Talk:Steven Runciman

message: I once had a classics professor who was an acquaintance of Runciman...when Runciman died he told us a story, about a time when Runciman saw a book written in the Thai language. He thought it was beautiful, and wanted to learn it, so, he did. For no real reason he just learned how to speak Thai. Maybe that's not a very interesting story, and I suppose it wouldn't belong in the article, but I thought I would mention it anyway :) Adam Bishop 03:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be worth a mention, with an independent verification. Worthy of being on the talk page at least. -R. fiend 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The following should be on wikiquote rather than wikipedia, unless they can be worked into other sections of the text:
*"Unlike Christianity, which preached a peace that it never achieved, Islam unashamedly came with a sword."
*"I believe that the supreme duty of the historian is to write history, that is to say, to attempt to record in one sweeping sequence the greater events and movements that have swayed the destiny of man."
*"Riches should come as the reward for hard work, preferably one's forebears'."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimhelm (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 December 2006
:Hi there, I've now created a Wikiquote page for him. It would be good if you could provide some references over there, though. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: I've just formatted a chunk inserted by Mikets12, there's some cites need doing correctly, I'm afraid I don't know how. I don't know about the content of the addition - I suspect (because of its formatting) that it's copied from elsewhere. TheresaWilson (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I definitely suspect that as well, but nothing shows up on Google. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After a lot of cuts and re-jigs, it is still over-egged, I think. The old man did a lot more than A History of the Crusades. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a good job very quickly, OhNo, I suspect that it was probably original (as Adam says - no Google) but all or part of astudent essay or similar. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Is the constant reference necessary, again I do wonder why such a reference is constantly made, slanting the reader to assume he was biased as a fact, which I do not think is merited. Surely it would be more proper, for ex examaple in the first section to say "Runciman was a strong admirer of the Byzantine Empire, and consequently considered by some historians to have held a bias against the Crusaders for the Fourth Crusade evident in his work" - How it stands at present is what worries me, it comes across as, Runciman has a favourable opinion of non-westerners - automatic bias! His critics hold an admiration for western civilisation - "yeah that's fine"
The discrepancy is concerning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.16.82 (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant mentioning of his "admiration" for the Byzantine Empire 

message: (from User:Sscloud) 
Please don't assume that the reason why I was removing data from partial source was due to personal reasons. 
I would just as vigorously object and remove any citation of, for example, Bin Laden as an authority on US foreign policy as I will remove the two slanted anti-Arab historians (one of whom is openly so) from the Runciman page. 
It's really very simple, I'm sure you would also object to the inclusion of Bin Laden's views on US/western foreign policy as a legitimate source, for example, and yet you are fighting to keep information from a historian who casts Arabs in a poor light due to sympathies with Israeli foreign policy. 
It's a little bizzare in my mind that this is being done, and my question is more directly, are you saying a poor source that can be cited must be included regardless of it's factual accuracy or the very high likelihood of implicit bias. That's a real 'floodgate' moment if the answer is yes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sscloud (talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last statement is in opposition to the Wiki rules on bias:  please read WP:Biased--it states:  Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.  As for a "poor" source,  I'm not sure what you refer to, or how you happen to make that judgment.  The point here is to avoid bias by WP editors (like you and me) but NOT EXCLUDE bias in the reliable secondary sources.   Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sscloud, I'm more concerned by the bias you increasingly seem to desire to inject into the article and your claims (based on nothing else other than your personal opinion) that certain established historians' views should be discarded because you don't particularly like those historians. You seem to have suggested Seven Myths of the Crusades is somehow not a reliable source or not factually accurate, which you will have to make a better case for than "I don't particularly like Holt's position on modern politics." If you feel the article is unbalanced, find other RS that support opposing viewpoints (good luck finding ones that don't agree Runciman was pro-Constantinople and anti-crusader), and include those viewpoint with appropriate citations. But continuing to remove material simply because you don't like it is disruptive. Grandpallama (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

text: There definitely is bias, and it's usually pretty transparent as Sscloud has noticed, but it doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia editors - this is just a reflection of the biases of the most recent generations of crusade scholars. The dominant voices are currently Catholic and/or conservative. I'm sure this is true of all historians, but for the crusades, religious and political biases are rather obvious, since this a subject that is also very divisive for the rest of the world. Someday things might swing back the other way. Maybe in a few years people might be willing to criticize Riley-Smith, now that he's dead, in the same way that Runciman is criticized here. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is at the crux of my concern--the current "bias" in the article against Runciman is representative of the current view in the academic community. Grandpallama (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I look at this debate, the more I'm worried that we're colluding to discredit Runciman on somewhat shaky ground. There is a reference to Riley-Smith "denouncing" Runciman which has been drawn from "IgnatiusInsight.com" ("the online resources of Ignatius Press and are meant to assist readers who wish to learn more about the Catholic Church and her teachings, beliefs, practices, and history"). I'm concerned that this is not a sufficiently objective source. Can we not do better? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

text: There's a statement in the current version that says that Riley_Smith was "one of the leading historians of the Crusades". He might well be but without a supporting source it risks being simply opinion. Can someone fix please. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... " Riley-Smith is seen as one of the leading historians of the Crusades, he and other scholars continue arguing about various features of that historical period. No modern counterpart of Riley-Smith has emerged to argue for the “traditionalist” school...."   Rjensen (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Great - thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what's going on in that Google Books link - "The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading" is a book by Riley-Smith, but that link seems to be a course website or something. Peters isn't the author of the book, anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: it's a link to a new book 2017  entitled "A Macat Analysis of Jonathan Riley-Smith's The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading " written by Damien Peters that is a study guide to the Riley-Smith book. it is a totally separate book --see it at https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-Crusading-Macat-Library-ebook/dp/B073RP4FM1/ .  Peters also did a similar book  about The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives  and his own history of Florence Italy.   Rjensen (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Yep. I don't think you looked at the Google book closely enough--it's exactly what Rjensen claimed. Grandpallama (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. I associate that title with Riley-Smith, so I thought Google must be mistaken :) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Eamon Duffy is Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge. He wrote  "The Holy Terror" "New York Review of Books" Oct 19, 2006 and states: "For all his immense learning, Runciman’s account of the Crusades was limited both by his materials—essentially medieval narrative sources like chronicles—and also by the narrowness of his understanding of what constituted a crusade. He was uninterested in the extensive crusades against pagans and heretics in Europe, and his consequent focus on the struggle with Islam had a distorting effect. Over the last thirty years or so, a generation of British scholars led by figures like Giles Constable and the British doyen of crusade studies, Jonathan Riley-Smith, has transformed perceptions of the nature of crusading. They turned their attention to hitherto unexploited sources...."  Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Rules on "bias" by editors and by reliable sources

message: I have no position on Runciman's merits or otherwise as a historian, but it is utterly against everything Wikipedia stands for to call someone "biased".  Wikipedia can report an accusation by a reliable source that someone is biased, but that accusation must be attributed to the source, not made in the voice of Wikipedia itself.  See WP:NPOV. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede summarizes what's in the body, and the body covers contemporary evaluations of Runciman's bias toward Byzantium and against the crusaders pretty thoroughly. Grandpallama (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of getting into another losing argument, the lede does claim that "[Runciman] held a bias against the Crusaders for the Fourth Crusade..." The implication is that other historians supported what the Crusaders did at Constantinople, whereas I think it's just the opposite. If everyone believes that, can it be justifiably called a bias? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a misread of the intended emphasis in the sentence. It states Runciman held a bias against the crusaders specifically because of the Fourth Crusade (i.e., the Fourth Crusade events informed his bias), rather than suggesting that Runciman was alone in holding an anti-crusader point of view. That said, there were certainly other historians, particularly during the earlier part of the twentieth century, who had a more favorable opinion of the crusaders. This is generally why Runciman's bias is notable, in that his foundational work of crusade history was also one of the first to suggest the Christians were not necessarily "the good guys". Grandpallama (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I read your intended emphasis correctly, I just don't agree with it. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but Runciman was criticized for bias generally, not because of the Fourth Crusade. Tyerman thought that he was over-the-top in his view of the Fourth, but all historians have been critical of this Crusade. As to being "one of the first," I suggest you read what Voltaire, David Hume, Edward Gibbon or Charles Mills had to say about the Crusaders. Their view was strongly negative, as were many subsequent historians. I know you're not going to believe me (as you view me as a Runciman apologist), so I suggest you get the opinion of  who is rewriting the Historiography of the Crusades. The whole discussion of Runciman and the Fourth Crusade throughout the article is suspect, implying that he alone thought this crusade was a travesty. I am not aware of any historian that defends the West's behavior in this crusade. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just don't see any such implication, which I believe is based on misreading the statements in the article. I see the Fourth Crusade repeatedly called out as the specific reason that Runciman developed his bias, not as a suggestion that he was the only historian who considered it deplorable. I also wouldn't consider Voltaire, Gibbon, or Mills to be comparable; I didn't specify, but when I said Runciman was the first, I was thinking in terms of 20th-century crusade historians who follow modern standards of historical research and writing. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

text: @Grover cleveland is correct, it is inappropriate in WP to describe Runciman as biased, furthermore it is not supported by the sources used. FWIW the lead doesn't normally contain citations on the basis that this is a summaery/abstract of the article. Runciman was principly a Byzantist, and as such had a dim view of the crusaders in general not just as a result of the Fourth Crusade. It shouldn't hard to source opinions that Runciman used crude caricature and is now considered flawed, but bias no. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  is wholly incorrect. There is a perfectly valid argument to be made that Runciman shouldn't be described in wikivoice as biased, but if the sources describe him as such, it's perfectly accurate for WP to reflect those claims. We describe article subjects the way that they are described by secondary sources. There's always a weird, negative knee-jerk reaction to the word "biased" as it if has some inherently negative connotation; one could just as simply describe it as Runciman's point of view, as all historians view history through the lens of their own biases. Grandpallama (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a source that literally says Runciman was biased (I would be very surprised, and I have read a lot of criticism of Runciman)? This article doesn't cite any. Runciman adopted a position based on the evidence as he saw it. You may disagree, many historians may disagree and indeed many question his research. That does not make it biased, used as a perjorative here. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was not used as a pejorative. It was a specific description that Runciman "held a bias against the crusaders". The lead stated he had a particular bias and described that bias. This is a nuanced difference, but it is a difference. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

text: That said, I've no objections to the rewrite of that portion of the lead to reflect the modern assessment of his work as flawed. Grandpallama (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That is probably why @Dr. Grampinator pinged me on this question. It is generally accepted that his Crusades work is beautiful literature but (excuse me herie Dr G, personal view) is now considered lousy history. Any bias identified is largely down to the proponderance and uncritical use of Greek sources. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, that's just not true. The sourced statements in the very body of this article about his scholarship don't critique an overuse of particular sources; they critique specifically his negative portrayals of and feelings toward the crusaders. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Yikes. I'm alarmed at the rewrite of Runciman's contributions at Historiography of the Crusades, which does not reflect what historians say. Grandpallama (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all WP:RS, mainly to Madden and Tyerman (who is probably now the most respected living crusade historian). What is it that Tyerman and Madden have written that you disagree with, and what would your sources be. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Biased" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion