Norfolkbigfish (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 279: | Line 279: | ||
::I completely agree. Although a lot of the Levantine milhist has been trimmed, which I'm fine with, this has essentially been the balance of the article for years, and its one I'm happy with. But there has been grumbling higher up the page, and the proposal to just cut the "Outremer" section called for a line in the sand to be drawn. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 00:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
::I completely agree. Although a lot of the Levantine milhist has been trimmed, which I'm fine with, this has essentially been the balance of the article for years, and its one I'm happy with. But there has been grumbling higher up the page, and the proposal to just cut the "Outremer" section called for a line in the sand to be drawn. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 00:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
::: I have implemented {{u|Srnec}} and it would seem that this is now close to agreement. I think {{u|Gog the Mild}} was only looking at excising the Outeremer section from a GOCE perspective. For clarity is the consensus is the article is fine as it is, and doesn't require splitting? One question on the suggestion of the [[Crusader States]], is the suggestion that this article is split or that it should be renamed [[Outremer]]. At one point there was two articles but these were merged.[[User:Norfolkbigfish|Norfolkbigfish]] ([[User talk:Norfolkbigfish|talk]]) 11:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
::: I have implemented {{u|Srnec}} and it would seem that this is now close to agreement. I think {{u|Gog the Mild}} was only looking at excising the Outeremer section from a GOCE perspective. For clarity is the consensus is the article is fine as it is, and doesn't require splitting? One question on the suggestion of the [[Crusader States]], is the suggestion that this article is split or that it should be renamed [[Outremer]]. At one point there was two articles but these were merged.[[User:Norfolkbigfish|Norfolkbigfish]] ([[User talk:Norfolkbigfish|talk]]) 11:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::There is an argument for having two articles: one at [[Crusader states]] that would cover the political organization of lands conquered in crusades, including not just the Levant but the Baltics, Greece and Spain as well, and another at [[Outremer]] that dealt with the Levantine Crusader states in detail including society, economy, art, etc. If we did move the article as it is (as I suggested), then the "Northern Crusades" section should probably be excised. I notice that there is no mention at the article of crusader states in Greece or Spain. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 22:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Does "the political organization of lands conquered in crusades" really have enough in common between the various examples to make a coherent topic? I don't know. I could see an article, possibly [[Crusading]], on the ideology, motivations of various participants and sponsors etc. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yes, many historians cited in the article completed coherent works on the topic (and I could refer to other historians who could also deal with this "problem" without difficulties). A separate "Crusading" article could be a good compromise, serving as the main article for the major topics related to the crusades. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 04:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===Copy edit continuation=== |
===Copy edit continuation=== |
Revision as of 04:18, 2 March 2020
Crusades has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Behavior
@Borsoka: having read the archives here, and witnessed your behavior over the last few days, I see an excessive level of aggression and bullying. You have edit warred your views into this article, you have ignored most attempts at compromise (repeating yourself rather than working to consider all sides), and you have made numerous aggressive comments.
To other editors here wishing to make headway in the face of this, I suggest the following:
- We focus on consensus. If only Borsoka objects but two or more editors support, we go with consensus
- If Borsoka attempts to override consensus, he will be reported for edit warring
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile:, based on your above message you should report me. Otherwise, I must assume you are an uncivil editor and I will report you. Sorry, but I am fed up with the WP:OWN mentality that dominates this article. Borsoka (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you read WP:OWN, it is focused on individual editors. It is saying that individual editors cannot override consensus. This article, and all others, are owned by the wikipedia community. Your behavior has been in line with WP:OWN, since you appear to be willing to edit war against consensus.
- My advice to you is to avoid alienating people with your aggressive behavior, as it makes your chances of getting other editors on your side quite slim.
- My comments above stand, and I intend to implement them. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Again: if you do not take me to AN, I will take you there. You stated that you studied my behaviour and you are convinced that I am an aggressive, POV-pushing editor. If this is true, some proper sanction should be applied against me. If your statement is untrue, you should be sanctioned for serious personal attack. A third possibility that you admit you were wrong and strike your above personal attacks. You do not need to say sorry, because I am not angry. I have not cooperated and will not cooperate with PoV-pushers and I will always ready to prevent ignorant editors from spreading their baseless views in WP articles. I waged no edit war and it was me who sought community support during this lengthy debate. Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile:, based on your above message you should report me. Otherwise, I must assume you are an uncivil editor and I will report you. Sorry, but I am fed up with the WP:OWN mentality that dominates this article. Borsoka (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. Could you convince Onceinwhile that his behaviour is uncivil and unacceptable. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I was agreeing with Onceinawhile Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Do you say I am a bullying and aggressive editor? Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I took Onceinawhile to AN ([1]). Borsoka (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Since the question was asked openly. Based on what I'm seeing here Borsoka you should tone it down considerably, and/or take a break for awhile. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message, although I do not agree with you. Borsoka (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I expected nothing less. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, we had a content debate about Soviet volunteers in the civil war in Spain ([2]). Sorry, I do not want to continue it. Borsoka (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Per the ANI discussion, the behavior against other editors is showing no signs of improving.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Said by an editor who pretended to be neutral in a discussion relating a text that he himself had proposed ([[3]], [4], [5]). By an editor who is willing to revert an edit to restore unencyclopedic text ([6]). "The owl tells the sparrow that the sparrow's head is large" - this is a Hungarian saying. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem if anything resulted from the ANI complaint or dispute resolution. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone who has to spend as much time and energy as Borsoka needs to try to justify their behaviour is obviously someone who needs careful watching. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Mediatech492:, I feel privileged that you will be watching my behaviour. You are perfectly designed to this task. Sorry, I will ignore your messages on this page in the future. I suggest you should make remarks on me on my Talk page. I do not promise I will always comment them, but I promise I will always read them. I have a nice collection of similar messages in my archives. They are really entertaining. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Your response proves my point. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Mediatech492:, I feel privileged that you will be watching my behaviour. You are perfectly designed to this task. Sorry, I will ignore your messages on this page in the future. I suggest you should make remarks on me on my Talk page. I do not promise I will always comment them, but I promise I will always read them. I have a nice collection of similar messages in my archives. They are really entertaining. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Historiography of the Crusades
FWIW—I have copied relevant content from this article to Historiography of the Crusades Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2020
In the fourth paragraph or the Fourth Crusade section "Fragile" is misspelled. 73.70.147.8 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Copy edit comments and queries
Hi to all editors of this fine article. I am about to start on the copy edit requested at GoCE. If there is anything which I seem to have got wrong or which you don't understand, please feel free to post a query here. Likewise, I shall flag up anything which I need more input on to resolve. Having put several late-Medieval articles through FAC recently, and as a regular assessor there, I shall also mix in more general comments on how I feel the article fares against the FAC criteria. I have not read the earlier FAC reviews, so apologies if much of this covers old ground. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- In References there are several places where "p." should be replaced by 'pp.'; and several where hyphens should be replaced with en dashes.
- Checked these, now should be ok Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Still cites 73, 113, 137, 138 and 148.
- Optional: I would, personally, put the OED references in harv format, like all the rest.
- Not sure how to do this for the online version of OED, I thought this was standard. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have seen it both ways. My preference is to keep the cites tidy, but I understand that the way you currently have them is entirely acceptable. However, you may get reviewers querying why the link isn't to Wiktionary, as this is more accessible - no subscription. (My local library for example is not a member of the the scheme, so I can't access the OED refs.)
- "often taught as a duty by the Quran and traditions" It can't be often taught as a duty by the Quran, which is immutable. Is something like 'and it was often considered/taught/believed that the Quran and Islamic traditions held this to be a duty/obligation for Muslims' intended?
- How about and it was believed by some Muslims that the Quran and Hadith made this a duty.? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- That works for me.
- "The Holy Land—Syria and Palestine—was remote from the focus of Islamic power, enabling relative peace and prosperity." Why did this remoteness enable peace and prosperity? Or, perhaps, how? I fail to see the link - arguably the reverse should be the case.
- Does was remote from the focus of Islamic power struggles resove this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes.
- "Apart from conflict in the Iberian peninsula Muslim-European contact was minimal" Are Byzantines not classed as "European"? The map in this section would suggest they are. Or is the suggestion that they had miminal contact?
- Good point, Western European? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yep.
- "These challengers forced the emperors to recruit mercenary armies" You may have a source for this, but it is going to be disagreed with by subject experts at FAC.
- "In the West the papacy had declined in power and influence to little more than a localised bishopric, but after the Gregorian Reform" It would be useful to give dates for both of these.
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- "religiously ignorant Christians" Could you narrow the scope of this. As written it would seem to include almost all Christians. Who decided what constituted ignorance and what the cut off point was?
- or Christians the papacy considered non-conformist Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- That should do it.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- "the crusaders had little option than to take by force what Alexios had promised." I rather doubt that this PoV statement will get through FAC.
I have got to the end of "In the eastern Mediterranean" and it is looking good. Looking ahead, I see several issues with "Outremer".
- Why is it even here. It seems random to give immense detail on one area of land which involved some crusades. I note the absence of similar detailed treatment of the Latin Empire of the Fourth Crusade, southern Spain, the Baltic States. IMO the whole section needs to go, and be merged with Crusader states - which would allow you to readily have the basis of another easy(ish) FAC.
- Why does the section not have a "main article" link to Crusader states?
- I am going to hold off on copy editing this section until you get back to me on this.
Outremer and overall scope discussion
- Just to be clear Gog the Mild, are you suggesting transfering the entire section to Crusader States or leaving som abstracted info behind?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- If it were me, which it is not, I would take out the entire section. To my eye the article reads much better without the whole "Outremer" section. If you do leave any info behind then, IMO, you need to match it with similar information on each of the other areas where crusades permanently or semi-permanently conquered territory. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnbod:—what do you think of Gog the Mild's suggestion? I seem to remember it was you that suggested more content on the Crusader states here? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping! To "take out the entire section" is an appalling idea, which would fundamentally unbalance the article, feeding what one imagines are the typical preconceptions of readers. Shortening a bit, moving some stuff to Crusader states where the coverage seems fuller here, seems ok. The article doesn't I think pretend to give equal weight to the various European wars/events that get the name "crusade", nor should it. I think the current balance is about right (although the single para on the Northern crusades should be split. We don't need to give post-reconquest Iberia etc the same treatment. Generally I think the article is looking good. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnbod:, @Norfolkbigfish: I tend to agree with Gog the Mild. The lengthy section ignores WP:DUE. Although the "crusades" in general are the subject of the article, the section dedicated to the crusader states ("Outremer") deals exclusively with the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Almost all info about other crusader states (Cyprus, Frankish Greece, the Teutonic Knights' order state) was deleted during the last month. I suggest that a section dedicated to the crusader states should be developed through deleting large parts of the present "Outremer" section (especially because it contains factual errors and presents PoVs as facts). The new section could be divied into subsections ("Outremer", "Baltic", "Cyprus" and "Frankish Greece"). Borsoka (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's obviously untrue that it "deals exclusively with the Kingdom of Jerusalem", but yes, it is all about the Levant. Which I think is appropriate since the "crusades" in general are NOT the subject of the article - if it were attempting equal coverage of everything called a crusade the article would look completely different. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- A couple of good statements of the issues there, IMO. FWIW I think that it needs to be decided 1. Is the article about a) the crusades in Syria and Palestine, or b) all crusades. Either has consequences for the article as it stands, but IMO the current position of avoiding the issue is unsustainable and it won't pass FAC. 2. Is information on the administration, military and other aspects of territory captured during whichever crusades the article does cover to be included. If 'yes', then approximately similar weight and length needs to be give to this for each territory involved. WP:TOOBIG suggests: ">50kB: May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size); >60kB: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". The article is currently 72kB of readable prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, my above statement about the Kingdom of Jerusalem is slightly exaggerated, but only slightly. Yes, I think the article should look completely different, because it is dedicated to the crusades, not to the crusades in the Outremer. Borsoka (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- True, I think. A split may be inevitable, and would resolve many issues. I think, for English-language readers, Crusades still means the Levant, and maybe Christian crusades, Crusades (concept), Medieval crusades in Europe etc can cover other stuff. Once you get to "Cyprus" and "Frankish Greece" you are dealing with a different and related subject imo. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- I cannot decide what "crusades" mean for English-language readers. What I know that works written by English-speaking specialists about the crusades do not limit its meaning to the Levant (I refer to most books cited in the article). Do we need to create our own terminology? Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- True, Borsoka, and I am partial to the works of Rile-Smith myself, who probably has the widest definition of Crusading imaginable. However, pragmatism is required. There is too much content required to give equal weight to everything within the scope of that wide definition. The question is where to split, and what content goes into which article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, pragmatism is required. I think pragmatism requires the deletion of text from the "Outremer" section and the restructuring of the article. Links to the main pages can always help those who seek further information. Borsoka (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- There is no other main page for the crusades in the Levant - this is it. Unlike the Northern crusades and all the others, which have their own. This page needs to deal comprehensively with the Levantine crusades. There is also a case for a "broad concept" article on Christian crusades. Your statement that "works written by English-speaking specialists about the crusades do not limit its meaning to the Levant" is essentially not true - a book on "The Crusades" will mainly or entirely cover the Levant, not the Baltic. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- If it were me, which it is not, I would take out the entire section. To my eye the article reads much better without the whole "Outremer" section. If you do leave any info behind then, IMO, you need to match it with similar information on each of the other areas where crusades permanently or semi-permanently conquered territory. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I share the enthusiasm for nailing down what the exact scope of this article should be. In almost 20 years this has never been finalized. We state in the article that historians define the term in four ways:
- Traditionalists: only campaigns aiming to recover Jerusalem – i.e. the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to the Holy Land
- Pluralists: all campaigns with vows and privileges, not only in the Holy Land – e.g. against pagans, heretics;
- Popularists: all campaigns that were characterised by popular groundswells of religious fervour;
- Generalists: the widest definition, including all forms of Latin holy wars.
@Johnbod, Borsoka, Norfolkbigfish, and Gog the Mild: Which of these do you think the article currently represents / should represent? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am far from insisting on an "exact scope", or I would have raised the matter many years ago. But now babies are being thrown out with the bathwater. My point is that 1) needs a main article, and this is it. If we are looking for a more narrow article, then 2), possibly including 3 & 4 (within reason) deserve an overview article too. But all the various ocurrences already have main articles, often extremely long, and should only be given cursory treatment in this, the main article on the Levantine crusades. I accept that this article has always rather uncomfortably attempted to straddle two stools, and personablly I could continue to live with that. But if a choice is necessary, the Levant must be the primary subject here. Personally I would keep the current title (as explained above), but the title is very much a secondary issue. No doubt Rfc's can be done if needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks. Just so we’re all clear, I’m pasting below the key excerpts from the original text where these four definitions were defined:
- Page 12: The so-called traditionalists hold that a true crusade must be directed toward the east, either to assist the Christians there or to liberate Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher, whereas for the so-called pluralists the defining feature of a crusade, whatever its objective, is papal authorization. The traditionalists ask where a crusade was going and therefore hold that the crusades basically ended with the fall of the crusader states in the east. The pluralists, on the other hand, ask how a crusade was initiated and organized and thus extend the history of the crusades not only geographically but also chronologically, down to recent times.
- Page 13: Von Ranke was the first, so far as l know, to distinguish between what he called the hierarchical or official and the popular impulse (Moment) of crusading.... For them the only true crusade was the First, which was marked by widespread religious enthusiasm and popular response.
- Page 14: There is, finally, a group of historians who can be called generalists and who broadly identify the crusades with holy war and the justification of fighting in defense of the faith... They emphasize in particular the traditional concept of the just war, the ideal of Christian knighthood that emerged in the tenth century, the regional movements known as the Peace and Truce of God and designed to protect particular categories of people and to prevent fighting at certain times, and the efforts of the in the eleventh century to mobilize the milites sancti Petri to support and defend the papacy. Ernst-Dieter Hehl, in an article entitled "Was it eigentlich in Kreuzzug?" (What essentially is a crusade?), rejected both the traditionalist and pluralist definitions of a crusade as too restrictive and argued that a crusade was a war fought at the order of and with the authority of God - “a Deo auctore war" - and that Urban's innovation was to fit the crusade into historical-theological schema" or “theology of war." According to this view, the essential features of crusade were to carry out the will of God on earth and thus to win forgiveness for sins, with or without papal approval lerusalem was thus spiritualized, and in practice a crusade could be directed against any perceived enemies of God, even though the crusade to the east continued, as Christopher Tyerman put it, to provide "the language of crusading”.
- I hope this is helpful. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, not to me anyway. All that would belong in the other, overview/concept article. As I've added above: "the title is very much a secondary issue. No doubt Rfc's can be done if needed." Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- What do you think of the first sentence of the article - i.e. “The Crusades were...”? I think it needs to represent precisely what we think this article is about. Either 1, 2 or 4 above. Currently I think it is saying 2. But the later text in the article leans more towards 4. And if I understand you correctly, you would prefer it to say 1. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Like the title, we should first decide the proper scope, then write the first and other lines to match, and change the title if need be. The current text leans very heavily to 1), despite much on that having been removed. Look at a version from a few years ago, & the subject is much clearer. For example this the version that passed GA in 2017, and earlier versions are even more "1)". Btw, so much has been removed that a GA reassessment should probably be done. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- We need an article about the phenomenon called "crusades": the title of the article suggests that this is the proper article. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Like the title, we should first decide the proper scope, then write the first and other lines to match, and change the title if need be. The current text leans very heavily to 1), despite much on that having been removed. Look at a version from a few years ago, & the subject is much clearer. For example this the version that passed GA in 2017, and earlier versions are even more "1)". Btw, so much has been removed that a GA reassessment should probably be done. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- What do you think of the first sentence of the article - i.e. “The Crusades were...”? I think it needs to represent precisely what we think this article is about. Either 1, 2 or 4 above. Currently I think it is saying 2. But the later text in the article leans more towards 4. And if I understand you correctly, you would prefer it to say 1. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, not to me anyway. All that would belong in the other, overview/concept article. As I've added above: "the title is very much a secondary issue. No doubt Rfc's can be done if needed." Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks. Just so we’re all clear, I’m pasting below the key excerpts from the original text where these four definitions were defined:
- Number 2 and 4. The article's title is "Crusades", so we cannot limit its scope to the crusades in the Levant. An article about the Levantine crusades could be developed. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- No - it has been developed, and this is it, and has been even more so in the past. Other stuff can be hived off. As I say above, titles, like first lines should be worried about later. A sneaky way would be to have Crusade for the general concept, and Crusades for the Levant. But I don't think that will hold. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Why do we ignore the majority of the sources cited in the article? They do not limit the use of the term "crusades" to crusades in the Levant. Borsoka (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Because the sources have been selected to reflect the altered scope of the article. Try not to worry about titles and terms, but think first in terms of topics, and what encyclopaedic coverage is needed. Do we need an article on the Levantine crusades? Yes, certainly we do, it's a popular topic. Do we have such an article now? Yes, this one, just about, but rather less than we used to. I'm entirely open to having coverage of 2-4) above, but not hosted in the dead carcass of 1). Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Could you prove your above statement about the selection of the sources? Could you refer to sources published during the last decades which limit the scope of the "term" crusade to crusades in the Levant? Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Never mind the TITLE(S), address the TOPIC(S) please! Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Borsoka is making an important point. See for example: Peters, Damien (5 July 2017). The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. Macat Library. p. 68. ISBN 978-1-351-35310-6.
It is telling that the most well-known modern supporter of the traditionalist school, Hans Eberhard Mayer, is now in his eighties and his last major work to be published in English was originally written in the 1960s.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not really. He is making a wholly secondary point about titles (over and over again), refusing to address the main one. The titles of the article(s) will probably be decided by more open processes, RM or Rfc. We used to have a main article on the Levantine crusades, and now we barely do, and he and others want to convert this completely to a broad concept article, leaving what most readers think of as "the Crusades" with no main article. In the 4 months since he started editing this page he has added 177,263 bytes in over 300 posts, producing many complaints about bullying etc, and largely changing the subject of the article by stealth. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnbod:, I have been addressing the topic (TOPIC): we need (NEED) an (AN) article (ARTICLE) covering all (ALL) crusades. And this is the proper article. Sorry, I think it is you who is making a wholy secondary point about the Levantine crusades on the Talk page of an article dedicated to the crusades without addressing a number of other editors' concerns. Borsoka (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- You're proving my point here! No need to ping me. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, I am not proving your point here - you should prove it. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue. My view is unchanged: we need an article dedicated to all crusades (and we can create a separate article which deals with the Levantine crusades, if it is necessary at all). Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- You're proving my point here! No need to ping me. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnbod:, I have been addressing the topic (TOPIC): we need (NEED) an (AN) article (ARTICLE) covering all (ALL) crusades. And this is the proper article. Sorry, I think it is you who is making a wholy secondary point about the Levantine crusades on the Talk page of an article dedicated to the crusades without addressing a number of other editors' concerns. Borsoka (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not really. He is making a wholly secondary point about titles (over and over again), refusing to address the main one. The titles of the article(s) will probably be decided by more open processes, RM or Rfc. We used to have a main article on the Levantine crusades, and now we barely do, and he and others want to convert this completely to a broad concept article, leaving what most readers think of as "the Crusades" with no main article. In the 4 months since he started editing this page he has added 177,263 bytes in over 300 posts, producing many complaints about bullying etc, and largely changing the subject of the article by stealth. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Borsoka is making an important point. See for example: Peters, Damien (5 July 2017). The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. Macat Library. p. 68. ISBN 978-1-351-35310-6.
- Never mind the TITLE(S), address the TOPIC(S) please! Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Could you prove your above statement about the selection of the sources? Could you refer to sources published during the last decades which limit the scope of the "term" crusade to crusades in the Levant? Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Because the sources have been selected to reflect the altered scope of the article. Try not to worry about titles and terms, but think first in terms of topics, and what encyclopaedic coverage is needed. Do we need an article on the Levantine crusades? Yes, certainly we do, it's a popular topic. Do we have such an article now? Yes, this one, just about, but rather less than we used to. I'm entirely open to having coverage of 2-4) above, but not hosted in the dead carcass of 1). Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Why do we ignore the majority of the sources cited in the article? They do not limit the use of the term "crusades" to crusades in the Levant. Borsoka (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- No - it has been developed, and this is it, and has been even more so in the past. Other stuff can be hived off. As I say above, titles, like first lines should be worried about later. A sneaky way would be to have Crusade for the general concept, and Crusades for the Levant. But I don't think that will hold. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Historians do not agree on any definition of the Crusades, and the arguments of Riley-Smith and his pupils extend this to the point of being virtually limitless. That cannot be resolved here, and is of limited interest even if it could.
So what do we know?
- The article is too big
- Some editors believe that to achieve balance greater emphasis (and more content) should be given to other geographic regions
- The removal of content on the Levant is opposed
- There is no dedicated article on the traditionalist Levant orientated Crusades
- Other regions and Crusades do have dedicated articles
To me the answer would seem to me to be splitting the article in two. One to cover the crusades in the Levant ending at the end of the 13th century, another to cover Crusading in general, across regions and a wider time period. Two very different articles.
This is not something I have experience of.
Could someone advise of the correct procedure to kick off in order to gain consensus and move forward.
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Rather sadly, I agree this is what we have come to. Wikipedia:Splitting covers the procedure, starting with getting agreement here (new section needed I think). From the above, I suspect the main disagreement will be over which half keeps Crusades, as opposed to some other name. I suggest the broad division of topics is addressed before article names, though it may be difficult to get people to stick to this. On a detail, I'm not sure #2 of your list is correct - the thrust seems to be more "The article is too big, we can address this & balance the article by removing stuff on the Levant (without adding much on other areas)". Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose a split for now. The article is 100KB, which I think is fine for this topic. It should not get longer and could probably be pruned slightly. The article does not need greater emphasis on the crusades in Europe, but neither should they be cut out altogether. The current setup—an article on the broad concept with an emphasis on the paradigmatic anti-Muslim campaigns—matches up perfectly with how modern surveys treat the topic. The section on Outremer should be moved to follow immediately the "In the eastern Mediterranean" section. It could probably be trimmed a bit, since we have a main article on it at Crusader states (which I would move to Outremer). The section "In Europe" strikes me as very cursory given the depth and breadth of the topic, so I don't think the article is much more than a "Levantine" crusades article as it stands. Srnec (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Although a lot of the Levantine milhist has been trimmed, which I'm fine with, this has essentially been the balance of the article for years, and its one I'm happy with. But there has been grumbling higher up the page, and the proposal to just cut the "Outremer" section called for a line in the sand to be drawn. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have implemented Srnec and it would seem that this is now close to agreement. I think Gog the Mild was only looking at excising the Outeremer section from a GOCE perspective. For clarity is the consensus is the article is fine as it is, and doesn't require splitting? One question on the suggestion of the Crusader States, is the suggestion that this article is split or that it should be renamed Outremer. At one point there was two articles but these were merged.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is an argument for having two articles: one at Crusader states that would cover the political organization of lands conquered in crusades, including not just the Levant but the Baltics, Greece and Spain as well, and another at Outremer that dealt with the Levantine Crusader states in detail including society, economy, art, etc. If we did move the article as it is (as I suggested), then the "Northern Crusades" section should probably be excised. I notice that there is no mention at the article of crusader states in Greece or Spain. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Does "the political organization of lands conquered in crusades" really have enough in common between the various examples to make a coherent topic? I don't know. I could see an article, possibly Crusading, on the ideology, motivations of various participants and sponsors etc. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, many historians cited in the article completed coherent works on the topic (and I could refer to other historians who could also deal with this "problem" without difficulties). A separate "Crusading" article could be a good compromise, serving as the main article for the major topics related to the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Does "the political organization of lands conquered in crusades" really have enough in common between the various examples to make a coherent topic? I don't know. I could see an article, possibly Crusading, on the ideology, motivations of various participants and sponsors etc. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is an argument for having two articles: one at Crusader states that would cover the political organization of lands conquered in crusades, including not just the Levant but the Baltics, Greece and Spain as well, and another at Outremer that dealt with the Levantine Crusader states in detail including society, economy, art, etc. If we did move the article as it is (as I suggested), then the "Northern Crusades" section should probably be excised. I notice that there is no mention at the article of crusader states in Greece or Spain. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have implemented Srnec and it would seem that this is now close to agreement. I think Gog the Mild was only looking at excising the Outeremer section from a GOCE perspective. For clarity is the consensus is the article is fine as it is, and doesn't require splitting? One question on the suggestion of the Crusader States, is the suggestion that this article is split or that it should be renamed Outremer. At one point there was two articles but these were merged.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Although a lot of the Levantine milhist has been trimmed, which I'm fine with, this has essentially been the balance of the article for years, and its one I'm happy with. But there has been grumbling higher up the page, and the proposal to just cut the "Outremer" section called for a line in the sand to be drawn. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Copy edit continuation
- "This proved that it was more effective waging a war against the heretics' supporters than the heretics themselves." I am struggling to copy edit this, as I am not sure what it means.
- Supporters should read rulers e.g. the Counts of Toulouse in Languedoc, or the rulers of Milan. The point it is trying to make is that they of ten tolerated those considered heretics by the church which proved an obstruction to the church's suppression. It was more effective to attack the rulers rather than the ruled.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- "the home of a legendary Cathar anti-pope" When you say this, do you mean that he never actually existed?
- I don't think there is any record that he did Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Innocent III raised a crusade against Markward von Annweiler, over who held the regency of Sicily, which ended with Markward's death." Could this be dated?
- "the Popes' wars against the Emperor and his sons were unsuitable for crusading" Why?
- "There were no clear objectives or limitations" Does this refer to the war with Frederick, or to crusades more generally?
- "Political campaigns" section. With the exception of the last sentence this deals entirely with Sicily. It either needs cutting right down - as the events in the final sentence are - or explaining properly and retitling 'In Sicily'. At the moment, excuse my frankness, it approaches incoherence. (Which given the actuality of the events is probably not surprising.) To copy edit this I would need to completely rewrite it, and I assume that you would prefer to do that yourself - or to decide that I am wrong.
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- "As the military threat presented by the Turks diminished, anti-Ottoman crusading became obsolete with the Holy League in 1699." This is saying two different things: that crusading declined as the Turks became less of a threat (although considering how close they came to capturing Vienna in 1683 this could do with dating and/or qualifying); that crusading ended (somehow - no reason is suggested) with the Holy League. A casual reader will not see the connection. (I assume that you are not of the school that believes that Innocent XI's sponsorship of the League made it a de facto crusade?). Gog the Mild (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think that much of what you have in "Northern crusades" should be moved to "Military orders".
- A thematic issue, for which I will give one example: You mostly consider "crusades" to cover a wide geographical range, but many of your specialised sections are written as if the "crusades" only happened in Palestine and Syria. Eg "Art and architecture"; to drill down, you write of poetry encouraging "pilgrimage to the east", while not mentioning poetry which encouraged pilgramagr - militant or otherwise - to, eg, the Baltic States or Spain. Either the article is about the "1st to 7th/9th Crusades", or it is about [all] "Crusades". If the former, it needs retitling and some material stripping out. If the latter it needs either a lot of material stripping out, or some additional material introduced, or [preferred option] both.
- "Modern historiography rejects the 19th-century consensus that Westerners learnt the basis of military architecture from the Near East" Are you sure that you mean Near East, and not Middle East?
- "Attempts were made to control the women's behaviour in ordinances of 1147 and 1190." Is it known who issued the ordinances? Did they apply to all crusades, or just those to the Middle East?
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I am going to mark the copy edit as completed at GoCE. But I remain on standby to copy edit the "Outremer" section - either within this article or as a copy edit of "Crusader states" prior to a run by the latter at ACR. (I assume here that you are content with my style of copy editing. If not, say.) Let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Defining "The Crusades"
@Borsoka: this has been discussed on the talk page, and we had consensus to include this framework in the terminology section. See /Archive_13#Precision. More importantly though, the proposed edit [7] fixed a number of other problems in that section:
In modern historiography, the term "crusade" first what do we mean "first" in "modern historiography"? referred to a military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to the Holy Land. The conflicts to which the term is applied has been extended to include other campaigns initiated, supported and sometimes directed by the Roman Catholic Church against pagans, heretics or for alleged religious ends.[1] "for alleged religious ends"? This is not clear These differed from other Christian religious wars in that they were considered a penitential exercise, and so earned participants forgiveness for all confessed sins.[2]This statement incorrectly implies that if they were not considered penitential then noone classified them as Crusades. The term's usage can create a misleading impression of coherence, particularly regarding the early crusades, and the definition is a matter of historiographical debate among contemporary historians.[3][4][5]
The definition of what we mean by "Crusades" is the foundation on which this article is (or should be) built. We should be as precise as possible, using the most respected scholarly framework rather than some wishy-washy language with multiple errors.
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- There was no consensus about the repetition of the same information under two sections ("Terminology" and "Historiography: Contemporary"). The version you are proposing has been reverted by multiple editors ([8]). Borsoka (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am aware of that edit from @Norfolkbigfish: on 9 January. I think it should have been discussed, but I believe it stemmed from changes in the text since we previously discussed. The 11 Dec version was careful to remove overlap. By 9 Jan overlap had crept in.
- The version I drafted today was a completely new, properly integrated into the section, and with even less overlap than any prior version.
- @Borsoka: I have tried very hard to address your overlap concern. Could you please try to address my concern of precision? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, you have not tried to address other editors' overlap concern. You returned to your preferred version - a version allegedly unacceptable for other editors. Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: I wrote above "I have tried very hard to address your overlap concern", with an explanation. You then respond with "No, you have not tried to address other editors' overlap concern". I am the only person who knows what I have tried to do. You telling me I am lying about my intentions is exactly the type of problematic behavior (see WP:AGF) that we discussed previously. Please stop making things harder than they need to be.
- Now to the point. Your explanation is "You returned to your preferred version". This is in direct contradiction to my explanation. So who is right? The facts are there to see in the diffs above. The version I drafted today is a full redraft of the paragraph and reduces overlap with the historiography section more than any of the previous versions. We could work on the historiography section too, in order to reduce overlap even further.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- 1. You started this discussion with a reference to an alleged consensus about your version. 2. In your second comment, you admitted that you were well aware of an edit contradicting your first statement. 3. I repeat: you have not tried to address other editors' concerns: you are repeating the same information in the same article. 4. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you. My position has been clear for months: no repetitions. Borsoka (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- In 3 above you have accused me of lying again. And you have consistently avoided talking about the actual detail. I will discuss the matter with @Norfolkbigfish: and any other editors, and we will go with consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- 1. You started this discussion with a reference to an alleged consensus about your version. 2. In your second comment, you admitted that you were well aware of an edit contradicting your first statement. 3. I repeat: you have not tried to address other editors' concerns: you are repeating the same information in the same article. 4. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you. My position has been clear for months: no repetitions. Borsoka (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, you have not tried to address other editors' overlap concern. You returned to your preferred version - a version allegedly unacceptable for other editors. Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Onceinawhile that there are issues with the paragraph. That said the revision rather overstates the different views of historians as proposed by Constable, they often move between categories and there is blurring between the categories. The first version reflected the linguistic definition while the second reflected the historiographical debate on definition. To work the paragraph needs to reflect both with more detail added in the historiograhy section. No reason to revert without first discussing her though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)