Talk:Crusader states/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Franks, Francs, etc.

@Norfolkbigfish:, I have not read the encyclopedia you are citing, but I read the relevant parts of Murray's study and Asbridge's book (both cited in this article). I guess you want to say the following: medieval chronicles referred to them (European settlers, both crusaders and immigrants) as Francs; this term reflects the Byzantine Greek and Arabic usage (it is not a loanword, but a calque); finally, the medieval terms are rendered by modern historians as "Franks". Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much, thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish:, why do we need to know how the crusaders of the First Crusade were sometimes known? This is not an article about the First Crusade. We should rather know what was the ethnonym used to refer to the Roman Catholic settlers in the Crusader states. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The point the source is making is that by the chronicles reporting this, the Franks were self identifying as Franks, maybe from the Arabic and Greek terms. It is this self identification that is key, it continued throughout the existance of the CS and follows through to the terms usage now. It is the beginning of a collective consciousness. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. For the time being, the article refers to the First Crusade, without sayig how the Franks identified themselves. Perhaps the following text properly summarizes what the cited sources say about the Outremer and the Franks (and also avoids close paraphrasing):

"The terms "Crusader states" and "Outremer" can interchangeably be used to collectively describe four feudal states established by leaders of the First Crusade in the Levant around 1100: (from north to south) the county of Edessa, the principality of Antioch, the county of Tripoli, and the kingdom of Jerusalem. "Crusader states" is a less accurate description: crusaders always represented a minority population and most settlers coming from Europe never took a crusader oath; but the term "Outremer" (French: outre-mer, lit. 'overseas') is old and obsolete. The European settlers, both crusaders and other immigrants, and their descendants living in the Crusader states called themselves Francs or Franci. The ethnonym likely mirrored Levantine terms: the Byzantine Greek Frangoi and Arabic al-Ifranj, both referring to all Western Christians. In modern literature, it is rendered as "Franks". The Roman Catholic Franks were the dominant and most privileged ethnic group in Outremer's highly stratified society, divided along religious lines." Borsoka (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: could you refer to a modern historan who uses the term "Franks" when referring to Sigur the Crusader and his Norwagian crusaders, Conrad III of Germany and his German crusaders and Andrew II of Hungary and his Hungarian crusaders? You referred specifically to Cobb in the edit summary ([1]). Could you specify the page? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Murray writes regarding Franci that However, it is also used to refer to all members of crusade armies, irrespective of nationality or origins, particularly with reference to the later stages of the crusade and the beginning of Latin settlement in Syria and Palestine p471. Cobb uses the term 740 times. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read again Murray's words. Borsoka (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The chronology and etymology of the term is clear. Franks were a Germanic tribe that invaded Western Europe between the 8th and 10th centuries. These became known in the Eastern Roman Empire by the Greek Frangoi and later the Arabic al-Ifranj. Overtime, in the East the term became used for all Westerners. When the First Crusade arrived, chroniclers used the Latin variant Franci, both for subjects of the king of France and for all the crusaders. It is likely that this reflects actual linguistic usage and the adoption of the term by the Roman Catholic and predominantly French speaking incomers, as Murray again puts it, sourced in the article to pages 297 to 298. The term Franks is widely used today by academic and popular historians for all the crusaders, the immigrants that followed from western Europe and their descendants in the crusader states. Cobb is his work cited in the article uses the term 740 times. It is right the term is explained for lay readers, particularly considering the this was a result of self-identification of a people the article is about. Murray again summarises well: However, it is also used to refer to all members of the crusader armies, irrespective of nationality or origins, particularly with reference to the later stages of the crusade and the beginning of the Latin settlement in Syria and Palestine. It seems likely that the chronicles, some of which were composed by eyewitnesses, reflect actual linguistic usage; having become familiar with Byzantine and Arabic terms for “Franks” in the course of the crusade, the crusaders themselves and, increasingly, their descendants who remained in the East adopted the name as a convenient self-designation to reflect the realities of life in a region where their own diverse origins were far less important than the crucial social and legal distinctions between dominant Latin Westerners on the one hand and the various native peoples on the other. The Arabic, Syriac, and Armenian sources that touch on events in Outremer generally refer to its Latin Christian inhabitants as Franks in their own languages. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The above issue is subject to a dispute resolution process. Borsoka (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

Our relevant policy says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." References in the article are being replaced by references to a single tertiary source (the four volume of Alan V. Murray's encyclopedia of the crusades). I emphasize, Murray's encyclopedia is a reliable source, but closely paraphrased sentences from it should not replace text verified by references to secondary sources. There are less than a dozen secondary sources cited in the article and no one has proposed that many further secondary sources should be cited to provide a more neutral picture of the topic. The sources cited in the article rarely contradict each other, so their text could easily be consolidated. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_320#The_Crusades_[4_Volumes]:_An_Encyclopedia_-_Alan_V._Murray. There was no support for this opinion. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

There was a clean consensus that the encyclopedia is a reliable source. At least one editor stated, the ideal articles are based on more than one secondary sources. Could you refer to a WP policy contradicting my proposal? Why do you think the tag asking for secondary sources exist? Borsoka (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The article uses more than one secondary source, the encyclopedia is WP:RS. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I referred to a specific WP policy promoting the use of secondary sources (instead of tertiary and primary sources). Can you refer to a WP policy promoting the replacement of secondary sources with tertiary sources? Borsoka (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: please review the texts verified by the encyclopedia to avoid close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Already done, please point out any I have missed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, at least three new sentences added recently contain close paraphrasing as it is mentioned both in the tags and in the edit summaries ([2]). Borsoka (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, copyedited. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing and the use of Murray's Encyclopedia was discussed at length. Consensus was it was WP:RS so tagging is without merit. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has denied that it is a reliable source. I quoted above our relevant policy. Could you quote text from our policy promoting the replacement of secondary sources by tertiary sources? Close paraphrasing is also to be avoided. Borsoka (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

History Section

The purpose of this section is to give a Wikipedia:Summary style chronology of the Crusader States that is objective rather than subjective. That is the events, people & dates rather than analysis, context, opinion, and tangentially related detail. If required for the scope of the article this level of detail is or could be covered in the later sections. It does not help the reader to have a single narrative structure in an encyclopaedic article. Following this approach means they can read on if they wish or get the chronology quickly and simply. Examples of what is or could be included in the later sections include:

• crusader states' political and social systems, differences with the west and acculturation with the East
• the native Christian communities
• the Fatimid Caliphate and other Middle Eastern societies
• the military balance
• relations with Western Europe & any special status

Examples of information that is only tangentially important or subjective include:

• the Shiite-Sunni rift
• Byzantine ambitions

Afterall, the subject is already covered by articles on the four states, Fatimid Caliphate, Succession to Muhammad, Byzantine Empire, Crusades etc. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand your above suggestion. For instance, the article presents the Seljuk Empire, its political system and society at the beginning of the article. Why should we present the Fatimid Caliphate and Near Eastern societies in other sections? How can you present a chronology without mentioning the crusader states' relations with Western Europe? How can you present a chronology without mentioning Byzantine ambitions? What is the purpose of this article if it does not present the crusader states within a wider context? How can you separate events and their analysis? Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)+

On the Seljuk Empire and the Fatimid Caliphate, it is a fair point that this is not positioned well in the history. The crusaders states' relations with the the West, and The Byzantines, are evidenced by actual events, dates and participants. The Byzantines ambitions are a matter of supposition, better kept away from the chronology (but still important for the article). The wider context is better explained if freed from chronological sequencing, it allows grouping of commonality and focus on the key points. This approach better presents the crusader states in context, the events are not seprated from the analysis but from the need to presnt them as they happened. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you quote sentences from scholarly books denying Byzantine ambitions in the Levant between the 1090s and the 1170s? How can you separate the big picture from chronology: 1. Disintegrated Muslim powers. Byzantine ambitions to regain lost territory. 2. Towards the integration of Sunni powers. The special status of Damascus. Decline of the Fatimid Caliphate. Byzantine ambitions to expand authority. 3. Race for Egypt. 4. Egypt and Syria united. The decline of the Byzantine empire. 5. Fall and revival. 6. Disintegration of the Ayubbids' empire. 7. Mongols and Mamluks. 8. Fall. Borsoka (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Both the chronology and the big picture are clearer if separated. They are also complementary. In the previous point the Crusader States are hardly represented. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you think that the big picture could be presented without mentioning the events drawing this big picture? Sorry, I do not understand your second sentence. Do you say the Byzantines' attempts to control Antioch or conquer Egypt did not directly influence the crusader states' history? Could you refer to reliable sources denying the Byzantines' role in the history of Outremer for instance after the Second Crusade and before Manuel defeat at Myriokephalon? Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

No, none of these assertions are in the comment. Just that the objective and subjective are clearer if seperate. Events, participants and dates explain what happened. Why it happened is subjective, often debated and subject to interpretation and guesswork. The big requires explanation of often competing views, weighted and attributed. he chronology reads better if separate. The big picture analysis is deeper if not constrained by Chronology. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Authors cited in the article (Asbridge, Barber, Jotischky) can present the big picture, although they follow chronology. Why should we adopt an original approach? The big picture is clear: no authors questions that the Muslim world was disintegrated on the eve of the crusaders, neither they deny that this disintegration facilitated the consolidation of the crusader states, neither they debate that Zengi started a process of consolidation, etc. Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

They were writing books, this is a Wikipedia article. Asbridge's work is a popular history of the crusades, rather than an academic work on the crusader states, valuble as it is. Jostischky's work doesn't in fact follow chronological sequence and rather supports the idea of separation. Btw it is also a tertiary work of the sort you have such an aversion to and Barber's ends in 1192. A bloated chronology might work with someone with you background knowledge of the crusades, but it doesn't for the average reader. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

None of them is an encyclopedia. Yes, we are writing a WP article. Asbridge is an expert in the field - if he could present the big picture within chronology for a wide range of readers why do you think this article cannot. Jotischky's book follows chronology in this respect. Barber cannot be used after 1192 - why is this a problem? Borsoka (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The answer on Asbridge's work remains because it is a book. Jotischky undergraduate textbook doesn't really follow chronology. Chapter 1 is historiography, 2 is background, 3 & 4 cover the chronology from 1095-1187, 5 jumps back to 1097-1193, 6 is detail on society, 7 chronological, 8 is detail on crusading, 9 & 10 chronology. Not good examples, Prawer ignores the chronology entirely and Tyerman follows it only generally, not being hung-up on the detail in his wider work. The point you keep missing is that it is easier to read through an broad objective chronology and then detail sections on narrower themes than it is to read through an online encyclopedia article that attempts both at the same time. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about the same approach. Prawer is not the best example: it is dedicated to a single crusader state, not to the crusader states. We need a background about Europe and the Levant to introduce the crusader states in a wider context (like Asbridge, Jotischky and Tyerman). We need a chronological approach also objectively presenting the main features of each period (like in Asbridge, Jotischky and Tyerman). Our readers likely want to and able to understand the wider context of the historical events when reading this article, because the article's title does not suggest a timeline. Finally, we need specific sections about specific aspects of the crusader states: government, society, everyday life, etc. (and there are plenty of good books that can be cited). Borsoka (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The establishment of the crusader states in the wider context of European expansion in the Levant

Borsoka—what sources do you have for this? It is not clear what you mean on this tag at the moment. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, "in the Levant" is not precise, but my comment made weeks ago during ACR is clear: "The article does not mention that Latin Christendom had been expanding towards almost all directions (including Muslim Spain and Sicily) for decades before the crusader states were established." From among the sources cited in the article: Asbridge (2000), Cobb (2016), Hillenbrand (1999), Nicholson (2004), Tyerman (2019), tangentially Jotischky (2004). Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I made myself clear, in part because I still don't understand your point. I was hoping for an objective answer of what the wider context is to which you refer. It seems very subjective, the blunt answer to the Latin Christendom had been expanding is so what? Latin Christendom had been expanding for centuries, not decades why is this relevant to the Crusader States? What do the academics say that explicitly links the CS to European expansion. This needs to be specific to the CS, not a generalised crusade quote. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The establishment of the crusader states is presented in the context of Latin Christianity's expansion in the sources cited in the article. It was not an isolated event, but part of a wider process, often with the same actors. Borsoka (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What was the process, what are your sources? What the explanation requires is the reason that instead of expanding in proximate areas the crusaders chose to expand in areas distant by thousand of miles, with no strategic advantage rather strategic disadvantage they choose the Levant. Unless you can source objective quotes to explain this the tag should be removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Process: expansion of Latin Christianity; sources: there is a list above. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What is the exact source that articulates that the process of expansion impacted on the cs and what that impact was, please: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If the sources listed above mention the European expansion as the crusader states' wider context, how can you present it as an isolated event? Could you introduce WWII without mentioning WWI? Borsoka (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I could mention WWI without mentioning the Boer War though. Why can't you, or won't you articulate what it is eaxctly that you mean? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Yes, you can describe WWI without mentioning the Boer War. 2. However, reliable sources cited in the article presents the establishment of the crusader states in the wider context of European expansion. Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid they don't, not explicitly or objectively. Unless you can find one you haven't shared already. There are lots that put crusading in a wider European context as many of the articles on the topic refer. But that is not specifically the Crusader States. There are sources that put the capture of Jerusalem in a religious perspective. This is the context for this article: the religious outburst and its aftermath in Middele Eastern politics. There is little commonality between Sicily, Iberia and the Baltics with the CS. They were all proximate borderlands to Western Christendom, the CS were not. They all ultimately led to conversion and expulsion, the CS did not. They all survived and grew the CS did not. Why? Because the CS were fundamentally different, rather than similar. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think scholars who make a clear connection between the conquest of Sicily and parts of Al-Andalus and the conquest of Syrian territories and Palestina also make a mistake? For instance, Barber describes the Norman conquest of Sicily as an "obvious precedent" for the invasion of Palestine (Barber (2012), p. 10). Tyerman explicitly lists the First Crusade among events like the Germans' fight against the Slavs and Balts, the Norman conquest of Sicily and the campaigns of the Reconquista. The Muslims' presence came to an end in southern Italy around 1300 (more than 200 years after the complete Norman conquest of Sicily). The Muslims were expelled from Spain in 1614 (more than 300 years after the largest part of al-Andalus were conquered). The crusader states existed for less than 200 years. Yes, the article should explain why the crusader states failed and geography can be a quite obvious explanation. Can you refer to reliable sources that do not mention religious justification for the Reconquista and the norman conquest of Sicily? Borsoka (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I requested a third opinion on the above issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. For the avoidance of doubt what is being asked for here is that the tag is removed from the article. That, and a single objective and explicit source is produced linking a general expansion of Catholic Christendom with the Crusader States. Not a subjectivity from genralist summaries of the Crusades. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

What was asked is clear: should be mentioned that the establishment of the crusader states had a wider context, the 11th-century expansion of Latin Europe, in accordance with the scholars cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

Springnuts (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Borsoka

Similarly to multiple reliable sources, the article should shortly mention that the crusader states' establishment by the leaders of the First Crusade was part of a wider process—the expansion of Latin Europe in the 11th century. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Norfolkbigfish

This is an issue because none of the sources so far produced explicitly and objectively write The CS were part of the expansion of Latin Europe in the 11th century. As a statement it has at its root the question of the crusaders motivation, why they took the cross and what did they expect from this action? The modern view is that the crusade met the spritual aspirations of the landed class who provided military leadership and whose lives were often. shaped by military experience (Jotischky, p12). The leading crusade academic of the late 20th century, Jonathan Riley-Smith describes as absurd the traditional idea that landless knights blithely departed on crusade.(p42, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading). Christopher Tyerman in God's War writes Although it would be misleading to assume all recruits and followers shared a similar intensity of religious motivation and zeal, without the element of ideology and spriritual exhilaration there would have been no march to Jerusalem, let alone a successful conquest . Jean Flori writes about Urban and those who recruited: Their success depended on their ability to create a climate of moral and religious pressure through an appeal to emotions. (p30, ideology and motivation in the first crusade in Palgrave Advances in the Crusades ed. Nicholson) On p17 he describes the movement to liberate the church being the framework with in in which to situate the debate. On p18 he does mention Christian reconquest in Iberia and Sicily but notes that Scholars disagree over the significance of these factors in the papal decision to call the crusade. For him the major features of the First Crusade were the direct result of its objective and primary destinatination (that is, the liberation of the eastern Churches and the recovery of Jersualem. He goes on to discuss pilgrimage and the remission of sin, martyrdom, religious soldarity, eschatology, the lack of conversion, glory in the eyes of god and man, demographic growth in the west, material gain, vassalage and familiy solidarity but what he does not mention is that the CS was part of a wider process-the expansion of Latin Europe in the 11th century. The clearest refutation of this is in the actions of the First Crusaders. After great privations and military conquest the tens of thousands who embarked did not expand in the new territory and its surrounds, apart from a few hundreds or maybe low thousands they completed their pilgrimage, packed up and took the long arduous dangerous journey home. This article is not about the crusades and is certainly not about the expansion of Latin Europe in the 11th century it is about the crusader states. This opinions is at best WP:UNDUE, possibly WP:OR and certainly contestable academically. If the was WP:RS to support the statement that would be fine, but there isn't, as far as I am aware, because no crusadie academic would make this claim. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion by Springnuts

....

Trying to drill down into the nub of the question: Borsoka in the statement "the crusader states' establishment by the leaders of the First Crusade was part of a wider process" are you speaking about the motivation of the leaders of the crusade, or about the effect of their actions (or both)? Norfolkbigfish, is it accurate to say that your comments are primarily about motivation? I am wondering if whatever they did was in historic terms a part of the expansion of Latin Europe, even if that was not their motivation nor something they themselves (in the main) contributed to directly? (If you will forgive an attempt at humour: you can tell I am Church of England - I want both of you to be right!) Springnuts (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Borsoka

No, I do not speak about the leaders' or participants' motivation. I speak about their actions: Catholic aristocrats and their retainers depart for expansionist military actions and conquer territories from non-Catholics. The historian Christopher Tyerman — also cited above by Norfolkbigfish — makes a clear connection between a series of 11th-century expansionist military actions: "The competitive dynamics of lords, landed knights and paid armed retainers stimulated aristocratic social and geographic mobility. ... [A] lord could exercise lordship wherewere he possesses retinues and income. While this usually imposed geographic limits, ...territorial constraints could give way to more distant career opportinities...: for German Saxon nobles, across the Elbe into the lands of Slavs and Balts; for French lords, into Spain to fight the Moors of al-Andalus...; for Norman knights, over the Alps into southern Italy, Sicily and Byzantiun. The availability and capabilities of western knights joined with opportunity in the Near East and crisis in Byzantium to make the First Crusade possible." (Tyerman, Christopher (2019). The World of the Crusades. Yale University Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-300-21739-1.) An other historian, Malcolm Barber states that the Norman conquest of Sicily offered an "obvious precedent" for the invasion of Palestine during the First Crusade (Barber, Malcolm (2012). The Crusader States. Yale University Press. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0-300-11312-9.). Paul M. Cobb narrates Latin Europe's expansion in the Mediterranean in one section entitled "The Frightened Sea", concluding that by the time the crusaders reached Syria "panic was spreading though the Levant. It was as if the once unassailable and resolute borders of the Abode of Islam had collapsed all at onec. By 1098 Sicily had been lost and what was left of al-Andalus was under siege. ... And now, ..., the Saljuqs of Rum and the Danishmendids ... had failed to prevent the Franks from crossing Anatolia. The collapse of the Rum frontier ... gave Baldwin the opening to create a solid base in Edessa..." (Cobb, Paul M. (2016) [2014]. The Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-0-19-878799-0.) Similar texts from other historians' works could easily be quoted. Borsoka (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Norfolkbigfish

Morning Springnuts, this is a tricky one. The important thing is that the statement the crusader states' establishment by the leaders of the First Crusade was part of a wider process meets two thresholds of proof if it, or a paraphrasing of it, is included:

• It should be objectively and incontrovertibly true
• A WP:RS should state that it is objectively and incontrovertibly true

At the moment this statement looks like original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this: 1 If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; 2 If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; 3 If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

On 1 it is clear that it is not the majority view of crusade historians, although it must be acknowledged that some medievalists do hold the view. On 2 the sources do not explicitly support the statement, whether it is true or not. Out of context they reflect some aspects that support the statement, but do not take into account arguments that don't or the academic debate on the subject. As Western Europeans there was always going to be some commonality between the crusades and other wars of conquest in the 11th century but the differences make the statement both inaccurate and unsubstantiated. Motivation is only one criticism, another is that the crusade leaders went to the big deal of swearing an oath to return all captured territory that had been in the Roman Empire to the Greeks and finally the vast majority completed their pilgrimage and went home. The First Crusade was an exceptional and extraordinary event that resulted in a happy accident of the creation of four remote and short lived polities. Very different from being part of a process. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for such clear explanations, and for engaging with each other in such a constructive way. Having read through everything again my opinion is that the statement should not appear in the article, because it is in effect OR. If, in the future, a clear RS can be found, then with a suitable suitable caveat about this being a minority and (as I understand it) controversial view then it certainly could be included. You have both given a great deal of time and effort on this article; might I now, and with all respect, suggest that you have a great deal to offer elsewhere in the encyclopaedia as well; and encourage you to edit away from this article for the time being. With my very best wishes, Springnuts (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Springnuts: thank you very much for your opinion and I accept your argumentation. Just for clarification, do you agree that the conquest of Syrian territories and of Palesti during the First Crusade should be introduced in the wider context of European expansionism as it is presented in most books cited in the article? From among the books I already referred to above, I specifically mention Barber and Cobb. Barber's statement that the Norman conquest of Sicily offered an "obvious precedent" for the invasion of Palestine during the First Crusade can hardly be misinterpreted. Furthermore, I can refer to Cobb's description of the psychological effects of the the conquest of large parts of al-Andalus and Sicily on the eve of the First Crusade. Cobb makes a clear connection between these events and the conquest of Edessa (the capital of the first crusader state). @Norfolkbigfish:, I assume you can accept this approach, because this viewpont is easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference text (in this case, with reference to most sources cited in the article). Am I wrong? I fully agree with your above statement that the First Crusade was an exceptional event (and this fact is already mentioned in the article), but we could hardly ignore well-known historians' approach when presenting the conquest of the Holy Land. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that approach is clearly WP:OR. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think that Barber's statement that the Norman conquest of Sicily offered an "obvious precedent" for the invasion of Palestina represents original research? The quote is from Barber's book cited in the article. Why do you think that Cobb's statement that the conquest of Sicily and large parts of Al-Andalus caused panic among the Muslims represents original research? The quote is from Cobb's book which is also cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what is actually written. Barber does not write that the Norman conquest of Sicily offered an "obvious precedent" for the invasion of Palestina he writes it offers an obvious precedent for Urban's justification for the invasion of Palestine - a very different view and among crusade historians debated one. Cobb's quote written from a Muslim perspective does not link the situations in Spain, Sicily and the Levant into a single process of European expansionism. It is a subjective summary to a chapter that in itself is not sourced or justified. The link of these two to the statement is your WP:OR. You asked for a WP:3O, you should have the good grace to accept it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Why do you think historians mention those conquests as a background for the First Crusade (which ended with the conquest of Palestine and parts of Syria and caused the establishment of the crusader states)? Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That would be my WP:OR :-), it is not for us to say, it is for the WP:RS to speak for themselves. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The article fails to mention the European roots of the crusader states' political and social system and does not present the establishment of the crusader states in the wider context of European expansion in the Levant

‎Borsoka I added the text in Crusader_states#Outremer that you tagged clarify with the reason Why is this random collection of texts about some aspects of government is relevant in this section? Why do you think a random list of peoples is the best introduction for the Crusader states? Please put yourself into our readers' shoes. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think that lists of Jerusalemite royal offices and of Levantine peoples help to understand our readers the principal features of state administration and society in late-11th-century Europe? Borsoka (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It is an introduction to the various peoples and also the the positions of government inherited from the west. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is a list of peoples and officials, but it does not present the principal features of state administration and society in late-11th-century Europe. Borsoka (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted this, not sure the value if gives warrants the debate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No mention of Frankokratia

There is no mention in the article of the crusader states carved out of the Byzantine Empire after the fourth crusade or Frankokratia as a whole. This includes: The Latin Empire, Kingdom of Thessalonica, Duchy of Neopatria, Margraviate of Bodonitsa, Principality of Achaea, Duchy of Athens, Lordship of Argos and Nauplia, and the Duchy of the Archipelago. This is a former FA and it's missing a massive amount of information. Flalf^Talk 19:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The section on Frankish Greece was deleted by User:Norfolkbigfish on 10 March, 2020. Dimadick (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a question of effective scope and equivalent depth. It is about The four feudal Catholic Christian states created in the Levant by a series of religious wars not every polity that was created in the aftermath of a christian religious war. See Crusader states (disambiguation). Frankokratia has its own article. The article includes much more content/depth than it did in 2020 and expanding the scope would mean it is simply impossible to go to the same depth. This would lead to a weaker article, rather than an improved one. It has never been an FA, before 2019 it was a rather neglected C-Class article. It is probably in the best shape it has ever been. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Map

I noticed someone changed the map, but I don't think it's much different, except it has less visibility of surrounding states, which seems detrimental. Considering restoring it, if there is a good reason I shouldn't, let me know! Flalf^Talk 14:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think the map produced by Amitchell125 is actually a great improvement on what was a rather dated and unclear one. As it is in the lead the key objective would seem to be to tell the reader where these states were. If the question was how they related to their neighbours perhaps that requires a different map later in the article. One point to bare in mind is that the borders were in a constant state of flux. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Monarchy

The article is dedicated to the four crusader states in Syria and Palestine, but Section 4. Monarchy contains no information about Antioch, Tripoli or Edessa. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

True Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)