Talk:Baldwin IV of Jerusalem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marriage?[edit]

so BAldwin married his mother? yes or no?

What are you referring to? Adam Bishop 06:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, Baldwin IV, the Leper King, never married. During his lifetime, the prevailing view was that physical contact of any kind would cause the transfer of the disease. We now know this is not true. It would take considerable exposure over time. Presently, a course of antibitoics easily handles the disease but in some parts of the world such as India, the stigma is still so strong that people showing symptoms avoid treatment rather than reveal their status as infected. This is unfortunate since the longer it goes untreated, the more damage a person suffers. During King Baldwin's lifetime, there was no effective treatment of the disease, only treatments to try and relieve the discomfort of the symptoms. Baldwin IV was succeeded by his sister's son Baldwin V.LiPollis 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mask?[edit]

Did baldwin wear a metal mask?

I don't know of any source that says he did. I suppose it was cheaper than leper makeup, though. Adam Bishop 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reference in any contemporary source to how he concealed some of his affliction, or if he did. A metal mask is unlikely, though, for reasons of heat and weight. Silverwhistle 19:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The metal mask seen in the film The Kingdom is an invention of the screenwriter. In the last years of his life, Baldwin IV was blind and crippled from his affliction and not riding out to battle in armor and a pretty silver mask. He may well have covered his face, but there is no historical description of him doing so. I would assume that by the time his disease had progressed to the point of facial disfigurement, he would have been blind and crippled and therefore secluded and in no need of a disguise. LiPollis 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know weather he was a Norman or not, but are you sure it's not just an Anglo-Saxon Sutton Hoo helmet? I don't think that type of thing would be too antique for a king at that point to get his hands on if he felt so inclined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:902:0:0:0:10 (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:387:B:902:0:0:0:10 why would he be Norman ? He is issued from the French monarchy.. House of Anjou Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Templars[edit]

were the templar knights mere mercenaries,compared to todays thought that they were trusted knights,of some importance.and there to protect the royal house of baldwin

No, the Templars were a military monastic order, essentially the armed offshoot of the Cistercian order. They took monastic vows and were sworn to defend the holy places and protect pilgrims. Where did you get the idea they were mercenaries? Silverwhistle 19:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raynald/Reynald[edit]

What is the correct spelling of Raynald or Reynald?

Either way..."Reginald" is also a possibility, or "Renaud". It has a lot of variants because it's a Germanic name that was spelled in numerous different ways in Latin and French. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Sacraments[edit]

Did Baldwin IV really refuse the Last Sacraments of the Catholic Church, as depicted in the Kingdom of Heaven movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.177 (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick search of Bernard Hamilton's "The Leper King and his Heirs", there is no mention of what happened on his deathbed. William of Tyre's chronicle doesn't go that far, but when I have a moment I can check the Old French continuations of the chronicle to see if they say anything. He was properly buried in the Holy Sepulchre, and he was otherwise as devoted to the church as any good king was expected to be; he founded a chapel on the site of the Battle of Montgisard, was a patron of the Patriarch Heraclius (to William of Tyre's apparent dismay), had the relic of the True Cross carried around in battle, and went through all the proper religious rituals to crown Baldwin V as co-king. People in the east loved him and if he did something as unexpected as that, someone would have mentioned it. People in the west weren't so keen on a leprous king, but I can't recall any of the English or French chroniclers mentioning this either. So that was one of the various made-up portions of the movie, like the mask. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the continuations of William's chronicle, all the nobles were present at Baldwin's death, and the next day he was buried in the Sepulchre. No mention of anything unusual happening. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death[edit]

The date 16 March 1185 is footnoted to thepeerage.com, which isn't a reliable source. Other wikis have "March 1185" (e.g. the German) or just "1185" (e.g. the French). I propose to remove the precise date, because, unless I'm mistaken, there's no reliable source for that. Is there a reliable source for "March" or do we have to go back to "1185"? Andrew Dalby 16:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton's book seems to mention various possible dates on p 198 (I can't see that page on Google at the moment). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that doesn't help actually, although Hamilton does note that John L. La Monte says Baldwin died on March 16. La Monte is a better source than thepeerage.com, although Hamilton might have more info in the rest of the chapter, which I still can't see. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More from Hamilton, which I can now view on a different computer:
In The Leper King and His Heirs, p. 210, he says "Baldwin died at some time before 16 May 1185." Note 83 on that page says "Hiestand argued, citing the necrology of St Niçaise de Meulan, that Baldwin died on 15 April 1185: 'Chronologisches...2. Die Todesdaten König Balduins IV...', p. 551; but Thomas Vogtherr has shown that this evidence is not secure, 'Die Regierungsdten der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem', ZDVP 110 (1994), pp. 51-81 at pp. 65-7. Baldwin V had become sole king by 16 May 1185: Delaborde, no. 43, pp. 91-2; RRH, no 643, I, p. 170."
Earlier on p. 198, n. 45, "Lamonte writes, 'The ordering of the bailliage to Raymond was the last act of Baldwin IV. Consumed by leprosy [he died] on 16 March 1185...': Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100-1291 (Cambridge, Mass., 1932), p. 33."
I don't know where Lamonte got that date; there is a footnote for that sentence on p. 33, but I can't see it on Google. Every other reference to 16 March seems to trace back to Lamonte. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for all that work, and for explaining how I got the date "15 April 1185" in my personal notes. I didn't mention that before because I'm not a reliable source!
So that's one "primary" source, which has been shown to be insecure, for the date "15 April 1185", and one "secondary" source that we would take as basically reliable for "16 March 1185", but we don't yet know how it arrived at that date, and it looks at though Hamilton doesn't trust it. And one certainty, "before 16 May 1185". It would be nice to know, wouldn't it, what Lamonte's footnote actually says ... Andrew Dalby 10:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the footnote relates to some other part of the paragraph and not the 16 March date. Feudal Monarchy is on Questia, if you happen to have access to that. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile Setton's History of the Crusades, in a chapter written by Marshall W. Baldwin, says "March 1185", but it doesn't have a lot of footnotes and doesn't footnote this. (It's vol. 1 p. 604, repeated in the chronological outline on p. 625. Note that it abstains from giving a day of the month). Andrew Dalby 08:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hans Mayer (The Crusades, 133) also has 15 April (no footnote, but surely taken from Hiestand). Jonathan Riley-Smith (The Crusades: A History, 2nd ed., 101, and The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 109) goes with "March 1185". Adam Bishop (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The logical deduction from the title of Vogtherr's paper, and from Hamilton's note as you quote it, is that 15 April has to be discounted and no exact date is currently obtainable. Otherwise Vogtherr would have stated it and Hamilton would have quoted him on it. Andrew Dalby 11:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Also, I see that The Peerage webpage cited by this article itself cites "Dynasties of the World: a Chronological and Genealogical Handbook" by John Morby, but does not specifically cite the date of 16 March, and in any case Morby does not give the date, just the year 1185. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now at the London Library with La Monte and Hamilton at my elbow. La Monte, on page 33, footnotes that sentence, as you say, but the footnote says nothing about the date. The text is firm about the date (as you know), saying "... the unfortunate king 'answered God's summons' on March 16, 1185 ...". The footnote is to Baha-ed-Din, Life of Salah-ed-Din (1898 transl.) p. 112, chapter 35 but it is really about Raymond, not Baldwin.
It's now clear, too, that Hamilton says nothing specific about the date except the passages you have already quoted. It is perhaps significant that on page 210 Hamilton doesn't even refer back to La Monte's firm date, which he had quoted in a footnote on page 198, but that's that.
So I think we should say "in early 1185, at some date before 16 May", citing Hamilton; we could add in a footnote that "16 March" (citing La Monte) is not accepted by recent scholars (citing Setton and Riley-Smith) and that "15 April" (citing Hiestand) has been shown to be unreliable (citing Vogtherr). It would be good to cite Vogtherr further if anyone can get to see it. Andrew Dalby 11:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is "important" in the sense that his age at death in the infobox is correct, if the July date is correct for his birth and the early spring date of his death is also correct. 2600:1004:B16D:9933:18DD:12DF:512F:1C68 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalty of Joscelin III[edit]

I found a source stating that Joscelin III and Sibylla "garrisoned Jerusalem with loyal troops and barred Raymond from the funeral". Would this be enough to put this as a citation for the one needed concerning Joscelin III's loyalty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobrion1 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, the source I had found saying that was definitely not credible, I have now found a different one which I think I shall use. However, I only states that Joscelin was not in line for the throne, which is part of that sentence needing a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobrion1 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saladin[edit]

Santasa99 The reason I made that edit was because Saladin was the sultan of both Egypt and Syria. The way it reads now: 

  "Ayyubid ruler of  Egypt, sultan Saladin"

is both redundant and incomplete. I suggest: the Ayyubid sultan Saladin. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making this clear and for choosing this way to communicate it. I am not against your suggestion, the line will retain enough info, and life will continue speeding forward anyway, but I am really unable to see why is redundant and incomplete if includes "ruler of Egypt," - that bit of text was there before my intervention anyway. With it, we get three significant and interesting connections in one small line of text - namely, that person is of this particular dynasty, that he ruled Egypt in that moment of history, and it's Saladin - reader wouldn't have to go and search in his article to see if he was a ruler of something, or if his family was a dynasty or if he was just some fluke of history. Anyway, thanks again and happy holidays.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Santasa99 The reason I thought it redundant was the use of "ruler" and "sultan" in the same thought. And, as he was also sultan of Syria (which may be of more interest to the life of Baldwin IV) just referring to Egypt was incomplete. The closest thing I could find that covers both regions is Ayyubid sultan, but that's probably getting too picky. I tend to be sparse in my write-ups, others like to spread the information around like it is now. The subtleties I'm bringing up are definitely lost on most, so the current version is fine with me. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, OK, I understand. You decide how to proceed. As noted before, I am not opposed to your suggestion, and thanks for the explanation.---౪ Santa ౪99° 00:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Baldwin IV of Jerusalem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 12:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Good day User:Surtsicna: I will be your reviewer for this, the first GA nomination of the article Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. As you know, I am an apprentice-reviewer, much less experienced than you. Also consider that I have no prior knowledge of the subject. Please tell me when I go wrong. I see the article is rated "C-Class" at present. The prose is 27 kB (4557 words). I applied the Rater script the article, which rated it "B or higher" with a confidence of 97.7%. This sounds all very positive.

I start a first traverse.

English variety[edit]

  • Please add the English Variety (wp:engvar) under the Short description.
I am not a native speaker, so I am not sure how to classify the variety I wrote it in :D Surtsicna (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I. See MOS:ENGVAR. The subject does not have a strong binding to England or America (MOS:TIES), but as it has links to European history, I would propose British English by adding {{Use British English|date=February 2022}}, unless you are used to write American English and feel strongly about it. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you should add the tag to indicate the article's English variety. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Johannes Schade (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

  • Image. - The image gives a copyright warning: "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."
I thought that to be resolved by the note below saying (in bold): "This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States." Is it not? Surtsicna (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Accepted. You are right. There is a statement saying "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that 'faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain.' This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States." This is contradicted by the warning appearing in the block above which reads "You must also include a United States public domain tag". I do not really know what prevails. Let us accept it as is for the moment. The specialist image review will tell us how to resolve it.
  • Alt text. - Should this infobox not also comprise an |alt= parameter?
 Done Surtsicna (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Lead length. - The lead comprises four paragraphs for a prose length of 27 kB. WP:LEADLENGTH prescribes "two or three paragraphs" of lead for a prose length of "15,000–30,000 characters" (about 15 to 30 kB). You might want to shorten the lead or extend the text, which is rated "mid-inportannce" and therefore perhaps a bit short.
Lead shortened. I am afraid that extending the article might dilute it, as its content is based on a comprehensive biography. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Accepted.
  • 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... after his father died and he became king in 1174.. - I suggest "... after he succeeded his father in 1174." or similar. You will find a better formulation.
Changed before I saw this suggestion. I removed the year because it is already stated, while father's death is not. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Accepted.
  • 2nd paragraph, penultimate sentence: the king and nobleman. - I suggest "the King together with the nobleman", or "the King together with Lord", or "the King together with Seigneur", or similar. You will find better. Should not the word "king" be capitalised as "King" when it is The king? Should not the definite article be repeated unless the precise title is given; the question being what Châtillon's correct title was at that time: lord , seigneur, or else? You are the subject expert. I found "king and nobleman" confusing because on first view I interpreted it as meaning that Châtillon was king.
Changed to "the king and the nobleman Raynald"; hopefully that's clearer. "King" is a common noun and should only be capitalized when preceding a name according to every style guide I have found; Wikipedia's own style guide is infamously murky. I simply went with the usage in the biography cited in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Accepted.
  • 3nd paragraph, penultimate sentence: large fraction of nobility. - I suggest "large fraction of the nobility" (definite article added).
 Not done Don't you agree?
 Done Quite obviously you disagree. I accept. Your English might be better.
  • 3nd paragraph, last sentence: he was capable of uniting quarreling nobility. - I suggest "he was capable of uniting the quarreling nobility." (definite article added). Note that the form "quarreling" is American English and must be changed should British English be chosen above as the article's dialect.
Done. I hope you'll suggest which variety should be chosen. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I feel it is up to you to choose what you want or think right.

More to come. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood[edit]

I find the 1st paragraph is too short to adequately cover its subject, the birth, origins, and childhood until his father's 2nd marriage.

  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... was the count of Jaffa and Ascalon.. - I suggest to change to "... was then count of Jaffa and Ascalon and the only brother of the reigning King Baldwin III." or a similar better formulation by you. The replacement "the [[count" to "then [[count" would serve to stress that his father would not stay count but rise.
Amalric's rise is explained in the same paragraph, but I suppose it does not cost much to add "then" too :) Surtsicna (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, citation: Hamilton 2005, p. 23. - This is the first citation in the nomination. It cites Hamilton (2005), which can be previewed in Google Books. I checked text-source integrity (WP:INTEGRITY) against the source.
 Done All seems to be fine. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence, citation: Hamilton 2005, p. 26. - This is the second citation from Hamilton. I wanted to make another text-source integrity spot check, but page 26 is not part of the preview in Google Books. I could ask you to provide me with the relevant excerpt as you probably have this book on your shelf. However, I would rather that we could agree to change from the 2005 edition to the 2000 edition, which can be read entirely in Internet Archive. A couple of cross-checks seem to show that the text and the page numbers are identical in the two editions. Only the years of publication in the {{Sfn}}s and the description of the book in the source list would need to be adapted. You would also make it easier for readers and future reviewers to look up that source.
Replace 2005 edition with 2000 edition, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johannes Schade, are you certain that the online version of the entire book is not a copyright violation? I am struggling to see how it might not be. If it is, it is likely to be deleted, so the change would be for nothing. Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Surtsicna. It is good to be careful and think about such possible issues, but Internet Archive (IA) normally respects copyright. I had a look at the case of the "Leper King". I expected that it would have beeen published in IA's "Books to Borrow" collection, which gives access to books held by certain public libraries that have an agreement with IA. These books can be taken out only by registered users for limited time based on the library's right to lend books it owns to members of the public. However, I find that the "Leper King" is in the "opensource" collection. I guess that this is possible because Cambridge University Press supports open access. I have referred to books in IA extensively in more than 1000 sources cited in Wikipedia and had only one case where such a book was later retracted. I therefore feel that we should still go ahead with the suggested change. It would of course be nice if there were a way how to also cite Google Books as a fall-back. I have never seen this done but why not? One could add a remark at the end of the description saying " – This book is also found in Google Books, where the 2005 reprint can be previewed." Otherwise, if you prefer, refer to the 2005 Google Books but add a similar remark to the description in the source list saying " – This is a preview. Some citations may not be found. The entire book has been made available by Internet Archive]" Johannes Schade (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done now! Surtsicna (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you changed your |year= from 2005 to 2000 but the |url= still points to Google Books. So the reader or reviewer can still not look at page 26 because it is not part of the the preview.
 Not done The URL still points to Google Books
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... who joked that his christening present to his nephew was the Kingdom of Jerusalem.. - I suggest to change "was" to "would be" (future in the past) to stress that it would happen later.
I am not sure if that is the intended meaning. "When a member of the court asked what christening present he intended to give the child he laughingly replied, 'The Kingdom of Jerusalem.' It must have seemed a frivolous remark at the time, for Baldwin was only thirty-one and had recently married a young and beautiful wife, so that the likelihood of his nephew’s inheriting the throne appeared remote." To me it reads like he did not seriously mean for Baldwin to ever get the kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I do essentially agree with your interpretatioin. I think he was afraid it might happen like this. Of course he hoped to have a son who would succeed him. I suggested the future in the past only to prevent the interpretation that the child would get the Kingdom of Jerusalem immediately at his birth. But if you do not like it, I will not insist. It is just a suggestion.
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: The king was then young and married, but died childless in 1163.. - I suggest to explain in more detail by changing to "The king was then 31 and had just married. A nephew's succession looked therefore unlikely, but he died childless two years later and was succeeded by his brother Amalric, Baldwin's father, in 1163."
Done, except the part about Amalric's accession because it was not so straightforward and is explained instead in the following sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence: The High Court forced Amalric to agree to an annulment of his marriage to Baldwin's mother, Agnes of Courtenay, in order to be accepted as king. - The High Court's demand is not understandable without explaining that his parents had been cousins and had married without asking for an exemption. The article Agnes of Courtenay discusses the posibility that there were also other reasons.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • 1st paragraph, 6th sentence: Amalric succeeded in having his and Agnes's children, Sibylla and Baldwin, declared legitimate. - Consider adding "despite the annulment" at the end of the sentence. The article about Maria Komnene, Queen of Jerusalem says Amalric successfully appealed to Pope Alexander III to keep Sibylla and Baldwin legitimate.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • 1st paragraph, 7th sentence: Baldwin grew up without a mother and seldom saw his sister, Sibylla .... - Somewhere it should be explained what became of his mother and why he could not see her.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

More to come, greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to more. Your examination of related articles is impressive. Surtsicna (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: The Kingdom of Jerusalem and other crusader states were ruled by Frank ... - Surely important introductory information, but I feel it comes too late here. I would insert this and other introductory material after the 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph. It would also be nice if the 1st sentence could give a place of birth in addition to a birthdate. I feel the father should be introduced with more detail which probably would take the form of one or more sentences after the 2nd sentence. Then an introduction of his mother. Only then the anecdote about is uncles christening present.
  • The way I've structured the section is that the first paragraph explains his family background while the second explains his cultural background, tying in with his education and the stigmatized illness he contracted. The anecdote with the uncle serves to frame Baldwin and his father as members of the royal family. I fear that the family paragraph would be broken by moving the highlighted sentence into it, while the education paragraph (mentioning "an essential skill for a Frankish nobleman") would be somewhat cut off from the cultural context. Surtsicna (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good day Surtsicna. The article needs to introduce the reader better to the subject, right at the beginning. The first section is called "Youth". It needs another section before "Youth" that gives background: his parents, family, politics, country. I usually call this section "Birth and origins", others call it "Birth and family", or just "Background".
 Not done, more background needed Johannes Schade (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, Johannes Schade Johannes Schade (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: Sancerre - I suggest to change this to "Sancerre, France," for clarity. The text should be understandable without forcing the reader to follow links. I had not known where Sancerre was and wondered whether it was in France or in one of the Crusader states.
Does this work? "to marry Count Stephen I of Sancerre, France, who would rule the kingdom as regent" looks potentially confusing. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Yes, your solution is good.
I find this episode would merit some more detail. Why was Stephen of Sancerre chosen?
  • 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence, citation: Hamilton 2005, p. 31 - Another page not accessible in Google books.
  • 4th paragraph, last sentence, citation: Hamilton 2005, p. 32 - Another page not accessible in Google books.

Accession[edit]

  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, citation: Hamilton 2005, p. 32 - Another page not accessible in Google books.
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, citation: Hamilton 2005, p. 38 - Another page not accessible in Google books.
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence, 1st citation: Hamilton 2005, p. 31 - Another page not accessible in Google books.
  • 1st paragraph, 3th sentence, 2nd citation: Runciman 1952, p. 404 - This is the first citation from Runciman (1852) Volume 2. The book can be read at Internet Archive. Please ad the parameter |url= with value @https://archive.org/details/historyofcrusade0002runc/@ to its description in the source list.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done} Johannes Schade (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence: Female succession ... - This sentence sounds as if females could only succeed to the throne if they were married and major. Neither the former not the latter is true. Try to be clearer. I think you are trying here to explain what would have happened had Baldwin been excluded for leprosy. I suggest Say so. State what the succession rule was, if you can find this somewhere.
The previous sentence says that there was "no viable alternative", and the highlighted sentence explains why Baldwin's sister and half-sister were not viable alternatives despite having strong claims. In this case I do not know how to be clearer without repeating what is already written in the same paragraph. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done What is confusing is the "unmarried", explain why it is relevant, otherwise just give her age instead. Johannes Schade (talk), Johannes Schade (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence, citation: Hamilton 2005, p. 40 - Another page not accessible in Google books.
  • 1st paragraph, 6th sentence, citation: Hamilton 2005, p. 40–41 - Another page not accessible in Google books.
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, 1st citation: Hamilton 2005, p. 32 - Another page not accessible in Google books.
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, 2nd citation: Hamilton 2005, p. 41 - Another page not accessible in Google books.
  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: 15 July was chosen ... - It looks awkward to start a sentence with a number in digits. Write the number out or better reformulate. PLease give a complete date inclusive the year (1174) as the year had not yet been mentioned in the present paragraph or even section (Normally you can drop the year out of subsequent dates in the same paragraph if it is the same year.)
Sentence rephrased. Year added. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another remark: Wikipedia has an article about the 2005 movie Kingdom of Heaven (film) by Ridley Scott. It could perhaps be mentioned in a section "In fiction", but the film is fiction and deviates widely from known history in many respects.

You'll find it mentioned later on, though very briefly :) Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accession[edit]

  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: ... from his second marriage Amalric had two daughters, of which only Isabella survived infancy.. - I suggest to turn this part of the sentence around and introduce the term "half-sister": "... he had two half-sisters from his father's second marriage of which only Isabella survived infancy."
That was my first instinct too, but then we have to either start another sentence with "Baldwin" or with an ambiguous pronoun, since "he" could then refer to both Baldwin and Amalric. Surtsicna (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done What about: "Baldwin was the King's only son. From his father's second marriage he had two half-sisters of which only Isabella survived infancy. Female succession ...", Johannes Schade (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence: ... but Sibylla was an unmarried adolescent and Isabella only two years old. - I suggest you try to clarify. What should this mean? The text says that female succession was allowed, but this formulation might be interpreted to mean that female succession was only possible if the candidate was major and married. I doubt that this was so. I would think that if Baldwin IV had died before Baldwin V's birth, Sibylla would have been queen. This was indeed what happened when Baldwin V died young. The succession rule seems to have been the nearest relative but brothers before sisters. Don't you agree? Some sources say the monarch was elected by the High Court, but the High Court seems to have always followed the succession rule, except perhaps when Baldwin II succeeded Baldwin I. Those were quite distant relatives and their relationship seems not to be well established.
Explained here. The sentence needs to be read in the context of the entire paragraph, which says that there were no viable alternatives to Baldwin IV. The sentence then explains why he was not passed over in favour of Sibylla or Isabella. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: 15 July was chosen rather than a Sunday .... - I suggest you try to clarify. The sentence does not make sense, but Hamilton 2005 p 41–42 explains all this very well. The reader should not be forced to look up the source to understand the text.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regency[edit]

  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... and succeed in claiming regency as the king's closest kinsman.. - You mean "succeeded". It would be good to explain that Raymond III was Barldwin's 2nd cousin once removed and t(Lead) hat the common ancestor was his great-grandfather King Baldwin II.
Raymond was Baldwin's first cousin once removed. He is introduced in the previous section as Baldwin's father's cousin, so I fear it would be an overkill to restate the relationship (which is also illustrated in a chart later on). Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done There is no overkill as it is made clear only here that he was Baldwin's nearest male relative. He is indeed already introduced in the first paragraph of the previous section, but there he only appears as the last in a list of three cousins and is called "a virtual stranger". The reader might be surprised that he reappears and obtains such an important position, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, citation: Mitchell 2005, p. 249. - This is the first citation from Mitchell's contribution in Hamilton's book. Add the |pages= and set it to "245–258". Replace the value in the |url= with "https://archive.org/details/historyofcrusade0002runc/".
Pages done. I think you got the link wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done You are right. I gave you Runciman instead of Hamilton. I still think you should cite hamilton in Internet Archive rather than Google Books, But at least we ave the pages right.
  • 3rd paragraph,last sentence: William of Montferrat. - I suggest to explain that William of Montferrat was the eldest son of William V, Marquis of Montferrat in Piedmont, NW Italy.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal rule[edit]

  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: ... Baldwin reached the age of majority .... - I suggest you explain that majority was attained at 15 in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Done. (I wonder if a date of birth could be inferred from this. RS do not speculate on it.) Surtsicna (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Planned offensive[edit]

  • 1st paragraph, last sentence: ... in a raid of the Beqaa Valley, .... - I suggest you explain "Beqaa Valley, in modern Lebanon,".
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence: . - "... he lacked support of the nobility". - Please consider changing to "he lacked the support of the nobility" (add definite article).
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted a suggestion in the section Childhood about changing from Hamilton 2005 to Hamilton 2000. Please have a look. More to come. Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Surtsicna please act on the outstanding suggestions. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Schade, I've addressed your concerns so far. I look forward to more! Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Surtsicna, thanks for your fixes. Please act on the following problems that still exist in the parts covered above before we progress further" -quarreling -> quarrelling Johannes Schade (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Surtsicna. There has not been activity on this review since a long time. I am failing this. I am afraid I havebeen too demanding and have been tiring you out of this. I hope you can find a better reviewer and get the GA that you merit. I still believe that the article starts off too fast and needs a more explicit introduction of Bardwin's family background in the first section. With best wishes, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mask?[edit]

O que leprosos usavam no rosto para encobrir as suas feridas, é possível que baldwin tenha usado algo para esconde-las? Abwiwjd82929we (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What language did baldwin speak[edit]

Idk 2A0D:6FC7:55E:E225:81CE:2D5F:C6A8:B644 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He spoke French, and probably learned a little Latin as well. Some crusaders were able to speak Arabic fluently, but apparently none of the kings of Jerusalem did. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian ancestry[edit]

In light of the recent edit-warring, I would say it's pretty easily to find discussion of his ancestry in his biography (Hamilton, pg. 57, mentions "Armenian great-grandmothers on both sides of his family"), but I also don't think this is particularly relevant for Baldwin IV. Why mention it here instead of in Amalric's article? Or Sibylla's? It's far more relevant for the articles about previous generations of his family. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

someone tell king peach to stop editing[edit]

bro you are yapping quit adding stuff 96.40.37.185 (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baldwin_IV_of_Jerusalem&oldid=1219340262"