Talk:Crusades

Vexatious Tagging?

• The thirty-year delay in instigating the crusade illustrates a lack of priority given to the campaign in comparison with the more immediate response in crusading rhetoric regarding the papal territorial conflicts in Italy. was tagged as failed verification for the reason Jotischky does not write a single similar sentence. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Jotischky writes It is constructive to contrast the speed with which Innocent adopted crusading parallels in the campaign against Markward......with the length of time that elapsed beforehe preached a crusade against the Cathars' Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Where is the verification for the following part of the sentence: "The thirty-year delay in instigating the crusade illustrates a lack of priority given to the campaign..."? Borsoka (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It is in the quoted source...there was a 30 year delay in Languedoc, in Italy it was immdediate (if limited), contrast. All in fairlt neutral English Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Jotischky says: "It is instructive to contrast the speed with which Innocent adopted crusading parallels in the campaign against Markward ... with the length of time that elapsed before he preached a crusade against against the Cathars and their supporters: in 1209, after all, the Cathar problem had been recognised for thirty years. Innocent regarded control over territory in Italy, and suzerainty over Sicily, as essential for the survival of the papacy as a political institution." Again (as I will explain it below) you think that Pope Innocent participated at the Third Lateran Council in 1179. Jotischky only writes that he promptly declared the "political crusade" against his enemy in Italy, but you try to draw a conclusion relating to the Albigensian Crusade. Borsoka (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Norfolkbigfish, thank you for fixing the problem. I am happy that I could explain you what the problem was. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• The historian Norman Housley notes the strong political undertones and connection between heterodoxy and anti-papalism. was tagged failed verification for the reason Housley only wrote of Italy. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC) : This was verified minus In Italy, that the papacy in Rome was involved it seemed to add little value Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think that Housley said that the Catharism and the movement of Bosnian Bogumils had anything to do with anti-papalism? Or do you think Bosnia and Southern France are located in Italy? Borsoka (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Does any source say Catharism and the movement of Bosnian Bogumils has anything to do with anti-papalism. Housley made a strong point on the opposition to the papacy and within that the connections between heterodoxy and anti-papalism. This was different to earlier medieval conflicts. He is a reputable source you know Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Does Housley's statement covers the whole world/Europe or only Italy? If it only covers Italy, why do you want to expand the scope of his statement over whole Europe? I do not want to comment your above remark, because I could hardly remain civil. Borsoka (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Norfolkbigfish, thank you for fixing the problem. I am really glad that you could understand what the problem was. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Jerusalem nobility rejected the succession of the Emperor's son to the kingdom's throne. As a result, the kingdom could no longer rely on the resources of the Holy Roman Empire and was left dependent on Ayyubid division, the crusading orders and other western aid for survival. was tagged failed verification with the reason Significant part of the Jerusalemite nobility acknowledged Conrad and Conradin's right to rule. Frederick's lieutenant ruled parts of the kingdom for years. Now later part of that assertion is unsourced, where as Asbridge writes of Having alienated the Hohenstaufen Empire, their matila potency depended on the Military Orders and...the West. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you quote the text verifying that the "Jerusalemite nobility rejected the succession of the Emperor's son to the kingdom's throne"? Asbridge actually writes the following: "the kingdom of Jerusalem's Frankish nobility finally threw off the yoke of Hohenstaufen domination, declining to acknow,ledge the authority of Frederick's son and heir Conrad in around 1243. ... From this point forward, the Jerusalemite crown shifted to the royal bloodline of Latin Cyprus, ..." The footnote to this sentence is the following: "Kings of Hohenstaufen line were still acknowledged as titular absentees until 1268." (Asbridge, page 736) If you had actually read the sources cited in the article, you would had also found the following sentence: [Around 1243] "Conrad IV/II [Emperor Frederick II's son] majority was declared. Frederick's claim to the regency was rejected by the High Court in favour of Alice of Cyprus, wife of Hugh I ... She promptly announced the rejecton of any authority wielded by Conrad IV/II or his agenst ... [On] the death of Conrad IV/II in 1254, the barons accepted as king his two-year-old son Conradin (Conrad III of Jerusalem)." [Tyerman, pages 725-727]. Consequently, the sentence that I challenged cannot be verified, and it contradicts all sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Norfolkbigfish, thank you for fixing the problem. I am happy that I could explain you what the problem was. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• It is reported that many Latin Christians, evacuated to Cyprus by boat, were killed or enslaved. Despite this, Ottoman census records of Byzantine churches show that most parishes in the former Crusader states survived at least until 16th-century and remained Christian. was tagged failed verification for the reason What is the connection between the Byzantine churches and the fall of the Latin crusader states, according to Jotischky?. These are effectively two separate facts, both sourced. The Asbridge fact is the common end of the Crusader States point that Latin Christians fled, were killed or enslaved. The average reader might think there were no Christians left in the Near East so the demographic evidential point is that Christianity continued after the fall Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH: "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Furthermore, the cited source explicitly connects the Ottoman census with the survival of the Orthodox Christian communities under the rule of the crusaders (not after their fall): "Although not all the identifiable Byzantine churches survived into the crusader period, Ottoman census records from the sixteenth century confirm that most of these parishes remained Christian throughout the Middle Ages." Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Seperated citations, this now works in two parts. 1) The fate of the Latin Christians; 2) The continuity of Christian worship into at least the 16th centuries and details the evidence. Both statements have reputable sources Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

If Jotischky does not present this information in the context of the fall of the crusader states, we cannot present it either. I deleted the sentence, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC) [date added some weeks later to enable automatic archiving]

It is an important fact, I have restored in the demography section. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

We are not here to prove anything. We are here to fairly present scholarly views. If Jotischky draws conclusion of the comparison of two data-base, we should make it clear. If Jotischky writes of the local Christian (specifically Orthodox) communities, we should also write of them. If Jotischky writes that part of the local Christian communities dissapeared before the crusades, we should mention it. Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Norfolkbigfish, I am happy that I could explain you what the problem was. Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• At the Third Council of the Lateran in 1179, Pope Innocent III set a precedent relevant to those crusades that were and are considered as political. was tagged failed verification for the reason Jotischky does not write of political crusades in relation with the Third Council of the Lateran and clearly states that Pope Gregory VII had already set precedent. This tag is paced halfway through the point being made. It continues In this he encouraged those who suppressed sects considered heretical by the offering of indulgences. which is the point Jotischky is in fact making, and does make. Nothing to do with any different precedent made by Pope Gregory VII Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH: "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Jotischky's text is the following: "The theological justification for acts of violence in defence of the Church had been developed in the curia of Gregory VII for application against those who threatened the integrity of Christian society, and the Third Lateran Council in 1179 had approved the use of force to deal with heresy. ... It was not, therefore, the resort to war that roubled contemporary critics of the Albigensian Crusade, so much as the harnessing of crusading ideals to that war. ... The crusade launched by Innocent III against the Cathar heretics set a different precedent, but one that was to become relevant to "political" Crusades." You obviously do not know that Pope Innocent and the Third Lateran Council had no connection and that is why you are making a connection between two different (unrelated) sentences. Not the Third Council, but Pope Innocent's Albigensian crusade set precedent for the political crusades, according to Jotischky. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you should read the sources not only use them. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Since the first message that you sent me, I have felt that your knowledge about the crusades is not deep. The more I read the article and your remarks above the more I am convinced that you cannot understand basic problems concerning the article. It is quite obvious that you have not read the sources cited in the article, but picked up texts from here and there without trying to understand their context and consolidate them. This could have been a very effective approach. However, if you want to achieve the level of FAs, you should try to understand my messages sine ira et studio. Try to assume that I do not want to destroy your game, but I want to improve the article. For the time being, the article does not meet GA criteria. Please read my messages, read more than two sentences in your books and modify the article without making further problems. If you do not understand my messages, please approach me. I have plenty of time. Borsoka (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ottoman census records of Byzantine churches show that most parishes in the former Crusader states survived at least until 16th-century and remained Christian. was tagged failed verification for the reasons 1. Ottoman census records in themselves cannot prove survival. 2. Jotischky says that their comparison with archaeological data proves the survival. 3. Jotischky especially writes of the indigenous Orthodox Christian communities, not about Christians. 4. He writes that not all archaeologically dedictable communities survived until the crusader period, but most of them survived until the 16th century. 1 the satement only says show not prove. 2) Yes 3) This is in a section on the demography of the Crusader States. It is a demographic fact on this, sourced and based on analysis. 4) Yes. Not OR on that basis, or have I missed something? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do not duplicate the same debate under the same section. This was already discussed above. (1) A 16th-century census can show or prove or attest that Christians lived in the territory in the 16th century, but it cannot prove/show/attest their survival from the crusader period. (2) Jotischky makes a comparison between pre-crusade archaeological data and a 16th-century census. (3) He concludes that (2a) some communities dissappeared before the crusader period, but (2b) most communities survived till the 16th century. (4) He writes only of local Orthodox Christians. We are not here to demonstrate or to prove anything, but to fairly present scholary views. Borsoka (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

1) It demonstrates that some, maybe the majority of, parishes extant before and during the Crusader States period remaind in the 16th century. A note worthy demographic fact. 2) This remains true, but is not a rationale for deletion 3) I am usure of what point you are making here? Please elaborate. 4) I am not sure why you discount local Orthodox Christians, do they not matter or are they not part of the demography of the region? As for We are not here to demonstrate or to prove anything, but to fairly present scholary views. this is Jotischky's scholarly view. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I solved the problem and summarized his statements, clarifying the sources of his data, the geographical scope of his statement (Palestine), its timeframe (pre-Muslim period vs. 16th century) and specified the community: local Orthodox Christians. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Norfolkbigfish, thank you for thanking my edit. Please remember this was the last occasion that I did not take you to AN for edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• The leaders of the First crusade built the foundations upon which the nobility in the Crusader States developed. In each state this was based on shared language, family or feudal ties and the settlers' regions of origin. was labelled lopsided with the reason Recent literature denies this century-old scholarly claim. This is directly sourced material cited to Joshua Prawer. Tyerman describes Prawer as the leading post-1945 scholer of Outremer (2019, p=459). So not in fact a century old. Some of Prawer work has been challnged, but as far as I can find not this statement. The Editor may attempt to use a recent work but one of Tyerman's former pupils, a junior academic at the start of his career who was writing only on Antioch. This does not have equivalent weight, or even address the statement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• 1. You should decide what do you want? You stated ([1]) that the article "article does stand up against current anglophone academic opinion, I can assure you". Now you argues that we should ignore recently published books. 2. As I have already explained to you above (under title Review by Borsoka: Colonisation) there are at least two (2!) recently published books which contradict this generalizing century-old PoV. Kevin James Lewis in his 2017 monography about the counts of Tripoli states that "just as the county was not the only area in Latin Syria with high proportions of Occitan settlers, so too was the county itself not exclusively or homogeneously Occitan" [Lewis, Kevin James (2017). The Counts of Tripoli and Lebanon in the Twelfth Century: Sons of Saint-Gilles. Routledge. p. 91. ISBN 978-1-4724-5890-2.] In his 2000 study about the establishment of the Antiochene principality, Asbridge likewise says, "Historians have long suggested that the principality of Antioch was, during the first decades of its existence, largely populated by people of Norman stock. ... These statements represent rather unsubstantiated generalisations..." [Asbridge, Thomas (2000). The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098–1130. The Boydell Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-85115-661-3.] One of the fundamental policies of our community, WP:NPOV says "Avoid stating opinions as facts." The article ignores this basic policy. Borsoka (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not my opinions, respected academic views from 'the leading post-1945 scholar of the Outremer'. From the Google Books summary of Lewis, a junior academic, What little has been written on the subject previously has focused upon the European ancestry of the counts of Tripoli: a specifically Southern French heritage inherited from the famous crusader Raymond IV of Saint-Gilles. Kevin Lewis argues that past historians have at once exaggerated the political importance of the counts’ French descent and ignored the more compelling signs of its cultural impact, highlighting poetry composed by troubadours in Occitan at Tripoli’s court... The counts of Tripoli and contemporary Muslim onlookers certainly viewed the dynasty as sons of Saint-Gilles... the sub-title is even more explicit Sons of Saint Gilles. It talks about the Occitan cultural impact. Prawer does not argue that the populations were predominately Occitan/Norman or even the immigrants were. He argues that the ruling class was. To question this more respected sources are required and these need to be used more academically Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Have you whenever read of the Embriaco family? They were one of the most powerul aristocrats in the County of Tripoli. They were Genoese, with close links with Genoa for centuries. No, we do not need "more respected sources". We cannot present PoVs as facts. Borsoka (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• But only tangently related to the nobility of Tripoli, and more accurately communards and consuls with the greater responsibility to Genoa. Doesn't address the issue at all. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Tangentially? As holders of one of the most important fiefs in the county of Tripoli? "In the long term it was ... Hugh whose family [the Embriaco family] was to settle [in Jubayl], becoming and remaining Jubayl's local Frankish seigneurial dynasty until the thirteenth century." [Lewis, Kevin James (2017). The Counts of Tripoli and Lebanon in the Twelfth Century: Sons of Saint-Gilles. Routledge. p. 55. ISBN 978-1-4724-5890-2.] "The Genoese role in the county's foundation was rewarded with ... the port of Jubail, which Count Bertand gave to the Genoese admiral Guglielmo Embriaco. His descendants became vassals of the count as lords of Jubail in their own right..." [Tyerman, Christopher (2007) [2006]. God's War: A New History of the Crusades. Penguin Books. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-140-26980-2.] Peter Lock writes of a civil war between the count of Tripoli and the Embriaco family in the late 13th century. [Lock, Peter (2006). The Routledge Companion to the Crusades. Routledge. p. 119. ISBN 978-0-415-39312-6.]. Borsoka (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• the Principality of Antioch, founded in 1098 and ruled by Bohemond, the nobility was Norman in character and custom. was tagged lopsided with the reason Recent literature denies this century-old scholarly claim.. Again this is directly sourced material cited to Joshua Prawer. Tyerman describes Prawer as the leading post-1945 scholer of Outremer (2019, p=459). So not in fact a century old. Some of Prawer work has been challnged, but as far as I can find not this statement. The Editor may attempt to use a recent work but one of Tyerman's former pupils, a junior academic at the start of his career who was writing only on Antioch. This does not have equivalent weight, or even address the statement. It is difficuly to see any evidence that the nobility of Antioch was not Norman, and did not follow Norman custom, or at least Italo-Norman custom. This was also described as POV when in fact it came from an academic and respected soure. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Asbridge says, "Historians have long suggested that the principality of Antioch was, during the first decades of its existence, largely populated by people of Norman stock. ... These statements represent rather unsubstantiated generalisations..." He also explains that the century-old idea of a Norman nobility existing in Antioch cannot be substantiated by sources. [Asbridge, Thomas (2000). The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098–1130. The Boydell Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-85115-661-3.] One of the fundamental policies of our community, WP:NPOV says "Avoid stating opinions as facts." The article ignores this basic policy. Borsoka (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The statement is question talks about the ruling class, not the general population and at the the beginning of the crusader period. Are you suggesting that Asbridge says that Bohemond, Tancred and their retinue was not Italo-Norman? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, I am not suggesting anything similar. Assbridge only says that nothing proves that the majority of the nobility of the principality was of Norman stock. For instance, Baldwin of Le Bourg (who was not of Norman stock) was a military commander of the Antiochene army in 1100. Borsoka (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Prawer again is not talking of what you call Norman stock but Norman custom and practice. Dis Asbridge write that Antioch did not follow Norman custom and practice? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• It is not me, but Asbridge who uses that expression. Can you refer to scholars who say that Baldwin if Le Bourg adopted Norman customs and practices? Borsoka (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The new Frankish rulers did not expel the native population but adopted strict segregation and at no point attempted to integrate it by way of religious conversion. was tagged dubious for the reason There were cases of individual conversions and attempts to secure Church union with the Greeks, Maronites and Jacobites. Again from Prawer, description is OR but this is directly sourced and the tag includes an unsourced opinion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• You are right. I have to substantiate my above words. Borsoka (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Jotischky writes: "..the coastal towns, with their communities of indigenous Christians, probably did have bishops, and these were replaced by Latins as their towns fell into the crusaders' hands … This policy conformed to ecclesiological theory, as was later explained in a canon of the Fourth Lateran Council. The reasoning was that the Orthodox were part of the same Catholic Church as the Latins, and the Church, which was a single body, could not have two heads. ….The Frankish laity sometimes adopted the cults of eastern saints... In 1237, the Jacobite patriarch … submitted a statement of faith to the Dominicans in Jerusaelm whilom on a pilgrimage to the holy city … In the 1240s, Inncoent IV may even have tried to create a uniate Jacobite Church, in which the clergy and hierarchy could retain their own liturgical traditions..."[Jotischky 2017, pages152-154] Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• The Ethnic segregation title was tagged dubious with the reason Segregation was not driven by ethnic, but by social and religious factors. and flagged as OR. Prawer writes The Latin settlements in the East were the first European attempt to found and rule a colonial kingdom. Several mediaevel societies were created by conquest and based on strict segregation between conquerors and conquered but in hardly one did such a division continue uniterrupted for two hundred years (p60) Segration between conquerors and conquered can be nothing less than ethnic in this case. Will cite Prawer and add sentence. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read your above argumentation again. It is pure OR: you draws a conclusion without verifying it. Borsoka (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• It is cited, and in fact the entire contents of The Crusaders Kingdom - European Colonalism in the Middle Ages supports it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, I remember that sometimes you refer to whole books to verify a simple statement. Would you quote a statement from that Prower's book proving that he thinks that the conquerors were of the same nationality/ethnicity on the one hand, and the conquered people formed an other nationality/ethnicity? Borsoka (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• As above, The Latin settlements in the East were the first European attempt to found and rule a colonial kingdom. Several mediaevel societies were created by conquest and based on strict segregation between conquerors and conquered but in hardly one did such a division continue uniterrupted for two hundred years or ...led by a predominently French nobility, with some minor additions from Germany and Northern Italy, formed the nucleus of future society. When talking of the native population ancient semitic peoples, sucessively Hellenized, Romanized, Christianized and finally converted to Islam.... there is an entire chapter on the native population including Christians. You should read it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• No reference to ethnic segregation. It distingishes between conquerors and conqured. For instance, the Armenians were "conquered", but they were not segrageted from the conquerors, because they had a native nobility and intermarriages between Frank and Armenian noble families were not uncommon. Borsoka (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• What exactly did Asbridge & Lewis say about the culture, customs & language of the crusader states? Do they refer to the historiogrphy of the subject in general and Prawer's work specifically. If they don't I am unsure whether these comments bring into question Prawer's view which was pre-eminent in the late 20th century. Certainly there are points in Lock that supports the article. Will dig out sources when I have them to hand. The academic consensus does seem to remain that the Franks remained separate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I do not understand your above reference to Asbridge and Lewis. I did not refer to them in this context. You should verify the claim that (1) ethnic segregation existed in the Crusader states; (2) Prawer's remark about the segregation of conquerors and conquered is a general scholarly PoV, especially, because I referred to cases which prove that the conquered and the conquerors were not so strictly segregated (inter-marriages, the acceptance of each other's saints, Church union). Borsoka (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Jotischky explicitly states that "Further damage has been done to the ["segregationalist"] model of the only - to date - full-length general study of the relationship between the western settlers and the indigenous Christian people of the Near East" (he refers to Christopher MacEvitt's The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance, published in 2008). [Jotischky 2019, page 18] We can conclude that the whole section should be rewritten significantly. Borsoka (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• The mass Holy Land crusades ended in the mid 12th century, the last  crusader outposts were extinguished in 1291 was tagged 'failed verification' for the reason Cyprus survived for more than 200 years.. True, if relevent but Cyprus is not in the Holy Land and in addition its survival is mentioned later in the paragraph. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• In this case, we should make it clear that we are talking about the Holy Land. Literature always regard Cyprus as the last outpost, because the kings of Cyprus regarded themselves as the lawful kings of Jerusalem and they were always separately crowned as such for centuries. Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Secondly the objective was the liberation of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre. was tagged POV-statement with the reason Medieval Catholic view.. Don't really know what to do with this one? The Crusaders were medieval Catholics so yes it is their POV. And it was their objective. What is the problem? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• We cannot adopt medieval Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, etc. terminology. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Meta commentary

What on earth was this edit? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

An attempt to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the title of the section. Borsoka (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Given the translation perhaps there's some context you'd like to give? Richard Nevell (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above message. It is the title of a well-known Spanish film: "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown". Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Before my time. Editing like that is antagonistic does nothing to help. That behaviour undermines what you are attempting to achieve here. If you want your feedback to be taken seriously you need to work collegially rather than make pointy edits. Your comments have merit, but feedback is going to fall on deaf ears if it does not seem to be given in good faith. Richard Nevell (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell:, do you think the title of the section was a good example of good faith? Have you studied the history of this title? 1. "Vexatious Tagging" ([2]); 2."Vexatious Tagging or lack of deeper knowledge or ...?" ([3]); 3. "Vexatious Tagging or vexatious lack of knowledge or WP:NOTHERE?" ([4]) 4. "Tagging" ([5]). For weeks, I have been struggling with the review of an article which does not meet GA criteria (instead of relisting it). For weeks, I have been explaining basic facts about the crusades to help to improve this large collection of original research, original synthesis, close paraphrasing and propagandistic statements. Please, let me entertain myself with funny edits as a response to a series of uncivil remarks. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Drop the juvenile behaviour, brush up on how to give feedback so that people actually listen, and read WP:POINT. If I see more disruptive edits from you I've be taking this to AN. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell:, thank you for your remark about my juvenile behavior. It is a compliment in my age. Please take my edit to AN now, because I think it was not disruptive, so I cannot guarantee that I will refrain from making similar edits. Please help me to understand my sin. Borsoka (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead paragraph issues

Three points:

1) I am not convinced that the word “sanctioned” in the first paragraph gives a full picture. Yes a few were just “sanctioned” but the more high profile ones were started by / encouraged by / led under the banner of / catalyzed by / called for by etc

2) The first sentence should state the geographical scope of the crusades

• @Onceinawhile:—do you have anything in mind for this: Europe and the Near East, from the Near East to the Baltic to the Iberian peninsula etc? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that’s a good summary. I think it would help to deal with the point (3) below first, i.e. to explain exactly how we are defining what is in scope for this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:—unsure what exact phrasing you have in mind? You can see what the article looks like, would something like This article is about these campaigns, the philosophy developed by the papacy to support the Crusader States that resulted and the historiography that has developed to explain them? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The critical question is when you refer to "these campaigns", which campaigns do you mean? The article currently says "The term crusade is now also applied to other church-sanctioned and even non-religious campaigns." Are all of these in the scope of the article? Where are you drawing the boundary for which campaigns are in and which are not? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

3) The last part of the paragraph sounds more like a dictionary than an encyclopedia. For example “The term crusade is now also applied to other church-sanctioned and even non-religious campaigns... At the time of the early crusades the word did not exist, and it only much later became the leading descriptive term in English.” This is interesting for the body of the article, but it is out of scope here. Instead this paragraph should be used to clearly define the scope of this article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:—right I have given it a go, what do you think? Wouldn't be insulted if you edited it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: that’s excellent progress. I have made some edits. My remaining concern is with the definition / scope you have chosen. As we now say in Crusades#Contemporary_historiography, there are four ways of defining the crusades. We have chosen just one. We should note in the lede that historians differ on this definition, and explain which is most prevalent (and implying therefore which one we use to draw the limits round what is written in this article). Onceinawhile (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Reflecting on this, I suggest the Contemporary Historiography section explains which of the definitions/scopes is most popular in the literature. Then the lead can state simply that “The most common definition of the crusades includes [...] and excludes [...]”. The article can then be structured around that. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Updated the lead before I saw this musing. So the definitions in the lead bit seems there, subject to ce. But what is the most popular, Tyerman seems to think that they all fall apart under scrutiny and analysis. With this article there is a touch of the kitchen sink about it, it has been reviewed so often that if anything is left out and editor tends to say 'what about this'. Personally, I am most persuaded by Riley-Smith but that requires leaving out the Childrens and Shepherds crusades which would just provokes editors. Generalism seems a cop out, but it seems to be where the nature of WP takes us? As ever your view is welcome. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Any more thoughts on the lead @Onceinawhile:? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

grammatical error detected

in the second paragraph of the 'causes and precursors' sections, it says:

"The papacy attempted manage this moral danger"

shouldn't there be a 'to' between 'attempted' and 'manage'? ThatOneAndOnlyKappa (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Rephrased, better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Articke

13850 words

This article has become bloated, Wikipedia:Article size indicates it should be split if >10,000 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are still plenty pieces of unneccessary information: first Turkish migration, etymologies, many details of individual crusades, ..., but we are not informed about everyday life, strategies, etc. Borsoka (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Article is now at 11537. I am about to start copy editing the Outremer section. So that the good stuff contained within it isn't lost I have copied it to Crusader states where it probably belongs. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Now at 10690. Copyediting Outremer and removing unnecessary detail has left the section a little incoherent. Will rewrite to address when the sizing is complete Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite has prompted some tagging:

• The new Frankish rulers did not expel the native population but adopted strict segregation and did not attempt integration by religious conversion. was tagged POV statement for the reason Modern scholarship does not share this simplicistic approach.
• They and indigenous Christians lived like western serfs unable to hold office was tagged dubious with the reason That native Christians held minor offices in the ports clearly mentioned in the cited sources.
• or land. was tagged dubious with the resaon That at least Orthodox monasteries held estates is clearly mentioned in the cited sources Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The first statement is sourced to Prawer, one the most pre-emminent sholars of the kingdom of Jerusalem in the 20th century. There appears no question on the first clause—the Franks clearly did not expel the native population. The question would seem to be around whether society was integrated and whether the Franks attempted religious conversion. Asbridge writes (p127:2019) that .....internal self determination allowed for separate communities to co-exist...relations with indigenous Syrian population within Outremer were primaily economic not social, as taxpayers, workers or slaves. He goes on Muslims and Latin Christians lived beyond the pale of Frankish citizenship, like serfs in the west, admittedly there were exceptions. But a key sentence is religion stood as an absolute barrier to integration, reinforced by civil and criminal laws that discriminated against Muslims. As slaves, labourers, taxpayers, skilled artisans, doctors and traders, Muslims were useful;otherwise, collectively, thet existed socially as separate and invisible. As for conversion he writes the Franks were notoriously negligent in proselytising. Where he differs from Prawer is Outremer's heterogeneity inevitably eroded formal apartheid. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

On land Asbridge writes technically they could hold neither office or land (2019:p131) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Christopher McEvitt's work in 2008, still developing and based in the northern crusader states defines three features: silence(lack of engagement e.g. William of Tyre made no reference to local Christians in his chronicles), permeability(of people only, not paradigms) and localisation (ad-hoc systems not centralised). He also challenges the idea that the Franks used a Dhimmi system—the was no formal indiginous hierarchy as there was in Islamic territory. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Your manipulative methods are still boring. (1) I will not address your first point for the third time. Please read the quote from Jotischky and his reference to MacEvitt above in section "Vexatious Tagging?". (2) On which page? (3) Nobody has claimed that the Franks used a Dhimmi system. Borsoka (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: 2) Page 131 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not Asbridge, but Tyerman. If you had read his book (and also the text that you deleted from the article based on his book), you would have also read the following sentences: [native Christians and Muslims] "held their own courts for civil disputes and petty crimes... Syrian Christians acted as port officials. In the market court ..., both Latins and Syrians could act as jurors..." (page 127) Borsoka (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

My bad—I at least tried to add your comment from Tyerman about the market court, which you reverted. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you tried. In a context. Borsoka (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Above you referred to Christopher MacEvitt in order to verify that Prawer's segregationist position is still widely accepted. Let's forget that you referred to MacEwitt in a manipulative way, implying that anybody had whenever wanted to write that Dhimmi system existed in the Outremer. However, it is interesting that MacEvitt states the following, "Joshua Prawer and other scholars have depicted a segregated world in which a small Frankish elite dominated Palestine and Syria, isolating themselves from the local population through discriminatory legal systems, the importation of European serfdom, and the exclusion of locals from positions of authority. This position has begun to be questioned by historians, but no alternative has been suggested. This book offers new ways to think about this question; I argue that the Frankish Levant was a world in which religious and social identities were flexible, and in which violence and tolerance were not exclusive characteristics, but strategies often employed simultaneously." (MacEvitt, Christopher (2010). The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-0-8122-4050-4.) Please, do not abuse scholars' name in order to verify your own position. We can (again [6]) conclude that we cannot present Prawer's PoV as a fact, as per WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

THe section in question is predominantly sourced to Tyerman not Prawer and is from this year (2019). Tyerman was aware at the time of writing of MacEvitt's work (and Prawer's for that matter) and would have taken that into account. The section contains no interpretation, largely just providing Tyerman's evidence. As far as I am aware McEvitt's work has yet to be further developed or picked up by other academics but as I understand it there is nothing in Tyerman or the section that would contradict the book you cite. Jotischky is a useful work, but it is an undergraduate primer so adding text based on its' introduction does not really add much weight to this argument. If this point needs making I suggest Tyerman's 2011 work in the bibliography is more useful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Tyerman's description of the society of the Outremer is mentioned in the new (neutral) version: "a "layered political and legal society", with self-governing ethnic communities and with inter-ethnic relations controlled by the ruling Franks". Jotischky is a major source of the whole article and his work (first published in 2004) was in 2019 re-published by Routledge, a leading publisher of modern scholarly literature on the crusades. MacEwitt's work (to which you manipulatively referred above) is mentioned by Jotischky, who clearly says that MacEvitt's work did further (!) damage to the "segregationist" model ([7]). Borsoka (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I think the article has reached the level of an average GA: it does not contain OR any more, it has become free of plagiarism and its neutrality has significantly improved. I think some details of everyday life and economy should be mentioned. I also suggest that the section "Philosophical Development" (sic!) should be rewritten. It is a mixture of sentences cut from other sections, but the editor has failed to consolidate the text both in the new section and in the other sections from where sentences were copied. First of all, if we dedicate a separate section to the development of crusader ideology, we should begin it with the Bible and early theologians, then we should mention the conversion of the Roman Empire and Augustine. The text could be continued by the Reformist popes' and their theologians' additions. Borsoka (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

PoV-pushing and negligent edits again made the article a (smaller) mass of original research, original synthesis and biased statements, with dozens of typos. Borsoka (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• What exactly is the POV that is being pushed? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Segregationist model (as I mentioned several times during our communication.). Please also remember that I was convinced that you were an editor paid to promote Turkish interests, describing peaceful Turkish settlers and the happy life of the local Arabs and Christians under the peaceful Seljuk sultan's rule ([8]). Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• The only mention of a segratationist model remaining is from the histiographical text you added. Everything else on inter-community relations is the neutral information from Tyerman as far as I can judge? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I do not understand your above message. What mention and where? Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Lets turn this around—where in the article is a POV being pushed? As for the question all I can find is Andrew Jotischky describes Outremer as a "frontier society", with a Frankish elite ruling over the native population and inter-ethnic relations controlled by the ruling Franks. I can't any other mentions of a segregationist model, only Tyerman's evidenced descriptions. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Your manipulative communication is boring. Look at this version of the article (10 October 2019): ([9]). What was the title of the section dedicated to Crusader society? Yes! "6.3 Ethnic segregation". When did you last smuggle the expression "segregation" in the text? On 29 November 2019 ([10]). Borsoka (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• No mention of segregation remains. Copyedited the para to remove undue weight on the historians themselves but the meaning remains Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2019

Spelling mistake: Intro, 2nd paragraph, 6th line/sentence, where it says "centuries until he last of". Should be "centuries until the last of". Torresjrjr (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

PoV pushing

That the theory about an ethnically uniform nobility in the Outremer is outdated, I have several times proved above (Now I only refer to Baldwin of Le Bourg as a leading military commander in "Normann" Antioch and to the Italian Embriaci who were the most powerful nobles in the "Provancel" Tripoli). I also cited 21st-century sources stating that the "segregationist" theory can hardly be maintained. You deleted all sentences from the article that verifies this view. We are not here to prove anything or presents old scholarly PoVs as facts. Please avoid edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I have several times proved—OR? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

No, remember our earlier discussions with many references to reliable sources. You can read them above, I will not repeat them for the third time. Borsoka (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The colonial model has wethered well in political terms Lock 2006 p269 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody says that we should push any models. Please read the texts that you deleted and their sources. Borsoka (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish:, I am faraway from home, so I cannot report you for edit warring for technical reason for about two days. You accused me of edit warring, so please report me in the meantime. If you fail to report me, I will list your last message among your uncivil messages during an ANI. Sorry, but after more than a month I am fed up with your uncivil PoV-pushing behaviour. I have been struggling with this mass of original research, original synthesis, copyvio and PoV-pushing and I have been ignoring your chauvinistic uncivil remarks and also tried to ignore your manipulative tactics, but I think it is high time to put an end to them. Borsoka (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent article, summarizing most important aspects of the crusades. My principal concern is that the article fails to mention the crusaders' privileges (absolution of their sins, protection of their property, ...). Many crusaders was willing to wage war in faraway territories primarily because they received absolution from the popes and they knew that their European domains were under the protection of the Church. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC) is what you wrote in October Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I have told you that your manipulative behaviour is boring. The above was my very first message after a very superficial reading. As most reviewer of this article, I was impressed by your literary qualities. I have not realized (I could not realize) that some of your nice sentences contain pure plagiarism. Sincerely, if you could have addressed my above simple suggestion I would not have realized that you did not have basic knowledge of the crusades. Your absolutely ignorant answer rang my bell. Now I know that the very fact that you had not mentioned the crusaders' privileges at the beginning of the article should have rung it. My complete review can be read above, you also collected your ignorant remarks under separate sections. I have proved that the article was not a GA. Borsoka (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Christian or Orthodox Christian?

@Norfolkbigfish:, I was so happy that you were able to understand the difference between Orthodox Christians and Christians after a lengthy debate above ([11]). Now you made the same mistake, writing about the Christians, although the cited source only refers to Orthodox Christians ([12]). Borsoka (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Apologies—this got caught up in a number of other reversions. If you write that the source uses Orthodox as an adjective I see no reason to doubt it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Non-specialized literature

You are allegedly insisting on presenting information which is verified by a work which is not dedicated to the crusades ([13]). Why do you think we should present this information (about the first Turkish migration) if specialized works does not emphasize it in this context? If the first Turkish migration and its role in Near Eastern state formations are mentioned, why do you think we should not also mention the Normans' and their role in Western European state formation? Borsoka (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Works do not have to be dedicated to the crusades (note the British spelling, the article is written in British English) to be RS and relevant to this article. The explanation of Mamluks and the rise of a Turkish polity including ultimately the Seljuks are important and more coherently explained by a work that specialises on the Turks. Without this it remains unexplained how after an Arab expansion many of the key Muslim leaders were not Arabs—which would result in the article taking a simplistic Muslim v Christian slant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you refer to sources dedicated to the crusades which deal with the first Turkish migration? If not, we should not apply an original approach, as per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Especially, because the Crusaders' enemies were Seljuk Turks and they can be mentioned in the article without referring to the first Turkish migration. Borsoka (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Neither WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH apply in this case. The source is reliable and supports the article, no additional source is required. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you should verify the relevance of the information based on reliable source. I could easily verify that Beatrice I, Countess of Burgundy was Frederick Barbarossa's second wife and she was buried in Speyer Cathedral which had been built on the order of Holy Roman Emperor, Conrad II who waged a war against Hungary in 1030. However, I could not place these nice pieces of information in the article (although Frederick Barbarossa was a Crusader leader and more than one Hungarian monarchs participated in crusades). So I delete the irrelevant information from the article. Please remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is not equivalent. The rise of a Turkish polity is important background. This is RS. A third opinion at least is required Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is a good idea. Can our own conviction verify the mention of the first Turkish migration in the context of the crusades, without referring to a reliable source dedicated to the crusades? Borsoka (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish:, since you preferred to make reverts, I sought a third opinion. Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion: Howdy hello! I saw this request at WP:3O. For starters, both of you need to tone down the reversion, and focus on the discussion. Its alright if the "wrong" version is an article for a bit as long as discussion is happening. On the substance of the issue, I don't support inclusion, mainly for issues of length and conciseness. Backgrounds should give a brief overview of critical information. If folks want more information about the background, they can read the other articles. The article should stay focused on the Crusades themselves, not their complete historical background. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: thank you for your third opinion. @Norfolkbigfish: what do you think? Borsoka (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka:—Go for it, @CaptainEek: makes a good case, I stand corrected. We can worry about something else now. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish: could you explain this edit summary ([14]), especially taking into account the above explanations and 3rd opinion. Borsoka (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish: I requested dispute resolution on this issue ([Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions]). Although you ignored 3rd opinion and started an edit war, I do not take you to AN. You are a lucky guy. Borsoka (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is a different dispute. First it was about Turkish migration, which I accepted—this is about defining who the Mamluks were, where they came and how they fitted into Islamice power structures Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Please read the 3rd opinion more carefully. Borsoka (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka, @Norfolkbigfish:: Howdy hello folks! I see this has evolved slightly, could y'all give me a diff of the text you're disagreeing with at the moment? I'll remind y'all that my opinion is not binding, but hopefully will provide an angle you hadn't thought about before, or lend credence to a certain idea. If my third opinion can't help clarify an issue, we can always try dispute resolution, or hold a request for comment. I hope I can provide some guidance in general, and will be watchlisting this page. Its rare to see two editors work so closely together like yourselves towards FAC, so I'm hype to help y'all succeed! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: the debated text is the following: "Turkic migration into the Middle East began in the 9th century and Middle Eastern states used slave soldiers captured from the borderlands of Khurasan and Transoxania, transported to central Islamic lands, converted to Islam and given military training. These were known as ghulam or mamluks, in theory slaves have greater loyalty but within decades some rose progressivly to become rulers themselves—the Tulunids in Egypt and Syria (868–905) and the Ikhshidids who followed in Egypt (935–969)." ([15]). My concern is that this information is not mentioned in any of the books dedicated to the crusades and cited in the article. If specialists of the history of the crusaders do not think that this is relevant in the context of the article, how could we mention it without ignoring WP:OR and WP:DUE? We can easily explain the meaning of "mamluks" (by the words "slave soldiers") in accordance with specialists of the crusades' history. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

In order to help mediate this debate, I have gone to the library to quote from the specialist literature - see discussion below: [16] in this thread Talk:Crusades#Mamluks and their place in Islamic Power structures. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"King in the High Court"

@Norfolkbigfish:, could you quote the text from Jotischky's cited work to verify the following statement: "sovereign authority only rested with the king in the High Court". Thank you for your assistance. The sentence looks really anachronistic. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It's Tyerman Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is more British English than anachronistic—it is also the UK constituition afterall. Tyerman, an English academic writing for an English audience would understand this (I note he does use some specificly British phrasing e.g. describing Muslims as living beyond the pale). That the phrasing isn't clear more widely is a fair point. When I have the source to hand I will attempt to simplify without losing the meaning Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Tyerman is not cited and he does not write a similar sentence. Jotischky is cited, but he does not mention this information. I think you do not understand the meaning of the expressions "sovereign authority", "king in the High Court" and "anachronistic". Jotischky simply writes, that the holders of the largest fiefs insisted on their right to be judged by their peers in the High Court. Borsoka (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'll check when I get home, the phrasing is common—it doesn't have to be the same in the source as long as the meaning is the same e.g. avoiding copyvio. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am glad that you have realized that copyvio is a serious issue, but OR is also forbidden. We cannot describe the lords' right to be judged by their peers in the High Court as "sovereign authority only rested with the king in High Court", because even the concept of "sovereign authority" is alien to the period. Borsoka (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

In this case sovereign is used as an adjective a. Of things, qualities, etc.: Supreme, paramount; principal, greatest, or most notable (OED) and the phrase is a constituitional term. This is not OR, it is from the sources, I don't have them to hand but will provide when I do. The question of judgement is a red herring, the is about the ultimate authority in the kingdom that rested with the king but only within the constraints of the High Court—to be quorate the High Court required the king and three or more nobles. It was also not rooted in place and could occur anywhere the king was (or at least that is what I understand). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you misunderstand a sentence which refers to John of Ibelin's claim against Frederick II. Borsoka (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Jotischky writes ....sovereign authority rested not in the king alone but in the king's judgement in consultation with the High Court p228 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Jotischky writes it. We can conclude that 1. it refers to the barons' claim to be judged by their peers; 2. it was the barons' claim, not a constitutional fact. This former version of the article ([17]) summarized Jotischky's views in accordance with the cited source and without close paraphrasing. I know that this article is yours, but the article should present verified facts and PoVs, not our own interpretation. We should also avoid copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Native settlements

Why do you think that native settlements are irrelevant in the context? Do you think we should delete all information about the natives? Borsoka (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• There is a whole article on the Crusader states where there is space to expand on the the native peoples. They lived in the way described before, during and after the crusading period so there was little impact on or by the crusades. It is intersting, just nor relevant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• OK. If we think that the masses of native population are not interesting enough, we should not mention the etymology of Saladin's name either, because there is a whole article dedicated to him. Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• The difference here is that Saladin is important to the understanding of the Crusades, while the houses that the natives of Palestine lived in is not. Norfolkbigfish (talk)

• Your manipulative communication is boring. Nobody has denied that Saladin is important. However, why do you think one cannot understand the crusades without knowing the etymology of his name? Borsoka (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Colonialism

Neither Jotischky or Tyerman have done much research on this, so it is not really useful to quote either. That is not to say the discussion is not useful, just that the content so far doesn't reflect it fully. The discussion itself is pure historiography, these are historians using many of the same primary sources but coming to different conclusions. Tyerman largely reflects the evidence in a neutral way without making significant conclusions. It is not true that historians have not reached consensus, rather that this consensus keeps changing. A consensus was reached in the later 20th century that discounted the French imperial view. The colonial view stood up well, but historians can often agree on its weaknesses. Tyerman seems quite taken by McEvitt's view that neither apply but there seems little support. But it is historiography not evidence. Refer to the colonialism pages in * Tyerman, Christopher (2011). The Debate on the Crusades, 1099–2010. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7320-5.—it is quite useful Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your manipulative communication is boring. Nobody wants to present "colonialism" as a valid theory. If you think, Tyerman and Jotischky have not done enough research on society, why do you refer to them. If you refer to them, why do you want to ignore their own conclusion on Crusader society? Borsoka (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• What has been referred to as segrationist is colonialism and refers to Prawer. It is expanded more clearly in the source above. Jotischky and Tyerman provide useful RS, but it does not improve the article by quoting them when they are referring to other academics work.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Their own conclusions are presented in the article now. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"More enncyclopedic"

Why should we mention the Latin and French terms for king and parliament? Why should we write lengthy sentences about the 1130s, instead of summarizing the general characteristics of the monarchy? Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Why do you think that we should describe the development of the High Court in the article, instead of summarizning the principal features of the monarchy? Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like you haven't read the edit. It is not about the 1130s, but the entire 200 year period from RS. Edit it by all means but reversion is just vandalism Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish:: Why should we mention the Latin and French terms for king and parliament? Why should we write lengthy sentences about the 1130s, instead of summarizing the general characteristics of the monarchy? Why do you think that we should describe the development of the High Court in the article, instead of summarizing the principal features of the monarchy? If my understanding is correct, you also admitted that your edit was an act of vandalism, because you actually deleted a former edit: [18]. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I see no harm in removing the the Latin anf French terms if you feel so strongly. But please read the amendment carefully. It covvers the entire development of the Haute Cour from the early 12th century to the end and it is from RS. The Lock edit is partial and he writes that development stopped in 1187, which pretty much matches the improved edit. As before Lock doesn't merit quoting in hiown right, his work is just a compendium of secondary sources nor RS in its own right Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• 1. OK, move it. All medieval kings were titled rex in Latin documents, because it is the Latin term for king. We do not write a vocabulary, but an encyclopedia. 2. Why do you think that we should write of the development of the High Court, instead of the development of the whole political system in the article? 3. Routledge is a leading published of recent crusader literature. Prawer wrote his book almost 50 years ago. Borsoka (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have removed the rex mentions. In Jerusalem the High Court was effectively the entire political system in Jerusalem, it covers the rise to power of the nobles and the decline of the monarchy. Prawer is using primary sources, are you suggesting that these have changed recently? The Lock work is good for what it is, but it is not worth quoting. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? Have you whenever read more than one books on the same historic subject? Do you really think that if a historian interpreted a primary source, his interpretation has to be accepted by all later scholars? Lock's work is a summary of recent scholarship and it was published by a decent publisher of crusader literature. In your first message to me you claimed that your aim to reflect recent literature. Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• As it stood the article was misleading, giving the impression that governance in Jerusalem led the West. I thought this was strange and unlikely to be a mistake that Lock would make. Turned out that the article partially quoted and ommitted this stopped in 1187. The revised edit corrected—and broadly aligns in fact—this and expanded the section to cover the full 200 years Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Your manipulative communication is boring: the article never gave the impression that governance in Jerusalem led the West (although, if I had time to read some books in my library, I could find scholars who propose that the methods of government of Jerusalem influenced 13th-century English, Aragonese and Hungarian barons during their fight against the Crown). 2. The whole text that you deleted covered the full 200 years. 3. Lock's reference to 1187 could have been added easily (even if you misunderstand it, because it simply refers to Hattin). Instead, you chose to delete 3 or 4 sentences and add 5-6 sentences based on an earlier scholarly work, including sentences which could have been placed in a vocabulary, but not in an encyclopedia. You above admitted that such an act can be described as vandalism. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Furthermore, it is quite obvious that your version only covers the 12th century. Borsoka (talk)
• James Clark Holt, in his monography dedicated to the Magna Carta, emphasizes that the idea that the great vassals cannot be deprived of their fiefs without their peers' judgement spread in Europe-and also in Jerusalem in the 11th-12th centuries; he also writes that the great vassals' right to withdraw their support from arbitrary monarchs was enacted in several countries in Europe-an also in Jerusalem-in the 13th century. [Holt, James Clark (2003) [1992]. Magna Carta. Cambridge University Press. pp. 76–80. ISBN 0-521-27778-7.] These statements verify Lock's statement about the paralel development of European and Jerusalemite legal system. (By the way, Holt also refers to scholarly theories about the influence of the Jerusalemite "constitution" on the development of European public law, but he refutes them.) Why do we only emphasize that the development of the Curia Regis was different? Why do we need to hide that there were general assemblies in the kingdom? Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Prince Edward certainly learnt something from the nobles of Jersualem—he returned to England and crushed his (Well after Magna Carta btw) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I thought you objected to the use of non-specialised sources? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Jonathan Riley-Smith, in his book about the Jerusalemite nobility and kingdom, concludes that perhaps "the greatest monument to the western settlers in Palestine, finer even than the cathedrals and castles still dominating the landscape, is the law-book of John of Jaffa, which, for all its pedantry and long-windedness, is one of the great works of thirteenth-century thought." [Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1973). Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174-1277. Macmillan. p. 230. ISBN 9781349154982.] Why do we need to suggest that Jerusalemite legal development was a backyard of Europe, juts because Prawer says that the development of the High Court differed from the Curia regis in European countries? Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Notable that the legal thinking provides a monument, but what does that tell us about how the legal system worked? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe it shows that constitutional development did not stop? Borsoka (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Well share what development did happen—Jotischky writes of the disregard historians have with the nobles who obsessed about these things. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Riley-Smith described the legal system as 'ossified after 1187 (see below) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• No he writes that it "seemed to have ossified" since the late 11th century. Later, he continues the sentence and states the opposite (see below). Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Steven Tibble, in his monography about the Jerusalemite monarchy and the lordships, emphasizes "We have seen that the monarchy possessed the means, and the political will, to manipulate the lordships [of the great vassals] when it felt necessary. ... It seems, overall, that the monarchy was better equipped to manipulate the seigneurial structure of the kingdom than has been previously thought: and that the seigneuries were even less well able, in terms of material resources to resist". [Tibble, Steven (2011) [1989]. Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1291. Clarendon Press. pp. 186, 188. ISBN 9780198227311.] His words clearly contradict the article's statement about a High Court able to compel the king to follow its advice. Borsoka (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• What period was Tibble refering to, prior to 1187 this may well be accurate. After less so. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I assume you know that Tibble is not an historian but works in PR and communications, currently in the finance sector? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe that is why his book was published by Oxford University Press. Oxford University is famed for his books about the crusades written by hairdressers. Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• While Tibble works in PR he is also a historian. More detail via crusadestudies.org.uk. His 1989 book with Clarendon Press has been cited 70+ times. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I know, but more was than is (if someone can be an ex-historian) but really I was teasing, @Richard Nevell:. While we have your attention could you please give your view of the Monarchy section. We are going round in circles and a third opinion would be helpful. I apprecaite you might be loathe to. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've been quiet as I don't have the time needed to engage properly around this subject, and it wouldn't be fair to throw a few half-formed ideas into the mix if I'm not able to follow up on them. I can try to take a look at the Monarchy section, but can't guarantee anything timely. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

In the spirit of co-operation I removed the French & Latin references. Prawer, Lock and Jotischky all concur that constituitional development in the Kingdom of Jersualem stopped with the collapse of the first Kingdom after the battle of Hattin in 1187. At that point the direction of travel in constituitional development went in opposite direction. Europe became centralised and kings created the machinary of governance, in Jerusalem it went in the opposite direction with power moving from the crown to the tenants in chief. I suspect none of the sources quoted above would neccearily contradict this if you looked for sunstantive fact rather than subjective opinion. If that is the case edit the article and cite the appropriate sources (although it seems that the ones in the article Prawer, Jotischky & Lock don't support your current assertion) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

In spirit of cooperation? Constitutional development stopped?? Subjective opinion??? My current assertion????? Sleep before continuing this conversation, because you are not in the reality of wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Returning to the dispute and the original question, as per Onceinawhile's comment on a different thread what is it in the section that causes objection? We started with Why should we mention the Latin and French terms for king and parliament? Why should we write lengthy sentences about the 1130s, instead of summarizing the general characteristics of the monarchy?. I would have thought this included how the High Court constrained the monarchy and governed the kingdom? Sourcing might be easier if the objection is more specific. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

1. It presents PoVs as facts: a. PoV1: the constitutional arrangement stopped evolving; PoV2: the king was compelled to follow the High Court. 2. It deals only with the High Court. Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Prawer is the most notable post-1945 historian on the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, his worked is cited multiple times in the other sources used in this article, was referring the the original sources and I am not aware that on this subject these findings have been challenged. As such the cited material is RS. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, his work is a RS. Nobody has denied it. Read my above message more carefully. Borsoka (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am not sure I understand your point. In summary you agree Prawer is RS, Prawer is the source of the information that the KoJ did not evolve as Western Feudal countries did in the period of 11th century to 13th century or create a machinary of government and that the monarchy was compelled to follow the rulings of the High Court. None of the other sources used in the article contradict this information. On that basis it would seem that the neutrality tag can be deleted. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Prawer's above PoV cannot be presented as a fact, as per WP:NOR. Neutrality is the issue. Borsoka (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

On POV2, although no contrary position appears in this thread, the Encyclopedia Britannica appears to support Prawer:

Partly as a consequence of increased immigration from the West, the baronial class grew, and a relatively small group of magnates with large domains emerged. As individuals, they were less disposed to brook royal interference, and, as a class and in the court of barons (Haute Cour, or High Court), they were capable of presenting a formidable challenge to royal authority. The last of the kings of Jerusalem to exercise effective power was Amalric I in the 12th century. In the final years of the First Kingdom, baronial influence was increasingly evident and dissension among the barons, as a consequence, more serious.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades/The-institutions-of-the-First-Kingdom Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Britannica supports Prawer's view. Most probably, because Prawer is one of its main sources and Britannica was written decades ago. Britannica is a tertiary source and WP prefers secondary sources, like the onces I quoted above. In recent literature this view is challenged. For instance, King Aimery's well known conflict with Ralph of Tiberias used to be interpreted as a sign of the lack of royal authority. However, recent literature emphasizes that the king achieved Ralph's exile. I will verify this statement by a reference to a very recently published monography. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

On POV1 the work you quote above by Riley-Smith also supports Prawer:

There is little direct evidence for the legislation of the Kings of Jersualem before 1187, but there survive seven law-books written in Palestine and Cyprus in the course of the 13th-century. Five of these, composed by members of the knightly class after 1250, described with remarkable consistency a feudal system that seemed to have ossified since it’s introduction in the late eleventh century.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice try. 1. He writes of the period after 1250, Prawer of the 12th century - neither supporting, nor contradicting Prawer. 2. He writes of the development of the Jerusalemite constitutional system at least until the 1250s - in clear contradiction to Prawer's PoV presented in the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• No, that is not correct. He describes the period from the fall of the First Kingdom up to the significant primary sources of the mid-13th century and describes them as ossified. 2. figurative. a. Hardened or callous; rigid or fixed in position, attitude, ideas, etc. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. You may not know, but I can understand words of Latin origin and the word above is clearly connected to bones and this figurative expression is widely used in European languages. He writes of law books written after 1250. Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Again, not correct, or at least in my reading of the sentence. He writes of, and uses as sources, the contents of primary sources written in the mid-13th century that in turn describe legal developments in the period from the end of the 11th century to when the books were written e.g. the sentence says that legal development was limited from 1099 to the 1260s in John of Ibelin's case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• He continues: "The historians who took [the seven law-books] at theri face value imagined the Kingdom of Jerusalem to have been an extraordinary example of pure feudalism in action, a state which throughout the two centuries of its existence continued to be run on archaic principles, but in the 1920s a revolution in attitudes was made possible by the work of M. Grandclaude, who identified those laws referred to in the treatises that could definitely be attributed to the period between 1099 and 1187. ... a group of historians led by Professors Jean Richard and Joshua Prawer ... have shown that ... the Kings of Jerusalem before 1187 were vigorous and aggressive, governing a kingdom the institutions of which were developing and changing like any other." His summary implies that you did not properly summarized Prawer's views. Borsoka (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Pov-pushing is bad

@Norfolkbigfish:, why do you want to hide that Frankish and native peasants lived side by side in the same villages? Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Read the source, it doesn't say they lived side by side. It says that the Franks created 235 model villages. If fact Jotischky writes explicitly that the Franks did not live side by side. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Furthermore, Jotischky does not refer to Frankish peasants Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Jotischky writes ....the Franks in the countryside did not usually live among the indigenous Christians, but maintained separation from them on the same ethnic basis as we find, for example, in the crusader laws there is evidence of some pragmaic interaction between Franks and natives (p132). So not living side by side, but interacting. Much more balanced I think you will agree. Article closer to this than what it was. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish:, your manipulative communication is still boring. 1. Boas writes, Frankish "[r]ural settlement appears to have taken two forms: settlement in local villages, alongside (but not mixed with) local peasants; and new settlements in planned villages." (Boas, Adrian J. (1999). Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East. Routledge. p. 63. ISBN 0-415-17361-2.) 2. Nobody claimed that Jotischky referred to Frankish peasants. 3. Jotischky explicitly says that Ellenblum's study on Frankish rural settlements challenges the assumptions of the "segregationist" model. If my understanding is correct, you do not deny that there was shared villages. Why did you delete this information? Borsoka (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Frankish peasants' presence is evident in 235 villages, roughly one-fifth of rural settlements. the revised edit only removes the word peasant, the numbers remain the same in practice Some were planned villages, Jotischky seems to imply they were all 235 were planned established to encourage settlers from the West I can't mention in the source for this and some were shared with native Christians again no mention in the source. The Boas source you use, but is not cited in the article, implies that natives did not live in the model villages but some Franks lived in existing villages but not mixed with the natives. Use Boas if you wish, but the edit is closer to Jotischky now than it was before. I haven't seen any defence of the articles use of the phrase Frankish peasant.

I think the solution rest somewhere between the two edits Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Your manipulative communication is boring. 1. It was you who deleted Boas. Referring to the lack of a source that was deleted by yourself is at least strange. I am more and more convinced, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 2. Nobody claims that natives lived in planned villages. 3. Nobody claims that Franks mixed with the natives. The sentence that you deleted was the following: "Frankish peasants' presence is evident in 235 villages, roughly one-fifth of rural settlements. Some were planned villages, established to encourage settlers from the West and some were shared with native Christians." Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Jotischky writes A recent estimate numbers 235 Frankish settlements among the 1,200or so villages in the kingdom of Jerusalem before 1187 (Boas 1999, 63-5). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

And? Do you really want to suggest that because you deleted the reference to Boas we cannot refer to him? Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Well cite him then! Rather than blather on about him on the talk page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your permission. You are really magnanimous. In return, I suggest you should fix the existing problems in the article instead of creating new ones. Borsoka (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

FAC

@Norfolkbigfish: the article now covers the principal subjects relating to crusades. First of all, neutrality issue should be fixed. We cannot present a scholarly PoV from the 1970s as a fact, as per WP:NPOV. Then, the false information in the lead should be corrected. I assume the lead could be improved to cover most subjects mentioned in the article. After all these issues are addressed, a comprehensive copyedit is needed. Thereafter we could make a FAC. Sorry, but I have worked too much with this originally bellow-standard article to allow it to sink into a new mass of original research and PoV-pushing during a FAC review. I am convinced that achieving a FA is your only purpose, so you are eager to obey the reviewers' all individual demads without taking into account the whole picture. I may help you to resist. :) Borsoka (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Getting a summary article like this to FA would be an achievement but are you sure that you up for this going to FAC. Promotion is by consensus, and you don't seem a very consensual type of guy? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am a very consensual type of guy. I have been cooperating with you for more than 2 months instead of relisting the article. My main problem is that I do not like PoV-pushing. Borsoka (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC) Please remember that I have not taken you to AN, although I could have done it several times. You are really lucky that I am so consensual type. Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this rather makes my point Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you really want me to list your uncivil edits and remarks here? :) :) :) I think we'd better cooperate. Borsoka (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you would obviously unable to manage a FA review alone. Constantine's conversion did not make Christianity the empire's official religion (actually, it was still forbidden in the eastern part of the empire) and the hereditary principle was accepted in the 1120s in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Fulk married Melisende in the hope of inheriting her father's throne). Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should take this to FAC yourself. I suspect you will then discover, that while you have made some positive contributions, that this article is now further away from successful canditure than it was when you began. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, my English is awful. You do not have knowledge of the crusades. Win-win situation. Yes, when I began reviewing the article it was below GA and it could easily be proved. Borsoka (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Prose size

@Norfolkbigfish: you posted a message on my Talk page at 19:53 on 11th October 2019 ([19]). Your message implied you thought the article met FA criteria, which includes prose size. At that point the article contained 12.559 words (78 kB) ([20]). Please also remember during the FA review no reviewer opposed the article's promotion, because of its prose size. Now the article contains only 11.535 words (92% of the former version) and it is only 73 kB. Why do you think that a shorter version of the article should be split if the longer version's size was accepted by all editors? Borsoka (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It was raised in passing during FAR. Since then the verbosity has increased as has the inclusion of information that although interesting is not directly relevent to the subject. Something that would probably be raised in review. WP:TOOBIG indicates that above 10k words an article should, in most cases, be split. This subject is wider than most but at nearly 12% above a suggested limit it must be something to consider. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

In passing. An article which is shorter by almost 10% could hardly be worse than the former version, especially because this version covers more topics (female involvement, fundraising, monarchy, economy). Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Mamluks and their place in Islamic Power structures

This was mentioned in a citation needed, immediately next to the citation for the information We are not here to present the history of crusades according to our understanding of history. If scholars who published their works on the crusades does not think that this information is relevant, we cannot mention it either as per WP:NOR. A 3rd opinion was already sought on this issue - do not ignore it.date=December 2019 It raises a few points:

• Due to editing nowhere in the article is the term Mamluk explained—this was raised at FAR and resolved with a longer version of the text in question.
• Same goes for their place in the Islamic power structures.
• These were predominantly Turks often working with other Turks, a work on the Turks would seem to be perfectly resonable source for this. I am not aware of any WP guidance that say sources can only come from books with the article's title in the books title.
• A third opinions was sought, but not on this subject. There was wider text on state formation which I accepted that in the interest of space could be removed. No mention of Mamluks or their place in Islamic society was touched on in that 3rd opinion.
• The third opinion did also suggest that Basorka and I cut down on the edit warring so I stepped back to let him complete his work. On completion (see above) I started to follow through on his suggestions e.g. fix a point in the lead, look at neutrality in the Monarchy section (even though he is the only editor to raise it as an issue) and undertake a copyedit. The moment I started this he began aggressively reverting edits without recourse to the Talk page.
• Whenever there is text that Basorka disagrees with he immediately accuses it of being original research or synthesis. This has never been the case, and is not the case now.
• Prawer is one of the leading sources for the Kingdom of Jerusalem and was suggested to me by a respected reviewer at FAR.
• More knowledgable reviewers with better comprehension of English have reviewed this article without any of these issues.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I sought for a dispute resolution on this issue. 1. Mamluk is wikilinked and it could be explained by two words. 2-3. Historians writing on the crusades do not mention this information. 4-5. This was the subject of the 3rd opinion. 6. When I said that something is original research or original synthesis I proved it. 7. Yes, Prawer is one of the leading sources for the Kingdom of Jerusalem. However, many statements from his book, written in the 70s, are criticized by historians in the 21st century. We cannot present his views as facts. 8. I proved that the article was a great mass of original research, original synthesis, PoV-pushing and copyvio. The last archive contains more details on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Two points:

• All parties to this conflict require clear background information in this article. Readers are not expected to click wikilinks in order to gain adequate context in a Featured Article.
• Per WP:WORLDVIEW, we must present a balanced picture when looked at from both the Christian and Islamic sides. That means equal weight in explaining to the reader who the protagonists are on both sides. That means explaining in a simple way the complex dynamics of Christian Western Europe (with power balanced between the local monarchs and the Holy See) and of the Islamic Eastern Mediterranean (with the various waves of Turkic-Mongol migration in their various forms being the most critical component for readers to understand).

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your 2nd 3rd opinion. Can you refer to reliable sources dedicated to the crusades that follow your above suggestion? Borsoka (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I have read many, but I will need to go get them.

In the meantime, can you refer to any high quality sources which do not provide this kind of context and balance?

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes: 1. Asbridge, Thomas (2012). The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-84983-688-3. 2. Hillenbrand, Carole (1999). The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-0630-6. 3. Jotischky, Andrew (2004). Crusading and the Crusader States. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-582-41851-6. 4. Lock, Peter (2006). The Routledge Companion to the Crusades. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-39312-4. 5. Tyerman, Christopher (2019). The World of the Crusades. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-21739-1. Borsoka (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

+Yes: 6. Barber, Malcolm (2012). The Crusader States. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11312-9. 7. Prawer, Joshua (2001) [1972]. The Crusaders' Kingdom. Phoenix Press. ISBN 978-1-84212-224-2. 8. Richard, Jean (2001) [1996]. The Crusades, c. 1071-c. 1291. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-62566-1.

@Onceinawhile: and @Norfolkbigfish: I listed above seven books, all dedicated to the crusades and written by specialists of the crusades' history, that do not mention the first Turkic migration and only introduce the Seljuk Turks when narrating the crusades. What is important according to leading historians of the crusades - the Seljuk conquest - is mentioned in the article. Can we conlude that the following sentences should be deleted: "Turkic migration into the Middle East began in the 9th century and Middle Eastern states used slave soldiers captured from the borderlands of Khurasan and Transoxania, transported to central Islamic lands, converted to Islam and given military training. These were known as ghulam or mamluks, in theory slaves have greater loyalty but within decades some rose progressivly to become rulers themselves—the Tulunids in Egypt and Syria (868–905) and the Ikhshidids who followed in Egypt (935–969)."? Of course, we can explain, by two words, that the Mamluks were slave soldiers when the term is first mentioned, because this information can easily be verified by specialized literature. Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, thank you for this. I have good news - I have gone to the library and have found the sources I was referring to. I will add these in. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

As promised I have added the eminent Peter Holt here [21], who gave this topic significant focus in the introduction to his specialist work "The Crusader States and Their Neighbours, 1098-1291". Onceinawhile (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I have done the same with a second source, from the first volume of Kenneth Setton's masterly History of the Crusades.

I hope that this allows everyone to move on from this particular impasse. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka—This is also subject to Dispute Resolution and the volunteer has been clear the edit warring must stop. So, No it is not agreed that this can, or indeed should, be deleted. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

1. Thank you. This was exactly what I requested: a specialized source verifying that the presentation of these facts is not our arbitrary decision. 2. Yes, I know that this is subject to dispute resolution, because it was initiated by myself (similarly to all dispute resolution processes). Consensual deletion, that I suggested, could hardly be described as edit warring. Since Onceinwhile solved the problem, we can withdraw the request. Borsoka (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka—No, the dispute also linked Prawer as a reputable source on the Monarchy, this still requires resolution. The dispute should remain until that is also reseolved. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which text is under dispute, but perhaps we can resolve this question if other sources can be found to underpin the statements attributed to Prawer? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course, the dispute on the neutrality of the Monarchy section should remain. I did not say the oposite. Borsoka (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced clause

@Norfolkbigfish: you deleted the following text from the article "Jesus preached peace and a heavenly realm". In the edit summary you claimed that the text is an "unsourced clause". The text verifying the clause is the following: "Christ in the New Testament presches peace and forgivness of enemies and a kingdom of heaven not of earth." (Tyerman, Christopher (2019). The World of the Crusades. Yale University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-300-21739-1.) Borsoka (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I won't revert (to avoid edit warring) and I won't push to dispute resolution because the Prawer dispute but the current and original versions of this text are clearly not neutral. The only primary source we have for this is the New Testament, Tyerman cannot vouch for this—which is why he phrased it the way he did. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You may not know that the text "Christ in the New Testament" from the above quote can be shortened as "Christ" in the article, but cannot summarized as "New Testament", because Christ is not the only actor in this part of the Bible. Have you heard of St Paul and his epistles or about the Revelations? The quote from Tyerman does not cover them, because he only refers to Christ. Borsoka (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop Edit-Warring !

Stop Edit-Warring! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Precision

@Borsoka: regarding this edit [22], it mixes terminology with historiography.

The question of “what do we mean by Crusades” is fundamental to this article and should be dealt with early on with precision. The current drafting in the terminology section is vague and fluffy, whereas the Constable divisions are precise and clear.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• However, the former version ([23]) repeats the same information twice. Borsoka (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the information is separate. One is about definitions, the other is about historiography. They are different.

The terminology section needs precision. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No, we are twice informed about Constable's categories, because both section define them. Borsoka (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Onceinawhile, and it is not the only place where historiography is mixed with other information. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

What a surprise! Would you refer to high level encyclopedias repeating the same information twice in the same article? Borsoka (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka: please could you propose something which might assuage both your concerns and mine? There must be a middle ground here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I made it clear: we do not need to present the same information twice. Borsoka (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Actually, I think the present version is good: we list Constable's categories in the proper section: "Historiography". He writes of historians. The "Terminology" section is clear. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

See my edit below; we currently have consensus here for the version with Constable in the Terminology section. I will wait some time in case other editors wish to comment. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

1. I suggested that we should not repeat the same information twice. 2. I stated that I think the present version is ok, but I did not say or imply I insist on this version. All editors are entitled to express their views. 3. There is no consensus, because I do not agree with you and I explained my reasons. You have not explained it - your only contribution to this debate has so far been that you made a highly unprofessional edit, repeating the same information in the same article. 4. None of us is entitled to introduce arbitrary rules relating to each other. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:CON: “Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity”. Two editors agree that Constable’s framework should be mentioned in the Terminology section. One opposes. We have consensus. As I said, we should wait to see if other editors wish to share views. If not, we will proceed with consensus. Please also read WP:STONEWALL. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

On the Turks

I'm starting a new section because I don't even know where this debate is happening.

This edit is clearly over the top. I do not have a strong opinion on the sentence in dispute, but an article on the Crusades with no other explanatory footnotes does not need two such paragraph-long footnotes quoting other sources just to make a point. It's obviously excessive. Srnec (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps not a paragraph, but certainly the Turks need to be properly represented as per WP:WORLDVIEW. A non-European view is under represented and is in danger of being edited out completely. Who were the Mamluks, how did they come to be key actors in Islamic politics and why? The original edit covered this in 2/3 sentences but was objected to because it came from a work on the history of the Turkish people rather than specifically the Crusades. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think Srnec's point is fair, and Norfolk’s compromise makes sense. I believe we have consensus to add a little more information into the main text, and to significantly cut down the footnotes. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: and @Norfolkbigfish:, I listed 7 books dedicated to the crusades, written by specialists. Most of them are cited in the article. None of them mention the first Turkish migration and the slave dynasties. Do you think the specialists who wrote those books did not want to present WP:WORLDVIEW? Borsoka (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There have been perhaps 500 scholarly books written in English on the crusades just in the last 25 years. Then there are the books written in French, German, Arabic, Turkish, Hungarian, etc.

Our job is to assess what is reasonable for a global encyclopedia. Unless you have the ability to provide a thorough assessment of the global scholarly picture, we can only rely on the consensus assessment of our policies.

Current consensus here favors having a balanced description of the protagonists on all sides.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you think the article does not use proper sources? All sources, but one that you introduced one or two days ago, ignore the pre-Seljuk Turks. The Seljuks were the crusaders' enemies, so we have to introduce them. And the article introduces them fully in line with its sources. I referred to reliable sources, you refer to your assumptions. We are not here to push our own views about certain subjects. Borsoka (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The consensus here is supported by multiple sources of the highest quality. If you cannot propose a reasonable compromise, we will agree one without you. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Again: do you suggest the sources cited in the article do not properly present scholarly views? Only one of the authors cited in the article dedicates some sentences to pre-Seljuk Turks. Borsoka (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Behavior

@Borsoka: having read the archives here, and witnessed your behavior over the last few days, I see an excessive level of aggression and bullying. You have edit warred your views into this article, you have ignored most attempts at compromise (repeating yourself rather than working to consider all sides), and you have made numerous aggressive comments.

To other editors here wishing to make headway in the face of this, I suggest the following:

• We focus on consensus. If only Borsoka objects but two or more editors support, we go with consensus
• If Borsoka attempts to override consensus, he will be reported for edit warring

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, based on your above message you should report me. Otherwise, I must assume you are an uncivil editor and I will report you. Sorry, but I am fed up with the WP:OWN mentality that dominates this article. Borsoka (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If you read WP:OWN, it is focused on individual editors. It is saying that individual editors cannot override consensus. This article, and all others, are owned by the wikipedia community. Your behavior has been in line with WP:OWN, since you appear to be willing to edit war against consensus.

My advice to you is to avoid alienating people with your aggressive behavior, as it makes your chances of getting other editors on your side quite slim.

My comments above stand, and I intend to implement them. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Again: if you do not take me to AN, I will take you there. You stated that you studied my behaviour and you are convinced that I am an aggressive, POV-pushing editor. If this is true, some proper sanction should be applied against me. If your statement is untrue, you should be sanctioned for serious personal attack. A third possibility that you admit you were wrong and strike your above personal attacks. You do not need to say sorry, because I am not angry. I have not and will not cooperate with PoV-pushers and I will always ready to prevent ignorant editors from spreading their baseless views in WP articles. I waged no edit war and it was me who sought community support during this lengthy debate. Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you convince Onceinwhile that his behaviour is uncivil and unacceptable. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)