Talk:Crusades/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

A connected miracle?

In Feb 23, 1239, in the town of Chio, Luchente, close to what then become the kingdom of Valencia, a group of 6 christian soldiers was attending the holy mass, when they received the warning that 'Saracens' were attacking. They hided inside a piece of fabric the Communion wafers that were just sacred, and went to the fight. When at their return they tried to have the Communion that was delayed by the fight, they found the Communion wafers covert by blood -it has been determined that it's human blood, nothing more is known-, and bonded to the piece of fabric. Through a complex process that involved letting a mule captured to the arabs run free until it died, the relic ended finally in the aragonese town of Daroca, (It's known today as the miracle of the Corporals in Daroca); while the contemporaries thought that the miracle signaled their victory, a deeper analysis would point to the fighting making the Communion wafers blotted by blood.--Jgrosay (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What's any of that got to do with this article? Is there an edit to this article you are proposing and what reliable sources are you suggesting supports the edit (if any)? DeCausa (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You can find all the info about: "El milagro de los corporales de Daroca" in any search engine, and noteworthy in Wikipedia, Spanish language edition. The intention in adding this subject is that the main article includes the "Reconquista" as some kind of an interior crusade held in the Iberian Peninsula, and to offer a different point of view, and a different actual fact, to the epics most times connected in dealing about crusades, about those who promoted it, and about the attitude of crusaders and their religious authorities towards the Muslims that behold the Holy Places, and the image Muslims themselves may have about these very old facts, that were in line with the mind of their times, strongly influenced by the Gothic peoples with a warrior tradition previous to their conversion into Christians, and changing a mentality established for centuries if not millennia may take also centuries. Do you think it's out of the scope of the article? I imagine several possibilities: adding the story to the facts of Spanish "Reconquista" -'Reconquest'-, adding it to a list of notorious miracles, this would be a never ending story, or allow it to stay in place as a peculiar event in the "Interior Spanish Crusade", a term used in the main article, but never, never used in Spain. It's up to you, any decision you may take would be right.--Jgrosay (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article work...

Per my notice here (although very late) I'll be starting work on citing this article again for the Wikipedia:The Core Contest. Hoping to at least reach GA status this year. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we have two "Crusades" articles? Or none?

This one seems absolutely useless for the intended purpose of an encyclopedia: giving the casual, uninformed reader some basic, unbiased information about the topic. Instead I get a mish-mash of half-formed arguments. Web 2.0 FAIL208.68.128.90 (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

See the above section - it's being revised. Of course, your comments were so full of helpful pointers that it's a joy to incorporate them into my revisions. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Our anonymous IP friend above is not me and I must say he does have a point about about this article that you might have recoginised before you flamed him. The article falls well short in a number of key areas:

• The content kicks off almost exclusively talking about the Middle Easter Crusades before trailing off with a list of 17 other European Crusades. This leads to incoherence and the reader is left to ask the question - what is a crusade?
• The social and economic drivers seem totally absent - why did so many volunteer so fervantly.
• The political drivers are absent. No real mention theocratic government and the rise of militant catholicism.
• It is a whitewash using quite anodyne language to hide some shocking behaviour e.g. the fact that the 4th Crusade didn't even get to the Holy Land but sacked the Christian city of Byzantium not once but twice, 70,000 inhabitants of Jerusalem butchered by the 1st Crusade, the first Jewish Pogroms
• The role of Women - really???? Particularly while ignoring the role of the poor
• The language used - such as the anachronism and non-contemporary term Levant, the perjorative term heresy etc
• The impact of the Crusades on Europe, Islamic relations, the rise of Venice, the renaisassance are all underplayed.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid Norfolkbigfish's list of complaints is not very helpful--he makes elementary errors himself (scholars use "Levant" a great deal; the study of women in the crusades is a major undertaking); he complains that it does not express his personal POV ("perjorative term heresy"; "whitewash"; " shocking behaviour"). As for the history of the next 300 years (re Europe, Venice, Islam, Renaissance) those topics are covered in their own long articles; as for "incoherence," well yes that is endemic in this topic because it comprises so many different crusades. It's revealing that Norfolkbigfish does not suggest any useful sources. Bottom line is that this critique by a non-contributor is not useful to the editors who actually are doing the work here. Rjensen (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly Levant is an imprecise term and I would be interested in your definition because this is certainly not clear here. What does it mean? I know it has been used from the 15th-century for the countries along the shores of the eastern Mediterranean Sea but sometimes this is only Anatolia and Syria (so not Jerusalem - bit of a oversight considering the subject) sometimes it includes the coast from Greece to Egypt, the Venetian trading ventures,as a synonym for the entire Middle or Near East and even in the 16th–17th centuries the term High Levant referred to the Far East (East Asia). Encyclopedia Britannica by the way if you want sourcing. As for the role of Women - 625 words largely cobbled together to make a point with little historical impact. Also, one mans heretic is another man's believer, this article should acknowledge the Catholic Church declared people heretics as a precursor to persecuting them very often in order to extend theocratic government. As to POV, apparently mine but also St Bernard's himself. "The lives and Labours of miillions who were buried in the east would have been more profitably employed in the improvement of their native country" - Jean de Joinville. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the Levant-- books.google lists over 75,000 books that bring together "Levant" and "crusades" -- it's a word choice used by thousands of RS; indeed JSTOR lists over 1000 scholarly articles that use the terms; see The Knights Hospitaller in the Levant, C.1070-1309 (2012) by Jonathan Riley-Smith. "Heretic" is a standard term in religious history and it's used by all scholars--and it's covered in hundreds of wikipedia articles . Women --REALLY in 2013 we have someone who has not heard of women's history and wants to ridicule and discard it????? Yes St Bernard had his POV but editors are not allowed to express their POV here--use your Facebook page, please. Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So instead of providing a definition of Levant suitable for this article like asked we get a rather petulant response. The question is whether this term, used repeatedly, aids the readers understanding of the content. The fact that it is used repeatedly does not really address this. The same goes for heretic unless you really want to explain what the heresy in question was. The hypocrisy of your response is that this article is both anachronistic and riddled with POV. By looking at the history you contributed to this and this explains why you respond so violently to even the mildest questioning. The difference between St Bernard's view and yours was he was there at the time and it is not evident you understand the subject. It is also not a criticism of Womans' History per se to suggest that the section in this article is inappropriate, irrelevant and vastly disproportionate to this piece. So what if the women cheered on the troops like they have done over the centuries, so what if a few went with the Crusade, how is this historically important and wouldn't it be better dealt with in its own article? There is an interesting and historical article to be written on the Crusades that touches on Catholicism, Islam, Colonialism and the legacy of the Crusades without reading like a rejected Star Wars script - but it is not this one as it is currently written. I am, however, looking forward to seeing how Ealdgyth goes about rescuing this entry.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone might wait until I've at least managed to get through the entire text that's here before picking it totally apart. Right now, I'm going through and sourcing everything that's already in the article. Once that's done, it'll be easier to actually fill in any gaps and make the content much more coherent. This isn't the first time I've tackled reworking such a large topic ... it takes time. Lots of time. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, well made. Good Luck as well, this needs a lot of work and that is before getting consensus on the contending POV. I think my points are valid, despite what RJenson thinks, but it was only based on a quick read. I'll look forward to what you come up with. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"Pope"/no "Pope"

I agree that we avoid using "Pope" or any other religious title in article names where possible. But this has been argued out. There are some popes that are hardly known without the title "Pope." Rather than piping them to non-pope status, they should be simply linked to the current name, whichever it is. It seems contrary to do otherwise. See Wikipedia:NCCL#Popes. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "piping them to non-pope status" - I'm simply applying the same convention to the title for popes as is applied to the monarchs - neither "King" nor "Pope" are linked in as part of a name. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Further reading must be adequate to the topic

This is one of the biggest historical topics and most popular in Wikipedia. (there were 570,000 hits in the last three months) It's rather impossible to try to cover it with a half dozen books. The point is that readers have a variety of interests and we should help them find material. Amazon lists 3700 books on the topic "crusades", so cutting it down by 98% will help readers otherwise overwhelmed by choices. For example the major six volume history published by the U of Wisconsin and edited by Setton is online free, so I linked to its volumes. Rjensen (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The wording of WP:FURTHER is "reasonable number" - not a huge list. In general, GA and FA standards are to list at most 5 to 10 works, not 30 or so. The less the better. This is an overview article - ideally the more specialized works should be listed or used in the subsidiary articles. I'm hoping to incorporate many of the more general works into the article itself, which would be the ideal. Nor should we be listing outdated works (Runciman's is pretty much considered outdated now) or extremely brief "introductions" that are better covered by works used in the article. Don't forget that the references are a good reading list in themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The reasonableness depends on the breadth of the topic-- this article actually is about 20 or more separate events over a period of centuries covering much of Europe and the Middle East. Lots of people want short treatments--and some want long ones and others want to zero in on a manageable topic. We need to cater to all our readers. The references are NOT designed as a guide to further reading: some fit that role and some do not, and the majority of readers will be unable to tell the difference. --but all the gooks on the "further reading" are chosen to fit that need. Also many readers have access to small libraries that are likely to have old classics like Runciman (Runciman is recommended in recent surveys and certainly belongs here--his volumes are in thousands of libraries and thus much more available than most titles) ( Furthermore links to Amazon or google are a major help to users, as are annotations. Dropping them weakens the usefulness of the article. Rjensen (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Including Amazon links is a thorny area. Is it seen as endorsing buying through Amazon? The Amazon and Google links are still available to anyone who clicks on the ISBN, but at least they are not the only links there and a range of other sites are included. Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

we can assume the readers can make their own purchase decisions. But Amazon provides large quantities of text and a search engine that is invaluable for people who do NOT buy the book. Amazon and google are the ONLY services that provide this very valuable free info (they overlap partially). Listing the isbn does not provide this service. (Amazon also has free links to all the small retail bookstores that sell used copies of the book at prices lower than Amazon's new price.) The annotation "excerpt and text search" tells readers what to expect and does not endorse or recommend any purchases. Rjensen (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you list an ISBN, it links to this page (example shown): example which not only links to Amazon and google, but also links to world cat and a bunch of other ways to find the book, including international libraries. So, it's generally a better idea to link through ISBN, that way the reader can choose from a number of sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

isbn has its uses for librarians but it does NOT tell the reader that there is in fact a great deal of material available at the Amazon site. therefore it is not a substitute. I think our goal should be to help readers get easy access to lots of high quality free information. Rjensen (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am opposed to including Amazon.com links. We do not need to tell readers that any material is available at the Amazon site. They can figure it out if they want to quite easily. Srnec (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

ISBNs link to both Amazon and Google already, limiting it to one or the other makes no sense. (Hohum ^@) 14:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Linking from a not for profit resource to a very much for profit resource, regardless of being free of charge, seems questionable in the extreme - particularly considering both organisations doubtful business practices and tax dodging strategies. The consensus seems very much that this should be avoided and I agree with this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As a tyro without easy access to a hardcopy library or reference books and without a subscription service, I would like to see, where possible, online web sources. I can check these. Unless these are old (I admit it!), they probably aren't going to be in google books. But some "facts", while reworded have remained the same over a hundred years or so. Granted, there is always new research that may be out of my reach. But all of it shouldn't be!

I would like to see, but cannot help manage hardcopy, etc. for "external sources" or "further reading" for use by researchers. Student7 (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Chronology

Ordering this article in chronological sequence may well help return some coherence to this article, addressing in part the difficulty that RJenson refers to above in covering such a broad subject succinctly.

What does anyone think?

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Role of Women

The looks like it could contain POV and conjecture. The section below for example:

"The most controversial role that women had in the crusades was taking an active part, which threatened their femininity. Accounts are contradictory. The accounts of women fighting come mostly from Muslim historians whose aim was to portray Christian women as barbaric and ungodly because of their acts of killing"

I'll just go in the order I read it:

• How was it decided that the the most controversial role was taking an active part? (no references)
• What does it mean by threatened their femininity? (vague, probably POV)
• What accounts is the author talking about as being contradictory? (no references)
• How are the accounts contradictory? (vague)
• What accounts are there from Muslim historians about women fighting in the crusades? (no references)
• How do we know the intent of Muslim historians was to portray Christian women in a particular way? (likely conjecture, even if there are references then it is unlikely they state intent)
• Are there specific Muslim historians being described? (no references)

I also can't see the relevance of some of the points. Once case is "Less successful was her granddaughter Sibylla of Jerusalem, whose choice of husband had been a crucial political issue since her childhood." followed by "Her second marriage to Guy of Lusignan made him the king-consort on the death of Baldwin IV, with disastrous results.". These are a digression and more relevant to pages specific to those individuals. There are also points that are not unique to women, presumably men also brought water and raised each others spirits.

I think it would take too long to go through the rest of it so I will end with a suggestion to rework this to

• use factual accounts
• use a formal and impartial writing style e.g. avoiding using "it appears", "arguably", "to portray", "seen as"
• balance the amount of text to be proportional with other entries. Alternatively create a new page for this topic since it is given more weight than the 1st crusade section.

This should help to improve the quality of the content for the Crusades article. 82.16.242.232 (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

On reflection maybe it shouldn't have a section here. I don't see sections like this in other historical pages, maybe it should go into a page specifically for women in warfare throughout history or some better category.82.16.242.232 (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

the role of women is one of the most important new topics in recent decades, according to the RS. The medievalists are leaders in this field--bu contrast there is not a single overview book on women in WWii or WWi or the Napoleonic wars. Re-check the footnotes--several new reliable sources have been added. All the questions asked by 82.16.242.232 are raised by the RS that are cited--he should read them. The goal of Wikipedia is to be up to date, which means 2013 not 1953 attitudes and outlooks which marginalized out of the mainstream of the historiography. Illston (2009) says: "The field of medieval gender studies is a growing one, and nowhere is this expansion more evident than the recent increase in studies which address the roles of medieval women in times of war." Additional sources that should be used to develop new points include: Gendering the crusades (2001) 13 articles edited by Edginton, and Lambert --eg "Women Warriors during the Crusades, 1095-1254" by Caspi-Reisfeld; "Women on the third crusade" by Nicholson in Journal of Medieval History (1997); "Nobility, women and historical narratives of the crusades and the Latin east" by Hodgson (2005); and Essential and despised: images of women in the First and Second Crusades, 1095-1148 by Brady (1992); " Gender bias and religious intolerance in accounts of the 'massacres' of the first crusade" by Hay (2001); "'Tanquam effeminatum': Pedro II of Aragon and the Gendering of Heresy in the Albigensian Crusade" by Lipton (1999). There is aa survey article "The roles of women in the crusade movement: a survey" by C.T. Maier in Journal of medieval history 2004. Rjensen (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like there is significant and relevent content that could make for a good article - say "The Roles of Woman in the Crusades" along with a similar piece on the role of class in the crusades. Accepting that does not refute the criticism from 82.16.242.232 whomever he may be or justify its inclusion here. What we have is rather vague and unimportant and even this blurs across into a general history of woman in the Latin States/Outremer and the middle ages. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The criticism by 82.16.242.232 is not very useful-- he appears to be unaware of the large amount of relevant scholarship and yet has very definite POV opinions about what history should be like. He cites no RS whatever for his very old fashioned opinions. Rjensen (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You must mistake me for the other "ip" poster above who is also able to use bullet points. I cannot see where I have added POV in my comments above. Regarding references, I am referencing the content of this article to make improvements. None of those comments require knowledge of the topic. If you want to define old-fashioned as suggesting the article cites references, avoids POV/conjecture/vagueness then I suppose I'm old-fashioned. Personally I don't think stereotyping me is a mature way to deal with the questions posed above. 82.16.242.232 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear 82.16.242.232 - why don't you use a named account - it would avoid this kind of confusion. It is clumsy to confuse IP addresses but understandable. That said in support of your points a response from Mr Jenson that addressed your points rather than the rather superficial comment would have helped move this forward, more helpful would have been to add some of the original research. I will edit back to remove what is not directly relevant to the crusades and any digression which will give us a foundation on which originl research can be added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

there is no need to stereotype either 82.16.242.232A or 82.16.242.232B neither of them have referred to any reliable sources and have shown no sign of reading any of the multiple recent studies I cited. Commenting from a vague memory of a book published a half-century ago does not advance the article itself. Our job as editors is to summarize the current scholarship, and in this case studies of women is closer to being up-to-date. As for issues of femininity and masculinity, that's one theme where the historiography of warfare is these days (it's the "new military history"). Rjensen (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

Sigurd I of Norway was the first European king who to visit the Crusading states

should be

was the first European king to visit the Crusading states 50.192.62.201 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2013

In the contents section , people s Crusade happened between 1095-1096 and not 1195-1196. The same mistake must be corrected later in the article.

Nurdilin (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Signalizing (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Atrocity stories from the 1880s

Wikipedia depends entirely on reliable secondary sources. Books from the 1880s are unaware of the last 130 years of intense scholarship and cannot be considered "reliable." Taking atrocity stories from primary sources is not useful because it is highl liable to selective bias (POV). Quoting the philosopher Nietzsche--Hitler liked to quote him too-- is silly. Nietzsche was never a historian of Spain, the Moors or the Crusades, but he was famous for his attacks on Christianity ("God is dead" he said). Indeed he was not interested in the Moors at all and never visited Spain or Arab lands. His commentary on the crusades runs to a few sentences and is really another one of his many attacks on Christianity. Jackson says, "Nietzsche was not so much interested in Islam and Islamic culture as such and, for that matter, was not that learned in it either, but rather he used it as a battering ram against his own culture." [see Roy Jackson (2010). Nietzsche - The Key Ideas. Hodder & Stoughton. pp. 129–30.] Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Intro clarity edit?

In the final paragraph of the introduction, it talks about the impact of the various crusades on Europe in verhe effects in Spain, It concludes "However, when the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land fell at Acre in 1291 there was no coherent response in the east." which really doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the paragraph. My only interpretation is that it didn't have a great impact on Middle Eastern politics, which is a rather difficult position to defend, given the sack of Constantinople being a rather abrupt turning point in the Byzantine Empire. (One could debate whether or not the Ottoman Empire would have annexed the Byzantines regardless, but that's not my point.) If that interpretation is correct, then the sentence is quite awkwardly expressed, and if it's not...then it really does need rewording.

Since the "east" in the sentence is so vague, it could also be referring to Eastern Europe, which was rather drastically changed by some of the lesser known crusades against the pagan peoples in the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashkavar (talk • contribs) 04:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It means that when the Crusaders/Christians were expelled from their final foothold in 1291 there was no coherent response. Never again would their be a crusade with the objective to reclaim the Holy Land even though several English Kings swore oaths to do so - they and their German and French equivalents were too busy fighting each other. I agree though that the paragraph is very clunky.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Madden

- now what to do with this citation?

Mr Jenson has reverted an edit removing it the basis that the article is from a reputable scholar. This is not in doubt - the question is whether this is a reputable piece of scholarship, which is far more doubtful. Written relatively closely after 9/11 it rambles across time periods and skates over facts that Prof Madden wouldn't have done in one of his books. It is both heated and positional rather than dispassionate and even handed; the facts, analysis and interpretation are all open the question and runs contra to positions taken by other historians. The value it adds to this article is therfore questionable. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Crusades have been an extremely contentious issue for 1000 years. lots of people get pretty heated and that includes scholars (Runciman was famous for that). Madden's work has been vetted and published by the leading university presses and scholarly journals, and he has won numerous international awards for his histories. If Norfolkbigfish knows of other scholars who have different views, they should be ADDED according to wp:NPOV rules. what we do not want to do is omit the views of serious scholars. On defensive war/ Jihad from a Muslim perspective, here's a good discussion: Jonathan Riley-Smith (1999). A History of the Crusades. Oxford UP. pp. 183–84. Rjensen (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Never questioned Prof Madden's reputation, just this article. If it had been "vetted and published by the leading university presses and scholarly journals" that would be fair enough, but it hasn't. If the citation was from one of his published works that would be good, but it isn't. Mr Jenson, have you read this article and can it be sourced in a reputable way? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

to meet the complaint I included quotes from one of his books. Yes I did read his article (& some of his books), and it summarizes arguments he made at much greater length in his books. (personal attacks on a living person is a BLP violation, so I deleted that). I think Madden's stature as a reliable source is beyond doubt, and therefore his analysis is worth quoting. Rjensen (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the trick here is to find serious scholarship from serious scholars, not less-serious editorial from serious scholars. His work might have been "vetted and published by the leading university presses and scholarly journals", but not this work. I think trying to cite his better work is a good idea - makes for stronger sourcing anyway. Stalwart111 13:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stalwart, that is exactly the point I was trying to make, maybe badly, and thanks Mr Jenson this citation is much more appropriate (I guessed you might be able to find one). So I have removed the original contentious one as the better one covers the same ground. I didn't think what I said was a personal attack (it wasn't intended - it was intended to question the op-ed piece), but appreciate it being removed anyway. I don't agree with Madden's argument but I am not a reputable source. There are more than enough credible Historians cited in this article presenting Crusades in a more nuanced way.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

diff for context. A few points,

• I fail to see how "the crusades" could have been "an extremely contentious issue for 1000 years", considering that the term "crusades" was first coined a mere 400 years ago. They may have been "extremely contentious" in the sense that they were a war, in which people attacked one another with weapons (you cannot get much more contentious than hitting a guy over the head with a sword), but this is trivial. Historians pussy-footing around the topic in ideological terms is a thoroughly modern phenomenon, not one that has a 1000-year history.

Well let's compromise a little: the issue (not the terminology) has been contentious for 800 years, when the Byzantines had a VERY sharp difference of view from the westerners on what needed to happen--and indeed the Pope excommunicated the crusaders. Rjensen (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• it is completely beyond argument that from the Christian perspective at the time, the war was a defensive one, the aim being to re-conquer the territories held by "the infidel" which were de jure part of the Roman Empire, as whose successor both the Church and the Holy Roman Empire saw themselves. This was not cast in terms of "Europe" vs. "the Middle East", concepts which developed later and as a result of the crusades

You sell the sophistication of medieval politics short with this one. First "Christian Perspective" - which one Latin or Orthodox, this puts more than a little doubt of the objectives of various actors. De jure? Again whose law, Western European or that of the Empire? THe Crusaders were very much the cuckoos in the Levantine nest. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This was certainly the Byzantine perspective, even more so than the crusaders' - that land had been part of their empire specifically, and since the emperor made them swear to hand whatever they conquered over to him, I would imagine he actually expected it back. The whole reason he asked for a western army in the first place was to defend the territory he had left. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• the "defensive" nature of the campaign is of course dependent on the subjective concept of the entity you wish to defend. The concept of the Christian oikumene set up by the Roman Empire was of course very much a subjective one, but nevertheless this was what the Christian side was trying to "defend". It certainly isn't an objective concept, but it is an objective historical fact that this was the motivating concept of the historical conflict

Confusing to use a Greek word to question a Latin malitary adventure. I wonder if purely defensive would be recognised by the Jews of the Rhine, the people of Cyprus & Lisbon, those in the Mediterranen ports sacked or the residents of Constantinoble beseiged and butchered?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Split & disambiguation

I've added this sub-heading as there appears two things going on under the main heading. First, the question of the Thomas Madden citation now resolved by Mr Jensen by sourcing it to a published book rather than and article. The second is this suggestion that all Crusades not in the middle-east should be split off into another article made by Mr Bachmann.

Is there any support for this suggestion?

My own view is that as these Crusades are largely supported by citations from . Lock, Peter (2006). Routledge Companion to the Crusades. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-39312-4 is that this suggestion should be opposed unless we are saying that Lock isn't credible or there are sources that support the split by definition. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• this article is rapidly losing its focus and coherence. The intro now reads "The Crusades were religious conflicts in the High Middle Ages through to the end of the Late Middle Ages conducted by Catholic Europe against Muslims, pagans, heretics, and people under the ban of excommunication." This reads as if it was the result of deliberate obfuscation. The Crusades were the (unsuccessful) campaigns in the Holy Land, 1095 to 1291 attempting to re-conquer the territory from the Caliphate. There is a "sense 2" to the term "the crusades", but this should not distract that this is the topic of the article, as I have already argued above under the "dictionary definition" topic. Can we please get rid of the "minor 'crusades'" topics and delegate those to disambiguation? Unless we do that, the page will quickly just become "military history of Europe during the medieval period". The phrase conducted by Catholic Europe against Muslims, pagans, heretics, and people under the ban of excommunication almost reads as if it was written in parody.

--dab (𒁳) 11:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of the sources cited on this page and the papacy at the time gave equal weight to what you call "sense 2" Crusades so removing these would also remove signidicant context from this article. For example the 4th Crusade clearly doesn't fit the first line you have inserted in the lead. Not to say that a good rewrite is not called for to reduce the confusion caused by using Christian for both Catholic & Orthodox, Muslim to cover all the peoples (Turk, Arab, Kurd) that the Crusaders came into conflict with even ignoring their treatment of the Jews. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we can spin off section 5 as a separate article. (5 European Crusades 5.1 Reconquista (718–1492); 5.2 Wendish (1147–1162); 5.3 Northern crusades (1193–1290); 5.4 Albigensian Crusade (1208–1241); 5.5 "Crusades" of the 15th century). This will make it easier for students (and teachers) to handle the material. Rjensen (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What about 4.4 German Crusade? Has this been missed?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

4.4 German crusade belongs where it is--it was a small operation and never got a Big Number, but it resembled crusades #1-2-3 in its goals and methods. Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Mr Jenson now as long as the new article is sign-posted from here. Context is now largely embedded in text. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

All wars a "crusade"?

There seems to have been a "crusade creep" over the years in this article. One reason is that there have been very few wars since 1050 or so, that haven't been termed a "crusade" by somebody. Do they all get listed? Eisenhower called WWII (and his book) "Crusade in Europe." Fortunately, the date is too late. So far. Hard to imagine that any Civil War (such as the American) wasn't called a "crusade" by some WP:RS. Again, so far, the timeline for most European Civil Wars are too late. But if the timeframe were changed, a simple thing, would every war then count? Will all wars wind up here eventually? Student7 (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point; I assume that you exagerate for rhetorical effect. Dictionary.com gives the definition as:

noun

1. ( often initial capital letter ) any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.

2. any war carried on under papal sanction.

3. any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse.

Now this article currently adopts both the first and second definitions. The third is what you allude to or is at least I assume you do when using the Eisenhower example. I don't think that this article will ever, or should ever, stretch to that scope. Using the second definition is important because it puts into context a militant and expansionist Papal realm, with the Popes attempting to expand and exert their jurisdiction of which the Middle East crusades form a part. To ignore this definition reduces the article to a simplistic clash of civilisations. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Meaning (3) is just figurative and can safely be ignored for the purposes of this page. But there is "crusade creep" on this page motivated by meaning (2). Yes, the "Wendish Crusade", "Northern Crusades", etc. are with some justification called "crusades" (meaning 2), but this article, the Wikipedia page Crusades should deal with meaning (1), and then perhaps in a terminological section give pointers to meaning (2). The way the page takes a strictly chronological approach to anything ever called "crusade" is not helpful. "The Crusades" have the WP:UCN primary meaning of "the seven [or if you insist, 8 or 9] crusades to the Holy Land, 1095-1291". The rest are also "crusades" (sense 2), but that is no excuse for letting them garble this page, just use disambiguation. --dab (𒁳) 08:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering that most of works on this page and indeed the papacy at the time give these Crusades equal weight to those in the Holy Land this seems a sigular and rather perverse view. This is not an argument for removing them from this page that carries any weight. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As user:dab has edited into the article, the word "crusade" was coined later to cover the 7-9 crusades. Adding several or dozens of others seems meretricious IMO. Similar to calling people who disagree with me "Nazis" just to get someone's attention. A great catchphrase, perhaps, but not very accurate. Also, a faulty generalization and an association fallacy (started by a pope, sometimes, just not aimed at the Near East). Student7 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it was Dab's intention to edit in such a way that suited the argument based on the definition of the word Crusade, this is linguistics rather than history. What we do know is that the word Crusade was not contemporary and has been applied retrospectively not only to the Middle Eastern Crusades but also to the wider European campaign's sanction by the Papacy. In a histororical senses both definitions have much hostorical commonality; they are more alike than they are different. Interestingly they all became extinct around the time of The Reformation and Counter Reformation, probably a fact that is not unrelated. After seeing the merit of both sides of the debate on the split I think that untimately Dab hasn't made a satisfactory case for it and there doesn't appear much consensus for it. Unless eith of these criteria are met I suggest the Split suggestion is removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

aimed at defending the Christians from Muslim invasion and oppression

Why is it that User:Stalwart111 and his friend obelix or something keep removing my edits? Do they own wikipedia? It seems the Christianophobians rule wikipedia. Wonder why so many editors leave wikipedia...

Joanakestlar (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they keep taking out your edits because you deleted material supported by well known reliable sources, and instead insert your own random thoughts unsupported by anything except your prejudices. Just a thought. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

DeCausa got it in one. Stalwart111 23:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course he got it right. Anti-white racists and anti-christian xenophobians like you two would agree with each other...

Joanakestlar (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW where was I prejudiced? The Christians were defending themselves from Muslim barbaric aggression (they still have this attittude this day, in the XXI century, can you imagine back then?). Your POV is similir to "the French were guilty of the Germans invading them"... So who is prejudiced? Joanakestlar (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The article expresses the view held by reliable scholarship on the history of the period. You are pushing a POV without citing a reliable source. And the sentence you keep adding conflicts with the very next sentence in the intro. Your comments make clear that your only concern is to deride Muslims, not to accurately represent the scholarship on the subject. This is in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) and the objective of an encyclopedia. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Your objective is to deride the Christians and defend the Muslims. It's MORE THAN OBVIOUS the crusades were defensive wars aimed at protecting the Christians from Muslim invasion and consequent oppression. You seem to be biased agains the Christians! Joanakestlar (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If it is "more than obvious," then finding reliable sources supporting your POV should be an easy matter. And please tell me where I said anything biased against Christians. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That viewpoint is already mentioned several times in the article. Joan is just wasting our time. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian crusades...

Definitely it's called a crusade by the Routledge Companion to the Crusades. pp. 172-173 section titled "Crusades Against Bosnian Heretics 1234 and 1241". "During the 1220s linked to the suppression of Catharism in the Languedoc, rumours spread of the exustence of a Cathar antipope, Nicetas, living the Bosnian banate. It was unclear then and remains unclear today whether there wever was a Cathar antipope. The rumours were inflamed by the Hungarians, eager to reassert their authority over Bosnia. It did, however, provoke such concernt that in 1221 Honorius III called for a crusade against the heretics in Bosnia." Papal calls for a crusade don't get much more clear as a crusade. Jonathan Riley-Smith in The Crusades: A History (second edition) p. 201 also calls it a crusade.Simon LLloyd in his article The Crusading Movement 1096-1274" in The Oford History of the Crusades (ed. by Jonathan Riley-Smith) p. 40 agrees and calls it a crusade. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This cuts to the matter of what the definition of a crusade is, and what is used for this article. Personally, if the incumbant Pope at the time calls it a crusade that seems the definion that works best. Where this is controversal is that this asks difficult questions and challenges accepted opinion. If this is the accepted definition it cuts across the argument that the Crusades were a defensive act against Muslim aggression and also that they were based on faith. This is in the section around the Albigensian Crusade - a largely intolerant act by the papacy to exterminate the culture and theology of fellow Christians with different beliefs messily interwovan with a rather crude land grab by the Nothern French. Not far from the anlaysis that many have of the Middle East crusades either. Suggest that the challenge is removed - unless I have missed something? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Intolerance? "Fellow Christians"? The article says "Cathar beliefs varied between communities because.. [they had]..few set guidelines. The Cathars were a direct challenge to the Catholic Church, renouncing its practices and dismissing it outright as the Church of Satan (ref)" It was dualistic, always condemned as a heresy by the church from the founding of the church. "They" (some Cathars) murdered the pope's legate, which may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but in retrospect, probably not a good idea.

At the time, Christians "tolerated" Jews to a certain extent, though the toleration was often inconsistent. Muslims "tolerated" other faiths, sort of. People were "expected" to embrace the national religion nearly everywhere.

Granted, this shouldn't have applied to the Cathars who were supposedly residing in an "independent" state. "Independence" was a bit of a transient phenomenon at the time, as well. Smaller "nations" were often in "fealty" to some higher one. The King of England was supposedly subject to the King of France for some of his French possessions. And so, yes, a land grab by the French. But that's what kings did in those days. When they could get away with it. The pope claimed religious jurisdiction everywhere he could, which was most of Western Europe. From his pov, Languedoc was under his theological jurisdiction. That many people do not hold the same perception today is not really relevant to the article. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Crusade, or not a Crusade - that was the question. The Pope called it a crusade, they acted like a Crusade so no real reason for it not to be considered a Crusade in this article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

---

The objection was probably only to the line of "catholic in theology". Not to the characterization of Hungarian incursion as a crusade (against "bogomil" heresy, patarene heresy, originating in Bulgaria. Indeed, the papacy often referred to Bosnia as "a den of snakes and vipers".

The objection was most probably raised by an orthodox Serb "contributor" who dislikes the historical fact that Bosnia was an overwhelmingly catholic land, with orthodoxy present only in eastern Hertzegovina until the Ottoman conquest. Best to remove the entire paragraph, in order to avoid political back-and-forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.78.190 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Conduct

At the very beginning of the article there is a blurb about the "conduct" of the Crusaders which needs to be removed. The idea that they engaged in massacre or violence that was unusual for the time is viewpoint. The violence involved in the Crusades was typical of the period. I removed the paragraph that promotes the idea that the Crusades = atrocities, because that is a subjective, worldview assessment and not objective history and certainly doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph of an article about the general Crusades movement, which involved everything from Frederick II's bloodless Sixth Crusade, to the defense of Spain from Islamic conquest in the Reconquista. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.160.191 (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This is well sourced content, and the conduct was criticized even at the time. In the Muslim world, the word Crusade is synonymous with atrocity. The appropriate thing to do would be to add reliably sourced content expressing the view stated here, rather than removing sourced material. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The sourced material is valid, however if it seems to convey the message to the reader that the Crusades were bad, then it would need to be re-written to get in line with WP:NPOV. Generally it should be written in a way that readers would be presented with either the option to think the Crusades were or were not atrocities, and not encourage or force readers to take a side. K6ka (talk | contrib) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Laslo, completely. The paragraph is objectively important because it illustrates that the behaviour is shocking to modern sensibilities but was also condemned at the time by important actors in the events of the time such as Saint Bernard, the Byzantines and the Papacy. While the violence may not have been untypical for the period, it being undertaken under papal sanction thousands of miles from their homelands and combined with a millennial panic amongst the poor certainly was. It also seems to be the beginning of antisemitism in Europe. What has been removed also shows contrast between the history of the period and also the literature legacy of the devout Christian knight. This important contrast is lost without the criticism and also plays into the later historiography and analysis. The article quotes Madden on several occasions to put the contrary defensive war argument.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It wasn't shocking at the time. Most of the neighboring Muslim powers couldn't even be bothered to respond for decades. And what's more, it presents too narrow a view of the Crusades. The Crusades in no way are encapsulated in the First Crusade, or Bernard of Clairvaux, who was involved in only like a tiny fraction of what ended up being this massive, centuries spanning movement that runs into the early Modern era. Even if I grant you that the early Crusaders engaged in atrocities (and that is in no way a foregone conclusion, but a simple subjective viewpoint), the opening of this article should summarize the larger Crusades movement. It should talk about things like papal Crusade bulls, it should list the major theaters of action (the Holy Land, Spain, Italy, the Baltic, southern France, the wars with the Ottomans, etc etc etc). This has got to be removed and made both more neutral and more general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.160.191 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, the papacy did not condemn the Crusades. There was some criticism of some actions by some popes, but in general the popes viewed it very favorably. And not all of the Byzantines had a problem with it either. Manuel Comnenus supported the Latin West, and fostered Latin rule in the Holy Land, even hosting western style jousts in Constantinople. A Byzantine faction even allied with the Crusaders to regain power for themselves during the Fourth Crusade. And Bernard of Clairvaux did not condemn the Crusaders. He may have criticized some actions, but he expressed massive support for the Templars and even wrote their rule, in which he couldn't compliment them enough. Should we include a little blurb about Bernard's endorsement of the Templars in that opening section? I'd be happy to write it complete with sources. Also, should we discuss all the Muslim powers that allied with Crusaders against fellow Muslims, including shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 1099?

It's clear what's going on here. Some of you have a negative viewpoint of the Crusades and want to beat them with your modern judgements. Wikipedia is not place for that. We need to be neutral here.

To be neutral means to include both views. We are guided by reliable sources here. As mentioned above, some of the views you express are discussed in the text. Perhaps those arguments warrant expansion in the body and inclusion in the intro. But the way to proceed is to find reliable sources for the arguments you make above, not simply to remove what you don't agree with. And making accusations about other editors violates WP:AGF. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules require that all major interpretations be included, whether we like them or not. Erasing one of them is a bad idea. If you think there are alternative interpretations by reliable sources, then please present them. Rjensen (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There's something about that paragraph that bugs me too, but nevertheless, a crusade is almost by definition an unusual form of violence for the period - not in the extent of the violence itself, but in the organization of it. Otherwise we wouldn't have a separate article about the crusades, would we? This uniqueness is already mentioned in the article though, I don't think it's necessary to point it out again with this clumsy paragraph.

There is plenty of medieval criticism of the crusades for various reasons, violence included. There is a bit of this mentioned already, but a good place to start would be Critcism of Crusading, 1095-1274 by Elizabeth Siberry.

Also remember that just because something can be referenced doesn't mean it has to be included. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Crusades are really a modern construction of a medieval event. The way we view the Crusades as something revolutionary and new is not necessarily what you find in medieval interpretations. This is especially true for the Muslims and Byzantines, who never viewed the Crusades as some kind of revolutionary idea, but simple expansionism by Westerners that was consistent with the usual military expansionism of the time. In other words, the Byzantines and Muslims saw in the Crusades no novelty. I will work on that paragraph and work toward getting it more neutral. It had some simple historical errors, for example, claiming that Bernard of Clairvaux was a "contemporary" of the First Crusade, and claiming that all of the First Crusaders failed to return their conquests to the Byzantines, when in fact Nicaea was returned, and Raymond of Toulouse established the County of Tripoli as a Byzantine vassal state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.160.191 (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if I have trodden on anyones toes but the approach of criticism of the crusades follwed by instant rebuttal just wasn't working for me. What attempted to do was to combine the last two paragraphs with the positives grouped and then the negatives grouped. Also removed a bit of detail which probably did not belong in the lead - not to say that can't be in the body. Hope it worked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits looked pretty good. I made a few minor changes to smooth it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.142.135 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I do think we should consider removing the sentence about the Crusaders "failing to return the lands to the Byzantines, as they'd sworn to do", since this is referring to something very specific, and that is the First Crusade. At no other time did the Crusaders take an oath to return land to Byzantium, and even at this time, some Crusaders did return lands to the Byzantines and even became vassal of the Byzantines. On top of that, it is widely understood that the Crusaders were justified in abandoning their oath to Alexios, the Emperor, since he failed to send them aid as he'd promised. So really, this is a very specific issue to a very specific Crusade, and one that has a lot of angles. It doesn't seem to belong in an opening segment about the entire Crusades movement in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.142.135 (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Crusading Orders

Seems an omission that there isn't a section on the military religious orders.

What does anyone else think Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sultane of Rum! it is false! Empire Of Seljuk is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freehuman96 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevance.

Is it either relevant or necessary to include the following distinction "Latin Roman Catholic Church" Latin or Western Christians would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.4.255 (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

it is necessary -- the Hussite sect = Christians who rejected the Roman Catholic church, which declared a crusade against them around 1420. Rjensen (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

C-Class article

Is this article really only C-Class. It has been volatile ever since I started watching it develop over a year ago but it now seems significantly better. Is anyone willing to take it through a GAR?

I have put it forward for a copy edit with the GOCE because it certainly needs a tidy.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: What do you think, Ealdgyth? As one who looked set to work on promoting this article.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even watching it any more. I've got my hands full with dealing with the usual sniping on Middle Ages. Looking at the article, I can see large chunks are unreferenced again and are probably not suitable for the article. I really have no energy to work on another energy-sucking article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of Upper Case

Folklore, I am not going to undo your latest update, but this series of medieval conflicts is always spelt "Crusade" with an upper case C. The Crusades is a proper noun refering to these conflicts, while crusade as a general noun cam refer to any self appointed struggle - eg a crusade against litter in the local area.http://www.history.com/topics/crusades http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01b3fpw http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/the_crusades.htm http://www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm#.U6g3ZvldWSo. Please restore Caps as before, cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree totallyTheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'll change them back from lc to uc. A few of these have already been reverted, but some of my edits involved other revisions. Folklore1 (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Zionism

Why on earth is it relevant to include this line on Zionism in there? "Encouraged by the Church, the Peoples' Crusade prompted Rhineland massacres and the murder of thousands of Jews. In the late 19th century this episode was used by Jewish historians to support Zionism."

This is in the initial part that readers aren't allowed to edit or I'd take it out myself. I haven't read the book cited, but I hardly think that massacres that took place 800 years earlier were key in the minds of the Jews when thinking of moving to Israel, even if some literature mentioned it. There had been many massacres and expulsions since then and things were looking significantly up in the 19th Century (especially in Germany). Jews prayed thrice daily for the return to Israel. As to why Zionism really started heating up in the 19th Century, that's a whole different article. Bottomline, this has no place here. Discussion fo the Jews should be limited to events that occurred during the Crusades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.10.240.1 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is not currently protected. You can edit it yourself and fix anything you want. --Jayron32 00:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed changes feedback request

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I took what I thought were 4 dull sentences of the current 3rd paragraph and I rewrote them using the same ideas as were there but making the words less boring [1], which were removed as original research. I expanded on the meaning of the phrases "under feudal rather than unified command" (why?) and "the politics were often complicated" (how?). Please let me know what parts do not fall in line with what was there before (and what is there now). Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving this to user talk, as it will have to be discussed primarily as a matter of individual disruptive editor conduct rather than as a matter of article content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't involved but I suspect the objections come from you rather over heating some of the prose & a lack of citation to back this up. For example:

• every attempt to form a unified central command - not sure in the normal feudal way there were many attempts to unify command—which rested with the Pope in any case—rather the normal squabling over precedence.
• hundreds of Crusaders who were aristocrats and motivated by the fame, greater wealth, and upward mobility they expected to gain from the Crusade - now this is plainly wrong, not all Crusaders were motivated in this way as cited in the article e.g. St Louis
• capricious - all of them, really?
• hundreds of capricious feudal lords - not really hundreds, leadership was only really an issue for those at the top of the Feudal tree, so a handful at most (see the third crusade).

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic crusades?

How come I don't see info regarding the Islamic crusades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.25.177 (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

They were called the Muslim conquests, which were very different to the crusades it must be said. There has never been an event in Islamic history that could qualify as a "crusade". --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Where (is Holy Land)?

See for Crusades in Religious_war#List_of_major_religious_wars: "Holy Land, Europe". I thought it should be "Holy Land, Middle East" or "Holy Land and Europe" or something. Here I see "in the Middle East or in Europe" and "Europe Overseas". Can someone fix that page and maybe explain there next to it in a comment in the source? comp.arch (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

German crusade sourcing?

I think I see the problem here. I thought we were making a summary of the various wiki articles. I have made a sourced version of my summary here:

Emperor Henry VI of the Holy Roman empire and king of Germany began preparations to launch a German Crusade in 1195. The crusade began as a result of Henry VI's father, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, nullifying his own attempt at a Crusade. Henry VI called for a Crusade years after his fathers called off attempt. His health did not allow him to lead the forces in person, so leadership devolved to Conrad of Wittelsbach, the Archbishop of Mainz. The forces landed at Acre in September 1197 and captured the cities of Sidon and Beirut. Henry died soon thereafter, and most of the crusaders returned to Germany in 1198.

So I apologize for not using citation the first time. Also, I just added it, if it gets taken down again im not putting it back up. Im going to try and add more detail later.

References

Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This should be mentioned in the article, but it needs to be clarified a bit first. Henry IV isn't Henry VI - Henry IV is important for other reasons, but wasn't a crusader. Barbarossa didn't "nullify" his crusade vows or call off his crusade, he just died on the way during the Third Crusade. You may be thinking of Frederick II, who was accused of ignoring his vows and was excommunicated for it (even though he did end up going on Crusade). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015

there is a typo "please change: Further crusading actions continued although no papal bulls were issued calling new crusades. to Further crusading actions continued although no papal bills were issued calling new crusades." GBuckley2015 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a typo. It is correctly spelled as papal bull; there is no such thing as a papal bill. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 19:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish Armada as a crusade

The wikipedia article on the Spanish Armada states that the Pope deemed it a crusade. This doesn't appear appear in this article. Any reason not? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No real reason but it would only have been a minor footnote anyway as Crusading was historically insignificant by 1588—more than a 100 years after the last crusade in the article. The Armada is more appropriately considered part of the European wars of religion as the paradigm of a unified christian civilisation had long gone.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Citations and Further Reading

Just a thought - would it be an idea to consolidate on using Harvard for the citations in this article and also hide the Further Reading to tidy up this a bit? Editors could then use the script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to check and match citations. It may go some way to alleviating some of the conflict on here. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is now no work in the bibliography that is not used to support a citation in the text. Next I will add those works that are cited but not included. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography mess

So yeah, this article has multiple issues with citations, sources and further reading, and I have added templates for those. The sources are in a pretty horrific shape. There are three books by David Nicolle cited, yet literally only a single page is given as an inline citation.

Furthermore, I would outright propose to delete the whole Further reading section and start it again. If someone could kindly help even just a little with this mess, I would happily do all I can. This article needs some serious and dedicated WP:FIXIT. Ceosad (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's too long, that's for sure. Green547 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not too long for an extremely complicated topic With many subtopics, many countries, and military and political events that covered two continents over five centuries. The goal is to help students writing papers on the topic fine materials they can work with. Ceosad has not been active on this or related articles, so there's not much confidence that he knows the material. Rjensen (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Now I am not sure that this is correct really. As Mr Jensen points out it really is an enormous subject and can justify being larger than average. That said it is only 9900 words and so is within the recommended range albeit at the top end. That said it is 60kb and could probably benefit from a good copyedit and a bit of a trim. I can see what is intended with the further reading section but it is a bit non-standard and could do with someone taking an axe to it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Rjensen: I do actually have a broad knowledge on history, even if I am mostly working on wikiproject North Korea, though my knowledge is primarily about ancient Eastern Mediterranean history, European colonialism and Post-Napoleonic European political history. That is why I said I want to do all I can. Books are books in any case, and I know how to use Google books, in addition of having access to nearby university libraries. I am used to wading through dozen books with uninformative titles, as all North Korean primary sources are like that. Anyway, I just find it sad that such an important article has been decaying to such a bad shape.

As a layman, editing history articles is very difficult due to lack of easy access to relevant books. I once had to order a Michael Grant's book from the other side of the Atlantic, as that is the only widely known source for population of the Seleucid Empire, just to add an inline citation from a reliable source.

I can point out that at the very least following MOS rules are broken, or cast some doubt, in this article:

1. External links currently provides links which do not really add anything to the article. I think it is better to find some nice external link about primary sources, or whatever, and trim the corresponding section out of the Further reading. WP:LINKSTOAVOID and WP:ELYES

2. All policies that apply for external links, also apply on Further reading. WP:FURTHER Thus, the Further reading might endanger NPOV, and give undue weight on certain academic theories or researchers. It repeats many of the authors already used as sources. WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE WP:ADV

3. Due to the previous issues, WP:ELPOV rule should be considered in the future additions for the Further reading.

4. Overall density of inline citations is probably fine, but large paragraphs of text lack sufficient inline citations. WP:CITEDENSE For instance, Council of Clermont and Crusader states.

5. The article makes some grandiose statements with little clarification, and lack of both inline citations and page numbers harm verifiability. WP:BURDEN, and WP:CLARIFY due to lack of further explanation for general (i.e. non-expert) readers. Example: "The massacres involved were mainly attributed as being caused by disorder, an epidemic of ergotism and economic distress."

6. The lead would not suffer from some copyediting and trimming. WP:LEADLENGTH

The only thing that truly matters here is that lack of good referencing seriously harms cleanup of the article text. It also encourages a harmful bloat in the references, with potential for multiple overlapping sources. This is indeed an extremely complicated subject, and as a such references and further reading will inevitably mirror that fact. Yet, I have a creeping suspicion that many of the books used as references are used for an obscure fact or two, and many of them could be trimmed too with dedicated initiative, or replaced with more approachable sources from various webpages, e-books or research papers. That would greatly help with copyediting too. However, I will not dispute this: WP:SOURCEACCESS. Ceosad (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Ceosad has invented nonexistent problems. complaint #1 is false--lots of new material there. Several are from major scholarly groups. #2 is false. POV rules apply to Wiki editors not to scholarly books and in any case there are no biases that he has identified. #3 is not a rule and is irrelevant. #4 -5-6 are totally different issues. I have a "creeping suspicion" that he has not studied the literature of the crusades. Rjensen (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Regarding #2: Yes, POV rules apply to editors of Wikipedia, and its the editorial choice of adding certain kinds of entries in Further reading while disregarding others that I'm concerned about. This may lead to a collection of Further reading suggestions that are slanted toward certain points of view. In fact the #3 is a guideline, and I just meant that some of these "nonexistant problems invented" by me, are some that concern me. At least the following authors are listed as both sources and as further reading: Riley-Smith, Madden, Hillenbrand, Tyerman, Runciman and Bull. In my opinion this might be an issue due to "advertising" these prominent scholars, as many of them are even in body of the article. I will not keep arguing more about this point #2. Further reading is just way too long in its current shape. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:NOTCATALOG

I have never said that the Further reading is just the only issue out there. I just did not feel like going out to paste dozens of templates, and other templates, on this giant article without saying anything on the talk first. Neither did I want to start accidentally a senseless edit war on a popular article. I see that you have added some of the missing citations I worried about. Thank you for doing that, but...

...I already told you I have not studied the literature of the crusades. There is no need for a hostile ad-hominem attitude due to my perceived lack of scholarly achievements, professor. WP:OWNER and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR Ceosad (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your complaint about further reading seems to be that the most famous and important scholars are heavily represented. Well yes, that seems about right to me. It's a bias in favor of quality, and value to the readers. A full bibliography on the Crusades would run to thousands of books and articles--Type in "Crusades" at Amazon & you get over 30,000 titles. Go to scholar.google and the student gets over 100,000 Scholarly books and articles. That would be the sort of catalog that we don't want to see. Using the criteria of importance will help the readers: Typically students new to the field will not be familiar with the most important scholarly studies so it's our job to point these out for their benefit. Rjensen (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• No sense in getting riled up over this trivial issue, or starting senseless edit wars as Ceosad pointed out, or bantering about who has the best education. How about just trimming Bibliography and Further reading a little bit, and chopping out some of the less important parts, while preserving the important things as Mr. Jensen wants, for students. And move on with our lives to more important issues. Or, of course, continue rambling. H-mmm. I wonder how many WPedians it will take to change this lightbulb? No offense meant to anyone. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important. ;) Cheers, Green547 (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you are correct Green547. Sorry about arguing. I think Wikipedia is not just for students, and we should keep that in mind, but lets drop this issue. It would just be nice if there was some space and representation for less mainstream theories in the Further reading. The most important things for students can, and need to stay, just as Rjensen wants. But what things should be chopped out, and does somebody want to do that? Bibliography, as references, is the tricky section to check for potentially overlapping sources. I could try to do something for the missing page numbers. Ceosad (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Reading through the article quickly, I have identified the following references in the Bibliography section as potentially orphaned:

• Nicolle, David (2003). The First Crusade 1066–99: Conquest of the Holy Land
• Esposito, John L. What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam
• Dickson, Gary (2008). The Children's Crusade: Medieval History, Modern Mythistory
• Lewis, Richard D. (2005). Finland: Cultural Lone Wolf

The following reference is probably used, but lacks inline citations. It is most certainly used here: Crusades#Frank

• Nicolle, David (2007). Crusader Warfare Volume II: Muslims, Mongols and the Struggle against the Crusades

I assume that few of these have been orphaned as this article has been split a few years ago. Ceosad (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay I fixed those titles, by moving them to further reading, or deleting them. Further reading is for people who actually want to read more on the Crusades, and are likely to want to specialize on one topic or another, which is why we have a variety of books for them. It is trivially easy for people entering and interested in doing any further reading to simply skip that section at the very end of the article. However students looking for term paper projects need the kind of help we can give. Rjensen (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Ceosad:—Far from finished but I have had a hack at the citations, what do you think of it so far? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish: Thank you Norfolkbigfish for helping! It looks a lot better and clearer now. I had been a bit busy lately, so I had not gotten to do anything substantial for this article myself. Ceosad (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Crusades were Catholic, not Christian

"The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages."

Although the first sentence does some justice, the article often and wrongly uses the word "Christian(s)" to refer to the Catholic crusaders.

In my opinion, this is incorrect and should be changed because the Crusades were purely a Catholic movement. Many Christians didn't support them. In fact, the Historiography section tells of criticism and opposition from Protestants and others. In addition, some of the Crusades were called in by the pope to support his own agenda, which included attacking other Christians (For example, in the Fourth Crusade Pope Innocent III attacked Constantinople and the Eastern Orthodox Church.) and Jews. Many other examples can be found throughout history.

If I use the word "arachnid" to refer to scorpions, and say that arachnids have stinging tails, then my audience is going to receive the false information that spiders, mites and ticks also have stinging tails.

If I use the word "Christians" to refer to Catholics, and say that Christians sanctioned the Crusades, then I am ignoring the fact that Protestants, Orthodox, etc. opposed the Crusades. And I am spreading the false information that Protestants and other Christians attacked people of other religions.

It really isn't fair to blame all Christians for the deeds of the Catholic Church, especially when they opposed those deeds and even suffered from them. Furthermore, it is very inconsistent, since the article recognizes the Catholic Church's very prominent involvement, but then uses a general word which plummets the whole thing into inaccuracy and implies that all Christians were involved in the Crusades.

So, my proposal: let's replace "Christian" with "Catholic" or simply "crusader" where applicable, and only use the word "Christian" accurately.

Looking forward to hearing some cmt's. Cheers. Green547 (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Green547 seems unaware there were no Protestants at the time (and that the Orthodox originally requested the help). the term "Catholic" was not in use then. Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No defence for Green547's misunderstanding of the the lack of Protestants at the time but Catholic was in use at the time (or at least of the later crusades) in French in its wider sense universal. Although I think his intent is wrong he may well have a point that some of the language is a bit loose in this article when describing various factions. The article does try in places to differentiate between factions across both Christian and Islamic traditions but in others just bunches them all together. In summary it does need a look. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• To address Green547's point I've been through every reference to Christian in the article and they are all now clear or qualified with an adjective (I think) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Although the term protestant was not in use then, certainly not all Christians were Catholics...anyways thx Norfolkbigfish for your helpful edits in this area and generally as well, although it was not exactly what I wanted. The use of "Christians" instead of "Catholics" is defamatory and deeply biased against the former. Stop painting Christians as if they were murderous losers. Green547 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It is clear no Protestants (or their heretic precursors such as the Albigensians) took part in the Crusades, both the Eastern Orthodox of the Byzantine Empire (on several occasions) as well as the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox of Armenia, Meroe (what is now Sudan) and Axum in Ethiopia pledged their support and sent warriors to fight along with the Crusaders. By their support as well as acceptance of the Crusader States, one cannot say this was merely a "Roman Catholic" endeavor by far. This would be dishonest to history. Trinacrialucente (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Quote boxes

First a big thank you to User:Norfolkbigfish for the much-needed attention and clean up. Salut! Second a suggestion, since he is removing superfluous images. WP:LONGQUOTE recommends against the use of quote-boxes: "quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it." Neither of the quoteboxes still on the page are much informative and certainly not encyclopedic. I suggest they be removed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Laszlo—good idea. I have done this now. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In regards to this addition, citations are not required in the WP:LEAD as long as the content is sourced in the body of the article. Further, quoteboxes should be avoided -- as stated above -- and especially within the lead. The added quote should be removed for undue weight, and the added citations are unnecessary. {Amending: these citations are for content in the lead that does not appear to be in the body; as noted in the Urban discussion, specific content with citations belongs in the body, and summary of the content goes in the lead.} Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, quoteboxes are to be avoided as they give undue weight to one source. This is exponentially more problematic in the lead. Also, as I explained in the discussion below, content that is not in the body of the article should not be in the lead. This approach is backwards: the body of the article should be developed first, then the intro summarizes the content. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)