Talk:Crusades/Archive 4

message: Crusade → Crusades –  Obvious move. The topic of the article is the Crusades, it already says at the top of the article "This article is about the medieval crusades. For other uses, see Crusade (disambiguation)," yet for some strange reason is entitled "Crusade". 
The request succeeded. --Dijxtra 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean Crusade->Crusades. The majority of links use "Crusade". Yeah the 7 double redirects are no problem. -- Stbalbach 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict, partially obsolete (but if I wrote it, you better read it! ;-)) Adam, I trust you will (but don't overdo it, take one per hour ;-), but I suspect he (or she?) is concerned about the links that will point to the redirect  that will be newly created. I don't think this is a very strong argument, but it is something to consider.--Stephan Schulz 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ok, I found this page which seems to suggest it doesn't matter. I also posted a question here - I'll wait a day or so, if there is no new info I will strike my oppose and change to support. -- Stbalbach 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's what I meant, sorry...fixing the redirect links will make everything work properly. I'm sure someone will go through every article someday and fix all the redirects there too, but we don't have to do that. Adam Bishop 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the redirects in Byzantine Empire and Greece related articles, i can fix them myself (in a somewhat slow procedure), don't worry 'bout that. --Hectorian 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't even do that. Only the redirect pages themselves need changing. As was quoted earlier, Wp:redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support, as mover. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Stbalbach, there are actually only seven redirects; by some herculean effort I think I will be able to overcome that workload :) Adam Bishop 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean Crusade->Crusades. The majority of links use "Crusade". Yeah the 7 double redirects are no problem. -- Stbalbach 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict, partially obsolete (but if I wrote it, you better read it! ;-)) Adam, I trust you will (but don't overdo it, take one per hour ;-), but I suspect he (or she?) is concerned about the links that will point to the redirect  that will be newly created. I don't think this is a very strong argument, but it is something to consider.--Stephan Schulz 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ok, I found this page which seems to suggest it doesn't matter. I also posted a question here - I'll wait a day or so, if there is no new info I will strike my oppose and change to support. -- Stbalbach 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's what I meant, sorry...fixing the redirect links will make everything work properly. I'm sure someone will go through every article someday and fix all the redirects there too, but we don't have to do that. Adam Bishop 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the redirects in Byzantine Empire and Greece related articles, i can fix them myself (in a somewhat slow procedure), don't worry 'bout that. --Hectorian 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't even do that. Only the redirect pages themselves need changing. As was quoted earlier, Wp:redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Could somebody please explain the difference? Or, to put it differently, what is the background of this distinction in the context of our article? ... Thank you very much! —Barbatus 20:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Historical Background" versus "Historical Context"

message: Is there an article (or would it be a good idea to have one) about the actual arms and armour/battledress/warriors of the crusades?... i.e. an article that encompasses the motivations, nationalities, known names and figures, styles and developement of arms and armour, depictions in art, of crusader warriors (from both Christian and Muslim worlds).
I've come to wikipedia to research this period of warfare in terms of the above, in an effort to decode the uniform as seen say here and here, but have found very little.
Whilst pages like Knight, Armour and Great helm exist, there's nothing really of a serious academic nature addressing the battledress or look of crusader knights, neither here or it seems, the wider internet. 86.133.72.79 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crusader knights battledress 

message: Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: I have added back the East vs West interpretation. This is clearly an important topic for anyone attempting to understand the Crusades. Whilst it requires some work to reach Wikipedia standards, deleting the whole section seems like laziness. This comment is for both 61.68.128.38 and Stbalbach (who removed the section previously) - unless you think the topic is not worthy of the article, if you have such strong views then it would be great if you could channel your energy contructively rather than destructively. I thought Wikipedia was all about iteration...12.47.208.34 12:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  East vs West section 

message: How many both Christians & the other citizens who lived in, around & near the holy land? I'm curious about this. More than the casualties than the amount of casualties in WW2?User:Pic Business
:See the previous discussion of this topic on this page. The question is hard to answer - even the 9 main crusades spread out over 180 years. Most people who died during the crusades would have died anyways. Others have not been born because their parents were killed - do they count? And historical reports are extremely unreliable with respect to numbers and casualties. However, in absolute numbers I suspect that far fewer people than the 60 million usually given for WWII were killed due to the crusades. The current total population of the area is less than that. But comparing a modern, high intensity war with a medieval century-long conflict is rather moot.--Stephan Schulz 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I said "far fewer people than the 60 million usually given for WWII were killed due to the crusades."--Stephan Schulz 06:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yeah, really. The population of the word around 1000 AD was 275 million and essentially didn't double itself until 1650. You figure overall population density and persons per square mile at the intervening years between 1000-1272 AD (stopping at the 9th Crusades), 60 million KIA would be *one hell* of a dent in the human world. No, you want a real crusade that killed millions of people, look at population charts indicating growth rates around the time of the Black Plague. Shadowrun 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Schulz- I think most people would agree that anyone that dies during any incident would have died anyway at some time. And of course when people die, they may very well have had kids were they not to die. However casulties always consider people killed directly by something or indirectly in a non-roundabout away. They don't consider kids who may have been born now is the fact that these people would have died anyway particularly relevant Nil Einne 13:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I have taken a few weeks away from wikipedia in order to cool off and contemplate whether it is worth the time and effort to contribute to WP, having been put off by the behaviour of a small group editors of this article (particularly Stbalbach and STR). Unfortunately for my own sanity, I could not allow myself to leave Stbalbach's last comment (9 Oct) unchallenged:
*NPOV: Stbalbach, to come back to you on your own editorial soapboxing: We all agree that WP should not tell the world how it should be - only how it is. The basis for the ever-accelerating popularity of WP is its ability to act as a global repository of information, incorporating all considered viewpoints alongside one another (in other words, an encyclopaedia for the information / globalisation age). Unlike yourself, I have never deleted/edited other peoples viewpoints to match my own - only added alongside those viewpoints which I believe to be valuable to any reader who wishes to make his/her own judgement. You (and STR) have consistently deleted viewpoints held by many leading academics (not to mention 1 billion Muslims) - your behaviour renders your commentary above both farcical and hypocritical.
*Christian Bias: One of the most commonly quoted problems with WP is that pages can be taken over through the concerted efforts of similar pressure groups. I ask you to step back for one second and consider the following: The Crusades were (broadly speaking) a conflict between Christianity and Islam. However, whilst this page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Catholicism and has a front-page position on the Christianity Portal, there are no Islamic or Arab groups to balance this out. To my mind, this accounts for the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in - i.e. that the article currently has a Perspectives section with topics limited to three Christian perspectives ("Catholic Encyclopaedia", "Eastern Orthodoxy", "Popular reputation in Western Europe") and a "Western vs. Eastern interpretation" section which has been neutralised to the point where it has zero value to readers interested in the Islamic perspective.
*Getting Personal: For the record, I did not appreciate your personal attack. I did not participate with a username etc due to lack of time to commit to WP. That does not make my contributions any less valuable than your own - WP allows anonymous edits to ensure that people with limited time can still participate. Unfortunately, this situation has made me much less keen to get any more involved. As has the fact that you deleted one of my comments on the talk page at the same time as this attack (I had assumed that deleting talkpage comments was banned, but clearly not).
*No Islamic Perspective: The Islamic perspective has been deleted from the article on a regular basis. To have an article on the Crusades without an Islamic or Arab perspective is like having an article about a football match and only talking about one team. If you disagree with the specific drafting I would be more than happy to discuss, however comments above from yourself and STR imply a knowledge of Islamic History limited to the western popular version - the comments show no evidence of any academic knowledge.
*Western Popular Perspective: To clarify one point which I have tried to communicate a number of times, but perhaps I have not been clear: I do not claim that all Western literature ignores the barbarity of the crusades - it is clear that many respected writers have focused on this. However, many Western high schools teach the crusades to children at an early age, when it is too early to discuss academic literature. These children are then taught all about the heroic knights who valiantly fought for justice, freedom and the Great Western Civilisation against an evil enemy. Many examples of this phenomenon have been cited above - I believe that you and a number of other commentators on this page have become too lost in academic detail to realise that the Western Popular Perception has yet to catch up with Hillenbrand, Gabrieli, Runciman, Gibbon or many other major academic writers - hence the current state of the "Popular reputation in Western Europe" section.
*Respected Scholars: Whilst Runciman is certainly one of the most respected scholars on the subject, you are wrong to suggest that his works are proven fact, and/or universally accepted. His major works on the subject were written more than 50 years ago, since when many more contemporary Islamic texts on the subject have been brought to light. Runciman was above all a scholar of Byzantium and Byzantine culture, and his knowledge of the Arab experience does not compare to the modern writers Hillenbrand and Gabrieli, who introduce many sources unknown to Runciman
84.12.183.27 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Stbalbach 

message: Plese help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.25.9 (talk • contribs) .
:Is this for a class? I would not recommend Wikipedia for that question. -- Stbalbach 16:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did the Crusades weaken Feudalism? 

message: Earlier this afternoon, I put in a request for semi-protection, meaning new users with accounts only 4 days old and anonymous users can't edit this page. I put the request in during that anonymous user's "edit-spree", when he was replacing the entire article with nasty stuff. It was granted just a minute ago. I'll guess he'll have to move onto another page to vandalize. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that.--Barbatus 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third. -- Stbalbach 13:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection 

message: It might be a good idea to mention Heraclius in the introduction. His 621 campaign against Sassanid Persia ran under the motto of recapturing the Holy Cross the Sassanids had taken when they conquered Jerusalem in 614. The term Crusade stems from there, and the crusaderrs saw themselves as the heirs of Heraclius. This is related iin detail in Steven Runciman's somewhat classic history of the Crusades. 213.47.127.75 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All new comments go to the bottom of the page (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, still learning. 213.47.127.75 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heraclius 

message: Compare with WP:LEAD.  It doesn't summarize the article, doesn't answer the simple "who what where why and when."  I will attempt to expand, but am not an expert in the subject...Kaisershatner 15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who - Xtan's vs. pagans, heretics, Muslims or those under the ban of excommunication. Generally under the Banner of the Papacy. Various nations over varying periods of time. Why? It is a collection of events for a collection of various reasons with a collection of various actors. Common theme - religious flavor, motivations debateable. Initially against Muslims OK but then scope expanded. Byzantine Empire's appeal being "the principal reason" is argued over, re-capture of Jerusalem agreed upon by all. Reversing gains by various competing Turcoman tribes "raids" and "forays" (Ghazwat) into Anatolia under the appanage system of the loose Seljuk overlordship against Byzantine lands accepted as a desired secondary result. What? When? There were numerous and significant crusades against non-muslim as well. Generally, the change also made the LEAD extremely long, earlier version more succintly captured the entire picture. All items elucidated by you are taken up later in the article in much greater detail. --Tigeroo 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, thanks for the comments.  To take your last point first, Wikipedia:Summary style suggests all items in the lead should be taken up later in the article in much greater detail.  That's the whole idea of the lead.  As it stands, it doesn't even give a general idea of when these Crusades occurred.  And I will defer to your expertise on this, my knowledge of this is strictly as a layperson, but the popular usage of "The Crusades" as far as I know evokes Knights, Richard the Lionhearted, Saladin, Jerusalem, etc.  The latter Spanish or Nordic events should be included in a comprehensive article, but I think the term "The Crusades" pretty clearly means those major Holy Land excursions in the 1100-1300 range.  Kaisershatner 15:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and btw, I agree my version was overlong.  It could certainly be cut down, but what we have here is way too brief.  Kaisershatner 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was perfect as it stands :). Just take it up in parts. The definition of Crusades as it stands is one taken up by concencus of the editors to dispel just that over-emphasis on knights and King Richard etc. and those battles in the Holy land. Maybe a tweak is required to restore the importance of a Christian vs. Muslim world contest that may appear to have gotten lost.--Tigeroo 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, made another try based on our discussion.  The lead now defines the Crusades as usually the 1000-1300 stuff and immediately mentions it can also apply to the broader, wider campaigns that followed.  I left in the thing about the Seljuks, put "Ghazwhat" into the footnote.  I would like to move on the the 2nd "definition" paragraph.  Let me know if it's terrible.  Kaisershatner 14:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I made some minor edits. I am not sure just how universal the Byzantine support theory is accepted since it was quite a while after their appeal that anything got underway and not in any manner that pleased them.--Tigeroo 16:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So can we remove the Byzantine support theory into the body of the article rather than the intro?  It was here when I got here.Kaisershatner 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a difficult thing to define as so many people have different definitions and perspectives. But, there is a general mainstream view, for practical purposes its possible, with the article containing qualifiers and expansion. We might even want to say that, if others disagree or try to expand on it in the lead section, say it is a qualified definition, like in the lead section of feudalism. Good idea researching how other recent encyclopedias handle it. -- Stbalbach 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I made this change.Kaisershatner 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, don't put him in the Fourth Crusade section - I don't know what it is specifically referring to, but Bernard was involved in the Second Crusade and was long dead by the Fourth. Adam Bishop 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: (emphasis added)
*The 1911 EB defines the Crusades as "CRUSADES, the name given to the series of wars for delivering the Holy Land from the Mahommedans, so-called from the cross worn as a badge by the crusaders. By analogy the term "crusade" is also given to any campaign undertaken in the same spirit."
*Here's Encarta's lead sentence: "Crusades, series of wars by Western European Christians to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims (see Palestine). The Crusades were first undertaken in 1096 and ended in the late 13th century. The term Crusade was originally applied solely to European efforts to retake from the Muslims the city of Jerusalem, which was sacred to Christians as the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It was later used to designate any military effort by Europeans against non-Christians."
*Current EB version does mention the latter crusades:  "military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to the Baltic; the Crusades continued for several centuries after 1291, usually as military campaigns intended to halt or slow the advance of Muslim power or to conquer pagan areas."
Kaisershatner 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a difficult thing to define as so many people have different definitions and perspectives. But, there is a general mainstream view, for practical purposes its possible, with the article containing qualifiers and expansion. We might even want to say that, if others disagree or try to expand on it in the lead section, say it is a qualified definition, like in the lead section of feudalism. Good idea researching how other recent encyclopedias handle it. -- Stbalbach 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead sentence

message: Can we change this to "those viewed by the Catholic Church as pagans or heretics"?  It's not objective that the targeted people were heretics or pagans, just that the Crusaders designated them as such.  I just wasn't sure if it is accurate to use Catholic Church or if it should instead read "viewed by the Crusaders" or something instead.  Kaisershatner 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this change.Kaisershatner 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagans and heretics

message: Listen, I love St. Bernard of Clairveaux as much as the next guy (ok, maybe not) but what in the world is he doing in the introduction of an article that spans 500 years of European and Middle Eastern history.  Especially when not a single Pope, Emperor, or Caliph is mentioned by name in that intro?  I'm taking him out.  Kaisershatner 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, don't put him in the Fourth Crusade section - I don't know what it is specifically referring to, but Bernard was involved in the Second Crusade and was long dead by the Fourth. Adam Bishop 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Bernard

message: The article needs some artwork; I chose the Siege of Antioch picture because it is so clear and colorful, and has those nice Crusader banners and a walled city.  I doubt we'll find a single image that is representative of the entire Crusades given the number and differences among them, but I thought this would be a decent choice.  If you hate it, we can look for something else.  Kaisershatner 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I am impressed by the amount of discussion on this article. The Crusades represent an important event in world history and has been represented with great variance of viewpoints over the centuries. It is important that Wikipedia represent this with as NPOV as possible.
In that regard, I agree with those proposing that the section on "Historical perspectives on the Crusades" is too much centered on the European/Christian perspective. I would think it would be fairly straightforward for someone knowledgeable on this subject to add a sub-section called "Islamic Perspective".
Tony 17:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical perspectives on the Crusades 

message: Just a general comment. I think the intro still phrases things in a misleading way. Although the detailed sections do clarify I think the introduction should be able to stand on its own.
The way it is phrased it contrasts "Christian" with Eastern Orthodox and, in some sense, seems to imply that Roman Catholicism had primacy in the Christian world. Although arguably the Catholic Church has probably supported this viewpoint over the years it is certainly not the viewpoint of historians regarding this time period. Also it implies that the call was an Eastern Orthdox vs. Roman Catholic issue when, in reality, it was more of a "Roman Empire" calling out to the rest of the Christian world situation.
It would be more proper to say in some fashion that the Christian Eastern Empire, which had lost the Holy Land and Anatolia to the Muslims, called on their fellow Christians in Western Europe (and the Slavic lands) to help them restore these lands to the "Roman Empire" (which, after all, was what the "Byzantine Empire" was). The result, of course, was different from what either the emperor or the Pope intended.
--Mcorazao 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still issues with intro phrasing 

message: Agnes Nitt, might I suggest rather than going through the article and making massive changes from top to bottom in a single session - a lot of people have worked very hard on this article over a long period of time - that you make small incremental changes, see if there is any feedback, wait a day for people to respond, come back make more small changes, etc.. this is one of the more active and controversial articles on Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 17:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion on my user page is probably relevant here. --Stephan Schulz 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass changes 

message: I am studying the beginning of the crusades, primarily whether Pope Urban II had another motive than genuine relgion when calling it. I have read many theories such as Urban's desire for extra wealth for the Papacy through opening up trade routes to Eastern Europe and of course loot. Other ideas are that Urban wished to assert his authority over Orthodox Christianity prompting Alexius I of Byzantium to accept him as head of all Christianity thus healing the Great Schism of 40 years previously.
Could anyone offer any historians views on this subjects or websites, books etc, that could be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.78.94.2 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban's real motives for instigating the crusade? 

message: Believe it or not, rather then linking here or to a separate article about the participants of the Crusades, this un-ambiguated titled actually goes to an article about a Rugby team. Now unfortunately this means that many of the 200+ links that are actually meant to go here are linking there. Now there is a page move request to move the Rugby team article to one that actually makes a lick of sense and to have the Crusaders redirect here but assuming that doesn't go through, it might be helpful to have some folks take a look at these misdirected links so we can get them pointing to a more appropriate article. 205.157.110.11 15:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page links to [[Crusaders]]