Talk:Crusades/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Early Talk

Why is this at Crusade (singular)? The name of the thing is "The Crusades," right? It's not like this is an article about the concept of a crusade, for example--it's about the Crusades. --Larry Sanger

Short answer: it "just happened" that way :-) Longer answer: early on there was discussion about whether articles should be named in singular or plural, and the consensus at the time was singular. The ideas of that applying to common versus proper nouns were still being sorted out, so this is what happened. There's no reason it can't be fixed now. --Alan Millar

The other thing is that the *period* was "The Crusades," but what if someone is just looking for a non-specific crusade? Not to put up a dictionary definition of crusade, but it does have a non-historical meaning. Kate Secor

I'm not a history buff but wasn't there more than one crusade? If this article considers more than one crusade then I think it should be moved to Crusades or The Crusades, whichever is more historically accurate Jaberwocky6669 20:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect its been renamed back and forth a number of times. But probably the reasoning for the current nameing is 1) There is no "The" for multiple reasons and 2) it is in the singular as that is Wikipedian nameing convention. Stbalbach 20:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the first section

I have found no evidence for the information in the first section (about the warrior class that needed an outlet for their violence). None of my other research has anything on that. The Crusades were really to capture back the Holy Land and protect trade routes with Asia. Andrew Donnellan <andrew@heritagelinux.tk>

Where have you been looking, that you found no evidence? "Protecting trade routes" is an anachronistic motivation: not until the 16yth century would that motivate action. What's your textbook? --Wetman 02:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Why did Columbus try to find a water route to India in 1492 (15th century)? While this was after the last "official" crusade, it was because of the danger in land trade routes. As the Muslums progressed across the middle east and into Asia minor it was becoming more dangerous for traders to go to India even in the 12th century.

I agree with Andrew. The proximate cause was plainly military: Christianity, after having lost 70% of its territory to Muslim invaders, finally decided that it was necessary to put up a fight. (And yes, it was about 70%: North Africa, Asia Minor, the Middle East, even Iberia, much of Easter Europe, etc.) If there were any expected economic benefits, focusing on them is sort of like saying that Roosevelt fought World War II as a Keynesian economic cure, or to stabilize his political base. Such speculation of ulterior motives is not helpful or necessary when there is plainly sufficient cause established elsewhere. -- Dan M.

There were four main reasons for the Crusades. First,
the pope hoped to unite the entire eastern Mediter-
ranean and the divided Christian West under the ban-
ner of the Latin Church. Second, the Italian city-states,
with their large navies, hoped for commercial gains
and were therefore keen supporters of the Crusades.
Third, the Byzantine Empire was in a severe decline
and could no longer act as a buffer between the Mus-
lim East and the Catholic West. Finally, the Seljuk
Turks, declining in military power, were no longer
able to ensure the safety of Christian pilgrims
visiting the holy sites. By 1097 the Frankish and Ger-
manic knights, eager to reap their shares of booty and
glory, were ready to conquer the "infidel" and secure
the Holy Land for Christendom. These crusaders were
preceded by a Peasants' Crusade where land-hungry
peasants journeyed east, only to have their hopes
deflated in an alien land; most quickly returned home.

Here are some select quotes from The Western Experience to 1715 Fifth edition by Chambers, Grew, Herlihy, Rabb, and Woloch:

The Crusades were viewed by those who part-
icipated in them primarily as acts of religious
devotion

Social and economic motivation also con-
tributed to these holy enterprises. The age of
mass pilgramages and crusades, from about
1050 to 1250, corresponds to the periods in
medieval history in which the European pop-
ulation was growing most rapidly. The cru-
sades may be considered one further example
of the expanding Western frontier, similar in
motivation and character to the Spanish Re-
conquista or the German push East.

Parental lands were often not large enough
to provide support for younger sons. Pope 
Urban apparently believed that this land
shortage created social problems

An additional problem was that
knights were educated to do little but fight,
and it was natural for them to place their
chief hopes for wealth, honor, and social ad-
vance in war. The growth of the fuedal prin-
cipalities, the efforts of the Church to restrict
fighting, and the slow pacification of Euro-
pean society that these policies were bringing
threatened to leave the knights poor, unho-
nored, and unemployed.

The crusades were first and foremost a spiritual enterprise.

After the conquest of the Seljuk Turks, pilgri-
mages became more difficult and dangerous.

The crusades, in fact, appealed strongly to the warlike
instincts of feudal nobles. The Normans were especially stirred
by the prospect of adventure and plunder which the crusading
movement opened up.

The crusades also attracted the lower classes. The misery
of the common people in medieval Europe was so great that for
them it seemed not a hardship, but rather a re-
lief, to leave their homes in order to better them-
selves abroad.

It seems to me that while this Wikipedia article is a good start, it needs some expanding to more completely reflect all of the complex factors that motivated the Crusades.--12.74.48.207 22:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Heathcliff 03:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)(added new signature since I just created an account)

Those good summaries ought to be better reflected in the article, Andrew. Here is the reason for that bit about "an outlet for violence": maybe it should be quoted verbatim. Urban II's crusade sermon at Clermont was reported various ways. In one report he said: "An outlet for their violence" is harder to capture in the act, but Urban's exhortation at Clermont includes this observation: Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. [1]Wetman 23:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I found no evidence for Andrew's assertion that protecting trade routes motived the Crusades, I did find two related motivating factors as seen in the quotes above: Many people saw a chance to profit either by plunder (Normans), navy profits (Italians), gaining their own lands (lesser sons of nobility), finding a better life (peasants). The other factor was the desire to protect routes used by pilgrims to sites in the holy land. Perhaps he conflated these two things. In any event these two motivating factors should be worked into the article with any others that are not there already.--Heathcliff 03:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lesser sons of nobility is a falacy. Many first born nobles sold their possessions, property and otherwise to finace their fight. Well known European kings and high nobility took part in the crusades for none other than to defend Christians in origianlly Chrisitian lands.

Keep in mind that you are mostly discussing motivations for the First Crusade, not crusades in general, which weren't really some monolithic thing with a specific motivation. Adam Bishop 06:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think many of the motivations for the first carry over the to others. Either because the motivation was still there or indirectly (x motivated the first, and the first motivated the second). I'll point out that the sources I took the quotes above from were discussing the causes in general and not just the first one. I also don't find the causes listed to be in any way specific (I listed at least 4 of them depending on how you group them and if you narrow them down to four then you have several variation on some of them). However, if some reasons apply directly to only some Crusades and not others, I think it would be worthwhile to explain that in the article. Are there any particulars you wanted to point out? For example, reason x was a factor in the first and second but not later cursades or y was a factor only for the first.--Heathcliff 12:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, from From World History Combined Edition: First, the pope's desire to unite the churches is a minor factor in many of them, so that's true - the Byzantine emperor frequently teased the west with this prospect. Second, the Italians did participate when commercial gains were available, but they tended not to help out unless the crusade was already successful, as in the First, or they came at other times when there was no specific crusade called. Except for the Fourth, of course :) The third and fourth reasons are more problematic. The Byzantines wanted help at the end of the 11th century, but were pretty annoyed whenever another crusade showed up (and when they actually did want help in the 14th and 15th centuries, no one in the west cared anymore). Lastly, I don't think you can say the peasants were land-hungry. The peasants were probably the most religious of all the First Crusaders. What do they know about owning land? What would they do with it? Peasants are only a major factor in the First Crusade anyway (no other peasant crusade made it out of Europe).

And so on for the other quotes (they are mostly good quotes though). I think when people ask what motivated "the crusades", they really mean the First, which is the hardest to analyse. Adam Bishop 16:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article starts with "The Crusades were a series of military campaigns waged in the name of Christendom". Shouldn't it say something more along the lines of "The Crusades were a series of armed pilgrimages waged in the name of Christendom." "Military campaigns" implies a set leadership and leader with stategic goals and plans in mind, which the 1st 1 didn't have. This may not be true of the latter efforts, but surely accurate of the 1st Crusade. --220.253.74.151 10:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Most crusades were fought by and under diverse leaders, who often even competed against each other or operated almost independently. I beleive military campaigns is actually used to refer the fractious leadership, as opposed to the word wars, and to refer to the crusades as a collective whole rather than singling out the first. Hope that helps.--Tigeroo 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea of "armed pilgrimages" is covered in the intro as well. However, the Crusades were miliary campaigns as well (hence the Pope addressed knights and nobility, not peasants). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Er ... may I suggest something like an "undertaking" instead of "war" or "campaign"? A neutral word would cover any kind of a crusade: from organized (however poorly) military expedition to the "Children's Crusade." How about that? You native English speakers think up better word :) —Barbatus 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Crusade and Jihad are NOT the Same

Only Westerners who know little about Islam equate the terms Crusade and Jihad. jihad simply means effort or struggle. For the believing Muslim there is a greater jihad and a lesser jihad. The greater jihad is the struggle (effort) to follow the dictates of Islam ("struggle in the way of Allah"), much like the believing Christians struggle to follow the 10 Commandments. The lesser jihad is defensive war against those who attack the Muslim community.

If someone is not confused about the difference between ideology and fact, they will not claim that Muslim expansion is "defensive". Are "Westerners" the only people on earth who know that people need an excuse, before they will go to war? And lacking a real excuse, there are several ready made: "defense" against an attack on the "community" is precisely the excuse made by Christian crusaders. Mkmcconn 15:52, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There's something not right about this sentence: Later crusades were called against the remaining pagan nations of Europe such as Polabians, Lithuania [1] and against heresy, the crusade against Bohemia, 1418-1437.

Tenth Crusade

I have removed this from the article:

Though not a part of the medieval Crusades, some commentators have taken to referring to the wars that have followed the September 11, 2001 attacks (first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq) as the Tenth Crusade. Most of those using this term are steadfast opponents of the wars, with columnist Alexander Cockburn generally being credited with coining the term.

Is that really appropriate here? It reminds me of the Sixth pillar of Islam article. "Crusade" may not always have been very well defined in the past, but this supposed crusade certainly doesn't fit here. Adam Bishop 15:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In response to a question in a edit description about whether the tenth crusade is a wikipedia notable concept, I'd like to say it googles 328,000 hits, the majority of which appear to be this usage of the phrase 'tenth crusade'. By contrast, the sixth crusade only googles 316,000. The argument of the Tenth Crusade thesis is that the current war is actually the latest instalment of the historical crusdades, so the information absolutely should be on this page. XmarkX 06:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Me Again (Cheers!!!)

So I conducted a very interesting scientific experiment involving the word "Tyrant" (you know... those guys that took over Greece for a couple hundred years) on your magic crystal ball google - Here are my scientific results.

Cypselus - The first Tyrant. The guy that started it all, I typed his name with the world "tyrant" in google.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,310 for Cypselus is a Tyrant. (0.30 seconds)

Mickey Mouse - Approximately 3 foot tall mouse, symbol of happiness and hugs to children all over the world. Hidden Tyrant?

Results 1 - 10 of about 30,600 for Mickey Mouse is a Tyrant. (0.21 seconds)

Jesus, God to more than 2 billion people across the planet. Crucified for preeching happiness and kindness to everybody - megalomaniac in disguise?

Results 1 - 10 of about 218,000 for Jesus is a Tyrant. (0.30 seconds)

Broccoli - A disgusting vegetable that appears to grow a green fro in full maturity, served to children who hate it. Tyrant?

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,300 for Broccoli is a Tyrant. (0.33 seconds)

Oh.... oh my God! How did we miss this!! QUICK! Somebody add Mickey Mouse, Jesus, and Broccoli to the Tyrant thread!... or at least a link! They have more google responses than the first tyrant in history did!

(interesting fact: Broccoli is also apparently a Crusade.

Results 1 - 10 of about 31,400 for broccoli is a crusade. (0.33 seconds) )

Cheers

It seems you are right (if uncivil in your sarcasm) - Googling with brackets "tenth crusade" only gets 732. Still, that's not far behind, say, "ninth crusade" with 971, so I still think that the number of hits indicates it has some kind of currency, if not as much as I originally thought using my flawed search string.XmarkX 13:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Cheers with Love You don't seem to get it. Google is not an accurate tool for determining what should be put into any thread.

Check out what happens when I put "I am Brocolli" in brackets Results 1 - 10 of about 414 for "I am Broccoli". (0.28 seconds) Apparently there are at least 414 vegetables that have figured out english and started using the internet. It is not a convincing argument.

Just give up - we had a nice solution for a good five days before you came back to disrupt it.

Cheers.

By the way you are not using an acurate method for your expirement, if you really wanted to find out wether or not Mickey Mouse is truly a tyrant you would go to advanced Search, its to the right of the text box on Google's hompage and you would enter the phrase u want in the box labaled "with the exact phrase", using this methoed there are only two hits for Mickey Mouse Is A Tyrant, one of them this page.

Cathars

I have to wonder why the ALbegensian Crusade is listed, the Northern (Slavic) Crusades are shifted off and the Spanish Reconquest is not listed at all. The scope seems to be a little blurred. This article should deal with just Jerusalem with links to related actions, or include everything exhaustivly. I would like some opinion before progressing in the former tack.Dominick 15:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know from talking to other contributers that we have had a hard time figuring out what to include as a "crusade." They didn't call them crusades at the time, and lots of minor things sometimes get lumped in as "crusades" as well, so there hasn't been a good definition here. Adam Bishop 16:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, a crusade would be preached by a Church Leader. Crusade I - IX would qualify. The Pauper's and Children's crusades would be exceptions that make the rule. The Slavic Crusade was a german incursion. The Norma conquest was not preached by the pope, but blessed by it. Dominick 18:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Would the 6th Crusade by a Crusade by that definition?--Heathcliff 23:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the time Crusade was a more or less juristical definition. The Pope (and the Pope alone) could define a military action as a Crusade, which then gave the participants certain rights and privileges. One of the reasons the term fell in disrepute was that some popes used it for their own ends. 213.47.127.75 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Table

I'm thinking about adding a table to each crusade listed in this article, to facilitate quick browsing. Something along the lines of:

Preceded by:
previous crusade'

Crusades

Followed by: next crusade

(The term "followed" may imply continuity, and should thus probably be replaced.)

An alternative is to use a wiki message such as the one I created at User:Itai/Crusade.

Any thoughts?

-- Itai 23:48, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like Itai's idea, although that still leaves the problem of what to consider a crusade (but I guess that is a problem with a box at the bottom too). Adam Bishop

The deed is deeded. -- Itai 13:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea too :)

"Crusade" and "Jihad"

This text is not history: There is an interesting symmetry between the terms "Crusade" and "Jihad." In the West the term "Crusade" has positive connotations (for example a politician might use rhetoric such as "a crusade against illegal drugs") while the term "Jihad" has negative connotations associated with fanatical holy war. In the Islamic world the term "Jihad" has positive connotations that include a much broader meaning of general personal and spiritual struggle, while the term "Crusade" has the negative connotations described above. Thus it is viewed by some that to correctly translate nuances of meaning, the use of "Jihad" in Arabic should be translated to "Crusade" in English while use of the Arabic term for "Crusade" should be translated to "Jihad" in English.

Whenever the passive voice of non-attribution in a phrase like "it is viewed by some" appears in any sentence, watch for the agenda. Here, it is that the "correct" nuances of meaning are the negative connotations inspired by the "other" kind of jihad/crusade. Our "feelings" about this subject belong elsewhere. Wetman 06:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"The term "crusade" has since carried a connotation in the west of being a "righteous campaign," usually to "root out evil," or to fight for a just cause. In the Arab world, the equivalent term is jihad, while "crusade" is a term which connotes a hostile and foreign invasion by "infidels," those disrespectful or defiling of the Muslim culture." This apparently balanced and descriptive text has been dropped out today, and the word jihad doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the current Crusade entry. If the Christian concept of a "holy struggle" did indeed come from Hispanic experiences of jihad, this is not neutral history. If it did not, then this widespread misconception should be addressed. Is it considered contentious nowadays even to mention jihad in the context of "Crusade"? Wetman 23:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's still there, with the jihad reference, I just moved it down into the new section about the origin of the term "crusade", where I thought it fit better. Adam Bishop 06:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why, so it is! My error: I found it. M'goodness, that is discreet. Wetman 06:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed :) By the way, since we seem to be the only two major editors to this articles lately, do you think we should coordinate our efforts in some way? I will be trying to expand the "influences on Europe" and "origins of the term" sections when I have more time...but do you think there is any other general information that needs to be added? I know there must be plenty of stuff to add that I haven't thought of. Adam Bishop 15:18, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Surely jihad - holy struggle - and crusade - imperialistic religous war - mean very different things?? (ricjl 02:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC))

But, Ricjl, most people don't use crusade to mean "imperialistic religious war." Some do, but some people also use jihad to mean that as well. Christians argue that claiming that crusade means "imperialistic religious war" is wrong just as much as Muslims argue that claim that jihad means "imperialistic religious war" is wrong.

The concept of Jihad as expressed in this text is a Western Concept, which I agree upon is copied by some groups who call themselves Muslims. It's not the original Islamic concept, as Jihad is not a crusade to rid the world from infidels, it's a defence against attacks from enemies of Islam. Only defence of Islamic ground, which means according to most scholars that attacks on enemy grounds are not permitted. Secondly Jihad is used in the sense of personal strive and the word strive is the only correct translation of Jihad--Ameer 13:57, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Jihad is most certainly not a defensive struggle. Reply back and I will fill you in... that is, unless you are just trying to impose your "Islam=Peace" lies on people.--Absent 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there is absolutely no need to insult other users. Gugganij 23:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Now there's just some small niggling part of me that can't help but think that Ameer who identifies himself as "Muslim" on his userpage, may have a better understanding of what the word Jihad means, than Absent whose userpage says "The truth about ISLAM is Intolerance, Slaughter, Looting, Arson and Molestation of women" - heck, I'd probably point out that Ameer doesn't seem to be 'Intolerant' since he appears to have studied Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, and both Tibetan and Zen Buddhism...so erm...yeah...one person in this disagreement seems to be fairly open-minded and neutral, while the other is very proud of the fact he's here to advance an anti-Islam agenda - I wonder which one I side with? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

People, people...let us not be trolled. Adam Bishop 01:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lacking Detail

All these crusaders series have little information/bacground on Muslim territories. What was happening there before crusaders' invasion? What emirs/sultans were ruling what part? How the crusaders effected all that? How it united them?

All these articles First Crusade, Second Crusade, Third Crusade, etc. need a new section that goes into background and more detail on how Arabs/Muslims viewed the crusaders at that time, how it effected them, what was happening there just before the invasion. (OneGuy Oct. 12, 2004

I'll second that! And I bet many of the appropriate articles (good or bad) have already been created and just need to be linked from each Crusade. There's gotta be someone with a better overall view than me! Wetman 08:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think some of that info is floating around in various places - the articles on the caliphates, the Crusader states, the kings of Jerusalem, the battles, the various Muslim leaders...it's just not in one unified spot at the moment. That's a good idea though. Adam Bishop 12:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think there is a book called Crusades Through Arab Eyes. If anyone has read it or has access to it, it would be easy to combine/present all this info in shorter coherent form that relates to the topic. (OneGuy Oct. 12, 2004

There is also "The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives" by Carole Hillenbrand, although I don't have that with me. "The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517" by P.M. Holt is good too, I have that one here, it's a little shorter though. Adam Bishop 13:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rephrasing needed for the final sentence in an upcoming Featured Article

The POV word successful popped out at me when looking at an upcoming Featured Article: the First Crusade. This is just asking for angry reaction from anyone outside of Christendom. Due to the urgency of this, I am unilaterally changing the sense of the sentence to something like the crusades which followed were relative failures. Ancheta Wis 10:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Please respond or fix the sentence if you wish.

In history writing, "success" and "failure" are doubly assessed, both by the standards of the time and by the long view of the historian, but they are not generally adjusted for fear of "angry reactions"— at least not in an authentically neutral discourse. "Christendom" is an odd synonym choice for "the world of professional historians and unbiased, moderately educated readers" that was surely intended by the poster. Now I've added a "'Success' and 'failure'" subsection where we can sum up the crusades in their own terms. --Wetman 19:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==="Success" and "failure"===

Though success and failure are relative terms and offer false polarities that are too simplistic for such a complicated series of phenomena, the relative successes of the Crusades are properly assessed by a double standard: Did the Crusades accomplish the overt goals expressed by contemporaries? Did the Crusades succeed in affecting Christian and Muslim cultures in the long run?

Short-term overt goals included

#Recapturing the "Holy Land"

#Reuniting Christendom under the Papacy

#Converting the "infidel"

#Providing feudal territories for adventurers

Ancheta had brought this up to contend the use of the word "success" in First Crusade's opening paragraph, which has been addressed (see also discussion). I removed the above because I'm not sure Crusade is the place to discuss the particulars of each crusade in detail, rather, each of the individual Crusade articles should contain an analysis section that outlines current major scholarly views on the Crusades (see First Crusade). --Stbalbach 19:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Crusade should provide a condensed summary of the material at the articles on individual crusades. "Success" and "failure" are terms forbidden to grade-school teachers but are employed all the time by historians to assess, well, success— and, um, failure. --Wetman 08:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Birth of the Red Cross and St. John's Ambulance?

One of the things discussed when taking a St. John's First Aid course is their involvement in early medicine, following "in the wake of the crusaders" patching up the wounded after the battle, they were originally referred to as the "Knights Hospitallers". Rather than trying to put information about this in each of the Crusade articles, it would make sense to possibly include reference to this in the primary article summarizing the crusades.

Resources:

--Kyrin\^talk 15:51, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Well, we already have a Knights Hospitaller article, and a St. John's Ambulance article, and military orders, and they are discussed in various other related articles. Adam Bishop 15:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The War on Terror as an "American Crusade"

Removed this business about an "American Crusade" in Iraq, as well as the nonsense about a British crusade after WWI. It is as intellectually useless as it is irrelevant to the topic - which to remind the author is about the Crusades not exercises in metaphor. On a more disturbing level those comments could easily be used to play upon anti-western sentiment in an already enflamed arab world. If the author wishes to make a point of it that some blatently biased scholar made such a reference, then the author can create a new seperate, objective and neutral topic leave this article for legitimate - historical crusades.

This is an encyclopedia - not a forum, and as such needs fact not speculation or (what is more likely) accusation.

Cheers

War on Terror

Once again I had to remove your juvenile "war on terror" crusade comments. It is an opinion - not a fact and as such has no place in an encyclopedia, it certainly fails neutrality. I see you have restructured to include your "war on terror" comments as some sort of example of "other uses" of the term crusade. That is a tertiary point. This thread is about the historic crusades, although it is acceptable to note that the word crusade is used outside that historic context, there is no point in taking that a step forward and providing a few examples out of the hundreds of possibilities.

If you are so insistent about applying the word crusade to the War on Terror to satisfy some incontollable urge, either create a new topic or add those comments to the "criticism" section of the War on Terror topic - that is the adequate place for an opinion. The focus of this topic is the historic crusades, not opinions of modern wars.

Cheers

Your criticisms seem fair on the surface, although an anonymous point of view seems oxymoronic - please login and sign your comments. Ignoring for a moment the vitriolics, the claims in both this section and the above have some validity, if only for the appropriate use of limited article space to deal with primary matters, and leaving secondary matters to others. But according to the view that such has any relevance at all, the "tertiary" topics should at least have a link to reference them - in this case they do not. So your proposal fails the 'consistent application of neutrality test' on that one aspect.

And while its rather typical of historians to view current events as irrelevant and trivialities in times of antiquity as paramount, this is not definitive for either encyclopedicism nor neutrality. Hence the "historian" view itself needs checking with the journalist view, which may see these events in greater and similar contexts, and at the very least offers prominent source quotations which draw such conclusions in contemporary discussion. So, in summation, I have read your objections and they are noted. -SV|t|th 23:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My Response

You've done a fantastic job of completely ignoring the issues. Although I initially suggested creating a link, I removed all the links on a second thought. The labling of the War on Terror as a Tenth Crusade, purely for the purpose of insult or to further a political agenda is not even a tertiary topic - it is completely irrelevant. Consequently I removed even the link. Shall I create a link to the word "tyrant" in the FDR thread? It was, afterall a very common insult at the time - even still today.

I think not. The labling of the War on Terror as a Tenth Crusade, in the crusade thread is fabricating history. The Pope did not declare the War on Terror to be the "will of God" in a fiery speech in France, Byzantium was left very much intact, in short there is nothing linking the War on Terror to the Crusades other than the fact it is a war that on occasion can manifest itself in Middle Eastern territories - however is certainly not restricted to that location.

As for the relevance of your "journalists" anyone with free time, an agenda, and access to the internet can find a handful of bored academics who share a crackpot idea. Are they all worthy of serious consideration? I highly doubt a reasonable person could say so.

The Crusades took place nearly a millenium ago, that is what this topic is about. I find that very much within the realm of historians, and not very much in need of augmentation from your journalists from this imaginary contemporary discussion. Is that contemporary discussion on the Crusades or the War on Terror? Aside from the buzz from a Gladiatoresque supermovie appearing this summer, I haven't heard much discussion on the Crusades - a bit of a sleepy topic actually. I do not deny that the War on Terror is a contemporary event though, with a contemporary discussion attached there to, and conveniently enough it is seperate topic on Wikipedia as well. Hint, Hint.

So in summation I have read your response, found many large interesting words - and behind them very little substance.

Cheers.

Hi - I would refer you to the above discussion of the Tenth Crusdae concept, particularly my contribution, under 'Tenth Crusade'. The inclusion of this conception of the War on Terror as a Tenth Crusade is both neutral and encyclopedically necessary as long as this is a widely held thesis. The concept of crusade is not an objective benchmark, but rather something that applies according to a contingent categorisation i.e. though we call the nine crusades 'The Crusades' now, they were not always seen as such, and certainly will not always be grouped together historically in the same way - they may one day be grouped with the War on Terror, or not - we have no way of knowing that or not. It is irrelevant to our purposes. All that matters is that people are talking about a Tenth Crusade, not just a couple of people but millions of people, it's a current concept! Google it if you don't believe me. Fortunately, you are incapable of regulating what people regard as a crusade.XmarkX04:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Anonymous user" (shall we call him/her "Cheers" for lack of a name) made some excellent points. I would say this belongs in the "See Also" section, with one or two sentences, but by giving it its own section heading in the TOC, it gives it a legitimacy on par with the rest of the article it does not deserve. This is not an Academically established concept in the mainstream of academia, this is a first and foremost a history article and the rest of the article conforms to those standards. Not every subject or topic belongs in every article, that is why we have see also sections. About the only connection between these two topics, as "Cheers" pointed out, is they both are battles in the Middle East, and even that is a loose connection. Stbalbach 04:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another one of My Condescending and Mean Spirited Responses

Stbalbach I like your suggestion. I can accept this "Tenth Crusade" nonsense in a see also section or under the "uses of the word crusade" section. In short a cross reference that does not firmly establish the historically establish "correctness" of the War on Terror as a Tenth Crusade - but does acknowledge that a small constituency uses the term. Frankly I think it should be a point of differentiation - not a point of acceptance. I reject XmarX's strange point about the Crusades being some amorphous blob in history that really had no definable character, however I concur that (wisely) in retrospect we have lumped them together. The War on Terror is a current event - let the historians of the distant future decide if there was continuity between the crusades of nearly a millenium ago, and the War on Terror in the present day. The scholarship is not so clear and convincing that one stands back and exclaims "aha! I see it!"

I simply do not see a war which unfolds on a global battlefield - not confined to one location, not even a traditional war as we understand it to be, with no religious ideology and no religious blessing, against no stated particular religion, can be considered by scholars as a crusade. There might be a few points of comparison but they are nominal-anecdotal at best. The war on terror as a tenth crusade - linked to the original crusades is a commonly used insult.

XMarkX (note, I responded to your 10th Crusade thread above), I see no reason why you are making such a fuss about the number of google hits the term is getting (some of which actually refer to the British destruction of the Caliphate after WWI). I wasn't aware history was democratically elected on google. To illustrate my point I conducted a very scientific experiment on google, the following are my results: Results 1 - 10 of about 59,600 for Bush is a Douche Bag. (0.29 seconds). Clearly, as you can see we are going to have to add a Bush section to the Douche Bag article because a sizable number of people responded affirmatively, it would be egregiously injurious if we allowed this important contemporary discussion to be fritted away as if it were some sort of unfounded insult.

You're wasting our time with googled information (henceforth use infomine.ucr.edu, they only list scholarly information.) The undeniable fact of the matter is that the overwhelming body of scholarly information suggests that the Crusades were religious wars, sanctioned by the Catholic Church to take possession of lands specifically in the middle east (with the exception of Constantinople), for the Catholic Church nearly a millenium ago.

The War on Terror is a non traditional war, involving intelligence gathering primarily, domestic policy changes wrt crime control, and yes - the military proper. It can and does take place anywhere in the world at any time, and its target is any terrorist organization regardless of what the religious adherence of the participants is. (MUK is secular nationalist incidentally, and was one of alleged "state sponsered terrorist organizations" of iraq from the 2000 trends in global terrorism report by the state department).

Cheers

Please sign your posts. SV|t|add 05:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cheers is how I sign my posts.

I see no reason to include the "War on Terror" or even a link to it in the Crusade article. Calling it the "Tenth Crusade" is a rhetoircal device. I have yet to see anyone present a historical reason for lumping the conflicts together.--Heathcliff 23:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Popular reputation

The Popular reputation section is a mess. It starts with a needless and somewhat opinionated description of popular history and then offers a description of the popular opinion of the Crusades in the west that completely fails to mention the negative reputation the Crusades have developed in recent years in the west. But most of the article is just a random string of facts about the Crusades that have little to tie them together and many of which have nothing to do the the subject of Polular reputation.--198.93.113.49 19:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) (signed belatedly)

Please sign your edits. -SV|t|add 05:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crusade VIIIII

Text of Popular repuatation section for work

In the Islamic world, however, the Crusades continue to be regarded as cruel and savage onslaughts by "the Franks" on cultured Islam, and so, for example, some of the rhetoric of Islamic fundamentalists uses the term "crusade" in this emotional context to refer to Western moves against them, and sees the crusaders' ultimate defeat as a triumph for modern Pan-Arabism.

In the context of contemporary events, a number of scholars and commentators have drawn comparisons between the United States and past empires, such as the British Empire and the Roman Empire, while others have further declared that the ""war on terrorism") can or should be viewed in the context of history as the "new crusade." They claim that the current war has identical or comparable aspects to the Crusades of antiquity —a largely religious-based military campain of European culture against countries in the Middle-East of Islamic culture. This view asserts that the United States is an inheritor of European culture, and its ties and allegiances to Europe are deeply cultural as well —hence any sociological and religious examinations of the current war may have (or does have) direct precedents in the historical articles.

The first part about it being an insult in the arab world seems to me to be a redundant point to the section on uses of the term. The second part is my biggest pet peeve with this article - i'm sure you've seen my assertions.

Cheers

A Late point by point response to Cheers

Note: Yes, I notice youre being a bit more agreeable - thats good.

"Avoiding the issues?" - You avoid the context. This is an open project and your particular standards of selectionism are not supreme here.
"Insult" - to whom?
"Advancing a political agenda" - Certainly representing a different point of view. How is that advancing an agenda?
"FDR was called a tyrant" - If true, it would be certainly appropriate to add it, and inappropriate to selectively remove from a page.
"fabricating history" - The American President himself used the term in the context of the War on Terror. That alone makes it an appropriate reference.
"not restricted to that location" - were the Crusades exclusively "location" based, no they were culturally based conflicts. This is the point you dont seem to be getting through to the synapses.
"on Pope's orders" - Was that the way all crusades began? Of course not, and even if it was, the medieval role of the Pope as the Commander in Chief of Christendom - was as political then as the US presidency is today. There is a correlation.
"journalists," free time, bored academics, crackpot ideas - you seem to quite full of this rather vitriolic characterization of your fellow editors. I find your lack of m:wikifaith disturbing.
"I highly doubt a reasonable person could say so." - What you doubt or do not is not relevant, nor do I tacitly accept your defininion of what is "reasonable." You failed to answer any of my points so far.
"The Crusades [were this and only this]" - Certainly thats not debated. What else was just that and not this now? You say "Crusades" (plural, many) took place nearly a millenium ago," which even on its surface is an absurd way to look at history.
"I find that very much within the realm of historians, and not very much in need of augmentation from your journalists from this imaginary contemporary discussion." Fair enough, and now you at least admit that all of this is about your opinion: Now lets test it: Would you say that an article on Newton cannot reference Einstein, or an article on Darwin cant talk about the influence he had on things like statistical population genetics?
"I do not deny that the War on Terror is a contemporary event though, with a contemporary discussion attached there to, and conveniently enough it is seperate topic on Wikipedia as well." LOL in other words, "Please go away with your scary journalism and current events - Go forth, you heathen, back into the dross and detritus of contemporary propaganda and polemics." Thanks but Ive only got one item of business here, which is to permeate some cultural context into the article — contrary to your opinion.
Cheers: "In short a cross reference that does not firmly establish the historically establish "correctness" of the War on Terror as a Tenth Crusade - but does acknowledge that a small constituency uses the term. Frankly I think it should be a point of differentiation - not a point of acceptance"
- NPOV demands that articles not assert a POV, merely to reflect POVs that exist and have some worth. Reading your responses, you seem to be growing in your worldview quite quickly, so I'll express my hope that you can see how the mere mention of this does not by itself make any assertion of truth.
Cheers: "I simply do not see a war which unfolds on a global battlefield - not confined to one location, not even a traditional war as we understand it to be, with no religious ideology and no religious blessing, against no stated particular religion, can be considered by scholars as a crusade."
- Your opinion is one which thinks the article should avoid dealing the plain observational connection that wars between the same cultures carry much of the same religious overtones (or undertones). This is not a controversial statement, and I dont see how anyone reasonable can deny the connection, nor consider the views of those who make that mere connection "crackpot journalists" Well, on second thought, yes - I can see one way: if by the ommision of references to that connection, one is, by act of censorship, supporting a particularly narrow point of view. -05:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Playing with History - much like Fire, is Dangerous Is it so much to ask that you actually stay in context in your "point by point" response? I mean really. Yes, President Bush called it a crusade once in a speech. Just before he retracted that statement. Thus we cannot hold it to him. However if you still want to make a point of it, I am afraid I am going to have to refer to the dictionary - ya know... the thing... with the definitions in it. Apparently "Crusade" isn't just some amorphous blob we can apply to any war we feel like! How bout that? source cru•sade ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-sd) n. 1. often Crusade Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2. A holy war undertaken with papal sanction. 3. A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse

Well then, is it possible the President used the term in terms of the 3rd definition, and then when he realized the political implications of the term due to the other two definitions retracted it? And now that we have a solid definition, let's examine the War on Terror in context of the first and second definitions - which you claim the War on Terror might be an extension of.

1. The US is not Europe 2. It is not undertaking a military expedition between the 11th and 13th centuries 3. The stated goal has nothing to do with taking the holy land from muslims. Well that pretty much fails definition 1.

Definition 2, is the US fighting a Holy War with papal sanction? Well he sure has a funny way of bestowing his blessing http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14823-2004Jun4.html This topic is about the crusades. By putting a Roman numeral (that's actually X, not VIIIII, for future reference) in front of it and placing it in context of the real crusades you are deliberately spreading misinformation to support a political position - that the War on Terror or in Iraq is a war against Islam which the President enfatically denies. Once again, you are bringing contemporary issues into a historic thread. If you want to include this 10th crusade nonsense - DO SO IN THE WAR ON TERROR TOPIC - as a critique, not in the CRUSADES topic as there is no HISTORIC connection. You are simply being unreasonable. I think its best illustrated by your "point" about history: "You say "Crusades" (plural, many) took place nearly a millenium ago," which even on its surface is an absurd way to look at history." Yea... studying things that happened between the 11th and 13th centuries as if they happened nearly a millenium ago is an absurd way to look at history. What was I thinking.

"Please go away with your scary journalism and current events - Go forth, you heathen, back into the dross and detritus of contemporary propaganda and polemics." Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Right down to "dross and detritus" Thanks but Ive only got one item of business here, which is to permeate some cultural context into the article — contrary to your opinion. Why does history need to be permeated with contemporary cultural context? I have no problem with this discussion in the War on Terror thread - at least that signifies it's contemporary and debatable, feel free to permeate away. My problem is with you REWRITING HISTORY for Kerry '08, or whatever your particular agenda is.

Question for ya. Find me one textbook, ONE textbook, that categorizes all the crusades and lists the War on Terror as number 10. Not articles by people supposedly "speculating" the war on terror. But people objectively looking at all the crusades and just happens to mention "oh yea and the War on Terror is probably number 10" Good luck with that. And throwing the censorship card at me - a cute canard but I suppose it's at least a silent personal acceptance of the realization you have no supportable position. -Cheers.

Hi Cheers. I see youve been reverting my edits

Ill but them back. "We cannot hold it to him" Oh really? Says who? Is that a policy here somewhere, maybe at "Wikipedia:Do not hold world leaders to what they say?" Ah yes, the "dictionary." The foundation of all definition in the humanities, updated now every four years, by a select group of tasteful Western-culture oriented academics. Welcome to Wikipedia, where things move a little faster.

3rd definition: Certainly even you noticed that the dictionary itself fails to mention the etymology of the third definition as related to the first two. Maybe an encyclopedia might endeavor to explain little matters of relatedness like etymology, and such. "Extension of definitions one and 2" Assuming even that the dictionary definitions are valid, I dont "claim" anything, merely report that others have claimed. Even the most ardent exclusionists dont claim that attributed quotes are irrelevant if they are put into context. Beyond that, exclusionists are called censors. Certainly the War on Terrorism does not fit into the first two definitions. It does fit well between the second and third ones. Does the current war on terror have papal sanction, well yes, as a matter of fact Pope John Paul II condemned the September 11 Terrorist attacks, didnt he? It could even be argued that his condemnation was in fact, taken as a material "sanction." "Ive shown you the dictionary, now show me a textbook" If by "textbook," you mean an outdated, smelly, controversially Western polemic-patriotic high-schoolerish look at history, that uses language like "recover the holy land from the Muslims" then I'm afraid I simply cant comply — merely because its beneath me. -SV|t 18:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geez, you're both nuts. Stevertigo, the Pope's position in the current world is clearly nothing like it was 1000 years ago, and what the pope thinks about September 11 is pretty irrelevant. Do you think George Bush was waiting anxiously for the pope's blessing? What authority does the pope have over a secular country, or over Bush himself? Sorry, but this is the Worst Historical Analogy Ever :) Adam Bishop 19:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is that if even the definition of "Crusade" depends on papal sanction, its besides the point (like you say "irrelevant" because its fair to draw fair parallels. The only counter to this is if such a parallel was POV, in which case its still not an argument for exclusion, but rather for placing it in proper context. IBDTSFY, Adam, and I know the difference between irrelevant and exclusionism. Note that much of the material about Islamic views toward the crusades has been removed, or is otherwise diminished as irrelevant. If one wants to claim that 'the English encyclopedia should show a western bias,' I have a 24 hour block button with their name on it. -SV|t 01:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Arguing semantics and dictionary defenitions is usually a dead end in any discussion. Now, the article states in the very first line that This article is about historical Crusades, but there should be a short section about modern usage. Attempts to link the current conflict in the Middle East with the historical Crusades deserve mentions with a line or two (if the authors are noteable), but the discussion of the basis behind this claim should be somewhere else. Fornadan 20:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree also. Much of the etymology in the opening section should be moved to the body under etymology, or moved to Wiktionary. What Stevertigo wrote will be removed as original research and/or POV. This is a history article, we talk in the past tense here, the Crusades are over, done, complete. I know of no serious professional historian who says the Crusades covers the period 1100-2005. The Crusades are defined by professional historians as covering a set time period, which is what this article covers. If mainstream academic say otherwise we will change, until then we follow what the mainstream academic world says. Thats how (and why) Wikipedia works. Stbalbach 20:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cheers and Jeers Stevertigo, ooooo the pope condemned the terrorist attacks of 2001 - Crusade! Oh wait... so did the majority of muslims worldwide. No way! The first crusade in history to have the blessing of muslims! What a fascinating modern age we live in. A few jeers at the dictionary and calling all history books that do not include your fictional tenth crusade "dusty" is not a reasonable response. Clearly you are allowing your political agenda to cloud any semblance of logic you might have employed at an ealier time. I am not just arguing semantics, I am arguing the ding-an-sich. You seems to be arguing that a crusade is pretty much a blob of clay that you can mold to fit any situation. In which case why bother with "definitions" or "encyclopedia articles" they have to be SOMETHING. You have a 10th crusade article - as its own seperate article - which discusses this "contemporary discussion" of your academics. That is where this nonsense belongs. THIS article is about the historic crusades. One through Nine. The very name "Tenth" Crusade indicates that there is a serial connection to the European wars at the end of the medieval era, where clearly there is none. Not temporally, not ideogically, not even by location.

At BEST you can say that there is a cultural motivation in the spread of democracy. Is that the same as the religious warring of the original crusades - to which the term tenth crusade points? Of course not. In fact, by Bush Doctrine standards the people of the medieval era didn't have freedom and probably would be great targets for democracy. Western culture has evolved so much that it hardly resembles medieval west. America didn't even exist during the original crusades - an obvious point, but when little Joey Mumbleton quotes wikipedias "new modern, not smelly" ***TIME OUT*** Smelly? Okay now I can accept a wide array of words here... dusty, racist, etc and just dismiss them as outrageous and unfounded. But smelly?! Have you been sniffing glue or something? I don't remember the last time we wouldn't accept something in a wikipedia article based on its odor. definition of the crusades and marks number ten down - he had better have a good explanation for how a country that didn't exist for another 700 years picked up Richard the Lionheart's sword.

I am still amazed by your ranting against the Dictionary and all history textbooks everywhere as part of some sort of big western conspiracy. But I suppose when you don't have a viable argument the soapbox starts to look friendly, doesn't it? -Cheers

"A cultural motivation in the spread of democracy"

ROFL. Spreading democracy indeed. Fair to say you have an exclusionist point of view, while I have an inclusionist one. Its fair to say that my own personal assertions do not belong in an article, but to argue against merely mentioning that others have published works that make such a connection, as "irrelevant" is simply exclusionism. Granted you newbies know only the >500k article Wikipedia and dont remember the < 25k wikipedia (like some of us do) and hence dont have an appreciation for including material rather than excluding it. Nor do you see the connection between your elitist selective exclusionism and censorship. This is all grist for the mill in the humanities, I suppose. -SV|t 01:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

huh?

Wow your political agenda is getting out of hand. We are all aware of the events of Abu Ghraib - they are certainly not in dispute here, nor do they have anything to do with the subject. You must think we are pretty weak minded if a picture of somebody being tortured along with a sarcastic off-topic quip is going to convince us that your pathetic historic analysis is acceptable. I merely ask that you stay on topic with this discussion and keep your obvious political motives out of it. Is that so much? In return I am called "exclusionist" and you patronize myself and everyone else that "doesn't get it" for not being here when there were less articles.

If wikipedia is going to have any academic value it must have standards. You apparently have no standards - or at least very small standards if you expect us to allow you to scribble in a "tenth crusade" based on YOUR analysis that the Pope gave religious sanction to the War on Terror by condemning 911. You can call me "exclusionist" tell me I have no "wikifaith" and throw any other combination of wiki+x at me but I am not yielding and clearly I have a majority that agrees with me. There is not enough serious scholarship for wikipedia to start a revolution in the field of history.

A link is appropriate for those people who hear the term used and based on the words alone make the mistake of assuming the war on terror is the legitimate 10th crusade. When they see the "see also" section that links them to a seperate article dealing with the controversial use of the term they will learn to think of the rhetorical use of the term "tenth crusade" as a seperate idea. IF YOU CAN PROVE TO ME that the majority of scholarship on the subject of the crusades have agreed to the addition of the war on terror as number ten - I will accept it as a legitimate part of this article. However I submit that you will not find such evidence. As I noted before the history books still teach the crusades ended at nine - which signifies to me and others involved in this discussion that the adacademic world is not taking the "Tenth crusade" arguments seriously.

So why should we?

Cheers.

History books don't always agree that there were nine; sometimes they count up to eleven (which is why the War on Terror is sometimes called the "Twelfth Crusade" as well). Often they don't count anything past the Fourth Crusade - they will say "Frederick II's first crusade", "Louis IX's second crusade," "Richard of Cornwall's crusade", "crusade of Nicopolis", etc. We have many smaller articles here that do not fit into the nine-numbered scheme. I suppose this is besides the point; you are right that nothing after the end of the Middle Ages, whenever you want to date that, is seriously considered a crusade by current historians. Adam Bishop 01:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Questions on tenth crusade

Who, exactly, used or uses the term? Whats the etymology? This is a highly politicized term, one with pejorative meaning meant to express disapproval for one party and approval of another, it is not a neutral historical descriptor, it is contemporary propaganda. A "See also" to the seperate 10th crusade article is appropriate. The text as added recently about the 10th crusade reads like Original Research, one persons POV about what the term means. A noble effort, but not scholarly, no references, no etymology, no historiographical context. Stbalbach 16:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that bit did have references at one point but they have been lost in the edit warring. As a comment about this whole thing: many things have been called "crusades" as late as the 16th century and even as late as the 19th. The Spanish Armada was seen as a crusade of sorts. This page also mentions that the term can be borrowed for other purposes - the third paragraph at the very beginning. I think a mention of Bush's speech is perfectly valid here, but otherwise I agree with Stbalbach - if the Tenth Crusade references that were there at one time can be restored, that would be at least slightly better, but even more ideal would be to have a simple "see also." Then you can all take your edit warring there, off of my watchlist :) Adam Bishop 16:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with a see also link to the "10th crusade" thread. This whole conversation so far has had little to do with the Crusades, and everything to do with the War on Terror, frankly I find that telling. So let us have a link in the See Also and be done with this. -Cheers.

Glad to see Cheers being a bit more agreeable, perhaps that agreeability should extend to context as well? -SV|t 01:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I have explained my position several times. A link is reasonable - context is not. If you cannot give us a viable argument for why we should change history, then stop interrupting the process of crafting this argument.

Cheers

Statement in the 4th Crusade section

I find the 2nd claus in this statement unclear. What does it mean?

The popular spirit of the movement was now dead,
and the succeeding crusades are to be explained
rather as arising from the Papacy's struggle to
divert the military energies of the European
nations toward Syria.

--Heathcliff 23:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone asked about that on the Fourth Crusade article itself; it has been written out by now. It originally came from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion, so it's full of 19th-century Britannica-esque prose like that. Adam Bishop 04:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad I'm not the only one baffled by it. I think it should be rewritten in this article as well. I'd do it myself, but I'm still not sure precisely what it's trying to say.--Heathcliff 04:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Crusades Man... They Sucked

Dude, we all need to just chill out, CHILL OUT! Like seriously, we've got people saying this is the tenth Crusade, this isn't the tenth Crusade, this might be the Tenth Crusade. How do we know that there are only ten Crusades? Maybe there were more, maybe there were less. But still, this whole madness between Mr. Cheers and stevertigo needs to stop before somebody dies like Biggie and Tupac. It's like Farakhan said, beef just isn't the answer. I don't know if this is the Tenth Crusade, but your beef might be the Tenth Crusade. We should all just take some hits off the peace pipe and make some mad peace. And maybe some mad love. Like, why are the terrorists attacking us anyways? I think I know why, it's because we get all uppity over the tenth Crusades. If we just smoked the peace pipe and CHILLED OUT, then I don't think the terrorists would hate us. And dude, why you gotta be hatin on the encyclopedia? You know how many papers I've written using only the encyclopedia? And hey, you know how many times I've used the dictionary to write papers? A LOT! So let's just CHILL OUT and give MAD PROPS to the DICTIONARY. And we don't need more Biggie and Tupac man, that's not how I want to see this end. Mr. Cheers, I'm not gonna say that I'm with you in case you get shot, but I'm with you. MAD PROPS TO THE DICTIONARY, ONE LOVE, PEACE! -CHILL....

ROFL. If only you agreed with me, you would truly be cool. :) your Ball Slapping article needs work by the way. SV|t 01:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Amazing, even stoners can differentiate between history and election propaganda. - Cheers

I don't even know where this belongs, but I thought I'd put it here cause some of the argument is similar: I'm just very confused about why the Crusaders being Christians faught at all? Doesn't Jesus preach against violence quite strongly, giving the example of "Pick up the cross and follow me", such that we turn the other cheek completely and get killed rather than fight? But what about protecting and how can you protect your family if you're dead? On the other hand we see Jesus angry at people in the temple, going against what he said earlier, and there is also the idea of "Jesus with a sword" -- but that means you don't have to listen to your parents if they don't understand Christ. I don't understand Christ because of these arguments, so can someone add something to the article which covers pacifism, self-defense, etc, and how one is meant to see these things as a person who is sincerely trying to practice Christianity? Thankyou.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.101.27.185 (talk • contribs) .

Christianity as a pacifistic religion stopped about the time Constantine adopted it as a quasi-state religion. "In hoc signo vincet" and so on... That said, the discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and the actual situation were felt. Especially after the end of the Viking age and the hot phase of the Spanish reconquista, people were increasingly worried about wars and violence between Christians. There was a Peace of God movement in the west, and when that didn't work out so well, Urban II had the great idea of allowing a just war and sending off all the troublemakers to Palestine (The preceeding is a slightly simplified version of history;-). --Stephan Schulz 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To speak of Christianity as a pacifist religion ignores the complicated subject of state-sponsored violence (criminal justice system, war, et cetera) as opposed to personal violence (brigandage or self-defense). Christian doctrine proper really only addresses the latter, as the former didn't enter the realm of possibility until about Constantine's time. The idea of a nation-state 'turning the other cheek' is nowhere addressed in Scripture, and therefore cannot be properly considered as an element of Christian dogma. For more information you might consult Augustine, who wrote fairly extensively on the subject (as indeed on most others), and is regarded as an authority by most orthodox Christians.

-Turi (this is a foreign keyboard with no tilde key...)

Etymology

Belongs in the etymology section. Really it doesnt belong in the article at all, it belongs in Wiktionary. This article is a history of the Medieval crusades. It is not an essay on all the dozens of shades of meanings and usages of the word Crusade. Check the OED for that, you seem to have a single pet definition you continue to push, related to the ongoing current events in the Middle East. Go to Wiktionary, it was created just for this purpose. They need help. Perhaps you can fill out all the various meanings of Crusade there. Encyclopedia articles are not dictionaries. Stbalbach 02:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

This is pure nonsense —relating the meaning of a term is encyclopedic, and particularly when the term has different but related meanings. Its not "etymology" - its current use in language! Have you taken a look around Wikipedia at all? Do you think that those articles which do bother to differentiate related terms should be changed to fit your view that encyclopedia and dictionary are definitively separated? Having been editing here for more than a month, sir, I can tell you that the 'distict separation policy' is not an absolute nor definitive measure, but a simple guideline - not to be bandied about as an excuse to stodge an article. -SV|t 02:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

That's why we have a disambiguation page, that is what they are for. According to the Oxford English Dictionary there are 10 TEN meanings of the word crusade. Shall we list them all in the opening paragraph? Ive looked at your work here, ive seen your edits on this article, and watched your behaviour when challenged in this article over previous disputes. It's all been heavily political related to the Iraq war, and you can be extremely stubborn and even beligerant at times (I quote: "Who do you think you are?"). It is obvious you are pushing a single meaning into the opening paragraph, not for neutral reasons to help make it a better article, but because you have an agenda. This much is clear: this is an article about the Medieval crusades. There is a separate article for disambigutation, for other meanings. If you start talking about modern uses of the term, then it opens the article up to politics, and we have edit wars. This is a history article, not a political soapbox. Stbalbach 02:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You are almost completely incorrect, Stb. Disambiguation is for listing unrelated terms with the same names — not for explanatory differentiation of related meanings of a term, or which are otherwise thought to be related and hence must (or should) be clarified (dont assume prerequisite knowledge). Articles often begin with a clarification of the term. "Foo is bar and nothing else" doesnt cut it when x does mean something else, and an abstraction to the term rather than a rigid and stoic notion of concept is necessary for clarification. Keep in mind the article is titled "Crusade." A title is a term. And the definition of the term is appropriate in all cases. An encyclopedia is (by definition) "not a dictionary" precisely because it must (or should) be explanatory and clarifying. A dictionary often must not: it lists various meanings for the term, often without thoroughly relating them to their context. A dictionary is a compendium of definitions —should an encylopedia be removed of any and all "definitions?" Of course not. Second, your "medieval crusades" argument might be valid if the article was named "medieval crusades" - but even in that context, the current meaning of the term "crusade" as it is directly derived from history, is of course relevant. Your assertion of my having an agenda is off topic if not a pure ad hominem. Thank you for the MHTL though. -SV|t 03:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Your wrong. There are at least 9 ways to use the term crusade in the English language. When people come to this article they are coming here to learn about the Crusades, which means somthing very specific, one of those 9 meanings. They dont come here to learn the different meanings of the word, that is called a Dictionary. Certain subjects have a priority on name real estate in Wikipedia because they are the most common usage. If there is reason to explain the different meanings of the term that is done sometimes. For example Feudalism, to learn about the origin of the word it helps to explain the etymology of the word. In the case of Crusade, all your doing is saying "Crusade means X. Crudade means Y". Who cares? If you want to write an article about Y, then disambig it, the X article has nothing to do with it. Stbalbach 05:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the one line in the introduction should be here (as long as it stays as one sentence), and at least the first paragraph in the etymology section too. Not sure about the rest. Fornadan 03:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"The rest," Fornadan? -SV|t 03:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's a pertinent question that I'm not sure of the answer to, but I think the answer is directly related to whether or not the disputed definition should be in the article: Would the word crusade have the usage described if not for the Crusades? If not I don't think it belongs in the article. But if the Crusades influenced the later usage of the term then I think it is relevent here.--Heathcliff 02:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOTLEX is a good place to discuss this. MPS 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename article

Stevertigo suggested this article be renamed "Medieval crusade". The current crusade disambiguation article would become the new top-level Crusade article, pointing readers to the more specific article. I personally dont care about the real estate value of the name "Crusade", let us Medievalists work on project in piece without the constant ambiguations and political soapboxing. It might finally turn into a decent article without fear of stepping into a war zone all the time. Pros or cons? Stbalbach 05:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree - this is getting way out of hand. Forking the article is no solution. I suppose I care more about the "real estate value" of the title - when people search for "crusade" we all know what they are searching for, and it is not a disambiguation page. "Medieval crusade" is superfluous, and "crusade" is nothing more than a figure of speech now...this argument is rather bemusing and frustrating. Adam Bishop 06:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I didnt seriously think it would get much support, but it underlies this article is about the Medieval Crusades. The bemusing and frustrating problem continues.Stbalbach

It's clear to me what somebody expects to see when they look "Crusade" up in an encyclopedia. This is it. Demi ^T/_C 06:51, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Stb- first of all I didnt "suggest" renaming it - I said that even if you did, the terms are related and therefore a simple concise explanation is justified. R E L A T E D - thats the point you keep avoiding — talking about "political agenda", "disambiguation", "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" blah. Nonsense. And your snarky comment "let us Medievalists work on..." just shows that your'e another academic chauvinist who doesnt quite get the idea of Wikipedia, nor do you understand that people like yourself made Nupedia the stunning success it was. Please listen to reason, and stop being an exclusionist. Adam: "Medieval crusade" is superfluous, and "crusade" is nothing more than a figure of speech now." Thanks for showing perspective and humor.

-SV|t 10:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh good lord, me an academic authoritarian? Now that is humorous, you dont even want to know my academic history (although I do have a BA in History), I wont go there. At best I am a Professional amateur (ProAm Revolution) like most people on Wikipedia, and at worst a hack (although some may not be so kind). As for the meanings being related, of course they are, it's language, but it has nothing to do with the practical issue, this article is about the Medieval Crusades. We've had continual problems in this article with people overtly and covertly referring to the current events in the Middle East, drawing connections to the Medieval Crusades, which is original research and/or non-mainstream and has been established does not belong in the article. You talk about exclusivity, yet you leave out other meanings of the word, only putting in the one meaning that you wish to expouse. Yet if you were to put in all the meanings, it would become an etymological section, which doesnt belong in the opening paragraph and allready has a separate section. How do you propose to resolve this? Stbalbach 16:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you guys aren't really talking about etymology, you're talking about usage. The etymology of "crusade" is pretty convoluted, but not as much as all this :) Adam Bishop 21:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I see no point in renaming the article "Medieval crusade"; however I do think it should be renamed "Crusades".--Heathcliff 02:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats interesting - the policy is to use singulars instead of plurals, but in this case the plural is still specific to historical events. Im sure its been discussed before - I think theres a good case for it.

Stb: "We've had continual problems in this article with people overtly and covertly referring to the current events in the Middle East, drawing connections to the Medieval Crusades, which is original research and/or non-mainstream and has been established does not belong in the article."

So, assuming for the moment this is all true, what does this have to do with excluding a related definition? Would it not be proper to infer that the crusade to purge the article of "non-mainstream" material (as it overreaches to include common and uncontroversial material as well) has been excessive? Such excess could also fairly be viewed as expressing a POV which simply supports a "mainstream" view. Again, all of this is assuming that what you say above was valid! The claim of "original research" is not valid, as WP:NOR doesnt apply to the "original research" of others —historians, critics, journalists, etc. Your qualifier "and/or non-mainstream" shows the "NOR" as weak, and the appeal to an assumed "no non-mainstream views" policy doesnt work either. The claim "has been established does not belong in the article" is likewise dubious, but at least it appeals to a consensus view - all one needs to do is check the record to see what the actual consensus was, and who or who is not really interested in it. Stb:"You talk about exclusivity, yet you leave out other meanings of the word, only putting in the one meaning that you wish to expouse." Again, this argument rests upon an assumption that there is some absolute way to interpret the WP:WINAD policy and the WP:Dis process. Convoluting the argument by including "all the meanings" isnt convincing either - these are tactful value-judgements of balance that arent solved by any kind of absolutism. -SV|t 07:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I was surprised this wasn't named Crusades as well. Crusade seems more general; Crusades would refer to what this article deals with, surely? 'Crusades' does redirect here, but having it as the title seems to make more sense.Ben davison 12:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Former "popular reputation" subheading

Without an introductory paragraph, this section is misleading and fatuous. Until it can be provided with a caveat about pop history, I've had to remove it. The article reads more smoothly without it. --Wetman 08:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article reads more smoothly without it. Do we need this section? Perhaps if there's an interest in keeping it, it could be moved to its own page. Generally, I don't like splitting articles up to much, but in this case it might allow the section to get more attention and even get expanded into something really interesting. I don't know if it can grow much buried in this Crusade article. And I think the section could use some developement. As it is, it seems a bit sketchy. For instance it doesn't really go into how the popular reputation of the Crusades as evolved in recent years. I'm sure if a bunch of contributors got to work on it, it could turn into a very thorough article.--Heathcliff 14:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I like the way you think H — there are many ways by which an article can be split - there has been a long history of culture related to the crusades, so a split along those lines would be useful. My caveat is this - that a split is not used to exclude and segregate information - it must still be treated in the main - but to allow space and context for that approach to be dealt with in more depth. Note: The tenor of some people here is to have an absolutist view toward this rather important and influential topic - to treat it as a singular object, and hence as with a kind of exclusionism toward other things. Its not necessary to be that rigid, and that kind of absolutism will only invite challenges from inclusionists like myself. That said, if room needs to be freed to go into each particular crusade section in more depth, that is quite the way to go. The topic box will then need to be changed to reflect that. -SV|t 19:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok Mr. Association of Inclusionists, how come you have excluded other possible meanings of Crusade from the opening section and only focused on the one? Stbalbach 22:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Ive gone over that like, 10² times now. -SV|t 00:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't think we need a separate article about that. It's almost like there are two separate arguments going on in this talk page...I mean, look what Stevertigo and Stbalbach are talking about, it's certainly directly relevant to that. What I (and apparently some anonymous people) was opposed to was the patronizing tone of the "pseudohistory" bit. I know Wetman is really proud of it and I see that he is having a snit now that it has been removed, but as I said elsewhere, readers do not need to be told they are idiots. Keep the section, definitely, and let's see if we can still keep Wetman's "caveat" somehow. Adam Bishop 15:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Wetman's brief statement above a snit, but I agree with you that the section as it was came across a bit patronizing. I also find the intro to be editorial in nature. It seems to me that we can just present the facts and let people decide for themselves if the popular repuation of the Crusades is pseudohistory.

As for its own page, the more I think about it the more I like it. It would allow the history of the Crusades' reputation to be fleshed out and we could devote seperate sections to the Crusades in literature, the Cruasades in mass media, and the use of the reputation of the Crusades in politics. We could also further address the issue of the popular repuation of the Crusades in the east. If the section is worth having then I think it is worth doing well, and I think that it is more likely to be done well as its own article. Also some of the ideas in the Legacy section relate directly to this so perhaps that could be worked into a new page with the popular reputation section

Another advantage to having a seperate article for the popular reputation section is we could link to it from the individual Crusade articles. As it is, a person who comes to the Crusade page but who really wants to read about the 1st Crusade we'll immediately follow the link to the first Crusade, but if anyone tries to add a link from the first Crusade to the popular reputation of the Crusades he has to send readers back to were they've come from. I find this awkward and suspect that some people might arrive back on the Crusade page and say "oh this is a bad link I've already been here."--Heathcliff 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartily we need a separate article. Actually this falls under crusade historiography, with popular media in the 20th century just one part of it. For a similair article allready done for the Middle Ages, see Middle Ages in history, which allready lightly touches on the Crusades in popular perception. It's not just 20th century, but every century since the Crusades ended. In fact, even during the period of the crusades there was "Crusade propaganda" -- Crusade Propaganda is the name of an Encyclopedia article in the "Dictionary of the Middle Ages", even the professionals agree. There is a lot to be said on this subject that has not been. Stbalbach 16:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Wetmans quotes, there is nothing factually wrong with it, and in fact there is some deep universal wisdom there that goes beyond the Crusades. However I agree with its removal because it would only be appropriate in an article that was longer and able to illustrate the points it makes, which this short section can not do. It should be a conclusion, based on deductive reasoning of the facts, than an introduction to the article as inductive reasoning. For the average reader these things are not obvious and it assumes a certain advanced level of understanding. Its a black diamond in a green circle article, a bit of a trip up for most readers. We need clarity and simplicity for a wide audience. Stbalbach 17:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

We seem to have a general agreement. -SV|t 19:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

crusade historiography page

Okay it looks like 3 of us so far would like the create a Crusade historiography or a Crusades in history page and move some of the content on this page to it. Aynone else want to way in. What is your opionion Adam? I know you were opposed to a Popular reputation of the Crusades page what about a Crusades in history page similar to the Middle Ages in history? What does everyone else think?--Heathcliff 23:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that's okay..."crusades in history" would be pretty interesting I guess. Adam Bishop 00:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Similar to etymology, the word historiography is often misapplied. Historiography would be how historians wrote about the Crusades. The Middle Ages in history article (which I wrote) is not really historiography since it covers such a wide range of topics like film and architecture and philosophy. Perhaps a real historiography of the crusades could be done, Im not sure how interesting it would be outside of specialized circles, it would be a long list of obscure titles and authors, arcane stuff for an arcane term. But, an article along the lines of Middle Ages in history, on the search for "the popular" in the Crusades, would certainly be interesting. Even more so an article called "Medievalism" which I hope to write someday, on the popular interest in Medieval topics in general. Stbalbach 00:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Then it sounds like it should be called "The Crusades in history" since that would allow us to cover both historiography and the popular reputation of the Crusades in one page. Is there a way we can round up some support to help get it started? I'm very happy to contribute, but I can't do the whole thing (or even a quarter of it).--Heathcliff 02:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I'd say in the spirit of Wikipedia, go ahead and make a go and see who comes along, time is on your side, never know who shows up to contribute or when. I can make some additions of stuff thats allready done in other articles as well, but its never complete, always incomplete :) The Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages may also be of interest. Stbalbach 14:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

We'll if anyone feels like starting it go ahead. If no one else does, I'll start it in a week or so after I've had a chance to run by the library.--Heathcliff 22:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Greetings everyone. It's been while since I had said I'd eventually be starting a Crusades in History page, and I thought I'd just update anyone who cared on my progress: there isn't any (progress that is) and there isn't like to be any in the future. While I found Wikipedia to be an exciting idea at first, the more I see of it the more I realize it will never work. I see now that a Wikipedian spends 1% of his time creating and 99% of his time defending his creation from other editiors who want to add their POV, insert inaccuracies or simply delete it out right without any reason. Worse still, administrators are as likely to be the source of the problem as editors. I don't want to seem too negative: 90% of Wikipedians are great and 99% of Wikipedia is probably accurate, but when you stop to think about it an encyclopedia which is wrong 1% of the time and whose writers are working to put their own agend into it 10% of the time isn't much of an encyclopdia. I still use Wikipedia for pop culture stuff though not so much for hard factual stuff like history. Anyway, I'm sure I'll still be editing this or that from time to time, but I just don't have the patience to make major contributions.--Heathcliff 21:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image of first crusade knights

Im fairly certain that image is inaccurate. They are carrying Norman shields. They have Mustaches, Im pretty sure the Franks were clean shaven, might be wrong, but it was the Anglo-Saxons who had the crazy facial hair. They have a "red cross" banner, which did not evolve until after the First Crusade. To fairly represent Crusaders, you would show the chain armour underneath a sleeveless cloak with a large cross on the back .. this was because the temperatures were so hot, they wore their armour fairly naked (only some padding to prevent scapping) and then a loose sleeveless cloak over top.Stbalbach 02:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Title/disambiguation

To me, it's totally zany that this page is at "Crusade". Look back up this page - basically everyone, in their comments, talks about the "Crusades". I know about the "titles should be singular" rule, but we also have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If we're all calling the subject "Crusades", let's recognize reality and dispense with the Procrustean "Crusade", and rename it. (I'd do it myself, but I'm not a contributor here, and so I'll leave it up to you all). As an added benefit, "Crusade" can then become a disambiguation page (I think I recall some discussion of disambiguation above) and/or a page about the concept of a crusade, whereas "Crusades" can be exclusively about the historical Crusades. Noel (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it's kind of zany I guess, but it's not that big of a deal. But it would be a lot more zany to split the page into one about the concept and one about the specific crusades themselves. As long as one redirects to the other, I don't see much point in arguing about whether or not there should be another S there. Adam Bishop 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Would I be amiss in adding Runciman to the list of possible readings at the bottom of the article? Obviously, his book is old, and utterly unconcerned with doing anything but providing a politico-military narrative of the Crusades. But his is still probably the best (or, at least, the fullest) politico-military narrative of the crusades in English, as far as I am aware. But if his work is an embarrassment, or something, I don't want to add it. john k 18:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not an embarrassment...sometimes Runciman lets his imagination run wild, but yeah, it's one of the best general summaries. He even wrote the First Crusade parts for the much larger work edited by Setton, and I don't think there have been any large-scale general histories since then. Adam Bishop 00:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

How many died?

Are there any serious estimations of how many people died due to the crusades? Gugganij 06:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

There sure is, but the numbers vary so much that it's not worth sticking with one. Darth Panda 19:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to read more about that, Jonathan Riley-Smith wrote an article called "'Casualties and the Number of Knights on the First Crusade", in the first volume (2003) of the journal "Crusades", published by the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. Adam Bishop 01:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanxs for the info. Gugganij 06:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

History Channel show Sunday night

History Channel will be airing a major new show on the Crusades Sunday night with lots of promotion in the US. I suspect there will be a lot of edits from it. Keep in mind it is a TV show, primarily the work of a single scholar Jonathan Phillips (a regular commentator on the History Channel). Hopefully will be a good show entertainment and factual. Stbalbach 03:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

recent vandalism

There has been quite a bit of vandalism to this page recently. I'm not sure if we should continue to just watch and revert, or take more drastic measures (locking and bans). --Ignignot 16:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps once the high school students finish their 2-page double-spaced report on the "Crusades" after watching the teacher-assigned Crusades special on the History Channel things will die down. This page has always had a constant background hum of vandalism higher than normal, it seems to come and go in waves as popular attention wanes and waxes. Does it appear to be a single person? Stbalbach 17:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't seem to be just one person. A look at recent vandals puts them all across the map, with mostly residential high speed connections. Here's a quick table I made:

137.141.246.34	SUNY College at Oneonta
71.114.25.34	Verizon Internet Services
194.154.22.35	RIPE Network Coordination Centre
216.73.54.2	USLEC Corp.
24.62.183.106	Comcast Cable Communications Holdings
198.209.39.100	MOREnet
66.76.71.25	Cox Communications Inc.
65.213.44.9	UUNET Technologies, Inc.
198.209.39.110	MOREnet
198.170.191.85	Verio, Inc.
66.31.93.133	Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc
24.119.76.208	CABLE ONE CABLEONE
68.33.151.215	Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.
67.173.5.194	Comcast Cable Communications
209.133.140.254	State of South Carolina
71.244.52.239	Verizon Internet Services
12.111.200.36	AT&T WorldNet Services

The different Comcast IPs are from different subnets (one NJ, one Boston, etc) so they aren't the same person. I don't really know how vandalism like this can be dealt with other than maybe putting a warning on the page, which could either reduce or increase the vandalism. --Ignignot 18:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This page isnt as bad as Age of Enlightenment for some reason (although not recently). Any of the big topic articles that are part of intro to Western Civ classes (high school or non-major undergrad) seem to get a fair share of vandalism. It is possible for a sophisticated vandal to spoof an IP, so a single user can appear to come from any, and as many IP's, but since most of these line up to home broadband its probably not the case. When you consider the sheer number of high school kids using google to write homework assignments, versus the number of Wikipedians who revert vandalism, its a wonder theres not more work than there is to keep it under control. Clay Shirky wrote an interesting article on the dynamics "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy"--Stbalbach 02:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree. Some of the earlier versions of the page had at least brief segments on the second and third crusades, and probably something longer than the minor blurb on the first. The Hypatia burning vandals seemed to have sacked and burned here beyond recognition.

Now that there is a Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy I think this page is a good candidate for the limited protection it provides. From the policy "In the worst case articles receive few good edits; instead, they have turned into battlegrounds in which virtually every edit is either one by a vandal or one reverting vandalism. So much time is wasted that nothing substantive can be done to improve the material or quality of information in these articles. This situation tarnishes the reputation of Wikipedia and hampers the efforts of reputable editors to improve article content quality." That seems to fit this article - I spend no time even considering how to improve it, instead I just watch it for vandalism. I think our time could be better spent actually improving it. --Ignignot 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks of bringing that to our attention and I agree this article would qualify (I can think of a few others as well). --Stbalbach 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, someone has been interjecting "Canadian" into the text. Since Canada wasn't established until 1867 I think it's safe to say it has nothing to do with the topic and this too is an act of vandalism. I believe the original word was "Christian" and I have changed these instances. --Anonymous 22:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that...this gets so much vandalism that even when I think I've reverted it, I haven't at all. We didn't even notice the Second and Third Crusade blurbs were missing for over a month, even when it was mentioned right here. I've semi-protected it, as Ignignot and Stbalbach mentioned (so unfortunately, anonymous editor above, you won't be able to edit it either). Adam Bishop 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I removed a piece of vandalism having to do with "feline fornication" from the bottom of the Fourth Crusade summary. Ugh. Blbecker 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is still a big chunk of vandalism...it needs to be reverted back to March 12, if not further. (I can't do a manual revert from this computer, unfortunately.) Adam Bishop 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a new request for semi protection. --Ignignot 20:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

More Facts

How many people died...
- on the muslims side
- on the english side

English side? Erm.... --Stephan Schulz 00:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone else asked this before, up in the "How Many Died" section. There's no way to give an actual number, for whatever "side" you are looking for. Adam Bishop 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The field of medieval demography has come a long way recently (the linked article details methods used in the last section), but for somthing like Crusade deaths broken down by side, I just can't imagine anything more than a SWAG. But I bet someone will make an attempt at it and make a name for themselves, if not allready. --Stbalbach 00:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)