Talk:Crusades/Archive 1

message: Why is this at Crusade (singular)?  The name of the thing is "The Crusades," right?  It's not like this is an article about the concept of a crusade, for example--it's about the Crusades. --Larry Sanger
Short answer: it "just happened" that way :-)   Longer answer:
early on there was discussion about whether articles should be named in singular or plural, and the consensus at the time was singular.  The ideas of that applying to common versus proper nouns were still being sorted out, so this is what happened.  There's no reason it can't be fixed now.  --Alan Millar
The other thing is that the *period* was "The Crusades," but what if someone is just looking for a non-specific crusade? Not to put up a dictionary definition of crusade, but it does have a non-historical meaning. Kate Secor
I'm not a history buff but wasn't there more than one crusade? If this article considers more than one crusade then I think it should be moved to Crusades or The Crusades, whichever is more historically accurate Jaberwocky6669 20:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:I suspect its been renamed back and forth a number of times. But probably the reasoning for the current nameing is 1) There is no "The" for multiple reasons and 2) it is in the singular as that is Wikipedian nameing convention. Stbalbach 20:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Talk

message: Only Westerners who know little about Islam equate the terms Crusade and Jihad. jihad simply means effort or struggle. For the believing Muslim there is a greater jihad and  a lesser jihad.  The greater jihad is the struggle (effort) to follow the dictates of Islam ("struggle in the way of Allah"), much like the believing Christians struggle to follow the 10 Commandments. The lesser jihad is defensive war against those who attack the Muslim community.
: If someone is not confused about the difference between ideology and fact, they will not claim that Muslim expansion is "defensive".   Are "Westerners" the only people on earth who know that people need an excuse, before they will go to war?  And lacking a real excuse, there are several ready made: "defense" against an attack on the "community" is precisely the excuse made by Christian crusaders.  Mkmcconn 15:52, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crusade and Jihad are NOT the Same 

message: I have to wonder why the ALbegensian Crusade is listed, the Northern (Slavic) Crusades are shifted off and the Spanish Reconquest is not listed at all. The scope seems to be a little blurred. This article should deal with just Jerusalem with links to related actions, or include everything exhaustivly. I would like some opinion before progressing in the former tack.Dominick 15:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I know from talking to other contributers that we have had a hard time figuring out what to include as a "crusade." They didn't call them crusades at the time, and lots of minor things sometimes get lumped in as "crusades" as well, so there hasn't been a good definition here. Adam Bishop 16:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, a crusade would be preached by a Church Leader. Crusade I - IX would qualify. The Pauper's and Children's crusades would be exceptions that make the rule. The Slavic Crusade was a german incursion. The Norma conquest was not preached by the pope, but blessed by it. Dominick 18:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would the 6th Crusade by a Crusade by that definition?--Heathcliff 23:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time Crusade was a more or less juristical definition. The Pope (and the Pope alone) could define a military action as a Crusade, which then gave the participants certain rights and privileges. One of the reasons the term fell in disrepute was that some popes used it for their own ends. 213.47.127.75 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cathars

message: I'm thinking about adding a table to each crusade listed in this article, to facilitate quick browsing. Something along the lines of:
Preceded by:previous crusade'
Crusades
Followed by: next crusade
(The term "followed" may imply continuity, and should thus probably be replaced.)
An alternative is to use a wiki message such as the one I created at User:Itai/Crusade.
Any thoughts?
-- Itai 23:48, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Table

message: One of the things discussed when taking a St. John's First Aid course is their involvement in early medicine, following "in the wake of the crusaders" patching up the wounded after the battle, they were originally referred to as the "Knights Hospitallers".  Rather than trying to put information about this in each of the Crusade articles, it would make sense to possibly include reference to this in the primary article summarizing the crusades.
Resources:
*http://www.orderofstjohn.org/frameset.htm
*http://www.ifrc.org/who/history.asp
*http://www.ku.edu/carrie/specoll/AFS/library/Boardman.html
*http://www.sja321.ca/history.php3
--Kyrin\talk 15:51, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
:Well, we already have a Knights Hospitaller article, and a St. John's Ambulance article, and military orders, and they are discussed in various other related articles. Adam Bishop 15:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth of the Red Cross and St. John's Ambulance? 

message: The Popular reputation section is a mess. It starts with a needless and somewhat opinionated description of popular history and then offers a description of the popular opinion of the Crusades in the west that completely fails to mention the negative reputation the Crusades have developed in recent years in the west. But most of the article is just a random string of facts about the Crusades that have little to tie them together and many of which have nothing to do the the subject of Polular reputation.--198.93.113.49 19:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your edits. -SV|t|add 05:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular reputation 

message: Note: Yes, I notice youre being a bit more agreeable - thats good.
* "Avoiding the issues?" - You avoid the context. This is an open project and your particular standards of selectionism are not supreme here.
* "Insult" - to whom?
* "Advancing a political agenda" - Certainly representing a different point of view. How is that advancing an agenda? 
* "FDR was called a tyrant" - If true, it would be certainly appropriate to add it, and inappropriate to selectively remove from a page. 
* "fabricating history" - The American President himself used the term in the context of the War on Terror. That alone makes it an appropriate reference.
* "not restricted to that location" - were the Crusades exclusively "location" based, no they were culturally based conflicts. This is the point you dont seem to be getting through to the synapses.
* "on Pope's orders" - Was that the way all crusades began? Of course not, and even if it was, the medieval role of the Pope as the Commander in Chief of Christendom - was as political then as the US presidency is today. There is a correlation.
* "journalists," free time, bored academics, crackpot ideas - you seem to quite full of this rather vitriolic characterization of your fellow editors. I find your lack of m:wikifaith disturbing.
* "I highly doubt a reasonable person could say so." - What you doubt or do not is not relevant, nor do I tacitly accept your defininion of what is "reasonable." You failed to answer any of my points so far.
* "The Crusades [were this and only this]" - Certainly thats not debated. What else was just that and not this now? You say "Crusades" (plural, many) took place nearly a millenium ago," which even on its surface is an absurd way to look at history.
* "I find that very much within the realm of historians, and not very much in need of augmentation from your journalists from this imaginary contemporary discussion." Fair enough, and now you at least admit that all of this is about your opinion: Now lets test it: Would you say that an article on Newton cannot reference Einstein, or an article on Darwin cant talk about the influence he had on things like statistical population genetics? 
* "I do not deny that the War on Terror is a contemporary event though, with a contemporary discussion attached there to, and conveniently enough it is seperate topic on Wikipedia as well." LOL in other words, "Please go away with your scary journalism and current events - Go forth, you heathen, back into the dross and detritus of contemporary propaganda and polemics." Thanks but Ive only got one item of business here, which is to permeate some cultural context into the article — contrary to your opinion.
* Cheers: "In short a cross reference that does not firmly establish the historically establish "correctness" of the War on Terror as a Tenth Crusade - but does acknowledge that a small constituency uses the term. Frankly I think it should be a point of differentiation - not a point of acceptance" 
**NPOV demands that articles not assert a POV, merely to reflect POVs that exist and have some worth. Reading your responses, you seem to be growing in your worldview quite quickly, so I'll express my hope that you can see how the mere mention of this does not by itself make any assertion of truth.
* Cheers: "I simply do not see a war which unfolds on a global battlefield - not confined to one location, not even a traditional war as we understand it to be, with no religious ideology and no religious blessing, against no stated particular religion, can be considered by scholars as a crusade."
** Your opinion is one which thinks the article should avoid dealing the plain observational connection that wars between the same cultures carry much of the same religious overtones (or undertones). This is not a controversial statement, and I dont see how anyone reasonable can deny the connection, nor consider the views of those who make that mere connection "crackpot journalists" Well, on second thought, yes - I can see one way: if by the ommision of references to that connection, one is, by act of censorship, supporting a particularly narrow point of view.  -05:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that if even the definition of "Crusade" depends on papal sanction, its besides the point (like you say "irrelevant"  because its fair to draw fair parallels. The only counter to this is if such a parallel was POV, in which case its still not an argument for exclusion, but rather for placing it in proper context. IBDTSFY, Adam, and I know the difference between irrelevant and exclusionism. Note that much of the material about Islamic views toward the crusades has been removed, or is otherwise diminished as irrelevant. If one wants to claim that 'the English encyclopedia should show a western bias,' I have a 24 hour block button with their name on it. -SV|t 01:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. Arguing semantics and dictionary defenitions is usually a dead end in any discussion. Now, the article states in the very first line that This article is about historical Crusades, but there should be a short section about modern usage. Attempts to link the current conflict in the Middle East with the historical Crusades deserve mentions with a line or two (if the authors are noteable), but the discussion of the basis behind this claim should be somewhere else. Fornadan 20:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree also. Much of the etymology in the opening section should be moved to the body under etymology, or moved to Wiktionary. What Stevertigo wrote will be removed as original research and/or POV. This is a history article, we talk in the past tense here, the Crusades are over, done, complete. I know of no serious professional historian who says the Crusades covers the period 1100-2005. The Crusades are defined by professional historians as covering a set time period, which is what this article covers. If mainstream academic say otherwise we will change, until then we follow what the mainstream academic world says. Thats how (and why) Wikipedia works.  Stbalbach 20:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: History books don't always agree that there were nine; sometimes they count up to eleven (which is why the War on Terror is sometimes called the "Twelfth Crusade" as well). Often they don't count anything past the Fourth Crusade - they will say "Frederick II's first crusade", "Louis IX's second crusade," "Richard of Cornwall's crusade", "crusade of Nicopolis", etc. We have many smaller articles here that do not fit into the nine-numbered scheme. I suppose this is besides the point; you are right that nothing after the end of the Middle Ages, whenever you want to date that, is seriously considered a crusade by current historians. Adam Bishop 01:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Late point by point response to Cheers

message: Who, exactly, used or uses the term? Whats the etymology? This is a highly politicized term, one with pejorative meaning meant to express disapproval for one party and approval of another, it is not a neutral historical descriptor, it is contemporary propaganda. A "See also" to the seperate 10th crusade article is appropriate. The text as added recently about the 10th crusade reads like Original Research, one persons POV about what the term means. A noble effort, but not scholarly, no references, no etymology, no historiographical context. Stbalbach 16:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that bit did have references at one point but they have been lost in the edit warring. As a comment about this whole thing: many things have been called "crusades" as late as the 16th century and even as late as the 19th. The Spanish Armada was seen as a crusade of sorts. This page also mentions that the term can be borrowed for other purposes - the third paragraph at the very beginning. I think a mention of Bush's speech is perfectly valid here, but otherwise I agree with Stbalbach - if the Tenth Crusade references that were there at one time can be restored, that would be at least slightly better, but even more ideal would be to have a simple "see also." Then you can all take your edit warring there, off of my watchlist :) Adam Bishop 16:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see Cheers being a bit more agreeable, perhaps that agreeability should extend to context as well? -SV|t 01:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions on tenth crusade 

message: I find the 2nd claus in this statement unclear. What does it mean?
 The popular spirit of the movement was now dead,
 and the succeeding crusades are to be explained
 rather as arising from the Papacy's struggle to
 divert the military energies of the European
 nations toward Syria.
--Heathcliff 23:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm glad I'm not the only one baffled by it. I think it should be rewritten in this article as well. I'd do it myself, but I'm still not sure precisely what it's trying to say.--Heathcliff 04:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement in the 4th Crusade section

message: Dude, we all need to just chill out, CHILL OUT!  Like seriously, we've got people saying this is the tenth Crusade, this isn't the tenth Crusade, this might be the Tenth Crusade.  How do we know that there are only ten Crusades?  Maybe there were more, maybe there were less.  But still, this whole madness between Mr. Cheers and stevertigo needs to stop before somebody dies like Biggie and Tupac.  It's like Farakhan said, beef just isn't the answer.  I don't know if this is the Tenth Crusade, but your beef might be the Tenth Crusade.  We should all just take some hits off the peace pipe and make some mad peace.  And maybe some mad love.  Like, why are the terrorists attacking us anyways?  I think I know why, it's because we get all uppity over the tenth Crusades.  If we just smoked the peace pipe and CHILLED OUT, then I don't think the terrorists would hate us.  And dude, why you gotta be hatin on the encyclopedia?  You know how many papers  I've written using only the encyclopedia?  And hey, you know how many times I've used the dictionary to write papers?  A LOT!  So let's just CHILL OUT and give MAD PROPS to the DICTIONARY.  And we don't need more Biggie and Tupac man, that's not how I want to see this end.  Mr. Cheers, I'm not gonna say that I'm with you in case you get shot, but I'm with you.  MAD PROPS TO THE DICTIONARY, ONE LOVE, PEACE!
-CHILL....
:ROFL. If only you agreed with me, you would truly be cool. :) your Ball Slapping article needs work by the way. SV|t 01:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Christianity as a pacifistic religion stopped about the time Constantine adopted it as a quasi-state religion. "In hoc signo vincet" and so on... That said, the discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and the actual situation were felt. Especially after the end of the Viking age and the hot phase of the Spanish reconquista, people were increasingly worried about wars and violence between Christians. There was a Peace of God movement in the west, and when that didn't work out so well, Urban II had the great idea of allowing a just war and sending off all the troublemakers to Palestine (The preceeding is a slightly simplified version of history;-). --Stephan Schulz 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Crusades Man... They Sucked 

message: Belongs in the etymology section. Really it doesnt belong in the article at all, it belongs in Wiktionary. This article is a history of the Medieval crusades. It is not an essay on all the dozens of shades of meanings and usages of the word Crusade. Check the OED for that, you seem to have a single pet definition you continue to push, related to the ongoing current events in the Middle East. Go to Wiktionary, it was created just for this purpose. They need help. Perhaps you can fill out all the various meanings of Crusade there. Encyclopedia articles are not dictionaries. Stbalbach 02:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are almost completely incorrect, Stb. Disambiguation is for listing unrelated terms with the same names — not for explanatory differentiation of related meanings of a term, or which are otherwise thought to be related and hence must (or should) be clarified (dont assume prerequisite knowledge). Articles often begin with a clarification of the term. "Foo is bar and nothing else" doesnt cut it when x does mean something else, and an abstraction to the term rather than a rigid and stoic notion of concept is necessary for clarification. Keep in mind the article is titled "Crusade." A title is a term. And the definition of the term is appropriate in all cases. An encyclopedia is (by definition) "not a dictionary" precisely because it must (or should) be explanatory and clarifying. A dictionary often must not: it lists various meanings for the term, often without thoroughly relating them to their context. A dictionary is a compendium of definitions —should an encylopedia be removed of any and all "definitions?" Of course not. Second, your "medieval crusades" argument might be valid if the article was named "medieval crusades" - but even in that context, the current meaning of the term "crusade" as it is directly derived from history, is of course relevant. Your assertion of my having an agenda is off topic if not a pure ad hominem. Thank you for the MHTL though. -SV|t 03:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wrong. There are at least 9 ways to use the term crusade in the English language. When people come to this article they are coming here to learn about the Crusades, which means somthing very specific, one of those 9 meanings. They dont come here to learn the different meanings of the word, that is called a Dictionary. Certain subjects have a priority on name real estate in Wikipedia because they are the most common usage. If there is reason to explain the different meanings of the term that is done sometimes. For example Feudalism, to learn about the origin of the word it helps to explain the etymology of the word. In the case of Crusade, all your doing is saying "Crusade means X. Crudade means Y". Who cares? If you want to write an article about Y, then disambig it, the X article has nothing to do with it. Stbalbach 05:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Here's a pertinent question that I'm not sure of the answer to, but I think the answer is directly related to whether or not the disputed definition should be in the article: Would the word crusade have the usage described if not for the Crusades? If not I don't think it belongs in the article. But if the Crusades influenced the later usage of the term then I think it is relevent here.--Heathcliff 02:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NOTLEX is a good place to discuss this. MPS 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Okay it looks like 3 of us so far would like the create a Crusade historiography or a Crusades in history page and move some of the content on this page to it. Aynone else want to way in. What is your opionion Adam? I know you were opposed to a Popular reputation of the Crusades page what about a Crusades in history page similar to the Middle Ages in history? What does everyone else think?--Heathcliff 23:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's okay..."crusades in history" would be pretty interesting I guess. Adam Bishop 00:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Similar to etymology, the word historiography is often misapplied. Historiography would be how historians wrote about the Crusades. The Middle Ages in history article (which I wrote) is not really historiography since it covers such a wide range of topics like film and architecture and philosophy. Perhaps a real historiography of the crusades could be done, Im not sure how interesting it would be outside of specialized circles, it would be a long list of obscure titles and authors, arcane stuff for an arcane term. But, an article along the lines of Middle Ages in history, on the search for "the popular" in the Crusades, would certainly be interesting. Even more so an article called "Medievalism" which I hope to write someday, on the popular interest in Medieval topics in general. Stbalbach 00:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it sounds like it should be called "The Crusades in history" since that would allow us to cover both historiography and the popular reputation of the Crusades in one page. Is there a way we can round up some support to help get it started? I'm very happy to contribute, but I can't do the whole thing (or even a quarter of it).--Heathcliff 02:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'd say in the spirit of Wikipedia, go ahead and make a go and see who comes along, time is on your side, never know who shows up to contribute or when. I can make some additions of stuff thats allready done in other articles as well, but its never complete, always incomplete :) The Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages may also be of interest. Stbalbach 14:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll if anyone feels like starting it go ahead. If no one else does, I'll start it in a week or so after I've had a chance to run by the library.--Heathcliff 22:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: crusade historiography page

message: Im fairly certain that image is inaccurate. They are carrying Norman shields. They have Mustaches, Im pretty sure the Franks were clean shaven, might be wrong, but it was the Anglo-Saxons who had the crazy facial hair. They have a "red cross" banner, which did not evolve until after the First Crusade. To fairly represent Crusaders, you would show the chain armour underneath a sleeveless cloak with a large cross on the back .. this was because the temperatures were so hot, they wore their armour fairly naked (only some padding to prevent scapping) and then a loose sleeveless cloak over top.Stbalbach 02:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of first crusade knights 

message: To me, it's totally zany that this page is at "Crusade". Look back up this page - basically everyone, in their comments, talks about the "Crusades". I know about the "titles should be singular" rule, but we also have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If we're all calling the subject "Crusades", let's recognize reality and dispense with the Procrustean "Crusade", and rename it. (I'd do it myself, but I'm not a contributor here, and so I'll leave it up to you all). As an added benefit, "Crusade" can then become a disambiguation page (I think I recall some discussion of disambiguation above) and/or a page about the concept of a crusade, whereas "Crusades" can be exclusively about the historical Crusades. Noel (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it's kind of zany I guess, but it's not that big of a deal. But it would be a lot more zany to split the page into one about the concept and one about the specific crusades themselves. As long as one redirects to the other, I don't see much point in arguing about whether or not there should be another S there. Adam Bishop 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title/disambiguation

message: Would I be amiss in adding Runciman to the list of possible readings at the bottom of the article?  Obviously, his book is old, and utterly unconcerned with doing anything but providing a politico-military narrative of the Crusades.  But his is still probably the best (or, at least, the fullest) politico-military narrative of the crusades in English, as far as I am aware.  But if his work is an embarrassment, or something, I don't want to add it. john k 18:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an embarrassment...sometimes Runciman lets his imagination run wild, but yeah, it's one of the best general summaries. He even wrote the First Crusade parts for the much larger work edited by Setton, and I don't think there have been any large-scale general histories since then. Adam Bishop 00:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Are there any serious estimations of how many people died due to the crusades? Gugganij 06:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There sure is, but the numbers vary so much that it's not worth sticking with one. Darth Panda 19:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to read more about that, Jonathan Riley-Smith wrote an article called "'Casualties and the Number of Knights on the First Crusade", in the first volume (2003) of the journal "Crusades", published by the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. Adam Bishop 01:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanxs for the info. Gugganij 06:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many died? 

message: History Channel will be airing a major new show on the Crusades Sunday night with lots of promotion in the US. I suspect there will be a lot of edits from it. Keep in mind it is a TV show, primarily the work of a single scholar Jonathan Phillips (a regular commentator on the History Channel). Hopefully will be a good show entertainment and factual. Stbalbach 03:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Channel show Sunday night 

message: *How many people died...
**on the muslims side
**on the english side
::English side? Erm.... --Stephan Schulz 00:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else asked this before, up in the "How Many Died" section. There's no way to give an actual number, for whatever "side" you are looking for. Adam Bishop 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The field of medieval demography has come a long way recently (the linked article details methods used in the last section), but for somthing like Crusade deaths broken down by side, I just can't imagine anything more than a SWAG. But I bet someone will make an attempt at it and make a name for themselves, if not allready. --Stbalbach 00:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More Facts