Talk:Crusading movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removing Redirect

Content to follow. This is in reponse to discussions on the purpose of the Crusades article. Reluctant consensus was that article was on the subject of Crusades in the Levant and a seperate article on the Crusades/Crusading in general or as a paradigm was required. Naming was not considered important, but content was. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, at the moment there's a fair quantity of overlap[1]. On the assumption that you are going to further diverge the two articles in the very near future, I'll slap an {{under construction}} template on the article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hydronium Hydroxide, yes, your assumption is correct. I intend to further diverge the articles by:

• Excising more general ideology and content the is outside the time scale or geopgraphy of the Crusades scope
• Summarising the Milhist content on the Levantine Crusades in Crusading

It is worth noting that while there is a summary article for the Northern Crusades, there is no summary articel for the eastern Crusades to use a term that no one else does.

Liz—Thought I would answer here rather than on my Talk page. I honestly thought this subject had been done to death on Talk:Crusades, the GA, ACR and three failed FACs. It was my naivete to think so, so I didn't push it forward to RFC, in part to avoid repeating a rather circular argument. I am sure that Johnbod, as both a more experienced Wikipedian and someone with greater knowledge of the crusades can explain more articulately.

The subject is massive and opinions are diverse. From my viewpoint it is impossible to get Crusades through FA without:

• Tightly controling the scope (e.g. taking the Traditionalist view of the crusades;
• Taking a highly summary approach to the Milhist.

Both approaches have supporters and detractors. I don't believe these can be resolved in one article. This was discussed at length and this solution was the one that had broadest consensus. In answer to why now, I have been editing elsewhere and quite busy IRL so I just came back to this after letting the heat drop on the subject.

That said if there was a different consensus on a solution to this conumdrum I would be content to accept it. As it stands this looks to me the best option to resolve the challenge. I would welcome your opinion. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Bad title

What should a reader expect the difference to be between articles titled crusades and crusading? I have no idea. This article needs to be moved to a title that clearly indicates its distinct scope and the redirect from this title restored. An article at the title crusaders would be acceptable, but I am unsure what this article is supposed to be. Srnec (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

In answer to the last point, this article is intended to cover the broad nature of crusading: across geographies, across time periods & across definitions. In that it will free Crusades to be about the milhist in the Levant, the traditionalist perspective. I have no strong feelings on article titles. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Where and when was this decided? It's a huge change in scope at crusades. Srnec (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec and Norfolkbigfish: Hmmm, I can see both sides here. Forks are bad, but splitting may be helpful. Well, let's see how this shapes up over the next few days, if not, we can always revert to the old state. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Bare with me Piotrus, things are busy at my end so it might take longer than a few days. Will keep on it when I get the chance and keep you informed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, the page crusades does not look improved to me. This is a major change and needs discussion. I cannot see any consensus for this at the talk page. Srnec (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

GOCE request

An IP editor requested a WP:GOCE copy edit on this article so if in fact the request was made by a regular editor, you had best go there and update the submission. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, I've commented I'll support this as a regular editor. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

We need to settle on the purpose and title of this article. As it stands, it is a fork of crusades. Srnec (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Direction?

@Norfolkbigfish: This article still seems largely redundant to Crusades. If there is no consensus for the split as you envisaged it, what is the direction this article should go? Srnec (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Srnec—good question, thanks for asking. There are some good suggestions amongst the noise on the RFC on the Crusades Talk Page. I largely concur with Johnbod that the majority of British readers who search for Crusades are looking for articles on the traditionalist view, e.g. medieval crsusades aimed at recovering Jerusalem. I accept that in academic terms the subject exploded in the 20th century, largely under the influence of Riley-Smith to cover a wider time period/geography (I saw somewhere on the Internet a lecture he gave that discussed Crusading in the late 1870's!) and research now covers at a granular level an enormous range of niche topics. It is impossible for Crusades to cover all of this and provide an overview of the target of most searches. Dr. Grampinator suggested 19 further topics that could/should be included, but acknowledged that this may require a second article. I am beginning to collect content in this article to begin to address this, although I am at the moment working my way (slowly as usual, as Johnbod might point out) through summaries of the key crusade types before dropping into the more detail topics e.g. Traditionalist, Political, Reconquesta, Popular, Baltic before say Criticism, Chivalry, Woman etc. The name isn't ideal but just about works at the moment and I hope that other editors might be encouraged to support in content creation and maybe it will require splitting itself. When this article is, or articles are, stable it would act as a counterpoint to judge Crusades and the splitting question again. Afterall Onceinawhile has suggested on a number of occasions that we should decide on one of Constable's definitions for its scope and Gog the Mild who copy edited for GOCE is in favour of a split. I believe strongly that Crusades should be a FA but that it is impossible until this is addressed. Before I got involved, it was like a number of articles in the area a neglected C-Class article that had hung about for a decade or more. I am sure you (and would the others I have tagged in this reply) have a strong opinion on this which I would love to hear.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, thank you for this, and for your continued efforts to reach a positive conclusion. I agree that there should be two articles - one for the Jerusalem-focused crusades (A), and one for the wider topic of all types of crusades (B). Plus a disambiguation page (C). I think the way to resolve this is:

• (1) Confirm that we have consensus for two separate articles along these lines (I believe this is the case, but good to double check, and perhaps helpful to outline explicitly the scope of the two articles)
• (2) Hold a WP:RM process for the different naming options. Some naming options are:
  • (A) Crusades; (B) Crusading; (C) Crusades (disambiguation)
  • (A) Levantine Crusades; (B) Crusades; (C) Crusades (disambiguation)
  • (A) Holy Land Crusades; (B) Latin Crusades; (C) Crusades

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Since you asked... My strong opinion is that the Crusades article should be broad and not geographically restricted and that an article restricted to the Levant or Holy Land only makes sharp a distinction scholars leave fuzzy or ignore altogether. We need more articles on specific topics (as Grampinator suggested), not more broad articles. The main article should be a bare summary that points you to sub-articles like First Crusade and Military history of the Crusader states, where the real military history belongs. Note that our article on WWII is over twice as long as that on the Crusades and that on WWI is three times longer than the version of Crusades I reverted to. Srnec (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think that Onceinawhile suggestion above has merit. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, your wish is my command, sir. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crusades which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Duplication Tag

Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles covers this.

Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France; this does not make it a fork. Another example is where two articles cover the same topic, but are clearly directed at different audiences. In such cases, one of the articles will be prefixed by the text "Introduction to ...", for example General relativity and Introduction to general relativity. This article is distinct, it is aimed at a different audience than Crusades. That article should be about the traditionalist defined crusades. This article should be about the practice and actions of engaging in crusade, including ideology, theory, memorialisation etc. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Crusades" and "crusading" are not acceptable titles for conveying that distinction. I don't think there is a good title for this article as conceived, which is why I suggest just splitting it into individual topics. Srnec (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Crusading can be used interchangeably with Crusades if used in a grammatically correct way

Can Crusading be used interchangeably with Crusades if used in a grammatically correct way—Yes or No?

For example, the opening sentence of the lead is Crusading was a series of religious wars, sanctioned by the Latin Church, that began in the Middle Ages and continued to be fought in several subsequent centuries. A GOCE review has passed the grammar, Wikidictionary defines Crusading as the present participle of Crusade, no one would seriously deny the truth of the sentence and it is supported by multiple sources referring to the Crusades in the Crusading#Definition section.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand the question, but the lead is incomprehensible. Here is the lead sentence of this article, compared to Crusades:

Crusading was a series of religious wars, sanctioned by the Latin Church, that began in the Middle Ages and continued to be fought in several subsequent centuries.

The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and sometimes directed by the Latin Church in the medieval period.

Obviously, there is a difference, as explained by subsequent paragraphs, but this is a heck of a wild ride to get taken on by two articles that already have indistinguishably similar titles and are about largely the same things. Perhaps the difference should be explained to our dear, beloved readers? jp×g 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• JPxG, that is a fair point, and to differentiate the two I have removed the overlapping and contentious statement from this article. Would welcome your feedback as it currently stands. It is clearly not resolved yet. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish: what is the subject of this article according to your own understanding? Previously, you defined "Crusading" based on Tyerman's wide definition of the term crusades, now you provides a definition for "Crusading ideology" (sic) in the first sentence, but the article's scope is wider. Borsoka (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The scope? Crusading in its broadest possible definition. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• In this case, why did you define "Crusading ideology" in the first sentence? MOS:FIRST says "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." If the first sentence defines "crusading ideology", a nonspecialist reader would hardly expect lengthy sections about military campaigns (about 50% of the article) or financing. Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• If crusading and crusades can be used interchangeably why do we need two separate articles? Borsoka (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, so why do we need two separate articles? Srnec (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Norfolkbigfish: Why do we need two separate articles? Srnec (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • It is not a question of whether it needs two articles, more a case it needs more than one, Onceinawhile discusses this above. I agree with Johnbod that WP:COMMONNAME means that the Crusades article is largely about those in the Levant or at least the numbered crusades from 1095 to the mid-thirteenth century, their aftermath and ramifications. This article, Crusading is probably a more coherent article on the entire phenomenon because it can give equal weight and avoid WP:UNDUE across geographies and the wider timescale, say 1095 until 1798. I have tried and failed to get Crusades to WP:FA more than once and each time it has largely failed because of this root cause. I respect that you have a different view, Srnec Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Edited for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: thank you for your continued efforts here. Getting consensus on such major topics is one of Wikipedia's biggest challenges; in these major articles our structures often end up favoring a messy and confusing status quo because no-one can agree on a way forward, even if all of the forward options would be better than the status quo. Another editor and I have been trying for years to fix the fact that the History of Israel and History of Palestine articles have 90%+ overlap, but it has lain unresolved because no-one can agree on the name of a merged article.

Personally I find Crusades vs Crusading too confusing. I would still recommend the RFC on the names of the various articles as the right next step from here. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, thank you for your supportive words. Personally, I agree with you on the names being confusing, but like you I suspect that consensus is difficult, if not impossible. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish: I am confused because you made two contradictory statements above (without verifying any of them): 1. the terms "crusading" and "crusades" can be used interchangeably; 2. the term crusades is largely about those in the Levant. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• No (& a usage suggestion) - Crusading refers to the practice/actions of engaging in the crusades by the players involved; it does not refer directly to the crusades themselves. To avoid a circular definition in the lede, then, the lede sentence should perhaps say something like "Crusading was the practice among medeival Western European powers under the dominion of the Latin church of engaging in church-sponsored religious wars in the East, mostly against Muslims, but sometimes against Eastern Christians as well, with the objective of establishing satellite 'crusader states' in the Near East (centred on Jerusalem) and Eastern Europe (Constantinople)." (but use a definition that you deem best; this example was only to show how the word 'crusading' ought to be used grammatically). Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• No, there is a second meaning and grammar matters - The term more widely is used for a second meaning of any effort one has great zeal and enthusiasm about, per cambridge or m-w. But even in regards to the usage of historical events or to wars with Papal approval, I agree with FireJuggler that the grammatical form means practices and actions and add that includes it does not exclusively refer to the wars commonly known as "the" Crusades. The added bits for "Crusading" would include the Northern Crusades -- Prussian Crusade, Wendish Crusade, and the Teutonic Order actions outside of the Near East. Or it could include north African adventures such as the Barbary Crusade. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Markbassett, Firejuggler86—Is the conclusion here that Crusading refers to the practice/actions of engaging in the crusades? This is Crusades in it's widest possible historical definition (e.g. including the Northern Crusades -- Prussian Crusade, Wendish Crusade, and the Teutonic Order actions outside of the Near East. Or it could include north African adventures such as the Barbary Crusade).

The disambig question regarding the zealous effort definition and the confusion regarding Crusading as a title when considered alongside the Crusades article itself remain unresolved and possibly unresolvable. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, I think the most common use of “crusading” is the generic use of vigorously campaigning on a social or political issue.

I do think we should resolve the question of the names of two articles, one focused on the Palestinian Crusades and the other the wider crusades. I am a big fan of focusing on the Giles Constable split as the most widely respected drawing of lines. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: could you refer to reliable sources defining the term "crusading"? I think you could close this RfC now, because I understand you do not think any more that the terms "crusades" and "crusading" can be used interchangeably. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

[2] or [3] Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This article should be split into sub-articles, such as Financing the crusades, Criticism of crusading, Women in the crusades, Preaching the crusades, Crusades in Italy, etc. I would be willing to help, although I have no library access at the moment. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: thank you for the references, although the first referred source is not a reliable source, the second is a dictionary not cited in the article. What is clear the article does not reflect its title. As always I am also willing to help and I have direct access to plenty of books about the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Borsoka:, thank you and I appreciate that. I also think that ironically considering our history our editing styles are more complementary than at first it may seem. I also agree the name of this article is confusing, the question is what to do about it. By way of explanation I got here after taking on the challenge over the years of getting Crusades to FA. That article was C-Class when I started and dominated by the traditionalist crusades to recover the Holy Land but had the wider definitions tacked on. GA and ACR was achieved but FAC has failed three times. The issue in my opinion is of bredth, scope and equal weight. No serious academic attempts these days to define what the term means and Runciman's admired broad sweep is out of fashion. Constables 4 definitions that appeal to Onceinawhile are a useful tool to discuss this but historians cannot agree which historian is working in which definition and sometimes switch between categories. The interesting research is largely now at a detail level such as architecture or on broader topics such as memorialisation. I am very busy IRL at the moment which prevents me pushing it further quickly but the next steps in my view should be:

• Run a rename process on Crusades to something like Crusades in the East, Crusades in the Levant or Crusades for Jerusalem. On this I don't really have strong opinions.
• Run a move process and move this article to Crusades
• Ensure the disambig page reflects these moves
• Edit the existing Crusades article to reduce bredth and increase depth
• Edit this article to increase bredth of content
• Then, and only then, consider Srnec splitting suggestion via the WP process.

The RFC is already closed btw Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: I think all six of your suggestions are bad. There is no point moving the Crusades article that has been there forever. And supplanting it with this one, which began as a copy, is even worse. We should not completely revamp our article structure simply because it failed at FA. And why would we want greater depth at the crusades article? We have articles on all the individual crusades and major battles. We have articles on the crusader states, the major (and minor) actors and a general military history article. Why would the main article need greater depth? I do not understand the focus on creating new intervening levels of coverage (e.g. Crusades in the East) when there are whole topic areas that are barely covered (e.g. redlinks I provided above). In my opinion, no article is needed between our top-level article (Crusades) and the next level down (First Crusade, Reconquista). Srnec (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I mostly share Srnec's views. The sole exception is the creation of a broader article about the "Levantine/Traditionalist Crusades": I would not oppose it if other editors insist on its existence. Borsoka (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Srnec:—I don't think I have expressed myself in a way you can understand my intention. This is closer to @Borsoka:'s point above—there is no article dedicated to "Levantine/Traditionalist Crusades". This means that Crusades falls between two scopes: that of the traditionalist crusades and that of the crusades and crusading in general. The Crusades article could then become a broader summary article of the entire subject, perhaps leading to the creation of the additional articles you suggest. It is not about FA, it is about the fact WP coverage of the entire area is a moribund mess. I am surprised you can't see that. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

First, I do not think we need an article dedicated to "Levantine/Traditionalist Crusades". I think it would be a weird article. Would it include the Tunis Crusade? The Fourth Crusade? The latter was in fact both a traditional crusade that landed troops in the Holy Land and an intra-Christian war mainly fought in Europe. The former was a traditional crusade that got no closer to the Holy Land than the crusades against Frederick II. This traditionalist/generalist distinction is being pressed too hard. In fact, I think everybody is a generalist now. Can you find a general history of the Crusades that is exclusively traditionalist in scope published in the last few decades? As I have said before, our approach in Crusades mirror Tyerman's approach in God's War.
And I am surprised you see it as a moribund mess. We are clearly far apart. Perhaps you can explain what is 'moribund' about it. Just looking at my history, since the beginning of 2020 I have created Guy II Embriaco, Latin Diocese of Tortosa in Syria, Directorium ad faciendum passagium transmarinum, Paul of Segni, Annales de Terre Sainte, Wetheman, History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick, Mongol incursions in the Holy Roman Empire, Siege of Safed (1266), Abu Shama, Siege of Edessa (1146), Crusade of 1129, Estoire d'Eracles and Crusade of 1267. And that's just a selection of my creations. Dr. Grampinator has also been quite active. Likewise, you and Borsoka have been arguing and editing at several articles. I would not call this moribund, but perhaps I am missing your meaning. Srnec (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, I think Onceinawhile is close to my thinking, though I may have minor adds or differences Yes, “Crusading” primarily refers to a zealous pursuit with a moral or emotional framing in both the traditional eight Crusades and in modern times. That usage is referring to behaviours, attitudes, and actions of the eight Crusades outside of the actual combat or literal Papal sanction. And yes, I consider Giles Constable to have a widely and deeply respected position that should be given weight, and note his title ‘Crusaders and Crusading’ shows a division between event, participant, and actions. But I would not say that his is a definitive or final view so there should be mention of other views.

As to the point of FireJuggler that grammatical form “Crusading” meaning the practices and actions associated to crusades, I am thinking these would be items not part of literal military events in those eight Crusades. This would be both towards the social context and forces of movements; and towards the mechanisms and actions of the religiously declared wars. The first seems pressures to ‘do something’ religious fervor shown in the Crusading Age by such as the unsanctioned Popular crusades and Crusade of 1101. The mechanisms/actions seems a variety of any non-military things in the Crusading Age even down to local traditions, which would include the evolving nature of doctrine for Papal bulls with Just war, the Indulgences, the expression in personal vows and structure of militant orders, community support/pressure, political aspects, etcetera. e.g. here, [link to blacklisted site removed], here, here, here, etcetera. I suppose the simplest view is that the grammar matters — Googling “Crusading” gives things such as a pilgrimage/penitence and activities of institutionalising that differ from “Crusade”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would "crusading" not refer to actually fighting in a crusade? Srnec (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Srnec It’s the grammar and entymology. Just as using the word Crusade would refer to a distinct event, a specific campaign associated to moral fervor with geography and dates and not a description of fighting, using the verb or adjective form changes the emphasis towards the enthusiasms and the ideology aspects, and is speaking of things associated to the Crusades. Speaking of a crusading committee means different things than a fighting committee, for example. The “ing” in Crusading orders and Crusading practices and Crusading ideology and so forth are clearly talking of something associated with the Crusades, by wording, and “associated” implies a separate aspect. That “ing” makes it just not a great wording choice for talking about the fighting. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Markbassett: for a well reasoned response, pretty much makes sense to me. If you had the time to contribute to Talk:Crusades#Requested_move_13_March_2021, similar level headedness would be constructive. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Overall summary (to date)

The hard won consensus was that the scope of Crusades is the historical/traditional definition of crusading e.g. A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. Secondly, this leaves scope for a second article that covers all the definition and definitions. Thirdly, both articles need work and possibly splitting to make this differentiation clear. This RFC is part of the third agreement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I still think that we need links that show where these previous consensus where concluded. Usually when there is a consensus, we can find a summary. I would like to recall that votes are not always the most important when decisions are finally taken. One has to consider the quality of the discussions. In other words, the consensus must be real, based on a good shared understanding. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe that all these votes are meaningful given that they were expressed in a context where, clearly, there was a lot of confusion regarding scope and the previous so called consensus. My opinion now is that this Rfc about naming should be cancelled and done again later, if needed, after the two articles have been rewritten to comply with these previous consensus and the banner about duplication removed with consensus. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Dominic. I have opened a new, very specific RFC at Talk:Crusades to clarify the consensus. Srnec (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether editors were confused when voting or not is a question that really only the editor themself can answer. The assumption must always be they knew what they were voting on, and that should be respected. The RFC is still open and active, should any editor change their mind or consider their vote was based on a confused understanding of the question that the long debate above has now clarified they can, and indeed should, change their vote. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's discussions to achieve a genuine consensus, not voting that matters. It is simply not based on voting. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point, well made Dominic Mayers II. The challenge on this subject is where consensus lies. Honestly, I don't know Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

As already mentioned (somewhere), if it's discussions you want, we've got 'em! Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is an idea, why not merge the two articles into a general article on all crusades without necessarily naming it "Crusades", because we want to separate the scope issue from the title issue: let's focus on one issue at a time, starting by scope. Names can be changed later. In this merging, some content will perhaps be too detailed about some specific crusades and that's fine, because these details can be put into more specific article. In this manner, we will all work with a same goal of having one article about all crusades. If the issue is that some people think that the term Crusades should not be generalized to all kind of holy wars, then the solution can only be that those people start to be more flexible, because clearly this term is used in this general manner in the literature. (This is not a superficial point, because when we put together different kind of crusades, an implicit statement is made, but the fact is that it is done in the literature.) In the exact same way, if the issue is that some people think that the term Crusades cannot be used for the specific crusades for the Holy Land, then the solution can only be that those people start to be more flexible, because clearly this term is used in this more specific manner in the literature. "Crusades" can be used for these specific crusades. It does not break any Wikipedia rules. The term "Crusades (Holy wars)" that generalizes to all holy wars seems excellent. There is no need to make a formal merge, because we can use any of the two articles as a starting point. We should pick the one that has less resistance to change. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers II—I think you may have missed the point a little, and with all these threads that is unsurprising. There is no one who rejects the idea of an article that covers the crusades in its absolute widest sense e.g. to use Constable for hopefully the last time to include the traditionalist, pluralist, popularist and generalist definitions. In this way the question of definition is avoided as modern historians tend to do. The current Crusades does not do this, and the debate is about how this should be done. A problem is that there is no summary article for the crusades with a objective of the recovery of Jerusalem which for non-specialists tends to be WP:COMMONNAME. So currently Crusades acts as a summary article for crusading in the East, but has a random collection of wider factoids added to cover post 1291 and crusades in Europe. Consensus is that there is room for two articles (Crusades for the Holy Land and All Crusades]] but breaks down when the discussion moves onto how to achieve this. In part this is because WP is dominated by narrative histories but in this area weak on analysis. Modern historians of the crusades largely deal with micro-histories rather than the broad sweep of the likes of Runciman (unless they have a book to sell). Narrative history only forms a minor part in this because while crusading was culturally normative in Medieval and Early Moderm Europe the actual warfare was only undertaken by a minority and in truth for limited periods. The is why Crusades (Holy wars) doesn't make a good title because the majority of the content of the single article should be about the instituitions of crusading, not the fighting. So the Crusades for the Holy Land article looks very similar to Crusades and the general article looks similar to Crusading, but both need work. Then you just get into the debate on names, personally I don't know the answer (but I am increasingly coming round to the idea of just swapping them). That said I love your idea of a collaborative approach to gaining consensus. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not easy to figure out what are everyone intentions and objections (in terms of contents or naming) in this discussion. However, I never said that anyone objected to a general article. I said that people might be objecting that we use "crusades" to refer to this general context, say by referring to WP:COMMONNAME. I was asking that we get flexible regarding any issue that people might have regarding terminology so that we can focus on issues about actual content and scope instead, because they are more important. I did not go into these issues, because it is better to simply move ahead and focus on writing a global article and address the issues in concrete situations. I was confident that nobody will object to writing a global article and, of course, I was aware that there will be issues. The main suggestion was, as you understood, that we focus on writing together an article that cover all "crusades". Regarding issues ab0ut content and scope, since you mention them, I see a possible issue not so much in terms of "narrative history" versus "institutions" of crusades, but in terms of generalities that put all crusades at the same level vs more specific analyses that emphasize differences. In putting all crusades together, there can be an implicit statement that is made. In fact, if that does not rise an issue at all, then I am concerned. But again, let address these issues while facing specific situations in the writing of the article. I doubt that anyone would object to cover the "institutions" aspect. How could someone object to that? In particular, I don't see this in the way the Crusades article is currently written. The devil is in the details. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Broadly agree, but the practical question remains—where does the general article get edited, and where does the specific Jerusalem article e.g. Crusades or Crusading? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I already proposed a criteria to answer the first question: the article "that has less resistance to change". At the end, it will be the article that we write together. We can take more time discussing that question than it will take to make the necessary modifications to any of the two articles. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not clear that we know the path of least resistance, Dominic Mayers II? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish, Dominic Mayers II, Srnec, and Johnbod: I have now given a proper close to the RfC. I don't have too much comments beyond that, except noting that some parts of the article could be further developed (for example, if this also covers the middle-eastern crusades, the technological and economical legacies of these should be covered; as well as the political consequences of their ultimate failure). As to the article title, I note that using a gerund such as "Crusading" is a very strange way to name an article, and strikes me as not a particularly recognisable or natural option - and it also appears to bring some confusion about the scope. Again, hoping my input helps you improve this to a more satisfying level. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC - what should this article be called?

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

---

Following from the debates at Talk:Crusades#Requested_move_13_March_2021 and Talk:Crusading#RFC:_Crusading_can_be_used_interchangeably_with_Crusades_if_used_in_a_grammatically_correct_way the question remains what is a suitable name for this article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Answers in the vote section;comments in the threaded discussion please.

Votes which address the question

• Medieval Christian crusades. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Crusades. Crusades (Holy wars). Reliable sources on the subject write of crusades, including Northern Crusades ([4]), Baltic Crusades ([5]), Italian Crusades ([6]), Later Crusades ([7], [8]), Albigensian Crusade ([9]). Adopting a different term for this type of Christian holy wars would represent an original approach. Borsoka (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Crusading. No change. Keep at current title. In the absence of a convincing alternative title, I think leaving it where it is is fine. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Crusading, happy to go with Novem Linguae, I think nomenclature is of secondary importance. Sorry, Johnbod but Medieval doesn't work for me as I see this article spanning the Early modern period through such topics as Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Crusader institutions in Europe. This suggestion is based on Norfolkbigfish's comment below on what he envisions this article being: "it is about the development of the traditions, ideology, instituitions, taxes, rhetoric, historiography, emotions, literature, liturgy, religious communities, practice, aspriations and ideals, propaganda and ideology, cultural differences, identity." By 'institution', I mean institution (in the sociological sense[s]). I believe the current title should redirect to Crusades. That article already points readers to articles on the non-'Levantine' crusades. More articles on specific expeditions and theatre could be written, but no higher-level article is needed beyond the one we've got. As currently structured, it does the job. I still believe this article would be better split, but I am suggesting an acceptable title for the idea of this article so that we can move on. Srnec (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Crusades (Holy wars). This is based on the assumption that the article named "Crusades" actually covers the narrower subject of the Levantine Crusades with some pointers toward other crusades. My logic is that articles on the subject should be organized in terms of crusades, their location and time, and that "higher level" notions such as emotions, literature, etc. are a natural part of any article that is globally about all crusades (and also of articles that are about specific crusades). There cannot be two articles that are globally about all crusades. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Crusading There shouldn't be a change of title.Sea Ane (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Crusading. No change. That another article hypothetically may be rewording or altering its scope just doesn’t affect this one - this can be re-examined if something actual happens there. I still hold that the grammar of “ing” being verb and adjective leans to a different meaning. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Crusades (Holy wars). if this article shouldn't be deleted in the first place. This RFC should be officially closed, the uninvolved closer should take into account the canvassing seen [10].-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Crusading. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

@Randy Kryn, Srnec, Borsoka, Gog the Mild, Walrasiad, Novem Linguae, Johnbod, Necrothesp, Markbassett, Wretchskull, Onceinawhile, and Dr. Grampinator:—you all braved some of the fractious (mis}behaviour this subject provokes to express an opinion on this topic. So I was hoping you might risk putting your head into the mouth of the lion of pedantry again to help move this to resolution. As a reminder consensus to date has been that Crusades remains the main article, concentrating on the crusades in the 11th, 12th and 13th century to recover Jerusalem as WP:COMMONNAME should apply (although with pointers to the wider definition). There was also a majority view that a second, this, article was warranted to cover the wider topic. Several editors pointed out that the use of Crusading as a name is confusing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot): I don't think this is a well-formed RFC? You should probably leave out the RFC, start an informal discussion, gather the options, and then start a proper RFC. --MarioGom (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe MarioGom, but there have been many informal discussions in this area without consensus. It probably needs the wider audience that the RFC gives it. If you have suggestions on how better to frame this please let us have them. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the framing of the question is correct. But not having the most common options available when the RFC begins can be problematic, specially if this is controversial. The involved editors (the ones you pinged, I assume) could propose their options, and then an RFC started with all of them. In any case, I came here because an automated feedback request, and I lack the context of previous discussions. MarioGom (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Summoned by the bot. This is a poorly structured RFC. While an RFC can bring in a larger audience and further comment, poorly structured RFC's tend to get comments about how the RFC is poorly structured. Also you can't really get a consensus canvasing participants. Are these just the participants in your opinion that didn't misbehave or are the the one you think will most likely support you?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This is all participants from the earlier debates, or at least that was the aim as somme may have been missed—it has been a long debate, Serialjoepsycho. As such some agree, some don't and some have provoked others. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That is certainly interesting since all of them haven't even been on this page. Others have been on this page only to to respond to RFC's but they responded positively to you. That along with the fact your message is not neutral. WP:CANVASS -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a long running debate that began on the Crusades talk page. The Intro alludes to that, particularly Talk:Crusades#Requested_move_13_March_2021. Some may well have come to this page in response to earlier RFCs but none have not contributed todate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's great... And still doesn't justify canvassing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is the enWP. In English, the Crusades is the common name for the military expeditions organized by the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe to conquer and then maintain Jerusalem and the adjacent territories, seen as a religious obligation. But there are two problems: First, it was then extended to other similar Christian organized military movements against heretics, sovereigns not supporting the Papacy, and the like , such as the Albigensian Crusade. Second, the term has of course spread to mean any organized movement against anything which is proposed to be a moral imperative. And the use in this sense continued long after 1870--as in Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe about WW II. Frankly, I'm not sure how to make this clear, and the best I can suggest is to use it for the original meaning, with an explanatory hatnote. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• What is the difference between the crusades and medieval Christian crusades? Were there Muslim or Buddhist crusades? Could we create an article about edible tomatoes or large elephants? Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Just the votes should be here, really. As established elsewhere, the consensus is that "the Crusades" are the middle eastern ones. There is talk above of crusades as late as the 1870s, and you yourself have pressed for wider meanings covering modern political "crusades" - those are the inedible tomatoes. So it's all your fault really. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand you do not want to anwer a simple question, but otherwise I do not understand your above remark. Could you refer to "my press" for wider meanings covering modern political crusades? Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

At the other debate, only a day or two ago, when you were going on about dictionary definitions. You answered your own question there. And see DGG just above. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot refer to a single statement of mine proving that I pressed for wider meanings covering modern political crusades. I have always suggested that the crusades (including Northern Crusades, the Albigensian Crusade, the Italian Crusades, etc.) should be presented in the article about the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not expert on the subject, but I did my little research. The situation that I see is that the term "crusades" is very often used in the literature to mean the crusades in the holy land, but scholars also often use crusades in a larger context that includes Baltic crusades, etc. We have to make an arbitrary choice, because the literature equally supports both choices. But, there is another issue to consider, which is not about naming, but about the scope of articles. This issue is not raised by the Rfc, but it is more important in my opinion and addressing it might help to solve the naming issue. Regarding the scope issue, I remark that there is another article in Wikipedia that considers crusades in a large context: List of Crusades to Europe and the Holy Land. I also see that the article Crusades is itself an article that refers to many crusades, even crusades beyond the Holy land. This gives us three articles that cover crusades in general. A natural organization would be to have only one article, not two or three, that covers the Christian crusades in general in a large context and this article would be brief about each individual crusade or aspect (e.g. women in crusades) and refer to other articles for more details. It could be hierarchical i.e., there could be one article about the many crusades in the Holy land, which would refer to specific articles such as Sixth Crusade (just an example) for more details. I understand that I am suggesting a lot of reorganization, but I have been summoned to give my opinion. I think there is a lot of duplication and some consolidation would be useful and help to address the naming issue. Also, the article Crusading gives undue weight to the issue of the definition of "Crusades". I understand that it is a real issue, even discussed in the literature, for example we have a lengthy opinion on this issue in [11], but it is still just a simple issue of terminology. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

As the start says, this is one round in a rather endless discussion of just these questions (mostly but not exclusively at Talk:Crusades). This has at least reached some consensus (after many editors commenting) that a) the subject is too biig for just one article, and b) Crusades should go to the medieval Levantine crusades. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to a request for comment that I had just received a few minutes ago. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

But what do you mean by "the subject is too big for just one article". Of course, it is clear that different crusades can be the subject of different articles, but I hope that you do not mean that there should be many articles that cover crusades in general. This would be a duplication and an encouragement for a non neutral point of view in each article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

---

If articles about Jewish history, the History of Christianity or the History of China exist, I cannot imagine that an article covering all crusades (including Northern Crusades, Italian Crusades, ...) would be too long. If we did not present all details of each individual crusade, the problem would be solved. Could you refer to the consensus about the article's size you mentioned above? Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

---

(continuing...) If you meant that some crusades are too much unrelated, to be covered in a single article, then it can make sense. Indeed, it is better to have a precise subject. An article should not be a list or a repository of loosely associated topics. In fact, combining together historical events only because they have one thing in common can be detrimental to the integrity of the individual subjects. A key point, though, is that this other interpretation is not and should not be calling for duplication. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Among the historians cited in the article, Hindley, Jaspert, Jotischky, Lock, Nicholson and Tyerman present all crusades (including, for instance, the Baltic Crusades and the anti-Ottoman Crusades) in their works about the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Which is why we need this article. But what do we call it? Other than Crusades. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, you do not think that size is a problem any more. How scholars call the crusades according to your experiences? Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Not for the first time, you do misunderstand my position, & I still think an all-in-one article would be too big. The other main crusades have their own articles, and the Levantine ones should have their own group one. As often discussed, it depends which scholars, and we also need to accomodate the understanding of terms of the general reader, as the previous discussion reflected. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand how do you want to present the crusades. Do you suggest that only the non-Levantine crusades should be presented in this article? Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Your over-active imaguination again! What have I said to suggest that. There is a need for an article to address the whole concept of "crusading" and this should be it. At the moment it also contains potted historical narratives of the events of all the various crusades, & I can live with that, although I think some are too long and rather too narrative, tending to overwhelm the topical aspects, which could do with some expansion. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC).

Pretty much bang on Johnbod. It needs the narratives pruned and the topical aspects expanded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This is what I have been saying for months. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

As an option, how about Post-13th century crusades, with a good size introduction summarizing the previous crusades as well as merging some of the better material about those crusades to Crusades. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Northern Crusades started in 1147, the Albigensian Crusade was fought in the first half of the 13th century, ...etc. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

What should this article be called?

All very interesting, but both off topic and beside the point. The RFC asks what should this article be called? The reason for this is that consensus was reached at Crusades that two articles should exist. One for the original definition of the Crusades e.g. 11th to 13th century with the objective of Jerusalem following WP:COMMONNAME and another broader all encompassing one. This article is about what the crusades of the first definition inspired. It is about the development of the traditions, ideology, instituitions, taxes, rhetoric, historiography, emotions, literature, liturgy, religious communities, practice, aspriations and ideals, propaganda and ideology, cultural differences, identity. It is not another narrative MILHIST article of battles, dates and personalities. It would swamp Crusades if added there and make that article unreadable to the lay reader. It will certainly grow if better known, and certainly at that point could be split while proving to be a useful sign-post to the myriad of articles that could exist, or do exist. Despite what some on this thread claim there is NO definition of the crusades that modern historians agree on. They disagree greatly when the topic is discussed, but predominently ignore definition in their work. Articles need scope and this is more in the realm of the Religion and Philosophy project than the MILHIST/Crusades ones. If resolution of this RFC is to happen focus must be on what this article is about and called. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not only interesting, but also relevant. I assume a lay reader could hardly understand why 12th-century and 13th-century crusades are presented in an article titled Post-13th century crusades. Yes, there is no definition of the crusades that modern historians agree on, but most authors cited in this article and in the Crusades article accept a wide definition (they are listed above). I assume a lay reader does not expect that WP-editors adopt their own approach when presenting a subject referring to scholarly works. Do you propose that this article should not be dedicated to "all examples of Christian Holy War" as it was suggested in the previous RfC? Borsoka (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Assuming, but it might be a wrong assumption, that there is a consensus on the following organization of the content: Crusades (Holy Land), Other Crusades to Europe + an article List of Crusades to Europe and the Holy Land, here are suggestions of names:

• L: List of Crusades to Europe and the Holy Land, A: Crusades (Holy Land), B: Crusades to Europe.
• L: List of Crusades to the Holy Land and beyond, A: Crusades (Holy Land), B: Crusades beyond the Holy Land

In the name A, it is also acceptable not to put Holy Land in parenthesis. However, I am not convinced that there is a consensus on this organization of the scope of each article. If the article B, only refers briefly to A, there would be no duplication and it seems fine. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

My principal concern is that most authors cited in the articles Crusades and Crusading present the Levantine Crusades, Northern Crusades, Albigensian Crusade, Italian Crusades, etc. together. They quite obviously adopted this approach because a full picture cannot be provided if the "Crusades (Holy Land)" and "Crusades (Europe)" are separated. For the time being, we have an article about the Levantine Crusades, but we also need a summarizing article. Borsoka (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that having an article "Crusades" that refers to the Crusades to the Holy Land only is by itself a point of view. If that is the case, perhaps the opposite point of view, if it is well sourced, can be included in the article "Crusades" as a way to introduce the other article, but it should not be a terminological issue only, because the important terminological issues are those that correspond to very different perspectives. For example, in Physics, QM and CM have different terminologies, different languages, but it is not superficial. Currently, I admit that I am lost to why there can not be a separate article on the Crusades (Holy Land) and another article that covers other crusades. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka, the two names you used here might be good candidates for article names. A: Crusades (Holy Land) and B: Crusades (Europe). –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

When we say "Levantine Crusades" are we still within Europe, at the least in some conventional meaning of Europe? Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I find myself partially agreeing with Borsoka in that the Geographic split makes no sense. What we have currently with the Crusades is an article that largely reflects, and should reflect, the OED first definition 1. a. Historical. A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. It also has the advantage of being WP:COMMONNAME. Where he is incorrect is to write most authors cited in this article and in the Crusades article accept a wide definition, most of the authors largely ignore precise definition entirely and it should be noted that most of the works cited are for a popular rather than academic audience. I also agree with him in that there should be an overarching article for the crusades. At the very least to expand on the OED's second definition: b. transferred. Any war instigated and blessed by the Church for alleged religious ends, a ‘holy war’; applied esp. to expeditions undertaken under papal sanction against infidels or heretics.. Although that definition clearly excludes the so called popular crusades. However, I think it is this article which why the question remains what should this article be called? As for what it is about I still maintain ....what the crusades of the first definition inspired. It is about the development of the traditions, ideology, instituitions, taxes, rhetoric, historiography, emotions, literature, liturgy, religious communities, practice, aspriations and ideals, propaganda and ideology, cultural differences, identity. It is not another narrative MILHIST article of battles, dates and personalities. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Are we suggesting here that the two articles are not mainly different in terms of geography or specific crusades, but more in terms of perspectives and purposes and that, in that sense, excluding the crusades to recover the Holy Land from the other article makes no sense? So, the names could be A: Crusades (Holy Land), B: Crusades (Pluralist view). This suggestion of names is not an endorsement that this kind of separation is acceptable in Wikipedia. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not 100% certain what you mean by this Dominic Mayers II? I see the Crusades as matching the OED definition 1a and the consensus was that article's name should stand. This article I see as covering the whole paradigm of crusading at a high level but not the MILHIST. Does that answer your question? For example I would see the part played by Eschatology included here, but not Bohemond I of Antioch's part in the Siege of Antioch Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It does answer my question. I went to look again at Crusades and it does not appear to me that there is an intention in this article to respect the OED definition. It covers the Levantine Crusades, Crusades in Europe in general and it discusses much more than MILHIST. So, are we talking about our view of what Crusades should become or about what it is now. If it is the latter, I am lost, because it is not what I see. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It is the former, that article was never free to match the OED because of debates like this one, and the fact that there was no alternative article. That said it is now predominately matching the OED 1a definition with additional material tacked on, albeit at a greatly reduced level of detail. Over time much of the MILHIST was edited out and should probably be restored. This debate started after three failed FAC attempts, these largely failed because the scope was too wide to accomodate the necessary detail.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, it makes more sense, but there is still something that I don't understand. It seems to me that the crusades themselves (and the areas and times where they occurred) are the most natural way to organize the different articles. It is simple and every one can understand that. In contrast, an article being "high level" versus being I am not sure what, let us say "low level", does not seem a natural way to organize articles. Who is actually saying that his subject is the "low level" view on crusades? It is not totally impossible. For example, there is some kind of agreement that Classical Mechanics in Physics is at a lower level than Quantum Mechanics, but how a similar situation can be possible in the case of articles on crusades is not clear to me. This was my motivation to go back to the article Crusades and I could not see in which way it was "low level". My first impression is that the notion of "high level" is too vague, too large. I have no issue with an article on the place of woman in crusades in general, because it is precise. It is important to have a precise subject. This makes it very easy to pick a name and to avoid useless duplication or conflict with other articles. This being said, I could be wrong and we have actually a situation here similar to the Classical Mechanical view versus the Quantum Mechanical view in Physics. But, I would need to clearly hear a consensus on this. If there is a consensus, which of course would have to reflect the situation in the literature, then why not. In any case, if we clarify and make more precise what is meant my "high level", then a name might naturally pop up. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

What about "Crusades" for the Levantine/traditionalist crusades (with an emphasis on military actions) and "Crusades (Holy Wars)" for the general topic of crusading (with an emphasis on the common features of this type of holy wars)? Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks good to me, except that I do not see why there should be a forced emphasis on military actions. Basically, I agree with the idea of only one article that cover crusades in general. The crusades to establish states in the Levant are a narrower subject. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Those comments are not about what *this* article should be called. Talk about splitting up Crusades article or making new articles Crusades (Traditional), Crusades (Northern), Crusades (Popular), etcetera — should be done at Crusades. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no. They are not directly about how *this* article should be called, but addressing this question without also addressing the more fundamental question of how to organize the subject in general in Wikipedia is pointless. Unless we start to address the fundamental issues, which must go way beyond the name of a single article, this discussion will continue for ever. Naming, certainly in this case, depends so much on fundamental considerations, scope, etc. that go beyond a single article. An Rfc restricted at the name of a single article, without considering the scope of the different articles, just makes no sense. And, doing it here or in the Crusades article's talk page is not so important. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If latecomers keep trying to reopen issues already (and recently) decided in an even bigger debate, then this discussion will continue for ever. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Where was it discussed that there should be two articles on the general subject of crusades, one more about high principles (ideology, emotion, architecture, etc.) and another more about MILHIST? If there was really a clear consensus in that direction, then the articles Crusades needs to be rewritten to reflect that, even though I don't think that this way to organize the subject makes sense. In any case, right now, what I see is duplication in scope, just like the banner says. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

See the two discussions linked at the top of this, & most of the rest of the current Talk:Crusades, plus archives 13 & 14. If we get it agreed what articles & scopes we need, then rewriting to match can follow. It's not surprising this doesn't happen while these matters are in play. Johnbod (talk)

I read a lot of the previous discussions before I intervened. I cannot tell what I exactly, but I think it was all of the Crusades's talk page and this talk page and more. What I need is a more precise reference to a few sentences that summarize this consensus. Usually, when there is a consensus, such a summary exists. I believe it should be restated here. The key point is that this consensus must clarify the scope of the two articles Crusades and what is currently called Crusading. Otherwise, it is empty and useless. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The hard won consensus was that the scope of Crusades is the historical/traditional definition of crusading e.g. A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. Secondly, this leaves scope for a second article that covers all the definition and definitions. Thirdly, both articles need work and possibly splitting to make this differentiation clear. This RFC is part of the third agreement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is not merely an article title request. Reading this article and reading the comments here, I don't think you can really get away from discussing the purpose, scope and potential break-up. I am not even sure this article should exist. Again, it reads like an essay, not an article. The lede is awful - it tells me nothing of what this article is about, but just starts pontificating immediately. It really feels like it's trying to force someone's essay into an article.

If I could make a suggestion, instead of racking your brains over the title, maybe try writing a proper lede first? If only to clarify the scope of what is (or should be) in the article. The title might then suggest itself. Walrasiad (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The objective position of the voting on this RFC follows. There have been 8 votes on the question What should this article be called?. The plurality is the current Crusading with 4 votes. The most popular alternative is Crusades (Holy Wars) with 2 votes. Crusader institutions in Europe and Medieval Christian crusades have 1 vote each. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Post-close comment

• FYI (no need for a reply), @Norfolkbigfish: RfCs, like other discussion on Wikipedia, are usually not construed to be a vote but rather judged based on merits according to the content policies too. See WP:NOTAVOTE. "Objective position" is also misused as participants which are WP:INVOLVED usually shouldn't try to determine the outcome of contentious issues. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Checking overlap and admissibility as a distinct subject

The previous discussion clarified that the subject of this article is the ideology of crusading and what is related to it. In principle that can indeed be a subtopic of the topic Crusades at large. However, one needs to make sure that there is no unnecessary overlap with Crusades and other articles on the subject. Crusades at large may or may not be the subject of Crusades, but this is irrelevant here. Also, there might be sections with same name in different articles, but this is not necessarily an overlap, because only the actual content needs to not overlap. In the light of this clarification of the focus, one must argue content by content whether or not there is an overlap and there is no need to add a banner unless a lot of overlap is concretely shown by pointing specific content. Moreover, it is not because there is an overlap that necessary the content must be removed from this article. If it is clearly pertinent to the ideology, it might be better to leave the content here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the admissibility, it should be sufficient to provide the sources that offer a good coverage of the ideology, philosophy, faith aspect, etc. of crusading, ideally even some articles that focus on this. These sources are most likely listed in the reference section, but the most important must be singled out. These will be useful to clarify concretely what is the subject. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I found this, but I don't know if it is pertinent:

• Flori, Jean (2005). "Ideology and Motivations in the First Crusade". In Nicholson, Helen J. (ed.). Palgrave Advances in the Crusades. Palgrave Advances. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230524095_2.

Also in the same book:

• Jubb, M. (2005). "The Crusaders' Perceptions of their Opponents". In Nicholson, Helen J. (ed.). Palgrave Advances in the Crusades. Palgrave Advances. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230524095_2.

This might overlap with other text by Maier given in references, but focus on actual sermons:

• Maier, C. (2000). Crusade Propaganda and Ideology: Model Sermons for the Preaching of the Cross. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511496554.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Good point Dominic Mayers II. I will add these to a further reading section until we find a better home for them. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Two perspectives are like two paths

My point Norfolkbigfish is that you and others say that Crusades is essentially about the numbered crusades and Srnec and others say it's essentially about all crusades. What is very interesting is that, even though contributors have essentially opposite views about the scope of Crusades, all of them consider that it currently corresponds to their view. It would be fine if we did not want the article to improve and reach WP:FA, but to improve the article and to care about overlap with other articles such as this one, a common perspective on the scope of Crusades is needed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I see all the non-numbered and non-traditional crusades as part of the aftermath and consequences of the numbered and traditional ones. That is why I think the scope is "all the crusades", but the weight given to various crusades favours the "traditional" ones (or as I've called them elsewhere, the paradigmatic crusades, Srnec (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Srnec, there is still a difference of perspective between "all the crusades (with an emphasis on the traditional ones" and "the traditional ones (with other crusades in the consequences and the aftermath)". This difference is important. Otherwise, we would not have this discussion. For example (and it is only one aspect), if it is not important, then let us take the perspective "traditional crusades" on Crusades while we consider "Crusading movement" as the name of this article, as suggested by Norfolkbigfish. With this perspective, this suggestion makes more sense than with the "all crusades" perspective on Crusades. In the same manner, the choice of the perspective will be important in many future improvements to reach WP:FA for Crusades and perhaps also this article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with Srnec viewpoint above, and would happily edit Crusades to that effect. One small point, I prefer Crusade movement as a name for this article, it is clear the use of crsuading causes objections. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The choice of a name would have been a small point with a common perspective. Obviously, it is not a small point. Moreover, even if after these long discussions a name is agreed upon, which is far from obvious without a common perspective, the fundamental issue, the lack of a common perspective, would still be an issue for many other modifications. Some might believe that a common perspective is too much to hope, using a comparison with discussions among scholars at large, but the situation within Wikipedia is not the same as with the scholars at large, the objective is not the same, the rules are not the same. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait, perhaps Norfolkbigfish suggested that he accepts Srnec perspective. The question must be asked. Norfolkbigfish, do you agree that the scope of Crusades is all crusades with an emphasis on the traditional ones and that this perspective should be our guide in future discussions, not the other perspective in which the scope is the numbered crusades with other crusades in the aftermath and consequences?

Srnec puts it better than me:I see all the non-numbered and non-traditional crusades as part of the aftermath and consequences of the numbered and traditional ones and I think the scope is "all the crusades", but the weight given to various crusades favours the "traditional" ones (or as I've called them elsewhere, the paradigmatic crusades. If I understand his intent correctly I can agree with both statements Dominic Mayers II.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, both perspectives might lead to the goal, but one of them must be chosen. These are like two different paths. Two paths might lead to the same destination, but only one of them must be taken. In other words, you are implicitly stating that the difference between the two perspectives is not important. If it is not important, show it by adopting the all crusades perspectives only and not both of them. Again, I need to insist, if the difference is not important, then there should be no issue in adopting one of these two perspectives, and not both as if it was not ambiguous. Srnec, the same, but with the other perspective, applies to you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait, maybe you are accepting a single perspective, which is an "all crusades" perspective. I believe this is very important. I am concerned, however, that an issue is hidden behind the fact that you focus on this specific formulation. So, I ask the question. Do you agree that the scope of Crusades is all crusades? I know that the reason given is that the focus is on the traditional crusades and that the other crusades are part of the aftermath and consequences, but that does not change the fact that the scope is all crusades. So, it is a simple yes/no question. Do you agree that the scope of Crusades (to be used in further discussions) is all crusades? Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that Dominic Mayers II Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the second statement clearly says I think the scope is "all the crusades". For me, nothing in the two statements suggests otherwise, but I guessed that you had a different interpretation of these two statements and that's why I asked the question. So, again, these two perspectives are two paths and only one path can be taken. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Srnec was suggesting two paths, which is why he put all the crusades in quotes. I took it that first and foremost he saw the article as about the traditional/numbered crusades. The weight of the content would be with these. These crusades had consequences and left a legacy. Not least further acts of crusade in the North & Iberia, against enemies of the church, for political reasons and as popular outbursts of piety. These would have lesser weight, but still be in scope as an aftermath. So the scope is "all of the crusades" not all of the crusades. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If Srnec agrees that the scope of Crusades is the traditional crusades and that the other crusades are only covered in as much as there is a pertinent link with the traditional ones, then we have a clear perspective to discuss the name of this article and many other questions that will arise in our work toward WP:FA for Crusades and this article, especially making harmonious links between the two articles. More discussions might be needed before Srnec agrees, because it will affect decisions about the organization of the articles. These organizational issues and any other issues related to a choice of perspective should be made explicit. We need to know in terms of content and viewpoints about crusades why a perspective appears problematic. For example, it might be a definition issue. Indeed, an article about all crusades with no focus on the traditional crusades suggests a different definition of "crusades". It is a sad fact that definitions are a big deal in many controversial topics. Fortunately, it often means that the issue of multiple definitions is discussed in notable sources. We should include the different notable views about definitions in the articles and care less about what the organization of the articles implicitly says about them, because people will take what is said explicitly. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Mass ascension into heaven

I know that the belief in a mass ascension into heaven was a notable feature of the First Crusade and perhaps of 2 further popular crusading movements, but should we emphasize it in the lead? Taking into account, that about 60-70 "crusades" without no record of such belief could be listed, the emphasis on this specific aspect of some popular crusades in the lead contradicts WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I would be interested in references where mass ascension (using any terminology) is mentioned as a motivation. I consider that it would be WP:undue, if not original research, to refer to a mass ascension even in the body of the article, because the only well known belief of that kind that I read about in the literature is the belief that Jerusalem itself becomes heavenly, which is different. If we refer to a belief in the heavenly Jerusalem, then we must use a terminology that makes it clear. If we refer to a different belief, then we need more than one isolated source to verify it and it must be convincing that it is not a reference to the well known belief in a heavenly Jerusalem. On the other hand, the belief in a heavenly Jerusalem is so well documented and from what I read, a few authors believe that it has played an important role in popular crusades and indirectly in the choice of Jerusalem as a goal in later crusades that it is certainly not WP:undue to mention it, but still not in the lead, because it is not very often mentioned as a motivation for crusades. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear (on a word search) to be mentioned yet in First Crusade. Remission of sins is the best offer mentioned. Mentions should start there; with refs it might well be worth a sentence here, probably not in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Remission of sins or salvation is a bit related to a heavenly Jerusalem, but it's not the same thing. I know that nobody is saying here that it is the same thing, but I feel it is important to see the difference. It is very important, because one explains Jerusalem as a goal, but not the other. One, salvation, was used by the church as motivation, but not the other, at the least not originally. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Norfolkbigfish paraphrased the following sentence from Cohn's book: "For [the poor] the Crusade was above all a collective imitatio Christi, a mass sacrifice which was to be rewarded by a mass apotheosis at Jerusalem." (Cohn op. cit., p. 64.) Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Most likely, but Cohn might simply have referred to the documented belief in a heavenly Jerusalem. In Jonathan Riley-Smith The First Crusade and the idea of crusading, there are many references to the heavenly Jerusalem as a motivation. There are also references to an ascension, but only to refer to the usual belief in the ascension of Jesus-Christ. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Not my paraphrasing Dominic Mayers II—Norman Davies (1997:358) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I looked in Europe: A history by Norman Davies, published by Pimlico in 1997, but it is the Ebook version with no page number. What exactly I should be looking for? I did not find anything close to "mass ascension into heaven". Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka is correct, Davies writes The Crusades were 'an armed pilgrimage', 'a collective imitatio Christi', a mass sacrifice which was to be rewarded by a mass apotheosis at Jerusalem' and cites this to Cohn. As an idea it probably warrants and entire section on Eschatology in this article. Flori writes Eschatological expectations linked to the (supposedly imminent) demise of Islam were thus a feature of most crusades, despite repeated disappointments in Murray. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Unless one can find significant eschatological expectations that are not linked or subsidiary to Jerusalem, it is the same as the heavenly Jerusalem mentioned by Riley-Smith, which is an eschatological expectation. My point is that I doubt these authors are referring to different things: apotheosis at Jerusalem, heavenly Jerusalem, eschatological expectations all refer to the same thing or to variants of the same thing. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotes. Can we conclude that we can delete this text written by an unknown editor (but who is not the article's creator)? 05:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)