Talk:Crusading movement/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Tags, verification and clarification

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If you indeed want to clean the article, please compare your texts with your sources before publishing your edits. Your latest edits contain unverified statements, including two whole sentences ([1]). If you do not reveal your actual sources, no one will be able to guarantee that your text remained free of plagiarism and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have at least four times indicited that the allegedly cited sources do not verify the two tagged statements. You have always deleted my tags without addressing the problem. I must say that reviewing your articles is an especially irksome task although I have reviewed dozens of articles, including some about much more controversial subjects. Borsoka (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I moved this comment from above. To help uninvolved editors make sense of this it is better to keep the plagarism/rewrite thread on topic and have another thread to cover verification questions and clarifications. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Historians trace the beginnings of the crusading movement to the significant changes within the Latin church enacted during the mid and latter eleventh century

This was flagged failed verification with the rationale Bull writes of the mutationist modell on the cited pages. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Bull writes The launching of the First Crusade was made possible by a revolution which had overtaken the western Church since the middle of the eleventh century. From the 10405 a group of reformers, first with the support of the German emperor Henry III and then in opposition to his son Henry IV, had taken control of the papacy. This institution they shrewdly. Without closely paraphrasing and being objective this looks verified. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Now, I found the quote on an other page. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

A group of reformers took control of the governance of the church with ambitions to use this control to eradicate behaviour they viewed as corrupt.

This was flagged with failed verification with the rationale Bull writes of the mutationist modell on the cited pages. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Bull writes The launching of the First Crusade was made possible by a revolution which had overtaken the western Church since the middle of the eleventh century. From the 10405 a group of reformers, first with the support of the German emperor Henry III and then in opposition to his son Henry IV, had taken control of the papacy. This institution they shrewdly identified as the best means to pursue their programme of eliminating abuses within the Church. Without close paraphrasing and being objective this looks verified. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Now, I found the quote on an other page. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The changes were not without opposition, causing splits within the church and between the church and the emperor.

This was flagged as failed verification with the rationale No similar statement can be found on the cited page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This was cited to Morris p82 This group was itself split by the policy of Gregory VII. Whether or not his ideas were a logical consequence of earlier policies, their application created a new situation, with an open breach with the emperor and a schism in the papal office. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Change made Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

However, the reform faction successfully created the ideology for men they saw as God’s agents. It would enable them to later refashion the church along the moral and spiritual lines they believed in.

This was flagged as clarification required with the rationale The chronology of the events is unclear Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence absolutely ignores chronology in the paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Latham writes Simply put, it provided the constitutive discourse around which crystallized an element within the Latin clergy whose members saw themselves as divinely inspired agents of moral and spiritual renewal within the Christian commonwealth. By the middle of the eleventh century, this social force found itself dominant, if not yet hegemonic, within the Latin Church. Seizing this opportunity, popes Leo IX, (1048–1054), Nicholas II (1059–1061) and Alexander II (1061–1073) all took specifi c steps to address the ills they perceived to be at the heart of Latin Christendom’s moral corruption and spiritual decay—especially the “immoral” practices of simony (the purchase of clerical office and the related practice of lay investiture of abbots and bishops) and clerical concubinage. With the accession of Gregory VII in 1073, however, this process of renewal and revitalization took a different tack: it evolved from being an essentially legal and hortatory effort—involving both the promulgation of canons prescribing these practices and a variety of efforts designed to delegitimize them—to one focused on transforming the papacy into a powerful institution capable of more effectively pursuing the socially constructed values and interests of the reform faction of the clergy. Thus, in addition to his efforts to continue the work of his predecessors and extirpate the sins of simony and clerical concubinage, Gregory also took steps to assert control over the bishops and to strengthen the administrative apparatus of the papacy. This was the Gregorian or Papal Revolution of the eleventh century, a phenomenon perhaps best understood as an enactment of the basic constitutive script of the Latin clergy in the distinctive conditions of post-Carolingian feudal Europe. He it turn cites this to Cantor refering to the “Gregorian World Revolution.” in Norman F Cantor New York: Harper-Perennial, 1994, The Civilization of the Middle Ages, 243–76. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Borsoka would like a clarification on "later": in particular, I think, that the ideology seems to have become the norm in the mid-C11th and that the refashioning happened under Gregory from about 1073. On a more general point, while editing an article to improve it is always good, it's probably not particularly useful to add tags for secondary issues like clarity and chronology while we're in the process of fixing a bigger problem: as the article is not currently in contention for GA or FA status, we can and should take the proverbial beam out of its eye before looking too closely for specks. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If all they are looking for is a date then I have added From the second half of the 11th century. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: thank you for drawing my attention to my useless acts. You are right, to be particularly useful, I should again and again review this article to improve it instead of tagging the problems I detected when they are detected. As I mentioned above, I am fed up with reviewing this article, so I suggest you should review it to solve the bigger problem. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Crusades: An Encyclopedia

Despite being WP:RS, the use of this as a source has provoked some criticism. In addition the use of a concisely written source has raised the risk of copyvio and close paraphrasing. All usage of this has therefore been removed from the article, the text supported either removed or rewritten and cited to a different source. Hopefully this removes any contention. If not, all feedback is welcome. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite & copy edit

In consideration of the WP:Copyright concerns I commit to rewriting and copy editing this article to ensure that I have not introduced any copyright violations or close paraphrasing. I will take Isochrone's kind advice to understand WP:close paraphrasing. I am away on holiday today but will pick this up on my return. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Started here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusading_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1221702048, will work down section by section and then lead.........when I return from holiday.

All feedback welcome Isochrone—AirshipJungleman29 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that you do this in userspace Norfolkbigfish; we have established that you don't really understand how plagiarism works, so perhaps better to avoid any chance of adding it to mainspace. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly do that @AirshipJungleman29, just trying to demonstrate I am showing willing. If the patience is there? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish, it is moderately concerning that you seem to exclusively prefer describing the issue as "suspicion of copyvio". Far be it from me to want to scold peoples' language choices for sport. To be crystal clear, this is solely an abstract rhetorical point and not a reflection of anything that could happen or I would want to happen—but if your article had been published in a print encyclopedia, there would have been legal consequences over your infringement of the copyright of others. This is simply the case, and it is incontrovertibly so: I say it with the highest certainly one can have about theoretical events. It would be nice to continue moving on, and being plain about the situation can only help with that. Remsense诉 14:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to tag these series of edits something else @Remsense Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Major features

The first four paragraphs of this section have been rewritten to avoid any suspicion of plagaraism or close paraphrasing. These act as as introduction and flow into the later sections, touching as they do on the various reform movements of the 11th-century. As Morris writes it is difficult to distinguish between them. Sourcing has been checked and ammended where required. Nothing contained here is contentious or would trouble academics working in the area. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The term the church is not a proper noun so isn't capitalised. If it good enough for Morris is should be good enough for this article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Be consequent. You also used the capitalised form in the same section, so I also modified these cases. I think in context "Church" should be used, but I can accept your version.

There are still unverified statements in the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

On that basis and for consistency I have decapped all uses of the church in the article. It is British English, it is not a proper noun and as Morris is an academic church historian—if it is good enough for him, it should be good enough for us. The statements are verified, but will look to address the tagging later. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Penance and indulgence

This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Christianity and war

This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Knights, chivalry and the military orders

This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Common people

This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Perception of Muslims

This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

History

The introduction to this section has been rewritten to remove any suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

12th century

As above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

13th century

As above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The 13th century has now been completly copyedited. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda

As above, and title removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Instituitional reform

As above, and title removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Popular crusades

As above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Early century

See above Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

See above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Later century

As above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

14th century

As above. 08:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

14th century

This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

15th and 16th centuries

Sections merged and copy edited to remove suspicion of copyvio, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

!7th century and later

Copyedited to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Historiography

Started Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Or rather Historiography started Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

All done now, I'll submit to GAC now so it can be reviewed again. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Crusading movement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: I am closing this with a consensus to delist. I count three editors in favor of a delist, versus one opposed, and most editors who have weighed in are not convinced that the article has been fully cleansed of close paraphrasing. Let's not get into a WP:FIXLOOP situation here - the article may be renominated for GA status when involved editors are in agreement all copyvio has been removed and any other issues precluding GA status have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

During the article's FAC review, it became apparent that the article does not meet all GA criteria: 2c. it contains original research; 2d. it contains copyright violations and plagiarism; and 3a. it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Furthermore, its prose is not clear and concise as a consequence of copyright violations and plagiarism. Although the article could be delisted without further review because it is a long way from meeting criterium 3a, and contains copyright violations, I think giving a last chance for improvement is a better approach. Of course, the article should be cleaned of copyright violations and plagiarism as soon as possible, because copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 This discussion was closed as delist by Borsoka; I have reverted the close as a WP:NACINV-breaching action which contravened the WP:GAR instructions. I suggest, to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, that Norfolkbigfish attempt to eradicate all plagiarism from the article and ping Borsoka when they feel this is done; if Borsoka feels that the article should still be delisted, they can simply !oppose and their !vote will be taken into account by an uninvolved closer. This will not only avoid excess use of other's time and energy, but will also demonstrate if Norfolkbigfish properly understands the copyright policies, which may be helpful in deciding whether the other articles they have contributed to need immediate reviewing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

To begin the process, I copy my remarks from the FAC review page here:

General remarks

• A general remark on sourcing: more than 30% of the article is verified by references to individual articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Our relevant policy says, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I think the use of a tertiary source goes beyond this boundary, and the rationale beyond the selection of individual encyclopedic articles is unclear. As a consequence of this approach, the article looks like an encyclopedia with individual articles following each other without much connection between them. I am not sure that this method can secure that the movement is presented in WP as it is presented in relevant scholarly literature. Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica?

The Encyclopedia is WP:RS. Where particular facts are insufficient this can be addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, the encyclopedia is a reliable source. I have never questioned its reliability. However, we need a coherent encyclopedic article about the crusading movement, not an abridged version of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, with individual articles within it. Right now, this article could hardly be regarded more than a collection of individual articles on topics like "Penance and indulgence", "Knights and chivalry", etc. Even the seemingly chronologicaly organised "Evaluation" section is a mostly incoherent mixture of texts from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia (often with texts copied from its articles about indvidual popes). For the time being, the article does not introduce the crusading movement as it is presented in scholarly literature: arbitrarily selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia placed one after another can hardly be regarded as an encyclopedic article. Therefore, sourcing must be changed radically. Not only because the extensive use of tertiary sources contradicts our relevant policy, but also because editors' task is to present an article's subject as it is presented by scholars writing of the topic. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • While an issue for FA, I am not sure this is as important for GA. If 30% of the article is sourced to a tertiary source, 70% is still cited to secondary sources. I am uncertain how an article 70% based off secondary sources can be described as "arbitrarily selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia placed one after another". Could you please clarify? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    • There are no separate policies for FA and GA, we need to meet the same standard. If you review the article, you will find that it is structured around the encyclopedic articles arbitrarily selected from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. These are placed one after another, and all other information is organised around them. The encyclopedic articles form this article's backbone. This contradicts our principal logic: we write articles based on high-quality comprehensive studies, present topics as they are presented in these studies, and in some cases we add some supplementary information citing encyclopedias. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
      • "There are no separate policies for FA and GA, we need to meet the same standard." That is undeniably incorrect, Borsoka; you may wish to acquaint yourself with the GA criteria, the FA criteria, and the difference between them. You have perfectly outlined the reason why this article is not an FA, but over-reliance on tertiary sources is not a reason to remove GA status. Copyright, on the other hand, is. If your next argument is that by "policies" you refer to the formal policies and guidelines, please point to where we write articles based on high-quality comprehensive studies is in WP:CONTENT.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
        • With regard to secondary and tertiary sources, we do not have separate policies. GA requires reliable sources, FA high-quality reliable sources: The Crusades: An Encyclopedia is without doubt a high-quality reliable source, so it could be cited in a FA, but only in accordance with our relevant policy: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight...". How randomly selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia could provide broad summaries about the whole crusading movement? For instance, the encyclopedic articles "Finance of the Crusades" and "Women" are ignored, although these are two major themes in books about a crusading movement. On the other hand, each encyclopedic article about an individual pope is cited, even his original name is sometimes mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

A point on the first sentence, there are 35 citations to the Encyclopedia in this article out of a total of 169, a fraction over 20%. None of these citations are particular contentious and all are written by academics who quote their own sources. There are 41 citations to the Oxford Illustrated, so the the Encyclopedia is not even the most popular source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• There are more than 169 citations: for instance, citation 2 verifies two statements, citation 12 three statements. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sudden changes in tone and vocabulary and redundant content suggests that significant texts may be closely paraphrased. Has the article been reviewed from this perspective? I have only reviewed about one fifth of the article, but I have found several cases of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can be dealt with on an incident by incident basis. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think this is an extremly urgent task. For the time being, I cannot exclude that the whole article will be deleted for plagiarism. I think you know which texts were copied from the cited sources, so you are in the position to solve this problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • If you think the article is eligible for WP:G12 speedy deletion or WP:AFD, you should nominate it there at once Borsoka; as you have kindly pointed out, copyright is a serious issue, so playing around with GA reassessments is like passing the buck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is a serious issue. You may not remember but it was me who first raised it about a week ago during the FAC review. However, I have not reviewed the whole article, so I only assume that it will be deleted due to plagiarism. After reviewing about one third of the article (or rather collection of texts), I need some time for recovery to continue this exceptionally irksome work. Moreover, I would give a chance to the nominator to clear the article, because a version free of plagiarism could be kept. Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Borsoka, the versions of the article you believe are irrevocably tainted will still reside in the page history even if a version free of plagiarism is created, and will need to be WP:REVDELled. As someone who has nominated many pages for CSD, it is easier to nominate now then later. I will not do this myself as I personally believe there is 0% chance of either G12 or revdel deletion, but if you really think it's needed, it is legally proper to do it now and not later; otherwise, you are knowingly cooperating to keep copyrighted material on WP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
        • No, I am not knowingly cooperating to keep copyrighted material on WP, because I have listed several cases of probable copyright violations during the FAR review. I shared all my knowledge with the community, including yourself. I assume that Norfolkbigfish's other articles, like the House of Lancaster also contain copyvio, because I have more than one time had to remind him to the dangers of plagiarism since the first time we met during a FAC review years ago. Should I review that article as well because of my assumption? Could you quote the relevant policy? If there is an obligation, I will do it but I sincerely hope that Norfolkbigfish will be cooperative and achieve the deletion of versions filled with plagiarism. Sorry, I do not understand the terms "CSD", "G12", and "revdel deletion". Sometimes links are helpful for stupid people like myself. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
        • Just for curiosity: if you "felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing" during a previous review[2], why did not you investigate it? When I feel close paraphrasing, I always compare the texts in the article and the cited sources during a review. Borsoka (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
          • I did: see Talk:Crusading movement/Archive 2#Recent Edits, a discussion you were very much part of Borsoka. The reason I did not take it further then is that it took place in April 2022, and I had begun to edit WP a couple of months earlier—I was still unsure of many of the finer details. Ignoring the "stupid people"—you are well aware that I think you precisely the opposite—CSD refers to WP:CSD: criteria for speedy deletion, of which one is WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement); if not all versions of the article contain close paraphrasing, we might need WP:REVDEL (revision deletion), where versions in the page history get deleted for copyright infringement.
          • Right now, the close paraphrasing is far less blatant than it was in April 2022, when I provided this link as an entire paragraph which was plagiarised. From what I can see below, the close paraphrasing is now restricted only to sentence fragments—as such, G12 deletion is out of the question. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

      @Borsoka-I appreciate, as you say, the chance to clear the article, thank you for that. Will work through this from the top, line by line, and ping you when complete Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Secondary sources cited in the article dedicate several pages to the Muslim world and the influx of the Turks in the politics of the Middle East [Asbridge (pp. 17-29), Jotischky (pp. 40-47), Lock (pp. 3-19), Madden (pp. 1-5), Tyermann 2019 (pp. 33-45). Several other sources that follow the same path could be listed. Why does the article ignore this usual scholarly approach?

This article is not about the crusades, it is about the crusade movement e.g. the ideology and institutions of crusading. For this reason there is no MILHIST is this article, as suggested by another editor. It is a Latin Church institution.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• I did not suggest that MILHIST should be added. The development of the crusading movement should be presented as it is presented in reliable sources. Right now, readers who consult with this article will not understand why the crusading movement began. The presentation of one single scholar's PoV does not solve this problem (I refer to Latham). Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The above named works are narrative histories of the crusades and go on to detail numerous campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is natural that they give background on the political and military situation in the East. This article is a subtly different topic, it is about the institutions and ideology that was developed to support crusading that almost entirely occurred in Western Europe. Bull for one saw no need to mention the Turks in any detail when discussing the Origins of crusading because they weren't relevant. Christian Muslim warfare existed for hundreds of years prior to the crusades and would have continued for years even if the crusades did not exist. By definition the instituition of crusading only came into effect because of reformists within the church. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you really say that rhe article's non-encyclopedic sources do not cover the article's topic? Why are they cited? Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources cited, are cited because they contain valuable information on this article's topic. That does not mean or imply that everything written in them is relevant to this article's topic. Equally, just because information is not included in those works should not be taken to mean or imply that it is not relevant to this topic. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Bull's perspective differs from your above summary: "What the Mediterranean theatres of war [between Muslims and Christians] had in common ... was that formerly Christian lands were being wrested from infidel control. Consequently the Holy Land, which had been overrun by the Arabs in the seventh century, was bound to attract the Church's attention sooner or later. ... The perspective of a Mediterranean-wide struggle was visible only to those institutions, in particular the papacy, which had the intelligence networks, grasp of geography, and sense of long historical tradition to take a broad overview of Christendom and its threatened predicament, real or supposed." [Bull (1995), p. 19] Jonathan Riley-Smith - who is the editor of the book to which Bull is a contributor - emphasizes, after mentioning Pope Urban II's call for the First Crusade, that "The crusading movement had begun in the melodramatic fashion which was to be typical of it thereafter. ... Now about 60 years old, [Pope Urban II] had embarked on a year-long journey though southern and central France. The summoning of an expedition to the aid of the Byzantine empire had probably been in his mind for several years and it had been aired at a council held at Piacenza in March which had heard an appeal from the Byzantine (Greek) emperor Alexios for aid against the Turks, who for over two decades had been sweeping through Asia Minor and had almost reached the Bosphorus." [Riley-Smith (1995), pp. 1-3]. We can conclude, there is no book cited in the article that ignores pre-Crusades Muslim-Catholic clashes or the Turks' expansion in the Levant. Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Not at all, all this does is rather proves the original point. Rather than an idepth summary of several centuries of military history Bull and Riley-Smith feel only a reference or two is necessary. And only the regarding events during or subsequent to the Gregarian reform. This point remains irrelevent and against consunsus on this article. An aricle that has successfully passed both a GAR and a ACR without a single other editor raising this point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this article. That a point was not raised during the article's reviews does not indicate that it is not relevant. Bull dedicates about 1 page to both pre-Crusades Muslim-Christian conflicts and the Gregorian Reforms. Again, the article should present the movement's background as it is presented in the cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

1 page on Muslim-Conflicts demonstrates an appropriate weight for this. You have rathered made my point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read my above remark again. In a chapter containing nineteen pages, one page is quite significant, or at least as significant as the one page about the Gregorian Reforms in the same chapter. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Or rather 1 page in a book of 436? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I have not counted the pages about pre-Crusades conflicts between Muslims and Christians, but there are at least two pages in two chapters. The Gregorian reforms are mentioned also on two pages in the book, according to the Index. If you think pre-Crusades conflicts can be ignored, you should also ignore the Gregorian Reforms. Can we agree that it would be a quite original approach? Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Strangely, Riley-Smith in his chapter "The crusading movement" in "War, Peace and World Order" didn't think to mention those pre-Crusades conflict at all. What is novel is you thinking you know more about the subject than he did. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It is quite unusual that you are referring to a source you do not cite in the article. Nevertheless, Riley-Smith neither mentions the Council of Clermont or the Gregorian reform in his chapter. Do you suggest that references to the Council of Clermont or the Gregorian Reform should be deleted from this article? I rather think that he does not refer to the origins of the crusading movement because from the perspective of "War, Peace and World Order in European History" this is irrelevant. No, I am not thinking that I know more about the subject than Riley-Smith does. Above, I quoted a text from his work cited in the article proving that he also emphasises the Turks' invasion of the Byzantine Empire when writing of the beginnings of the crusading movement. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Except this is not the case. Riley-Smith emphasises Alexios I Komnenos requests for military support against the Turks, that is not the same. Neither he nor Bull consider the military history of the Levant in the earlier centuries relevant. Whereas the reforms, the reformers and their institutions are mentioned and relevant. It was they who invented the crusading movement, and without them there would have been no movement. Simply put this is covered in sufficient detail. Unless there is something specific that you can identify as missing, but unless I have missed something that is not the case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Read more carefully the quote from Riley-Smith's work, it refers also to the decades before the crusades. I have never suggested that you should present the military history of the Levant in this article. However, our readers need a complex background to understand the beginnings of the crusading movement. For instance, Thomas F. Madden, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, goes as far as stating that the Reconquista—the "reconquest" of Iberia from the Muslims—"was the training ground for the theological and moral justification of the crusading movement". (Madden, Thomas F. (2013). The Concise History of the Crusades. Critical Issues in World and International History (Third ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-4422-1575-7.)

As you point out Madden makes a good point. I would add this to the Christianity & War section, but I am using the First Edition and it doesn't seem to be there (or a page 4 for that matter). Does he make the smae point anywhere else? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• The quote is from one of the last paragraphs of section "Holy War". I think Madden's PoV nicely fits into a Background section. Right now, the article does not distinguishes developments occurring before the beginnings of the movement, and features of the movement itself. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Found it, thank you, agree and added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• The article's structure is diffuse, and seemingly lacks any detectable logic: several elements of the flourishing crusading movement are mentioned in section "Background". (For instance, why are the military orders or the development of the crusading ideology in the 13th century mentioned in this section?)

These are cross topic themes, a narrative structure would mean that detailed commentary would be lost.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• I did not say that we should follow a narrative structure (even if the article, incoherently, follows it in section "Evolution"). I only said that background to the crusading movement should clearly be differentiated from its features, elements and consequences. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  The use of Background seems to cause some confusion, I will amend to Features as you suggest. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, a major restructuring is needed, but without a background one could hardly understand the development of the movement. However, I suggest you should concentrate now on copyright issues. Borsoka (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Another nonsensical point. Structure is only a perceived issue to you. Consensus, GAR and ACR indicate that it makes sense to a consensus of editors and reviewers. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• One of the principal problems is that the "article" is actually a poorly edited, extremely abridged version of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. One can delete subsections from the article without having an effect on any other (sub)section. This is not an encyclopedic article but a collection of individual encyclopedic articles. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is you and only you who is making this point. Almost by definition PoV pushing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Please stop this approach. It leads nowhere. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• @Godtres, Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67, and Donner60: as Norfolkbigfish is always referring to your reviews, I would be grateful if you could share your thoughts especially about two issues: 1. I think the article ignores several important aspects of the crusading movement (especially its background, but also important elements of the flourishing crusading movement, such as finances, women, arts, etc.) 2. I think the article is diffuse, its structure reminds me an encyclopedia with subsections as equivalents of encyclopedic articles that follow each other without any connection between most of them. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well that at least is progress. What exactly do you think is missing regarding finance, women & the arts? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Clearing the article from plagiarism would be a progress. All other issues are less relevant for the time being. I think the article should summarise the principal points of the movement as it is presented in its sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  That is wip, thank you for pointing that out. The article pretty much matches Riley-Smith's view of the subject, as his definition of a crusade is now pretty much universally accepted it would be fair to say that the pricipal points are presented. The topic is, as it has always been the crusading movement. Not the crusades, not Muslim/Christian relations in the 7th/8th/9th/10th centuries, not the Orthodox church and not campaigns in the Eastern Mediterrean or anywhere else for that matter. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• To which works by Riley-Smith are you referring? Interestingly, in his work cited in the article (What were the Crusades?) he mentions both pre-Crusades conflicts between Muslims and Christians, and the Turks' advance in Anatolia. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am referring to Riley-Smith's essay titled "The Crusading Movement", it is the Further Reading. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Please read my answer to your similar remark above: [3]. Borsoka (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• In most cases, the article does not explain the events, but mentions facts or PoVs without making clear the connection between them, or providing our readers with a coherent (or incoherent) story: "Pope X said this, Pope Y told that, and Pope Z said another thing, etc".

This article is about the ideology and institutions. As such PoVs are key, as are facts. The facts relate to changes to this. The events mentioned here are probably outside the scope of the topic.

• Yes, but ideologies and institutions rarely develop ex nihilio. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• The article contains original research and original synthesis. Several examples can be found in the "Specific remarks" section. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If so, this is unintentional and can be remediated as part of the review. Nothing here is WP:OR, everything comes from academic writing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• I did not say you had intentionally filled the article with original research. I only referred to the fact that it (or at least its first major section) is filled with sentences that are not verified by the cited source or cobtradict it. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Everything in the article has come from WP:RS Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes, quite often word by word. However, also quite often the sentences do not reflect the cited source, sometimes because you failed to copy an important word from the cited book or encyclopedic article. Many examples are listed below. Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

specific FAC comments

Specific remarks The Crusading movement's beginnings were propelled by a significant shift in the western Church during the mid-eleventh century. Reformers, supported initially by Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor and later opposing his son Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, assumed power over the papacy around 1040. They astutely perceived the papacy as the optimal vehicle for their mission to eliminate corruption in the Church and strategically took control of it. 1. The cited source does not verify the two sentences. 2. The texts in italics repeat the same information. 3. The date is not around 1040 but in the late 1040s [Barber (2012), p. 84] 4. Link to Western Church? 5. Consequency: "mid-eleventh century" vs. "mid-19th century". 6. The "reformers" were specifically reformist clerics. 7. Why did they perceive the papacy as the optimal vehicle? — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) The Crusading movements origins can be found in the significant changes within the Latin church during the mid-eleventh century. In the 1040s church reformers gained control of the papacy. This was with the initial support Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor, but later in conflict with his son Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor. The reformers viewed this as the most effective method to eliminate what they saw as corruption in the church. 1. The cited source does not verify the three sentences. (Bull writes of debates about the concept of mutation féodale, and the use of the term miles.) 2. Link to church reformers? 3. What did the reformers view as the most effective method? The conflict with Henry IV?  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Partially done. Bull does not verify the statements, and we still do not know why reformers regarded the papacy so important. The article makes no reference to the preeminent position of the papacy within Catholic church hierarchy, although billions of our non-Catholic and non-Christian readers should not be expected to know it by heart.  Done—cited to Barber. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC) They believed in Papal primacy. That the Pope, as heir of St Peter, was the hierachical leader of all Christendom, including Byzantium. Secular rulers were only appointees who could be removed. 1. The text in bold is not explicitly verified by the cited source which refers to the Byzantine Church in this context. 2. There have always been many secular rulers who are only appointees. What is the novelty? Who is Augustin Fliche? — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Explain "simony" with two or three words. — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Eventually, the reformist faction within the Roman Church took the lead... This fact is mentioned twice in the section's second and third sentences. — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Despite this, this faction created an ideological framework and a cohort within the clergy who viewed themselves as God's agents for the moral and spiritual renewal of Christendom. The cited source (Latham) does not verify the sentence. (Latham writes of the Cluny Reform, not about the Gregorian Reforms.) Is Latham's PoV about the preconditions for the crusading movement widely accepted by medievalists who have published general works on the crusading movement or monographies about its origins? — Not done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Why was the reference to Latham deleted if his PoV is described? Even if he is not mentioned, the relevance of his thoughts should be verified as per WP:DUE. — Not done This and the above. Latham is WP:RS, the view is uncontentious and one of several touched on,Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) I am not sure that Latham's PoV is widely accepted by historians who write of the crusades. Nikolas Jaspert, a German historian lists more than three preconditions for the crusades (Jaspert, Nikolas (2006) [2003]. The Crusades. Routledge. p. 32-33. ISBN 978-0-4153-5968-9.). Jaspert "widely published on the crusades", according to the back cover of his books. Latham often refers to the "feudal revolution", a concept no more universally accepted by historians (comp. Bull p. 22). Yes, Jaspert is interesting on this. He doesn't contradict Latham who is applying International Relations Theory to the same facts, and as a specialist is WP:RS in this. Jaspert's 8 elements, all of which are touched on in the Major Features section are describing features that supported the enthusiasm for the first crusade, not the development of the movement itself. Even so he supports Latham's first two points in that all his factors are either related to reform of the church or the creation of crusading as a social institution. He does not touch on the third point about the creation of war making capability, but this is because he is not talking about the creation of a movement. Only the enthusiasm. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC) 1. Actually, Jaspert does write of the making of the war making capability in his last point: "the view that it was possible to find forgiveness for these sins through a special act of penance before God, and even to win remission of all temporal penalties for sin by taking part in a sanctified military expedition." Jaspert and Latham are discussing the same issue (why did the crusading movement begin), but they did not come to the same conclusion. 3. Is Latham's PoV widely cited by historians who study the crusades? I think the article's over reliance on Latham's PoV is not fully in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Three initiatives were necessary before this could be but into action. Firstly, this reform of the Latin Church into an independent force that was motivated by the belief it had divine authority for religious renewal. This belief would lead to conflicts with the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian groups, and pagans. Secondly, the creation of crusading as a social institution through which the church could act militarily supported by armed nobility considered Knights of Christ. Could you quote the text from Morris' cited work verifying the statements? Morris writes of chivalry, not about the crusades/crusading movement on the cited page. Morris is literally describing the enlistment of knights for the crusades, the point in question and throws in a description of the meaning of milites Christi. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC) So Morris does not verify the whole quote; consequently the quote still represents Latham's PoV without a reference to this fact. Reform of the Latin Church identity:... Does "Latin Church" differ from "western Church" mentioned in the section's previous paragraph? — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) The Latin Church underwent a significant transformation, becoming an independent force motivated by divine authority for religious revitalisation. Was the Latin Church indeed motivated by divine authority? — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This new identity led to conflicts with various entities, including the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian sects, and pagans Who and why was brought into conflict with these groups? Does the article suggest that relationship between the Christian communities/polities/leaders and Muslim polities, heretics "sects" and pagans had been peaceful before the Gregorian Reforms? Can the Eastern Orthodox Church be described as a sect? — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This belief would lead to conflicts with the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian groups, and pagans. What about the previous conflicts between the papacy and the Holy Roman Emperors, Muslim states, Byzantines, and pagan Magyars? ...milites Christi or knights of Christ... The cited author (Morris) does not verify the translation. He describes "milites Christi" as an "expression which until then had been the monopoly of monks had been extended to knights". — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Section "Background" implies that solely the Gregorian Reform (or Cluniac Reform?) was responsible for the Crusades. I think this approach is quite unusual. Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC) — Not done Not the crusades, the crusading movement Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Even so, it is unusual. Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Section "Christianity and war" is quite confusing from chronological and logical perspective: Augustine is mentioned in at least three separate paragraphs, so the section does not clearly summarise his views. The section obviously mixes Augustine's views with his high medieval interpretators' thoughts (I will add at least one example below). As the section does not point at the differences between the classical just war theory and Augustine's views, and between Augustine's views and the high medieval theology of Christian holy war, the development of this important aspect of crusading ideology remains unclear. — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) The section is a little bit clearer, but it is still unclear who came to what conclusion and when. (For instance, you write of bellum sacrum and religious war in two sentences without clarifying the relationship between the two terms.) Erdmann documented in The Origin of the Idea of Crusade the three stages of the development of a Christian institution of crusade:... 1. Erdmann's work published in 1935 should be cited instead of Latham. 2. Is Erdmann's PoV still widely accepted by historians? For instance, Pope Gregory I is not mentioned in connection with the development of just war/holy war theories in other works cited in the article. 1) Erdmann anda Latham are using different techniques and describing different things. Even so they do not contradict each other and both are valid. 2) Tyerman writes that "Erdmann's thesis survives" and quotes H. E. J. Cowdrey, an academic expert on the Gregorian reforms as "all subsequent enquiry has in the last analysis sprung from " Erdmann on page 191 of the 2011 work cited in the article. He also mention Gregory I in God' War, as does Barber, Morris, Madden and Riley-Smith. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) 1. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to Latham. I did not mention Latham in this context. 2. Gregory I is not mentioned in connection with the crusades/crusading movement in any of the books you refer to above. 3. Consequently, could you quote text from the cited sources confirming that Erdmann's three stages of the development of the crusades are still widely accepted? Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of Christian pilgrimage. The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of Christian pilgrimage. The theology developed from a merger of two themes. Firstly, the wars fought by the Israelites in the Old Testament. It was believed these were instigated and assisted by God. Secondly, the Christocentric concept of forming an individual relationship with Christ that came from the New Testament. Holy war was based on bellum justum which was the Greco-Roman just war theory. This was Christianised by a 4th-century theologian called Augustine of Hippo, and canon lawyers developed this further in the 11th century into bellum sacrum. This is what became the paradigm of Christian holy war. Maier writes of four principal elements: holy war theology, the model of pilgrimage, Old Testament history, and New Testament theology, thus this and the subsequent sentences do not reflect Maier's thoughts. — Not done all are covered Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 1. However, their presentation in the article differs from Maier's approach. 2. Tyerman's cited work does not verify the sentence in context, because Tyerman writes of the development of Christian just war theory centuries before the crusades. Theology merged Old Testament Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God with New Testament Christocentric views on forming individual relationships with Christ. What does this mean? I doubt that Israelite wars were any time merged with Christocentric views, first of all because of chronological reasons. — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) ...Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God... Were these wars indeed instigated and assisted by God? — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) ...canon lawyers developed it from the 11th century into bellum sacrum, the paradigm of Christian holy war. Maier mentions theologians as well. Could you name some of the theologians and canon lawyers? — Not done too detailed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) However, the text in the article does not reflect the cited work. Perhaps, you could clarify that Anselm of Lucca is one of the canon lawyers, to introduce him. ...his supporter Anselm of Lucca consolidated the just war theories. Whose just war theories? What is the outcome of this consolidation? — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) No, the new text (Later, Anselm of Lucca consolidated the writing on just war theories into Collectio Canonum or Collection of Canon Law.) is still unclear. In the 11th century, the Church sponsored conflict with Muslims on the southern peripheries of Christendom, including the siege of Barbastro and the Norman conquest of the Sicily. Absolutely out of context statement. — Not done Yes it is in context, that of a church reformed involving itself in warfare. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Why is it relevant for the crusading movement? Above you argued that pre-Crusades conflicts are not relevant. Without a proper Background section the article is bombing our readers with fragmentary pieces of information without context. Augustine's principles formed the basis of a doctrine of religious war that was later developed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas, canon lawyers, and theologians. In the 13th century these principles formed the foundation of a doctrine of religious war developed by Thomas Aquinas and others. Redundant with the exemption of its reference to Thomas Aquinas. Tyerman writes that Aquinas is responsible for "producing a codified theory of Christian just war". — Not done he was not alone Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 1. Perhaps, but the statement does not reflect the cited source. 2. What is the difference between bellum sacrum mentioned in a previous sentence, and religious wars? This movement's influence is apparent in Pope Urban II's speeches... Why are Urban II's speeches relevant? — Not done it is the foundation of the movement Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) What is the connection between Latham's three pre-conditions for crusading (mentioned in section "Background") and Erdmann's three stages (listed in section "Christianity and holy war"). Why is Latham cited instead of Erdmann? Is Erdmann's PoV is widely accepted by medievalists who published general works on the crusading movement or its origin? I think the three bullet points could be distributed in the text in chronological order to better understand how the Christian ideology of Holy War developed. — Not done Similar related but alternayive view. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) The Church viewed Rome as the Patrimony of Saint Peter. This enabled the application of canon law to justify various Italian wars waged by the church as purely defensive crusades to protect theoretical Christian territory. Absolutely out of context. Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC) — Not done absolutely in context, Political crusades Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Put yourself in our readers' shoes. They will not understand the statement, for them it is absolutely out of context. By the 11th century, the Latin Church developed a system that provided for the remission and absolution of sin in return for contrition, confession, and penitential acts. The Latin Church had formulated a system enabling forgiveness and pardon for sins in exchange for genuine remorse, admission of wrongdoing, and acts of penance. 1. Why? 2. Perhaps "contrition, confession, and penitential acts" could be rephrased to avoid close paraphrasing. 3. The term "confession" could be linked to the more specific "sacrament of penance". — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)  Done— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)  Done— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) ...in support of his causes, if selflessly given. Gregory VII resolved this with the offer of forgiveness for sin resulting from supporting him in Church-sanctioned violence as long as service was altruistically given. Could you quote the text verifying the words in bold? — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Gregory VII offered all who fought for his cause, in whatever fashion, absolution of their sins and the prospect of eternal salvation. Provided their motivation was grounded on selflessness and faith not gain, such soldiers could combine penance and violence.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Is this from one of the cited works? Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Yes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC) — Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Latham does not verify the statement in the cited work, and Tyerman's cited work (according to its preview) does not contain similar statement in the cited pages. Is reference 11 necessary? (Furthermore, Tyerman explains Erdman's PoV in the cited page.) — Not done no longer ref 11?? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)  Done::— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) This was developed by subsequent Popes into the granting of plenary indulgence that reduced all God-imposed temporal penalties. In time subsequent Popes developed this into the granting of plenary indulgence that reduced all temporal penalties that were considered God-imposed. Could you quote the text verifying the statement, or fix the page in the citation? Did indeed God impose temporal or any other kind of panalties? At the Council of Clermont in November 1095, Urban II effectively founded the crusading movement with two directives: the exemption from atonement for those who journeyed to Jerusalem to free the Church; and that while doing so all goods and property were protected. Why is this in the "Background" section? Why is the protection of property mentioned in section "Penance and indulgence"? The weakness of conventional theologies in the face of crusading euphoria is shown in a letter critical of Pope Paschal II from the writer Sigebert of Gembloux to the crusader Robert II, Count of Flanders. Sigebert referred to Robert's safe return from Jerusalem but completely avoided mentioning the crusade. The weakness of conventional theology when confronted by crusading excitement was evident in a letter critical of Pope Paschal II from the writer Sigebert of Gembloux to the crusader Robert II, Count of Flanders. Sigebert referred to Robert's safe return from Jerusalem, but completely avoided any mention of the crusade. The text in bold represent copyvio; the remaining text is not verified by the cited source (it does not mention to whom Sigebert addressed the letter); The two sentences make no sense, because they ignore the cited source's main message: "Sigebert attacked the idea of penitential war". Furthermore, why is something happening years after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"? It was Calixtus II who first promised the same privileges and protections of property to the families of crusaders. Later, Calixtus II promised identical privileges and protections of property to the families of crusaders. 1. Reference 22 Riley-Smith does not verify the statement. 2. The text in bold is not verified by any of the two sources. 3. Why is something happening decades after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"? 2. Not the pope, but the council promised privileges and protection for the crusaders' families. 2. Why is the protection of property is mentioned in section "Penance and indulgence"? Under the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux, Eugenius III revised Urban's ambiguous position with the view that the crusading indulgence was remission from God's punishment for sin, as opposed to only remitting ecclesiastical confessional discipline. Eugenius III revised Urban's more ambiguous position by viewing the crusading indulgence as remission from God's punishment for sin, not only remission of ecclesiastical confessional punishment. 1. The text in bold is not verified. 2. Urban's ambifious position is not previously mentioned. 3. What is Eugenius's conclusion. 4. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"? Innocent III emphasised crusader oaths and clarified that the absolution of sins was a gift from God, rather than a reward for the crusaders' suffering. 1. Reference 25 Tyerman does not verify the text. 2. Why is something happening more than a century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"? With his 1213 bull Quia maior, he appealed to all Christians, not just the nobility, offering the possibility of vow redemption without crusading. In the 1213 bull, Quia maior, he appealed to not just the nobility but to all with the offer of vow redemption without crusading. In this a precedent was set for the trade in spiritual rewards which became a practice that scandalised devout Christians. 1. Could you quote the text verifying that indeed the bull Quia maior offered the possibility... 2. Did he appeal to the Orthodox, Nestorians, Copts also? 3. Which vow? The crusading vow is not previously mentioned in the article. 4. Why did he do this? 5. Are we sure that the payment did not constitute as an act of crusading? 5. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"? This set a precedent for trading in spiritual rewards... No spiritual rewards are mentioned in the previous sentence. ...a practice that scandalised devout Christians and became a contributing cause of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. Could you quote the text verifying the statement? As late as the 16th century, writers sought redemptive solutions in the traditionalist wars of the cross, while others – such as English martyrologist John Foxe – saw these as examples of papist superstition, corruption of religion, idolatry, and profanation. 1. The text in bold is not verified, the text in italic is closely paraphrased. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased. 2. Why is Tyerman's encyclopedic article about "Historiography, Modern" (one of the cited sources) revelant in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 3. What is the relevance of Foxe's PoV in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 4. Why is something from the 16th century mentioned in section "Background"? Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Critics blamed the Roman Church for the failure of the crusades. War against the infidel was laudable, but not crusading based on doctrines of papal power, indulgences, and against Christian religious dissidents such as the Albigensian and Waldensians. Justifying war on juristic ideas of just war to which Lutherans, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics could all subscribe, and the role of indulgences, diminished in Roman Catholics tracts on the Turkish wars. Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius developed international laws of war that discounted religion as a cause, in contrast to popes, who persisted in issuing crusade bulls for generations. 1. Original synthesis? 2. Why are events happening in the 16th and 17th centuries mentioned in section "Background"? Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC) The fighting of wars against the infidel was considered laudable. Crusading based on doctrines of papal power, indulgences, and against Christian religious dissidents such as the Albigensian and Waldensians was decried. War could be justified on grounds to which Lutherans, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics could all subscribe, which led to a decline in the role of indulgences in Roman Catholics tracts on the Turkish wars. Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius developed international laws of war that discounted religion as a cause, in contrast to popes, who persisted in issuing crusade bulls for generations. 1. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased. 2. Whose PoV is mentioned in the first sentence? 3. What are the Turkish wars? 3. Who are Gentili and Grotius?  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC) If chivalry was in its infancy at the beginning of the crusading movement (as the article states), why is "Knights and chivalry" mentioned in the "Background" section?  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC) At the beginning of the crusading movement, chivalry was in its infancy; but it went on to define the ideas and values of knights, and was central to the crusading movement.}} The reference to Flori's article should be fixed to verify the statement in italics. When crusading began chivalry was in its infancy, but in time it played a central role in the crusading ethos, by shaping the ideals and principles of knights. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased. Texts from the 11th and 12th centuries portray a class of knights who were comparatively closer in status to peasants within the preceding generations. 1. The text is still unclear: were their fathers peasants or only close to peasants. 2. The texts in italics is not verified. (I think the cited encyclopedic article simply says that there were knights of peasant/humble origin.)Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC) In the 13th century knighthood became equated with nobility, as a social class with legal status, closed to non-nobles. The texts in italics contradict the cited source (Flori). It was only by the 13th century that knighthood became equated with nobility and was a social class with legal status, no longer open to non-nobles. The text in bold contradicts the cited source (Flori). Chivalric development grew from a society dominated by the possession of castles. The sentence makes no sense and is not verified by the cited source (Flori): development cannot grow from a society, and possession of castles cannot dominate a society. Those who defended these became knights. Copyvio. Some explanation? Society was dominated by the possession of castles and those who defended these became knights. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased.  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC) ...coupled with the growing naval capability of Italy's maritime republics,... Could you quote the text from the cited sources verifying that there is any connection between the naval capability of the maritime republics and knighthood? Contrary to the representation in the romances... Which romances? Instead, raids and sieges predominated, for which there was only a minimal role for knights. A previous sentence claims that those who defended the castles became knights. Knighthood required combat training, which created solidarity and gave rise to combat as a sport. The cited source (Flori) writes of special forms of combat. Crusade preachers used tournaments and other gatherings to obtain vows of support from attending dignitaries, begin persuasive campaigns, and announce a leader's taking of the cross. 1. This happened from the Second Crusade. Why is it mentioned in section "Background"? 2. Close paraphrasing and original synthesis (Lloyd mentions church synods when referring to the "attending dignitaries", and church synods can hardly be associated with "Knights and chivalry". ...medieval institutions were immature in feudal Europe... The statement makes no sense. ...the crusades in the Levant were typically unimpressive. PoV statement by a 19th-century historian. Is his view accepted by modern historians? Developing vernacular literature glorified the idea of adventure and the virtues of valour, largesse, and courtesy. This created an ideal of the perfect knight. Chivalry was a way of life, a social and moral model that evolved into a myth. The texts in bold represent copyvio. The chivalric romantic ideals of excellence, martial glory, and carnal—even adulterous—love conflicted with the spiritual views of the Church. Texts in italics are unverified, in bold represent close paraphrasing/copyvio. These ideals of excellence, martial glory, and romantic love... The adjective contradicts the cited source (Flori). WritersLiterature lauded those who fought for the Church; others were excommunicated. Writers? 1. Literature? 2. The text in italics is not verified by the cited source (Flori). By the 11th century, the Church developed liturgical blessings sanctifying new knights. The Church developed liturgical blessings to sanctify new knights, The text in italics is not verified by the cited source. (Flori's text could be summarised as "By the 11th century, new knights were blessed at their investiture by priests." or something similar.) In 1100, kings depicted themselves as knights to indicate their power. 1. Texts in italics are not verified by the cited source. 2. Where did they depict themselves? 3. I think this sentence contradicts the section's third sentence: "11th and 12th century texts depict a class of knights that were closer in status to peasants...". Reference 43 is obviously wrong. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Could you list scholarly works verifying tha the the military orders can be mentioned in the background to the crusading movement? The section about the military orders lacks any inner coherence. The crusaders' propensity to follow the customs of their western European homelands meant that there were very few innovations adopted from the culture of the Crusader states. Three notable exceptions to this were the military orders, warfare, and fortifications. Is this a good introduction for the military orders? Why were the military orders established? The Knights Hospitaller were founded in Jerusalem before the First Crusade but added a martial element to their ongoing medical functions to become a much larger military order. The cited source (Asbridge) does not verify the statement. In this way, knighthood entered the previously monastic and ecclesiastical sphere. 1. The texts in bold represent copyvio. DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2. Prawer's PoV about the Hospitallers' role as pioneers of the military orders is quite marginal. Other authors cited in the article make it clear that the Knights Templar were the first military order (Asbridge pp. 168-169, Barber p. 135, Tyerman [2019] pp. 151-155). 3. If the Knights Hospitaller were indeed established before the First Crusade, what is the connection between the origin of the military orders and the Crusader states? Military orders – like the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar – provided Latin Christendom's first professional armies, to support the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the other crusader states. The cited author (Asbridge) does not verify the stament. These orders became supranational organizations with papal support, leading to rich donations of land and revenue across Europe. The text in bold represent both close paraphrasing/copyvio and original research. (Asbridge does not associate the development of the military orders into supranational organizations with papal support.)  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC) In time, the orders developed into autonomous powers. 1. When? 2. Asbridge is more specific. After the fall of Acre,... Some explanation? Section "Common people" mainly presents facts from the period when the crusading movement flourished. Why are these facts presented as belonging to the background to the crusading movement? Women also formed part of the armies. Were all women who joined the crusading armies commoners as the section's title suggests? Historians have increasingly researched the motivations of the poor who joined the early crusades in large numbers and engaged in popular unsanctioned events during the 13th and 14th centuries. Text in italics belongs to historiography. ...amongst the poor, Christianity and crusading were aggressive. Texts in bold are not verified. An emphasis on popular preaching, developed in the 12th century, generated a wealth of useful resources. 1. The text in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Does the statement imply that the Church started to urge commoners to join the crusades? If not, why the commoners were targeted by preachers?  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC) The most popular example began in 1268,... The text in bold contradicts the cited source. The popular but short-lived outbreaks of crusading enthusiasm after Acre fell to Egypt were largely driven by eschatological perceptions of crusading amongst the poor rather than the advanced, professionalized plans advocated by theorists. The sentence is not verified. Pilgrimage was not a mass activity. Copyvio and original research. (The cited source specifically writes of pilgrimages to Jerusalem.)  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC) In this way, what was known as the remotest place in 1099... The text in bold is not verified. The literate classes were hostile to this particular unauthorized crusade but mytho-historicized it so effectively that it is one of the most evocative verbal artefacts from the Middle Ages that remained in European and American imagination. The texts in italics are not verified. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Who is Humbert of Romans? Chroniclers used the ethno-cultural terms "barbarians" or barbarae nationes, which were inherited from the Greeks of antiquity, for "others" or "aliens", which were thus differentiated from the self-descriptive term "Latins" that the crusaders used for themselves. The texts in italics does not present the views of the cited author, Jubb. 1. Jubb specifically writes of the chronicles of the First Crusade. 2. She specifically writes that the Greeks used the term for 'others' "alien to their urban civilisation". 3. She does not say that "Latins" is a self-descriptive term used by the crusaders for themselves. Jubb's work is not properly listed among the sources: isbn and pages are needed, and the doi points to another study from the same book. Although there are no specific references to crusading in the 11th century chanson de geste Chanson de Roland, the author, for propaganda purposes, represented Muslims as monsters and idolators. The text in italics is not presented as a fact but as a possibility in the cited source. Visual cues were used to represent Muslims as evil, dehumanized, and monstrous aliens with black complexions and diabolical physiognomies. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio. 2. The sentence does not summarize the main message of the cited author (Jubb). She says that a "black/white dichotomy" was used in medieval literature, especially in popular works, but it symbolised "religious and cultural difference, as much as race". She mentions "diabolical physiognomies" only when writing of the Song of Roland. — DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) This portrayal remained in western literature long after the territorial conflict of the crusades had faded into history. 1. The sentence is closely paraphrased. 2. The cited author (Jubb) specifically writes of the medieval period following the age of the crusades.  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC) The term "Saracen" designated a religious community rather than a racial group, while the word "Muslim" is absent from the chronicles. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Which religious community? — DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) The conflict was seen as a Manichean contest between good and evil. 1. The text in italics is not verified by Jubb. 2. Who saw "the conflict" as a Manichean contest? — Not done 1) it 2) Christian clergy Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Historians have been shocked by the inaccuracy and hostility involved in such representations, which included crude insults to Mohammad, caricatures of Islamic rituals, and the representation of Muslims as libidinous gluttons, blood-thirsty savages, and semi-human. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. — DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Historian Jean Flori argues that to self-justify Christianity's move from pacifism to warfare, their enemies needed to be ideologically destroyed. 1. The article does not refer to Christian pacifism in previous sentences. 2. Flori's work should be cited or at least mentioned in a footnote. — DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC) From where did Christianity move to warfare? Or why did they need to destroy their enemies ideologically for this move? Poets often relied on the patronage of leading crusaders, so they extolled the values of the nobility, the feudal status quo, chivalry, martial prowess, and the idea of the Holy Land being God's territory usurped and despoiled. 1. The text in italics contradicts the cited author (Routledge) who does not make connection between patronage and statements in the second part of the sentence. 2. Text in bold is not verified (actually, Routledge writes of the restoration of status quo ante.) — DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC) The reformist Church's identity-interest complex framed Islam as a particular form of heresy. The text in bold represents copyvio. — DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Muslim rule in formerly Christian territory was an "unjust" confiscation of Christian property, and this persecution of Christians required repayment. 1. The text in italics is closely paraphrased. 2. The text is bold is not verified by the cited author (Latham), since he does not define the persecution of Christians as the unjust confiscation of Christian property. — DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Islamic polities' own identity-interest complexes led them to be equally violently opposed to the restoration of Christian rule. Copyvio. — DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• I would have to call for a delisting of this article. If the issues were only editorial, I'd be willing to give time for those to be addressed (FARs—as a similar example—go on months!); there's no deadline after all. The issue that demands immediate attention is the copyright/close para issue, one which not only negatively impacts other policies such as WP:N (also itself a pillar), but has legal implications. While G12 may not apply (i.e., when there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety, and maybe revert to an earlier version), #2 of WP:QF is clear that if It contains copyright violations it will be discounted. Multiple editors have established these issues. So: if this was a new nomination, it would literally never get off the starting blocks.
  Revert to last version and let more recent stuff be revdel'd? ——Serial Number 54129 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am working through all raised incident at present. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• I assume the older versions contain even more plagiarism. AirshipJungleman29 mentioned at the beginning of the FAC review that "I believe that the last time I looked at this article, I felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing. I do hope that issue has been adequately looked at and resolved—because that of course is a reviewing dealbreaker." ([4]). Norfolkbigfish answered that "I remember, this has been rewritten repeatedly since then so I am expecting/hoping this is no longer an issue." [5]. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Borsoka: I don't care where the bloody thing was put in, only that if there is a relatively clean version—and frankly, since it's from 2003, it's almost impossible that there isn't, even if it's only a stub—going back a few years, the GOCE did a copy edit—then we revert to that and then revdel delete. I mean, there must have been a time when there was minimal plagiarism unless it's been overlooked for 20 years. Or is it being suggested that NBF was responsible for their insertion when he augmented the article? I note, you see, that a previous FAC failed promotion over much the same problems(the source reviewer stated, the article needs a complete source check ... Too many issues I found with things not matching what they were sourced to. Mind ye, that had been resolved to the point of promotion six months later (non obstante, though, that it never got the source-integrity spot-check Ian Rose asked for...) ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think only Norfolkbigfish knows when he began copying texts from the cited sources. I have not monitored the development of this article for years. Norfolkbigfish's remark here suggests that the article was originally a redirect, which was developed into a separate article on or before 4 October 2020. No, I did not see the FAC review of House of Lancaster (sorry, Plantagenet). I referred to this article because I know from one of his remarks (saying that his article is one of the best WP articles about a dynasty, or similar), that he developed it. Based on my experiences, I would not be surprised that it would also contain plagiarism but I would not like to review it. Borsoka (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Borsoka, I see... On 4 Oct 2020 NBF moved a chunk of Crusades, wholesale, to Crusading, which was itself then moved by Srnec to the current title. Concerns re. CP and atribution were apparent even before then, which of course NBF was also a primary contributor too. Thanks again, ——Serial Number 54129 17:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• • The earlier comments to which I referred at FAC can be found at this diff, and the links therein, from April 2022, when the close paraphrasing was far more blatant than it is now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

    I am in the process of redrafting again, any remaining close paraphrasing, of which it is only now fragments of sentences, will be excised as part of this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delist Norfolkbigfish has continually insisted that plagiarism has been resolved, but as demonstrated on the talk page, substantial plagiarism still exists. I am too involved to close this as I normally do for GARs, so I might as well !vote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delist In addition to plagiarism (GA 2d), the article contains unverified claims (GA 2c.), does not address the main aspects of the topic (GA 3a), and the article's reliance on specific scholar's views remained unverified (GA 4). My detailed arguments are listed above. Borsoka (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delist per Borsoka's forensic analysis. ——Serial Number 54129 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• List on the basis that all issues identified have been addressed, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• For the time being, let's forget other issues than blatant plagiarism. Do you guarantee that you cleaned the text of plagiarism? Borsoka (talk)

• I detected new cases of plagiarism in two further short sections of the article. I think the article should as soon as possible be delisted and restored into the redirect page it used to be before Norfolkbigfish filled it with texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

All now addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@GAR coordinators: this is not going anywhere, and I am too involved to close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably not going anywhere because it is a particularly malformed GAR. Nominated, flooded with comment by the nominator who has a history of trying to get the article deleted, and then even closed by that nominator. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

What a helpful comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Edge3 (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Crusading movement created a framework of ideologies and institutions that described, regulated, and promoted the Crusades? Source: Maier, Christoph T. (2006a). "Ideology". In Murray, Alan V. (ed.). The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Vol. II:D-J. ABC-CLIO. pp. 627–631. ISBN 978-1-57607-862-4.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Norfolkbigfish (talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Crusading movement; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Onegreatjoke, many thanks. How about these?

• • ALT1:....that one feature of the Crusading movement was the increasing popularity of models of the prime objective, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, that became embedded in daily devotion, providing a visible sign of what crusading was about. Source: Tyerman, Christopher (2019). The World of the Crusades. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-21739-1.
  • ALT2:....that the crusader states that had been created in the Levant by the Crusading movement became nationalist rallying points and emblematic of western European colonialism in the mid-19th century.Source: Madden, Thomas F. (2013). The Concise History of the Crusades (Third ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-1576-4.

I find it all interesting but have been in amongst it for too long to understand what they lay reader finds interesting. So guidance is welcome. I'll be away for a couple of weeks now, so please be patient with my replies. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Onegreatjoke, thanks. I think we are getting there. How about using Levant for the geography? Alternatives would be Near East or Eastern Mediterranean, all of which are pretty much synonyms. I have also wiki-linked what I can.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Norfolkbigfish: Good article, but a much better hook could definitely be made for this nomination. So i'll wait for the new hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: alt2 works though I feel like some wikilinking and clarification would do nicely if it can fit under 200 characters (For example, what is the East?). Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Alt2 is good now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish and Onegreatjoke: I think ALT2 is too long, vague, and winding. Being familiar with the article—good to see it got to GA eventually, how about something like: ALT3 "... that the Crusading movement defined concepts of warfare throughout medieval Europe?" Shorter, sweeter, and more likely to 'hook'. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I am ambivalent, what do you think Onegreatjoke Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can approve that. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

In that case, it is fine by me @AirshipJungleman29 and Onegreatjoke: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke:—I assume all is ok to go with this one? :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It's just waiting for a promoter, don't worry; neither I nor OGJ can promote it because we're involved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Signed for archiving Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

POV banner

This appears to relate to Talk:Crusading_movement/GA4 (GA4) Several scholarly PoVs are overemphasised: The movement enabled the papacy to consolidate its leadership of the Latin church. (A contrasting view is presented by Norman Housley, also cited in the article. /Housley 2006, pp. 147–148/). Housley's historiography mentioned actually appears to agree with the sentence. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Housley writes The one area in which the development of the medieval papacy was indubitably shaped by crusading was the curia's control over the Church at large.

Without wanting to closely paraphrase this looks pretty much the same thing to me. However, would be interested in alternate phrasing suggestions if required. Page 148 btw. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any comment to make @Borsoka? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, in the absence of feedback I'll remove the banner. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crusading movement/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Norfolkbigfish (talk · contribs) 13:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 10:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this under review, as I noted at WT:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comments: @AirshipJungleman29 and Norfolkbigfish: Where are we regarding the status of this article? It's been a while since this review was updated and with the GANR backlog drive coming up I want to make sure all potential articles are able to be included. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Under review IntentionallyDense. This article has been the subject of significant attention regarding close paraphrasing and copyright, so I'm going through most of the sources to check. As you can see, there are a lot of sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Understandable. Just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten about it. The sources on this article are quite impressive, best of luck to you and the nominator. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Didn't realise that you had started @AirshipJungleman29 - give us a heads up if there remain any areas of concern and we can resolve. It has been redrafted so I am not expecting any, but we will see. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Well, there are a couple of things I have noticed already, Norfolkbigfish.

    Number one: while the prose is certainly understandable, concise and clear, it is not very well-written. For example, "There was more contractual recruitment. The requirement for intelligence and espionage had grown. Naval warfare was increasingly important. Alliances required grooming. Innovative tactics were developed with different variations deployed depending on circumstances. Expertise in siege warfare were expensive.", with six sentences in two lines, just about meets the GA criteria, but is not "well-written". You will need to work on this if you plan to take this article to FAC.

    Number two, more pertinently for GA and this article in particular, there are still passages that are not supported by sources. For example, in "Legacy", we have:

    "This is a view that was contested. The Latin settlements did not align neatly with the typical definition a colony. They were neither directly controlled or exploited by a homeland. Historians have used the idea of a religious colony in order to accommodate these discrepancies in their colonial theories. A different definition covers a territory conquered and settled with religious motivation. This territory maintains close contact with its homeland, share the same religious views and requires support in both military and financial terms. Venetian Greece carved out of the Byzantine Empire as a result of the crusading movement following the Fourth Crusade offers a better match to the traditional model of colonialism. Venice had a political and economic stake in these territories. Indeed, this was to such a degree that the region attracted settlers that would otherwise migrated to the Latin East. In this way its success actually weakened the crusader states."

    where the latter half of the text is not supported by the provided source, and the sentence "Historians have used the idea of a religious colony in order to accommodate these discrepancies in their colonial theories." I would classify as a misrepresentation.

    This is why, as previous reviewers have noted, the article needs a thorough check for text-source integrity, which I am doing. You may want to conduct your own simultaneous check to eliminate errors before I come across them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    How is this misrepresentation? Phillips in the Oxford writes on pages 112 & 113:Some historians believe that the concept of colonialism carries too many emotive associations to be useful when discussing the history of the crusades because it tends to evoke images based upon episodes such as the British settlement of North America or the Spanish invasion of the New World. They maintain that traditional definitions suggest that a colony is politically directed by, or economically exploited for the benefit of, a homeland, or subject to really large-scale migration. These do not fit the Latin settlements in the Levant before 1291.

    Conquest was undertaken to recover and assure the security of Christian control of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and therefore it may be worth putting forward the concept of religious colonization. The resulting 'colony' can be defined as territory captured and settled primarily for religious reasons, the inhabitants of which maintain close contact with their homeland principally on account of a shared faith, and their need for financial and military assistance.

    Looks pretty similar to the point of the sentence, but anny suggestions on wording would be gratefully recieved. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Added page 30 to the citation to support the second half of the paragraph, and reworded as per point one above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    "Historians" — Phillips does not mention any others, just that this is their viewpoint. "to accommodate these discrepancies in their colonial theories" — there are no disrepancies to be accomodated, just an alternative theory. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    OK, I have struck the sentence. I think that addresses all the points raised to date? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Have you any further feedback on this @AirshipJungleman29? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Not on this particular point, but of course the issues with turgid prose remain throughout the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Could you provide details please @AirshipJungleman29? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Well, it's fairly straightforward—like the above example, lots of short sentences, many of which can be combined, one after another. A few examples:

    The creation of disciplined units was challenging. In feudal Europe strategy and institutions were too immature. Power structures were too fragmented.

    These works extolled adventure, courage, charity and manners. The church could not accept readily all the values presented.

    King Philip IV of France extinguished the Templars around 1312. This was probably for financial and political reasons. He pressurized Pope Clement V to dissolve the order.

    Muslim characters were described as evil and as less than human. Their physical appearance was described as devilish and they were represented as having dark skin. Islamic ritual was mocked and insults made to Mohammad. This caricature continued to be used long after the fighting over territory subsided.

    This is non-exhaustive, you should go through the article and make sure that this sort of stop-start prose is edited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you @AirshipJungleman29. All of these have been addressed and I will act on your advice. Where are you with the source check? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I now have all the books I require. Today, I look at the first paragraph of "13th century". I am unable to get access to the 2012 edition of Barber; still, none of the 2004 edition verifies the text. Then, we come to a lengthy section cited to Dickson 2008. We find again another example of the clunky, poorly-written prose I noted above; it would be nice if these could be fixed in advance: "These works foreshadowed the Children's Crusade. Joachim believed all history and the future could be divided into three ages. The third of these was the age of the Holy Spirit. The representatives of this age were children, or pueri. Others aligned themselves to this idea." There are also basic grammar errors. Some of the material is not verified by Dickson, such as "these works forehadowed the Children's Crusade" or "that incorporated descriptions of the Children's Crusade". Some of the material allegedly sourced to Barber seems like it should actually be cited to Dickson: for example, "He included the fighting of the infidel in opaque works that combined writings on the past, on the present, and on the future." What's going on here with source-text integrity? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The next paragraph I look at is the "Criticism" subsection. This is a mess, and not just the basic grammar errors. The first several sentences are cited to Tyerman 2006, p. 247 and Tyerman 2019, p. 28. The first is completely irrelevant to the subject described. The second is vaguely relevant, but does not verify much of the text. Complete failure of source-text integrity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Finally, I look at the third paragraph of "12th century", sourced to Riley-Smith 1995, p. 2. To put it bluntly, this reads like a person who has read the source, and has then been told to summarise what they remember without looking. It is all disconnected. The sentence "Despite this, regular campaigns were required in addition to the capability provided by the military orders." has no viable antecedent for "this", and leaves what was "required" up for guessing. "Eugenius III developed an equivalence between fighting the Wends, fighting the Muslims in Spain and the Muslims in Syria." is invented from somewhere, certainly not the source. "The later crusade failed" again has no viable antecedent. "But it was the news of the crusaders defeat by the Muslims at the Battle of Hattin that restored the energy and commitment of the movement" is just not what the source says—in fact, it says that news of Hattin swept Europe with consternation!

I just can't believe that after so many reviews and so many requests to actually check for source-text integrity, you haven't bothered. Everywhere I look there are comprehensive problems with sourcing. I have no choice but to fail this review for not meeting GA criterion 2. Normally I would advise fixing issues and putting it up for renomination, but at this point I don't know if you are capable of recognising issues when they stare you in the face. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Peer review

Crusading movement

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because several editors have viewed/reviewd this a various levels (GA, ACR, FAC) and this has prompted a lot of flack. It would be great if someone new to the topic could run a fresh pair of eyes over it, offer some objective notes for improvement and a fresh perspective.

Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It might be best to address the detailed concerns about sourcing before asking for another review. The concerns about the "12th century" section, for example, do not appear to have been addressed. Many of the sentences in that section are unclear: "He had experience of the fighting in Spain so readily applied similar remissions of sin to the combatants there, without the need for a pilgrimage to Jerusalem." What remissions? This concept has not been mentioned yet. Here's another: "The crusaders established polities known as the Latin East, because it was impossible to defend Jerusalem in isolation. Despite this, regular campaigns were required in addition to the capability provided by the military orders. In Spain further expeditions were launched in 1114, 1118, and 1122. Eugenius III developed an equivalence between fighting the Wends, fighting the Muslims in Spain and the Muslims in Syria." Three of these four sentences do not make sense, and none of them fit into a narrative. And this is just a small section. There are many paragraphs that are a series of short sentences, many of which repeat previous thoughts, that should be made more concise and sensical. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Jonesey95, I was planning to combine sourcing with any comments with the review in one hit. It makes sense to me to do these together. Despite all the noise there hasn't really been a detail objective list of issues in some time. I'll pick up on your comments. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)