Talk:Crusading movement/Archive 2

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.

I assume the editor who wrote of "God's forgiveness for sins" in the lead wanted to refer to indulgence grants to the crusaders, but I am not sure. Could this wording be verified or it is based on a misunderstanding of the cited work? Borsoka (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Not my edit, but a quick check shows that both Murray and France used this exact same phrase in the Encyclopedia Murray edited. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are the excerpts that I found in Murray's 4 volume set:

To all those who would go on it, taking the badge of the cross as a sign of their undertaking, Urban II promised forgiveness of their sins, a full indulgence ...

— James M. Powell, Introduction

and Urban cast his expedition in the form of a pilgrimage. Above all he offered them an indulgence, forgiveness of all their sins, [...] Forgiveness of sins was confined to the statement that “whoever, for devotion alone, and not to gain honour or money, goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, can substitute the journey for all penance”

— John France, First Crusade (1096–1099)

The priest’s absolution of the confessing penitent represented God’s forgiveness of the guilt incurred by his sin, freeing him from the danger of hellfire. However, the penalty, or punishment, due for sin still remained.

— Jessalynn Bird, Indulgences and Penance

So, at the least in Murray's encyclopedia, it seems that it always refers to something offered by the Church. I would not be surprised that in a different context, it is something that crusaders believed independently of any Church offer. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder - the medieval church was extremely emphatic that only it had the power to grant (on God's behalf) indulgences & the like. The technical term is "plenary indulgence", chasing which I find:

"By the tenth century, some penances were not replaced but merely reduced in connection with pious donations, pilgrimages, and similar meritorious works. Then, in the 11th and 12th centuries, the recognition of the value of these works began to become associated not so much with canonical penance but with remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. A particular form of the commutation of penance was practiced at the time of the Crusades when the confessor required the penitent to go on a Crusade in place of some other penance.^[1] The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance.^[2]"

Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This text is taken from the Wikipedia article Indulgence. Wikipedia's article are not considered valid sources, for obvious reasons, which apply also for discussions in talk pages. Moreover, the sources used to verify this text are from catholicculture.org and The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. But, even if I ignore the sources and only consider the content per se, this is saying that because of Pope Urban II's declaration, every peasant that went into a popular crusade received his salvation from the Church. If that is the case, those who took officially the cross in exchange for salvation took the cross for nothing, because they only had to go on a crusade on a voluntary basis to receive salvation. So, I do not deny the importance of sermons from charismatic people and declarations from the Church, but I still see a difference between a belief that these sermons and declarations generated or reinforced and a salvation obtained after a special commitment to the church. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your quotes. Can we conclude that the article should refer to plenary indulgences? Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It does, already Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That is not to say it would be remiss to have have further mention Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The name "Crusading campaigns" would naturally fit with the introductory paragraph of Crusades which states

The term has also been applied to other church-sanctioned campaigns fought to combat paganism and heresy, to resolve conflict among rival Roman Catholic groups, or to gain political and territorial advantage. The difference between these crusading campaigns and other Christian religious conflicts was that they were considered a penitential exercise that brought forgiveness of sins declared by the church.

I propose to wait after the perspective on the scope of Crusades is clarified before we discuss it at a larger scale, but I felt like mentioning it now. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers II—Crusading movement is a more inclusive title, this is less about campaigns that are covered fully elsewhere in WP and more about everything else, which isn't. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: according to WP:LEAD "The lead must conform to verifiability.... The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged ... should be supported by an inline citation. ...Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."

Based on our policy:

1. Could you refer to reliable sources that define the term "crusading" as an ideology?

2. Could you clarify if "crusading" is an ideology why are there scholars who define it as holy wars or popular groundswell of Christian religious fervour?

3. Could you refer to reliable sources stating that "taking part in any popular groundswell of Christian religious fervour" could be defined as "crusading"? Borsoka (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Borsoka:, though you are right that challenged info must be sourced even in the Lead, it is not useful to do so when it is not controversial. I am totally a novice on the subject, but already with the little I read, I understand that it is based on an ideology. There is a section on Ideology in the Alan V. Murray encyclopedia on Crusades. The reference is given in the body of the article. I also don't understand why you emphasis the fact the term "crusading" is used. This is obviously to match with the title and the point that is being made is not dependent upon these terminological details. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct you can quote a reliable source defining the term "crusading" as an ideology. I would be surprised, because I have not read such a narrow (and exact) definition of the term, but please do not hesitate to quote it. Please also note that the Alan V. Murray encyclopedia on Crusades contains a section on the First Crusade as well, but based on this fact we could hardly define the term "crusading" as the First Crusade. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The reference clearly says that the crusades are based on ideology. What else do you need? It is perfectly fine to use our own words, different than what is found in sources. In fact, it is required to use our own words. There is absolutely no requirement to find the exact sentence "Crusading is an ideology" in sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you quote the text from a reliable source stating that "Crusading is an ideology"? If we cannot find a source defining crusading as an ideology why do we want to define it as an ideology? If crusading is an ideology why is the article dedicated to military campaigns? Could we describe WWII in an article dedicated to the ideology of Natzism? Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The statement is not a definition. Crusading is an act, the act of crusading, and an act is not an ideology. So, you are misunderstanding the statement. It is your understanding of the statement that is the issue, not the statement itself. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"Crusading was a distinct ideology..." Where is the reference to an act? Please try to clarify your own position (ideology or act) and verify it with quotes from reliable sources before continuing this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

My position is already clear. Crusading is an act. For example, there is an article entitled "CRUSADING AS AN ACT OF LOVE". Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I am glad that you also realized that the first sentence of the article ("crusading was a distinct ideology...") should be verified or modified (although I think the title of an article is not the best source to define the term). As we agree on the principal issue, we can stop this discussion until the principal problem is solved: we need a definition for crusading that can be verified with references to reliable sources. 04:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I will reinstate the older version, it is covered by the citations later in the article. Until the question of the name for this article is resolved this would seem to be the best we can do. Accept that the sentence may be clumsy, but it is sourced. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, now we know that crusading had a distinct ideology, but we are not informed about the article's subject in the first sentence. Borsoka (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That is the article's subject, the ideology and all that relates to it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

In this case, this should be clarified. For the time being our readers are informed that the article's subject had an ideology, but are not informed about the article's subject (as it is demonstrated by the discussion above). Borsoka (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This is semantics, this article is about the ideology of crusading. I have trimmed some of the overlap with Crusades, removed the duplication tag, tidied the groundswell sentence and removed the dubious tag. It should be clearer now. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: Why not move it to Crusading ideology? Srnec (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It is too soon to make a move. This is work in progress and there might be a need to broaden the scope of the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Srnec, I wouldn't be adverse to your suggestion. The current name is problematic, I agree. My preference would be for something slightly broader such as Crusade movement so that the popular response, memorialisation, songs, literature could be covered. What do you think? I am not hung up on the name, I just think an article of this type is important. Dominic Mayers II, if we could resolve the naming now I think it would give both articles room to breath and develop. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, I know that you would like to resolve the name now, as you tried before, but when you tried before it just created a long discussion. I don't see that that the situation is fundamentally different now than it was before. It's time to try something else. What is needed is a more fundamental discussion on the scope of Crusades, by itself, without even considering this article. Let us do one thing at a time. And, I know that we kind of all like Crusades as it is now as a starting point, but there are two different perspectives on it. The choice of a common perspective on Crusades is important if we want to move ahead. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers—the name of this article isn't important to me, but it does vex other editors and through that gets in the way of progressing the articles. I think Onceinawhile used that question to prompt debate. Srnec's suggestion is subtly different and has merit, he is actually suggesting a name that would possibly move this forward, I disagree with using ideology on the basis it may confuse and narrow the scope but agree with the principle. Something like Crusade Movement is more inclusive, although other suggestions are available. If you hope to define crusades & crusading I fear you will be disappointed. There is no academic consensus on what the term means so a bunch of editors on WP are unlikely to achieve one. It is for this reason that academics since Riley-Smith avoid definition completely. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, my suggestion is not at all to obtain a consensus on a definition of crusades or crusading, but only a consensus on the scope of the article Crusades. Is it all crusades (with an emphasis on the traditional crusades) or the traditional crusades (while covering a bit other crusades)? It makes a big difference in decisions that we must take to move ahead. If one disagrees, then one should prove it by changing his mind about the focus of Crusades, for example, in your case, it means agreeing that the subject of Crusades is all crusades. It's not about the definition of Crusades. The article would have a different name or even no name yet (to be defined) and we would still need to get a consensus on its scope. What exactly are the crusades at large and what exactly are the traditional crusades might still be debated, but there is a consensus that the traditional crusades are not all crusades. So, there is no reason not to have a consensus about whether the subject of Crusades is all crusades or the traditional crusades (with contents about other crusades that are pertinent to traditional crusades). Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure this aids my understanding Dominic Mayers II. For me, Crusades is about the numbered (or as you put it traditional) crusades, their genesis, their aftermath and consequences. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The Lead seems to be moving away from descibing what this article is about and away from cited sources in the body. I will try and restore while hopefully not offendind anyone too much Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If we want to make a distinction between "crusades" and "crusading", we should define the scope of the article. Non-specific statements about the impact of the movement are not useful. Borsoka (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The impact of the movement is part of the definition. As is the legal, cultural and moral framework touched on in the first paragraph. As are in the body, all are sourced to Riley-Smith, as is the term Crusade movement Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The impact of the movement is part of the definition. As is the legal, cultural and moral framework touched on in the first paragraph. As are in the body, all are sourced to Riley-Smith, as is the term Crusade movement Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

They are not informative: the same words could be mentioned in connection with scholasticism, the mendicant orders or antisemitism as well. That a statement is verified does not mean that it is useful out of its context. Borsoka (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

But they are important, or at least Riley-Smith thought so. At that they are also much more important than these three examples, that is the point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And the crusading movement's impact on European and Levantine history is mentioned in the lead fully in line with Riley-Smith. We do not need to repeat Riley-Smith all thoughts twice in the lead. Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is not about Crusades, it is about Crusading or as Riley-Smith puts it the Crusading movement. As such Urban's call to arms in not of primary importance. What is of primary importance is the textual evidence of a distinct ideology, it's impact and ramifications, its movement and instituition. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

An out of context list of non-specifying poorly paraphrased words does not help our average reader to understand the scope of the article. 14:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Why do you think Riley-Smith starts his introduction to the movement with references to Urban's call? Why should we ignore his approach? Borsoka (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It took a century for the movement to achieve coherence and thereafter it adapted to circumsatnces. Riley-Smith again, Urban is clearly a risk of WP:UNDUE and is questionable in the lead. As he puts it definition is not easy. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We do not need to define it, but we should distinguish it from other medieval movements. Would a reference to Hitler, Churchill or Stalin in the lead of an article about WWII be a risk of WP:UNDUE? What is sure Riley-Smith (not unlike other specialists) begins the intruduction with the beginnings: Urban's speech and the Council of Clermont. Borsoka (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not always, for example What were the Crusades. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not always, but commonly and Riley-Smith (to whom you are referring) specifically. Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to differentiate it from other movements, unless there is a risk of confusion. The lay reader needs to know it is a movement, it is significantly important and why. One event, albeit the first in a 600 hundred year history is WP:UNDUE. The comments that are tagged here are reflected in the body and cited to Riley-Smith. In What were the Crusades Riley-Smith deiberately avoided Urban because he was developing an academic definition, and Urban's part in that is WP:UNDUE. Of course, when writing books for sale Clermont makes a nice dramatic opening. But that doesn't give it weight in itself, or at least not enough for mor than a cursory mention in the Lead supported by more detail in the body. A body in which Urban is mentioned twice. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We are writing articles for billions of peoples who had no information about the subject. They may want to understand the subject at the beginning of the article? Why do you think we should ignore usual scholarly approach when introducing the movement? Should WP articles be non-specific and boring? Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Who defines the crusading movement as "the progressive creation of institutions and of an ideology associated with crusades"? Is his/her view accepted by most scholars? Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to consider all statements made about an expression as a definition of the expression. An insertion is not always a definition. It can be a clarification of some aspects. You have said yourself that the statement does not mean much because it refers to Crusades. For that reason, I say that it cannot be considered a definition. It is just an expanded version of the expression that has still a lot of ambiguities, in particular, all the ambiguities that exist in the concept of crusades. You are right that a definition would be problematic. But, I am willing to accept that, if it looks as a definition to you, then we could try to formulate the same idea in a way that cannot look as a definition. Meanwhile, we should remove the tag, because it clearly is not a definition that needs verification. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

As soon as the main problem is solved, the tag should obviously be deleted. However, we cannot make statements that are not verified. Borsoka (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, non contentious statements can be included without providing sources, even in the body of the article. What is contentious is a bit subjective, but you need to explain a bit what is contentious in that statement, because it does not look contentious at all to me. The only problem that you point out is that the definition of crusades (or crusading) is problematic. In that sense, I agree that a definition of "crusading movement" would be problematic, but clearly this statement is not a definition. It only appears as a definition to you for some reason that I do not understand. So, please explain a bit what is contentious in that statement. We need this anyway to proceed ahead. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The statement - with or without the verb "was" - associates the crusading movement with institutions and an ideology. Could we introduce Christianity with the following words: "Christianity, the progressive creation of institutions and an ideology associated with Christian teaching, ...."? Could we introduce Fascism with the following words: "Fascism, the progressive creation of institutions and an ideology associated with Fascists thinkers' thoughts..."? The answer is obviously no, although both statements are "true", but (1) a movement is not equal with the creation of institutions and ideologies and it is not limited to this process; (2) the statements are not useful, because they try to explain themselves. Borsoka (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I would not find so problematic a sentence such as "The Christian movement, the progressive creation of institutions and an ideology associated with Christian teaching, ...." at the beginning of an article that wants to cover this aspect of Christianity, especially in its early times where it could be seen as an evolving movement. It does not define what is Christianity at all, but it nevertheless says that the article will focus on the institutions and ideology aspect, which is very useful. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

But could not be verified. We could say that it "brought about the creation....", but we could not associate the creation of institutions and an ideology with a movement. Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you write the complete sentence. Maybe it's fine. Perhaps after I see it, I would see what was your issue with the current sentence. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In my view, the version obtained after the edits done during the discussion at the OR notice board does not address the issue of specifying the scope of the article in terms of "institutions" and "ideology" (or "ideologies") or an equivalent terminology. Clearly, the usual meaning of "crusading movement" is not sufficient and we must clarify what it means here in this article (and yes any terminology used for that purpose must be compatible with its use in the literature). However, there are other issues to consider and perhaps it will be wise to first work on these issues in the body of the article and only after go back to the lead to find a way to better explain the scope of the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should follow basic WP policies, especially WP:NOR. The first sentence, above the lead, specifies the scope of the article. Please do not restore a version that cannot be verified. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus that the sentence that specifies the scope needs to be verified. However, your idea of specifying the institutions and ideology aspects of the scope above the lead instead than directly in the lead is very good and it should resolve the issue. We simply need to agree on what this sentence should be and close the discussion in the OR notice board. Your intention was good, because you took a sentence that I wrote, but with the discussion I realized that it does not adequately describe the scope. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit any part of the article and if you edit the template above the lead, you do not need to verify your edit with a reference to a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In this situation, you should have discussed your idea in the talk page. You acted as if there was an OR emergency, but there was none. Your idea of specifying the scope above the lead is good, but it makes no sense to me that it is not possible to specify this same scope in the lead itself. In fact, I believe the article and the lead should be self contained and not have to rely on what is above the lead to be complete. So even though you found a way to specify the scope above the lead, this limitation that you impose is problematic. But, hopefully, we will figure out why the way I specified the scope in the lead appeared OR to you and we will be able to freely describe the scope and similar aspects directly in the article as it should be done, i.e., without having to use some subterfuge outside the article per se. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I think our circular discussion leads nowhere. I return to my original idea: the article should be merged into crusades, because the article's present scope is not consensual. A general article covering the main aspects of all crusades without explaining all details of each military campaign is the best approach, it is fully in line with the most common scholarly approach in this century. There is no need to adopt our own original approach and arbitrarily collect themes under an arbitrary title. Borsoka (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that Crusade ideology can be described as the ideas and the modes of perception that defined and justified the institution of the crusade and informed the way in which people at the time conceptualized crusades and the crusade movement. from Maier, Christoph T. (2006b). "Ideology". In Murray, Alan V. (ed.). The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Vol. III:K-P. ABC-CLIO. pp. 627–631. ISBN 1-57607-862-0. is a good start. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The theory of holy war, the model of pilgrimage, Old Testament precedent, and New Testament theology were the main foundations of crusade ideology. The combination of these four elements was what made crusade ideology distinct from the ideology of other types of religious wars or devotional activities. is also useful Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This would be a feasible approach. If crusading ideology is the article's subject, we should clarify it and delete all text from the article which are not related to ideology. In this case, crusades could be the general article for all subjects related to crusades. This is the most natural approach and it is fully in line with most books cited in the articles. Borsoka (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As previously provided the text in question is based on Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1995). "The Crusading Movement and Historians". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan (ed.). The Oxford Illustrated History of The Crusades. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–12. ISBN 978-0-19285428-5.. Riley-Smith was one of the foremost academic, educator and influencer working in the field. Dominic Mayers is correct in writing that the lead does not offer a definition because as Riley-Smith wrote It must be admitted that crusading is not easy to define. The movement lasted a very long time and opinions and policies changed; for instance, the development of crusade leagues was an adaptation of crusading to suit the rise of the nation state. Crusading involved men and women from every region of western Europe and from all classes; attitudes can never have been homogeneous. And it appealed at the same time to intellectuals and to the general public, so that we are faced by a range of ideas from the most cerebral to the most primitive, from the peaks of moral theology to the troughs of anti-semitic blood-feuds. Ideas from different ends of the spectrum, moreover, interreacted. Because crusading was a voluntary activity, popes and preachers had to transmit the theology in a popular form, and it was not uncommon for popular conceptions to attach themselves to official Church reaching. For instance, crusades had technically to be defensive—Christians could not fight wars of conversion—but at grassroots' level people perceived Christianity to be a muscular religion, and missionary elements again and again pervaded crusading thought and propaganda. In particular reference to the sentences in question he wrote The crusading movement had involved every country in Europe, touching almost every area of life—the Church and religious thought, politics, the economy, and society—as well as generating its own literature. It had an enduring influence on the history of the western Islamic world and the Baltic region and The astonishing achievement of the expedition partly inspired the departure of 'the third wave', the so-called crusade of noi, but no one in these years could have predicted that what Urban had conjured up would prove to be only the First Crusade, nor that the crusade would come to be deployed elsewhere than in the Holy Land and against opponents other than Muslims—in short, that the crusading movement would emerge to become one of the most important components, and defining characteristics, of late medieval western culture. Those last two quotes are sourced in the body and provide a pretty good description of what this article is about e.g. the Crusade Movement and why. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Since your last two messages contradict each other, could you clarify what is the article's subject, according to you r understanding? Crusading ideology or crusading movement? If crusading movement, what specific subtopics will be mixed in this article and which reliable sources verify this mixture? Why do we need to separate this mixture of subtopics from the general topic of crusades? Why do we need this mixture of subtopics if the subtopics could be presented in specific articles? Borsoka (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

See above from Riley-Smith, it is a pretty good summary Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course Ideology is a significant element. Although it is not the only one, and of course as Riley-Smith points out it wasn't constant or even consistent Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As has been previously posted From the beginning, I emphasized that institutions and ideologies could be an acceptable scope for the article about crusading movement. I maintain that the article may contain only statements that can be verified. As Norfolkbigfish deleted your joint original research, I agree there is no need to discuss this issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

And? Which reliable source verifies this scope? I have been and I will be open to any suggestion, but my openess does not verify original research, original synthesis or content forking. Please remember WP:3RR Borsoka (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: please answer my above questions instead of reverting my edits. What do you think about the scope of the article, should it cover crusading movement or crusading ideology? If you think, the article should cover crusading movement, what specific subtopics should be mentioned in the article and which reliable source verifies this grouping of subtopics? Why do you think this article about crusading movement would be useful for our average reader? Why do you think that an article about crusading movement would be more useful than creating separte articles about its subtopics and mentioning them in the article about the crusades (similarly to a significant number of scholars who wrote about crusades/crusading)? Please do not quote lengthy texts that has nothing to do with my questions. 15:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The scope of the article is as described in the Riley-Smith quotations. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you list the subtopics? Could you also explain why do you think that we should present them in a separate article if Riley-Smith writes of the crusading movement in connection with the crusades? Please remember we have an article about the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The question at hand is whether the text added is original research. The quotes demonstrate this is not the case, they also demonstrate why definition is difficult. There is no WP article on Crusading as an instituition, Crusades is dominated by MILHIST in the the Middle East in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. Other editors are free to edit the body of Crusading, including adding new topics and through this the Lead will evolve and possibly the title change. This is, or should be a very different article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are unable to explain what is the scope of the article, what subtopics should be covered in the article, what are the reliable source verifying their grouping into one article without mentioning the crusades, why are you deleting my tags that say the article's scope is unclear and unverified? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The tags get deleted because the subject is under discussion on the Talk Page. The answer to the scope question is contained in the Riley-Smith and Maier quotations. No appropriate alternative has been suggested, even though Dominic Mayers II and myself have attempted to precis this into a meaninful Lead paragraph. The article is about the instituition of Crusading, there is no WP article that covers that and it is a different but closely related article. It needs work, it may need a new title but it is a valid article and it doesn't need repeated tagging. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand. Did you really delete the tags notifying editors who have not been involved in the debate about it? Do you really think this is the best way of dispute resolution? Borsoka (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You could take it to WP:DR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I could and I requested outsider input on the relevant wikiproject (as you know, because you participated in the debate). You have not answered my question (but this is not unusual): why do you think that informing non-involved editors of the debate with tags contradicts our core values? Borsoka (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_to_remove. In general, tags are allowed to stay until there is a resolution of some sort. Alsee (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Its a challenge to define the scope of an article on crusades, because there are different views on it. The prevailing view in the English literature is an "augmented" traditionalist view in which the traditional crusades might not be the only crusades, but they are central. There is also an opposite and less prevailing view that says that the concept of (traditional) crusades as being special among the Christian holy wars is arbitrary. In this view, the dichotomy created by the very notion of Crusades is not needed to get the correct picture. Of course, there is a large consensus that Crusades should follow the prevailing view as it currently does. Of course, it would be possible in this view that Crusades covers also the ideology and institution aspects of crusading, but this is not forced. Currently, Crusades does not do it. Crusading does it, while being a bit less attached to the traditionalist view. It will be useful that the article clarifies this situation either in the lead or immediately after in a section "Definition and scope". Three points to keep in mind:

1. It is impossible to define the scope in a few statements in such a way that every single new content could systematically be judged pertinent or not pertinent. It will necessarily be an ongoing process, but the definition of the scope should be helpful. The guidelines say (emphasis mine) "We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed."
2. The well known difficulties regarding the definition of "crusade" and thus of any related expression is not a problem in the specification of the scope per se, because we only need to explain the relation of this article with the concept of crusades, whatever it is.
3. The definition of the scope does not need to be verifiable, only the content needs to be verifiable. We do not even need to provide one source that has the same scope: the guidelines say the subject must have received significant coverage, where (emphasis mine) "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The article's scope

I highly appreciate Dominic Mayers' wonderful summary of our policies above, but as a non native English speaker I let other editors to discuss it with him. I am sure it will be a precious discussion and I hope I will be able to comment it. I'd rather raise again the usual questions about this article's scope, because they have not been answered for months.

• 1. What is the scope of this article, that is what are the subtopics to be covered here?
• 2. Why should these subtopics be separated from the "Crusades" article? Is this their usual way of presentation in scholarly works?
• 3. Why do we need to mix these subtopics in this article? Perhaps a separate article dedicated to each subtopic would be more useful?
• 4. What are the reliable sources based on which we can develop this article without ignoring relevant WP policies? Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The first question is what needs to be better explained in the article. It has already been explained in the talk page. You need to explain what you don't understand in these explanations so that we can progress. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you list the subtopics? Borsoka (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You are asking what should be the sections of the article. As usual, there are many ways to organize a subject in sections. The choice of a particular organization is not equivalent to a definition of the subject. You are asking for way more than what is the scope. The current article has sections and these are the current answer, but I am sure it can be improved. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

So, we have no idea about the subtopics to be covered, but we want to determine the article's scope. It is an interesting approach. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The article has sections, so we have one answer, but it is not unique and it can be improved. I just don't think it is fair to focus on a particular way to divide the topic in subtopics at this stage of the discussion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you please answer my question. It is you who is talking about sections. Again: what are the subtopics that should be covered in this article, according to your understanding. If you are unable to answer this question, please do not write an answer. Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please consider specifically the answers that have already been offered instead of restating the question in a problematic manner as you do when you present it as an OR issue (in question #2) and as a subtopic-organization issue (in question #1). BTW, we already explained that it has nothing to do with OR and the excerpt of the guidelines that I quoted above makes this clear. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I join the editors who stopped discussing the scope of this article, or anything about this article. You are unable to answer simple questions and I do not want to participate in your never-ending conversation with your own thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have already addressed the essential of your questions. In particular, I already mentioned that we could cover the subject of this article (and thus its subtopics) directly in Crusades, which is where you want to go with this. There is never only one way to organize a topic into different articles. However, there has been a lot of discussions about the pros and cons of a second article and the large consensus was that a second article should be useful as seen in Review of the archives. Even you agreed at the time and you restated this recently:

From the beginning, I emphasized that institutions and ideologies could be an acceptable scope for the article about crusading movement. I maintain that the article may contain only statements that can be verified. As Norfolkbigfish deleted your joint original research, I agree there is no need to discuss this issue any more
— User: Borsoka

So, this is a loss of time. Please focus on the current article with the purpose of improving it, not with the intention of arguing for its suppression. Or else, just stop discussing, which is fine too. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

In real life, I should pay for reading such an absurd conversation. Thank you for it. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please, don't make fun of editors' comments. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have only half-followed the issues here, and I feel I can only vaguely comment on the scope issue. I was going to explain that article scope doesn't need to be ReliableSourced, but Dominic's covered it well. My vague impression is that there is (or can be) a topic here distinct from Crusades. It seems reasonable to (perhaps) cover a crusading as a movement or ideology, perhaps not focusing on individual battles but instead focused on subtopics which are broadly applicable across this historical-social-phenomena. This article is relatively young, and it is not unusual for the scope of an article to have to be refined while the article is being developed. If there are concerns that specific sub-topic or content doesn't belong, I'd suggest focusing on those specifics. Is specific content too closely duplicating another article? Should the content merged somewhere else, or spun off as its own article? Is it something that should just be deleted? You should be working towards a clear scope, but I don't think a firm scope-definition needs to be a roadblock at this point. If there are conflicting ideas of what should or should not be deemed in-scope, if that is obstructing progress, then an RFC can be run on the specifics. I hope I was at least somewhat helpful. Alsee (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Unfortunatelly, in this specific environment conversation is entertaining, but useless and time-consuming. Borsoka (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This all makes perfect sense Alsee. As Riley-Smith wrote It must be admitted that crusading is not easy to define and it is good to see an editors opinion that it is not required here and now. Academic crusade specialists now largely ignore definition and categorisation for that very reason, instead concentrating on what people thought at the time. RS expains the difficulty of definition with a number of rationales. Firstly, it lasted a very long time: he typically uses a range of 1095 to 1798 although there was a online lecture of his that extended this into the 19th century but sadly I have lost the link. Secondly, it mutated over time and space: the crusades for the Holy Places were very different from those in wider definitions. Indeed those in the wider definitions were different from each other. Finally, even at the time the perception and understanding of crusading was heterogenous. For me, this article is about explaining this, while Crusades is MILHIST-the fighting. So what does it mean for this article? This article is about the development of the ideas, the modes of perception, organisation and governance that defined, justified and enabled the institution of the crusade, and informed the way in which people at the time conceptualised crusades and the crusade movement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Your view would be interesting, Dominic Mayers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2021

I would not interpret Alsee as saying that the issue of definition is not a subtopic. The issue of definition is closely related to the issue of scope and makes the latter more complex, but they are not the same. I personally do not like issues around definitions, but as long as definitions are discussed a lot in the literature by experts in reliable sources, it is certainly a valid subtopic. (But if there is a consensus that this subtopic is now obsolete and not discussed in recent sources, then it is obsolete.) With this clarification being made, I do agree with Alsee that the issue of scope per se should not be a roadblock at this point. I still feel that it would be helpful for the readers to clarify the scope a bit more in the article and at the same time this would help the editors moving toward a common perspective, but if there is some disagreement on the scope, clearly we should use Alsee's advice, which is to focus on specific content issues and not make the definition of the scope a roadblock. I think that he gave an excellent advice. I cannot state it in a better way. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile and RandomCanadian: you also came to help in the past and your view will be interesting. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Would also suggest a WP:RM to move this article to a less contentious name. Srnec suggested Crusading instituitions which does the job, but I think Crusading movement is slightly more understandable with regards to including modes of perception, conception and information. The advantage is that it is terminology that is widely used by crusade academics. That said, I would understand if consensus was to sort the body first. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If I have to define the approach in a procedural manner, it would be as follows. We start by trying to better define the scope in the lead, a first section (which is my choice) or even the name of the article (I think this is too early), but without calling a RfC. If there is no agreement among us, which is very likely to happen, we ask what is the specific content issue that arises under the proposed scope, just as Alsee advised. It is at this stage, where there is a specific content issue (or an attempt to find one) that we might do an RfC or use a notice board. Once the issue is resolved we go back to the first step and try again to better define the scope. Of course, I know that nobody is forced to follow a procedure like this one. For example, it is certainly fine to directly work to add content in the article. The point here is only that we should be working towards a clear scope in a concrete manner. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I hate to jump into the middle of such a lively conversation, but it seems to me that Crusading movement may be the best title for this article. Riley-Smith's Oxford History is as good as any for a beginning outline, modulated by Erdmann's Origin and Tyerman's later works. The introductory material is surprisingly hard. If you read the first article in Oxford (also written by Riley-Smith) it takes him forever to get to what he wants to say, but near the end, he eventually gets there. For what its worth. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree entirely, Dr. Grampinator, as you probably expected I would. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing the box that complains about duplication

I added this box as a replacement of another box that directly complained about possible duplication, but personally I see these duplication concerns only as a sign that we needed a better consensus on the scope. Each article should help the other one to be less bloated and have a clear focus, but if duplication is needed to make both articles look good and move toward FA, this is not a problem. Now that we have a minimal understanding of the scope, I believe that there is no global duplication issue and the box can be removed. Avoiding useless duplication can be done as we focus on specific content issues.

@Srnec, Borsoka, Onceinawhile, Johnbod, Norfolkbigfish, Gog the Mild, Dr. Grampinator, GPinkerton, Randy Kryn, RandomCanadian, and Alsee: you contributed to the discussion. Let me know if you see a specific content issue in relation with the scope as discussed above. There is no claim that the scope is perfectly defined, but if there is an issue it is expected that it can be explained in terms of specific content, say asking where and how it will be included. If there is no issue, I would remove the box with the understanding that no similar box will be added, at the least not at the top of the article. This is a change with respect to a previous approach using a RfC to remove the box. I feel it is better this way, because we might avoid the RfC and, if one is needed, it will be around a specific content issue. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, delete the box Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if there is no content-related oppositions, I will. This will then be a good basis to do the RM. It is important, I feel, to first remove this global duplication issue and its associated box, before proceeding with a RM. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I will remove the tag, because it has achieved its purpose. The {{missing}} tag was used to suggest the addition of some content. The proposition was to insert "the progressive creation of institutions and of an ideology associated with crusades" somewhere in the lead to clarify the scope. The documentation page says (emphasis mine) "if a consensus is reached that the information should be included, or no one contested the proposal, the information is inserted in the article and the tag is removed." There has been only one opposition from Borsoka but the discussion after completely rejected his argument that the content created OR: the scope of an article can be unique to Wikipedia, a choice made by Wikipedia editors, which does not need to be verifiable. Therefore, the content can be inserted and the tag removed. I will remove the tag. I will not immediately add the information, but only because I am not sure how to do that in the best encyclopedic way. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the {{missing}} tag was inserted as a replacement for a {{duplication}} tag about duplication in scope. In fairness to this original tag, my first purpose here was to be sure there was no opposition regarding the scope. But before removing the tag, I had to recall that the new {{missing}} tag introduced another purpose, which was to add some content to clarify that scope. The simple fact that the only argument against the proposed content, the OR argument, was refuted is enough to justify adding the content, which I did. I used Borsoka's suggestion about how to add this content, because how to present in a good encyclopedic style a scope that is not verifiable is not obvious to me. It is possible that Borsoka had this encyclopedic style issue in mind when he referred to OR and the disagreement was only a misunderstanding—only him can tell us that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for removing a tag that I did not place in the article with a reference to an argument that I never made. As the lead does not contain the unverified definition of the crusading movement, one of my concerns was addressed. Thank you for it. Perhaps the non-informative, non-specific sentences should be deleted or modified. Borsoka (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish and I agreed that a definition of crusades or related expression such as crusading movement is difficult, even historians say so. I further agreed that if the definition of the scope appears as a definition of the expression, then we must find a better way. It's not me that reverted your approach to clarify the scope. You did that yourself. I still maintain that there must be a way to clarify the scope not only in a disambiguation tag, but also directly in the lead or at the least in a first section after it. I suspect that it is only a lack of imagination or a too dogmatic attitude that prevents us from doing so. BTW, this point is compatible with your concern that sentences in the lead are not specific enough. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, now we all agree we should not define the term "crusading movement" because the creation of definitions not our tasks. The scope of the article is still unclear. For the time being the article is an original mixture of texts copied mainly from randomly selected articles of an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the scope is not perfectly clear was also discussed and the consensus was that it is a young article and the scope will get clearer in time. My point is only that whatever clarification of the scope fits in a disambiguation tag should also fits in some way in the lead or a first section. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Concluding and passing to a constructive approach to improve the article

We succeeded to clarify the scope a bit more in the disambiguation tag {{about}}, which says that it is about the ideology and institutions aspects. I see no fundamental reasons why the same clarification could not find its way in the lead or in a first section, but there is no rush and it might become easier after the scope becomes clearer in the article itself. I feel that those who agree that this second article has or could have a valid purpose, but yet find that it has many issues, focus on suggesting improvements in terms of specific contents. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be worth getting alternative views from other editors on a number of clarification tags added to the Lead of this article.

• The Crusading movement was one of the most important elements and defining attributes of late medieval western culture. was tagged clarify with the reason What is the difference between crusading movement and scholasticism?
• It had a distinct ideology... was tagged clarify with the reason Are there movements without distinct ideologies?
• The movement impacted almost every country in Europe, the western Islamic world and the Baltic region, touching many aspects of life, influencing the Church, religious thought, politics, the economy, and society. was tagged clarify with the reason What is the difference between crusading movement and papal primacy or scholasticism?
• Modern historians hold widely varying views of crusading. To some, their conduct was incongruous with the stated aims and the implied moral authority of the papacy was tagged clarify with the reason Are there modern historians who does not accept this approach? If yes, we should explicitly state tis, if not, the two otherwise non-informative sentences should be deleted. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We should avoid non-informative general statements if we want to intruduce a subject. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

First line of the section says other editors Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, for commenting your list. Shame on me, shame on me. Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: you may want to ask for a 3rd opinion or wait for comments from other editors who regularly comment this page before again making a badly formed RfC? Just a side remark: the issue has not been discussed by you and me here because you refused my comment without answering it. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Perhaps the two following questions could be requested if you insist on an RfC:

1. Do the three first sentences properly introduce the crusading movement '(A)', or they are non-specific and non-informative for an average reader '(B)'?
2. Do the two sentences about modern historians contain useful information '(A)', or they are too general and useless for an average reader '(B)'?

Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is a draft of what could be the first sentence:

The Crusading movement was the progressive creation of institutions and ideologies associated with the crusades in the medieval period.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Dominic Mayers II (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Done :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal. I think it is an important step forward. I suggest we should not provide a definition ("was"), because it could hardly be verified, but we could describe the movement through its effects. Perhaps we could shortly explain the concept of crusades instead of purely linking them. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This does not need to verified. It's just common sense. Everyone knows what is a movement. It is based on an ideology and it has institutions. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The only reason for verification in the lead is if it is contentious or if it is not supported by secondary sources in the body. Neither apply in this case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Everyone knows that movements usually have institutions and typically develop their own ideologies, but the above statement defines the crusading movement as institiutions and ideologies. Furthermore, a definition that explains the crusading ideology with the term crusades is not helpful. Borsoka (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that not defining "Crusades" in the first sentences of the lead and relying on a very common meaning of "crusading movement" and a link to Crusades instead is not useful. It is useful, because it says more explicitly that the article is about the crusading ideology and its institutions and not about milhist with an usual emphasis on the traditional crusades as is done in Crusades. Yet, it is not because we provide this very common meaning that it has to be found explicitly in sources. For verification, it is sufficient that the expression "crusading movement" is used in sources with the same meaning that it has in the lead, which is obviously the case. I cannot see how providing the usual meaning of an expression can be original research. Perhaps you are concerned that the splitting Crusades vs Crusading as we do here is not seen explicitly in the literature, i.e., with an explicit definition of the subject "crusading movement", but editors are free to organize the articles in a topic as they wish. Wikipedia is a unique encyclopedia and the way to organize content in it does not have to be found explicitly in the literature. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka before reinserting a request for sources to verify that "crusading movement" is the progressive creation of an ideology and institutions can you explain what is contentious in this? Just saying that we cannot find a source that bothered to explicitly define what is the crusading movement is not sufficient. It only means that the many sources that used this expression considered that the meaning of "movement" and of "crusading" together with the context is sufficient, whereas in our case it is useful to be more explicit that it is about ideology and institutions. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I arrived for the RFC. It already challenging enough for a newly-arrived editor to try to jump in and constructively comment on unfamiliar topics like crusading and scholasticism. I have not particularly studied the crusades, and, up until a several hours ago, I didn't know what scholasticism was. The RFC itself makes things even more difficult. The RFC has been open for three days, and it appears that you have gotten zero outside input so far. That's a bad sign. People are surely arriving here, but clearly they have been leaving without responding.
  The RFC states that several tags were added, but it doesn't clearly enough explain the dispute(s) are. It doesn't clearly enough lay out questions we're supposed to resolve. It doesn't lay out any clear proposals. It is especially helpful when a dispute can be explained in relation to relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines. It also appears that the currently-involved editors are rapidly evolving the situation. It is not clear which, if any, of the original issues have fundamentally changed, or have been effectively resolved.
  I am experienced in preforming RFC closures, and I am tempted to just close this RFC down as confusing and/or malformed. Instead I will urge the editors here to agreeably remove the RFC template, urge you to finish sorting out any issues you can solve yourselves, then work together to draft a new RFC that more clearly explains both sides of any remaining disputes. In general you shouldn't be editing an issue in the article while an RFC is running. If you are making constructive progress editing some issue in the article, then finish doing that first. If you hit a deadlock on an issue, halt the editwar during RFC debate&resolution. Alsee (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Fair point Alsee, I'll close the RFCs remove the tags and hope that resolution can be handled on the Talk page. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, we need to better prepare RfCs. My view on RfCs is that the preparation of the RfC, agreeing on the specific of the request, etc. is as useful as the RfC itself. This being said, I feel guilt to not have waited after the conclusion of the RfC before editing. No comments were coming in and I didn't believe in the usefulness of the RfC, but I should have suggested to close it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: thank you for deleting the most uninformative statements (those about modern historians). New wording of the remaining statements is slightly better than their original text, so I hope my "Tag Bombing" was not useless. Please do not delete the tag requiring verification, because (as you have also acknowledged several times) definitions in connection with crusades and crusading are contantious. Perhaps we should adopt an other approach: we should not define the crusading movement but describe it with verifiable and non-controversial statements. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

See my reply below. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

While appreciating the time, effort and sourcing that went into these edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusading_movement&diff=1083339816&oldid=1083012373&diffmode=source, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusading_movement&diff=next&oldid=1083339816&diffmode=source & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusading_movement&diff=next&oldid=1083341843&diffmode=source WP:BRD applies.

The sections removed on Violence in Christianity, Knights & Chivalry, the poorly documented and often ignored Common People and the Perception of Muslims all closely relate to the scope of the Crusading Movement. The additions more closely relate to other articles in which they would be better placed relating as they do to early histories of Europe & the Near East.

With such wide ranging edits it is difficult to be more objective and there may be content, albeit of limited quantity, that could add value but this would need to more closely and explicitly aligned to the topic. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all the reverted version of the article has not received positive reviews so there is no point in preseving it. The suggested version introduces the development of the crusading movement in the context of European and Levantine history fully in line with the customary approach adopted by authors of specialized literature (Tyerman (2007), pp. 1-57.; Jaspert (2006), pp. 2-34.; Mayer (2009), pp. 8-34.; Jotischky (2004), pp. 23-47., etc.). Editors who want to ignore the most common scholarly approach are required to explain the rationale behind their deviation from scholarly norms. Yes, the sections about Violence in Christianity, Knights and Chivalry and Common People were removed, but the suggested version preserves and presents their core content in their historical and ideological context fully in line with relevant scholarly literature. For instance, the suggested version clearly indicates that the Christians' attitude towards violence has always been ambiguous, depending on time and place (see Jaspert (2006), pp. 14-15.; Tyerman (2007), pp. 29-34.). In contrast, the reverted version of the article fails to indicate this ambiguity. Furthermore, the reverted version of the article contains misleading information. For example, chivalrous culture began flourishing only after the First Crusade, so presenting it in the "Background" section contradicts relevant scholarly literature (Jaspert (2006), p. 17.; Bull (2002), pp. 24-25.). Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:BRD is misunderstood here, I will restore the revert on that basis. This is a gnarly subject and scope has been much discussed. The current structure was revised after peer review into two broad sections 1) Background—that covers the constituent parts in a theoretical manner 2) Narrative history—to take matters in a chronological sequence. The added text does, good though it may be, does neither. This topic is about the paradigm of crusading, the movement and its instituitions. It is not a duplication of the various Crsuasdes articles or the Middle Ages. As such it doesn't necessarily follow the approach taken in the generalist works on the crusades that is used in these edits. There is an intention to use International relations theory to flesh out the difference, but I haven't yet got to that. If anything is factionally incorrect, obviously missing or there are new sources that apply to the crusading movement rather than the crusades all suggestions are welcome. But the best place to discuss this is at Talk and other viewpoints must be welcomed and respected. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain why did you develop your own approach when presenting the background to the crusading movement ignoring books dedicated to it (including Jotischky's Crusading and the Crusader States)? Could you also explain why do you think that the development of the crusading movement could be presented without mentioning the relevant events of European and Levantine history? Any theory, including international relations theory, could be used to present the movement, but WP is not the best place to introduce our own understanding of the development of a historical phenomenon. Why do you think that we could mislead our readers by presenting unverified facts (I refer to the presentation of chivalrous culture as a background to the movement)? Etc, etc, etc. Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The chivalry section is a good example in favour of the current structure. Chivalry & Crusading had a symbiotic relationship. Currently the Chivalry subsection summarises this for the entire period, acknowledging it was in its infancy when the two movements began while concentrating on the sub-topic alone. Its importance and its information would be lost in a purely chronological sequence. Structurally this was an attempt to meet suggestions made by AirshipJungleman29 made at peer review. Maybe calling the section Background is causing confusion, suggestions on another section title would be welcome. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Chivalry section is a good example how this important element of medieval culture could not be presented in a general article about the crusading movement: crusading movement and chivalrous culture developed side by side, so presenting the late-12th-century full-blown chivalry as a background to the late-11th-century beginnings of the crusading movement clearly contradicts all scholarly approaches. The problem is that the subsection about chivalry in the "Background" section is based on a specific article from the Encyclopedia of the Crusades and this article is not dedicated to describe the Crusading movement's background but to present the principal aspects of chivalry in crusading context from the start of the crusading movement to its end. We need a Background section and the beginnings of the developing chivalrous culture are habitually presented among the antecedents of the Crusading movement in scholarly works (I refer to the works and pages mentioned above in my first comment). Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't understood the discussion yet, but a discussion is always good. Please stop the edit war on the article itself. Don't try to make a point using banners. But, again, a discussion is good. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, discussion is good. That is why I ask you not to remove banners notifying editors who have not so far been involved in the discussion about it. We need external input. Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed external input would be welcome - that is why this is out for a second peer review (other methods are also available). As there is active talk @Dominic Mayers's version probably is the cleanest. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright infridgement is a serious issue. Original research also contradicts our basic policies. Borsoka (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Both of these can be disputable, and neither justifies edit-warring. There probably aren't that many different ways to say that Pope Alexander II developed a system of recruitment via oaths for military resourcing. Gregory VII extended this across Europe. And even if this is too close for comfort as a paraphrase (which I have no clue about, not wanting to get too involved in this), the solution is to rewrite it to avoid the close paraphrasing, not tag-bomb it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentences tagged as potential copyright infridgement are obviously closely paraphrased (even if one of them is verified not by the closely paraphrased source but by an other work). I think tags are useful instruments to indicate problematic sentences. I am always grateful to editors who draw my attention to unverified or closely paraphrased sentences in articles that I created or heavily edited. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Added para based on Latham, who was in the further reading section but not cited, in order to clarify the Background section and align more closely to the scope which is instituitional and structural rather than chronological MILHIST. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Although Andrew Latham represents only a scholarly PoV, the new Background could be a good introduction to those who had some knowledge about the topic. I am not sure that our average reader understand the reference to "divinely led method of spiritual renewal within Christendom". Perhaps we want to use a more secular language. Borsoka (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Would forgiveness of sin by God work better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

While on the topic of source usage, I would like to remind Norfolkbigfish and other contributing editors to keep WP:OR in mind. Too often in this article there are sentences or phrases which seem to include information or imply events which are not supported by the cited source. As a random example, take It was theologian Anselm of Lucca who took the decisive step citing Jotischky 2004 p.27-8. All that this source says in reality is that three theologians, of whom Anslem was one, became interested in holy war; Anselm then took up Gregory VII's revolutionary idea of penitential warfare. The source very clearly assigns credit to Gregory, but the current article reverses this (perhaps in an attempt to emphasise the movement? regardless, it is WP:SYN.) Please bear this in mind. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, it might also be better to assume good faith rather than WP:OR or WP:SYN. This particular text came from Crusades with this edit:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusading_movement&diff=1029184288&oldid=1028540415&diffmode=source in June 2021. My mistake certainly, in not checking but at the time the scopes of the two articles were in flux. I will delete the sentence as it. It doesn't really add anything, it is unclear who wrote it and it doesn't match the source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, @Norfolkbigfish, it is hard for me to assume good faith when I run into edits like this:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusading_movement&diff=1049383904&oldid=1045445504 – which is, not to put too fine a point on it, clear plagiarism. If you dispute this accusation, please see https://archive.org/details/crusadesencyclop0002unse/page/546/mode/2up, and have a look at just how many phrases are copy-pasted, by you, onto Wikipedia. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Poorly précised I agree @AirshipJungleman29, too closely paraphrased, yes, I would put my hand up for that too. but plagarism no. Probably nothing that a good copy edit wouldn't resolve, the facts are uncontentious. I will do that as soon as I have time. Any other feedback on actionable improvements you may have would be more than welcome as well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, @Norfolkbigfish, your edits are in open contravention of WP:PLAGFORM — specifically that for copyrighted sources only. You will note that "Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes from a copyrighted source—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text", which you, by your own admission, have done, is plagiarism. Whether or not the facts are uncontentious does not matter, nor whether you were aware of this Wikipedia guideline. It is plagiarism. I rest my case. And as for actionable improvements, I would suggest addressing these issues. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The issues have now been addressed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, there is even an open Peer review at which you could use to provide actionable suggested improvements. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to withdraw your request and complete this article before its peer review. Why do you think that other editors should do your homework and fix the many cases of close paraphrasing, original research and original synthesis? If you are not responsible for this article, why did you nominate it as a GA? Please respect other editors' time. Alternatively, after years of editing exclusively in the area of crusading movement, you may want to develop your ability to complete articles in other areas of knowledge. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

After initial disagreements with Borsoka, I find myself agreeing with them. Suggested improvements have been provided. It is up to the asking editor to choose whether to make those improvements. Perhaps they think the article is of such a high standard that the basic improvements which have been suggested are unneccessary. That is their decision, but since without those improvements this article will never reach GA standard, I hardly see the need for requesting two consecutive peer reviews. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Objective actionable suggestions have been addressed, and will continue to be addressed when new ones arrise. A further Peer review has been requested to get input from a wider range of editors if they are willing to give their time. It is a gnarly topic that would benefit from wider input. There seems to be no evident problem with that. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a Peer Review open at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Crusading_movement/archive2. All objective, actionable suggestions for uimprovements to this article would be gratefully received Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)