title and add the publisher name (Librairie Plon).
  • I converted all ISBN (10) to ISBN (13). Wikilinks and publisher name added. Title translated.
  • Consider linking to Donzy in notes, on first mention and in infobox?
  • I linked it in the main text, but I would not link it when it is part of a person's name. For instance, we would not link "Habsburg" or "Bourbon" when mentioning a member of the Habsburg or Bourbon family.

More comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for your source review and comments. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, made some minor source formatting edits, hope those are OK. Will post more comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, some new comments. Made a few grammatical and sequential edits, hope those are alright.

  • Consider moving to the right the images you have oriented to the left, per MOS:IMAGELOC.
  • The pictures' orientation depends on the content: pictures depicting people looking to the right are placed on the left side. I moved the two exceptions accordingly.
  • Consider adding context to the mercy petition to Emperor Manuel? How was he captured? This is important to include in the lead.
  • Expanded in the lead.
  • "the only crusader leader who tried to prevent Saladin from unifying the nearby Muslim states": Consider adding the meaning of this, in that it prevented all out war and annnihilation of the crusader states?
  • I am not sure that any of the two statements could be verified: the crusader states had been warring against the neighboring Muslim states before they were united by Saladin, and we could hardly state that the crusader states would have survived if Saladin had not united Egypt and Syria.
  • Moved the Komnenos Emperors' and other links a little bit to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Hope that is alright?
  • Thank you for your edits.
  • Will you be creating pages for Lord of Donzy, Rainald II Masoir and Garenton of Saone? Otherwise I would suggest removing the redlinks.
  • I am not sure that I want to create pages for them, but red links may provoke other editors into creating the articles.
  • Consider linking to Saint-Valery-sur-Somme for Reynald of Saint-Valery?
  • I think linking settlements in an individual's name is not helpful.
  • For Raynald's seal, can we put the text on it in the caption? From what I can make out, the front says "EGAL DNS RENALDUS MONTI", the back says "CIVITAS + PETPACENSIS". But this seems flimsy, you might be better placed to read the text on there.
  • I have no access to reliable sources explaining the inscription on the seal.
  • When did Roupen marry Isabella? Do we have the date, as we do for the other other marriages mentioned?
  • Year added.
  • Link to Medina.
  • Medina and Mecca linked.
  • Link to prelates.
  • Added.
  • Is the Ashtara mentioned here the same as Ashtarak? If so, consider linking to it.
  • No, the two settlements are not identical, but expanded the sentence to help Ashtara's localisation.
  • Link to Ernoul on first use. You have added the link in the notes but not in the body.
  • Linked.

That is all for now. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comprehensive review and also for your edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matarisvan, is there any more to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec edit

Invited by Borsoka. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not reviewing the 'Background' section. I will note, however, that it is required reading to understand the rest of the article, which refers to figures mentioned there. I'm not sure I like this approach, since I think many readers will tend to skip the background.
  • The section was added during the article's peer review because the article needed some context for potential readers (billions of people). I think there are two approaches for providing our readers with a context: 1. distributing the information in other sections and footnotes; 2. expanding the article with a "Background" section. I preferred the second approach because it makes possible a more coherent summary.
  • Are the Palladii an actual Roman family? Or just a part of the Donzy's claimed genealogy?
  • Expanded.
  • Did he receive the lordship of Châtillon-sur-Loire from his father?
  • No information in the cited sources.
  • The last paragraph of 'Early years' is confusing. Did Raynald leave the siege of Ascalon to visit Antioch? Or are we certain that he had visited it before the siege? Why are we attributing the date 1151 to Runciman? The idea that Raynald settled in Antioch in 1151 seems in tension with Buck's theory that he was still in Baldwin's service in 1153.
  • I rephrased the paragraph.
  • Buck argues that William's report is obviously biased since ... according to Buck. These clauses could be removed without loss.
  • Rephrased and shortened.
  • I am thinking of creating a new article about the office, but I need some time.
  • I do not have enough source to create an article about the office. What is clear, the duke was one of the eleven highest ranking officers of state in Antioch. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the Armenians had recently captured. From whom?
  • Modified.
  • Sorry, I think it should be clarified that the Syrian Gates had belonged to Byzantium. I assume that's the case?
  • It is unclear from the sources. I rather guess they belonged to Antioch. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In context, the Armenians have risen against the Byzantines, who are asking Raynald for help.
  • Yes, but the territory seems to belonged to the principality. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should say so explicitly.
  • The cited sources do not say it explicitly, and I have not found further details in other sources either. Borsoka (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shaizar was held by the Shi'ite Assassins, but it had been ruled by the Sunnite Munqidhites who paid an annual tribute to Raynald. So it was held by the Assassins at the time, but had previously been held by the Munqidhites?
  • Modified.

More later. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am grateful for answering my invitation. Thank you for your suggestions and edits. Borsoka (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • Unlinked Majd al-Din was the governor of Aleppo and two paragraphs later it's Gümüshtekin, who is described as "independent". This leaves me with questions. I think some explanation of who Majd al-Din was and what was going on with Aleppo may be needed.
  • Context added.
  • Do we have a date, even approximate, for Baldwin IV's embassy?
  • Added.
  • Raynald married Stephanie of Milly, the lady of Oultrejordain, and Baldwin IV also granted him Hebron. I'd break this up into two sentences. And do we have date(s)?
  • Date added, but I would leave the sentence united.
  • Raynald's name was the first among the witnesses who signed most royal charters between 1177 and 1180 Hard to parse. Should probably say something like "Raynald signed a majority of royal charters between 1177 and 1180, with his name always first among signatories".

Looks like I'll be doing this in short bursts. Srnec (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • Perhaps a link to Caravan (travellers) should be added somewhere, although that's not the most informative article.
  • Linked.
  • I notice inconsistent treatment of sun and moon letters. Should be consistent within the article, probably in favour of al-. Also, the Arabic definite article should only be capitalized where English 'the' would be.
  • I think inconsistency in article reflects inconsistency in the cited books. I would prefer scholarly usage to consistency.
  • But I think scholars will be internally consistent (unless they are Lawrence of Arabia). I would be surprised to see a scholar switch back and forth between "al-Din" and "ad-Din".
  • No, scholars are not consistent either (see Buck) :), but I changed the text. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Saladin tried to seize Aleppo after As-Salih died on 18 November 1181 Constructions like this are always ambiguous between whether al-Salih died on that date or Saladin tried to seize Aleppo on that date. Consider rewording.
  • Changed.
  • His defiance annoyed the king, enabling Raymond III of Tripoli's partisans to reconcile him with the monarch. Raymond's return to the royal court put an end to Raynald's paramount position. Raymond III comes out of nowhere here. These two sentences need to be reworked to make more sense to the uninitiated.
  • Context added.
  • Saladin revived the Egyptian naval force No article for the Ayyubid navy, but we do have Fatimid navy. I leave it up to you if you think a link could be worked in here.
  • Linked.
  • We need a link to Hajj to explain Muslim pilgrims. Could go in the lead, where they are first mentioned or elsewhere.
  • Linked.
  • Baldwin IV, who had become seriously ill, made Guy of Lusignan bailli (or regent) in October 1183. Is this different from the office of regent previously mentioned? The whole concept of "regent" during the reign of Baldwin IV may need some explaining.
  • I deleted bailli because not the title but the position is relevant in the article's context.
  • Baldwin V, crowned king Should be "co-king", I think, or perhaps add "in association with himself".
  • Modified.
  • The bailli, Raymond III When did he become bailli?
  • Deleted the reference to his office because it is not highly relevant.
  • Ali ibn al-Athir and other Muslim historians record that Raynald made a truce with Saladin in 1186. This "seems unlikely to be true", according to Hamilton, because the truce between the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Saladin covered Raynald's domains. . . possibly because he regarded the presence of soldiers as a breach of the truce ... stating in the words of the Estoire d'Eracles that "... he had no truces with the Saracens". Saladin [took] an oath that he would personally kill Raynald for breaking the truce. Seems like a lot of confusion then and now over whether Raynald was covered by a truce! Not sure there is much that can be done to fix this, but I can certainly imagine a reader scratching his head.
  • Rephrased. I think now it is much clearer. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, moving that Barber quotation was a good idea.

More later. Srnec (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally,

  • The reliability of the reports of Saladin's offer to Raynald is subject to scholarly debate, because the Muslim authors who recorded them may have only wanted to improve Saladin's image. I find this sentence odd. Is there a reason for scholarly debate on what seems to me a minor point?
  • The story about Saladin's offer to conversion to Raynald has been frequently deleted by editors. To avoid further edit wars, I added this sentence.
  • She followed her husband to Hungary, where she gave birth to seven children before she died around 1184. Raynald and Constance's second daughter, Alice, became the third wife of Azzo VI of Este in 1204. Do these sentences imply that Raynald is the ancestor of much European royalty? If so, it might be worth stating so explicitly.
  • Yes, he is obviously the ancestor of much of European royalty, but this statement is not verified in the sources cited in the article.
  • Spelling is inconsistent between Oultrejourdain and Oultrejordain.
  • Fixed.
  • Saladin compared Raynald with the king of Ethiopia who had tried to destroy Mecca in 570 The Year of the Elephant article ascribes the attack to Abraha, an Ethiopian king but not a king of Ethiopia.
  • Hamilton writes of the "Christian king of Ethiopia".
  • I'm going to assume that the primary source says the same.
  • Peter of Blois dedicated a book (entitled Passion of Prince Raynald of Antioch) to him shortly after his death. I found this intriguing and wanted to know more.

I have now done a first pass of the whole article and will read it over once more before making some final remarks and assessing the lead. Srnec (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, just checking to see if there will be more to come. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I do still intend to. I was waiting to see what changes result from Dudley's review. Srnec (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Srnec, do you think the article has a chance for promotion? Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A second pass...

  • Antioch was a crusader state in the Near East, Oultrejordain a large fiefdom in the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, and he ruled both territories by right of one of his two wives. I do not agree with the addition of this sentence. It is highly unusual to place this kind of background information in the second sentence of the lead.
  • Rewritten and shortened.
  • In fact, I find the entire background section excessive. It would be absurd to repeat it at ever crusader lord's article, so why Raynald's? For me, wikilinks is how to provide background beyond basic definitions. I'm not sure why the peer reviewers thought this necessary in a biographical article. It seems unusual to me.
  • Transformed into footnotes. I still need to check the wikilinks.
  • He received the lordship of Châtillon-sur-Loire, but a part of his patrimony was "violently and unjustly confiscated", according to one of his letters. I think you should lead with his claim and then identify his lordship. As it is, this sentence still reads awkwardly to me. It might require more research to flesh out.
  • Rewritten.
  • The paragraph beginning Raymond of Poitiers, the Prince of Antioch does not mention Raynald. The information should perhaps be moved elsewhere or its relevance made clearer.
  • Rewritten.
  • The historian Steven Runciman says that Raynald had already settled in Antioch, and was engaged to Constance before the siege began. In contrast, the historian Malcolm Barber says that their betrothal took place during a visit by Raynald to the principality before the end of the siege. This makes too much of a minor distinction between being betrothed before or during a siege. I'd combine it into a single sentence and leave out inline attribution. The sources seem to agree that he was betrothed before the end of the siege.
  • Rewritten.
  • duke of Antioch. Unless and until an article on the office is created, I think we need an explanation of this title. Could go in a note. I did find this.
  • I cannot open the link. Could you tell me the title?
  • Raynald captured and tortured him. I think "arrested" or "imprisoned" is the better word here.
  • Done.
  • Emperor Manuel sent his envoys to Antioch. This would be a good place for background.
  • Done.
  • According to Pharaoh's Island, "Ile de Graye" is a misnomer. We should probably avoid it.
  • Indeed. Done.
  • The title Kaisar needs some explanation (or wikilink).
  • I deleted because his title is irrelevant in context.
  • I notice inconsistent use of {{lang}} tags, although this is hardly a dealbreaker.
  • I think I fixed all.
  • I see no need to mention the opinion of a blogger associated with Breitbart. If this is the proper description of Delingpole—and his Wiki page suggests it is not—then he needn't be here.
  • Delingpole's opinion is verified by a reference to Cotts, the author of the sole monography about modern perceptions of Raynald. As Delingpole is a representative of a extremist view, I think we should mention his PoV.

In terms of comprehensiveness, sourcing and neutrality, the article is fine, although I would have sought out some academic papers. Compared to Henry IV, it is not as readable. I suspect it is hard to follow for the average reader. Srnec (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you propose some academic papers? I would list them in section "Further reading". Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I think I understand most of your concerns. I will be trying to address them through structural changes, mainly by the most intensive use of notes. Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Srnec, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All images are OK except possibly File:IIIBelaFotoThalerTamas.JPG. According to Wikipedia, the reburial of the Hungarian king was in 1898 which means if the artworks in the picture date to then, we are probably OK for copyright status per the commons PD-old-assumed. However, I cannot confirm that the artwork in the photo also dates to 1898—if the artist died after 1953 it is still likely copyrighted. I would be inclined to remove the image as it is not crucial to the reader's understanding of the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture removed. Thank you for the image review. Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I added a new image ([6]). I would be grateful for your review. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not PD-scan because three-dimensional elements of the book are captured. The photograph could be copyrightable in some jurisdictions, so I cropped it. As long as it isn't reverted you should be good. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • The first paragraph could give more context with a few words. I suggest adding that Antioch was one of the Crusader states, and that Raynald's marriage made him rule of Antioch.
  • Expanded.
  • "he married Constance, Princess of Antioch, in spite of her subjects' opposition". This is not supported in the main text, which gives the impression that they only found out about it and complained afterwards.
  • Modified.
  • "Always in need of funds, Raynald tortured Aimery of Limoges, Latin Patriarch of Antioch who had refused to pay a subsidy to him." Attributing the torture to shortage of funds is also not supported below. You give the immpression that it was retaliation for Aimery's insult in refusing the subsidy in protest at the marriage.
  • I think the main text verifies the statement.
  • You say "Aimery of Limoges, the wealthy Latin patriarch of Antioch, did not hide his dismay at Constance's second marriage. He even refused to pay a subsidy to Raynald. In retaliation, Raynald captured and tortured Aimery in the summer of 1154,[33] forcing him to sit naked and covered with honey in the sun, before imprisoning him. Aimery was only released on Baldwin III's demand, but he soon left his see for Jerusalem." I do not see how this verifies the statement. You say below in a different context that Raynald was always short of funds, but not in relation to his treatment of Aimery. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expanded the main text to make it clearer, and less ambiguous. Borsoka (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claiming that the truce between Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem was not binding upon him". You have not said that there was a truce.
  • Modified.
  • "born around 1123 or 1125". This sounds odd to me. I would say around 1124 or between 1123 and 1125.
  • Modified.
  • "The 12th-century historian William of Tyre, who was Raynald's opponent". This reads to me as if he was an opponent in single combat. Maybe "was an enemy of Raynald".
  • Modified.
  • "and engaged to Constance before the siege began". "and was engaged" or "and became engaged".
  • Modified.
  • You several times use "propose that" to mean "argue that". Dictionaries do not give that meaning of "propose" and I think it would be better to use another word.
  • Modified.
  • "Buck proposes that Aimery's previous debates with the papacy over the Archbishopric of Tyre explain why Raynald was not excommunicated for his abuse of Aimery. Instead, Aimery excommunicated Raynald as a consequence of a conflict between Antioch and Genoa on the demand of the papacy." This is unclear. Are you saying that the pope forbade Aimery to excommunicate Raynald for his abuse but permitted it as a result of a conflict? What was the conflict and what was Raynald's part in it? Was the excommunication later lifted or did it become void when Aimery left Antioch? In view of the great seriousness of excommunication this needs much fuller explanation.
  • Rephrased, but there is little information about the excommunication and its circumstances.
  • "Before the capitulation of the garrison, Baldwin decided to grant the fortress to Thierry of Flanders, but Raynald demanded that the count should pay homage to him for the town. After Thierry sharply refused to swear fealty to an upstart, the crusaders abandoned the siege. "You imply at the beginning that the garrison surrendered and at the end that it did not.
  • Rephrased.
  • "Raynald hurried to Mamistra to voluntarily make his submission to the emperor." Presumably Raynald did not have the soldiers to fight Manuel, but it would be helpful to clarify this - or what other reason Raynald had to surrender.
  • Expanded.
  • Thank you for your comprehensive review and suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ali ibn al-Athir and other Muslim historians record that Raynald made a separate truce with Saladin in 1186.[108] This "seems unlikely to be true"". "record" implies a true statement. As it is disputed, I suggest "stated".
  • Done.
  • "Saladin's mamluks". You show "mamluk" as an Arabic word, perhaps because it has a different meaning in English. It is not helpful to readers of English Wikipedia to have an untranslated word in a foreign language.
  • Changed to "soldiers".
  • "She was given in marriage to Raymond of Poitiers in 1136.[144] The widowed Constance's marriage to Raynald". It would be helpful to mention Raymond's death date for clarity.
  • Done.
  • "Their daughter, Agnes". You need to clarify that she was the daughter of Raynald and Constance.
  • Done.
  • 'Assessment'. From what I remember, historians also blame Raynald (and the Knights Templar) for the suicidal attack which led to Hattin. Should this be covered?
  • Mentioned in section "Capture and execution".
  • The last paragraph covers historians who argue on historical grounds and anti-Islam culture warriors such as Delingpole who glorify Raynald as an enemy of Islam. I think the use of Raynald in culture wars should be in a spearate section.
  • Title changed to "In historiography and popular culture". I think section should not be splitted because historians' views influence popular perceptions, and historians express their views about popular perceptions. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it is correct to refer to popular culture and popular perceptions. Out of the two people you refer to, Jeffrey Lee has a first class degree in Islamic history and he is the author of a guide to the Prayer Book published by the Society of St John the Evangelist. Delingpole is, as I said above, an anti-Islamic culture warrior. I do not have access to Cotts' essay which you cite as the source, but if it covers Raynald's role in the culture wars (which you hint at) I think it should be covered as a separate topic. "Historiography" and "popular culture" are both misleading headings for this aspect. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you think if I delete the reference to Delingpole? I would not split the section. Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just seen that Lee's book was a biography, not a novel as you say. I think that makes the historiography heading (without popular culture) valid, but I think Raynald's role as a bogy to Moslems and a hero to anti-Moslems is important and worth spelling out in a separate paragraph. I would not delete Delingpole as his view is relevant to this aspect of the article. In the end it is your call. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing its cover and title, I was convinced that it is a novel. After reading some sentences from the first chapters, I came to the conclusion that I was not fully wrong. Of course, I will change the the sentence. I would prefer the present structure: modern Muslim terrorists' view is based on medieval Muslim historians' narration, and independent of modern anti-Islamic culture warriors' opinion, whereas anti-Islamic culture warriors repeat or exaggerate views expressed by western historians who regarded Raynald as a heroe of Christianity or anti-Muslim warfare. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2024 (UT
  • The last paragraph looks OK to me now, except for the description of Delingpole as a blogger, which does not tell us anything about him. Maybe quote his own self-description as a "libertarian conservative".
  • I would not use his self-assessment, so I added an alternative introduction.
  • "Historians such as Matthew Gabriele sharply criticised his approach". Gabriele is not listed in the sources. If you only have access to a quotation of his view, you could state the original source in a footnote.
  • I have no access to Gabriele's work.
  • It is very dangerous to state what an author says without checking the original source. There are many examples of academics copying misinterpretations of authors without checking the source. You could say "The scholar John Cotts states that historians such as Matthew Gabriele..." and add a footnote "Cotts cites Gabriele, his book, p. 00". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not remember that our policy requires us to evaluate scholars' interpretation about primary sources. Why do you think a scholar's statement about an other scholar's work is more dangerous? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because sometimes they make obvious errors. I've seen articles by reputable sources using source X to argue that volcano Y was active when X was actually talking about volcano Z. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Wikipedia should be a summary of reliable secondary sources, not primary sources, so there is a reasonable expectation that we have checked what reliable sources actually say. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, more like "reliable sources" - this kind of error happens more commonly to secondary sources and is the reason why for some kinds of information, primary ones are preferred. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would apply to articles about volcanoes. I was thinking of medieval history, where is does apply. I have never seen a primary medieval source which does not have errors, which is why they need interpretation by historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section heading "In historiography and popular culture" is misleading as popular culture is not a significant part of it. Maybe "In historiography and culture wars".
  • I would rather return to "Historiography and perceptions".
  • Added.
  • It seems odd to list the only biography of Raynald in further reading and just quote a second-hand opinion of it. Lee is not a professional historian but as he has a First Class degree in Arabic and Islamic History from Oxford he is not simply a popular writer. (I wrote above that he is author of a guide to the Prayer Book but that seems to be a different Jeffrey Lee.) Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a peer-reviewed book. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should not be in further reading. If you mention a book, you have to provide publication details in the sources. See how I have dealt with this issue in note 2 and references of Edmund Ætheling. If you disagree with my approach, I would be interested to hear what you think I should have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted Lee's work from section "Further reading". Publication details of each book and article that are cited in the article are provided in section "Sources". Would you clarify what is your concern? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection I agree that the sources section should only include ones that are reliable, but publication details should be provided of any work discussed in the article. What do you think of my revised note 2 in Edmund Ætheling? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestion. Added both Gabriele (in a note), and Delingpole. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have got a copy of Gabriele which I can send to you if you email me. The journal is The Historian, not The History. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be grateful. You can send me an email from now because I changed my profile to allow correspondence. Sorry, I do not know how I could send an email.
  • If you go to my user page you will see an option 'Email this user' on the left. If I email you, Wikipedia will not allow me to attach a document, but if you email me I can attach to my reply. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sent you an email. Thank you for your offer. I changed the journal's title.
  • Thank you for the copy. I slightly expanded the article basedon on Gabriele's review. Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see why you list Delingpole and not Lee in sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I am now totally confused. You suggested that Gabriele's work should be mentioned in the article, because his PoV is verified only by a reference to an other scholar's work. What is the difference between the two cases (namely, Gabriele and Delingpole)? A quote from Delingpole was earlier verified only by a reference to an other scholar's work, so I added a direct reference to his work. Lee's PoV is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Why should I cite him? Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cases are different. Gabriele is an RS and the issue was that you cite his view but did not provide a reference. Delingpole is not an RS but you cite him. You said that you have not cited Lee because he is not an RS, so I was asking why you cite one non-RS but not the other. Personally, I think that they are both RSs for the use of Raynald in culture wars even though they are not for his life, but other editors disagree and you have to be consistent. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the three authors can be divided into two group: (1) Gabriele's and Delingpole's PoV are mentioned in the article, so - in accordance with your logic - their works containing their PoV should also be mentioned; (2) Lee's PoV is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so his book is not relevant. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand what you mean by saying that Lee's PoV (point of view) is not mentioned. You say "In 2017, the journalist Jeffrey Lee published a biography about Raynald, entitled God's Wolf, presenting him in a nearly hagiographic style as a loyal, valiant, and talented warrior." This is a summary of his POV. It is presumably another writer's description, so you should attribute it inline and provide a citation immediately afterwards. You also need to give full publication details of Lee's book in a footnote.
  • Done.
  • No, it is a summary of Cobbs' critic of Lee's work. I made it clear in the article.
  • You do not cite Cobb for this. You should add a citation at the end of the sentence. You also need to give the details of Lee's book in a footnote as you comment on it. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not clear why you do not quote Lee as a source directly, particularly as his book is the only biography of Raynald. You said that it reads like a novel so you have access to it. He is not an RS, but neither is Dellingpole, and you do quote him. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Lee's book "does violence to the study of the past", according to a historian's review of his book (cited in the article). No, I do not have full access to it.

Hi, Dudley Miles, did I miss something, do you suggest any more edit? Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am just back from holiday and will look again in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among modern historians, Hamilton "attempts to dispel" Raynald's "bad press" (Cobb).[167] He describes Raynald as "an experienced and responsible crusader leader" who made several attempts to prevent Saladin from uniting the Muslim realms along the borders of the crusader states." This is confusing. You first appear to quote Hamilton, and then add (Cobb), implying it was not him you are quoting. For clarity, I suggest "Hamilton describes Raynald as "an experienced and responsible crusader leader" who made several attempts to prevent Saladin from uniting the Muslim realms along the borders of the crusader states." Cobb describes Hamilton's comments as "attempts to dispel" Raynald's "bad press". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "historians such as Matthew Gabriele sharply criticised Lee's approach." You cite this to Cotts, but you should cite to Gabriele himself as you now have access to it - or cite the comment inline to Cotts. You should always cite inline when describing one historian's description of another historian's views, not make it a bald statement of fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gabriele is directly quoted in the following sentence. The quote verifies that he indeed sharply criticise Lee's approach. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing Cotts for Gabriele's view is wrong and unncecessary. You can move the Delingpole citation to the end of the sentence about his view, delete the Cotts citation and cite all Gabriele's comments to himself. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cotts write of more than one historian's opinion about Lee's book, so I would not delete the citation. I moved the Delingpole citation. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with moving the Delingpole citation, but it appears to make him the citation for "In 2017, the journalist Jeffrey Lee published a biography about Raynald, entitled God's Wolf, presenting him, according to a fellow historian, in a nearly hagiographic style as a loyal, valiant, and talented warrior." I suggest changing "a fellow historian" to "the historian John Cotts" and citing the comment to him. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • No change needed unless historian has commented on the point, but it seems very unlikely that Baldwin of Antioch was Raynald's son. He would have to be born after 1153, which would make him very young to move to Constantinople in the early 1160s, become a senior adviser to the emperor and die in 1176. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, authors publishing recently came to the conclusion that Baldwin was Raynald's son. Even if he was born in 1153, he died at the age of 22. Perhaps, the elderly Manuel did not trust his Greek relatives, and he needed a loyal commander who would protect his young son by Baldwin's elder sister Maria, so he (or she) promoted Baldwin's career. Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spot-check upon request. Is Paul Cobb unused? Looks like source format is consistentish and we are using university books and reputable historians as sources. I wonder if there are academic papers, too. Does this character have any presence in popular culture? I kinda wonder if basing Raynald's assessment mostly on a 1978 author is correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your source review and comments. I expanded the article, so Cobb is now cited several times. I have not searched for academic papers because I think the article summarizes relevant scholarly literature. I added two sentences about Raynald's presentation in the film Kingdom of Heaven, and also about a historic novel dedicated to him. In the article, Raynald's assessment was based on three historians' PoV, now a further historian is added. Hamilton's positive assessment from 1987 is still regularly mentioned in scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, just checking if this is a pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the caveat that I didn't spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Raynald_of_Châtillon/archive1&oldid=1220577904"