Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive3

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2019 [1].

Crusades[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the wide ranging subject of the Crusades—religious wars fought by the Catholic church, often but not always sanctioned by various Popes. There sheer scope of the subject makes it difficult to cover successfully and comprehensively. Indeed @Adam Bishop: thinks it may be impossible. However, this is the third attempt—each attempt improving the article so now it is the best, in my opinion, it has ever been and probably the best Wikipedia article amongst the many on the related subjects . At attempt two the prose was criticised but this has now had a full copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors thanks to @Twofingered Typist:. Also pinging @Richard Nevell:, @Jens Lallensack: and @Lord0fHats: who were very helpful the last time

Considering the challenge this subject presents it is worth reminding reviewers of how it meets the criteria.

It is:

well-written: GOCE copyedited;
comprehensive: for a summary article it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
well-researched;
neutral: with difficulty for a contentious subject, it presents views fairly and without bias
stable: with few recent edits apart from mine.

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:

a lead;
appropriate structure
consistent citations.

The Media haas recently been checked at FAC (appart from two new images).

Length—considering the bredth, it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and acts as a summary article for the subject area. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of today and after a long slog I believe all comments have been addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please link to the previous noms! Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[edit]

G'day Johnbod they are both linked above the nom statement... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - but not on the main page. Is that usual? And #2 is very incomplete, with a template error. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Johnbod—you can get to the content of #2 through the history.... Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ergo Sum[edit]

Though certainly not a review of the article, if my two cents are good currency here, I think it would be preferable for a reader to first be introduced to the article by one of the nice Medieval or Renaissance paintings of some battle of the Crusades, rather than by the {{Campaignbox Crusades}} template. Especially since the article has a substantial lede section, it can afford to be supplemented by an image as well as a few templates. Ergo Sum 00:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The base {{Military navigation}} template allows for an image, so perhaps a graphic could be incorporated via that route? Praemonitus (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tried, and failed to do this neatly, so added an image in the normal way Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great. Only thing is, that image is now used twice in the article. Ergo Sum 03:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Y—second image swapped out.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

More comments to follow, but initial impressions are not good so far as the prose is concerned. In the first paragraph the comma before "however" is inadequate and ought to be a semicolon or full stop.

Y—full-stopped Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And mention of the word "however" brings me to its absurdly excessive use throughout the article. It occurs three times in the lead and twenty-two times in the main text, and at first glance is superfluous in every case.

Y—culled from 25 to 3 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is the question of commas after introductory time periods: "In 1095, Pope Urban called" (AmE style) but "Following the First Crusade there were" (BrE style) and then "After the last Catholic outposts fell in 1291, there were" (AmE style again). The "they" in the penultimate (63-word!) sentence of the lead is presumably meant to refer to the Crusades but the last plural before them is "Genoa and Venice".

Y—adjusted formatting and replaced they Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments to follow after a thorough perusal. Tim riley talk 09:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles:—@Auntieruth55:—@Sturmvogel 66:—@Hawkeye7:— Guys, back in the day you all did sterling work reviewing this at ACR, is there any chance you can do the same at FAR, please? signature added after Dudley pointed out it was missing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish I assume that you sent this ping? I think I did not receive it because you have to sign it for the ping to work. I will try to review. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake @Dudley Miles:—I thought I had, I hadn't. Thank you Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jens Lallensack[edit]

The Albigensian Crusade taught the Papacy that – But this crusade was not introduced previously. I think we need a sentence stating the basic information of this Crusade. It seems to be an important one as it is even mentioned in the lead.

Y—Restructured to introduce and bring the details together Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although the lack of priority given to the campaign against the Cathers in southern France – That Campaign maybe should also be introduced. I think the article gives an interpretation of the crusading against heretics in Europe, but without providing the historical facts first. Consider that the reader of this very basic article might not have heard about these specific Crusades before.

Y— as above, how does it look now @Jens Lallensack: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

heterodoxy, Inquisition. Both need to be linked at first mention. "Medieval Inquisition" is linked later though.

Y— Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mass conversion was implausible and destruction of the pagans counterproductive – counterproductive in which regard? This requires some explanation imo.

Y—because the local economy relied on pagan labour, added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack:—any chance of support on this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack:—anything else on this one? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67[edit]

A level-3 vital article is hard to get to FA, good on you for having a crack at it. I have quite a few comments, so I'll approach this in a few tranches:

the indentation and semi-dot pointing of the last para of the lead doesn't work. Just IAR and make this a fifth para starting with "The Crusades had a profound impact...", and roll the dot points up into running prose. A fifth lead para is acceptable on such a large subject IMHO.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

put a translation in "" after negotium crucis, crux transmarina and crux cismarina as you have done with iter

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

move "The modern spelling crusade dates to c. 1760" to the end of the para to put it chronological order

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks'

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in general, use "" for emphasis (ie Franks, Saracen, Muslim etc, not italics

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Causes[edit]

suggest (later Roger I of Sicily) is that is correct

—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire of Constantinople seems a mouthful. Which Orthodox was it? Greek? Is a link to Byzantine Empire appropriate?

—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Pope for papacy? and be consistent with the initial caps

—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link penitential

—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the article says that the Fatimids had captured Jerusalem, then starts talking about the Seljuq hold on the city?

—Expanded and explainedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Mohammad

—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the deaths of ~~the~~ Sultan, Malikshah,"

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to Carole Hillenbrand, fix typo and link

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Iron Curtain

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the para beginning "Through military successes under Emperor Basil II," contains a partial repetition of the content of the last para of the Background section, this also relates to my earlier point about the Seljuqs and Jerusalem. Suggest putting this into the appropriate chronological point of the narrative

— when I removed the duplication there remained nothing of note, even the sources were duplicated. So I have removed the entire para Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serbians→Serbs

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"as well as the Seljuqs", but wouldn't the Seljuqs have been to the south of Constantinople?

—no, east but amended Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

be consistent with Seljuk and Seljuq

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a map would be really useful in the Causes section

—added @Peacemaker67:— what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "that ~~provided~~posed the threat"

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"overall health of the Empire at the time"

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Easter Med[edit]

Down to the In the eastern Mediterranean section. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"migrating Turks" Seljuq?

Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV"

Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Germany links to the modern country, is there a better link?

Y— Kingdom of Germany? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"led by: Robert Curthose; Stephen, Count of Blois; and Robert II, Count of Flanders." otherwise the commas are confusing

Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Byzantium

Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Malik Shah~~, the Sultan of the Seljuq Empire~~" as he has already been introduced

Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The three-month Crusader march"

Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for Edessa link County of Edessa, and add "which became one of the Crusader states"

Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Crusaders besieged ~~the city~~Antioch"

Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comma after "Despite superior numbers"

Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"taken Jerusalem from the Seljuq Turks" if that is right?

Y— yes, done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is there a link for Genoese?

Y— Republic of Genoa? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who is Al-Afdal?

Y— vizier of Egypt, done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12th century[edit]

the initial capital for Crusade/Crusades and Crusader/Crusaders should only be used when it forms part of a proper name, like First Crusade, but not when describing the nature of a series of crusades, like political crusades, or when just referring to crusaders. No doubt you will get other queries about this, it is very important that you have a close look at MOS:CAPS in this regard

—phew, all decapped Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"political crusades"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for the Siege of Edessa link, pipe "loss of Edessa" rather than just Edessa

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for Pope Eugenius III link Pope Eugene III

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

state that Bernard of Clairvaux was an abbot and link abbot

— also added he was a french Benedictine Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"monk called Rudolf initiated further massacres of Jews" as this is the second lot of them

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"King Louis VII of France"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who were "their traditional allies in Damascus"?

— branch of the Seljuks expanded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for Caliph of Baghdad, link List of Abbasid caliphs

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if Saladin was subservient to As-Salih Ismail al-Malik what was he doing seizing Damascus and most of Syria?

— did it while claiming to be his regent Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "onafter hearing of the defeat" to avoid the repetition of "on"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Acre, Israel for Acre

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for "by surrounding the strategic city", pipe the link to "surrounding the strategic city" rather just surrounding

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for "his fiancée", link Berengaria of Navarre

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for Angevin link Angevin kings of England

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Henry VI→Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 13th century, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13th century[edit]

suggest "In 1200, Pope Innocent III began preaching in favour of what became the Fourth Crusade, his exhortations primarily focussed on France but also on England and Germany." if that is consistent with the intent?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "This crusade was diverted by Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, and by King Philip of Swabia, to further their aggressive territorial objectives."

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "Dandolo aimed to expand Venice's power in the eastern Mediterranean, and Philip intended to restore his exiled nephew"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "The latter would require the overthrow of Alexios III Angelos, the uncle of Alexios IV."

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Innocent III was appalled"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Excommunication (Catholic Church)

— done, edited out Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "After the crusaders had taken Constantinople for a first time, the original purpose of the campaign was thwarted by the assassination of Alexios IV Angelos." Also, I assume they installed the latter then left? Could this be included?

— done, wording didn't quite match events so I have redrafted this and added sourcing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Papacy→papacy, there are other examples of this and papal as well

— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

decap the "Crusading Orders and Western Aid"

— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't clear whether "seemingly of their own volition" refers to their travel to Egypt or their capture of Jerusalem

— rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comma after "king of France"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII" for clarity, as there seems to have been a succession of Michael's

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"was proclaimed king"→"was proclaimed king of Sicily"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comma after "In 1285 Charles died"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadi and Jihad should be decapped

— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "the crusades continued to be conducted by short-lived armies led by independently minded potentates, rather than with centralised leadership."
"to use the logistical advantages ~~from~~of proximity"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest dispensing with "Outremer", or properly introduce it when it is first mentioned

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Middle Ages

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Europe[edit]

Down to In Europe. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popes'→popes'

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Latin Empire

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic World→Islamic world

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calixtus II→Pope Calixtus II, and in general, suggest always prefixing popes with Pope to avoid confusion with kings and nobles

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bull→bull

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"that it was placed"→"that the Reconquista was placed"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Bernard of Clairvaux

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"~~Although, m~~Many of these deserted"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

decap Fourteenth century

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

compaigning

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the ~~Papacy~~papal territorial conflicts

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further cases included the threatening Milan? also link Milan

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Languedoc

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the confiscation the lands of lords? of?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Norman Housley

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The initial indication the papacy would begin to regard the wars waged by Scandinavian and German Christians against the pagans indigenous to the Baltic coastal region as Northern Crusades came in 1147. In that year, Bernard of Clairvaux persuaded Pope Eugenius III...

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The order's strong links"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium→imperium

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Livonia

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Other orders redated the Knights" redated? and which Knights?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Robert Bartlett (historian)

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to During the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period[edit]

"to counter the expansion of the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans"→"to counter further Ottoman expansion in the Balkans" if that is what is meant?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"after a ten-week siege" of what city?

— Mahdia done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"after their victory"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest piping the link to "Sigismund of Luxemburg" to include all of "Sigismund of Luxemburg, King of Hungary and Croatia"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikopol, Bulgaria→Nicopolis

— changed to Nicopolis done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Diet of Regensburg (1541) for Ratsibon if that is the right one, otherwise link Diet of Regensburg, same for Diet of Frankfurt

— did some digging and this info seems superfluous so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Crusader states. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader state[edit]

Crusader Kingdoms→crusader kingdoms, but really, aren't they a kingdom, a principality and a county? Hardly "kingdoms" Perhaps "crusader states"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"with the kingdom amounting to" which kingdom? Jerusalem?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"~~Although~~However, some historians"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the military force of the Kingdom of Jerusalem"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This indicates conquest was possible but ephemeral because of a lack of the numbers to maintain military domination" is unclear. What conquest was possible? They had already conquered and established the states. Further conquest?

— done, rephrased for clarity, what do you think @Peacemaker67:? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "adopted delaying tactics"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"destruction of the walled cities"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"forced the Crusaders into their ultimately unsuccessful ~~strategy~~attempt(s) of destroying Egypt" haven't checked how many attempts were made, so adjust as needed

— done, rephrased, again what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the Kkingdom's demographic"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Crusader States"→"Crusader states"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"little difference into the conditions"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"However, the Muslim poll tax"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The territorial gains followed distinct ethnic and linguistic ~~entities~~lines"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for Provençal link Provence at first mention, drop later link

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crown→crown

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miltary Orders[edit]

Down to Military orders. More to come.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"developed from the culture ofin the crusader states"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "The Hospitallers (Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem)"→"Knights Hospitaller, formally the Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem," then drop the link later

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "The Poor Knights of Christ (Templars)"→the Templars, formally the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon,"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

across the Outremer→in the Crusader states

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In time, this developed into autonomous power in the region"→"In time, they developed into autonomous powers in the region"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for "continue in existence to the present day" link Sovereign Military Order of Malta

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Art and architecture. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Art & architecture[edit]

link Joshua Prawer

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would organise this section into a couple of paras about art and then a couple of paras about architecture, and not mix them up

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provencal→ Provençal for consistency

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In contrast, monumental..."

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"adopted an indigenous style"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"created by multiple hands in a workshop attached to the Holy Sepulchre"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icons→icons

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Legacy. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

"Europe and the Outremer"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"to identify the specific sources"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"of the Outremer"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imperialism→ Western imperialism

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad→jihad

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

even if for only →even if only for

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, got there in the end. In general, the above is almost entirely about the prose, MOS concerns or wikification. Great job on this so far. Ping me when you're done and I'll have a final read through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you @Peacemaker67:—I'll work through these and ping you when done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just going through it now, making minor c/es, linking etc as I go.

I have a few additional comments:[edit]

"in fact they lost the city to the Egyptians while the crusaders were besieging Antioch" is really out of place, we are talking about the causes of the crusades, not what happened during them, so I suggest dropping this bit, it is enough at this point to say that their hold on Jerusalem was weak, it could be re-inserted in the appropriate place in the narrative

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

move the link to the List of Byzantine Emperors to first mention

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

with the main article links, where they are mentioned in the body, link them there and get rid of them from the main templates, they are very busy, and links in the body are much more useful to readers.

—done, where in the body I have removed and if not moved to See Also Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

be consistent with italicisation of Reconquista

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Eugenius III is linked twice, but to different redirects

—Pope Eugene III used, duplicate removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

same for Pope Innocent III

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"German commercial interests foreshadowed the Knights" I don't understand what you mean here.

— rephrased for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem is a redirect for a link previous used

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

title case for History of the crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land and History of the crusades

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all my points have been addressed. Supporting, well done on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[edit]

the eastern and western branches of Christendom Unlink Christendom because of common term.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

increased, particularly with Jews and those considered Unlink Jews because of common term.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The crusades in the Holy Land are traditionally Link Holy Land.

— already linked Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II may be Link Holy Roman Emperor.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first use of "Muslim' is dated to the 17th-century Unlink Muslim because of common term.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth Crusades led by King Louis IX Add "of France".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Frank" and "Latin" were used during Unlink Latin because of common term.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the foundation of the Islamic religion by Muhammad Unlink Islamic religion because of common term.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

migrated into Iran to seek their fortunes Unlink Iran because current countries should be unlinked.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Arabs under the Umayyad Caliphate captured unlink Arabs because of common term.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standardise we have Mohammad v. Muhammad and Mohammad is overlinked.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

divided between the Sunnis of Syria and Iraq Unlink Sunnis and link the first "Sunni".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard conquered Cyprus in 1191 Unlink current country.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe Venice to the Republic of Venice.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

swept west from Mongolia through Unlink the current country.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the crusading orders and western aid. [88] Remove the extra space.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian expansion—Castile and León, Aragon and Portugal Unlink the current country.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

seized from the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Shishman Same as above.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who was burned at the stake in 1415 American burned.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

over the city, Thrace, Greece, the extreme north Unlink the current country.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Empire is overlinked.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ruled Rhodes (1309–1522) and Malta (1530–1798) Unlink the current country.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

states of Genoa and Venice flourished Unlink Venice.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levantines or Franco-Levantines.[B][151] Switch the note and the ref.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and the United Nations mandated foundation of the state of Israel Unlink the current country and the UN.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church shouldn't be linked due to common term.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the Protestant viewpoint was they Unlink Protestant because of common term.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

crusades to the Christian campaigns in the Holy Land Unlink Holy Land.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

definition includes attacks on paganism and heresy Unlink paganism and link the first mentioned paganism.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some crusades are overlinked.
French Levantins, Italian Levantini, Greek Φραγκολεβαντίνοι, and Turkish Levantenler or Tatlısu Frenk leri. Later European visitors pejoratively used the term "Levantine" for inhabitants of mixed Arab and European descent and for Europeans who adopted local dress and customs Unlink the languages and Arabs.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come[edit]

recover the Holy Land ended in failure Replace "ended in failure" with "failed".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptians while the crusaders were besieging Antioch Typo of besieging.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

from the thinking of 3rd and 4th century theologian Augustine of Hippo You mean "4th-century"?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately this led to the East–West Schism, the name now given to the split You mean "was now given"?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

authority but still faced a number of foreign enemies Replace "a number of" with "several".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was part of wide-ranging anti-Jewish activity --> "This was part of the wide-ranging anti-Jewish activity".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Germany, the Low countries, and Italy led their own military contingents Remove "own" here.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Byzantines provided no assistance to the crusaders' Replace "provided no assistance to" with "did not assist in".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debate ended when news arrived that the Fatimid Egyptians --> "The debate ended when news arrived that the Fatimid Egyptians".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

with the ambition to gain his own princedom Remove "own" here.

Not sure that works—the point is that he wanted to win his own princedom, a domain in which he was ruler Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

crusaders attacked their lond standing Seljuk allies in Damascus You mean "long"?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the File:Temple mount.JPG image "The present day Temple Mount in Jerusalem" --> "The present-day Temple Mount in Jerusalem".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

focussed on France but also on England Replace the "on" before England with "in".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The crusaders then proceded to seize the Christian city You mean "proceeded"?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although he condemed the attack, he was unsuccessful Typo of condemned.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

was unable or unwilling to fulfill American fulfill.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

his comittments and the original Typo of "committments"?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

killing many of the greek orthodox citizenry You mean citizenries?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

now lacked both the will or the Byzantine logistical support Remove "or" with "of".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and the papacy were in conflict Replace "were in conflict" with "conflicted".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that of the Kingdom prior to the disaster Replace "prior to" with "before".

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This action was seemingly of their own You mean seeming?

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another truce was agreed upon for a ten-year period Replace "ten-year" with "ten years". Cheers.

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5 (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come 2[edit]

The Christian powers—León, Navarre, Aragon and Catalonia Maybe pipe the kingdoms or duchies or I don't care of that time instead of current Spanish regions?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

were essentially geo-political constructs with no history based Remove the hyphen.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further cases included pressure exerted on the commune of Milan on the grounds that the city tolerated Catharism and in Languedoc the confiscation the lands of feudal lords who failed in its suppression Really long sentence it needs to be split or at least a comma.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

an Ottoman admiral, and the Sultan's north African vassals North African vassals.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey of Bouillon found himself left with only 300 knights and 2,000 infantry Remove the extra space here.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

only Tancred remained with the aim of establishing his own lordship Change "with the aim of establishing" to "intending to establish".

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

then came Acre and the capital itself was the smallest of the three numbering between 20,000 and 30,000 You mean numberings?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

holding territory, including Jersualem Typo of Jerusalem.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, the muslim poll tax on non-Muslims was reversed --> "However, the muslim poll tax on non-Muslims was reversed".

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One example saw the Venetians receiving one third of Tyre --> "One third" needs an hyphen.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon Remove the second "of" here.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the output often provided encouragement to journey on pilgrimage Replace "provided encouragement" with "encouraged".

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

either reflected or influenced the taste of artistic patrons You mean art?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian city states of Genoa and Venice "City states" needs an hyphen.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and the United Nations mandated foundation "Nations mandated" needs an hyphen.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

considering Christianity to be under an Islamic religious Remove the extra space between "be under".

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

derives from the 19th century novels of You mean "19th-century"?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Empire is overlinked.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oof that's anything damn that took ages to finish. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129[edit]

Sup NBF. Just an FYI, but a couple of your bibliographic entries are of works too early to have received ISBNs, so either give them their OCLCs or identify what (later) edition you're using. There's a couple of p/pp errors too. Bloody nice article. Hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 17:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—thank you @Serial Number 54129:—should have picked up the isbn point in the sources review section (see below) and fixed the p/pp issues. All good at this end, hope all's well with you Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

No spotchecks carried out
Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
Formats

General re page ranges: MoS now recommends the format you have adopted in refs 108 and 112, rather than the shorter form that you have otherwise used. Thus, for example, ref 46 should become 146–153, ref 48 becomes 104–106, and so on. It's a bit of a chore, I know, but...

—yes a chore, particularly as some other editor went through and did this. Still all done :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 32 requires dash not hyphen

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 56 requires pp. not p.
Ref 77: dash not hyphen

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 81: no page ref?

did this to get the book in the bibliography at the request of another reviewer. Source is for the entire crusade rather than a particular fact as there is debate on the significance and accuracy of info on this one Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 144: dash not hyphen

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise 145, 146, 147

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jotischky is out of alphabetical sequence in bibliography

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author details missing from "The Crusades: Idea and Reality"

—not used, so I have removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why retrieval dates for Chazan, Constable, and Tyerman 2007, but not otherwise?

— removed for consistency Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN checks

Is Brundage the author of Medieval Italy? WorldCat gives this

— not required, so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cantor 1958: I suspect the ISBN relates to the 2016 edition

— duplicate sourcing so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constable: Publisher should be "Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection", not "Dumbarton Oaks"

— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hillenbrand: ISBN goes to this - different publisher and year

—done, corrected isbn Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Housley: WorldCat gives year as 2008

—cross checked with publisher, 2006 is correct Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krey: check publisher: (WorldCat [2])

— not required, so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality/reliability: sources appear to be comprehensive and to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton:—are you in a position to support on references? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to record "support" when I've not read the article, only checked the sources, but I can confirm that the sources now meet all the necessary criteria for quality, reliability and formats. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Srnec[edit]

My comments mainly have to do with structure, because I have not read the whole article.

Given the size and scope, I think we could have more headings (and thus a longer table of contents). Generally, I think there should only be one main article link atop a section. I think Main articles: Fourth Crusade, Latin Empire, Frankokratia, Siege of Constantinople (1203), Sack of Constantinople (1204), Battle of Adrianople (1205), Siege of Zara, Fifth Crusade, Sixth Crusade, Barons' Crusade, Siege of Jerusalem (1244), Seventh Crusade, War of Saint Sabas, Eighth Crusade, Ninth Crusade, Sicilian Vespers, Fall of Tripoli (1289), and Siege of Acre (1291) is totally unhelpful.

—added extra headings and removed Main articles, some to body, some to see Also Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably have a section on each of the numbered crusades. Yes it's merely conventional and things like Theobald of Navarre's crusade don't fit well, but it facilities readers learning what the numbered crusades were easily in one article. Headings could be broader, e.g., "First Crusade to 1147", "Second Crusade to 1190", etc.

The numbering of the crusades is both arbitary and old, from 1820. The article refers to them all by name and links. The numbering is very questionable: 5th & 6th could be considered the same, as could the 8th & 9th, the 4th ended up a fight between christian powers and 2nd & 6th involved very little campaigning at all. Historians tend now to look at it thematically to avoid the assymetry in importance, size and time scale e.g. Settlement to 1118>>establishment to 1187>>recovery to 1216>>decline to 1274>>end and later crusades or Coming>>Response>>Conflict of major actors>>Survival>>Islamic victory as Asbridge structures it. None of this accounts for political, pagan or heresy based crusade and those after the 13th-century Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of the reader approaching this article because he has heard or read something about the Crusades and wants to know more. Is s/he going to click on a section titled "12th century" (§4.2)? Srnec (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— point take @Srnec:—how do these look now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the European section, I would break it down into (a) Reconquista, (b) crusades against pagans, i.e., in the North and (c) crusades against heretics and schismatics.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Historiography of the crusades is redlinked twice, both times in hatnotes. Why *point* readers to an article that does not exist?

—fixed, page exists but link doesn't work due to capitalisation Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of narrative, but an overview article like this seems like the wrong place for this level of depth at times. Maybe others disagree. The 49,000-word article on the Crusades in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, which I don't have access to, would be a good thing to look at, just to see how an academic writing a long encyclopedia article on this topic handles it.

I don't have access either, although the article currently strikes a balance between editors who want more narrative and those who want more analysis. Seems to suit Wikipedia practice as well. Unless there is something specific that needs addressing I suggest it does a difficult job pretty well? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute it does a difficult job well. I can only say I find it uninviting. I really think the table of contents in an article almost 100 kB long ought to be more detailed. Srnec (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can see a way to a compromise that makes this more inviting but at the same time doesn't over emphasise the oudated thinking on numbering—will do this Monday Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—changes made Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few new comments:[edit]

Lusatia is mentioned twice, including the lead. The source, Europe – A History, is not the greatest. Nothing in the article Lusatia links it to the 12th-century crusades and it isn't in Christiansen's Northern Crusades, as you would expect given its geographical position. Is Lusatia being confused with the Liutizi?

Isn't this the geographic space that the Liutizi inhabited? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y—Although to avoid confusion I have rephrased to remove and resourced to Jotischky Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

were essentially geopolitical constructs with no history based on tribe or ethnicity. This seems weird to say. What does Jotischky say exactly?

They were essentially geopolitical structures, with no basis in tribal or ethnic distinctions between Christian peoples under their rule Norfolkbigfish (talk)

I guess I don't like "geopolitical structure" because I don't understand how any other state in the article is not a geopolitical structure. How about: "With no tribal or ethnic historical basis, they were united and divided several times in the 11th and 12th centuries." That seems to me the gist of what he is saying. They lacked "deep" historical identity as kingdoms, i.e., Navarre gobbled up Castile and Aragon and then was divided between them; Castile and León were united then divided then united again. Srnec (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—I have taken your comments on board, removed geoplotical and rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus has emerged among modern historians against the view of a generation of Spanish scholars who believed it was Spanish religious and national destiny to defeat Islam. Why should either modern historians or an earlier generation of Spanish scholars be considered experts on Spain's religious and national destiny?

Isn't this what historians and scholars do, become experts and give opinions. This is not only in Jotischky but also in Fletcher Reconquest and Crusade in Spain and Linehan History and Historians of Medieval Spain. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think destiny falls within a historian's area of expertise. Srnec (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—destiny>>inevitable?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the Spanish, the Reconquista was a war of domination rather than extinction. As opposed to what war of extinction?

— yes, reworded to match Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't clear: why would it be supposed that the war was a war of extinction? No other wars of extinction are mentioned on the page. It seems an odd distinction to make. Also, note that I will never ask you to make small tweaks to the wording. If I think it needs a tweak, I'll just do it. I'll only bring things up when the change required isn't obvious or requires a reference. Srnec (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the only war of extinction in the article, not only did the Crusaders routinely exterminate the Muslim urban populations in the major cities of the Outremer (mentioned), Baibers simularly exterminated the Latin population in order to ensure permanent supremacy. It is also notable in the contrast between Spain at the time and Spain at the end of the 15th century when the Muslims were expelled. It is reputably sourced as well Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Reconquista was continued to attract crusaders and crusader privileges until al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) was suppressed in the fourteenth century. But Granada didn't fall until 1492, as the next sentence states. What does this mean? The Bull of the Crusade certainly continued to grant privileges in Spain.

—True, reworded to correct Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may yet read the whole article. Srnec (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More:[edit]

Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status, legal rights and legal protection. Should probably be said that dhimmi status wasn't free.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Western chronicles present the First Crusade as a surprising and unexpected event, but historical analysis has demonstrated it was enabled by earlier developments in the 11th century. This seems like a non sequitur. Surely it was pretty surprising and unexpected regardless of whether or not we can talk intelligently about its causes and antecedents?

— reordered, I think this removes your concern? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As often in articles that cover this period, it is probably necessary to add a paragraph to the background to explain how we go from Roman to Byzantine. I notice that there is very little on the Byzantine background as it stands. (Unless I haven't yet found it.)

—short paragraph added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of {{nbsp}} for centuries is inconsistent.

—standardised on hyphen Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

although the Western Schism had split the papacy seems irrelevant where it is placed.

—agreed, removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

§ "Crusader states" could perhaps use some subdividing.

Y—done-how about this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More[edit]

This movement established an assertive, reformist papacy eager to increase its power and influence over secular Europe. A struggle for power developed between Church and state in medieval Europe from around 1075 and continued through the period of the First Crusade. This struggle, now known as the Investiture Controversy,[31] was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics. To gather military resources for his conflict with the Emperor, Pope Alexander II developed a system of recruitment via oaths that Pope Gregory VII extended into a network across Europe.
This came up on the article talk page. The problem here is that the "struggle for power between church and state in medieval Europe" cannot be linked solely to the issue of investiture between pope and emperor because the emperor was not claiming a right to invest bishops in Scotland or Spain or anywhere but the empire. There is a confusion here between the wider Investiture Controversy (Europe-wide) and the narrower one (Empire-wide). Srnec (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

Just checking in here at the one-month mark. We have lots of commentary but no support for promotion at this time. I'm afraid the nomination will be heading for the archive soon, in that case. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed all outstanding comments, even some that look a bit driveby and one who said they hadn't read the article. Not sure where that leaves this one—unless @CPA-5: and @Peacemaker67: respond. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now at one support and another that looks like it might be support. Also, has Brians support on sourcing. What more does it need? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in additional passing image and source reviews, we need to see substantial support from multiple people who have demonstrably evaluated the text against the other criteria. --Laser brain (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both major reviewers who expended significant effort reviewing are now supporting Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain:, Hi, three major reviews have now resulted with Support, there are no Opposers, and this page is longer than the actual article - do you have further guidance please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A FAC isn't finished before all reviews have been addressed (three supports is just the minimum requirement, there is no maximum). I have an unanswered section below. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to your unanswereds later this week @FunkMonk: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: FYI, but with this edit the nom bolded my earlier "Sup". I wonder why? Lucky that the bot is not easily fooled, eh? :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this was inappropriate, and that would be my mistake @Serial Number 54129:—I took your sup as meaning support and didn't want it to be missed if that was the case, amongst a very large number of comments. As it stands Peacemaker67 and CPA-5 both support after in depth feedback. There are no outstanding comments from other reviewers, some of whom admit not fully reading the article. Source review has been undertaken as well, although Brian doesn't normally support on this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: I appreciate your efforts to clarify the page, although general it's bad form to modify anyone else's comments. This has a ways to go and at this rate is unlikely to be promoted. Just having addressed outstanding comments isn't sufficient—as I mentioned above, we need to see substantial support from those who have evaluated the text, sources, and images. We will also need a thorough spot-check of the text against cited sources for any verifiability and plagiarism/copyvio issues (this is normal procedure). --Laser brain (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point @Laser brain:—learn something new everyday. Please be patient with this one, both @Srnec: and @Dudley Miles: seem to be giving this a thorough and active going over. It would be a shame to curtail this mid-flow. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain:—how do we get someone to thorough spot-check of the text against cited sources for any verifiability and plagiarism/copyvio issues? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: I'll post a request. --Laser brain (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: @Display name 99: thank you for what you have done so far, any more? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: @Display name 99: — thanks guys, I think I have covered all your points. Are there any more? Alternatively, what would prevent you moving to support? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish, I'm continuing to work on the review. You don't have to ping us every two days after not receiving any comments, especially since it took you 3.5 days to get back to me after I posted my original remarks. I'll get back to you with more later in today. Display name 99 (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity it is worth noting that this article now has four reviewers who support after giving in depth comments Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

"The most commonly known crusades". This sounds to me a bit odd. Maybe "The best known crusades".

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The term crusade is also applied to other church-sanctioned campaigns." This is far too narrow. The word is often used in non-reigious contexts.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Crusaders often pillaged as they travelled, and their leaders generally retained control of captured territory instead of returning it to the Byzantines." This is far too general. Many territories had never belonged to the Byzantines.

—agreed Dudley, in fact it was so general I thought the best thing was to edit it out Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But all of the eastern Mediterranean lands were ex-Byzantine. Srnec (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the article also covers areas which were never Byzantine, such as Spain. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italian city-states established colonies which endured during the Ottoman period. Where?

Butting in: "which endured sieges, massacres and attacks before eventual conquest during the Ottoman period" might be more accurate! Category:Ottoman–Venetian_Wars, and others. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—thanks both, I have expanded the sebtence to include both location and the conflict and fall to the Ottomans. I hope you think this does the job. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Medieval romance, philosophy and literature were galvanised by the wellspring of accounts of crusading heroism, chivalry and piety." Do you mean that medieval romance etc had their origin in crusader stories? It is an obscure way of putting it.

—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology - what was the crusader term for Byzantine Christians?

—Greeks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the relocation of the political and economic centre of the Islamic world to Iran and Iraq and away from Palestine." Why Palestine? The Umayyad capital was Damascus.

— removed from Palestine, even though it is in the source it seems strange Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the normative devotional and penitential practises of the aristocracy" I am not sure what normative means here.

—replaced with developing which would seem not to impact the meaning. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The eastern Mediterranean saw the disruption..." I find this paragraph confusing. 1. The Seljuks in Iran were in conflict with the Fatimids in Egypt? Where did this conflict take place? 2. "The conquered indigenous Arabs had lived under the Seljuks" Where? Iran is not Arab. 3. "death of the vizier and effective ruler, Nizam al-Mulk" Ruler of where and on whose behalf?

—done. 1 Palestine & Syria 2 Near East 3 Seljuk Empire and Malikshah Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Through military successes under Emperor Basil II, the Byzantine Empire reached a zenith in 1025." A zenith? Surely it never recovered its losses following the rise of Islam.

—true not a zenith, rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. PS I think your ping still may not have worked. You may have to do the ping and signature at the same time, not the ping and then the signature later. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles:—@Auntieruth55:—@Sturmvogel 66:—@Hawkeye7:— Guys, back in the day you all did sterling work reviewing this at ACR, is there any chance you can do the same at FAR, please? (Third attempt to get this ping working with Dudley's assistance Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

"Yet recent scholarship has identified encouragingly positive signs of the overall health of the Empire at the time." I would delete "encouragingly"as POV and vague.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Urban raised the issue of military support again and preached for a crusade." You say "again" but you have not said that he had raised the issue previously. Also, was Urban urging both military aid to Byzantium and a crusade to Jerusalem?

—added Council of Piacenza where it was first raised—Urban's motives are debatable, it started with military aid and quickly expanded to something much larger. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"a Turkish ambush at Civetot left only 3,000 survivors". Out of how many?

—on checking a couple of sources the numbers are vague so I have reworded to annilated Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Factionalism amongst the Turks after the death of Malik Shah" Who?

— Sultan of the Seljuk Empire, was introduced earlier but expanded to make clear here Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"After a delay of nearly two years, the loss of Edessa in 1144 to Imad ad-Din Zengi, governor of Mosul, prompted preaching" This is unclear. Do you mean that the preaching was 2 years after the loss. I would suggest "In 1144, Imad ad-Din Zengi, governor of Mosul, captured Edessa..."

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Bernard of Clairvaux spread the message that the loss was the result of sinfulness, and redemption was the reward for crusading" Surely this was nothing new but the message all along?

Yes, true—the point is here that Bernard was preaching specifically that the loss of Edessa was God's punishement and therefore further crusading was required for redemption. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Simultaneously, the anti-Semitic preaching of a Cistercian monk called Rudolf initiated further massacres of Jews in the Rhineland.[53] This formed part of a general increase in crusading activity" You are saying that massacres of Jews were a part of crusading?

—partially yes, the general religious fervor that the crusades formed apart reduced the tolerance for difference—not only for Jews but heretics and orthodox christians too Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the crusaders attacked their long-standing Seljuk allies in Damascus" You have not said previously that they were allies unless I have missed it.

—no you didn't miss it but I have rephrased a bit to make it jar and this the first point where Jerusalem/Damascus relations are discussed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Historians recognise that morale fell, distrust developed between the settlers and the crusaders" "Historians recognise" is superfluous and you have not previously mentioned settlers.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

"encouraged King Baldwin III of Jerusalem to plan an invasion" When?

— 1160 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1163 Shawar visited Zengi's son and successor Nur ad-Din in Damascus, seeking political and military support. Some historians have considered Nur ad-Din's support a visionary attempt to surround the crusaders, but in practice he prevaricated, only responding when it became clear that the crusaders might gain an unassailable foothold on the Nile." This is too cryptic. Support presumably for restoration, but you should say so. Then you should say that that he prevaricated, not that Nur ad-Din supported restoration - no he didn't. An "unassailable foothold" sounds strange, and how were the crusaders getting the foothold when they had accepted ransom to go away?

—this was three years later, reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the first Muslim to unite Aleppo and Damascus" This is another example of a quirk I find irritating, that you frequently refer to things as if they have been previously mentioned. So far as I can find, you have not said that Nur ad-Dinn united Aleppo and Damascus.

—sentence added for this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" Politics in England as well as illness forced Richard's departure" DNB on Richard says that illness delayed not caused Richard's departure.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The insufficient number of crusaders arriving in Venice meant that they were unable to pay the Venetians for the fleet for which they had contracted." Ability to pay depends on money not manpower.

Not entirely, crusaders were expected to fund their own passage and that of their entourages. Fewer crusaders meant less funds Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Alexios III fled and the crusaders easily took control of Constantinople, but not the wider Byzantine Empire, for the first time." "for the first time" does not make sense here.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth and sixth crusades shoulld be in separate paragraphs.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The conflict between Holy Roman Empire and the papacy left the responsibility for campaigning to secular leaders." What does this mean - that the military religious orders did not take part in campaigning because they sided with the pope?

—secular rather than papal leadership Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The nobility rejected the Emperor's son in the succession to the throne which left the Kingdom dependent on Ayyubid division, the crusading orders and western aid." This is unclear. Do you mean that Frederick II offered help if his son was accepted as king of Jerusalem and the offer was rejected?

—or rather the kingdom had been de facto part of the Holy Roman Empire, with this the Emperor's support ended. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

"Charles seized Sicily and Byzantine territory. He used more peaceful means to expand his influence through the marriage of his daughters to the Latin claimants to Byzantium. In addition, he executed one rival and purchased the rights to the city from another to create his own claim to the throne of Jerusalem." When did Charles seize Byzantine territory, which territory and why is it relevant? Why is marriage to claimants to Byzantium relevant? The reference to "the city" appears to refer to Byzantium (which was then generally known as Constantinople) but it appears you mean Jerusalem.

—removed this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"He was defeated at Mansura and captured as he retreated to Damietta." I suggest linking to Battle of Al Mansurah and Battle of Fariskur.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"to cause dissension between the Mongols (particularly between the Golden Horde and the Persian Ilkhanate)" I think "among the Mongols" would be clearer.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In this, he supported King Manfred of Sicily's failed resistance to the attack of Charles and the papacy. "In this" does not sound right to me. I would delete as not important.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Venice drove the Genoese from Acre to Tyre where they continued to trade happily with Baibars' Egypt." I would delete "happily" as POV.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" Spain had the largest population of Latin Christians subjugated to an Islamic power." "subjugated to an Islamic power" is POV. Maybe "living under Moslem rule"

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"By the time of the Second Crusade three kingdoms had developed enough to represent Christian expansion". "developed enough to represent Christian expansion" does not seem right to me. Maybe "had become powerful enough to embark on the conquest of Islamic territory".

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Many of these deserted because of the tolerance the Spanish demonstrated for the defeated Muslims." "Many of the foreigners deserted because they objected to the tolerance the Spanish demonstrated for the defeated Muslims" seems clearer.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the native Christians, the Mozarabs" for clarity I would add "who were regarded as heretics".

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Pope Innocent III set a different precedent". Different to what?

—removed different Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In this he encouraged those who defended Christendom against heretics. This is very POV. Maybe "those who suppressed sects considered heretical".

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"easier to attack those who provided a home for heresy rather than to identify and eradicate the heresy itself. This is unclear. I suggest "those who tolerated heresy rather than"

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The initial indication the papacy would begin to regard the wars waged by Scandinavian and German Christians against the pagans indigenous to the Baltic coastal region as crusades came in 1147." This is not easy to follow. How about " In 1147, the papacy began to describe the wars waged by Scandinavian and German Christians against the pagans in the Baltic coastal region as crusades."

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In that year, Bernard of Clairvaux persuaded Pope Eugenius III that the conflict with the Wends was a holy war analogous to the Reconquista. This was recognition of the fact that the Germans were more motivated by wars of territorial conquest than events in the east." This is a non-sequitur. Description of the conflict as a holy war recognised that the Germans were motivated by territorial expansion?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"As a justification mass conversion was implausible and destruction of the pagans counterproductive" This seems dubious. Mass forced conversion was common, so why was it implausible?

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

" A year later Pope Boniface IX proclaimed a new crusade against the Turks." Does this crusade have a name and is there an article about it to link to?

—it was hidden in the link, more obvious now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"John Hunyadi, a Hungarian general, and the Franciscan friar Giovanni da Capistrano organised a 1456 crusade to oppose the Ottoman Empire and lift the siege of Belgrade." You should say who won.

—rather I have edited this out, struggling for space and this didn't add value Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" Of the crusader princes, only Tancred remained intending to establish his own lordship." I suggest " Of the crusader princes, only Tancred remained and he intended to establish his own lordship."

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Jerusalem remained economically sterile despite the advantages of being the centre of administration of church and state and benefiting from streams of pilgrims." "Sterile" must be an exaggeration in view of the advantages you state. Maybe "weak".

—went for underdeveloped Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern research based on historical geography techniques indicates that the spatial distribution of Muslims and indigenous Christians was more sharply delineated than previously thought." This sounds like meaningless jargon. I would just say that they lived in separate areas.

—changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The territorial gains followed distinct ethnic and linguistic lines." This is also unclear.

—reworded for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2019 (

"Largely based in the ports of Acre and Tyre, Italian, Provençal and Spanish communes provided a significant characteristic of crusader social stratification and political organisation." More unclear jargon.

—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead, the communes competed with the crown and each other to maintain economic advantage." "Jerusalem" would be clearer than "the crown".

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This strategic change forced the crusaders away from the objective of gaining and holding territory, including Jerusalem, to the ultimately unsuccessful aim of first gaining the necessary time to improve the kingdom's demographic weakness through the destruction of Egypt." Presumably this was because Egypt was the only Moslem power strong enough to threaten the crusaders, but this should be spelled out.

—more to stop the constant attrition. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Latin Greece" This section heading is confusing. Maybe "Byzantine empire".

—changed to Latin rulee Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Although they did not practice what they preached" You do not say what they preached.

—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The behaviour of the crusaders in the eastern Mediterranean area appalled the Greeks and Muslims. It created a lasting barrier between the Latin world and both the Islamic and Orthodox religions. It became an obstacle to the reunification of the Christian church and fostered a perception of Westerners as defeated aggressors.[84] Alternatively, many historians argue that the interaction between the western Christian and Islamic cultures played a significant, ultimately positive, part in the development of European civilisation and the Renaissance." Why alternatively? Both could be true.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting article but sometimes difficult to follow due to unclear language. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

Looking at this article again confirms my impression that it is reads strangely due to the use of lower case for Crusade - which I think I read is a result of criticism by another reviewer. Capitalisation is useful to help the reader distinguish between a specific use of a word or phrase - in this case Crusades sanctioned by the Pope - from a generic use as, for instance, 'crusade against poverty'. A sentence such as "The term crusade used in modern historiography at first referred to the wars in the Holy Land beginning in 1095." only makes sense as referring to one specific use distinguished by capitalisation.

yes @Dudley Miles: other reviewers have objected to captilisation, and it seems a constant debate across the subject. I am loath to change it, as I know some other reviewer will then object to the revised style. I really don't know what to do with it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No change needed as I do not have relevant sources, but I am doubtful of the claim that the Crusades increased intolerance. Most of my reading is on the earlier medieval period and I have never come across examples of tolerance of unorthodoxy and Judaism.

Across the Levant, Sicily, Languedoc and Iberia there was greater tolreance prior to the Crusades. Crusades prompted the inquisition and the systematic suppression by the Catholic Church of "others" Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is stated too broadly if it only applies to specific areas. Also it is in the lead and I do not see where it is covered in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—fair point @Dudley Miles:, I have removed from the Lead, it is not supported in the body and would probably amount to an entire article on its own if discussed! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The centre of power moved to Baghdad and Mesopotamia the Islamic state gradually fragmentated." This is ungrammatical and unclear.

—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" In the two decades following their arrival in the they conquered Iran" Ungrammatical.

—removed the the Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Of the other princes, only Tancred remained, with the ambition to gain his own princedom." I queried this before and it still reads oddly.

—reworded, how does it look now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Bohemond seized Christian cities in Cilicia, refused to return Antioch and in 1008 organised a Crusade" 1108?

—yes, fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The third decade" Of the twelfth century?

—yes, fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"most parishes remained Christian throughout the Middle Ages" Most parishes of where until when?

—throughout the region until 16th century Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Of the crusader princes, only Tancred remained intending to establish his own lordship." Repetition and badly worded.

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Christians lived more disparately than previously thought" "disparately" does not make sense here.

—less integrated? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Central areas appear to be Muslim from the point of the destruction of the Samarian communities in the 6th century." This does not make sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Filelakeshoe[edit]

I just went through and copyedited the article again, there were still a few small things that needed fixing. I also added some hatnotes to individual crusades to the top of sections which I feel are appropriate - some of the crusades were not even linked in prose at all.

I don't think I will express an opinion on whether the article should be promoted; I feel like I would need access to the sources for that. Some parts are quite sparsely cited, and look at first glance like they might contain OR (e.g. the first paragraph of the section "Decline and fall of the Crusader States", sentences like "What the crusader states needed were large standing armies" - is that still Asbridge talking?) But regardless, it was a very good read.

I also wonder if the lead really needs to be five large paragraphs long. Could some detail maybe be removed or compressed? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Filelakeshoe:, the large standing armies was indeed from Ashbridge. I will leave reducing the lead to see if it is mentioned by other reviewers as well, some of those to date have requested greater detail added to it! If you care to point out where you think further sourcing is required I think it will be fairly easy to source from Ashbridge, Prawar and Jotischky. There isn't really anything contentious in the article that isn't agreed by the historians working in the area. It is an overview article afterall. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Reduced the Lead @Filelakeshoe:, what do you think now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: Looks a lot better now, I made a couple more small edits to it. I am not sure if this sentence is entirely clear:

Urban aimed to guarantee pilgrim access to the eastern Mediterranean holy sites under Muslim control. Scholars disagree over whether this was his primary motive, or the motive for those who responded.

If "Urban aimed to guarantee..." then surely this was the pope's motive, even if it wasn't his "primary motive". "Or the motive for (of?) those who responded" - are "those who responded" the Crusaders? Did they not share this motive, even if the Pope might have had other plans as well? I also can't find anything explicitly about this "disagreement" in the text (assuming it should be in the "first Crusade" section) - I might advise just removing the sentence altogether. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Display name 99[edit]

Hello. I did a full review for one of the previous nominations and intend to do the same here. Here are some initial comments. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead is much too long in my opinion. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends no more than four paragraphs. This has five, and two of them are quite long. I recommend that the size of the lead section be shortened. Mainly, the last three paragraphs have a lot of information that could be abbreviated. Do we really need to be talking about a war that took place in the early 18th century? I think not. That's very well past the end of the Crusading time period. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that proper weight is not given in the lead to the different events which took place. You have several sentences on the First Crusade and almost a full paragraph on the post-1291 Crusading movement, but almost nothing about the numerous and important crusades in between. I think that you should cut down significantly on the last three paragraphs and add about a few sentences summarizing the Crusades after 1099 and before 1291, noting mainly the loss of Jerusalem and the various largely unsuccessful campaigns aimed at retaking it while holding on to a strip of territory on the coast. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically incorrect to say that the last Catholic outposts fell in 1291. The Templars and a number of other groups held on to some small fortresses in the Outremer for a few years after 1291. Rather, you should say that 1291 was when the Crusaders lost their last city. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

Frederick II did not lead the Fifth Crusade. He never even went. In addition, I do not understand how the Fifth and Sixth crusades can be considered one campaign when there was a seven year gap between the end of one and the beginning of the other. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thinking is that fighting started, there was a seven year truce before a negotiated settlement. Will reword Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you say who the terms "Franks" and "Latins" were used by? Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

The article seems to imply that the fragmentation of the Islamic world began shortly after the coup of 750. In reality, the Abbasid Caliphate ruled over a mostly-united Muslim world until over a century and a half until the rise of the Fatimids in Egypt and, over a century later, the Seljuks. Shouldn't you mention that? Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More.[edit]

Under Background, shouldn't you mention something about the Peace and Truce of God movements, and how these were connected the Crusades by trying to limit violence amongst Christians and instead turn to fighting enemies of the faith? Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was the thinking, but they are now largely considered to have ended before the Crusades started, will try and hook something out Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Crusade[edit]

In the list of places which supplied Crusaders, I think you should mention the Languedoc, which was not formally part of France at that time. The nobles there considered themselves independent and indeed were at times more powerful than the French king. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the over-confident sultan"-Shouldn't you mention his name? Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should mention the fact that Alexios, who was on his way to rescue the garrison at Antioch, turned around and did not do so. This formed an important part of the justification for holding onto the city rather than returning it to him. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no explanation of how Godfrey came to be leader of the Crusaders. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the last paragraph, Al-Afdal should be linked. There's some information in the fourth paragraph that is repeated in the last, the fact that Damascus and Aleppo had competing rulers being an example. I think you may want to consider getting rid of the last paragraph altogether and sprinkling the content elsewhere. The information in the last paragraph is relevant to the narrative and should be interspersed throughout in order to help the reader understand what is happening, rather than thrown in on the end. For example, doesn't it make more sense to talk about Al-Afdal's original view of the Crusaders BEFORE they entered Fatimid territory, when he tried to negotiate with them (which wouldn't hurt to mention, BTW) than it does after they had already taken Jerusalem and defeated him at Ascalon, by which point their aim was much clearer? Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—doneAl-Afdal linked, duplication edited out of fourth paragraph in order to reduce the clutter in the narrative. The last paragraph serves two purposes. 1) a summary of the the sitaution in the Muslim world after the Crusade & an explanation of how the Crusade was successful Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend using "Crusaders" instead of Franks in the last sentence. Franks is technically incorrect because the word officially refers only to people from present-day Germany. If I am not mistaken, the only people who called the Crusaders Franks were the Muslims. Crusaders is a more neutral term. We don't call Muslims Saracens in the article, do we? Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now.

Here's a little more:

Islamic recovery of Edessa and the Second Crusade[edit]

Seeing as you mention the founding of the Knights Templar here, shouldn't you also mention the establishment of the Knights Hospitaller in 1099? Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't fit the narrative here, being c1099, but it is covered in the Military Orders section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you could say more about what was happening in the Levant before the Second Crusade. You can talk about tensions between Edessa and Antioch, the rise of Zengi, the alliances with Damascus, or all of the above. I just think that there isn't enough about what has happening during the interregnum between the First and Second crusades. Due to length concerns, you will have to take something out in order to make room for it. I advise removing the William of Tyre sentence. There isn't much in that sentence which isn't obvious from everywhere else. Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Saladin and the Third Crusade[edit]

I'm away from home now and don't have access to my sources, but I think that Shawar did not become vizier for the first time until 1162, so any conflict between Egypt and the K of J before that would have been without him at the head. I think that you will need to revise the first sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you say something briefly about Saladin's role in the expedition against Egypt, or the fact that he is said to have personally beheaded Shawar? Again, I'd also look for things to cut. You probably don't need to say that Saladin succeeded Shirkuh after hardly two months. The remainder of this section looks good. Display name 99 (talk)

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople[edit]

The narrative of what took place during the Fourth Crusade is muddled and not well-organized. I think that you should re-arrange the first two paragraphs so that they flow chronologically. The attack on Zara was made I think more because the Venetians would forgive the Crusaders' debts (which you don't mention) than because of supplies, although that may have played a role. Innocent's role is also not discussed clearly enough. He opposed the Crusade by excommunicating it, but his role was ambivalent because he lifted the excommunication before threatening to employ it again. Please be as specific as possible. Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section doesn't mention that a Latin empire in Constantinople was established. Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—sentence added. This is covered in more depth in the Latin Greece section but it hardly amounted to an Empire by most measures. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued...

Going back to the section on the Second Crusade, I see that you failed to mention Zengi's death before the Second Crusade or anything about Nur al-Din. I think you should fix that. You should also link to some things in that section, like the destruction of Edessa or Siege of Damascus. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—links added and death mentioned Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should replace Christendom with Catholicism at the end of the Fourth Crusade section. The Byzantines were also Christians. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—went for papacy Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with Egypt including the Fifth and Sixth Crusades[edit]

Link Frederick II. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you say something about who Saladin's Ayyubid successors were and how they ruled prior to and during the Fifth Crusade? A sentence or do would do. It's important not just to talk about Crusader leaders but to describe how Muslim rulers governed as well. For instance, I think you should mention that there was a period of peace in the Outremer between the Third and Fifth Crusades, in which Saladin's brother al-Adil, seeking to stabilize his kingdom and build up his depleted treasury, sought good relations with the Outremer States. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Crusade of Saint Louis section looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

marvellous :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline and fall of the Crusader States[edit]

In the last sentence of the first paragraph, I think you should add "and others." There were certainly other important Muslim leaders where able to weaken the Catholic possessions in the Outremer. Display name 99 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pagans in the North[edit]

The Teutonic Knights were "founded after the Siege of Acre..." Which Siege of Acre? The article on the Teutonic Knights says that they were established in c. 1190, which would be in the middle of the Siege of Acre during the Third Crusade. But the city was besieged other times as well. Display name 99 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Siege of Acre (1189–1191)—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Late medieval and early modern Crusades[edit]

I would say something about the failed attempts to organize a crusade after the Fall of Constantinople as well as Leo X's designs for a crusade which never worked out. Display name 99 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the sources and see what I can come up with. Not sure the agnostic Leo with his political and financial constraints is really going to add much though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—added note on sumbolism after the fall of Constantinople Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Demography and Colonisation sections look fine. Display name 99 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{—thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Art and architecture[edit]

"Castles were a tangible symbol of the dominance of a Christian minority over a largely hostile majority population." There were many places in the Outremer with large numbers of Christians, especially after Europeans began to permanently settle there. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—tweaked a little, but this is direct from the source. While urban centres were majority Christian under Crusader control (because the Christians prevented the indigenous population entering) the majority population of the region was not Latin Christian. This led to the requirement of fortification against a largely hostile native population and is the point here Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

I feel like this section is unduly slanted towards Muslim views of the Crusades, especially from the mid to late 20th century. There are almost two full paragraphs discussing critical views of the Crusades. The opposing view-that the Crusades were justified-is mentioned as a brief aside in only one sentence, and even then it is identified solely as coming from "Right-wing circles in the Western world." You single out three people, all Muslim or Arab, and all living at the same time as each other, and do not take note of the views of any specific Eastern Christians or Europeans. It is your task to represent as many significant viewpoints as you can, held by as many different types of people as you can find, over a broad period of time. This section doesn't do that. You should expand a little bit, even if in just a sentence or two, about the perception that the Crusades were a justified defensive response to Islamic aggression. Also, maybe note some perceived benefits. I'm aware that there is a view that the Crusades likely preserved the existence of the Byzantine Empire for an additional couple of centuries at least. If you can find a source, I think that should be mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything on extending the survival of Byzantium, sources seem to go the other way e.g. fatally weakening. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only real argument for a defensive war seems to come from Thomas F. Madden and he seems such an outlier that it would be wrong to give weight to his argument Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Alternative view, sourced to Madden added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also content you can cut down on. There are too many dates related to Nasser in parenthesis. Just keep the dates for his presidency of Egypt and forget the UAR, which aside from only three years only consisted of Egypt anyway. "French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Mandatory Palestine, and the mandate the United Nations gave for the foundation of the state of Israel" can be cut down to "mandate for Syria and Lebanon and the establishment of Israel." You can also look for others. The content on art in this section seems like it might be a little bit long, especially because we just had an entire section devoted to it. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—edited Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The ideas of jihad and a long struggle have developed some currency." This seems a little vague. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some general notes after looking things over:[edit]

The article highlights several Crusader massacres and atrocities but none by the Muslims, although they did happen. The Seljuks were known to treat Christians in the Levant very poorly in the late 11th century; this was one of the immediate causes of the First Crusade. I suggest going back and adding that. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—add a bit on the aftermath of Mansurah & it is already included in the decline and fall section. The 11th century cause seems to be Urban's propaganda. If you have any examples of note you feel should be added let me know Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue of indulgences discussed? Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—added sentences in Conflict in Egypt section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish, here is my response to your comments:[edit]

If it were true that Madden was the only modern historian of any prominence who held the Crusades to be a defensive war, I might be forced to agree with you that any mention of them being considered as such should be excluded. But it is not. Here is an article by historian Paul F. Crawford arguing that the Crusades were a defensive war. Here is a link to an article about a conference between four Crusades historians. Three of the four historians agreed that the Crusades were a defensive war or at least had a defensive element. Laurence Marvin was the only one who dissented, and his primary focus has been on the Albigensian Crusade rather than the ones in the east. The article also, by the way, mentions persecution in the Levant by the Seljuks. For more on that subject, see Madden 2006 p. 5, who writes that the Seljuks "destroyed some churches, murdered clergy, and seized pilgrims."

The article still has nothing about the perceptions of the Crusades by the West or East prior to the late 20th century. For the West, you should discuss the late Medieval and Renaissance view of the Crusades followed by the Enlightenment pushback. You should also mention that some consider the Crusades to have been a defensive war, as it is clear that this opinion holds sway with more than just one notable historian. We've identified five total. All of this can be done in about two sentences. It wouldn't hurt to include the famous Runciman quote about the Crusades either. I'd also like to know whether the first sentence in Historiography should be moved into Legacy. That seems like a more appropriate section to discuss historians giving their opinions on the Crusades.

For the Muslim and Arab worlds, I don't understand how you chose the three people to mention. Osama bin Laden has referred to Americans as Crusaders. ISIS and other jihadists groups use the same rhetoric. I see no reason why Nasser, Qutb, and some other obscure figure should be mentioned and these examples, all more recognizable to the contemporary reader, excluded. I think that explanations of the Islamic views of the Crusades from the 20th century until now can be summarized in one or two sentences without mentioning any specific names. Display name 99 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Crawford article says “verdict [that it was an offensive war] seems unanimous”, suggesting that his own view is fringe. His article is replete with strawman arguments (myths numbers 2, 3 and 4 are grossly exaggerated). It is also full of nonsense. The suggestion that leaders make decisions with 300-year historical views. And the claim that “the crusades actually represent the first great western Christian counterattack” – perhaps he is unfamiliar with Nikephoros II Phokas or Pelagius of Asturias, among many others.

The Holt blog is non-RS. Note that one of the scholars stated “I’d like to emphasize that the below remarks are made informally, rather than as a definitive scholarly argument hewing closely to the source material and secondary literature. I present them in the spirit of free-flowing discussion, which is what the roundtable was, and is supposed to be.”

The right way to source and weight this debate is using Tyerman’s “The Debate on the Crusades, 1099-2010”.

Finally, your last sentence, that modern Islamic views of the crusades should take up just one sentence in an article about an article where the Islamic world is half the story, cannot be right. Mainstream Islamic scholarly views should have their fair share of representation throughout (we already have a number of sources in the bibliography which summarize these perspectives).

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford's statement about the "verdict" on the Crusades is in reference to popular, not academic, perceptions. This is made clear by his reference to "presidential speeches" and "role-playing games" immediately after. It doesn't matter whether you agree with him or not. Choosing not to have his opinion represented simply because you find it misguided would be a failure to comply with WP:NPOV. Specialists in a field often come up with different arguments, and our task is to represent all of those that have garnered mainstream attention, no matter what we think of their merits. This is a fundamental tenant that all Wikipedia editors should know.

Even an informal discussion among scholars helps demonstrate where scholarly opinion leans. I'm not saying that we have to use that particular blog as a source. However, the blog makes it clear that Madden and Crawford are not alone and that the perception of the Crusades as a defensive war has appreciable support in the modern scholarly community.

I said that the sentences on Islamic views should take up possibly about "one or two" sentences. It may not seem like a lot, but it's about as much given to Christian views of the Crusades. I wouldn't mind a third sentence either. The section that we do have devoted to Western views of the Crusades isn't entirely impartial. Take this sentence: "Crusader symbols and anti-Islamic rhetoric are presented as an appropriate response, even if only for propaganda purposes." There is no mention of anti-Western or anti-Christian rhetoric among Muslims, and the part about it being "only for propaganda purposes" comes across as both vague and dismissive. Display name 99 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick up the Tyerman book and use that to attempt to resolve this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to get it and found the relevant part. It’s right at the end of the book, at the end of the final chapter (pages 239-241). Tyerman juxtaposes the two sides of the various attempts to extrapolate the Crusades in today’s politics:

(1) He first critiques Amin Maalouf: ”The commentary on the First Crusade focuses on Arab humiliation and the sense of violation by the barbaric western invaders encapsulated in the experience of Palestinian refugees ‘determined never to return until the occupiers had departed for ever and ... resolved to awaken the consciences of their brothers in all the lands of Islam’. The modern parallel needs no pointing. Nor does the argument that the jihadist revival of the twelfth century came not from the political elites but from ‘a ground swell’ beginning in the streets and mosques... Either way the modern west appeared an enemy, with the crusades the obvious precursor, the legitimate resistance of Saladin or Baibars against one seeming to validate supposed vengeance against the other. Maalouf concluded that ‘there can be no doubt that the schism between these two worlds dates from the Crusades, deeply felt by the Arabs, even today, as an act of rape’“

(2) He then comments on the matter we are debating above: “Yet the refashioning of the crusades into a modern jihadist banner of hate is not without western parallels. Any visit to the world wide web can reveal apparently serious western historians arguing over the intrinsic violence of Islam and consequently that the crusades were a necessary defensive measure against Turco-Islamic barbarism, a debate joined enthusiastically by a motley coalition of right-wing secularists, conservative libertarians, biblical fundamentalists, evangelists and Christian bigots.”

(3) He hits this point home in his epilogue: “In 2006 I published a long book covering the crusades as a whole. It appeared on both sides of the Atlantic. The reaction revealed patterns of engagement and partisanship to rival the most extreme earlier examples of distortion. In general terms, academic commentators and writers in print tended to assess the work –positively and negatively –on its own terms of intellectual and historical merit. Elsewhere, mainly but not exclusively in North America (and not excluding some professional scholars), and especially on the internet, the work was more frequently judged according to what readers perceived as its stance in the great contest of cultures. It was simultaneously praised for depicting Islam as a threatening creed that justified violent opposition to it and condemned for minimising the Islamic threat in the middle ages and, by no leap of imagination, today. Either way, the litmus test was the crudest form of the already crude ‘clash of civilisation’ theory, itself a heated-up version of Cold War propaganda. The debate formed a cocktail of debased Enlightenment positivism, ignorant cultural supremacism and historical illiteracy. The past was imagined as providing a parallel commentary and guide to the present and therefore, in a sense, not past at all. Past and present were being collapsed into each other, the consequent rubble providing the material for convenient tendentious polemic in ways similar to certain strands in contemporary Muslim historiography. Such obsessive First World judgementalism depends on an absence of historic perspective constituting a severe form of cultural solipsism. Given its potential to cause actual present harm, this inspires profound unease. If nothing else, this book has sought to demonstrate that history, the critical study of the evidence that remains from the past, is not fixed. Ultimately, its truth lies in the eye of the beholder. The vision can be shared and agreed widely, it must be directed by evidence, but it is neither absolute nor unchanging. History cannot, therefore, be used as a given certainty, universal fact, immutable interpretation or timeless moral lesson. As the great F. W. Maitland wrote: ‘if history is to do its liberating work, it must be as true to fact as it can possibly make itself; and true to fact it will not be if it begins to think what lessons it can teach’.”

I suggest we heed his warning and take great care with this area of the subject. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish, do you intend to address any of the concerns that I have raised above? Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC) @Display name 99:—I've got hold of the Tyerman source and working my way through it to beef up the historiography section. Will pick up the legacy at the same time Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish, thank you for adding the content on Madden and defensive war. I would have preferred however that you said "Some historians", "Some historians such as Thomas F. Madden," or something to that effect instead of what we have now. This is because the current way that the article is phrased implies that Madden is the only person of any note to make the argument for the Crusades as a defensive war, which is untrue and if it were true would mean that the view should not be represented. I'm moving closer to support but would still like you to briefly address the Enlightenment view of the Crusades and slightly revise your discussion of the Muslim view of them. Display name 99 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Madden amendment done, Enlightenment view on its way but @Display name 99: can you give a little clarity on what you are looking for on the Muslim view? Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Enlightenment view para added to historiography section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish, thank you for making the Madden revision. The addition of Enlightenment views to Historiography seems a little bit confusing. Check the first sentence. What was condemned as hostile and ignorant, the Crusades or the Enlightenment view of them? If we're talking about the Enlightenment, stick to that and get into the 19th century somewhere else. Concerning the Muslim view of the Crusades, I already stated what I thought should be revised, but I'll repeat it. The selection of the three people singled out-Nasser, Qutb, and Ashour-seems arbitrary and limited. It's arbitrary because numerous other people and groups, including bin Laden and ISIS, who are more well-known to contemporary audiences than the three people we have now, have also referred to Westerners in their own time as Crusaders, and there is no reason to make specific note of Nasser, Qutb, and some other even more obscure guy while leaving out these more recognizable examples. Not only that, but all three of these people lived at more or less the exact same time and place. They're all 20th century Egyptians. The goal is supposed to be to provide as complete a picture as possible of the Muslim or Arab views of the Crusades, and that cannot be done by singling out three people who lived in the exact same country at more or less the exact same time. You could just talk about how Muslims have viewed Zionism and Western imperialism as crusading movements without mentioning any specific names. That may be the best thing to do here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—thanks. I've taken your advice and edited out the three Egyptians. Also rewritten the first para of the Enlightement in the Historiography and section it. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support-It's a little bit long now at 107 kB, and I hope that future edits will result in the article being trimmed down a bit, but going a little bit over 100 kB I suppose is excusable for an article dealing with such a broad and complex topic. Future improvements are always possible but I believe that the article now meets FA criteria and I see no reason to delay promotion any longer. Display name 99 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Onceinawhile[edit]

Excellent article, and hugely impressive efforts to get it to this point. My comments are going to be content focused (1 b and c), since others have focused on the other criteria.

I don’t understand the delineation between the “background” and “causes” sections. I think it would read better if they were merged and ordered chronologically. For example, in a paragraph about the end of the 11th century the article says “The territory around Jerusalem had been under Arab Muslim control for more than four centuries”, which is confusing given the Seljuks took over in the middle of the century. In the next paragraph it says “The Seljuk hold on the holy city was weak”, but the Seljuks have not been introduced previously - that comes three paragraphs later. There are other examples of this, hence streamlining would help.

—This came from previous feedback, the separation of the what the situation was and why what followed happened. I have made a stab at making this clearer. What do you think @Onceinawhile: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More on this point: the description of Turkic migration (currently describing only the Seljuks) should be broadened in the background and the "Arab Muslim control" sentence should be amended. The Turkic migration had changed the picture in the Middle East before the arrival Seljuks - Jerusalem had previously been controlled by both two Arabized Turkic tribes, the Tulunids and the Ikhshidids. Introducing the topic of Turkic migration and the wide variation in Turkic dynasties early on will make it easier for readers to digest the numerous different types of Turkic (and later Mongol) peoples mentioned throughout the article.

— added more Turkish context Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The background is missing the common juxtaposition of the relative stages of economic / cultural development of the two sides, East and West, prior to the Crusades. The legacy section at the end of the article explains that “interaction between the western Christian and Islamic cultures played a significant, ultimately positive, part in the development of European civilisation and the Renaissance”, but a reader will struggle to understand why without prior explanation of the scholarly and artistic heritages of Western Europe / Byzantine Empire / Islamic empires etc which preceded all this. The background provided in Transmission of the Greek Classics is a good start.

Transmission of the Greek Classics is a C Class article, not sure if that helps really. I have added a sentence to Background though Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—does this do it? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The causes section mentions the East-West Schism without explaining its impact directly (since the Patriarch of Jerusalem joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, all Christians in the Holy Land came under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox church)

Is this right? Sources, and article, have the Patriachs as equal, with only Jersusalem and Alexandria disadvantaged by being in Muslim territory. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t explain it well. The point is that before 1054 church-wide matters would normally be dealt with in a united manner. After the final split, they were in partial competition. So the First Crusade played out differently than the prior Christian-Islamic holy wars, which were always led by the geographically-closest Christian leader. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got you. When I have sources to hand I should be able to address this one. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mamluks are not introduced. There is just one sentence: “Between 1265 and 1271, the Mamluk sultan Baibars drove the Franks to a few small coastal outposts.” What is missing is that it was the Crusader Battle of Fariskur which created the Mamluks (Turanshah was killed by his Mamluk soldiers a month after the battle and his stepmother Shajar al-Durr became Sultana of Egypt with the Mamluk Aybak as Atabeg. Although the Ayyubids relocated to Damascus, where they continued to control the rump of their empire including Jerusalem for a further ten years, the Mamluks were to take over the whole region and hold on to it for 300 years.)

—Mamluk's introduced and expanded on Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the Mongols mentions them only as a threat, but is missing context around the attempted Franco-Mongol alliance (only obliquely mentioned re Baibars), particularly the pseudo-alliance in the Ninth Crusade

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences “In 1244 a band of Khwarazmian mercenaries travelling to Egypt to serve As-Salih Ismail, Emir of Damascus captured Jerusalem en route. This action was apparently of their own volition and neither planned or directed by the Emir.” Numerous scholars say the opposite - that they were “invited” to retake the city from a breakaway Ayyubid faction. It should also explain who the Khwarazmians were - i.e. mercanaries with time on their hands following the destruction of Khwarazmia by the Mongols.

—done, revised and expanded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The demography section gives the Latin population without context – how large was the rest of the population? The colonization section says “The new territories were based on shared language...” and talks about various French/Venetian customs, but does not explicitly say what the primary language of the states were (both for the ruling classes and for the masses, which was different in many of the cities).

Struggling with a source for this. I seem to remember reading 1.5 million inhabitants but can't remember where. Jotischky and the article says the indigenous Christian/Muslim split was 50/50 but not the absolute numbers. Have you any ideas? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good sources in Demographic history of Palestine (region); but the most specific review we have is at Kingdom_of_Jerusalem#Population. That info was added by }}Adam Bishop; he may be able to help with further sources (and he may wish to comment more holistically on this FAC). Onceinawhile (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done, followed Kingdom_of_Jerusalem#Population back to source Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Historiography section does not come close to a thorough overview here. It should start with the major contemporary chroniclers of the Crusades, on both the European and Middle Eastern sides, on which all our histories are based. Then move on to early modern content that is there, before setting out the headline positions of the most significant modern scholars (Runciman etc). The Islamic perspectives section should not finish in the 19th century. Much of this is already in the Historiography of the Crusades, but we need a better summary. I would strongly suggest Tyerman, Christopher (2011). The Debate on the Crusades, 1099-2010. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7320-5. as a main source for this section.

I'll get hold of the Tyerman book early next week. Thanks for the heads up, hopefully thst does the trick. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Started Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t precisely put my finger on it, but the article feels overweighted towards the Crusaders. A good comparator article is the Norman conquest of England - both are about invaders coming from outside, but this article is focused more on the invaders themselves whereas the Norman conquest of England article is focused more on the place being invaded. It comes across in the relative weightings of description of the various protagonists and their armies and institutions, the legacy of the Crusades in Western Europe vs the Byzantine Empire and the Middle East. I realize this comment is vaguer than the others, but it is arguably the most important one to get right given WP:WORLDVIEW.

Possibly, perhaps even probably, I see your point. The proper weight of the crusaders oponents has been raised before and improved on (although maybe not enough). I'll take this into account as I work through your other points and return to it when done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onceinawhile:—can you have another look over this point, I think it is better now than it was? Thinking on this the challenge is that this is very different to Norman conquest of England in terms of scale and duration. It is also very assymetrical in terms of philosophy and impact. For the Muslim world it was largely a military conflict that they won. In Western Europe there was, and is, the development of an entire paradigm and a varied historiography. I think the main characters are all there: Zengi, Nur al-Din, Saladin and Baibers as well as some lower order players? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

Given the vast scope of this article, and the long nomination history, I think it wouldn't hurt from more reviews (despite the many supports it now received), since it is an extremely important article. I also think we should let it hang on the FAC page for as long as possible, for the same reasons. I'll review soon, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see some unnecessary duplinks, they can be highlighted with this script:[3]

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any photos of surviving weaponry that could be shown?

I certainly don't have any, the sources used don't touch on this and we are strubbling for space—probably warrants an article of its own Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, I don't see much discussion of the weaponry and equipment used in these wars, and whatever military tedchnology developments there were during this long period. Not a requirement, but maybe something that could be looked into.

—as above Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Land and other terms linked in the intro should also be linked at first mention in the article body. You also link Arab at second instead of first mention.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Names, places, and other terms could be linked at first mention in the image captions.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"and not all who fought had taken the cross" The meaning of this phrase may not be clear to all readers, anything to link or other way to explain?

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This was derived from a name used by the later Greeks and Romans" What is meant by "later"?

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

""Saracen" was a common term for an Arab Muslim." You should specify among who.

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

""Franks" and "Latins" were used by" Were terms used by (to make it clear).

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"1911 map showing the political situation on the eve of the First Crusade in 1097. Map by William Robert Shepherd." Looks a bit jarring that the date the map was made comes first, when it could logically come by the end where the author of it is mentioned. For example: "Map showing the political situation on the eve of the First Crusade in 1097. 1911 map by William Robert Shepherd."

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"founded the great city of Constantinople" Great city is a bit hyperbolic.

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Mohammad", when Muhammad seems to be the more common English spelling?

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"captured... and Iberia" This makes it seem like all of Iberia was captured, could say "most of", since the northern part remained unconquered.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Sicily and other such regions would be significant enough to list among the above. Malta is also significant, since this is the only European country with an offshoot of Arabic as its main language, a direct result of these conquests.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk)

"and the Islamic state's centre of power moved to Baghdad" You could mention where it moved from.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk)

"Baghdad. [14]" Unnecessary space.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk)

"Examples include the Tulanid dynasty in Egypt and Syria (868–905) and the Ikhshidids" These could be linked.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the Sunni-Shia rift intensified over the decades" Id add "Sunni-Shia Muslim rift" just so all readers follow. Also, I might call it "Sunni-Shia Muslim rift over caliphal succession" or some such for context.

—not sure what you meant here but have rephrased. At this point it was much wider than caliphal succession. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" In the two decades following their arrival in they conquered" Seems either "in" should be remove,d or a word is missing.

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"followers were from the Sunni Islamic tradition" Sunni should be linked earlier, at first mention.

—linked Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"between the Abbasids and Fatamids" Fatimids is the standard spelling, which you also mainly use, but you say Fatamids twice..

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"but for Western chroniclers it seems to have been a surprising and unexpected event." It is unclear what you mean by "Western chroniclers". Contemporary Western chroniclers?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the Iraqi general Kerbogha" In what way was he Iraqi? I'm not sure it's appropriate to use modern nationalities retroactively like this: a Turkish person from Mesopotamia would hardly have been referred to as Iraqi back then, if anyone was at all.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several mentions of Crusaders massacring Muslims and Christians alike when conquering areas. Any explanation for why they massacred Christian inhabitants?

This one is still unanswered? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"title Defender of the Holy Sepulchre." Holy Sepulchre could be linked.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"and attempted to block the return from his captivity, after the battle, of Count Baldwin—later king of Jerusalem." This is a rather clunky and confusing sentence. How about "and attempted to block the return of Count Baldwin (later king of Jerusalem) from his captivity after the battle"?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"organised a Crusade against the Byzantine Empire. The Crusade ended in failure" Does this crusade have a name or an article? Or is it not really counted because it failed before it began?

—linked it to Siege of Dyrrhachium (1107–1108). Crusade naming and numbering is completely arbitary with numerous campaigns without. I suspect it is anonymous because the crusaders lost Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the anti-Semitic element of the crusade preaching of a Cistercian monk" Hard to understand this sentence. Is "element of the crusade" Needed?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anymore @FunkMonk:? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good, and the article looks pretty close overall. I'll review the rest soon (I was waiting for the above issues to be solved before continuing). FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

"threat to the Christian and Islamic worlds. The Mongols" Since you frame it religiously, how about stating the religion of the Mongols?

—added a bit on the religious jumble of the Mongols around paganism & Nestorianism Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" The result was he left the kingdom of Jerusalem in peace between 1194 and 1217 prompting a revival of the kingdom." This seems unclear. Previously it is stated Jerusalem had come under Muslim control, so how exactly was the kingdom (which I assume is the crusader state) continued?

—added remainder—the kingdom of Jersualem often existed witout control of the city Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Attention given to the conflict between Holy Roman Empire" The Holy Roman Empire?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A combined Egyptian Khwarazmian then defeated" Missing word, army?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"then defeated an army of Christians and Syrians" Christian and Syrian are not mutually exclusive terms. What is meant, Muslims or Christian Syrians?

—Damascene Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"templars, 26 out of 351 Hospitallers and 3 out 0f 400 Teutonic knights" The latter two have not been linked until this point, where they are first mentioned.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Thirteenth-century politics in the eastern Mediterranean was complex" Were?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"seeking an Franco-Mongol alliance." A?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"from the 2008 exhibition at the Ritterhaus Bubikon, Switzerland ("The Crusades – A Search for Clues: The Orders of Chivalry in Switzerland"." Is this elaborate source info really needed/relevant in an image caption?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"such as Duke Phillip of Burgundy's promotion of a crusade that never materialised at the Feast of the Pheasant" You should give year here, as it's important for the context.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"when the Samarian communities were destroyed" Who are the Samarians meant here?

—done, linked to Samaritans Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"These communities are now thought to be of nearly equal size, perhaps even in a 50:50 proportion" Why present tense?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"My way of context" By?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Eqypt 1.5m and Nprth Arica" Typos.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"He estimates by 1200" That by, otherwise it sounds like he did the estimate in 1200...

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" while the crusaders home countries" Crusader's?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"12.5 million in 1000—Anatolia 8m, Syria 2m, Eqypt 1.5m and Nprth Arica 1m— with the European areas that provided crusaders having a population of 23.7 million. He estimates by 1200 that these figures had risen to 35.6 million in Islamic territory—Anatolia 7 million, Syria 2.7m, Egypt 2.5m and North Africa 1.5 million— while the crusaders home countries population was 35.6 million" It seems very inconsistent and abritrry when you abreviate million or not within this passage. Spell it out every time or only the first time.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"12th-century Knights Hospitaller castle of Krak des Chevaliers" Perhaps name the country it is in.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"For him the crusades are a purely medieval phenomenon that can only be understood in the terms that the crusaders were engaged in acts of love and charity in a purely defensive war on behalf of their co-religionists." This quote seems strangely specific compared to the much more generalsied nature of the rest of the text, especially considering the somewhat bizarre opinion of the writer. Seems like WP:undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would agree, however it is used to resolve a query raised by another reviewer. I concede that it is a view that was represented and is held though Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—I have edited this back Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A more interesting issue which the legacy section ignores is the consequences for the relationship between Western and Eastern Christianity, and the distrust the sack of Constantinople created, which continues to this day. Not to mention that the weakening of the Byzantine Empire by the west made the Muslim conquest of Anatolia and other areas much easier. This is much more important than the fact that some modern right wingers use Crusader symbolism and other rather trivial related issues. So if it's a matter of space, I'd certainly cut stuff like that out, as well as the lengthy Madden paragraph, to give more space to this much more historically important issue, as its absence seems like an oversight.

There is already a mention there? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of the crusaders in the eastern Mediterranean area appalled the Greeks and Muslims. It created a lasting barrier between the Latin world and both the Islamic and Orthodox religions. It became an obstacle to the reunification of the Christian church and fostered a perception of Westerners as defeated aggressors. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Butting in - "the Muslim conquest of Anatolia" had mostly already happened well before the 1st Crusade, which is why the crusaders kept running into large Muslim armies whenever they tried to cross Anatolia! Most of the interior fell after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. There also wasn't much left of other parts of the BE by 1099, which is why they were initially keen on the Crusades. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how important it actually was to the Muslim conquest of all Anatolia (I don't think there is doubt it had a role, and Eastern Christians certainly make the connection), the sack of Constantinople itself is still a source of animosity between the churches today, leading the pope to apologise for it as recently as 2001.[4][5] So my point is still, this is a more long-lasting consequence of the crusades than that some fringe right-wingers use crusader terminology today. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In academic circles the phrase “Holy War” was the main descriptor, but the more neutral terms kreuzzug from German and the French croisade became established. English followed in the 18th century with a hybrid from Spanish, French and Latin—crusade" Wasn't/shouldn't this ground be covered under terminology?

It is located here because it is more about the historiography rather than the current terminolgy Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the titles "Contemporary Debate" and "Muslim Opinion" capitalised?

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under legacy and Muslim opinion, you don't mention that modern Islamist militants refer to Western military powers invading the Middle East as "Crusaders" (one example out of many:[6]). But I wouldn't suggest adding this if it wasn't for the fact that the article goes into some detail about modern right wingers using crusader terminology. I think either one should be toned down due to undue weight issues, or both should be mentioned.
There are still a good deal of duplinks.

—well 10, but I think I have found them all now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"it only became the leading descriptive term in English around the year 1760." Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info, but is simply a summary of the article body.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Urban's strategy may have been to establish himself as head of the unified Church, uniting the eastern and western branches that had been divided by the East–West Schism" Only stated in intro.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the Moors twice in the intro, but not once in the article body.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Second Crusade achieved little beyond the capture of Lisbon from the Moors by the English" The article body doesn't state their nationality, only "a mixed bag".

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Sixth regained Jerusalem by negotiation for a period of fifteen years." I can't find this stated clearly in the article body.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"but the focus of western European interest moved to the New World." Only stated in intro.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Teutonic Order created a crusader state in Prussia in the early 13th century" Only stated clearly in the intro.

—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far, there are still a few unanswered points above, then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Borsoka OpposeComments by Borsoka[edit]

I think this is an excellent article, summarizing most important aspects of the crusades. My principal concern is that the article fails to mention the crusaders' privileges (absolution of their sins, protection of their property, ...). Many crusaders was willing to wage war in faraway territories primarily because they received absolution from the popes and they knew that their European domains were under the protection of the Church. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y—this is been resolved by our friend @Lingzhi2: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10: 13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Indulgences are mentioned 7 times, linked and explained: The plenary indulgence was defined as forgiveness of the sins confessed to a priest for those who fought in, or even provided funding for crusades Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another missing point: the political crusades against the popes' enemies are not mentioned in the article, although most works dedicated this subject write of them.Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are covered very briefly under §5.2 Campaigns against heretics and schismatics. I agree there needs to be more. Srnec (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—more added, space permitting Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not mentioned at all. There were a number of crusades against Holy Roman Emperors, the kings of Aragon and Sicily and other Italian powers in the 13th and 14th century. I did not find references to them. Borsoka (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Aragonese Crusade is mentioned. Srnec (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see, it is mentioned under an other title (quite strangely together with Saint Louis's crusades). Nevertheless, there were dozens of crusades against Catholic powers during the two centuries. I think they should be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—moved to a political crusade section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so strange really as the Crusade was in support of Louis's brother Charles. Space means it is impossible to list every Crusade, many of which failed to amount to anything and many more just merged into the politics of Western Europe of the time. That said the fact you have raised this point would seem to indicate that the article is light in emphasis in this area. How about, when I have access to sources, I add some wider context to §5.2 Campaigns against heretics and schismatics? It remains impossible to incorporate more detail on every crusade—perhaps another article is warranted, something like Chronology of the Crusades or List of the Crusades? Your criticism would also apply to the Infobox as well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is really strange: my wife and my brother's wife could hardly be mentioned as my brother's wifes. Furthermore, Louis IX's two military campaigns were classical crusades, aimed at the protection of the Holy Land, but the Aragonese Crusade was a political crusade, with no connection with the Kingdom of Jerusalem. ' The argument made by the Pope at the time was that the Aragonese crusade was required to enable the Angevins to raise a crusade to Jerusalem—so there is a connection.' Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC) The political crusades were not campaigns against heretics or schismatics, so they could hardly be mentioned under that title. Sorry, I do not understand your remark about the impossibility of the incorporation more detail on every crusade. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—I really don't understand what you mean by this but I have added a section on political crusades. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding the article. Yes, it is quite obvious that you do not understand what I am trying to suggest. I make a new effort.

Yes, the article contains the term "indulgences" several times. For instance, it is first mentioned in the lead in the context of the First Crusade - but the main text of the article does not refer to it under the title "First crusade and aftermath". I think we should mention that Pope Urban II promised the remission of the crusaders' all sins at the Council of Clermont, because this was the main (actually the sole) reward promised by the Pope to those who departed for the lengthy armed pilgrimage.

— handled by Lingzhi2 (see above) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now there is a section dedicated to the political crusades, but we do not know what was the difference between a classical crusade and a political crusade. Furthermore, the section ends with the Aragon Crusades, although there were dozens of political crusades in support of the Popes in Central Italy in the 14th century. I emphasize that I have never suggested that each crusade should be mentioned or described, but the article should provide a full picture.
I compared some sentences from section "3 Causes" with the reliable source referred to in the next citation, because they contradicted all my previous knowledge about the subject. I realized that they are actually not verified.
'This is untrue'—see article talk, all your failed verifications were in fact verified Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Your claim is untrue. (1) When I wrote this sentence none of the claims were verified. (2) One of the claims remained unverified, but it was deleted. (3) Yes, now the second claim seems to be verified by a work specialized at the history of whole Europe. I will comment this issue on the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- For instance, the Investiture Controversy is interpreted in a quite unusual way in the article. ("This struggle, now known as the Investiture Controversy, was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics.")

—supported by sources Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'This is untrue'—it remained unverified and it was deleted. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec:@Borsoka: Can we just delete the bit about the Investiture Controversy? It was very important, and it was related to the papacy, and it was directly related to German civil war, but to the crusades..... was the link a bit tenuous? I'm gonna be bold and make it so. Howls of protest may be registered here at a later time. ♦

Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best approach, I think. Borsoka (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Lingzhi2 has now done this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Furthermore, the section contains sentences about the Investiture Controversy and about Pope Leo IX's intent on abolishing symony and clerical marriage (although these are only tangentially connected to the crusades), but the section does not write of Pope Leo IX's most relevant innovation in the contex of the article: he was the first Pope to promise absolution of sins to his soldiers fighting against the Normans.
- The section also mentions that the idea of holy war emerged in Christian Europe in the 11th century without referring to the fact that the possibility of a holy war was sharply criticized by many Catholic theologians in the period.
- It is likewise unusual, that the article suggests that Pope Gregory VII's lust for power caused the Great Schism of 1054. Especially because Pope Gregory VII reigned from 1073 to 1085. (And the allegedly cited source does not verify this claim.)

Where does the article say this? Srnec (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say it. It suggests it: "Gregory's doctrine of papal primacy led to conflict with eastern Christians whose traditional view was that the pope was only one of the five patriarchs of the church alongside the Patriarchates of Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem. In 1054 Leo IX sent a legation to the Patriarch of Constantinople demanded that his supremacy be recognised. The Patriarch responded with an alternative manifesto so the legation excommunicated him. A Synod of the Greek church in turn excommuinicated the legation while condemning the Latin church as heretics in creed and practice. This created an irreparable split known as the East–West Schism." Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Borsoka, I re-arranged the bit about Gregory, papal primacy, and the schism. Is it better now? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it suggests that the doctrine of papal primacy was the principal reason of the Great Schism. If you read the cited source (Jotischky) it does not verify a similar claim ([7]). Consequently, the sentence contains OR. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source suggests it, at least as I read it. I am away from my computer at the moment. I can change more things later tonight. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: You put a "failed verification" tag on "...but all these controversies became far less tractable because of an essentially political issue – the more fundamental question of papal supremacy." It is cited to Jotischky, p=29 where we have the same assertion: "The problem was that debates between Roman and Orthodox representatives rarely took place in a context that was free of political overtones, and all such debates seemed to founder on the more fundamental question of authority in the Church." Same meaning, different words. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also read section "2 Background" and I was again surprised.
- For instance, we can read the following two sentences: "Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes attempted to confront the Seljuks to suppress sporadic raiding; this led to the 1071 defeat of the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert. Once considered a pivotal event by historians, Manzikert is now regarded as only one step in the expansion of the Great Seljuk Empire into Anatolia." However, we know that this "one step in the expansion of the Great Seljuk Empire into Anatolia" was followed by further steps and the Seljuks conquered almost all Byzantine territories in Anatolia within a decade. Actually, the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia and the massacre of masses of Christians during the war was (or at least was claimed to be) the principal reason of the declaration of the First Crusade.

Accept that is 'not what current academic thinking believes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you refer to reliable sources which say that Pope Urban II did not speak of the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia and the massacre of the local Christians? Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- We can read further interesting sentences: "During this time levels of tolerance, trade, and political relationships between the Muslims and the Christians fluctuated. Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status on payment of a poll tax, legal rights and legal protection. Indigenous Christians were also allowed to maintain existing churches, and marriages between people of different faiths were not uncommon." As far as I can remember all books dedicated to the crusades mention the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre by Al-Hakim in 1009 among the events leading to the First Crusade. Similarly, most specialized works write of the Seljuk invasions of Syria and Palestina during the last decades of the 11th century. Interestingly, the Armenians, Jacobites and Maronites initially received the first crusaders with joy and supported them. (Actually, this fact is ignored in section 4.1 First Crusade and aftermath", but the massacre of local Christians during the siege of Jerusalem is mentioned.)

"As far as I can remember all books"—I don't know what you are reading but the destruction of the Sepulchre 90 years before the crusades is generally only referred to in giving an idea of Christian/Muslim relations, not as a event leading to crsusade. Decades later, I am sure you are aware, the Muslims allowed its rebuilding Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above quote from the article describes Christian-Muslim relations, suggesting that those were peaceful. On the other hand, for instance, Andrew Jotischky mentions the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the persecution of the local Christians (page 147). Borsoka (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- In the Background section the Muslims' holy war, the jihad, is not mentioned. This term appears for the first time in section 4.2. Islamic recovery of Edessa and the Second Crusade where we can learn of Zengi's attempt to "restore" jihad. (By the way, why should we write of "Islamic recovery of Edessa"? Edessa was ruled by Christian Armenians when Baldwin of Boulogne captured it in 1098.)

Sorry, but after carefully reading the two sections, I think the article should be reviewed by experts of the crusades. It is not an FA. Borsoka (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, do you have any experts in mind? Any experts on Wikipedia? Are you an expert? Thanks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not an expert. As far as I know there is a Crusades-task-force within WikiProject Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And do you know of any experts within that task force? Perhaps not. May I suggest a working compromise? You seem to have a keen interest in this topic. Please bear in mind meta:Eventualism.A topic this size is never really finished; it is always an ongoing project. So for today, work with the nominator to address the concerns you have raised. Let your Oppose become an agreement to work with the nominator even after this FAC is complete. It could be a fruitful partnership. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above issues show that the article fails to summarize basic information about the topic. An article dedicated to the crusades which does not emphasize the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the conquest of Anatolia by the Seljuqs, or which fails to describe the development of the Christian idea of crusades could hardly be a FAC. As I demonstrated above, the article contains unverified content. As far as I can remember, articles containing unverified claims are rarely regarded GAs. We are discussing a FAC. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) What I am suggesting is that this topic is so large and has such multifarious, multifaceted subtopics that the work must remain ongoing... Rather than looking at what is there now, penalizing its deficiencies, and declaring the day's work done, decide instead to fix whatever deficiencies seem most urgent and pressing – what a final exam for a college freshman ""Introduction to the Crusades" absolutely must include, for example – and form an ongoing collaboration with Norfolkbigfish to make ongoing improvements. Is that an unreasonable goal? It seems reasonable to me, but then again, I am as I said an extremely firm believer in meta:Eventualism. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really suggest that we should approve this FAC because it is a large article or because we are to cooperate? I reviewed two small sections of this large article and I found several problems. These are not minor problems, because basic information is not or not properly mentioned in the article and it also contains OR. I must say it can hardly be regarded as a GA. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you think that further copyediting or minor edits may be necessary, but the article as a whole meets FA criteria. Let me explain through examples what are my concerns (my examples are from section 2 Background). Please remember that the article is dedicated the "holy" wars that Christians waged against Muslims and their fellow Christians, not the history of Europe or the Mediterranean.

@Borsoka:— You admit that you are not an expert and you admit that you haven't read the entire article}}. Four other reviewers have supported after reading the article completely. Are you suggessting that you know better than they do? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Do you say that this is an answer to my concerns? Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section mentions that "The first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, founded the city of Constantinople in 324." Actually, the foundation of Constantinople is not relevant in the context of the article. What would be relevant that Constantine the Great was the first ruler to be claimed to fight under the sign of the Cross. The section also fails to mention that the idea of warring had initially been alien to Christian ideology and the transformation of the Roman Empire into a Christian states required the transformation of Christian theology.

The foundation of Constantinople is fundamental to the Crusades. It enabled the campaigns and without it is unlikely they would have happened. What else Constantine did in the 4th-century was of secondary importance Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OR? Would you please explain this interesting idea? Should we also mention the fall of the Hunnic Empire and the Avars and the Christianization of Hungary? Do you say that the first "holy war" in the history of Christianity and its theological background are not important. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research because it is not in the article. I was attempting to explain in simple terms to help you understand. Constantinople was a major geo-political feature of politics in the Levant prior, during and after. Other reviewers requested more background on the region to help understanding. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If my understanding is correct, we now agree that the foundation of Constantinople is not fundamental to the Crusades. Than we do not need to mention it. Why do you think that an event happening hundreds of years before the crusades helps anyobody to understand the region? There is no information about the foundation of Jerusalem or Venice in the article either. Maps usually helps us to understand a region. Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section contains the following sentence: "Following the foundation of the Islamic religion by Muhammad in the 7th century, and continuing through the 8th century, Muslim Arabs under the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates captured Syria, Egypt, and North Africa from the Roman Empire, Sicily and Malta from the Byzantine Empire, Iran from the Sasanian Empire and the majority of Iberia from the Visigothic Kingdom." However, there is no reference to the jihad.

I think you are struggling with maintaining a NPOV, the conquests are there as background but academic opinion is they had largely died out by the time of the Crusades. What would refering to Jihad add? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not struggling. As I mentioned above, the jihad appears suddenly in the article as a reaction to the crusades. Have you read of the Almoravids and their fight against the Spanish kingdoms in the second half of the 11th century? Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section mentions that the Fatimids "were a Shi'ite faction named after Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad." Is this relevant in the context of the article?

If you had read the article you would know. It was Isalamic factionalism that enabled much of the crusading success Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make a connection between Islamic factionalism and the name of Muhammad's daughter? As far as I know it was not her name gave rise to factionalism, but the question who should lead the Islam community: a properly elected man or a descendant of the Prophet. This piece of information is not mentioned in the article. (I do not say that we should mention it, but if we fail to mention the principal reason of the rift within the Islamic community, we should not write of the Prophet's daughter. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section/article fails to explain the development of crusader ideology/theology. I emphasize that we should not provide a full picture, but if we are discussing an article about religious wars, we should mention the development of this idea in 3-4 sentences. Especially, because the article still contains irrelevant details.

This article does cover the development of crusader ideology in depth, throughout. What you consider irrelevent details other reviewers have requested adding. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned two other problematic parts above (the Seljuq conquest of Anatolia and the allegedly undisturbed life of local Christians under Muslim rule).

This is only one single section.

Please also remember that I already demonstrated that the article contains unverified or misinterpreted sentences. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: please withdraw the statement the article contains unverified or misinterpreted sentences. As has been shown in Talk:Crusades this is demonstrably untrue. I would be happy to work with you on any errors and ommissions in the article as our friend @Lingzhi2: suggests, as I have done with other reviewers, but this would require you to list them again in a methodical manner. This article is a struggle with WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:NPOV and I think some of your comments reflect this. I think this article is now in the best state it has ever been and four other reviewers consider this at FA stand. Please reconsider your opposition. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that when I wrote this sentence, the article contained at least two unverified sentences. One of them was deleted. The other is now verified by a work dedicated to the general history of Europe. I will comment this issue on the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish:, I continued to review the article and I found the following interesting text about "the migrating Turks, in particular the Seljuks and their followers, who had colonised the sparsely populated areas of Anatolia". Could you quote Asbridge's text to verify this sentence? I did not find it on the allegedly cited page. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—the Ashbridge citation covered the majority of the paragraph. Rephrased the sentence in question and sourced to Findley Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If my understanding is correct no source wrote of the colonization of sparsely populated areas. Are you sure that the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia can be described as an immigration? Asbridge writes of "military pressure" (page 27), Malcolm Barber writes of Turks invading Anatolia and occupying "all but three small areas" (page 9), and Jotischky refers to Muslim armies reaching "the Bosporus" (page 42) after the Battle of Manzikert. I started to review the article only a couple of hours ago. I have just reached the section dedicated to the First Crusade, but I have already found 3 unverified sentences in the text of the article. Yes, I know that the first of them was deleted, the second one was verified (by a non-specialized work) and the third one was modified. However, the second sentence contains a claim which is not verified by specialized works and the third one still contradicts most specialized modern works (many of them cited in the article). I think FA review is not the proper venue for securing the compliance of the article with WP:NOR and WP:Due, because these are basic policies. Do you still think, this is a FA? I suggest you should withdraw the nomination and seek assistance from experts. Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Borsoka:—I do think this is a FA. Is it perfect, no; does it cover a wide ranging subject and reflect current academic thinking, yes it does. Not only that so do four other reviewers. These reviewers have gone through the article line by line and given notes that I have actioned. I must admit I find your comments difficult to understand. They seem sweeping, not NPOV and at risk of contravening WP:WORLDVIEW. There is no need to withdraw this FAC, although the co-ordinators may have a different opinion due to the length of the review. @Lingzhi2: did suggest to you that you work with me to get this over the line on the basis of meta:Eventualism. To do this you would need to follow the example of other reviewers and reade the entire article and provide notes line by line. I will work with you, but you must reciprocate. But remember 4 reviewers approve, there are other watchers who are knowledgable commenting but it is only you who opposes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as you know, I am not an expert of the crusades. Yes, it is only me who oppose, but I am convinced that an FA review is not the proper venue for achieving the compliance of the article with basic WP policies. I do not want to be rude, but your remarks above and your edit summaries suggests me that you should read some more literature on the crusades, because even an amateur like me can find unverified sentences without much difficulty. Borsoka (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help. I think this arguing is counterproductive and more than a little confusing, however. ...Borsoka's argument is, "I have found a sample of three errors without difficulty. By logical extension, the article must be riddled with more errors." You have to balance that argument against the fact that we are only talking about three errors out of an estimated 78 kB (12539 words) "readable prose size". Instead of arguing, read the whole article top to bottom (or bottom to top, as I often do) and find all errors. List not only the errors but why they are wrong (i.e., the correct answer, as you see it). You should also mention whether this is a major or minor point, whether it can safely be deleted, or easily rephrased, etc. That is the straightforward way to critique. It would also provide very valuable input into the process. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Actually, I have so far found at least five errors. These were not only "errors", but evidence of original research. We are not only talking of five errors out of an estimated 78kB (12539), but we are talking of five errors in two or three sections. Both conversations on the article's talk page and on my talk page, and edits ([8]) suggest me that the nominator is unwilling to modify or delete unverified sentences. I still think that the article should have been comprehensively reviewed before its FA nomination, because it contains too many errors, but let's have a try. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

define the term "crusade" (The first sentence of the article - "The crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period." - defines the term, but this statement is not verified in the main text.)
The range of events to which the term has been applied has been greatly extended, so its use can create a misleading impression of coherence, particularly regarding the early crusades. Extended to what?
not all armed pilgrims fought and not all who fought had taken religious vows Close paraphrasing?
It was not until the late 12th and early 13th centuries that a more specific "language of crusading" emerged. OR? The cited source does not write of the development of a specific crusading vocabulary, but about the fusion "the language and practice" of armed and unarmed pilgrimages. Actually, it writes that both armed and unarmed pilgrimages (that is, both crusaders and traditinal pilgrims) were confusingly mentioned as peregrini.
The modern English "crusade" dates to the early 1700s. The term used in modern Arabic, ḥamalāt ṣalībiyya حملات صليبية‎, lit. "campaigns of the cross", is a loan translation of the term "crusade" as used in western historiography. Why was this terminology adopted? The practise of "taking the cross" is first mentioned in section Conflict with Egypt including the Fifth and Sixth Crusades, without any previous explanation, although this was the principal element of the crusaders' oath and that is why we call them crusaders.
The crusades in the Holy Land are traditionally counted as nine distinct campaigns, numbered from the First Crusade of 1095–99 to the Ninth Crusade of 1271–72. This convention was used in 1820 by historian Charles Mills in his History of the Crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land. It is often retained for convenience even though it is a somewhat arbitrary system OR?
"Saracen" was a common Greek and Roman term for an Arab Muslim. Why is this relevant in the context of the article? I know that the Muslims were mentioned as Saracens in the age of the crusades, but the sentence does not say this, because it covers Antiquity.
[The term Saracen] "was derived from a name used for the nomadic peoples of the Syro-Arabian desert who raided the Syrian region of the Roman Empire." Delete. It is not relevant.
change the order of the sentences (The term Saracen comes out of nowhere, especially because we have not been informed that the crusaders primarily fought against Muslim Arabs. I suggest that the last paragraph should be introduced by the terms "Franks" and "Latins", because the previous paragraphs were dedicated to the crusaders themselves.)

Background[edit]

The first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, founded the city of Constantinople in 324. Delete. The article is too long.
In this city the Roman Empire continued until 1453, while the Empire in the west collapsed at the end of the 4th century. Rephrase. No scholar says that the Roman Empire continued in Constantiople, because the empire survived in its eastern territories. We should not close the sentence with the fall of the Western Roman Empire because it is not directly connected to the crusades. I suggest: "In the west, the Empire collapsed at the end of the 5th century, but it continued in the east until 1453."
The city and the Eastern Roman Empire are more generally known as Byzantium, the name of the older Greek colony it replaced. Delete "The city and" - the article (hopefully) never refers to Constantinople as Byzantium. I suggest: "The Eastern Roman Empire is more generally known as Byzantium after the ancient Greek name of its capital, Constantinople."
I am missing an introduction to the development of the Christian ideology of holy wars/just wars (2 or 3 sentences). I suggest to use the following books:

- Lock, Peter (2006). The Routledge Companion to the Crusades. Routledge. ISBN 9-78-0-415-39312-6. (pages 298-299)
- Richard, Jean (2001) [1996]. The Crusades, C. 1071-c. 1291. Cambridge medieval textbooks. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780521625661. (pages 1-3).

I second the suggestion of Lock. I was thinking the other day when we were discussion the political crusades that it has a very good structure for working on an article like this. Srnec (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mention "jihad (or holy war)" in connection with the Muslim expansion. The text of the article about Muslim expansion is verified by a section titled "Islam and Holy War" from Tyerman's book. Asbridge also dedicates pages to the idea of jihad in his book about the Crusades, cited in the article.

...More to be come...

Muslim Iberia (modern Portugal and Spain) Change to "Muslim Iberia (large parts of modern Portugal and Spain)".

If we have to define Iberia, maybe we shouldn't be using the word? Historians are comfortable with "Spain". Srnec (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because modern Portuguese would not be confortable. :) Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The recovery of territory by the Byzantine Empire reached its furthest extent in 1025, through the military successes of Emperor Basil II. Its frontiers stretched as far east as Iran. It controlled Bulgaria as well as much of southern Italy and piracy had been suppressed in the Mediterranean Sea. From this point, the arrival of new enemies on all frontiers placed intolerable strains on the resources of the state. In Italy they were confronted by the Normans; to the north, the Pechenegs, the Serbs and the Cumans, as well as the Seljuks to the east. Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes attempted to confront the Seljuks to suppress sporadic raiding; this led to the 1071 defeat of the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert. OR?
Mention the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia. The Seljuk conquest was the principal cause of or the only pretext for the declaration of the First Crusade. The conquest is mentioned in the sources cited in the article [Asbridge (2012), page 27., Tyermann (2006), page 11., Jotischky (2004), pages 42, 44].
This situation was probably the cause of instability in the Byzantine hierarchy rather than the result. Delete. The article is too long and the sentence is a PoV. (I emphasize I do not debate its reliability, but it is irrelevant in the context of the article.)
Yet positive signs of the overall health of the Empire at this time have been identified by recent scholarship. Delete. The article is too long and the sentence does not say anything: "positive signs" (what?) "overall health" (what?) "recent scholarship" (who). We can enjoy the article without understanding the meaning of this PoV sentence.
By the end of the 11th century, the age of Islamic territorial expansion was long gone. OR?
However, fractious frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world remained across the Mediterranean Sea. The territory around Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries. During this time levels of tolerance, trade, and political relationships between the Muslims and the Christians fluctuated. Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status on payment of a poll tax, legal rights and legal protection. Indigenous Christians were also allowed to maintain existing churches, and marriages between people of different faiths were not uncommon. OR?
Mention the sporadic persecution of pilgrimes and local Christians.

Lingzhi[edit]

Ah, my heart goes out to you. What a huge FAC! Looks like an ordeal... I remember I did some copy editing way, way back in 2016. Ah.

Muslim opinion section doesn't tell the Muslim opinion. it just kinda lists when some such were written.. Do we have an article on the Muslim opinion of the Crusades? If not, then crap, to me it looks like the article might fail due to WP:WIAFA 1b. I mean, shouldn't we give some good space to the Muslim view, since they were the ones being attacked and all? Right here is your chance to persuade me that I should not !vote Fail based on this omission alone. I am very sorry....
Contemporary debate section doesn't seem to include any Contemporary debates. it just lists.. some...

categorization? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good wishes @Lingzhi2:, I remember your ce. Actually, although long this FAC has gone better than previous FACs, thanks to the efforts of some very positive proactive reviewers. I wonder if the issue here is the headings rather than the content, both Contemporary debate and Muslim opinion are sub-sections within Historiography. As such they weren't intended to reflect debate and opinion but rather historiography. We do have an article for this, Historiography of the Crusades, although it is only C-Class. As far as WP:WIAFA actual contemporary debate is covered across the entire article at a number of points. Modern muslim opinion is also picked up in the Legacy section, although an editor asked me to edit it back due to undue weight. My question is whether this is a lack of comprehensiveness or misnamed sections? If it is the former the challenge is space but I could add a para on modern debate and one on Muslim opinion, if it is the latter I will rename. This seems close (4 supports to date) so rather than opposing please feedback you opinion and I will action. It would be a shame to have to start a FAC like this from scratch Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that sounds right. You might want to re-word those two headers tho. they are a bit confusing, to me at least, as they stand. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—renamed Muslim opinion to Muslim historiography and Contemporary debate to Contemporary historiography. Does that work for you? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod[edit]

I'm loathe to add many points to this page - the quality of comments seems to be deteriorating down the page, not that I have read all. But:

we're not linking Lisbon?
"In the 15th century the pivotal events in Christian–Islamic relations were marked by two events: " - stop at "were"?
"Modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the crusaders" - "views" better?
"By the end of the 11th century, the age of Islamic territorial expansion was long gone.[23] However, fractious frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world remained across the Mediterranean Sea. The territory around Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries." - Hmm - importantly for the 1st Crusade, Antioch was only taken in 1084, and in the Balkans expansionary efforts continued for centuries. Never mind Central Asia, Russia etc.
"There were several key doctrinal divisions between east and west" - were there? Really only Filioque was "doctrinal", and it is hard to call that "key".

I did this. The source refers to theological disputes plural, but names only unleavened bread and filioque as main ones. [filouque = "one of the main points at issue"; It also says these were matters of custom rather than fundamental doctrinal differences, but the politics made the issue worse... It goes on to make the point I quoted above.... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" This was a turning point in an irreparable split known as the East–West Schism" - hmm, not so much a turning-point as the culmination of several centuries of increasing detachment on both sides. And I expect both sides would have been astonished to find it still unrepaired 930 years later.
ENGVAR - "centre" but "This account has fallen out of favor".
"a thirst for adventure and a general liking for warfare" - some of your sources must say that the acquiring of fame as a warrior was an extremely powerful motive for all kinds of medieval elite foolishness, just as in ancient and later times.
"Finally, one motivating factor may have been spiritual – a desire to gain penance through warfare" - seems grudging, and not well-expressed; most historians think spiritual benefit was key for many crusader leaders, and grace better expresses what they were after rather than "penance". I find myself querying lots of points cited to Jotischky.
"the Norman community of southern Italy" seems an odd way to refer to this tiny piratical band.
Nicaea - no link
"the Muslim city of Antioch" - it had only been Muslim-ruled for a few years, and the civilian population was still very largely Christian
"raised by the general Kerbogha" - he was effectively independent as ruler of Mosul.
"The original ideas that Jerusalem would become an ecclesiastical domain and the claims of Raymond were discounted in the face of the contingent of troops from Lorraine" - "idea". The end is unclear.
"forced Bohemond to acknowledge Alexius feudal as his lord"
More later. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

Okay, we've left this open two-and-a-half months, way more than we generally do, because it was a big article that needed lot of commentary, and not so long ago it looked like we were on track for consensus for promotion. That's not the case now, issues being raised by new reviewers and the prospect of the nom dragging on still longer. I hope that the Borsoka, Johnbod and Lingzhi with continue to work with the nominator on the outstanding points via article talk, after which you could ping previous reviewers for another look, and renominate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.