# Talk:Siege of Shaizar

Urselius, I wonder if you have an opinion on this - should there be a redlink to the Emirate of Shaizar (or "Munqidhite Shaizar")? Is it worth having an article on the emirate, in addition to one on Shaizar itself? I know the Encyclopaedia of Islam has an article on the Banu Munqidh, which could also possibly be worth an article here. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a difficult task to differentiate states from ruling dynasties in Arab/Muslim history as the relationship between the two was often intimate. Shaizar wasn't really a city-state on the Ancient Greek or Renaissance Italy model, so the city of Shaizar and the emirate are not entirely identical. Personally I would prefer a separate article on Shaizar as an independant emirate, even though there would be large overlaps with the city of Shaizar page and any 'Munqidhite dynasty' page. Perhaps reducing the length of the Munqidhite period section in the 'Shaizar' article with a link to a new 'Emirate of Shaizar' page might work?Urselius (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Shaizar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I have boldly done a little copy editing. Please flag up here anything you are unhappy with. Thanks

The lead seems a little brief to me and would benefit with an expansion to more fully cover the text of the article.
Done
Link citadel.
Done
The infobox image needs a US PD tag. As do the other two images.
Not a clue what it is - I just write stuff, my knowledge of how Wikipedia works is minute.
Well I did my first one of these last week so I'll have a go. And done for all three. I hope. I'll let you know if an admin hunts me down.
"Freed from immediate external threats in the Balkans or in Anatolia" absolutely cries out to be followed by 'by...', with … being the reason(s) for this freedom.
Done
Link suzerainty.
Done
"to assert his rights of authority over Antioch". A little redundant; can we have him asserting either his rights or his authority? Or, if the sources support it, 'his rights and authority'.
Politically fraught - Antioch was nominally Byzantine into the 1190s and the legal position of the Antiochene Latin principality was shaky - when able to the Byzantine emperors made the princes grovel (literally) - but they never managed to assert direct control. The link to the Treaty of Devol should make things a little clearer to the interested reader. Have added 'and'.
Actually I knew all that. (I have had 14 Byzantine GAs in the last 6 months. That sounds boastful, but I am trying to establish that I have a grip on the basics.) Mostly I was picking at the grammar, admittedly in the context of the political situation.
"for a descent on Antioch". A "descent" seems an odd choice of word. Perhaps something like 'The necessary preparation for putting pressure on the crusader states was the recovery', or 'The necessary preparation for putting pressure on Antioch was the recovery'?
No this is purely geographical - Cilicia is between the areas under firm Byzantine control and Antioch. To get his army to Antioch (and sea transport was inherently risky - so many armies of the period were lost in storms at sea when in transit) he had to reconquer Cilicia.
Hmm. Well i'm not going to argue at GAN. Fine.
I think that "descent" carries the exact hint of veiled menace that characterised John's expedition from the Latin viewpoint. The princes of Antioch slipped between being dutiful vassals, unreliable vassals and outright enemies of the Byzantines with a total lack of conscience. Though aimed at Muslim Syria, John's army was a potent threat to Latin Antioch. Even had Aleppo been taken, I think that the hand over of Antioch would not have gone smoothly. Urselius (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Link vassal.
Done
"the Emperor was soon thrown entirely on his own resources." I am not sure what this means. On the surface I would read it as his being abandoned by his allies, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Is it possible to be more precise? It may be clearer if this sentence runs straight into "Although John fought hard for the Christian cause in the campaign in Syria, his allies Raymond of Antioch and Joscelin of Edessa remained in their camp playing dice and feasting instead of helping to press the siege."
Wording changed.
An ISBN for Angold please, and an OCLC for Runciman.
I do not know what an OCLC is.
Apologies. I have just noticed that it is a 1990 reprint, so needs an ISBN, which it has, not an OCLC. Sloppy of me to have missed it.
ISBN done
A publisher location for Birkenmeier.
Done
It doesn't work like that. I have sorted it.
Congratulations. A fine GA there. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Following the discovery of multiple errantly sourced passages in this GA, I'm going to be going through and determining if every passage is accurately cited. This is exclusively about determining verifiability, so other GA standards will not be reviewed. Additionally, despite the incredulousness of this edit summary, I have access to all these sources (see Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus and A History of the Crusades and the Frankish East, 1100-118). ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Starting with the Kinnamos source and checking that each passage is correctly sourced to it, considering that it is a primary source and that it was the first problem spot I noticed in verifiability. The first citation to the source is listed at the end of a paragraph, so it's unclear what specifically relies on that source, but page 22 does describe the matter of authority over Antioch in less detail than the article. The second citation, regarding the conclusion of the siege, is very good and pertains to both the citadel and the gem cross on the pages described. The final citation to this source regards John II's death and Manuel I's accession, but the page range was too short. I've added reference to pages 30 and 31, which terminate the death narrative and skip the failed wound treatment (what a nasty way to go). I think that more from this source could be mustered in the earlier sections, but this is more than sufficient for the GA status. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Also: since both the referenced translation and the Wikipedia article anglicize the author's name as "John Kinnamos" rather than "John Cinnamus", I will standardize to Kinnamos. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC) 
Good catch. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Next up: Runciman. A spot check of the online first edition appeared to confirmed that, like the more recent CUP paperback reprints I'm familiar with, the 1990 reprint edition was a page-for-page reproduction or scan of the original. Nevertheless, I proceeded with the caution that the page numeration might be distinct; since this is the freely accessible version with no indication of revision in the 1990 printing, I have altered the citation to refer to this edition. The first reference to Runciman is regarding Raymond and his fealty and is very well sourced to page 213. Per the standard (but not guideline) of WP:PARAPHRASE, the Campaign section will require a major rewrite, as lifts almost word-for-word from the second paragraph on page 215 of Runciman. Because editor Urselius seems both active on this article particular to its phrasing, I will initially defer to them performing the rewrite. The next Runciman citation (to page 216 on the internal issues) has something of the inverse issue, summarizing specific details to the point of generalization; this is mostly mitigated by the same content receiving more intimate coverage in the article in a later passage also sourced to Runciman, but I would encourage restructuring to avoid the generalizations altogether. The next reference to this source is on the siege's conclusion: here, the article sticks to the source well while avoiding overly proximate paraphrasing. The first paragraph of the Aftermath section, previously unsourced, had a broken Runciman citation that is now resolved. It is worrying that this paragraph lacked a citation previously considering its proximity to the source material; please be mindful that citations should be provided more frequently. These final Runciman citations all correspond with the material described in the Aftermath section, and it would appear the structure of this section is based on Runciman's narrative structure. This appears to be the source which originated the now-removed erroneous conflation of "Latin Church" with "Latin rite", though this book also seems to understand the distinction between the former's institutional meaning and the latter's ritual definition. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
To be entirely accurate, I created the article. The paragraph without citation was created by another editor out of my original, larger paragraph, which had a number of citations. I have rewritten the section away from Runciman's phraseology, however with narrative history dates, places and people are obviously immutable. Urselius (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
That's entirely fair, not really a concern. I agree that certain historical realities can't be altered. However, the phrasing was simply too close to that of Runciman to stand. Your modifications have more than sufficiently resolved the matter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Moving on to Harris. The freely accessible version is a first edition with different page numeration, but I doubt that the 2nd edition's narrative is much changed. Harris seems tragically underused here, as indicated by the complete lack of reference to William of Tyre's account, which Harris notes is more detailed than Kinnamos's and takes a different perspective (see page 83 of the linked version). While not strictly a question of verifiability, it is worrying that a GA was passed without reference to the discrepancies in sourcing nor in-line reference to the primary accounts. Harris is generally used to corroborate Runciman, though notably deviates in its description of the cross given at the end of siege, which it describes as "carved from red marble" (see page 84 of the linked version). Additionally, Harris does not provide verification for the claim "the opportunity for the Byzantines to conquer Antioch outright was lost" as given in the article. Instead, John II's death leads to "an end to further negotiations with Antioch and Jerusalem", with "the sovereignty of Constantinople extended over Antioch"(see page 86 of the linked version). This is a minor distinction, but here Harris instead emphasizes that John's death had more implications regarding a campaign against Jerusalem. A failed verification tag has been appended pending explanation; perhaps the second edition provides this detail or perhaps there is some subtext that needs improved contextualization in-line. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Also: it appears Harris takes the view that Antioch had been effectively subdued. See his references to both Anna Comnena and Orderic Vitalis on page 87 of the linked version. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC) 
The appearance of the cross is irrelevant, or at best unimportant. Urselius (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, no, if sourcing disagrees on a subject–both the matter of the cross (which Harris puts some significant weight on) and the matter of whether Antioch was under Byzantium's thumb at John's death–it's important to acknowledge that, preferably with a note. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Choniates says that the cross was marble, and that it was looted from Romanos Diogenes, Kinnamos that it was of 'reddish stone', another source says it was ruby-studded. All could be correct, but they all say it was impressive and noteworthy. I think its exact appearance is not really important. Notable Christian religious items had been used by Muslim rulers to bribe Byzantine armies to go away a number of times - notably the Mandylion of Edessa. I think that this is the important element. Urselius (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I would encourage you to add something that alerts the reader to this behavior. I noticed this detail's absence when I was looking at Harris, so perhaps you could draw upon that. I'll add the description "impressive carved" for the cross to indicate that it wasn't a processional cross or something else. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
In this edit, you describe Angold as believing John's death spared Antioch from Byzantine conquest. However, in the second edition of the text, Angold does not appear to make such a statement and instead comments on John considering turning Antioch into an apanage (see pages 189-190 of linked version). As best I can understand it, reliance on Runciman for this claim is negated by two the other modern secondary sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I have checked and the more recent edition of Angold still has the same text saying that John's accident was a stroke of luck for the Latins, as they would have found it difficult to resist further Byzantine pressure. The Prince of Antioch was in a very difficult position and his temporising had obviously reached its limits. He would either have been forced to cede control of the city and hope for the best, that John would compensate him, or be besieged and probably lose everything.  There are some problems with the 'appanage' theory. Kinnamos mentions it, but Choniates does not. Choniates, as a senior bureaucrat, would have had superior knowledge of what was possible under Byzantine law and custom, than Kinnamos. It had never been a Byzantine policy to divide the empire in such a way. It looks like it derives from Western and not Byzantine political theory. Also it does not throw any doubt on John's widely accepted intention of outright conquest of Antioch in his second Syrian campaign. If he then gave it to Manuel to govern or rule it would be no less Byzantine. In the event, the deaths of John's sons, Alexios. the co-emperor, and Andronikos before the army reached Cilicia would have made any appanage scheme much less feasible as the eventual succession of Manuel to the throne was infinitely more likely. Urselius (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
In the 1142-3 campaign John was not arriving for a pre-arranged co-operative venture. Byzantine sources say that Raymond had 'rebelled' against John. John's descent on Syria was definitely offensive in character and directed at the Latin princes. This is highlighted by his extortion from the Count of Edessa of his daughter to hold as a hostage, and his licence to his army to destroy and plunder the suburbs of Antioch. John would have preferred to coerce Raymond into handing Antioch to him, but he was obviously prepared to use the 'big stick' represented by his army, if necessary. Urselius (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
From the Bucossi book: "The objectives of John's second campaign in Cilicia and Antioch extended also towards Jerusalem,. If the emperor were to gain control of Jerusalem he would achieve his greatest goal, i.e. the incorporation of all the Crusader states within the Byzantine sphere of influence. John wished this union to be brought about smoothly, with the consent of the leaders of the Crusader states. When diplomatic measures failed, John meant to use his army to enforce his plans, but these were interrupted by his death."
Comment: I think it's best to hold off on further review until the primary involved editor or others have time to see these comments. I've added a discussion space below. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


### Discussion space
Please add comments on my verification review here, as to prevent a formatting nightmare. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This needs external scrutiny, possibly though formal channels. Urselius (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Urselius: Please explain what you mean. I'm providing commentary on sourcing deficiencies, while offering suggestions and modifications as I encounter issues. This GA failed some of the verifiability, GA, and citation standards including WP:CITEDENSE and the Criteria 2 of the GAC. It's not a big deal, but it looks like the initial GAR failed to more intimately examine these details. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I would like the involvement of other editors. Urselius (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
In what capacity? If you'd like, I'll notify relevant WikiProjects. After you left this comment on my talk page, I assumed that you felt this page was your responsibility, so I was inclined to work with you individually first to give you the first opportunity to engage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
For when someone else gets the chance to check, I think we should swap out the first edition of Angold for the later second edition, which is freely available online and appears to be revised. In doing so, the most difficult part would be renumber the citations (not exactly a tall order, should only take about 20 minutes on my end). I also think that we need to accept that the reliance on Runciman as the primary narrative has certain drawbacks, including the text's age and lack of engagement with its own sources (obviously not denigrating Runciman so much as recognizing that others have built upon that work). Descriptions of the campaign and battle seem settled and even fairly consistent between most primary sources, so Runciman is more than fine for those aspects. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
One of the problems with more recent publications is their tendency towards promoting 'grand analysis' to the detriment of narrative detail. Quite often there is no option, other than primary sources, to the use of older sources if detail is required. This is highlighted by the lack of much in the way of dates in Angold. Urselius (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Between the above comment and this comment, I think I sense a deference towards certain sources over others in terms of determining facts, despite there being no indication that the relegated secondary sources are deficient. In cases like Angold, citations that contradict the material in the article are provided alongside those that support it. I think an analysis section that describes the opposing views is the best solution; I'll build that out. Addressing criticism of grand analysis, I think it's important to that the article reflect recent reliable sourcing and embrace the change in historiographical interpretations which have occurred even in the last 70 years. I'll do some sourced changes over what will likely take the next couple of days ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not understand the above comment. Urselius (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
That's ok! I'll perform my edits and that'll probably more clearly contextualize what I'm saying for you. I'll make the first of those changes this evening continental US time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Seemed like a weekend task, anyhow. Oh, well. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Much ado about nothing? Urselius (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)