Talk:Crusades/Archive 5

message: Why is 'holy land' capitalized? it is highly POV and not everyone in the world considers that gutter "holy land". "holy land" should NOT be capitalized as there is nothing "holy" about it or the people/culture there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Land??? 

message: There is a section in this article which talks about the "United States" in the crusades.  Please clarify if this is the United States of somoewhere else or something, because obviously America did not exist.
: Sounds like Islamic Extremist Propaganda and therefore vandalism.Tourskin 20:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: America has existed since Pangea broke up millions of years ago. It is a large piece of land; it is sufficiently large to discriminate three area --- North America, South America and Central America. These three areas currently contain many countries, including Chile, Brazil, El Salvador Canada, and even one called The United States of America. [Notice the preposition "of" there in the name of the country, The United States of America.] So to be clear, the USA did not exist at the time of the Crusades [which is a pity becasue we could have used the help and then been entirely successful].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States in the Crusades?? 

message: The article has had 47 edits in the past 24hrs, of which one edit was legit. This article really should be on life-time protection given its history. -- Stbalbach 18:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen, I feel very strongly that the reason this article gets so much unwanted attention is your stubborn unwillingness to balance the POV. The article has retained a strong European bias despite a very large number of people's comments and attempts to edit the article. On 1st Nov 2006 I wrote you a clear and carefully written explanation of the POV permeating the article, but to date have received no credible response from you. I accept that you intend to carry on acting as the guardian of this article, which you are doing extremely effectively, but I implore you to also spend your time constructively and attempting to balance the POV in the article yourself. Hopefully this will allow you to reduce the time you spend reverting attacks from those who disagree with your POV and we will not have to have the article protected forever.84.12.199.197 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While not answering the pov accusation, I would like to mention that the article gets a lot of unwanted attention from middle schoolers studying the Crusades for the first time. A few insert childish garbage in anything they are pointed to. They are not reacting to pov, if any. They are simply vandalizing. Most are too immature to recognize pov. And, BTW, most would share our pov if it was explained to them!   :)   Student7 (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection request 

message: Overall this article is fine.  It's adequately objective.  However, it still views the Crusades from a mostly Western perspective. i.e. all of the pictures are European.  If any of you guys are interested read.  "The Crusade Through Arab Eyes" its a great read and shows the disunity of the Arabs.  Cheers.--Yellowfiver 07:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You sound like a muslim Extremist lol.  If you want to expand your KNOWLEDGE about the crusades and not merely a subjective view of information, reading "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" would be good.  It was written by Amin Maalouf (Arab) so I hope you're happy. --Yellowfiver 03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The author doesn't have to be Muslim or Arab to write an unbiased perspective of the crusades. Even us 'Jaleel' Christians can write books than when taken together provide a good view on what is probably closest to ground truth: Stephen O'shea, Thomas Asbridge, Bernard Lewis, are some good starting points. Walbe13 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Slant 

message: I have been looking all over here for a mention of the pause after the aquisition of Antioch during the first crusade, and the eventual massacre of the small town of murat al numan. From my understanding there was some indecision on the parts of Baldwin and the others as to where to go after refusing to give control of Edessa and Antioch to the Byzantines (1098). Supposedly a group of crusaders led by bohemund traveled to murat al numan (about two days march from Antioch) and sent an interpreter to tell the nobility that if they let the crusaders into the city to restock supplies, and retreated to a palace above the city gates, they would be spared. After looting the city, the crusaders then proceeded to massacre almost every single person there, 20-25 thousand in all. Not only the Muslims were massacred, but the jews and even christians who lived there as well. Similar to an ethnic cleansing. But, supposedly, after this the city was occupied for a month or so, and the bodies of the dead were devoured in an apalling act of cannibalism. Some researchers believe that this was to inspire fear in the muslims, and damge their morale. This act also persuaded the leaders of the crusaders to continue on to Jerusalem.
I would also be interested in atleast a passing mention of the fact that while the turks were an incredibly blood thirsty group, and that the Fatamids asked for peace, but were vehemently denied.
Please note that I am only interested in this for the sake of providing a less western-biased article. From my understanding the Crusades are both seen as Chivalrous and honorable battles by some, and as a bloodthirsty series of slaughters by others. Which is true, I cannot say, but some representation of BOTH sides would be appreciated.
Yeliw 05:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an article about that, Ma'arrat al-Numan. Adam Bishop 07:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "murat al numan"? 

message: There was no Germany at these times so please could the references a bit more specific.
In particular what was the role of the "Kreuzritter" the core of which would become later influential in forming Prussia.
This is a layperson's comment.
Thanks,
Werner Dahn
202.81.243.45 16:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there was a Germany, so far as the Emperor was also King of the Germans. But it would, of course, be more accurate to refer to the Empire rather than to Germany at this time. Adam Bishop 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Armies mentioned in the Crusades 

message: Might be a typo but both Sections 4 and 5 are titled Legacy. 
Also, while I can see the relevance of WWI, as it was Europe in the Holy land and all that. Why is it under legacy? Legacy would be Constantinople being Muslim, Austria being Christian, banking/Knights Templar, Dan Brown's bank balance :) that kind of thing. Everytime 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: Thank you for the latest change regarding the initial motives and purpose behind the crusades. I understand how sensitive a subject it is to many, but to keep an un-biased point of view, stating that it was a war "waged by Christians" simply wasn't acceptable. So thank you for the change, and "Death to America"-that's last bit's a joke. I don't really mean it. -Erasmus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Volkovoi (talk • contribs) 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "waged by Christians" is as apt to the Crusades as the "waged by Muslims" is to Jihad. Both terms are peculiar to a particular religion as descriptor for holy justification to war. It would be inconceivable to connote either term with pagan's or Jews for example. Let's not get carried away with PC so as to lose an important facet of these definitions.--Tigeroo 13:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you! 

message: What do you think, can we consider Lepanto and Great Turkish War as crusades?İf we can, can we add them to the article?--Jagatai Khan 11:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lepanto and Holy League 

message: Why has the contributions of Longshanks to the Crusades been seriously reduced:
The future Edward I of England undertook another expedition in 1271, after having accompanied Louis on the Eighth Crusade. He accomplished very little in Syria and retired the following year after a truce. With the fall of Antioch (1268), Tripoli (1289), and Acre (1291), the last traces of the Christian rule in Syria disappeared.
It sounds a lot like original research considering its lack of references and small size. In fact Edward I gave Acre a 10 year respite. You see there are no more Crusader cities or forts falling between 1271 and 1281. The paragraph itself mentions the next fall to be 1289 but its arranged as if Edward's lack of effort led to the fall of Tripoli etc. 
The Book "Crusades" by Thomas F madden states that "Acre still had powerful allies, notably Edward I of England" when referring to the siege of Acre in 1291. It was in fact interventions by Monarchs such as Edward that gave the Crusader states there an ability to negotiate with the Mamelukes.Tourskin 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longshanks 

message: I brought this up a while back, but it still bugs me. Shouldn't the first sentence be more specific than "religious character"? What does that mean? Srnec 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...of a religious character..." 

message: The Crusades were a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by Christians during 1095–1291, most of which were sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom.
If thats the case, why does the campaign box for the Crusades continue until Otranto in 1480's? In fact, there was no Crusade in 1291, this date has been mistakenly put and confused with the end of the Crusader states in Palestine (Fall of Acre). That did not end the Crusades, however. I am going to modify this contradiction. Tourskin 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Contradiction 

message: In the paragraph about the second crusade it says:
: St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who in his preachings had encouraged the Second Crusade, was upset with the amount of misdirected violence and slaughter of innocent people, especially the Jewish and Muslim population of the Rhineland.
I doubt there was a Muslim population in the Rhineland at that time, so this should probably just read "Jewish population of the Rhineland" ... or maybe Clairvaux was talking about the Jewish and Muslim population of some other place, maybe Jerusalem itself? The source given is The New Catholic Encyclopedia ... I only could find a copy of The Catholic Encyclopedia online, that one's article about the Crusades doesn't mention the Rhineland at all. Their article about Clairvaux doesn't mention his denouncing the violence, either. So if someone can get his hands on a copy of The New Catholic Encclopedia, can you check what is really written in its Crusades article? --Sky Diva 16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bernard did denounce violence against the Jews in the Rhineland, but obviously there were no Muslims there. I don't have a New Catholic Encyclopedia, but it couldn't possibly say that. I'll change it. Adam Bishop 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim population of the Rhineland 

message: What is the best estimate in term of number of killed of each Crusade and of all The Crusades? I understand that this may be a mute question but I hope there is an attempt to go after those numbers?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bounrith (talk • contribs) 19:48, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
:Hi Bounrith, this question is asked a lot and I don't think it's possible to answer, but here is a link from Dr. Helen Nicholson's Crusades FAQ. Adam Bishop 20:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its asking the total dead of a large part of Medieval warfare. A near impossible task, considering its 400 year existence (1099 - 1480's)and the lack of reliable sources at the time. Tourskin 04:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Bounrith. I study the crusades, it is my focus as a history major. As far as numbers are concerned, Medeival people were notoriously horrible number counters. What they thought were tens of thousands of people was most likely a couple thousand. They seemed to be incapable of comprehending the size of armies or gatherings that contained more than a thousand bodies. It was especially horrible when it came to counting the dead. It is unknown whether this was pure ignorance, or whether the chroniclers were notorious exaggerators. Perhaps they wished to display the army they wrote about in superior numbers to seem unbeatable, or the numbers of dead to seem immense in the same respects. Or they will exaggerate the size of the enemy force to make it seem that God was not on the chronicler's side, as if they had sinned and were to engaged this enemy who was so immensely stronger, their loss will be justified in the eyes of God. So in answer to your question, it is next to impossible to determine the number of people killed or participating on the crusade. For reference to crusading armies, i would definitely recommend Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades:  1000-1300 by John France.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryHawk (talk • contribs) 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers killed 

message: I haven't actually read through this whole article in awhile, and now I am wondering how useful it is.  It seems very bloated and unorganized to me.  Of course, I am not sure how to go about rewriting it to everyone's satisfaction, if that would even be possible. Also, do we need a new separate article about the historiography of the crusades throughout the centuries?  Any thoughts? Adam Bishop 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking we could use an article on historical criticism (positive and negative and especially contemporary) on the Crusades. A historiography article would be nice. In general, I agree that this article seems bloated: it looks like merely a collection of paragraphs describing the various major events beneath notices that say "Main article: ....." —Srnec 02:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would probably be good to re-write.  Noticed that a user had deleted a big chunk, and thought it probably wasn't the sort of re-write you were thinking about.The.helping.people.tick 14:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've recently read through this article, as I'm taking a class on the Crusades at uni and wanted to see what Wikipedia had.  The article is sorely missing some true scholarly work that is needed.  A re-write would do a great deal to improve the value of the article. --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't think of anyone better qualified than a university student like you to re-write the article. Go for it --- and maybe we'll get the chance critique your output with similar cursory derision.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite again? 

message: Very many married women from Apulia in Southern Italy, where living conditions were often harsh, encouraging young women to take ship for Palestine in the knowledge that many men there were looking for wives.
Should be encouraged.
AbbytheP 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Adam Bishop 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad grammar! 

message: Gunslinger1812: I have recently begun contributing to Wikipedia after being a reader for quite some time. I am not completely familiar with Wikipedia protocol, but have noticed a good deal of my Crusader contributions undone. The original article was extremely simplistic and did not give an accurate picture of the Crusaders, ignoring/glossing over such events/conditions as the Crusader-Portugese retaking of Lisbon in 1147 (part of the Second Crusade), the success of the Third Crusade in retaking vital port cities, the economic drive of the Crusades by the maritime powers of Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and to some extent Angevin France, and the crumbling state of the Byzantine Empire by the late 1100s. Also the original article placed far to much emphasis on Islam as an influential factor in the Renaissance and completely glossed over the importance of Frederick II Hohenstaufen and Greek immigrants to Italy. Overall the article just present a very simplistic image of an extraordinary event. I was hoping my contributions could help, but they won't if they're not on the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't followed this exchange, but you might want to read some core Wikipedia policies, in particular WP:RS (all statements must be backed by reliable sources), WP:NOR (don't present your own original research, unless previously published by a reliable source with independent editorial oversight), and WP:V (content must be verifiable via proper attribution and citations). This may explain why additions are reverted. If, after this, your additions are still reverted, please discuss them one by one on the talk page. Please also sign your talk page contributions with for tildes (~~~~) or use the signature item above the edit box. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 09:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that sourcing is very important, especially when dealing with very controversial edits. And the problem is magnified because this particular "Crusades" page is a target for frequent vandalism, so any changes are going to be under more scrutiny than they might be on other pages.  There are also certain "flags" which will cause an edit to be instantly reverted. For example, Gunslinger, I saw you try to change the section header of "First Crusade" to "False Crusade".  To do something like that, you're going to need to provide proof that most reliable historians have been referring to it as the "False Crusade" (which I doubt you're going to find). See also WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.  Also, when your top edit is something highly controversial, the rest of your edits, even if good, are probably going to be reverted sight unseen, simply because the assumption will be made that they are just as controversial.  Gunslinger, since you're encountering resistance, I recommend that you start with small, uncontroversial changes.  Pick one section that needs expanding, expand it, and include a source showing where the information has come from. That'll be a better way to get your edits to "stick", especially when trying to edit a high-profile page. --Elonka 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gunslinger's original edits were probably reverted because they fell between instances of un-reverted vandalism, so everything was reverted, good or not. It also doesn't help that his most recent edit is now a giant block of text with footnotes that point nowhere... Adam Bishop 12:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gunslinger1812's additions 

message: I spent some time today cleaning up some duplicate refs, but I have to admit some concern as to what we are using as references.  For example, some of them go to Madden "a distinguished historian of the Crusades", but, aside from the fact that I've never heard of Madden (and I've read dozens of books about the Crusades), if you actually follow the URL given, it seems to go to some kind of hobbyist website that's linking the Crusades and 9/11.  Plus of course anything that starts off "The Real History of the Crusades" usually sets off warning bells in my mind.  Another concern is that we now have about two dozen refs in the article going to this book: "Lewis, Archibald (January 1988). Nomads and Crusaders: AD 1000-1368. Indiana University Press. ."  I haven't read the book in particular, but I'm concerned that we may be giving its theories a bit too much weight, in violation of WP:UNDUE.  Then again, I will repeat that I haven't read the book or gone over that section of our article in detail yet... I just wanted to express a concern, and see what other people thought. --Elonka 15:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Thomas Madden is a fine reference, probably one of the most visible crusade historians currently. His visibility mostly comes from association with right-wing organizations like The National Review or whatever, which seems to be distasteful to to the left-wing sensibilities of Wikipedia, but he is an important historian nonetheless. He is also an expert on the Fouth Crusade. As for Archibald Lewis, I don't know, the name and the book are unfamiliar aside from the giant block of text recently added. Adam Bishop 03:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah good point, Madden is associated with the Right but it doesn't impact on his work, well not to any extent i can see. Also i've never heard of Lewis or the Book attributed to him. Regards both --Tefalstar 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Archibald Ross Lewis" is his full name and he is deceased. I have read some parts about the Mongols in Lewis' Nomads and Crusaders. Lewis is a scholar, but I don't know what his "specialty" is. I have seen his The Development of Southern French and Catalan Society, 718–1050 and "The Dukes in the Regnum Francorum, A.D. 550–751" cited frequently enough to confirm that he is a respected scholar. He also co-authored European Naval and Maritime History. Man of wide interests, I guess... Srnec 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack of all trades then...--Tefalstar 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the input, I agree that Madden's book looks reputable.  When I saw the cover, I realized that I had flipped through it at one point.  It was just the "9/11" website that threw me for a bit.  Thanks for the confirmation, everyone.  :) --Elonka 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: I wikifyied "trade"... although some don't work right. 68.83.127.31 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikifying "trade" 

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of November 14, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN.
The article was rated as GA status back in early 2006 without a review and since then the GA criteria has changed significantly. Although the article currently has a good number of inline citations, several sections throughout the article are lacking sources. Go through the article and add an inline citation for any statement that a reader may question over its verifiability (this includes all of the current statements tagged with "citation needed". If you can find sources online, feel free to include those, although book sources are always great, which this article uses a lot of. Due to the length of the article, the lead should also be expanded by another paragraph or so to better summarize the article. For more information, see WP:LEAD. However, the rest of the article looks fine considering meeting the broad, NPOV, and image requirements (except the license for :Image:Europe 1142.jpg needs to be fixed).
Again, if you address these issues and check the article against the rest of the GA criteria, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN and let me know and I'll look it over again (so you can avoid the current month+ backlog). If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps Review: Delisted 

message: I added that Sigurd 1 was the first king who went on a crusade as its relevant to the first crusade and the article in general. Nastykermit (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigurd 1 of Norway 

message: There is no claim on behalf of the Greek state or the greek scientific community as to the status of the Horses of San Marco that are integral part of the monument of the San Marco Basilica, along with the Four Tetrarchs and all other sculptures looted from Constantinoupol during the forth crusade.
These is also no similarity between the Horses of San Marco and the scluptures of the Parthenon which are integral part of the monuments of the Acropolis of Athens and according to scientific principle they must be returned and exhibited in the museum of Acropolis in proximity to the Pathenon itself, like the original Horses are exhibited in San Marco's museum.
I think that the article should be corrected, not using vague terms like "modern Turks and Greeks" that could describe 100,000,000 people and their various opinions on the subject, and not confusing two cases that from a scientific point of view are very clear and very an-similar. 
Piraeus77 (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Horses of San Marco and the sculptures of Parthenon 

message: Someone has added the crusader wiki to the list of external links. We know what problems we have with our article. We have no idea what problems or what quality they have with theirs. I think one wiki using another as a reference is probably (with the exception of Wikicommons and Wiktionary) probably not a good idea. What info can they provide that we can't? Just found out that this is now a reference for Knights Hostpitaller as well. So it seems that it is really more or less spam for the wiki. Student7 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was added to all the crusade articles. It seems like an interesting site but I can't imagine it would be any better than our own crusade articles. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: On further inspection, virtually all of their articles have been imported from here anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crusader wiki as a reference 

message: It seems to me that this article started out being about "the" Crusades, if you catch my drift. The "other" crusades are only tangentially related, if at all. FWIW. Ifnkovhg (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other" crusades...OT? 

message: "In the Byzantine homelands, the Eastern Emperor's weakness was revealed by the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, which reduced the Empire's Asian territory to a region in western Anatolia and around Constantinople. A sure sign of Byzantine desperation was the appeal of Alexius I Comnenus to his enemy, the Pope, for aid. But Gregory was occupied with the Investiture Controversy and could not call on the German emperor, so a crusade never took shape."
Alexius was not Emperor in 1071, should this be referring to Michael VII?  Also it seems a too strong to assert that the Byzantine Emperor was an enemy of the Pope - to my mind relations may have been tense and involving conflicts of interest, but did not necessarily constitute enmity.  
Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.231.97 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you place a doublebrace-fact-doublebrace after the comment you are referring to? There's a lot that isn't footnoted inline and probably needs to be. Editors sometimes have jumped to conclusions or drawn their own facts contrary to WP:OR. Your request for facts would enable us to examine whether the statement was born out by the reference or not. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent Factual Error 

message: The last paragraph of the section on the first crusade sounds somewhat overly biased in favor of Saladin and against Richard the lionheart. The choice of John Esposito as a source is somewhat disturbing since his focus is islamic studies vice history. Would reccomend a more neutral citation from Bernard Lewis or other Historian.Walbe13 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is brand new information that was just put in yesterday in a "Muslim perspective" section. I merged it without editing into the first crusade figuring that historically, it either happened or it didn't. We now know. There is no "muslim perspective" on history, per se, nor western. If it needs editing, please feel free. I'm no expert and just wanted to move the data for inspection by other editors without prejudice. Student7 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: At the very end of the article under the heading "World War I and The Ottoman Empire", the references to France and Britain occupying locations in the Levant and the middle-east seems unrelated to the crusades themselves. True, this may be looked at as an example of European Colonialism, as some may interpret the crusades, by I think it difers enough from the core focus of the crusades that it should be considered for deletion. Just a thought. Walbe13 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is totaly off subject. I'll kill it. The survival to the present of some Crusading orders might be worth a mention. For that matter, some discussion of the Marionites in the Lebanese Civil War or modern Liberation Theology would be more closely related to the topic than this stuff. -- SECisek (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, although I would urge caution in detailing the modern evolution of the Knights Templar or Knights Hospitaller. I know the Knights of Malta still exist as a lay order of the Catholic church and represent the Hospitallers, but I think there is still some debate about the "Descedents" of the Knights Templar (i.e. Masons, Switzerland, etc.) Walbe13 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yup, totally agree. I just mention it because a lot of those organizations claim themselves to the be legitimate successors to the Knights Templar. You could make a legitimate case for the Swiss being their successors, or at least more legitimate than most others, but even that is slightly tenuous. 137.246.104.100 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related? 

message: Seems like someone is having fun and blaming us gay people again for the crusades. It really should be removed!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Lobsta Defenda (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  gay? 

message: I've created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject, if anyone is interested in helping out (like step one, how do I get that into the banner up at the top!). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know if there's anywhere in particular you'd like my help with. Walbe13 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crusades task force 

message: A knowledgeable editor made the correct change to material yet asked how can a war be pursued against papal enemies not be led by Rome (the pope)? Well, this happens all the time, doesn't it? Anyway, they were probably sanctioned by Rome except the really looney ones like the Children's Crusade. Popes most likely had their own problems and the logistics of mobilizing a truly huge army for the time, supplying it, and transporting it thousands of miles was probably well beyond the pope who often had his own front yard wars and political problems to contend with. Also there was the international politics. If you led the war you appeared strong to your neighbors. Usually the strongest did the leading. This was (in retrospect) a maturation thing for nations which led to the Reformation and political changes. I'm implying that the leaders sensed some of this at the time. 
For the knowledgeable editor who made the changes this is far too long an answer. And probably too naive. Just wanted to leave a reply to the edit summary.Student7 (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not led by Rome 

message: There is a clear muslim bias I believe in this article. I remember studying the crusades at university. The tone in
this article is completely wrong : partially modern viewpoint, partially muslim bias. "The poor innocent muslims taken by surprise by evil moronic crusaders" seems to be the attitude. I mean please, this is the middle ages we are talking about. 
In the vision of the time it would have been (for the first crusade) : "a militarily more advanced western christian world strikes back at a muslim world that via the turks was trying to expand into the bizantine empire ". Rape and pillage of towns in the middle ages are completely incidental. If you lose, you pay. The saracens did it during their period of conquest before the crusades and the mongols did it in the period after.
The article has to be flagged up as academically controversial and irreconcilable with a western university viewpoint of the crusades  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.128.162 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is supposed to be correct according to scholarly writings. If it isn't please change it, BUT we need footnotes from scholarly sources. Student7 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  clear muslim bias - very different from university slant 

message: On the edit protected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#Third_Crusade_1187.E2.80.931192 (Third Crusade 1187-1192) is what I see as  an important omission.
Present text: "After taking Jerusalem back from the Christians the Muslims spared civilians ..."
Following this text, an important point is missing: "... only following Balian of Ibelin's threat to kill every Muslim in the city, estimated between 3,000 to 5,000, and to destroy Islam’s holy shrines of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque if quarter was not given."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin#Capture_of_Jerusalem
"Saladin initially was unwilling to grant terms of quarter to the European occupants of Jerusalem until Balian of Ibelin threatened to kill every Muslim in the city, estimated between 3,000 to 5,000, and to destroy Islam’s holy shrines of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque if quarter was not given."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.201.16 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing that out. As you will note, this article is the "lead" (high level) article. Each crusade is separately documented much more extensively in forked articles. We are trying to keep this article free from a lot of detail. If anything, I have a pro-West bias. However, I can understand why any editor might have summarized the result when the Muslims retook the city. This detail is not concealed, though it may seem to be from the casual reader who does not go on to read the detail in the forked article. Cruelty was so much a part of medieval life, that the experienced reader kind of skims over them. I realize that this may seem callous, but cruelty abounded. The soft-hearted did not win many battles in those days! Student7 (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not accepted as a reliable source for Wikipedia. The claim in Saladin#Capture_of_Jerusalem is unsourced in that article. Before we consider if we mention this somewhere else, we need reliable external sources for the claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one (1) reference to it which I put in Saladin. See what you think. Who knows, maybe it's just great!   :)  Maybe this should be in Third crusade. Definitely not in this article's summary IMO. The article "Jerusalem" seems a little sparse on Crusader history, to say the least BTW in case anyone wants to take a look at it. Student7 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it in Runciman, which is slightly less ancient and more reliable, I think. But neither source claims that Saladin refused to grant quarter, only that he refused to accept a conditional surrender. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It's all been moved to History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages), I think. By the way, I believe the ultimate source for Balian's threat is the Old French continuation of William of Tyre. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission, documented elsewhere in Wiki 

message: "One of the ironic things about the Crusades is that even though “God may have indeed wished it, there is certainly no evidence that the Christians of Jerusalem did, or that anything extraordinary was occurring to pilgrims there to prompt such a response at that moment in history.”
How the hell do you know what god wants or doesnt want. This is very bias and ask for it to be removed. 70.176.133.226 (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a direct quote from a book written by Dr. John Esposito, and while I agree that it sounds somewhat biased, I believe that he is trying to use sarcasm to express his view that the entire crusade was just a horrible event. I think it's appropriate where it's at. Walbe13 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then Dr. Esposito needs to be highlighted as the person who said the statement. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is marked in "Quotes" with a citation after it.137.246.104.100 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter because "God may have indeed wished it" is not a majority view of scholars. You have you state who actually said the comment other wise it borders on WP:Weasel even with a citation.--Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard to evaluate that sentence as being scholarly, I don't care who said it. The Christians archbishop asked Rome for help. It might not have reflected the Christians view, but how do we know now? "No evidence?" There's "no evidence" they watched Miami CSI either, but that's not stated! I think the sentence should be deleted in lieu of some overriding need to keep it. If we want to know what Christians thought, I suggest we need something stronger than this supposition. Student7 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if any of you has caught the reference. "Deus vult" ("God wishes it") was the rallying cry of the crusaders. The author was being clever.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What god really wanted 

message: One of the major defects in the summary of the fourth crusade is the lack of any mention of the number of times after the crusade was launched that Innocent III tried to intervene and redirect the crusaders efforts towards Jerusalem under the threat of excommunication. I think the paragraph deserves the remark, "started but later repudiated by Innocent III." Way more accurate. Student7 (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth crusade 

message: Did anything significant happen in Antioch around 1100 or 1101? The reason I ask is because I've read a source that says some of the Karaite Jews held ransom by the Crusaders in Jerusalem were not allowed to leave. The Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon specifically mention an eight year old boy and a Kohen as two of a hand full that were never released. A footnote in my source states the boy was "Possibly identical with the boy from a noble family, reported as still being held by the Crusaders in Antioch." (S.D. Goitein. A Mediterranean Society (Vol. 5)) However, the book that is stated to have more info on the boy is in Hebrew. I'm wondering if anyone on here knows if these Jews were ever ransomed. I imagine the Crusaders could have gotten lots of money from a noble family. It sounds like something that would be mentioned in western sources. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Bohemond I of Antioch was taken prisoner by the Danishmends in 1100, and his nephew Tancred became regent and was constantly at war with Byzantium, the Danishmends, and, well, everyone else. Nothing too exciting. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antioch around 1100 

message: This was further strengthened by religious propaganda, advocating Just War in order to retake the Holy Land—which included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city)—from the Muslims. 
I like the coding links but the use of parenthesis is pretty ugly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicocrust (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Poorly worded. I was about to try to change it. But if you look at the whole paragraph, none of it is that great. Worse, it had no inline footnotes. It mentions piety twice. Rambles on about the investiture controvery which doesn't really seem to have anything to do with the crusade itself. The one sentence above covers too much ground and ground that has already been covered. I suggest shortening the whole paragraph, maybe even subsection by one-half. I don't think much real information will be lost. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This line needs to be reworded 

message: Under the "Legacy" heading it might also be mentioned that one of the most important results of Crusades was decline of an ancient trading rout "from Varagians to Greeks" via Kyiv.  Thus, Kyiv came to decay.  Kyivan Rus split apart with one part (Russia) economically and politically oriented towards Tatatars and the other part (Byelorussia and Ukraine) - towards Eastern Europe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.167.41 (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia and Ukraine split as a major result of Crusades 

message: 1. Feudalism nurtures warriors. And vice versa, I'm sure. The normal activity of the guys at the top was fighting somebody, often somebody closer to home than the Middle East. Kings may have noticed that the internal wars weren't terribly productive (no theory of economics, remember). Fighting Saracens seemed more desirable/attractive than (say) fighting France or fighting the Duke of York.
2. The guys at the top were basically thugs until about 1800 or so. And remember, this includes the Middle East as well. Earlier than 1800 in some places, some places thugs still rule. Thugs can use a bit of legitimacy. As groups of thugs replaced each other, it was nice to have somebody wave their hand and convey to them the right to rule.
2.a. Even so, thugs could normally claim a right to fight somebody. William in Normandy, Harold defending his kingdom, etc.
3. The church, who often had an "election" for pope (seem more like "experiments" nowdays and their succession was sometimes thuggish but anyway) appeared to have that legitimacy. Successor of Peter and all that. 
Given the above, the crusades were a gimmee. No downside in theory. 
Unless you are Greek Orthodox, the fourth crusade can be read more like a joke. A bunch of drunks down at the bar saying "let's invade the Holy 
Land" and having it go all wrong. The pope screaming at them from afar to focus. The guys saying, "Well, he's not here. He doesn't understand our problems. Here's how we'll solve the latest one...."
Trying to find a culprit here gets pretty slippery IMO. It was the times, which our civilization had to go through in order to get to these times. If you read the details of the Crusade Gone Wrong, the Fourth, you can follow what the crusaders were doing and why. It was stupid, but more from hindsight. And yes, they shoulda listened to the pope. But pointing a finger is difficult if you understand the mileu. 
As far as the "poor Saracens" go, they were all led by thugs too. I wouldn't waste my sympathy. By invading, the crusaders strengthened certain Moorish leaders and deposed others. So what as far as anything goes? When the crusaders left, they returned (as did the crusaders) to fighting each other again. Is that "better"? It was just the times. Student7 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts on "responsibility" - cause and effect