Talk:Crusades/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are three questions. Should Crusades become a top-level article (meaning broad in scope and shallow in coverage), an article on Crusades for the Holy land be created and the scope of Crusading movement be narrowed to ideology and instituitions of crusadin? Proposal extracted from discussion at Talk:Crusades#Proposed_consensus. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Would the balance of Wikipedia's coverage of the subject of crusades be improved by the creation of an article to cover the primary definition from the Oxford English Dictionary A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims, like those that already exist for Reconquista, Northern Crusades and Popular Crusades? This would possibly allow Crusades to focus on the transfered definition, Any war instigated and blessed by the Church for alleged religious ends, a ‘holy war’; applied esp. to expeditions undertaken under papal sanction against infidels or heretics Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

What would be the subject of the article: only military history or all aspects of the topic (ideology, institutions, connections with the Reconquista, Northern Crusades, Albigensian Crusades, etc)? Would this article cover the Fourth and Fifth Crusades? Why do you think that articles about individual Levantine crusades (including First Crusade, Second Crusade, Third Crusade ...) do not secure the balance of Wikipedia? Borsoka (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think not. There was a fair bit of discussion and RFC on this in March thru April 2021 (see Archive 14 and 15), and the chosen result was to not change. That OED definition is a good short version, but not useful as a WP article criteria. ‘Crusade’ typically includes ones not sanctioned or the 4th crusade that went astray. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it is a rather crappy definition. Crusades against the Byzantine Empire, Egypt, and European pagans have had more of an impact than a couple of minor crusades in the Levant. Dimadick (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Malformed/unnecessary RfC If you think there is enough material to make a proper WP:SPLIT from this article to a sub-page about the Middle-Eastern Crusades or something like that, that does not require an RfC. You're free to make such a sub-page, and if it's not good enough or if it doesn't cover anything separate from here in more detail, then it can be redirected back here without much controversy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  The intention of the rfc is to seek objective comment from editors on this question, particularly those not previously involved. Those that have been editing and commenting here frequently are prone to write at the Talk page their version of what they think uninvolved readers expect from an article called Crusades. It would be informative to have this view from the wider WP community, as opposed repeating well worn debates. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  The RfC is still malformed. If the question is "what uninvolved readers expect from an article called Crusades" (or, less obtusely: "what should go in this article"), there is existing consensus that this article should cover both the Middle-Eastern and subsequent crusades, and there's no point in relitigating this (and the RfC statement is in breach of WP:RFCNEUTRAL by a fair bit, in addition to being hopelessly vague). If the question is about whether to do a WP:SPLIT, then as I said an RfC is unnecessary, although Srnec points out outstanding issues which should probably be resolved first. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia's coverage is already problematically divided between this article and Crusading movement and a further high-level division would only make things worse. The sort of split envisioned can only come after the two existing articles are merged and discussing it now is putting the cart before the horse. When Norfolkbigfish took this article to FAC over a year ago, its scope was fine. Srnec (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Norfolkbigfish from what I see this article is already about Christian attempts to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. Where is the content for "Any war instigated and blessed by the Church"? Is it in the Crusades#Other crusades section?VR _talk 23:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Markbassett, @RandomCanadian, @Srnec—@Vice regent has reframed the question in the light of the debate at Talk:Crusades#Proposed_consensus. The revision may or may not change your original comment, but it would be useful to know. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal 1: Support. (the most natural way of presenting the crusades as a complex historical phenomenon in a high-level article written in summary style) Proposal 2: Neutral (taking into account that most numbered crusades have their own article, an article summarizing their content adds little value) Proposal 3: Oppose (there is no need to preserve the present artificial, unprofessional and impractical division between military history and other aspects of crusading, especially because crusades were primarily military enterprises, so military history makes connection between ideology, crusader states, arts, women, etc. in the context of crusades). Borsoka (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Malformed RfC. The statement is not exactly brief, and is decidedly non-neutral. It has also been amended a number of times, such that earlier responses are now out of context. I get the impression that this is a WP:SPLIT proposal, which falls foul of WP:RFCNOT. On a technical matter, it begins with a list, which is discouraged. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: I think the statements are not long, they are neutral and this is not about splitting, but the reorganization of articles. I think it is a complex issue, and for me the above three questions are clear. Borsoka (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  All three list items in the statement contain the word "should" in the first sentence. That makes it a biased statement, therefore, not neutral. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification. Borsoka (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Redrose64—does the question as now formatted work for you? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Norfolkbigfish I agree with Redrose64, that amending the RfC question after several responses can seem confusing. It might be best to stop this RfC and start a new one.VR _talk 10:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'll do that then @Vice regent, thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would not give too much weight to an opinion quickly made by a non involved editor on this combination of questions. I also agree that there is a bias in the formulation, but correcting that would not change the fact that it asks a lot. If instead, editors here would focus on one specific content to illustrate the issue, then it will become easier to see. If there is a real and significant issue at the global organization level, how comes it cannot be illustrated with the help of a specific content, some specific use case? Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background to RFC

from what I see this article is already about Christian attempts to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. Where is the content for "Any war instigated and blessed by the Church"? Is it in the Crusades#Other crusades section?VR talk 23:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Answered in a new section to avoid clogging up the RFC and distracting from what should be a yes/no answer to a closed question.

Good question Vice regent, and I agree this article covers that scope pretty well now.

Some editors argue here that the Crusades#Other crusades content here needs expanding and the coverage of the Christian attempts to recover and defend the Holy Land should be severely pruned. The Other crusades content was always very light, only a random collection of Crusade events that gave undue weight to various editors particular favourites, but it has been edited back from even that since this was last up for FAC.

Actually, Crusading_movement#Military_History covers this wider topic better but this gives rise to the criticism that that content should be in this article and that there is competition between simular articles (even though that is not strictly true—the idea is that Crusading movement details the dense history of the ideology, instuitions, memorialism and interpretation (e.g. the written, spoken and sung of what Riley-Smith and others called the crusade movement), this article has always been pretty much from the perspective of the MILHIST e.g. the action).

As things stand there are already summary articles for Northern Crusades, Popular crusades, the Holy Leagues and Reconquista, but there has never been equivalent summary articles for Crusades for the Holy Land or Crusades against Christians. The rfc is asking the question whether adding the later two would enable the Crusades to become the high level summary of the wars blessed by the Catholic church that some editors seem to want. It is an attempt to compromise on some entrenched positions in order to achieve consensus where none has ever existed.

Hope that makes sense, what do you think VR? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think a Crusades for the Holy Land article is necessary? What would be the article's subject - military history or a wider background, including the development of crusading ideology, institutions, etc? Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: that makes sense. So it seems that Crusading movement should be for the Ideology of the Crusades, while this article, Crusades, could be specifically for Christian attempts to recover the Holy Land from Muslims.

@Borsoka: there is tonnes of material and some sort of WP:SPLIT is naturally necessary. It would seem the best way of splitting would be to have an article on the ideology of Crusades, while a different article that covers the history of Crusades towards the Holy Land. There are some books that cover the Holy Land Crusades to the exclusion of all other types of Crusades:[1][2][3]. But maybe there's a better way to split this. What are you suggestions? VR _talk 16:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion: why don't all users suggest comprehensive books (with broad scope) on the Crusades, Crusading movement, Ideology of the Crusades etc. Then we can see how scholars organize this topic.VR _talk 16:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  The problem with this approach is that Wikipedia is a different medium than books. For example, Wikipedia is way more integrated than a set of books and a book is way more integrated than Wikipedia—there is no comparison. Therefore, the way the content is globally organized within Wikipedia does not have to follow what is done in books. We look at sources to determine the weight given to content and how to present them (in terms of what is being conveyed), but the global organization of the content is a different matter: it's possible to convey the same contents using many different global organizations. I am not expert, but it's possible that a lot more weight is given to MILHIST than to ideology and institutions, but this in itself does not implies a global organization. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Fair point, Dominic Mayers so how do you propose this be organized? Norfolkbigfish's proposal is reasonable but I want to see alternative proposals and decide which is best.VR _talk 16:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  The global organization is up to the editors and there should be good reasons to change an existing global organization. Having a summary-style article is a good reason, but I don't see that it requires a prior merging. Like you, I see that having a separate article on Ideology and Institutions seems useful. I wish to better understand what problems exactly Borsoka and Snerc see with a separate article for Ideology and Institutions (and thus the requirement for a prior merger). Their critics, in my view, seems very vague, things like, "it's not possible to do it", but they never consider a specific content. In the last RfC, the conclusion from an external editor was that editors should provide specific content when they discuss the global organization. It's an ongoing process, but I admit that I am a bit disappointed that the two articles do not refer to each other more, because this would consolidate this global organization and also will be a good sign that POV fork is avoided (though every one is telling me that POV fork is not the issue here, I want to be on the safe side). Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Dominic Mayers: I don't have a problem per se with a separate article for ideology and institutions, but Crusading movement isn't that. It has a section on "Military history". Why? It has a section on "Women". Are they an ideology or an institution? What's more, this entire new debate began when I placed the merge tags, which I did because Norfolkbigfish systematically changed a bunch of redirects and links in templates (as well as many in articles) from Crusades to Crusading movement on the grounds the latter was the broader topic. It cannot be the broader topic if it is a sub-article of this one. That does not appear to be how Norfolkbigfish sees it and that is what I think needs to be worked out. I think we need one clear top-level article from which all others in the Crusades topic area split off. That article must be broad and not just devoted to military history.
  My concrete proposal would be to do three things: (a) revert this article back a year to before the split; (b) use the long form of this article as Dr. Grampinator had it a few months ago as a basis for expanding Military history of the Crusader states; and (c) slim down Crusading movement to just the issue of the "Expansion of Crusading", i.e., beyond the Holy Land, and move it to a more appropriate title. Then, articles on financing, criticism, etc. can be split off as necessary from this, the main article, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  There is never only one way to globally organize a topic. Determining which way is better is difficult and most likely dependent upon what is considered important. In your argument, you point out two sections in Crusading that, in your view, does not fit in a natural scope, conclude that Crusading has no natural scope and propose a different global organization. Since, good reasons are needed to change an existing global organization, I suggest that you work with Norfolkbigfish to see how the scope can be more natural in your view, with an attention on specific contents in the two sections. Keep in mind the conclusion of the previous RfC: the scope of an article in development is work in progress. The availability of genuine discussions to give a natural scope to Crusading with an attention on specific content will make it easier for me and others to understand the issue. In these discussions, what content exactly is not natural and, in general, how the scope is perceived will appear more clearly. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I have not considered what you explained regarding redirects and links in templates, because though it seems related to the place of Crusading in the global organization, you mentioned nothing specific that could help understand the scope and, if it is Norfolkbigfish himself that is being evaluated, then it is even less useful to understand the scope. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would have no problem with a separate article about crusading ideology and institutions if we had a general article summarizing the principal aspects of the crusades and their interconnections. For the time being we have two articles but none of them provides a full picture of the crusades. I support Srnec's first two suggestions above [(a) and (b)]. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  This analysis by Dominic Mayers is useful:WP is not a book and needn't follow the constraints of a book, it is not an hierachy or a pyramid either but rather more of Venn Diagram. By way of an illustration Riley-Smith in What were the Crusades used his definition, which is widely accepted. When it came to defining When were the crusades using this he came up with the answer of a start in 1095 (later than some alternatives) until later than 1890 (much, much later). His definition also excludes the popular crusades. Crusading movement can include those easily, and the topic of Woman, because its scope includes the popular response and perception of crusading but as a movement it pretty much died in the 16th or 17th century. It can also cover the period of development prior to 1095 without scope issues because that is the development of the ideology. Tyerman has also questioned whether there was any crusading in the 12th century, or at least after the Second Crusade which is interesting but probably doesn't help. Using Riley-Smith's definition changes this article significantly and the majority of the content on the Holy Land would be lost (again). In this debate it would be useful if Vice regent suggestion was followed and comments were actually more objective and supported by the words and works of major academic historians working in this are rather than subjective opinion. Lastly, it would be useful to hear from Dr. Grampinator as both the major editor on here and someone who has done a lot of work on sourcing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree. Let's forget references to "average readers" and "lay readers" and try to refer to scholarly literature about crusades. Tyerman, Jotischky, Lock, The Oxford History of the Crusades, Jaspert provide a full picture of the crusades. Why should we ignore their approach? Is there anybody who says we do not need a general article about the crusades? 09:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsoka (talk • contribs)

@Boroska: do you think Crusading movement is a good attempt at a higher level article (the broadest scope article, from which others will be split off)? It seems to have components like Ideology, Military history, etc.VR _talk 13:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"Crusades" is also a higher level article on the same subject, but none of the two articles provides a full picture of the historical phenomenon. "Crusades" is a overly detailed chronological account of the military and political history of the Outremer; "Crusading movement" is a random selection of texts copied from other WP articles and articles from a recently published encyclopedia about the crusades: it does not present the development of crusading ideology, institutions, etc. in context, but in separate boxes. Borsoka (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand you feel Crusading movement is written poorly, but do you agree with its scope and coverage? Is it missing something that would be necessary to provide a full picture of the historical phenomenon? VR _talk 14:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, context in each paragraph. For instance, do you understand why Pope Urban II declared the First Crusade in 1095 based on the article? Do you understand why the first crusaders could conquer territories in Syria and Palestine based on the same article? Do you understand what is the connection between Lisbon, Edessa and the Baltic region? Etc, etc, etc. Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: This is the article in June, before Dr. Grampinator's major edits and the discussion above under "Size". This is the article in March, at the time of the archived RFC on the "In Europe" section. This is the pared down article from October 2020 when Norfolk created the article now called Crusading movement. This is the article in February 2020 after a copyedit following a failed FAC. This is the article as it was when the FAC was closed. As you can see, this is and has always been "the broadest scope article". Adam Bishop expanded it beyond the Holy Land ventures beginning in September 2003. The current division is a huge step backwards. There is no need to create a new article to do what this article always did. Srnec (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Srnec: I see that. So say we reverted this article Crusades to your favored previous version. How would you then go about WP:SPLITing it? What would be name (and hence the scope) of the sub articles? VR _talk 19:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

See Archive 14, §RFC on the naming of articles within the Crusade topic, where Grampinator named 19 possible sub-articles and Borsoka a few more. I have no concrete proposals because it should be organic. Split off when it is too big or detailed for the top-level article. To quote myself...

An article on the political crusades might be a useful way to head off any bloating in the Europe section. It is not clear to me what Crusading is supposed to be, but that title is not a good one. An article on the ideology and theology of crusading would be good (and could alleviate §§5.2 and 5.5 a bit if that's a concern). There seems to be a concern that this article lacks sufficient "milhist". I do not agree. Quite the opposite. I think the military history is best left to lower-level articles. That said, the article military history of the Crusader states could certainly be beefed up.

To be clear, the articles on individual crusades are already sub-articles of this one. And articles on battles are sub-articles of those. Norfolk is not wrong that there is a Venn diagram aspect to some of this. Reconquista is to me the most obvious example, it is only partially a sub-article of this one. But the current division between "Crusades" and "Crusading movement" is artificial and meaningless. Srnec (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Srnec: what if there was a top level article Crusades, as you suggest, and then one of the subarticles was Crusades for the Holy Land, among various other subtopic articles? The sub-article Crusades for the Holy Land's focus would be "A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims".VR _talk 20:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a possibility I accept if consensus is for it. Personally, I do not think it is workable. The Fourth Crusade is known mainly for not getting to the Holy Land, but that was its intention. (And some crusaders did get there.) The Seventh and Eighth Crusades did not get to the Holy Land, although it was their aim. The fighting in Spain was sometimes sold as part of establishing an overland route to the Holy Land. Fighting the Ottomans has a lot in common with fighting the Seljuks, but the Ottomans did not control the Holy Land during the late Middle Ages. I tend to think it will be difficult to settle on the boundaries for an intermediate level of coverage for the paradigmatic Holy Land crusades. Military history of the Crusader states is underdeveloped.
N.B. that an RFC earlier this year was closed in favour of keeping an "In Europe" section at this article and thus against the split as envisioned at that time. Srnec (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that two issues are discussed in parallel: a (partial) merge and a split in summary-style. The split is having a consensus for the basic principle (not for the details), except that some people want this to be a reorganization that shrinks Crusading movement through some kind of partial merge. The issue of the partial merge should be resolved first. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"I tend to think it will be difficult to settle on the boundaries for an intermediate level of coverage for the paradigmatic Holy Land crusades." More difficult than this debate? @Srnec :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: I wrote the following before Srnec's latest edit but am posting it before another response kicks in. I had not read the paragraph above when the comment below was written.

This is in response to Srnec's discussion and proposal above. (1) Crusades is the parent article and should be IAW WP:SUMMARYSTYLE (2) Reverting Crusades to the way it was a year ago is probably right at the Outline level, but discarding all of the hundreds of hours of edits made over the last year is counterproductive. There are some truly bad write-ups from the version a year ago. (3) Military history of the Crusader states does not seem to fit the bill in my opinion as it is organized by Islamic dynasty, not chronology. I could support an article on the "Crusades to the Holy Land" along the lines of Asbridge's history. (4) I'm not at all sure what "Expansion of Crusading" is supposed to be. If it's Ideology development, then yes. If it's non-Levant crusades, then I'm not sure it's necessary. The rest of the discussion above is really premature until the basic structure is decided. And the recent "dubious" edits to the article are not helpful. If they're incorrect, then fix them. But they seem pretty innocuous to me and not at all critical to the rest of the discussion. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There might be no need to remove Military history of the Crusader states even if it "duplicates" a new article created to preserve the work of Dr G. in a summary-style. If it is organized differently (by dynasty), some readers might prefer that. It's not confusing if it's explained at the top of the articles. It can be fine to remove it, if this is not controversial, but a controversy around a global organization issue only to avoid "duplication" that can be logically justified is not worth it. Better focus on real non verifiable content issues (if any), real POV fork issues (if any), real undue weight issues (if any), etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Srnec wrote But the current division between "Crusades" and "Crusading movement" is artificial and meaningless. This is the old debate.You accept the notion that it could be about institutions and the ideology, but refuse that it could be a top level article, covering the totality, women, some MILHIST, etc. from a different angle. When you say that it's meaningless, I guess that you refer to the fact that it tends to cover all aspects, which should be the role of a single article Crusades. My answer is, again, that the summary-style guideline is not there to say that we cannot have two articles that are complementary in their respective approach. I know, Borsoka, has already answered that they are not complementary. So, we turn into a circle here. It is when I see this situation that I recommend that we consider specific content and stop making general statements (saying it's meaningless, etc.) Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

1) Agree, 2) Agree, 3) Agree but would change "Crusades to the Holy Land" to "Crusades for the Holy Land" to accommodate the Fourth Crusade and attacks on Egypt with the strategic purpose of enabling the capture and defence of Jerusalem. It is ultimately what the RFC is about. Asbridge is definitly an excellent starting point, if we were to follow Vice regent's excellent advice to address this question with reference to example academic works for scope purposes. Military history of the Crusader states is a different article that in the 13 years since Srnec created it hasn't progressed past Start Class. 4) Agree, Expansion .... is not logical, Crusading movement is about the ideology, instituitions, representation, popular response and memorialisation of the crusades. That is what was written, said, sung and why, from 1095 to the dawn of the 20th century (e.g. pretty close to Riley-Smith's lifetime work and the Oxford History). It is not about the MILHIST. Agree also that the recent dubious edits weren't helpful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I "created" Military history of the Crusader states by merging three articles by Djmaschek and another by an IP, as per a discussion at the now defunct Crusades task force talk page. See here. I did not follow proper attribution procedures at the time (it was 2008...), but have added an edit summary to clarify now. See Talk:Military history of the Crusader states as well.
Perhaps the simplest solution is to remove the MILHIST from Crusading movement and move it to a title that makes it clear what it is about per WP:NDESC. Norfolk, with all due respect for your hard work, this discussio n began because you were changing links and claiming that Crusading movement was the broader article. That does not seem consistent with an article that is not supposed to have any military history in it. Srnec (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand that Crusades should keep its status of top article, not the unique one, but certainly it should be a top article, as per consensus agreement. Currently, it does not have the content of a top article. At the same time, Crusading movement got more and more the content of a top article, but this is not a problem as long as it takes a different approach that focuses more on institutions, ideology, etc., not on MILHIST. The problem is that Crusades must remain a top article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there's some sort of agreement here. Both Srnec and Norfolk agree that this article should be the top level article. Norfolk agrees "Reverting Crusades to the way it was a year ago is probably right at the Outline level, but discarding all of the hundreds of hours of edits made over the last year is counterproductive". So I think the difference is not what should be implemented but how it should be implemented. On the other hand, Norfolk wants the creation of "an article to cover the primary definition from the Oxford English Dictionary A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims." Srnec accepts this possibility but is concerned about defining its exact scope. The scope of it can be "In the Holy Land (1095–1291)" as defined in Template:Campaignbox Crusades, or we can agree to something a bit different. Am I seeing this correctly? VR _talk 01:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent, you wrote Norfolk agree[s] that this article should be the top level article (emphasis mine). Norfolk might have written something that meant that for you, but in practice Crusading movement is a kind of top level article. I would have no problem if the consensus was to restrict the scope of Crusading movement so that it is clearly not a top level article. However, no rules requires that and it should not be done artificially only to make Crusades the unique top article. In fact, it does not matter whether we call it a top level article or not. What matters is that we do not restrict its scope artificially. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Without military (and political) history how can we provide a full and coherent picture of the crusades/crusading movement? For instance, do we really think that crusading ideology developed because popes succeeded each other (as it is presented in Crusading movement)? Again: is there anybody who think we do not need a high-level, summary-style, coherent article about all aspects of crusades? Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The answer to the last question that you asked is that we need this article, which I assume should be Crusades, but it does not require that we put artificial constraints on Crusading movement. Duplicate contents is not an issue if globally the two articles have a different approach. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand that WP is not a random collection of essays, but a coherent encyclopedia. So I think, we do not need two high-level, summary-stlye, coherent articles about all aspects of the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish would you accept to move (and thus restrict the scope of) Crusading movement to ideology and theology of crusading (or a similar name) as suggested by Srnec above? This would be in addition to the creation of an article called Crusades for the Holy Land, and Crusades would become the top level article. VR _talk 02:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Just tryna find consensus here, folks

Just tryna find consensus here, folks This is good. You asked the good question. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka wrote I understand that WP is not a random collection of essays. Yes, but an approach that takes the angle of the ideology, the institutions, etc. instead of the MILHIST makes sense. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we need separate articles about crusading ideology, military ordReers, Crusader states, Church in the crusader states, etc, but we do not need two high-level articles. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I would not make a big deal about whether it is a top article or not. The key point is that the scope should be natural and not restricted artificially only because we want that there is a single top article. In particular, you might have in mind that we do not need a consolidation of the different aspects covered in Crusading movement and instead of having Crusading movement, we should have many articles on these different aspects all consolidated in Crusades. I oppose that, because I don't see any issue, only advantages in having a separate consolidation in Crusading movement and there should be good reasons to change an existing global organization. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The article's title is a secondary issue. We cannot provide a full and coherent picture about all aspects of the crusades/crusading movement without mentioning the key events of military and political history: military and political events influenced the development of ideology and institutions, and new institutions and ideological developments influenced military and political events. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand that this is your key argument. You repeated it several times in different manners. This is a discussion that we had months ago. I can only repeat what I told you then and so often after: please provide some concrete content that illustrates your claim. I suspect that we will see that the examples that you will provide can be managed using some duplication + reference to a main article for any extra needed material. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If you had read my above remarks, you would have found some examples ([4]). Why do you think that the scope of an article gathering topics like ideology, women, military orders and financing is natural? Why do you think that a single top level article is not "natural" and it "artificially" restricts the scope? Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

We should discuss these examples. Are they contents already existing in Crusading movement? If yes, then it's good that you mention them, because if extra explanation can be useful, it should be provided. Your last question is making a false statement. I am not saying that making Crusades a top articles should restrict the scope of Crusading movement. I am actually saying the exact opposite. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain what do you propose? 1. Do you suggest we need one or two top-level articles? 2. If you propose we need two top-level articles, what would be the difference between the two? Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - did not see the last question). Regarding why I find the scope of Crusading movement natural, it's only that it has less emphasis on MILHIST. It's not that I want an article without MILHIST. I also think that articles with a lot of emphasis on MILHIST are necessary, but we need article without this emphasis. This distinction between MILHIST and non-MILHIST appears more important to me than the distinction between the non MILHIST aspects, say between woman and theology. I feel it's good that this is emphasized by regrouping these other aspects in Crusading movement. But, I say that because you ask. My main point is that it's the current organization and this is a good reason in itself to try working with it. It's you that need to explain the problem with it. There many ways to successfully organize a topic, each having its own rational. There is a bit of arbitrariness here. You need a good reason to change the current organization. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(1) I explained what are my concerns with examples. Sorry, I do not want to explain with more examples that the presentation of all important aspects of crusades/crusading movement in a single high-level article is a more natural approach than the artificial separation of military history from women, ideology, military orders, financing, etc. (2) Why do you think that women should be presented in the company of finances, military orders and theology? (3) Is there a natural connection between theology and finances that does not exist between them and military history? (4) Why do you think that your suggestion does not restrict the scope of both articles artificially? Borsoka (talk)

(1) I did not meant to say that you did not give examples. Again, we should discuss these examples. (2) and (3) I already answered these two questions by providing a rational and I added that other ways have their own rational, but we need a good reason to change the way currently used. (4) Your last question is weird. My suggestion is basically not to restrict. So, it's strange that you ask why it would not restrict. We should stop this, because you do not get what I am saying at all. It's not productive. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

again (3). If you don't see the special role of MILHIST, then I would not help you. Maybe others will. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice work @Vice regent. I accept the idea of moving Crusading movement to another name, the current name is obviously causing unnecessary debate which will just continue. This is conditional on there being consensus for the second action you mentioned e.g. the creation of Crusades for the Holy Land. This would leave Crusades free to develop organically into a broader and shallower article. Well done, I will stop writing there to avoid opening whole new cans of worms. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not remember you have answered my questions (2) and (3). I have never denied the special role of military history in this context. For instance, the section Military in Crusader states was mainly completed by me. Borsoka (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said: We should stop this, because you do not get what I am saying at all. It's not productive. Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, our discussion could hardly be productive. You are wrong: I perfectly understand what you are saying but your statements are not convincing. Borsoka (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to kindly and generously say that you are mistaken: Given that you ask weird questions that attribute to me opinions that I never had or at the least never mentioned (because pointless in my view), it's either that you misunderstood what I wrote or something else that I cannot think of you. Therefore, I take the first option, which is that you don't understand what I wrote. It could be that the way I explain things does not work for you. My answer to your questions 2 & 3 is the rational that I explained, which is that MILHIST is special among all aspects of the subject, just like the billiard ball number 8 is special among other billiard balls in pool. I also said that, if you don't see why it is special, I would not help you. The reason I do not want to go into these details is that, as I explained, it's only a rational and there are many successful ways to organize a topic, each with a different rational. Consequently, my main position is that we need good reasons (i.e., beyond this kind of general rationals) to change the current global organization. Here by "change the current global organization", I have in mind artificial restrictions on Crusading movement or worst its removal so that the aspects it covers can be covered differently. I agree that we should discuss the examples that you provided to see if they provide good reasons for this kind of restrictions or reconstructions. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Our private discussion was boring and useless. Sorry I do not want to reopen it. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I was the first to point that out and even explained why. The "we" when I wrote "we should discuss the examples..." was not meant to mean between both of us. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed consensus

Here is a proposed first attempt at determining consensus:

• 1. Crusades should become a top-level article (meaning broad in scope and shallow in coverage) and its outline should be restored to what it was a year ago (to one of the versions suggested by Srnec here). That doesn't mean a simple revert, however, and will require work from all parties to ensure that good changes in the past year are not lost.
• 2. An article on Crusades for the Holy land should be created. It would include Norfolkbigfish's proposed definition of "A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims". It might also include other crusades mentioned by Srnec, subject to further discussion. IMO, "Crusades for the Holy land" is well described and problems of dileneation should not prevent us from creating an article on it.
• 3. The scope of Crusading movement should be narrowed to ideology and theology of crusading (name suggested by Srnec).

There is still the unresolved question of what to do with Military history of the Crusader states? Should it be subsumed into Crusades for the Holy land because there is too great an overlap? Can both exist: with Crusades for the Holy land having a much broader scope than Military history of the Crusader states? VR _talk 15:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I can be mistaken and failed to realize that there is a consensus on the creation of Crusades for the Holy Land together with a restriction of Crusading movement that, for example, would remove all MILHIST from it, also the section on women and I don't know what else. This restriction of Crusading movement is the central issue, but it might be resolved with this approach. This will be amazing. I am generally opposed to controversial restrictions at the organizational level, but who cares as long as there is a consensus and that it works when we consider actual content. This might answer Borsoka who suggests that I also impose restrictions, but I don't. I only oppose restrictions that are controversial and not justified by concrete content. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

We do have a dedicated article for Women in the Crusades. One can propose a small section for that at Crusades, ideology and theology of crusading or both, subject to further discussion.VR _talk 15:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This might work, because there is no strict restrictions on Crusading movement or on Crusades. The section on Women might not need to be so small, depending on the approach taken in Women in the Crusades. But, yes useless duplication should be avoided. Here is how Women in the Crusades describes its scope:

This article focuses on the First Crusades[1] and identifies known participants. It also highlights some of the more famous women of the later crusades.[2] For a discussion of the sociological and religious aspects of the mixing of women with the generally male crusaders, the reader is referred to the referenced documents.[3]

Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 1: support. Proposal 2: neutral. Proposal 3: support. Thank you for drafting them. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Votes are useless at this stage. Proposal 3 needs to be clarified, if only the fact that it's not really restrictive in terms of sections such as Women. Of course, the article should respect its subject, but it is broad by nature. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read it again. It is clear. Borsoka (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The "narrowed" is controversial and need to be correctly interpreted, for example, by considering the section Women and concrete content in it and in Women in the Crusades, just as we started a bit above. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers: what do you propose as the scope for Crusading movement/ideology and theology of the Crusades ? VR _talk 17:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I am ok with all three proposals in DM's VR's post above. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: the three proposals were made by editor VR not by DM, or are there further proposals? Borsoka (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed my typo. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

VR and I removed some possible misinterpretation of the term "narrowed" in the context of the section Women (see above). In this perspective, the three proposals are fine, but as usual their application in practice is subject to further discussion as mentioned by VR. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent - well put, I support the proposal, and thank you.

One caveat - I think a better new name for Crusading was proposed: Ideology and instituitions of Crusading Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Ideology and institutions of Crusading is a much better title. Ideology would include theology and it seems redundant to have that in the title.VR _talk 18:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Vice regent for providing a cogent summary of what seems to be a consensus for three articles. Clearly, I support your proposal, and will comment on some specifics later. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent asked what do you propose as the scope for Crusading movement/ideology and theology of the Crusades ?. The scope "ideology and theology of the crusades" is fine. Even Norfolkbigfish accepted that. My concern is that some people might think it's a big change with respect to the scope that Crusading movement currently has, but it's not, unless you have a strict interpretation of "ideology and theology". For example, there is an ideology behind the role given to women. It is also related to theology. So, it's not with the scope that I have an issue, but about a possible misinterpretation of "narrowed". Some narrowing might be needed, but, as you said in the speficic case of Women, this can be the subject of future discussion and I would add to that with specific content on the table. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW, the name "Ideology and theology of the crusades" is close to a name that I proposed in a previous discussion few months ago with the same scope in mind. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers This comment seems to be addressed to me and I'm not sure why. But since you brought it up, I don't think there needs to be a separate summary section on Women in the Crusades in any of the articles. I also don't think there should a summary section on Financing the Crusades (although there should be a stand-alone article on both subjects). They can be in the "See Also" category. And, while we're on the subject, Women in the Crusades, of which I was the initiator, has a very limited scope and should probably be expanded. I haven't formulated an opinion on the total scope of the third article.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly why I say that there is not only one way to globally organize a topic. I don't think we can forbid an editor to have a section that is relevant to an article's subject unless the issue is undue weight, but it's not here. If there is a main article about the subject of the section, the editor should make use of that, but very often there is a need to adapt it to the article's subject and the section will not necessarily be very small. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, Dominic. I agree that most of what is currently in Crusading movement would remain after a (possible) move (subject to successful RM) to Ideology and theology of the Crusades. The big thing that would no longer be there, I think, is the milhist. The milhist would instead be covered at Crusades for the Holy land, Northern Crusades etc. Personally, I would also WP:SPLIT out Crusading_movement#Historiography into Historiography of the Crusades.VR _talk 17:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I should read the section on MILHIST. I haven't. I agree that at first it seems weird, but I assume before I read it that there is some reason for it, such as an approach that is appropriate to support the remainder of the article. So, I can only say again my main point: subject to further discussion with concrete content on the table. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

With the caveat @Vice regent@Dominic Mayers above that Ideology and instituitions of crusading is a better fit to the scope both the MILHIST and Historiography could be easily moved to the new version of the Crusades without negatively impacting that article, while also reducing "competition" and overlap. Finance and the impact on gender on the otherhand are propably integral, but perhaps that is a date for another day. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The name "Ideology and instituitions of crusading" is even closer to what I proposed a few months ago, not that it matters much. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What are the institutions of crusading? Borsoka (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I recognize here the kind of questions that are not productive. I think you had a similar question about crusading movement. You asked what movement means. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that people here are commenting on articles they haven't read, but that's neither here nor there. But really, is anyone seriously proposing that Crusades doesn't discuss the military history? If so, it's going to be a really sorry article. I'll comment on historiography later.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who said Crusades should not discuss MILHIST? It is so ridiculous. In case this is the confusion, we were talking about the section MILHIST in Crusading movement. Most likely you meant Crusading movement will be really sorry if it could not discuss MILHIST. I would agree with that, but again, we referred to a separate section. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what it said: "The milhist would instead be covered at Crusades for the Holy land, Northern Crusades etc." Again, I'm glad that confusion is now cleared up. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that, even after a second reading. Now that I see it, my thinking is that you just had to consider that Crusades was included in the etc. Well, the long paragraph that I wrote was not at all besides the point, except that it was between Crusading movement and other articles whereas Dr. G's issue is between Crusades and other articles. Yes, crusades should remain an article that is complete with MILHIST and simply use other articles as resources optimally. It's natural that we don't want an article to be too big. This is where summary-style is useful. The idea is not to shrink Crusades as much as possible so that it's only an entry point for other articles. I should add that Dr. G and others argued that WP:weight requires that MILHIST has a much greater weight than other aspects in the Crusades article. I trust them on this. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Grampinator—I think what @Dominic Mayers intended to write, or at least what would happen in practice, is that the level of detail of the MILHIST in Ideology and instiuitions of Crusading and Crusades would be reduced, with the detail in this article moving to Crusades for the Holy Land. Is that right Dominic? That said does that allay your concerns @Dr. Grampinator? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I raised the same "unproductive" question about crusading movement (not about movement). My "unproductive" question was not answered, and for a week we have been discussing whether we need a separate article about crusading movement. So again: what are the institutions of crusading? Borsoka (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize to others, but I like to state the obvious. Ideology and institutions go together. It's like "theory and practice" or "science and technology". The article is not only about ideology in an abstract manner. If your point is that you don't accept that there was an ideology that existed in practice, then it's another matter. Even the notion of an ideology by itself is questionable. So, we say what the sources say. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your productive answer, although my undproductive question remained unanswered, so I still think the original proposal - "The scope of Crusading movement should be narrowed to ideology and theology of crusading" - is the best approach. Borsoka (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As the OED puts it 6. a. An established law, custom, usage, practice, organization, or other element in the political or social life of a people; a regulative principle or convention subservient to the needs of an organized community or the general ends of civilization. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

For even further precision the title could lose the plural e.g. Ideology and instituition of crusading. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the definition of the term "institution", although sometimes, after much concentration I can understand English words. However, my question remained unanswered: what is the institution of crusading? In other words, what would be the article's scope? Borsoka (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, this is my understanding of what summary style says. The purpose is to reduce the size of one big article. My understanding is also that the summary style guidelines must be understood in respect of WP:weight. For example, it's natural to split the sections that would otherwise receive too much weight. However, I was not making a statement about what is the relevance of MILHIST in [Ideology and instiuitions of Crusading. I did not read that section, I must admit. Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Taking into account the above discussion, I oppose any article about "Ideology and institutions of crusading". I still think that proposal 3 - "The scope of Crusading movement should be narrowed to ideology and theology of crusading" - is the best approach. Borsoka (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka, why not Ideology of Crusading? It should make you even happier. Institutions goes naturally with this anyway (see my answer above). Norfolkbigfish, what do you think? Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ideology of Crusading is an acceptable alternative for me. Thank you for your proposal. Yes, institutions, military history and the history of the crusader states, military orders, etc go naturally with it, but we are not here to write a single huge article, but to develop a well organized encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: can you give examples of institution(s) of crusading? That way others can decide if they should be together in an article called Ideology and institution of Crusading or perhaps covered differently.VR _talk 14:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka has a problem with the current role of Crusading movement in the global organization and its respective scope. Therefore, no name that tries to reflect this scope would satisfy him. Whether "institution" is the best word is important, but it's better to first discuss the scope directly in terms of concrete content. The current discussion is just Borsoka not discussing the scope in terms of concrete content and getting us lost with him in generalities and difficult naming issues. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean by "examples of institutions". I want someone to provide concrete content examples of what that would include. The positions of everyone here might be closer than we all think.VR _talk 15:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your question is fine, because I assume it is a way to sincerely ask what is the scope. What is problematic is to expect that the article's name represents the scope using usual definitions. We could ask the question what "Crusades" means? Clearly this would be denying a background knowledge about the topic. I am serious here, by itself the name "Crusades" is very far from demarcating the topic. It's the established practice and background knowledge that makes us accept this name. Borsoka's argument makes use of the fact that the practice and background knowledge for "Crusading movement" is not as well established than for "Crusades". But, it's not at all a sufficient argument to reject the article topic. The uninvolved editor that closed the last RfC agreed with this when he wrote in the conclusion that verifiability was not meant to be applied to the subject of an article, but to its content. There is nothing new here. Borsoka is repeating the same old tactic that he used before. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers is bang on the money here, @Vice regent—historians such as Riley-Smith and Housley had no problems with the description Crusading movement when developing a new approach that relied on the wider historical evidence rather the annals of the military history (see the Oxford History). Normally it is best practice in these debates to quote academics rather than express opinion but just to keep the debate ticking over here is a response. One OED definition of instituitions is An established law, custom, usage, practice, organization, or other element in the political or social life of a people; a regulative principle or convention subservient to the needs of an organized community or the general ends of civilization. So a good starting point would be the development and implementation of Canon and secular Law (it goes without saying that this is regarding Crusading, but it is stated to avoid this being subject to pedantry). This would expand into the development of papal bulls, taxation and the collection, thereof. Tyerman discusses the state of mind of crusaders and christians in general in Were there any crusades in the Twelth century which touches on custom, so Eschatology, piety, active repentance, criticism and resistance (Christian) all come into play. This feeds into how it was shaped by propaganda, sermonising, songs and an oral popular history that was distinct from the elite written version. The development of practices involved is a subject on its own, the taking of the cross, papal banners, ritual and rites etc. Organisations include the Military Orders (up until the late 19th century not the puny mentions on WP and in Crusades to date), the Holy Leagues and the roles of monastries as the spriritual and material bankers of the crusades etc. The development of terminology, definition and, yes, women are covered within this scope—no current academic would discount gender studies from the topic these days. This is wrapped up with the key personalities who shaped this who tended to be clerics and Popes rather than soldiers and kings. @Dr. Grampinator had some useful examples and gets all this stuff. @Srnec has valid concerns on competition and overlap, but despite this there really isn't anything that prevents the Crusading movement growing organically and taking this into account. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This is what I expect when I ask for a discussion in terms of concrete content and counter replies should be even more specific than that. We should move toward concrete content, eventually things that can be seen in diffs. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a little hard to keep up with this conversation, but here are some inputs.

(1) The term Crusading movement was suggested (perhaps by me?) as a title here based on Riley-Smith's Oxford History.

(2) The Riley-Smith work starts with "The Crusading movement and historians" which is why the Historiography section is in Crusading movement.

(3) The precise topics split between Crusades and Crusading movement are TBD, but the former should have an emphasis on military and political history, and the latter on ideology and institutions.

(4) As a summary article, Crusades should provide enough information on individual crusades to give the reader a taste to see if they want to read more (e.g., 4–6 paragraphs with an illustration). WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is a good guide and particularly the example article on World War II. It should also include a short section on Crusading movement.

(5) Not every topic needs a section in Crusades. Crusader castles, Women in the Crusades, Crusader art, and Financing of the Crusades come to mind. "See Also" references should suffice.

More to follow. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks all good to me. Not in opposition of anything written there, I would add that though Crusader castles, Women in the Crusades, Crusader art, and Financing of the Crusades do not necessarily need a section in Crusades (it depends on WP:weight), the latter should have a small section (or some text, not only a See also link) about Crusading movement, which would cover important ideological aspects of these subjects. Regarding WP:weight, let me add the important point that it's relative to the subject. This is the main reason why I expect each article to clearly demarcate its subject and to have disambiguation links at the top for subjects that readers might expect under the article's name. Borsoka, it's clear that you disagree with this organization. You want all this to be mixed in one main article and, when length is an issue, developed in other articles using summary style. But, you need to explain concretely in terms of specific content what is the problem with the dual approach proposed here. I honestly don't see it and your approach that consists in asking questions about names and other generalities does not work. It's not helpful. I know that you provided examples of issues, but you should mention them again here and they should be discussed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(1) The proposal about merging the articles Crusades and Crusading movement and its support by editors show that the current structure is problematic. a. There are two high-level articles, but none of them presents the historical phenomenon as a whole. b. There are unnecessary repetitions in the two articles. (2) Crusading movement is an absolutely artificial, unprofessional and unnecessary article: it gathers topics like financing, women and ideology together although these topics could be presented in individual articles and interconnections between them could only be presented in a natural way in a general article about the crusades. This basic problem could not be solved through renaming the article. (3) Our general article about the crusades should catch the attention not only those who are interested in military affairs, but also those who think military affairs are boring, but are interested in ideology, arts, women's life, etc. (4) VR's three proposals above present a possible solution and the three proposals were supported by more than one editors. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There is an improvement, because it's not in the form of questions, but it's not what I meant by "in terms of specific content". I see what you mean abstractly. It's fine that you mention these generalities once, but the actual concrete issue is not clear at all. The two articles should have disambiguation tags and there should be links between them so that any specific content can be accessed and the big picture can be seen. I sincerely do not see the concrete issue and I would not see it until the discussion is in terms of specific contents, specific use cases. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know questions are disturbing, especially for those who cannot answer them. I already listed three actual issues and I will not list further for you because the basic structural problem - artificial separation of subtopics and their arbitrary gathering into a new article - should be addressed, not individual cases. We cannot present the big picture through cutting small pieces from it here and there, and then gluing them just to hang this meaningless collection of picture parts on the wall of another room. Borsoka (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

But you did describe the big picture the best you can several times. What's wrong in taking specific use cases? Why do you refuse to bring again the specific use cases that you say that you mentioned to me. What are you afraid of? Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

My time is limited and if you are unable to understand the basic structural problem, listing anything for you is only wasting of time. Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)