Talk:Crusades/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

@Count your Garden by the Flowers: In this diff, you changed

In 1199,

heretics

.

to {{quote|In 1199,

But the given reference does not mention "apostate" at all. What gives? 2601:547:B05:1BF8:BDAB:76F2:81A5:3A1 (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 2601:547:B05:1BF8:BDAB:76F2:81A5:3A1 (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this - we don't generally have citations in lead Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

While the use of such dated and debatable works is another argument, the citations and bibliography reference were incorrectly structured. As formatted this generated the error Harv warning. There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREF Setton 1969-1989. It is also more useful to cite to each of the authors of the articles, rather than the Editor. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

See the entry for H.A.R Gibb in the Bibliography for better formatting. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Crusades has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

After a brief counter-siege, Nūr-ad-Din took the city. The men were massacred, with the women and children enslaved, and the walls razed. [81]

The source of this statement is unclear. 51.179.96.52 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk

) 13:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi GoutComplex, I have reverted this good faith edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusades&diff=prev&oldid=1178591564. Although the "younger son" theory did exist it has fallen out of favour now. This is largely evidential, crusading was massively expensive, the chances of success were slim and most of the early crusaders returned home rather than grabbed territory. If it was restored it would need to reflect wider academic views if only for balance. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Crusades has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Terminology section, change the phrase: "earned participants forgiveness for all confessed sins." to "earned participants remittance from penalties due to their confessed sins."

The cited source uses the words "removing from participants all penalties for existing confessed sin." Removal of penalties, is not the same as forgiveness of sins. In Catholic understanding, a sin that has been forgiven may still have penalties/consequences. It's the removal of these penalties that was promised by the indulgences associated with the crusades. (See more information about indulgences here: Indulgence.) 2cj (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Srnec (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish. I notice that you deleted the intro to Section 2, Crusades and the Holy Land, 1095–1291. IMHO, such a major section should have an introduction, and I think the previous one was fine. I would lose the third citation, the one to Christie's work. I know you're going to immediately dis the EB11 reference, but it is both available and readable. Your likely argument that it is dated doesn't ring true as someone (you?) has managed to squeeze in four definitions from the OED (from 1895) that add nothing and I would imagine have few subscribers. I would actually replace the EB11 reference with the one from the Catholic Encyclopedia and leave the timeline from Oxford Reference. Thoughts? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It was a bit of a drive by edit really. instigated by another edit showing in my Watchlist. The article is a bit flabby and there is quite a bit that could/should be trimmed to get it to a manageable size without actually losing any information. Good WP writing should impart information with each and every sentence. This paragraph doesn't. So The Crusades to the Holy Land are the best known? Best known by whom, who says etc. Then there is repetition in 1095 and lasting some two centuries. Followed by some flowery verbage These Crusades began with the fervent desire to wrest the Holy Land from the Muslims etc that is historically debatable.

And yes, Barker isn't really a suitable source. Academic crusade history writing and thinking has changed significantly since he wrote. This is not analogous to the OED which is updated regularly and is a valid source of the etymology concerned. Barker really belongs in the historiography, not in the body. This is probably true of all the sources that pre-date Riley-Smith, if not later. There are perfectly modern good sources that can be used, no need for Edwardian non-specialists.

Appreciate that this is not what you want to read. That said this is not a book where an intro would be valid, prose can be more elaborate and concision is less important, this is a encyclopedia. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because it is an encyclopedia, doesn't mean it should not be readable. I'm sure there is a Wiki-rule governing introductions to large sections. This is a large section, the most important one, a we should give the reader a break and indicate what's in it. Maybe you don't like the verbiage, but that can be fixed.

If you want to trim, I suggest the Terminology section. Constable's dichotomy can go. The OED definitions can go....no value added. Why is Saracen even there? It's not used anywhere in the text. Same with jihād. I think the "best known" statement is a tautology. Why else would they be numbered. The goal of the original crusades could be less flowery but what was there is also in the lede. It's not historically debatable.

I already agreed on Barker, so why bring it up? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The background was really thin on the motivation of the crusaders and the general political situation so I have added some detail. Also referred to the situation 3 centuries before that was interesting but not pertinent so excised that. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Dr. Grampinator, I think your edit on this has totally changed Asbridge's meaning and intention. Historian don't think this was a major step on the conquest of Anatolia any more, in fact the battle itself is pretty insignificant. It may well have foreshadowed what was to come, but the edit makes it look like it caused it. You might want to rephrase. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

All right, you wore me down. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thx, but I don't want to wear you down, I only want to get it right :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s what I meant to say. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

-)

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think your changes to the structure are not an improvement. The title of the section should have the dates as it is the transition between the First and Second Crusades. The introductory material there is important and not redundant, especially Dagobert's offer to Bohemond and his capture. The Crusade of 1101 is worthy of a subsection vice being just bullets. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair point on the date, I have restored. Added sentence on Bohemond's capture. Apart from that the sourcing is more modern and there is probably more information than was originally there and less waffle. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)