Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusading movement/archive1

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 7 April 2024 [1].

---

Crusading movement

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the ideology and institutions associated with crusading. Reviewers have suggested that to keep in on topic the MILHIST should be kept to a minimum - this is largely covered in the Crusades in any case. That article doesn't have the space to cover this subject in detail. It has just been through an exhaustive A-Class Review and passed GAR 9 months ago. So it should be in good shape. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Airship

I thought I had reviewed this article a long time ago, and I was right. I am glad to see from the nomination statement that the approach I suggested over two years ago, of cutting the majority of military history details, was followed. Back then, the article looked like this; the improvement is very evident, so well done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It was good advice, addressed the scope and focus issues it once had. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

General comments

• The structure needs another look. Why are the "Knights and chivalry" down to "Perception of Muslims" subsections under "Evolution"? These are very definitely "Major themes" or "Major elements" and should be sectioned as such.
  • MOS:HEADINGS: subsection headings should not have links in them.

—Taken this one. This is restoring the structure to what it was prior to GAR, changed on a recommendation. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Why so few images? This is one of the most well-represented historical eras in terms of images/diagrams/maps. It seems criminal not to use some of them for illustrative purposes (don't go overboard either).
• I disagree with Jens below that "Birth" should be renamed "First Crusade", as it is well established in scholarship that the movement began earlier. I also disagree that "main articles" are necessary for the century subsections, which should not be taken as subtopics of individual crusades. I do however concur with him on the length of the 13th century subsection (not helped by its complete lack of images to distract the eye from paragraphs upon paragraphs).

I will copyedit the century sections to reduce the length, particularly the 13th—this may go as far to reduce some of the WP:DUE questions below. Will look at those as part of the exercise. Might take a few days. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• I believe that the last time I looked at this article, I felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing. I do hope that issue has been adequately looked at and resolved—because that of course is a reviewing dealbreaker.
  • I remember, this has been rewritten repeatedly since then so I am expecting/hoping this is no longer an issue. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• This article likes its simple lists—I count eight. I think most of them are fine, but feel, per MOS:EMBED, that the last three (relating to Gregory IX and Pius II) might be better suited as prose.

More specific comments to follow later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think that I also raised the question of how to tell whether paragraphs sourced entirely or near-entirely to entries in a general crusade encyclopedia were WP:DUE. With that in mind, could you please justify how the following paragraphs are WP:DUE and "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature":
  • In "12th century", beginning with "From the end of the century..."

—added citations to Buck, Tyerman and Morris + 3xW-L Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And why is it WP:DUE?

because Crusade historians, and these are just 3 examples + a church historian, consider it integral. How the crusaders understood their relationship to God, what impact it had on their behaviour and how they represented it formed part of the institution. It is literally how the whole enterprise got its name. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I can accept that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "Crusade providentialism was intricately linked..."

added Barber citation - eschatology was a significant factor in the 13th century crsusading movement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• "intricately linked with a prophetic sensibility" this is not very clear. In fact, the whole paragraph is not very clear at all (the "Third Age"—where are we, Middle-Earth?) As far as I can make out, it appears to be combining a general focus on prophecies with a semi-intelligible digression into the legends of the children's crusade. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "For recruitment purposes, popes initiated..."

Added intoductory sentence sourced to Tyerman to explain—it is about propaganda. Abrideged, copyedited and added sources. Might be worth moving to its own subsection - what do you think ? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Better, but the prose is not FA quality. It gives the impression of a list in prose, with each sub-theme given its own bullet point new sentence. This is one of the parts that best exemplifies a "movement"—you can't not do it justice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "From around 1225 to 1500..."

Again, rephrased and summarised. Paragraph is also about Propaganda + image added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Same stilted prose as above. Take the following four sentences: "Despite being written after the decline of crusading fervour, they indicate a sustained interest in the topic. Authors depicted a triumphant and morally superior chivalric Christendom. Some likened Muslim leaders to contemporary politicians. Common motifs included Christian knights engaging in chivalrous adventures against Muslim adversaries." This is something I would encourage you to focus on throughout the article Norfolkbigfish; get a non-specialist editor with FA experience to read it through and point out parts that might fail FACR 1a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, the image is meh: Jean de Mandeville himself is not explicitly mentioned in text, and his relevance to the topic is not immediately apparent, meaning one could pull up MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Consider using {{multiple image}}, and take some time to look for better ones. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "Part of the tradition of outbreaks of popular crusading..."

Tyerman considers that Dickson has done notable research that expands the diversity of the topic. Added a sentence to that effect and cited to him. Added citation for Children's crusade. FYI this isn't actually sourced from the Encyclopedia but to another of Dickson's works. Rephrased. To me it now stands as WP:DUE but would seriously welcome your feedback. It is about the informal instituitions. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "There is evidence of early criticism of crusading..."

—rephrased and additional citations added. Important to highlight support for crusading and its institutions (like taxation)was not uniform. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "Remediation included ceremonial marches..."

—as above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "13th century", beginning with "At the end of the 13th century..."

—rephrased and additional citations added - crisis in the movement nad taxation both relevant, no? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "14th century", beginning with "There were more than twenty treatises..."

—rephrased. Cover the writing and failed plans of the movement and the successful taxation regime Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "15th century", beginning with "The Venetian Gabriel Condulmaro succeeded..."

—rephrased, the key here is the shift in strategy from conflict to conciliation with other churches. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "15th century", beginning with "The humanist Enea Silvio Piccolomini became..."

—rephrased, the shift in focus from Jerusalem to Constantinople. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "15th century", beginning with "Rodrigo Borja, who became Pope Alexander VI in 1492..."

—rephrased, and now the focus is on the Pope's christian enemies. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• • In "Historiography", beginning with "The Byzantines held a negative view of holy war..."

—although taking your general point this segment is not from the Encyclopedia and was added at ACR at the request or a reviewer. I agree with them that it is relevant to identify other opinions amongst Christians of the crusades and to highlight that rather than a Muslim v Christian conflict it was more a Catholic Church v a variety of other actors. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @AirshipJungleman29, thank you for the comments, sincerely and seriously. I would be be most appreciative to know your view on my responses. Especially in the light of the interesting excahnge with @Jenhawk777 below. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, in light of the below from Borsoka and Jens, I believe I am currently somewhere between a "neutral" and a "weak oppose", with my main concern the prose quality and source-text integrity, which I noted above was a problem two years ago, although I haven't personally checked for it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

UC

This is a big one, but looks fascinating. I'll try to chip in at some point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Entirely a question: are we sure that Latin Church, as opposed to Catholic Church, is the correct level of specificity here?

Hmmm, yes, and a good one at that. I don't have a strong opinion, but I suspect so. I think this is about the Latin Church specifically rather than all the churches in communion with the pope. But, I am happy to be corrected. I did check the four sources cited and Lathem x 2, Flori and Davies all use the term.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy here, then. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Crusading was a paradigm that grew from the encouragement of the Gregorian Reform of the 11th century and the movement declined after the Reformation. : I would put a date on the Reformation here, or at least for the decline of the crusading movement, as we have for the Gregorian Reform.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• but in practical terms dwindled in competition with other forms of religious war and new ideologies.: not sure about the last bit here. Suggest "in competition with new ideologies promoting other forms of religious war [such as...]?"

—I removed the latter clause. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• the ancient idea of just war: suggest clarifying ancient to "Greco-Roman", "Roman" or even "Augustinian": we're using "ancient" in its specific meaning of "belonging to Greco-Roman antiquity" rather than the more everyday "really old".

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• a form of special Christian pilgrimage: reads oddly to me: better as special form, I think, unless I've missed some distinction.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Pilgrimage and crusade were penitent acts and they considered participants part of Christ's army: reads oddly with they: I'd either clarify to "adherents" or put into the passive: "participants were considered..."

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• While this was only metaphorical before the First Crusade: I mean, it was metaphorical after, too, unless I've missed something big.

—combatants on the first crusade literally considered themselves Chris's soldiers.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This one is going to need some explaining, then: are you saying that they honestly believed that Christ had manifested himself and was leading the army in the same sense as its temporal leaders were? At least, we need to frame it in the positive: something like "during the First Crusade, this metaphor was developed into the belief that crusaders were physically led in their endeavours by Christ". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

—I have excised the sentence. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• After this, the movement became an important part of late-medieval western culture, impacting politics, the economy and society.: suggest cutting after this, or else alluding to what happened between the First Crusade (pretty generally early medieval) and the late medieval period.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• The final paragraph of the lead was tough going for me in terms of clarity. Suggest another look at the big list of places and peoples: can it be cut down and split up a bit?

— rephrased, does this work? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• the medieval concept of one Christian Church ruled by the papacy: this would have been news in medieval Constantinople, and therefore in much of the medieval "European" world.

—I think the idea of Papal primacy was a big deal, although softened this by changing medieval to western European. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Fine, but then we need solidifying Latin Christendom as a geopolitical entity (or similar). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

—removed geopolitical, w-l papal primacy, reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• one Christian Church ... separate from non-believers: was this ever really a Thing? I know a few medieval realms tried to expel Jews, but most didn't, so I'm starting from a position of scepticism that medieval Christians generally believed particularly strongly that Christian realms should only contain Christians.

removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• so that Christendom was geopolitical: must admit I'm not sure what this means.

—rephrased, Christedom was a geopolitical entity, it acted in the world across its geography. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hm -- I'm not sure this is really true. Do we have any evidence that "Christendom" functioned in any meaningful sense as a political entity? We're clearly a long way off the Weberian definition ("claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of force"), but I'm also deeply unconvinced that any non-Christian powers ever sought to negotiate with, ally with, declare war on etc "Christendom" (as opposed to an individual ruler within that), or indeed that "Christendom" had any political structures that weren't (often temporary, fragile and self-interested) freely-made ad hoc compacts between its different rulers. After all, Christians were far more often found fighting other Christians during this period than pagans or Muslims, and the High Middle Ages were hardly a uniformly golden age of submission by temporal rulers to popes. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

— It needs expansion, not sure it is appropriate in this article. I think it is covered in detail so will remove the geopolitical reference. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

But you are right again. See below. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

From the ninth to the eleventh century, the concept of Christendom was pervasive in both East and West. Pretty much everyone - from medieval writers to ordinary folk - used the term to identify themselves, their religious culture, and yes, their state, and even civilization itself.

Evidence that it functioned politically can be found in the formation of those countries that eventually made up East-Central Europe - Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Hungary and Croatia are certain examples. These countries were not formed politically separately from Christendom. They were formed because of it, because they saw the advantages and wanted to be a part of Christendom. Christianization and politicization went hand in glove. I would say this qualifies as examples of Christendom as a politically influential concept. This can be found in The Routledge History of Medieval Christianity: 1050-1500. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• The subtitle "Instituitional Reform" should be "Institutional reform" per MOS:CAPS (or possibly MOS:TITLE).

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist I think I may have addressed your points to date, although I may have missed something so stand to be corrected. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Will have a look through, bracket off resolved points and add new ones as needed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

More follow:

• The period following the collapse of the Carolingian Empire and the onset of the feudal revolution: a few things here. Firstly, when exactly are we talking about? Secondly, I can just about wear the word "feudal" (see this classic article), but really struggle with "the feudal revolution" as an uncritical term: see (especially) the conclusion of this no-longer-so-recent book, which is pretty clear that whether the "feudal revolution" was a Thing is, at best, highly contentious -- West is at least very hesitant about its utility as a concept.

—feudal removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• was seen by an 11th century reformist movement as an era of decline in morals and religious institutions: which 11t-century reformist movement? How influential were these people?

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish You are correct in saying the eleventh century was an age of religious reform and renewal. It is generally seen by most scholars as a turning point in western Christianity. Cluniacs became the leading center of Western monasticism because of their reform, and the Cistercian movement - a second wave of reform - became a primary force of technological advancement and its diffusion in medieval Europe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• the monasticisation of the clergy: I would explain this a bit more clearly: we don't literally mean that the priests became monks (or, frankly, anything close to it). I don't know much about the Cluniac Reforms, but what I do know is mostly centred on reforming the monasteries themselves, rather than exporting their ideals outside their walls.

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• More generally, there's a lot of This-es in this section without clear antecedents. Replacing them with noun phrases would make things clearer.

— rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Latin phrases, even when in links, should be in language templates for the benefit of screen readers and the Wiki software.
• this became known as Cluniac reform: as the Cluniac Reforms, I think.

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thus, an ideological framework was created for a faction within the clergy: I am still very unclear on how big this fraction was: it previously sounded as if the whole Latin church had gone this way.

— rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• As church historian Colin Morris noted: Professional writing generally avoids false titles, so the church historian. Scholarship that is being treated as 'live' is also generally referred to in the present tense. More seriously, though, we should avoid a word like notes, which indicates an observable statement of fact, when we are introducing an opinion (MOS:SAID).

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• this reforming party gaining control of the Roman Church was an important turning point because these were men who stood for the concept of holy war: lots here: we haven't said that they gained control yet, nor has holy war been part of our discussion of the Cluniac Reforms so far.

—left in place but changed grammar Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• 20th—century: needs an endash, not an emdash (MOS:DASH)

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Andrew Latham, an international relations theory academic: in a high-level article on a historical concept, why are we giving the whole voice (on a fairly uncontroversial topic) to someone whose specialism is in another field? More generally, it would be better to explicitly say what scholars have established as a consensus on the issue: the nitty-gritty of individual interpretations can and should be left to sub-articles.

—toned down Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• The core interests of this identity provoked conflict with ... heretics: this is putting the cart before the horse: heretic was a label used by the Church to mark out people with whom it had or wanted a conflict: nobody identified themselves as a heretic and nobody was thought of as one until the Church labelled them. It's a bit like "terrorist groups" or "rogue states" in modern international relations: we need a more neutral term here, or to explicitly say something like "those with beliefs it [the Church] deemed heretical". The work of RI Moore is good here (there's a lot more on the same concept in Late Antiquity): even this somewhat critical review of his latest book accepts the basic point at issue here.

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• There's a lot of Latham even after that bulleted list. A couple of big statements: what International Relations Theory considers the structural drivers of anarchy: what are those? More importantly, we're saying that it wasn't about them, but we haven't yet set up the case that it was about them. I'm also going to raise an eyebrow at Without these factors, the crusades were impossible: impossible is a big word in historical explanation. I can wear an argument that the specific ideology of crusading was inextricable from its historical context (as all ideology is), but saying that there was absolutely no scenario in which Christian armies launched religious wars if "these factors" (which ones?) were absent is a pretty WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim.

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Theologians widely accepted Henry of Segusio's justification: when and who was this guy? We've been pretty loose on the chronology so far, but the current framing makes it sound like he was in play from at least the C11th.

—removed, it was incorrect. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• The theology of war evolved from the linking of Roman citizenship with Christianity; Christian citizens now had the obligation to fight against the empire's enemies: we're talking a lot of steps very quickly here. I'm very unconvinced by the argument that Romans, at least in late antiquity, believed that Roman citizens (as individuals) had a duty to fight against the empire's enemies: once we've demonstrated that, we can then go on to make an argument that Christian theologians conceptualised the Church as being basically an empire, and religious affiliation as basically citizenship, but we need to prove the first step first or the whole thing is built on sand.

—agree, I have excised this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Gregory VII extended the institutions of holy war: what does this mean, concretely? When did it happen?

— I have excised this as it seems to add little value. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Where is Barbastro?

— Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• the Norman conquest of the Sicily: of Sicily, or of the [Muslim] Emirate of Sicily.

—removed the pipe. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Capitalise Battle of Nablus.

— Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Jens

I remember I have reviewed this one a long time ago. I want to give some drive-by comments for now; I am not sure if I can commit to a full review. I have concerns about the structure of the "Evolution" section:

• For a reader that looks at the article for the first time, the sub-headings seem confusing or random: You have "Knights and chivalry", "Military orders" and so on, and then, all of a sudden, list the separate centuries. So the first four sections do not seem to express a chronological order, but the remainder do, which is not ideal. Maybe it would make sense to move the first four sections to the "Background" sections, because they cover the starting conditions before the crusades?

—As above, I have taken this restoring the structure to what is was prior to GAR. Seems like it was an unpopular change. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• The heading "Birth" is not particularly obvious. That could mean many things. I suggest to rename into "First crusade".

—removed entirely as part of the restructuring above. Does this work? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• The "century" sections are too long. Any chance to cut them down?

I will copy edit these to reduce the length, looking at them again I think this can probably be halfed without losing any important points. This might take a few days to do properly though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• At the very least, the "century" sections should have sub-headings to break-up the wall of text. In particular the "13th century" is way too long.

Will look at this when summarising. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• It would help to have "Main articles:" indicated for the "century" sections.

—at the moment I agree with Airship above that this is not necessary. But, will look at this when summarising as noted above. These sections are chronological, and as such touch on a number of themes but I can't yet see how these map to main articles. Will have a think though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• The "Dennis, Gorge T. (2001)" citation has an oversized "access required" icon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

—removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing some of the comments listed below and checking with the article, I have to agree that the article is not ready yet for FAC (even though I do not necessarily agree with all those comments, but there are enough where I do agree). Most importantly, I can confirm that some significant wp:close paraphrasing is still present after consulting of the main sources. For example, the article has The reformist Church's identity-interest complex framed Islam as a particular form of heresy while the source says "the reformers’ core identity-interest complex, which framed Islam as a particularly obdurate form of heresy", and Islamic polities' own identity-interest complexes led them to be equally violently opposed to the restoration of Christian rule while the source says "their own core identity-interest complex, were violently opposed to returning them to Christian rule". Additionally, I am concerned that by copying expressions from the scholarly literature (such as "identity-interest complex" in the example above), the article becomes unnecessarily difficult to understand; given our audience, I think we should attempt to summarize those sources in more accessible, less technical language, and avoid such expressions whenever possible. Oppose. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text

• File:SCONTRO_A_NABLUS_-_AFFRESCHI_CONTROFACCIATA_S._BEVIGNATE.JPG is incorrectly tagged. Ditto File:Fragment_of_the_Cairo_Genizah_-_The_Passover_Haggadah,_page_1_of_4.png

• File:Gestorum_Rhodie_obsidionis_commentarii_-_BNF_Lat6067_f3v.jpg needs a US tag

• File:Cappella_Piccolomini_sposa_Eleonora_e_cardinale_Pinturicchio_Siena.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria—happy to do the last three but lack the knowledge, would you mind explaning what, and how, needs to happen please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

On the first of these: these are tagged as own work by uploader. However, under US law, reproduction of 2D works does not garner a new copyright. These should instead be tagged according to the status of the original works (which are presumably PD due to age). The second needs an additional tag added to it to indicate its copyright status in the US (presumably also PD due to age - if you look at the current tag there is a link to a list of potential US tags). The last has a tag for the copyright of the photographer, but needs another added for the status of the pictured artwork (presumably also PD due to age). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose by Borsoka

After reviewing the Background section of the article I concluded that the article does not meet FA criteria. It neglects major facts and details, it is not a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, it is not compliant with WP's copyright policy and is not free of plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing, its structure is diffuse, lacks any logic, etc. I think the article could be brought to WP:Good article reassessment. Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, and neither did reviewers at Good Article and MILHIST A-Class Review. As such I have refeered this behaviour to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Crusading_movement.

Comments and feedback is welcome from all reviewers from this article. @Johnbod: would also welcome comments on previous incidents. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you chose to take me to ANI. I am sure that you realised that the article will probably quickly delisted during the GAR process. Borsoka (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

General remarks

• A general remark on sourcing: more than 30% of the article is verified by references to individual articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Our relevant policy says, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I think the use of a tertiary source goes beyond this boundary, and the rationale beyond the selection of individual encyclopedic articles is unclear. As a consequence of this approach, the article looks like an encyclopedia with individual articles following each other without much connection between them. I am not sure that this method can secure that the movement is presented in WP as it is presented in relevant scholarly literature. Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica?
  • I disagree. The Encyclopedia contains secondary and tertiary material in about 1,000 entries that make use of both source material and secondary scholarship in a variety of languages. Each entry is signed by its author and has a bibliography. In what way does that go outside WP's boundary? especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other which they do. Your standard seems different than WP's.
  • Nothing can be legitimately concluded from the complaint of individual articles following each other without much connection between them since there is often an absence of connection between historic events, and creating a connection would require OR.
  • Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica? Who says these articles are arbitrarily selected? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Please read what our relevant policy says: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." Could you list instances when the secondary sources cited in this article contradict each other, so the use of tertiary sources is inevitable?

• Sudden changes in tone and vocabulary and redundant content suggests that significant texts may be closely paraphrased. Has the article been reviewed from this perspective? I have only reviewed about one fifth of the article, but I have found several cases of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Please list those. Earwig's copyright violation tester says there are no copyright violations. [2] If you are right, Earwig needs to be informed that their program has become undependable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • I listed several examples below.

• Secondary sources cited in the article dedicate several pages to the Muslim world and the influx of the Turks in the politics of the Middle East [Asbridge (pp. 17-29), Jotischky (pp. 40-47), Lock (pp. 3-19), Madden (pp. 1-5), Tyermann 2019 (pp. 33-45). Several other sources that follow the same path could be listed. Why does the article ignore this usual scholarly approach?
  • Perhaps because that is the scholarly approach to studying the Crusades themselves rather than the movement which prompted and sustained them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Do you say that the above authors who are cited in the article should be ignored?

• The article's structure is diffuse, and seemingly lacks any detectable logic: several elements of the flourishing crusading movement are mentioned in section "Background". (For instance, why are the military orders or the development of the crusading ideology in the 13th century mentioned in this section?)

Borsoka (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• • The article's structure makes sense imo, and the content is good. It's just the section title "Background" that needs changing to Overview or Overview of relevant concepts to better reflect what it actually is. As an overview, it must contain all relevant factors for the entire period including the thirteenth century, which it does. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • And what about section "Evolution"?

• In most cases, the article does not explain the events, but mentions facts or PoVs without making clear the connection between them, or providing our readers with a coherent (or incoherent) story: "Pope X said this, Pope Y told that, and Pope Z said another thing, etc".
  • That's how history is reported - without interpretation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• • I think we read different books of history. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• The article contains original research and original synthesis. Several examples can be found in the "Specific remarks" section. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • When making serious accusations like this one, it only seems responsible and respectful of others to be as specific as possible. Without specifics, there is no way to prove or disprove your claim. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Please read my list below. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Specific remarks

• The period following the collapse of the Carolingian Empire and the onset of the feudal revolution was seen by an 11th century reformist movement as an era of decline in morals and religious institutions. Links to "feudal revolution" and the reformist movement? Was this a political or a culinary reform movement? Why did they think that the period was a period of decline?

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• The Crusading movement's beginnings were propelled by a significant shift in the western Church during the mid-eleventh century. Reformers, supported initially by Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor and later opposing his son Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, assumed power over the papacy around 1040. They astutely perceived the papacy as the optimal vehicle for their mission to eliminate corruption in the Church and strategically took control of it. 1. The cited source does not verify the two sentences. 2. The texts in italics repeat the same information. 3. The date is not around 1040 but in the late 1040s [Barber (2012), p. 84] 4. Link to Western Church? 5. Consequency: "mid-eleventh century" vs. "mid-19th century". 6. The "reformers" were specifically reformist clerics. 7. Why did they perceive the papacy as the optimal vehicle?

• It was considered the result of too much involvement in the dealings of the mundus, the Latin term for the world. Who were involved in the dealings with the mundus? The term mundus refers to secular affairs in the context. Do we have to use the Latin term?

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

—replaced with secular world Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• The reformers responded primarily with the monasticisation of the clergy. This was centred on ideals of personal piety, chastity, moral purity, spiritual discipline, and elaborate liturgies. Could the two sentences be consolidated? This way close paraphrasing ("the monasticisation of the clergy") could be avoided. When writing of the monasticisation of the clergy Latham does not mention chastity and elaborate litrugies, the two terms are mentioned in connection with the reform of monastic communities. (The reform of the monastic communities and "the monasticisation of the clergy" do not cover the same concept.)

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• This group viewed themselves as architects of a re-established res publica Christiana Closely paraphrased. The Latin term should be translated or explained.

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• As church historian Colin Morris noted, quoting the early 20th—century German historian Carl Erdmann, this reforming party gaining control of the Roman Church was an important turning point because these were men who stood for the concept of holy war and sought to enact it. I assume Morris and Erdmann write of the Gregorian reform movement, not about the Cluniac Reforms because similar statements in other scholarly works are connected with the Gregorian Reform.

—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Who is Augustin Fliche?
• Explain "simony" with two or three words.
• Eventually, the reformist faction within the Roman Church took the lead... This fact is mentioned twice in the section's second and third sentences.

• Is Latham's PoV about the preconditions for the crusading movement widely accepted by medievalists who have published general works on the crusading movement or monographies about its origins?

• Why was the reference to Latham deleted if his PoV is described? Even if he is not mentioned, the relevance of his thoughts should be verified as per WP:DUE.

• Perhaps Latham's thoughts (if they are indeed relevant) should be described in a more natural style in order to avoid close paraphrasing: "motivated-by-God deliverer", "core interests of this identity", "war-making entity", "armed nobility"...

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reform of the Latin Church identity:... Does "Latin Church" differ from "western Church" mentioned in the section's previous paragraph?
• The Latin Church underwent a significant transformation, becoming an independent force motivated by divine authority for religious revitalisation. Was the Latin Church indeed motivated by divine authority?

• The core interests of this identity provoked conflict with the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim polities, heretics, and pagans. This new identity led to conflicts with various entities, including the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian sects, and pagans Who and why was brought into conflict with these groups? Does the article suggest that relationship between the Christian communities/polities/leaders and Muslim polities, heretics "sects" and pagans had been peaceful before the Gregorian Reforms? Can the Eastern Orthodox Church be described as a sect?

—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Add a translation for milites Christi.

—and cited to Morris. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• ...milites Christi or knights of Christ... The cited author (Morris) does not verify the translation. He describes "milites Christi" as an "expression which until then had been the monopoly of monks had been extended to knights".

• The development of formal structures for building an army that furthered the Church's interests. Development of Formal Army Structures: The establishment of formal structures for raising armies was crucial in advancing the Church's interests in crusading endeavors. Examples of these "formal structures"? Why is "Formal Army Structures" capitalised?
• Section "Background" implies that solely the Gregorian Reform (or Cluniac Reform?) was responsible for the Crusades. I think this approach is quite unusual. Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• Section "Christianity and war" is quite confusing from chronological and logical perspective: Augustine is mentioned in at least three separate paragraphs, so the section does not clearly summarise his views. The section obviously mixes Augustine's views with his high medieval interpretators' thoughts (I will add at least one example below). As the section does not point at the differences between the classical just war theory and Augustine's views, and between Augustine's views and the high medieval theology of Christian holy war, the development of this important aspect of crusading ideology remains unclear.
• A distinct ideology promoted and regulated crusades. Could you quote the text verifying this statement from the cited scholarly works?

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• It is still in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

—aplogies, I thought I had removed. I have now. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish I don't agree this should be removed. It should be explained. Isn't this the core of what the article is about? The guiding presence of a distinct ideology is supported in Blake, EO. "The Formation of the Crusade Idea". The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 1970;21(1):11-31. doi:10.1017/S0022046900048429. and Maier CT. "Crisis, Liturgy and the Crusade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries". The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 1997;48(4):628-657. doi:10.1017/S0022046900013440 among many. A good discussion is in Allington, Richard DG. "Prayer Warriors: Crusading Piety in Rome and the Papal States (1187-1291)". Diss. Saint Louis University, 2017. But it's a dissertation and not yet a book, so though we are allowed, Borsoka has a dislike even of journal articles and will surely put the kibosh on a dissertation if you use it. Reading it is still worthwhile. The existence of a distinct ideology is supported in Kienzle B., "Religious poverty and the search for perfection". In: Rubin M, Simons W, eds. The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge University Press; 2009:39-53. and in Marcus Bull's "Crusade and conquest". In: Rubin M, Simons W, eds. The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge University Press; 2009:340-352. Good luck. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• I put the kibosh on unverified statements. I have no problem with journal articles, although I doubt that a statement that cannot be verified with a reference to a book about the crusades should be mentioned in this article as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  Borsoka I am curious about what makes a book a better reference than an article? They each have one author, so both represent one person's pov. They are often written by the same scholars. WP:DUE is about minority views, but articles are not more likely to represent minority views any more than many books do. Articles are narrower and more focused by nature, but if that's the topic, why is that not actually better than a broad overview from a book? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• If books about the crusades do not refer to a specific aspect of the crusades mentioned in a journal article about this specific aspect we can hardly say that it is highly relevant in this article's context. Please try to make comments on the article instead of beginning discussions with other editors. The article needs significant improvement. Borsoka (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  • • Borsoka I can't apologize for bringing this up here, since this is the reason - so often - given for claiming "The article needs significant improvement" and therefore fails. That's a lot resting upon your claim that, "If books about the crusades do not refer to a specific aspect of the crusades mentioned in a journal article about this specific aspect, we can hardly say that it is highly relevant". But journal articles are not generally written on topics that failed to be relevant enough to get in the book. Journal articles most often represent additional research done after a book was published - books take longer to publish, and research moves faster than rewrites and republication. Articles cover the gap. That makes them highly relevant.
    • Books generally provide an overview, and therefore have a little info about a lot of topics; articles tend to have a lot of info about a single topic. Containing more detail as dedicated monographs demonstrates the importance of a singular point - not the opposite.
    • Assuming journal articles are less relevant, significant or valid than the content of a book is not a usable definition of relevance, it is not supported by WP guidelines, and it's based on a huge false assumption. It is not a sound basis for saying an article "needs significant improvement" and shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged. This is a good article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• With whom are you arguing? I have never said that this article needs significant improvement because it cites journal articles. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nice straw man. You said I doubt that a statement that cannot be verified with a reference to a book about the crusades should be mentioned in this article as per WP:DUE. Due is about handling minority views - and this sounds like you think anything not in a book is a minority view. Surely that can't be right, but how else can Due be applied here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Please read the above discussion more carefully. I said that the article contained an unverified sentence, and this statement was true. Upon your remarks, I also said that I would prefer references to general books about the crusades in this article but I did not say that the article needs improvement due to its references to journal articles. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with you 100% @Jenhawk777 that sentence is the kernal of this article. Agree also that it should be explained fully, so many thanks for the sources. I did remove because it is a sentence that sort of hangs there, more of a introduction and it is the explanation rather than the sentence that it is important. When I get a chance I will look to restore supported by the sources. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thumbs up! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of Christian pilgrimage. Maier writes of four principal elements: holy war theology, the model of pilgrimage, Old Testament history, and New Testament theology, thus this and the subsequent sentences do not reflect Maier's thoughts.
• Theology merged Old Testament Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God with New Testament Christocentric views on forming individual relationships with Christ. What does this mean? I doubt that Israelite wars were any time merged with Christocentric views, first of all because of chronological reasons.
• ...Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God... Were these wars indeed instigated and assisted by God?
• ...canon lawyers developed it from the 11th century into bellum sacrum, the paradigm of Christian holy war. Maier mentions theologians as well. Could you name some of the theologians and canon lawyers?
• Theologians widely accepted Henry of Segusio's justification that holy war against pagans was just because of their opposition to Christianity. Unverified. Maier states the opposite.

—indeed, removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Maier emphasises that "In essence, the Christian theory of holy war was meant to justify, in specific circumstances, the transgession of the divine prohibition of homicide..." Likewise, Tyerman refers to the Bible's ambigious approach towards violence. The section does not draw our readers' attention to the fact that that crusading theology as it was developed by Gregorian theologians represent a radical shift from traditional Christian views' on acts of bloodshed.
• ...if an authority such as a king or bishop proclaimed the war... I know Latham (who is not a specialist) verifies the statement, but I doubt that Augustine wrote of kings in a positive context taking into account that in his time kings were mainly the enemies of the Christian Roman Empire.
• Gregory VII extended the institutions of holy war... No institutions of holy war are mentioned in the previous sentences.

—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...his supporter Anselm of Lucca consolidated the just war theories. Whose just war theories? What is the outcome of this consolidation?
• In the 11th century, the Church sponsored conflict with Muslims on the southern peripheries of Christendom, including the siege of Barbastro and the Norman conquest of the Sicily. Absolutely out of context statement.
• ...which produced a template for a crusade... This is not verified and obviously wrong: no crusades would be led by a pope.

—not what Asbridge writes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...but he was unable to garner the required support Why?

—see above Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Augustine's principles formed the basis of a doctrine of religious war that was later developed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas, canon lawyers, and theologians. Redundant with the exemption of its reference to Thomas Aquinas. Tyerman writes that Aquinas is responsible for "producing a codified theory of Christian just war".
• This movement's influence is apparent in Pope Urban II's speeches... Why are Urban II's speeches relevant?
• What is the connection between Latham's three pre-conditions for crusading (mentioned in section "Background") and Erdmann's three stages (listed in section "Christianity and holy war"). Why is Latham cited instead of Erdmann? Is Erdmann's PoV is widely accepted by medievalists who published general works on the crusading movement or its origin? I think the three bullet points could be distributed in the text in chronological order to better understand how the Christian ideology of Holy War developed.
• The Church viewed Rome as the Patrimony of Saint Peter. This enabled the application of canon law to justify various Italian wars waged by the church as purely defensive crusades to protect theoretical Christian territory. Absolutely out of context. Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• By the 11th century, the Latin Church developed a system that provided for the remission and absolution of sin in return for contrition, confession, and penitential acts. 1. Why? 2. Perhaps "contrition, confession, and penitential acts" could be rephrased to avoid close paraphrasing. 3. The term "confession" could be linked to the more specific "sacrament of penance".

— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...martial activity... Use a more natural language to avoid close paraphrasing.

— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...noble warrior class... What about commoner warriors?

— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...revolutionary innovation.... PoV statement copied from Latham's work.

— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• ...in support of his causes, if selflessly given. Could you quote the text verifying the words in bold?

Gregory VII offered all who fought for his cause, in whatever fashion, absolution of their sins and the prospect of eternal salvation. Provided their motivation was grounded on selflessness and faith not gain, such soldiers could combine penance and violence.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Is this from one of the cited works? Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Is reference 11 necessary? (Furthermore, Tyerman explains Erdman's PoV in the cited page.)

::— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• This was developed by subsequent Popes into the granting of plenary indulgence that reduced all God-imposed temporal penalties. Could you quote the text verifying the statement. Did indeed God impose temporal or any other kind of panalties?
• At the Council of Clermont in November 1095, Urban II effectively founded the crusading movement with two directives: the exemption from atonement for those who journeyed to Jerusalem to free the Church; and that while doing so all goods and property were protected. Why is this in the "Background" section? Why is the protection of property mentioned in section "Penance and indulgence"?
• The weakness of conventional theologies in the face of crusading euphoria is shown in a letter critical of Pope Paschal II from the writer Sigebert of Gembloux to the crusader Robert II, Count of Flanders. Sigebert referred to Robert's safe return from Jerusalem but completely avoided mentioning the crusade. The text in bold represent copyvio; the remaining text is not verified by the cited source (it does not mention to whom Sigebert addressed the letter); the sentence from the article ignores the cited source's main message: "Sigebert attacked the idea of penitential war". Furthermore, why is something happening years after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
• It was Calixtus II who first promised the same privileges and protections of property to the families of crusaders. 1. Reference 22 does not verify the statement. 2. The text in bold is not verified by any of the two sources. 3. Why is something happening decades after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
• Under the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux, Eugenius III revised Urban's ambiguous position with the view that the crusading indulgence was remission from God's punishment for sin, as opposed to only remitting ecclesiastical confessional discipline. 1. The text in bold is not verified. 2. Urban's ambifious position is not previously mentioned. 3. What is Eugenius's conclusion. 4. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
• Innocent III emphasised crusader oaths and clarified that the absolution of sins was a gift from God, rather than a reward for the crusaders' suffering. 1. Reference 25 does not verify the text. 2. Why is something happening more than a century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
• With his 1213 bull Quia maior, he appealed to all Christians, not just the nobility, offering the possibility of vow redemption without crusading. 1. Could you quote the text verifying that indeed the bull Quia maior offered the possibility... 2. Did he appeal to the Orthodox, Nestorians, Copts also? 3. Which vow? The crusading vow is not previously mentioned in the article. 4. Why did he do this? 5. Are we sure that the payment did not constitute as an act of crusading? 5. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
• This set a precedent for trading in spiritual rewards... No spiritual rewards are mentioned in the previous sentence.
• ...a practice that scandalised devout Christians and became a contributing cause of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. Could you quote the text verifying the statement?
• As late as the 16th century, writers sought redemptive solutions in the traditionalist wars of the cross, while others – such as English martyrologist John Foxe – saw these as examples of papist superstition, corruption of religion, idolatry, and profanation. 1. The text in bold is not verified, the text in italic is closely paraphrased. 2. Why is Tyerman's encyclopedic article about "Historiography, Modern" (one of the cited sources) revelant in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 3. What is the relevance of Foxe's PoV in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 4. Why is something from the 16th century mentioned in section "Background"?
• Critics blamed the Roman Church for the failure of the crusades. War against the infidel was laudable, but not crusading based on doctrines of papal power, indulgences, and against Christian religious dissidents such as the Albigensian and Waldensians. Justifying war on juristic ideas of just war to which Lutherans, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics could all subscribe, and the role of indulgences, diminished in Roman Catholics tracts on the Turkish wars. Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius developed international laws of war that discounted religion as a cause, in contrast to popes, who persisted in issuing crusade bulls for generations. 1. Original synthesis? 2. Why are events happening in the 16th and 17th centuries mentioned in section "Background"? Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• If chivalry was in its infancy at the beginning of the crusading movement (as the article states), why is "Knights and chivalry" mentioned in the "Background" section?
• At the beginning of the crusading movement, chivalry was in its infancy; but it went on to define the ideas and values of knights, and was central to the crusading movement. 1. The text in bold represents copyvio. 2. The reference to Flori's article should be fixed to verify the statement in italics.

—rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Literature illustrated the prestige of knighthood, but it was distinct from the aristocracy. 1. The text in italics is not verified by the cited sources. 2. What was distinct from the aristocracy: knighthood or its prestige?
• 11th and 12th century texts depict a class of knights that were closer in status to peasants within recent generations. The text is unclear.

• Texts from the 11th and 12th centuries portray a class of knights who were comparatively closer in status to peasants within the preceding generations. 1. The text is still unclear: were their fathers peasants or only close to peasants. 2. The texts in italics is not verified. (I think the cited encyclopedic article simply says that there were knights of peasant/humble origin.)Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• In the 13th century knighthood became equated with nobility, as a social class with legal status, closed to non-nobles. The texts in italics contradict the cited source (Flori).
• Chivalric development grew from a society dominated by the possession of castles. The sentence makes no sense and is not verified by the cited source (Flori): development cannot grow from a society, and possession of castles cannot dominate a society.
• Those who defended these became knights. Copyvio. Some explanation?
• ...coupled with the growing naval capability of Italy's maritime republics,... Could you quote the text from the cited sources verifying that there is any connection between the naval capability of the maritime republics and knighthood?
• Contrary to the representation in the romances... Which romances?
• Instead, raids and sieges predominated, for which there was only a minimal role for knights. A previous sentence claims that those who defended the castles became knights.
• Knighthood required combat training, which created solidarity and gave rise to combat as a sport. The cited source (Flori) writes of special forms of combat.
• Crusade preachers used tournaments and other gatherings to obtain vows of support from attending dignitaries, begin persuasive campaigns, and announce a leader's taking of the cross. 1. This happened from the Second Crusade. Why is it mentioned in section "Background"? 2. Close paraphrasing and original synthesis (Lloyd mentions church synods when referring to the "attending dignitaries", and church synods can hardly be associated with "Knights and chivalry".
• ...medieval institutions were immature in feudal Europe... The statement makes no sense.
• ...the crusades in the Levant were typically unimpressive. PoV statement by a 19th-century historian. Is his view accepted by modern historians?
• Developing vernacular literature glorified the idea of adventure and the virtues of valour, largesse, and courtesy. This created an ideal of the perfect knight. Chivalry was a way of life, a social and moral model that evolved into a myth. The texts in bold represent copyvio.
• The chivalric romantic ideals of excellence, martial glory, and carnal—even adulterous—love conflicted with the spiritual views of the Church. Texts in italics are unverified, in bold represent close paraphrasing/copyvio.
• Writers lauded those who fought for the Church; others were excommunicated. Writers? The text in italics is not verified by the cited source.
• By the 11th century, the Church developed liturgical blessings sanctifying new knights. The text in italics is not verified by the cited source.
• In 1100, kings depicted themselves as knights to indicate their power. 1. Texts in italics are not verified by the cited source. 2. Where did they depict themselves? 3. I think this sentence contradicts the section's third sentence: "11th and 12th century texts depict a class of knights that were closer in status to peasants...".
• Reference 43 is obviously wrong. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Could you list scholarly works verifying tha the the military orders can be mentioned in the background to the crusading movement?
• The section about the military orders lacks any inner coherence.
• The crusaders' propensity to follow the customs of their western European homelands meant that there were very few innovations adopted from the culture of the Crusader states. Three notable exceptions to this were the military orders, warfare, and fortifications. Is this a good introduction for the military orders? Why were the military orders established?
• The Knights Hospitaller were founded in Jerusalem before the First Crusade but added a martial element to their ongoing medical functions to become a much larger military order. The cited source (Asbridge) does not verify the statement.
• In this way, knighthood entered the previously monastic and ecclesiastical sphere. 1. The texts in bold represent copyvio. 2. Prawer's PoV about the Hospitallers' role as pioneers of the military orders is quite marginal. Other authors cited in the article make it clear that the Knights Templar were the first military order (Asbridge pp. 168-169, Barber p. 135, Tyerman [2019] pp. 151-155). 3. If the Knights Hospitaller were indeed established before the First Crusade, what is the connection between the origin of the military orders and the Crusader states?
• Military orders – like the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar – provided Latin Christendom's first professional armies, to support the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the other crusader states. The cited author (Asbridge) does not verify the stament.
• These orders became supranational organizations with papal support, leading to rich donations of land and revenue across Europe. The text in bold represent both close paraphrasing/copyvio and original research. (Asbridge does not associate the development of the military orders into supranational organizations with papal support.)
• In time, the orders developed into autonomous powers. 1. When? 2. Asbridge is more specific.
• After the fall of Acre,... Some explanation?
• Section "Common people" mainly presents facts from the period when the crusading movement flourished. Why are these facts presented as belonging to the background to the crusading movement?
• Women also formed part of the armies. Were all women who joined the crusading armies commoners as the section's title suggests?
• Historians have increasingly researched the motivations of the poor who joined the early crusades in large numbers and engaged in popular unsanctioned events during the 13th and 14th centuries. Text in italics belongs to historiography.
• ...amongst the poor, Christianity and crusading were aggressive. Texts in bold are not verified.
• An emphasis on popular preaching, developed in the 12th century, generated a wealth of useful resources. 1. The text in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Does the statement imply that the Church started to urge commoners to join the crusades? If not, why the commoners were targeted by preachers?
• The most popular example began in 1268,... The text in bold contradicts the cited source.
• The popular but short-lived outbreaks of crusading enthusiasm after Acre fell to Egypt were largely driven by eschatological perceptions of crusading amongst the poor rather than the advanced, professionalized plans advocated by theorists. The sentence is not verified.
• Pilgrimage was not a mass activity. Copyvio and original research. (The cited source specifically writes of pilgrimages to Jerusalem.)
• In this way, what was known as the remotest place in 1099... The text in bold is not verified.
• The literate classes were hostile to this particular unauthorized crusade but mytho-historicized it so effectively that it is one of the most evocative verbal artefacts from the Middle Ages that remained in European and American imagination. The texts in italics are not verified. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Who is Humbert of Romans?
• Chroniclers used the ethno-cultural terms "barbarians" or barbarae nationes, which were inherited from the Greeks of antiquity, for "others" or "aliens", which were thus differentiated from the self-descriptive term "Latins" that the crusaders used for themselves. The texts in italics does not present the views of the cited author, Jubb. 1. Jubb specifically writes of the chronicles of the First Crusade. 2. She specifically writes that the Greeks used the term for 'others' "alien to their urban civilisation". 3. She does not say that "Latins" is a self-descriptive term used by the crusaders for themselves.
• Jubb's work is not properly listed among the sources: isbn and pages are needed, and the doi points to another study from the same book.
• Although there are no specific references to crusading in the 11th century chanson de geste Chanson de Roland, the author, for propaganda purposes, represented Muslims as monsters and idolators. The text in italics is not presented as a fact but as a possibility in the cited source.
• Visual cues were used to represent Muslims as evil, dehumanized, and monstrous aliens with black complexions and diabolical physiognomies. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio. 2. The sentence does not summarize the main message of the cited author (Jubb). She says that a "black/white dichotomy" was used in medieval literature, especially in popular works, but it symbolised "religious and cultural difference, as much as race". She mentions "diabolical physiognomies" only when writing of the Song of Roland.
• This portrayal remained in western literature long after the territorial conflict of the crusades had faded into history. 1. The sentence is closely paraphrased. 2. The cited author (Jubb) specifically writes of the medieval period following the age of the crusades.
• The term "Saracen" designated a religious community rather than a racial group, while the word "Muslim" is absent from the chronicles. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Which religious community?
• The conflict was seen as a Manichean contest between good and evil. 1. The text in italics is not verified by Jubb. 2. Who saw "the conflict" as a Manichean contest?
• Historians have been shocked by the inaccuracy and hostility involved in such representations, which included crude insults to Mohammad, caricatures of Islamic rituals, and the representation of Muslims as libidinous gluttons, blood-thirsty savages, and semi-human. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing.
• Historian Jean Flori argues that to self-justify Christianity's move from pacifism to warfare, their enemies needed to be ideologically destroyed. 1. The article does not refer to Christian pacifism in previous sentences. 2. Flori's work should be cited or at least mentioned in a footnote.
• Poets often relied on the patronage of leading crusaders, so they extolled the values of the nobility, the feudal status quo, chivalry, martial prowess, and the idea of the Holy Land being God's territory usurped and despoiled. 1. The text in italics contradicts the cited author (Routledge) who does not make connection between patronage and statements in the second part of the sentence. 2. Text in bold is not verified (actually, Routledge writes of the restoration of status quo ante.)
• The reformist Church's identity-interest complex framed Islam as a particular form of heresy. The text in bold represents copyvio.
• Muslim rule in formerly Christian territory was an "unjust" confiscation of Christian property, and this persecution of Christians required repayment. 1. The text in italics is closely paraphrased. 2. The text is bold is not verified by the cited author (Latham), since he does not define the persecution of Christians as the unjust confiscation of Christian property.
• Islamic polities' own identity-interest complexes led them to be equally violently opposed to the restoration of Christian rule. Copyvio.

FM

• So just to be sure, this is an iteration of the Crusades article that I also reviewed back then?[3] Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk, but no this is a different article. Crusades is still there and never made it to FA due to all the usual WP reasons and contains the MILHIST. Crusading movement is about the ideologies and instituitions and has no MILHIST. There is some overlap naturally and some attributed text has been moved from the former to this one. I tend to think of it as a Venn diagram. Norfolkbigfish Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• There are some WP:duplink that may not be necessary, which can be highlighted with this script:[4]

—although I only found one e.g. Madden. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Give approximate date for the last image caption?

Not sure what you mean here, or how to do it. If you can advise happy to action.

I think they mean add a date to the "Fragment of a haggada from the Cairo genizah" caption (i.e. when is this haggada copy is from). I'd also recommend a second line in the caption for the lead image of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Having just its name and a picture doesn't make it clear to an unformed reader of what its connection to the crusades is. Aza24 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

—how about this :-)? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The last caption looks good, not sure about the lead one. The building's significance is explained properly in a general sense—but I'm not seeing an explicit connection to the crusades. I would say the image still has to justify its existence. I see that it was reconstructed during the crusades? Maybe something along that sentiment is more relevant Aza24 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think so, thanks for addressing my badgering. Aza24 (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all @Aza24, didn't take it as badgering—more as helpful guidance. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking more the age of the page shown in the last image, but it looks like an improvement. As for the rest of this review, I don't feel qualified enough on the subject to review further until the issues raised by the earlier reviewers are resolved, but ping me if that happens. FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129

Hi @WP:FAC coordinators: . May I suggest the withdrawal of this article from the review process? It has basically now receiving a peer review—to the level of detail that should have been resolved prior to nomination—but which in itself still seems not to be getting properly addressed. So, two problems:

1) It is being peer reviewed whilst also a FA candidate, and

2) The results of this peer review do not seem to be getting addressed.

This is on top of the myriad problems—many small in themselves, but quantitative—raised over other reviews. ——Serial Number 54129 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

On edit: Looking above, I see that one of these issues is close paraphrasing; this takes us away from small issues that can be—and generally are—dealt with at FAC to outright policy violation. That's pretty non-negotiable in my book. ——Serial Number 54129 12:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat inclined to agree; the unfortunate decision to escalate an oppose to ANI means, I think, that there will always be a shadow hanging over this nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI? Really? For a FAC? Blimey. ——Serial Number 54129 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, while the article itself is around 10,000 words long, this page is currently standing at >11,500. ——Serial Number 54129 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I think around half of those are quotes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

More than half and I am responsible for it. Copyvio, close paraphrasing and original research in a sentence can hardly be demonstrated without copying whole sentences and marking their problematic parts. Borsoka (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with extra length where it's required. ——Serial Number 54129 13:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am content that this is withdrawn but not for the reason given. This article has gone through two peer reviews, a successful GAN and was also granted A-Class status by the MILHIST project. It did not need a peer review, that was the choice of Borsoka. That is not to say it would have passed, there are clearly some issues here that have previously come to light or been resolved. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Thanks for the ping, SN. Without commenting on the ANI and the conflict history between the nominator and Borsoka, the latter's oppose regarding copyvio is indeed valid and so is Jens's. I decided to verify some of the copyvio/close-paraphrasing issues and they are indeed as problematic as Borsoka has noted (although it certainly would help to show a comparison of the source and article to better illustrate the copyvio problem). Such issues violate Wikipedia policy. I recommend that these issues should immediately be looked into and rectified, but FAC is not the place for that. With that in mind, I'm archiving this nomination. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.