Talk:Crusader states/Archive 1

Latin Empire with Cyprus should be included
I would say certainly the Latin Empire with Cyprus should be included rather than the narrow inclusion of only Syrian states. I don't think that there is a specific reference to "crusader states" other than what we are creating here. This article shouldn't just be about the 1st Crusade and without the remainder of the Crusades would be incomplete as reference material. Venice and Genoa, along with their dependencies, the Duchy of Catalan, et al. should be referenced in both this article and possibly another article from this one, as it is a part of the European heritage of expansion and conquest. The Latin Empire that replaced the Byzantine Empire is definately a crusader state, although the inclusion of Venice is (as noted below) debatable.Stevenmitchell 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the Latin Empire fall into the category of a Crusader State? And if so, then we would need to add links to the various Latin states of Greece, the Aegean, & Cyprus. -- llywrch 06:03 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I was just thinking of the ones founded after the First Crusade. Whenever I have heard "Crusader State" it always just refers to the four Syrian/Palestinian ones.  After the Fourth Crusade, which ones would count? Would we include the territories ruled by Venice (like Crete, or even Zara)? (I mean, the Venetians were excommunicated en masse, so were they still Crusaders?) Adam Bishop 16:52 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd say any political entity that was directly created by one of the Crusader should qualify; in other words, the Latin Empire is a yes, the Empires of Nicaea & Trebizond are nos, the Dutchy of Thebes that the Catalan Company set up would be a no (although maybe listed under ``see also"), & I'm not sure about the Kingdom of Cyprus off the top of my head. (The book I'd consult to decide is at home, & I'm currently at work.) I'd consider Venice, Genoa, & their dependencies outside of this article, although any history of these polities would inevitably link to them.

Most of the minor Latin states of Greece would probably be linked from the appropriate section of the History of Venice article -- if that is ever beefed up to go into sufficient detail for the 11th thru 17th centuries. (If I ever get the Ancient History entries up to snuff, I would like to get back to working on Early Medieval Britain before I allow myself to be distracted again.) -- llywrch 18:07 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * If the Latin Empire is a Crusader state, the Kingdom of Cyprus definitely is, at least for part of its history, since it was taken by Richard I during the Third Crusade, and because it was ruled by the Lusignans at first. But if we're extending "crusader states" to these states as well, maybe the Crusade article should also be expanded to include military actions in Spain and the Baltic...those were sanctioned by the Papacy as "crusades" as well, sometimes. I wouldn't call Spain a "crusader state," but then what about the land held by the Teutonic Knights? Adam Bishop 18:33 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think you solved the problem in your question Adam: the crusader states included in this article should be the result of the crusades in the Crusade article. Whether the Spanish & Baltic crusades be included is another question. (Although suspecting the average Wikipedian's love for trivia, it will only be a matter of time before those Crusades -- & others I remember hearing about -- are added to that article.

Spain, I think is safely left out of this list: its existence wasn't dependent on the Crusades as was (for example) the Kingdom of Jerusalem. As for the states along the Baltic. . . my memory about them is rusty, but I seem to recall that except for the various Crusading Orders (e.g., the Teutonic Knights), that the local lands were governed by either Polish magnates or Bishops. Nothing all that interesting. -- llywrch 21:01 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Just because Spain and Prussia lasted far longer than the others, doesn't mean that they are irrelevant here. I think I'd be proud that both Spain and Prussia lasted so long and were successful, whilst the others were lost so readily.  All the Crusades did was try to recover land, not gain new lands and it wasn't just the Holy Land but a Crusade against the infidel in irridentism/revanchism.  Circumnavigation of the Mediterranean Sea will tell you that much of these lands were formerly European and sometimes even Christian before being overtaken by foreigners.  Roman amphitheaters are not what I'd call Arabic or Israeli!  As far as I know, policy carried out in the Holy Land was the chief reason for the same activities in Spain and Prussia.  Simple thing is; if there is a state founded via Crusades, then it is a Crusader state.  Don't see the forest for the trees, do you?  Borderer 14:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modern usage to refer to Israel
Is this really appropriate here?


 * "Israel is sometimes called a Crusader state, usually by those opposed to its existence and/or policies. Objective scholars usually do not call it one. See also Tenth Crusade."

Personally I've never heard that, and this "Tenth Crusade" stuff is kind of strange to begin with (I believe it was once also added to the Crusade article). I didn't want to remove it in case there is some justification for referring to Israel that way, but it seems pretty dubious to me. Adam Bishop 15:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You are entirely correct. Israel is a Zionist state.  It would be impossible for Israel to be a Crusader state.  Just look up Christian Zionism.  Borderer 14:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I remember something about general Edmund Allenby's quote "...no more crusades..." after conquering Palestine in behalf of Great Britain. It may well explain the sentence about Israel. Magabund 23:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is encyclopedic material, just a comparison somebody made. People call Blair a poodle of Bush, doesn't mean this should be mentioned in the poodle article. -- H eptor  talk 00:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Salona
I have removed the link from "Salona". It led to the only Salona in en.wikipedia, which is in Illyria - but this Salona is in Greece, just north of the Gulf of Corinth. Maproom (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Crusader state or Crusader State
The sources themselves appear to be very inconsistent on this matter, sometimes saying "Crusader states" and sometimes "Crusader States". For the purpose of Wikipedia though, it would be nice if we could come up with a consistent spelling. My own preference is "Crusader States" (perhaps because I live in the United States, I dunno). Does anyone else have a strong opinion one way or the other? --Elonka 03:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer lower case for both words; "Crusader States" is not a country like the US, so certainly "states" should never be capitalized (I don't remember ever seeing that, at least). I have seen "crusader" capitalized, but a quick rummage through the books I have at hand suggests that the lower case is much more common. It's not really derived from a proper noun so I wouldn't capitalize it. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to tell via a Google search, because searching on "Crusader States" pulls up stuff all over the map, even on the first page. Here's what I'm seeing when looking directly in my own sources:
 * Crusader States
 * The History in Dispute series
 * David Nicolle, The Mongol Warlords and The Crusades
 * Malcolm Barber, "The two cities: medieval Europe"
 * Steven Runciman (in Setton's Crusades, though other authors in the same work use different styles)
 * Mark T. Abate, The Crusades, 1095-1291
 * Looking in the index of Tyerman's God's War, the capitalized version seems to be more prominent, though this may be because it's just listing titles.
 * Crusader state
 * Jotischky, Crusading and the Crusader states
 * Robinson
 * crusader states
 * David Morgan, "The Mongols and the Eastern Mediterranean"
 * Thomas Madden, The new concise history of the Crusades
 * --Elonka 03:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As it isn't a proper noun I think crusader states works best, although Wikipedia tends to capitalise everything! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Outremer
The "article" Outremer should (to the extent applicable) merge into Crusader states. The leads and other content of both pages make it clear they are synonymous; Outremer is simply the French name for it, so it should redirect here with. The non-applicable content at Outremer is basically just disambiguation material, and should be properly formatted as such and moved to Outremer (disambiguation). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. (And with no opposition in over a month, you should feel free to go ahead with it.) Agricolae (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - clearly Crusader states covers the Levantine crusader states and the Baltic crusader states. Outremer was referring specifically to the political alliance of Levantine crusader states.GreyShark (dibra) 20:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for the reasons given by GreyShark09. Applodion (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - no reason given above why the term "crusader state" should be restricted to specific states. It is a general term. FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The terms don't need to be 100% synonymous, just for there to be enough overlap that it would mean a lot of repetition/be a waste of effort to have full separate articles for both, which seems to be the case since Crusader states mostly deals with the Levant anyway and Outremer is a stub. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sicily & Spain
I find it hard to understand attempts to label the conquest of these after several centuries as retaking/reconquest. Sicily was clearly a Norman Conquest while in Spain it was largely a case of the evolution of a number of Northern Spanish States. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiki has to use the reliable sources == look at these: (1). R. Dean Peterson - 2000 - "Christians were driven to retake Spain and Sicily from the Muslims" (2). David M. Crowe - 2008 - "during the Christian wars to retake Spain from its Arab rulers, the Moors."; (3). Leila Avrin - 2010 - "Christians retake Cordoba 1236, Valencia 1238, Seville 1248; Muslim rule limited to Granada ..." (4). Clare Brown, ‎et al 1997 "the Spanish Christians regrouped in the inaccessible mountains of Asturias to launch a crusade to retake their country from Moslem domination, an endeavor that was to last almost eight centuries."  (5). Timothy Charles Hall - 2009 "Reconquista is Spanish for reconquest and refers to a period in Spanish history during the Middle Ages when the Christian Spanish kingdoms took back territory from Muslim forces in Spain."  (6). Peter Von Sivers, et al. 2012 - "A similar effort to retake Christian territory from Muslim control took place in southern Italy and Sicily. "  (7). Nicola Giuliano Leone, et al 2013 - " the retaking possession of Palermo by the Normans was recognised as a Christian reconquest by the majority " (8). Marvin Perry - 1988 - ‎"By the end of the century Norman knights had retaken Sicily from the Muslims."  (9). Everett Ferguson - 2009  "led Normans in southern Italy to set about retaking Sicily from Islam."  Rjensen (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are any of these particularly notable sources? Really? You haven't even cited them in the article only made an unsupported change. It is certainly not NPOV. I will go back to sources to see how this can be better phrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * time for you to produce some RS --are you actually looking at how historians deal with these issues? You can use google search on the quotes to get the full context. Rjensen (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Will work on this when I have access. What is clear is that none of the above are specialists in the Crusader States or the Crusades in general and several are not even historians. What was clear was that they show a bias towards religious writing rather than history which may explain the quotations Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * —you could do worse than looking in the bibliography of this article. Prawar's dated but still excellent book describes Sicily & Iberia in terms of "conquest & colonialism". Jostichy describes the Spanish kingdoms as essentially geo-political constructs and divided rather than forming a united "Christian" entity. Indeed there were crusades against heretics in Catalonia. It is worth noting that the christianity imposed was different to that practised by the indigenous christians in Spain who were surpressed. Pre-Islam Spain was Visigothic and pre-Islamic Sicily Byzantine. Both were replaced by the conquerors rather restored. In both cases Islamic life continued for centuries before suppression bt the Latin Church. This is a broad consensus amongst specialists in the subject. I must say the Brown source is shocking in its inaccuracy, talking about "a crusade" centuries before crusades were devised. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Indeed there were crusades against heretics in Catalonia." That would be either the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229), with the Kingdom of France and its allies fighting against the Crown of Aragon and its allies, or the Aragonese Crusade (1284-1285), with the Kingdom of France, the Kingdom of Majorca, the Kingdom of Navarre, and the Republic of Genoa joining forces against the Crown of Aragon. Dimadick (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Crusades expansion
I am expanding the crusader states section in the Crusades article. I will also copy across the text as relevant to help this one alongNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Crusader states in Greece
There is only one passing reference to the Crusader states which existed in Greece in this article, such as the Duchy of Athens, Kingdom of Thessalonica, and doubtless others I had never heard of before today. Hopefully, someone with a bit more knowledge on the subject can suggest where I could learn more to maybe one day add these correctly into the article or, probably better, do it themselves. FrunkSpace (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit queries
Greetings all. I am cracking on with a copy edit. If I get something wrong, or if you don't understand why I have done something, feel free to flag it up here. I shall do likewise with my queries:


 * 1) "Malcolm Barber, a British scholar of medieval history, indicates that in the Crusader state of the Kingdom of Jerusalem the Holy Sepulchre was added to in the 7th century and rebuilt in 1022, "after a previous collapse". "In 691–2 Caliph Abd al Malik had built a great dome over the rock here, a place sacred to all three great religions"" Why is this where it is? Much of it seems to have little to do with the rest of the paragraph. Indeed, does it need to be in the article anywhere?

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted this. I may be pushing my luck but when you have finished here would it be possible to ce the Outremer section in Crusades—now reduced in size— from which much of the text in this article originated, please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I was tempted to delete it myself, but I am aware that a copy editor is not a content creator/deleter and that seemed over-stepping the mark.
 * Crusades - sure. Could you remind me once I finish this? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you happy that "Crusader" has an upper case C? I don't see that it is a proper noun.
 * Me neither, lower case better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "created a growing social class" This raises the question for a reader, and a copy editor, as to what social class is meant. Is "upper-" the missing word? Or perhaps 'elite'? Or 'urban'?
 * elite probably covers it best Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * What are "city centred products"? Products which are typically produced in [domestic] urban locales?
 * Yes, e.g. non-primary goods Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In fact, the whole summary of pp. 352–354 doesn't really flow (sorry) and I don't have access to it to try and make sense of it myself. Want to scan and email me those four pages?
 * Sure, np—what email address Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Norfolkbigfish, Send me a Wikipedia email, I'll reply and then you'll have it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Frankish population, estimated at roughly a quarter of a million people, provided an import market for clothing and finished goods." From Europe, or from the cities just mentioned.
 * Europe Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Is cite 51 in the correct place? Shouldn't it be at the end of the sentence?
 * Correct & done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The "Military" section seems to me to end hanging. So what happened about Egypt? Maybe add 'However, repeated assaults on Egypt failed to achieve the benefits the crusaders hoped for.' or similar. Whatever you go for, I assume that you can source it; or I could probably dig something up.
 * Added detail on Fifth & Seventh crusades to address this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Right. That is my first run through done. I will have a look at Prawer, and then go through again. What sort of level are you eventually hoping to get this to? GA? FA? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think GA is far as it can go, without wider sourcing which I don't have access to, that would be for another editor I think. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

PS I assumed that it hardly needed saying that the lead needs rewriting. Would you like me to attempt a first draft of this? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Will give it a go Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Now done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Apologies —I thought I had finished with content as this point but noticed and absence of Art, Lilitary Orders & Legacy. In a rush of blood to the head I have added a chunk of additional content, after your first pass. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

And again

 * "the last mainland outpost" Are we classing Cyrus as a "crusader state"?
 * My view on Cyprus is the smae as 's, that its inclusion is dubious. However I wasn't think of Cyprus when I wrote this but the Fall of Ruad that another editor raised some time ago. I have, however, rephrased this more neutrally. What do you think Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of the lead is going to cause the article to fail any assessment above C class as there is next to nothing in the article regarding what it contains. Indeed, it could be argued that the second paragraph does little to "summarize the body of the article". (Quote from the MoS "nutshell".) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re Cyprus (I assume you mean), it's status as a "crusader state" is somewhat dubious imo, like others away from the Levant. But I suppose yes. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Last two paragraphs quickly rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "heterogeneity would have inevitably eroded formal apartheid" "would have" seems strange phraseology. This is an encyclopedia. Don't we need to say that it did or it didn't? Or that this source said such and such on the topic?
 * Removed first reference and amended second to although some historians assume that Outremer's heterogeneity eroded formal apartheid Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Describing the local, sometimes "natives" is used, sometimes "indigenous people(s)". It would be nice, but not essential, to standardise.
 * Done, indigenous Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Franks ruled as an elite and unnumbered class." What does "unnumbered" mean in this context?
 * Typo, should be outnumbered Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha! I should have guessed that.


 * "Muslim libraries contained classical Greek and Roman texts that allowed Europe to rediscover pre-Christian philosophy, science and medicine." This may be well sourced, but it is a highly contentious statement; can I suggest giving a little space to other opinions?
 * This is rather the general consensus amongst historians Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Since Christmas I have read a couple of learned accounts that barely give Islam a walk on part, but that must just be coincidence. It is unlikely to matter at GAN anyway.,
 * Emmm, I don't know what these accounts were so I cannot comment but I am interested, what were they ? Personally, I haven't read any contention to this statement from Nicholson. Asbridge puts it Historians have long recognised that the interaction between western Christendom and the Muslim and wider Mediterrean worlds during the Middle Ages played an important perhaps even critical, role in advancing European civilisation....By its nature, textual transmission of knowledge is easier to trace. In this area of exchange Outremer played a notable role-as witnessed in the translations made at Antioch. (pp=666-667) Relative importance in comparison with Sicily and Muslim Iberia is debated, but I haven't seen it fundamentally denied. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "The growth of the system of indulgences" What has this to do with the crusader states? It is, I think, their first mention. Probably better in the legacy section of Crusades than this article.
 * Removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "The crusades also had a role in the ... " Again, why is this in the ''crusader states legacy section?
 * REmoved Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Some parts of the last paragraph also seem to have little connection to the crusader states.
 * Removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There should not normally be citations in the lead.
 * Removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. Great. I am aware that I need to apply the source you generously sent to the economy section, but give me a day or two to get my breath back/deal with other stuff. Otherwise I reckon that it is in decent shape. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

GA?
, I have just realized that the article passed its GAN. I would like to ask you to either secure the article's full compliance with GA criteria or reasses it. After quickly reading over the text, my findings are the following:
 * GA criteria 1b. ("it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation"):
 * The article uses at least two different sets of templates for references.
 * GA criteria 1c. ("it contains no original research")
 * The article contains the following text: "The barons have been poorly regarded by both contemporary and modern commentators: James of Vitry was disgusted by their superficial rhetoric; the historian Jonathan Riley-Smith writes of their pedantry and the use of spurious legal justification for political action." Jotischky in his work referred to verify the statement: "The barons of the kingdom of Jerusalem in the thirteenth century have not, on the whole, had much sympathy from historians. ... It is tempting to view them as argumentative and lacking the breadth of vision to suspend their constitutional jealousies for the greater good of the kingdom. ... But it was this very quality of legal expertise and the ability to plead a case in court that the barons themselves prized. Ralph of Tiberias, for example, became a heroic figure among the thirteenth-century baronage for the constitutional grasp he showed in his resistance to Almeric II in 1198."
 * An attempt was made to fix the above problem. The new text demonstrates the basic problems of the article: it presents scholarly PoVs as facts and tends to pick up random text from the cited sources instead of providing a full picture. (Now we are informed about the negative views of some scholars of 13th-century barons, but we have no information of the 12th-century barons and Jotischky's above quoted text suggest that other interpretations also exists.) Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "The crusader states were the first experiment in European colonialism..." - I did not find anything verifying the statement in the two work cited. (And what about Greek and Roman colonies in Asia Minor, the Near East and Northern Africa in Antiquity?)
 * The above text was deleted, but the sentence still contains an unexplained term: "first experiment in "Europe Overseas"". This is a nice expression, but what does it mean? There were Greek colonies in Asia and Africa with and the Hellenistic states were ruled by a Greek elite in Asia and Africa. We should explain why Riley-Smith used this term. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * GA criteria 3a. ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic"):
 * The article does not mention the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia and the Near East, which gave rise to the Byzantines' demand for Western European mercenary forces and established the conditions of the quick conquest of the Outremer by the crusaders. [Asbridge (2012), pp. 21–22; Housley (2006), pp. 36–37]
 * The article almost makes no mention of women and if a woman is mentioned, she is a queen.
 * The article does not describe the commoners' everyday life in the Outremer. Where did they live? What did they produce and eat? What did they pay for their lords? How did they resist?
 * The article does not write of the international relations of the Crusader states.
 * The article does not write of the differences between the Crusader States.
 * The results of archaeological researches are not mentioned, although archaeology is an important source of everyday life in the Outremer.
 * The article does not mention the reasons of the appearance of the military orders in the Outremer. It does not make it clear that the Knights Templar were the first military order. It does not mention other important military orders, the Lazarites and the Teutonic Order.
 * Think some of these definitely need to be included, such as the Seljuk, international relations, differences, and military order parts, however things like the life of women, the everyday life, and the archeology appear to either be mentioned as best they can or are non-essential. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * During GARs on similar articles (Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301), Romania in the Early Middle Ages), I received suggestion that aspects of everyday life should be mentioned. And I fully agreed with them: we have to be informed about the life of the common people to be able to say that we have a basic knowledge of a country/a region in a certain period. Yes, women are often ignored in articles, which is itself a problem. However, in the case of the Outremer it cannot be tolerated, because the relatively free status of women in the Crusader States was one of the Outremer's distinguishing features. [I refer to, for instance, . I could refer to further works.] Could we properly describe a flower without mentioning the colors and shapes of its petals? Archaeology is an importan source of our historical knowledge. If we ignore it, we ignore history itself. Furthermore, archaeology has a specific role in the recent development of our knowledge about the Outremer. Jotischky emphasizes the role of archaeological researches by Ronnie Ellenblum and Adrian Boas in the 1990s; they challenged well-established old views about Crusader societies and changed historians' understanding about the Outremer. [Jotischky (2017), pp. 18, 161] If we list sources in the "Reference" section (like Jotischky), we should not ignore their important conclusions. Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * GA criteria 3b. ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"):
 * The article contains lengthy text about the history of the Knights Hospitaller after the fall of the Outremer.
 * GA criteria 4. (it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each):
 * The article contains the following text: "The leaders of the Third Crusade ignored the monarchy of Jerusalem; disposing of conquests as if there was no need to consider the nobility of the crusader states and giving the throne to Conrad of Montferrat in 1190 and then Henry II, Count of Champagne in 1192." Jotischky on the same subject: "Richard's support for Guy, his Lusignan vassal, cost him the cooperation of Conrad [of Montferrat] and most of the native Frankish barons, for the duration of the crusade. ... Finally, in the spring of 1192, Richard was forced to abandon Guy and recognise Conrad as king. ... [Conrad of Montferrat's death] Richard ... wisely did not try to bring [Guy of Lusignan] back ... Instead, overlooking the fact thet in his eyes [Queen Isabel I of Jerusalem] was still canonically married to Humphrey of Toron, Richard proposed that the uncrowned queen now marry [Henry of Champagne]." [Jotischky (2017), pp. 171–172]  Asbridge on the same subject: "...much of the surviving nobility of the Latin kingdom decided to back Conrad [of Montferrat against Guy of Lusignan]. ... Reconciled to compromise, the Lionheart convened a council of crusader barons ... A unanimous decision was reached, almost certainly with Richard's tacit approval, to offer the kingdom to Conrad of Montferrat." [Asbridge (2012), pp. 171–172, 494]
 * An attempt was made to fix the above problem. I assume the new text refers to the division of the remnants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem between Conrad of Montferrat and Guy of Lusignan. Of course, we can present this event as an arbitrary division made by Richard the Lionheart and Philip Augustus. However, in this case, we ignore most scholars' presentation of the facts: Conrad saved Tyre, the Jerusalemite barons hated Guy and were unwilling to serve him, Richard and Philip agreed to distribute the kingdom. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An attempt was made to fix the above problem. I assume the new text refers to the division of the remnants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem between Conrad of Montferrat and Guy of Lusignan. Of course, we can present this event as an arbitrary division made by Richard the Lionheart and Philip Augustus. However, in this case, we ignore most scholars' presentation of the facts: Conrad saved Tyre, the Jerusalemite barons hated Guy and were unwilling to serve him, Richard and Philip agreed to distribute the kingdom. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I emphasize that the above findings are results of a really quick reading. Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still emphasizing that the whole article is an unconsolidated mixture of nicely written texts randomly picked from the works cited. It still contains absurdities: is there any scholar claiming that Frederick II centralized the government of Germany? It still failes to mention basic facts: where are the Turcopoles (soldiers of native origin) mentioned? These are only examples after a second quick reading. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit
, I am bemused by this Edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outremer&diff=952240436&oldid=952239277&diffmode=source.

The commentary is ''Thank you for removing your original research. Please do not remove templates if the problem is not fixed. The text still contains original research. Books containing about 100 pages do not contain information on pages 167-169 in this reality.''. Holt's "The Age of Crusade" isbh 0-582-49302-1 published in 1986 has 250 pages. All three areas you have tagged as failing verification are in the chapter 19 ''The Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and its Successors which runs from page 167 to 178. Admittedly this is not the 2004 version sourced in the article but I am sure that version hasn't had 150 pages excised. I will amend volumes to match. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My newer version of Holt's work is really short. Sorry, I always forget that I use the newest editions of your books.
 * I was also beamused that you placed the following text in this article: "The "Holy Land" had been under Arab Muslim control for more than four centuries, with fluctuating levels of tolerance, trade, and political relationships between Muslims and Christians. Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status, legal rights, and legal protection. Indigenous Christians were allowed to maintain churches, and marriages between faiths were not uncommon." You may remember that during the review of the Crusades article I already draw your attention to that fact that this text is not verified by the allegedly cited source (Findley (2005)). First you denied that it is your original research, than you provided a truncated text from Findley's work to verify your original research . You only deleted the text form the Crusaders article when I compared your quote from Findley and Findley's actual text.
 * We really need an expert who could fix all problems in this article without editorial bias. Borsoka (talk)

Good, that is sorted then Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Consequences of the Seljuk conquest
Here are some quotes (all, but the last one from books cited in the article) presenting how the Turkish conquest of Western Asia and how Seljuk appanage system facilitated the conquest of Syria and Palestine by the crusaders.
 * "The tendency towards fragmentation which showered after the death of Malik-Shah was facilitated by the Seljukid tradition ... members of the royal house held provinces in appanage. This was to have serious results for Syria at the time of the First Crusade."
 * "[Zengi and Nur al-Din] were ... involved in the difficult tasks of carving out a realm for themselves against their many political rivals and of begginning to reuniote the various post-Seljuq successor states, whose genesis had been occassioned by Seljuq weakness and fragmentation."
 * "...the Seljuqs never ruled their territories as a single centralised state, but rather as a collection of provinces ... Moreover, Seljuqs tended to fragment authority across ruling families, with the consequence that provinces or cities did not always act in concert with each other."
 * "The core of the Turkish conquest remained in Iran ... [the] provinces, though proclaiming ... the sultan as their supreme ruler, quickly split into independent principalities. Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine became a mosaic of small and constantly warring emirates. At this moment the armies of the First Crusade reached Asia Minor and ... marched into Syria and Palestine."
 * "The Turkish invasions from the 1050s destabilized the region, introducing an alien ruling elite backed by military coercion, causing as much if not more mayhem and disruption than the crusaders were able to achieve."
 * "There was no hint of solidarity among the Seljuk cousins: to survive, you had to kill. Kilij Arslan's father had conquered Asia Minor ... without any help from his brothers, and when he attempted to move further south, into Syria, he was killed by one of his own cousins. ... [Kilij Arslan recovered] a part of his paternal heritage through war, murder, and subterfuge. ... Nevertheless, when the [crusaders] arrived, the game was far from over. His rivals in Asia Minor were still powerful, although ... his Seljuk cousins in Syria and Persia were absorbed in their onw internecine quarrels." Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for these. Combined Holt, Hillenbrand & Jotischky to resolve. Used mosaic from Prawar as well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move to "Outremer"; no consensus as to whether article should be moved to "Crusader states in the Middle East" or remain at its present title. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Crusader states → Outremer – There has been a long debate on scope and definition of the Crusades at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crusades. Consensus is that that article focusses on the Levantine crusades, rather than attempting to cover the entire scope of the subject, another article is created for the wider context but also this article focuses on the Outremer e.g. Levant rather than be broad collection of unrelated locations. These could be included in any new broader article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  BD2412  T 15:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

—correct me if I am mistaken but I think this is the substance of the discussion/consensus? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's completely correct as regards the focus of Crusades, and that this article should focus on the various "Outremer" polities. Nonetheless, I think this article should remain at Crusader states, for which the Outremer meaning is primary. That might change if a new article with a broader focus emerges, but for now this article should continue to mention the wider context and link to examples outside the Levant, but stay as it is. So Oppose this. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis of the sourced statement in the article which says “They are generally known by historians as Outremer, from the French outre-mer ("overseas" in English)”. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is intended to mean that historians use "Outremer" more than "Crusader states". If it was I think this is pretty dubious, and may not represent what the source says. Can someone check the source? Book & article titles alone suggest this reading is not correct. I think an "also" should be added. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can'y help, I don't have access to the source. Asbridge uses frequently which is probably more precise. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Uses what? Missing words I think. Btw, if it is decided to move this, I don't think it should be to Outremer, but to Crusader states in the Middle East or "Levant", following sources. The meaning of these, especially the former will be intelligible to far, far more people than will have heard of "Outremer". WP:USEENGLISH probably applies. But I don't think it should be moved at all, as above, unless and until we get a big new article on the whole group (and maybe not even then). Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, badly worded-he uses the word frequently as in frequently known as.... Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, as the better alternative to a disambiguater such as "Crusader States (Outremer)", which would be silly. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am content to withdraw this suggestion based on feedback above and having since edited the article. Unless of course anyone objects? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , it needs renaming, as currently it makes no attempt to cover the title. I am agnostic as to what it is changed to, although I do like Crusader states in the Middle East. The current title reads like that of the overarching article of a topic of which this article is a member. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point I was hastily trying to get the tag removed as it appeared to have stalled, and {u|Johnbod}}'s suggestion of Crusader states in the Middle East seems the best option for the reasons he gave Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

*Support on the arguments above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I proposed it at Talk:Crusades, I too am having second thoughts. Frankly, I think we should just leave it alone for now. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As above, I prefer to leave it, certainly at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked BD2412 to review his close & he has kindly reopened it. Several people (including the nom & me) commented more than once, & I saw a clear movement towards Crusader states in the Middle East. Perhaps people could return and clearly express preferences between: A) Outremer, B) Crusader states, C) Crusader states in the Middle East.  My view (reasons above) is: A) Oppose, B) Support, C) Support as 2nd best. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As the nominator I now concur with, in retrospect the move was not an improvement. When this is resolved Johnbod could you give the article a quick lookover and provide some feedback? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Outremer as it's not transparent what it means to a non-specialist audience. Many people will know what Crusader states are but never heard of "Outremer", and there doesn't seem to be a compelling argument to move there. I think the current name is better than "Crusader states in the Middle East" as more concise. buidhe 16:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a move per Buidhe on both counts. The concern that prompted me to suggest this move on a different talk page was that the term "Crusader states" is not always the best when speaking of the Crusader states collectively. It is explicitly political and plural ("states") and does not always make sense. I think there might be an argument for splitting: an article on Crusader states that covers the geopolitical angle and includes Crusader states in the Baltic and the Aegean and another article on Outremer (i.e., the Crusader states in the Levant) as a society. Srnec (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Johnbod, and that Outremer is increasingly, if not actually, an archaism. (And although it's strictly not what we are being asked, I agree with the tendential support for Crusader states in the Middle East being mooted above.) ——  SN  54129  15:38, 23 April 2020 (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.

Unexpected Reversion
— I have reinstated the content that was removed with this edit— https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusader_states&diff=955236197&oldid=955230548&diffmode=source on the grounds I do not understand why the good faith edits were reverted without recourse to the Talk section. I am aware that you wanted details of Ralph of Tiberias's High Court case added to the article to improve the articles balance, this I have done and sourced to Riley-Smith. I also added futher related details for balance. The section now covers the legal & political debate for the period 1099-1143, a period of 144 years of the 193 years of the Crusader States. Particular references are made to the jurists in order to give due regard to their achievements. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SUMMARY. If you think that I have whenever wanted you to introduce lengthy texts, thousands of bytes, about the Turks or Ralph, you are wrong. I have never suggested anything similar to this. Yes, I can imagine that you think that the article now properly summarize the legal and political debates for the period. A good indication that the article needs attention from an expert. Borsoka (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Verification Tag
—Jotischky writes The age of Islamic territorial expansion was long past.....eleventh century Syria and Palestine were economically properous....being far from the centres of power in the Islamic world, it remaind peaceful until the advent of the crusaders Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I always forget that you use the old version of Jotischky's book. All the same, Jotischky also writes: "the Islamic Near East experienced profound political change in the eleventh century, as a result of which existing ethnic and religious tensions had become severely exacerbated by the time of the First Crusade..." We should present Jotischky's description of the Near East neutrally. Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

NP, I think the background section goes into your point about the political change up to the eve of the first crusade in more detail than Jotischky anyway. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you again quoted a truncated text from an allegedly cited work, now from Jotischky's book. Jotischky writes that Palestine "remained relatively peaceful". Yes, in comparison with the power centers of Islamic world, Palestine was a relatively peaceful land, but Paul M. Cobb summarizes this relative peacefulness on the eve of the crusades with the following words: "Jerusalem ... [was] one of the many cities that furiously changed hands with the coming of the Turks to Syria. ...[The] Turcoman adventurer Atsiz had occupied the city in the 1070s, and he subjected it to a brutal reprisal when the Fatimids attempted to oust him. ... Jerusalem had recently been through three changes of hands, two of them destructive, and had been under the control of its Fatimid masters for less than a year." (*) Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no argument with the use of relatively, it is the middle ages afterall. I just thought this could be assumed. A sentence in the background on the exchange of Jersualem in the latter part of the century is warranted, without invalidating Jotischky's original point.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Second thoughts, it made as much sense to remove the contentious "remained relatively peaceful. How does that work for you? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What does relatively mean? I am not a native English speaker. If the destruction of the main town of a region twice within two decades is the sign of relative peace for native speakers, I must accept the adjective. Borsoka (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It was Jotischky's adjective not mine, perhaps you should raise this issue with him instead? In any case it has been removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know it was Jotischky's adjective, but it had a context. You adopted it without the context. Borsoka (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Holt
just for curiosity: why do you think that Holt's book dedicated to the crusader states' relationship with their neighbors (which was published in 2004) is less useful in the context of the article than his book about Near Eastern history published in 1986 ? Borsoka (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The defintion is from the Oxford English Dictionary. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * just for curiosity: why did not you read my question before answering it? Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Cilicia
why do you think that each battle in Cilicia should be mentioned in the article ? If you read some books about the crusades, you will realise that Cilicia was a marginal theater of war. Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for deleting your lengthy text. This is why I say that reviewing your edits is an irksome duty: you think you understand the context, I have to spend hours to explain your mistake and we are on the verge of edit warring before you accept my proposal. I think for the time being you should write, edit and comment articles about specific events of the crusades. For instance, you could create an article about the Cilician campaign. After reading a dozen of scholarly books about the campaign you will be able to make a distinction between facts and scholarly PoVs. I suggest that you should read recently published books - books published in the 1970s, in the 1940s and in the 19th century can be excellent works, but based exclusively on them we can hardly write quality articles. I would gladly propose some to you. Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality & Expert Opinion
I am not convinced with the necessity for tagging this article. Perhaps you could kindly assist by objectively explaining:


 * Where in the article the neutrality is contested;
 * Read my above messages. Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe that that your comments above have been addressed by recent edits. If this is not the case could you please explain what I have missed here Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Where and why there is a necessity for an expert to give this article some attention?
 * Read my above comments. Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the same as above, I think that recent edits have addressed your comments. As I am unclear why this is not the case perhaps you could knidly explain. Norfolkbigfish Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I will not, because I made it clear above. I would not ask you to explain me how to fly or build a dam, because I would never be able to understand it. Your edits and all your messages show you are unable to improve this article. Copying random lengthy texts about aristocrats and queens is not editing. You should read more than three books about the crusades and European history before editing this article or starting a discussion about it. Borsoka (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Neutrality & Expert Opinion Required
Please see the above section. This article has been tagged as lacking neutrality and requiring the attention of an expert. Additional view are sought on what the issues could be and what steps should be taken to rectify these issues so the tags can be removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have spent months to explain basic problems with Norfolkbigfish's edits on crusades and crusader states to him/her/they. I am now fully convinced that Norfolkbigfish's knowledge on the topic is limited and Norfolkbigfish's edits are negligent. I do not want to persuade anybody to read lengthy discussions, so I only refer to Norfolkbigfish's inability to provide an at least slightly proper definition of the term "crusader states" after completing this article:, , . I emphasize that this was not an issue emerging from different scholarly definitions, but an issue of pure factual accuracy. I think no editors are required to spend further months commenting this "article" - a collection of texts randomly selected from scholarly works - sentence by sentence. The article should be rewritten by editors who have deeper knowledge of the topic and are able to explain it in the context of European and Near Eastern history. Editors who are ready to read former discussions on the topic can find them here and here, and also above on this Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful if you read books on the cusades and crusader states before editing this article. Your knowledge on the subject has not improved during the last three weeks. Sorry, but fixing your mistakes is time-consuming, reverting them can lead to edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What mistakes? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Armed conflicts described as quarels, ... Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 *  a. intransitive. Of a person: to contend violently, dispute, fall out, break off friendly relations; to become inimical or hostile, to disagree violently. Also in extended use, of animals. Frequently with over, about, or †for (expressing the grounds of dispute). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So "an angry argument or disagreement between people, often about a personal matter" is equal to two commanders' armed conflict for a town? I also added a tag to show your misinterpretation of the source in an other sentence . I do not want to be rude, but after more than six months I am fed up with your ignorance and negligence. I love singing in the bathroom, but I would never force you to listen my performance. You force me to read and fix your amateurish edits - this is inhuman. I am serious. Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know that for you history is a pool filled with surprises. Yes, the Burids were named for Toghtekin's son, but Toghtekin is listed among the Burids. Not unlike the early Carolingians, Capets, Árpáds and Salians - they are also retropespectively named for one (or mere) of their prominent member(s). Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know that almost everything about the history of the crusades is interesting. However, you do not need to summarize each page that you recently read . Please come through some books, at least those cited in the article, instead of editing. You should read to be able to distinguish facts from PoVs, because we cannot present facts as PoVs. Borsoka (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello both. I'd agree that, while accurate, is likely a bit too narrative and specific for the purposes of this article. I'm a little rusty but I have studied the topic in question;- can I help arbitrate any disputed sections in particular? I'm afraid I'm also finding the talkpage difficult to follow. Maybe it would be useful to bulletpoint some specific areas to be looked at in this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVox (talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your proposal. The issue was solved in the meantime. Borsoka (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of Turcoman
— this article uses Turcoman, Turcomen, Turkmen seemingly interchangably for Turk and incorrectly for a variety of other Turkic tribes and languages. It would worth baring in mind the definition of the word in English, it is a British English article afterall.

1. a.  A member of a branch of the Turkish people, consisting of a number of mainly nomadic and pastoral tribes inhabiting the region lying east of the Caspian Sea and about the Sea of Aral, formerly known as Turkestan or Independent Tartary (now Turkmenistan) and parts of Persia (Iran) and Afghanistan. b. The Turkish language of this people. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read the sources cited, you will be surprised reading that the Turcoman tribes started a westward migration around 1040 and established empires, such as the Seljuk Empire and the Sultanate of Rum. We can use the "Turkic" adjecitve as well, but "Turkish" would be misleading. Could we use "English" instead of "Anglo-Saxon"? No. The same issue. Borsoka (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair point on Turkish, although describing Zengi as a Turcoman is clearly wrong. Oghuz is more accurate:


 * A. n.  A member of a group of Turkic peoples who invaded Persia, Syria, and Asia Minor from central Asia in the 11th cent. and settled in Anatolia, or a descendant of these peoples.
 * 1843   Penny Cycl. XXV. 395/2  				For many centuries the Oghuzes were perpetually at war with the Persians.
 * 1854   G. Larpent in  J. Porter Turkey I. 155  				The Turks divided themselves into the Uigurs or Eastern Turks..and into the Oghus or Western Turks.
 * 1922   Jrnl. Hellenistic Stud. 42 39  				Chalkokondyles describes how, early in the thirteenth century, one of their tribes, named Oghuz,..entered Armenia.
 * 1965   H. M. Smyser in  J. B. Bessinger  & R. P. Creed Medieval & Linguistic Stud. 93  				Ibn Faḍlān's descriptions of..Oghuz (Ghuzz Turks)..are fascinating.
 * 1972   G. Clauson Etymol. Dict. pre-13th-Cent. Turkish p. xix  				In  xi the Kipçak were west of the Oğuz in southern Russia.
 * 1991   Jrnl. Asian Stud. 50 p. x  				It shows..what processes the..other stories in the collection have undergone after the transplantation of the Oghuz from central Asia to Anatolia.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We can use any form, according to the sources cited in the article: "Turcoman", "Turk", "Turkic". If you read some books about the crusades, you will realize that "Oghuz" would be strange in this context. The Seljuk Turks/Turcomans were a branch of the Oghuz federation, but scholars prefer to describe Zengi as Turk or Turcoman. Would you describe Boris Johnson as a Germanic or Indo-European politician? Do you really want to refer to books published more than hundred of years ago? Borsoka (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Zengi's wikipedia artcilce begins: Imad al-Din Zengi (عماد الدین زنكي; c. 1085 – 14 September 1146), also romanized as Zangi, Zengui, Zenki, and Zanki, was an Oghuz Turkic atabeg who ruled Mosul, Aleppo, Hama, and, later, Edessa. He was the namesake of the Zengid dynasty. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know that you are editing based on WP articles, but it is forbidden (for further details I refer to Wikipedia is not a reliable source). Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, editing in English using the Oxford English dictionary. You will agree that is a reliable source for the language the article is written in, surely? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you really say that Oxford English Dictionary describes Zengi as an Oghuz leader? Or does it say that Zengi was not Turcoman? Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The definitions of the words Turcoman and Oghuz from the OED are above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And? Does Oxford English Dictionary describe Zengi as an Oghuz leader? Or does it say that Zengi was not Turcoman? Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is clear that in English Zengi does nor meet the definition of the English word Turcoman, but does meet the definition of Oghuz. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is also clear that Boris Johnson is Indo-European. You always forget that there are historians who describe the nomadic Turks who migrated to the Near East as Turcomans. However, as I told you I can accept the adjektive Turk or Turkic as well. Borsoka (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello - though I'd be loathe to us Wikipedia as a source outright, the lede of Oghuz Turks does offer some perspective from linguistic sources;-

""The term "Oghuz" was gradually supplanted among the Turks themselves by Turkmen and Turcoman, (Ottoman Turkish: تركمنلر‎, romanized: Türkmen or Türkmân) from the mid 900's on, a process which was completed by the beginning of the 1200s.[4] Mahmud al-Kashgari says that "Turkmen" has a broader meaning by saying that Karluks are also Turkmens but differ from Oghuz.[5]""


 * My instinct from the above, which I hope you'll find plausible, is that Turcoman is the broad ethonym within which the cultural identity of 'Oghuz' is still self-contained during this period, though the distinction is in decline. As such, I would suggest the compromise 'Turcoman of Oghuz descent.' By way of a parallel, we still refer to the 'Lombard dukes of Sicily' in the 11th century, even thought they are 500 years apart from the Lombard invasions and this ethonym has been largely supplanted by their Sicilian identity in this period. I hope you both find this reasonable? VeritasVox (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Yes, Turcoman would be a proper term, but Norfolkbigfish has no knowledge of the significant Turcoman ethnic groups in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran and he uses the Oxford English Dictionary to edit this article. Sorry, but there are so many issues to be solved in this article and I would not re-open this discussion. The use of the terms Turk and Turkic is a good compromise at his level of knowledge. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Tancred
I know that you have little information about the leaders of the First (and Second, and Third...) Crusade, but do you really need a source to verify that Bohemond was Prince of Taranto? Do you really think that there are editors who think that a southern Italian prince is from Normandy? If you think so, why did you delete the reference to his southern Italian domain? Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Bohemond wasn't Prince of Taranto, a title that didn't exist. Although he did carve out territory in the area after his younger brother followed Guiscard as Duke. Yes, I do think that some readers may confuse the Normans of Sicily with the Normans of Normandy. No, he wasn't Italian. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Afterall Barber, a source you added to the article puts it better: Bohemond, although initially disinherited by his father, Robert Guiscard, had been successful in creating a lordship for himself in the territories between Melfi and the Gulf of Taranto at the expense of his half-brother, Roger Borsa.59 Bohemond had had a glimpse of greater possibilities, however, for, in the late 1070s, he and his father had attempted to carve out lands for themselves in those parts of the Byzantine empire across the southern Adriatic, and in 1081 they had taken Corfu and Durazzo. While the story of the chronicler Richard of Poitiers that Guiscard had intended that Bohemond should be made emperor and that he himself should become ‘king of Persia’ sounds far-fetched, it may reflect a caste of mind prevalent among the Normans of the Hauteville family; indeed, it was credible enough for a version of it to appear in Anna Comnena’s Alexiad.60 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know you think if you read a page in a book, you acquired full knowledge of the subject. That is why you should not edit. (1) "[Bohemond] used the title princeps even before he left southern Italy in 1096 to participate in the expedition to Jerusalem. After being disinherited by his father Robert Guiscard in favor of [Roger Borsa] ... Bohemond pursued a campaign of opportunist revolt aimed at capturin lans for himself ... With these conquests he seems to have adopted the title of prince of Taranto..." (* ). (2) Why do you think a man who was born in southern Italy to a man ruling a southern Italian realm and who himself also held a southern Italian principality cannot be described as southern Italian? If you think some readers can confuse Taranto with Normandy why did you delete the reference to his southern Italian domain? Sorry, but fixing your amateurish edits is really irksome. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You wrote he was a Prince, not that he called himself a Prince so it was incorrect. You wrote yourself he was Norman, not Italian. Find a RS that syas he is Italian if you can? I did not delete a reference to his realm, just the title Prince. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Would you refer to reliable sources challenging the use of the title? 2. Would you quote text from the article proving that I incorrectly used the adjectives "Norman" or "Italian"? Borsoka (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I know you are only being rhetorical but yes, the title of the article is contested by historians. The intersect between the history of the crusades and the history of these four states is increasingly considered tiny by modern historians. Additionally, after the first crusade these the history of these states diverged from the crusades, the argument is that France under Saint Louis is the only true crusader state. Some would also add the Teutonic State. But that is not a debate to have with you. 2) You wrote above Why do you think a man who was born in southern Italy to a man ruling a southern Italian realm and who himself also held a southern Italian principality cannot be described as southern Italian? If you think some readers can confuse Taranto with Normandy why did you delete the reference to his southern Italian domain. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. No, I am not rhetorical. Would you refer to reliable sources challenging the use of the title "Prince of Taranto" when referring to Bohemond? 2. Would you quote text from the article proving that I incorrectly used the adjectives "Norman" or "Italian"? Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Chronology
Lock p22: Oct 17, 1097 Baldwin leaves crusade. Feb (early) 1098 Thoros invites Baldwin to Edessa. 20 Feb Baldwin arrives. 7 Mar Edessan revolt. 9 Mar Thoros murdered. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If would have been able to summarize this sequence of events, I had not have any problems. I know that consolidating at lest two books is difficult for you, but in this case you should. Otherwise, I will revert your text. Sorry, I told you that reviewing your text is irksome duty for me, because you are unable to write more than two sentences without making some errors. Borsoka (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored this to the source you used. If the two sources differ perhaps this should be explained in the text. The article would improve faster if you took other editors good faith edits and built on them rather than reverting. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I did not mention that he left before the siege of Antioch, because I thought it was not so relevant (and I still think it is not relevant). I told you we do not need to summarize each page we have just come through. Are you still sure we should mention it? If you mention it, you should explain it in more details because there is a clear contradiction between your two statements: he is departing for Edessa twice. Borsoka (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No contradiction and no suggestion that he left the crusade twice. The left the crusade, sometime after this Thoros invited him (some say adopted him) to defend then territory. Thoros subsequently was replaced in a coup. It is interesting he left the crusade before the city was taken for a variety of reasons. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you read what you wrote in the article ? Baldwin clearly leaves for Edessa before Thoros invites him to Edessa - in your text. Could you clarify what happened and why? Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't your sources tell you? He was doing what did habitually. Fighting and taking territory like Turbessel and Rawandan. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know what he did. However, you do not write for me. Are you still sure that it is relevant? Are you still sure you improved the article? Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's relavant, it explains the creation of one of the states, and influences one of the others. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You again made some chaotic edits . Sorry, I must revert them. Borsoka (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am am only attempting to copyedit this into tighter and more appropriate British English. In doing that I have moved to chronological sequence and expand some vague detailing. In terms of your current tagging this involves the following.
 * If you insist on writing on this episode in details, please explained why did he leave for Edessa (if he actually left for Edessa) before he was invited to the town. The sources are clear that Baldwin left the crusade in October, before the seige of Antioch, and headed into the Edessa region. This is what the edit says. Further it does not say he was invited to the town, it says he was invited to defend the town. This is totally different.
 * If you suggest that he left specifically for Edessa, you mislead our readers. He left for the East because he knew that the local Armenians would help him.
 * Do you have a source that supports He left for the East because he knew that the local Armenians would help him? Sources are generally more ambiguous. Bu the way that is what your source Lock says. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sourced an answer fot this. Used geographic west bank of Euphrates and reason - to join the Armenian feuding Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Better text. It does not contain false information any more. I do not understand why you do not like to mention that the Armenians greated him as a liberator? If my undrstanding is correct, you insist on narrating his campaign, because you want to provide a background to the establishment of Edessa. He coukld establish Edessa, because the local Armenians supported him. (1)"[Baldwin] headed east again in order to make a more permanent entry into Armenian politics. First he captured the important fortresses of Ravendel and Turbessel which controlled the territory west of the Euphrates. Everywhere, the Armenians under Turkish lordship greeted him as a liberator." (2) "[The Armenian] Bagrat suggested that Baldwin attack Tell Bashir. ,,, Gathering his forces, Baldwin prepared to launch an attack, when to his surprise the gates were thrown open and the Armenian citizens streamed out to welcome him, having already dispatched the Turkish garrison themselves." . We can conclude that Baldwin did not leave for Edessa and he closely cooperated with the Armenians, according to the sources you allegedly read. You wrote of his departure for Edessa and deleted the reference to his cooperation with the Armenians.


 * All sources emphasize that the Orthodox Thoros was killed by his Armenian subjects. The edit says he was killed, it doesn't deny he was killed by his subjects.
 * Quite important information that the Armenians preferred Baldwin to their Orthodox Armenian lord.
 * You say he was Armenian, are you sure of that, many sources have him as a greek? What sources say that the Armenians preferred him? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know that MacEvitt refers to him as a "Greek", saying that "he was an Armenian or even a Jacobite; all sources concur to name him a Greek". However, even in this context the reference to the Jacobites, that "Armenian" an "Greek" are not ethnic labels. For further details, I refer to Lilie's
 * Elaborating to include the mob killing and uprising. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did Stephen desert the County of Edessa?. The edit says he was deserting, but does not say from Edessa. All sources say he deserted the seige of Antioch and told Alexius the crusaders cause was lost. This is consider one reason why Alexius retreated.
 * I know that Stephen did not desert the County if Edessa, but your text clearly implies it.
 * The adjective only descibes Stephen as a deserter, which he clearly was, it makes no connection with Edessa. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rephrased to suit. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is still unclear. I will modify
 * Why do you write that only Bohemond blamed the Byzantines if the cited sources make it clear that all crusader leaders, but Raymond thought that the Byzantines had deserted them?. The edit doesn't say only Bohemond. It says Bohemond. This is important because it is on this that Bohemond based his claim for an independent principality of Antioch. That is the key fact Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We can mention that Bohemond took advantage of the situation, but the main point is that all crusader leaders, but Raymond agreed with him. Borsoka (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The significant point was Bohemond's use of this. Clearly all the crusade leaders didn't agree. Stephen had deserted, Baldwin had left and Raymond disagreed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rephrased to match this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * After his desertion, Stephen could not be described as a crusader leader. Do you have a reliable source claiming that Baldwin offered Edessa to the Byzantines. Köhler makes clear the original text. Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Alexios
you added the following text in the article: "The Franks defeated a relief force led by Ridwan of Aleppo. Emperor Alexios received reports of the situation of the crusade from the deserting Stephen and Blois. As a result he withdrew to the west." Your text replaced the following text in the article: "As a false report about the annihilation of the crusader army prevented Emperor Alexios from leading Byzantine troops to Antioch, the crusaders lost confidence in the Byzantines." Would you quote texts from any of the scholarly work proving that your text properly summarize the events? If you cannot quote, would you explain why do you edit this article? Borsoka (talk)

Tyerman 2019, pages 86 & 88, as cited in the edit Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tyerman does not verify your edit. Would you quote the text from his book? Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The departure of Tatikos in February 1098 possibly to secure more supplies and troops, allowed some, notably Bohemond, to suggest treachery and dereliction from the agreements sworn between the crusaders and Alexius....his caution was compounded by learning of the crusaders plight directly from Stephen of Blois in late June.....the Emperor withdrew westwards...suited Bohemond's purpose. It left him free to demand Antioch and provided a very effective propaganda weapon to excuse the crusaders breaking their obligations on the grounds of Alexius's own breach of contract Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tyerman does not verify your edit. Would you quote the text proving that Alexios withdraw to the west because Stephen of Blois informed him of the crusaders' victory (as your text claim)? Borsoka (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The quoted text support the article as written Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you already fixed your wrong text (that I quoted above) . Borsoka (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thoros
The article contains the following text: "Thoros, who ruled Edessa invited Baldwin of Boulogne to assist in defending the territory against Turkic raids." added the following remark "Failed verification - "McEvitt is claer that it was not just the Turks but the local population as well".McEvitt writes: "In early February, T'oros, the ruler of Edessa, sent the bishop of the city and twelve councillors to Baldwin to ask for his help defending the city from the Turks." Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Page 67 McEvitt also writes he may also have hoped that the crusader would aid him against his populist rivals he talks of how Thoros previously bolsterd his military strength through am alliance with a Turkish prince. On p68 Toros hoped to gain an ally to defend the city against attack and to strengthen his position within the city. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * you challenged the following text: "Thoros, who ruled Edessa invited Baldwin of Boulogne to assist in defending the territory against Turkic raids." However, above you quoted text explaining why Thoros adopted Baldwin. The text I quoted above verifies the challenged text without any doubt. Borsoka (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The source explains why Thoros was also threatened by Christian rivals, not just Turks, and not just raids, amended to match McEvitt.
 * 1. McEvitt states as a fact that Thoros invited Baldwin to fight against the Turks. 2. McEvitt states as a possibility that Thoros adopted Baldwin to secure his support also against his Christian enemies. You are mixing McEvitt's two statements. Borsoka (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * T'oros sought Baldwin's aid because he feared a rebellious populous. p67 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. He wanted Baldwin's help against his own subjects. Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Capital
could you refer to a reliable source stating that Edessa was not the "most important ... city" of the County of Edessa "where the central operate[d] from" around 1098? We have to verify only statements that are likely challenged. The article contains well-sourced reference to the transfer of the counts' seat from Edessa to Turbessel in the 1110s. Borsoka (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand your point here, can you elaborate please, before I start wading through the sources? I am guessing the root of the question is in language differences rather than factual. Norfolkbigfish (talk)
 * , would you elaborate please. Do you suggest Edessa was not the capital of the county? 12:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, in no way was Edessa the capital of the county at this point and I would be surprised if you could find a source to back that up. Capital is simply the wrong word in British English. It is also factually incorrect acording to McEvitt (p70) He brought with him only sixty Frankish knights (although the number increased after the crusaders captured Antioch) and therefore depended on the aristocracy of the city. He left the Armenian administration of the city undisturbed .Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which town/city was the capital of the County of Edessa, according to your sources? Do you think McEvitt suggests that Baldwin failed to establish the County of Edessa when he left the Armenian administration undisturbed? Borsoka (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * McEvitt covers this pretty well. ...what exactly did the title convey? ....Baldwin I had governed the area through personal relationships established on the battle field and in realpolitik encounters with Armenian lords and urban communities...relationships were personal, not instituitional . The territory only consisted of small pockets of territory surrounded by lands ruled by autonomous warlords, either Armenian or Turkish. The city of Edessa was ruled which was an important centre of trade, and likely produced a substantial income but beyond that only Tell Bashir. Rawandan and Samosata were. Not only that the holdings were not contiguous but separated by the Euphrates river and the Armenian lords Abgharib and Kogh Vasil. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think McEvitt suggests that Baldwin failed to establish the County of Edessa? Which town/city was the capital of the County of Edessa, according to your sources? Borsoka (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In English counties don't have capitals, they have County Towns. McEvitt is clear on what existed (see above or better read McEvitt's work). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you do not think that a crusader state (the County of Edessa) had the same legal status as an administrative unit of a state (like a county in England). Or do you? Yes, McEvitt's words are clear - it was you who quoted them when answering my question. I still do not know when do you think the County of Edessa was established. Do you know the answer? Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Why do you think McEvitt writes about Joscelin II, Count of Edessa's attempt to "recapture his capital" when writing about Joscelin's unsuccesful assault on Edessa after Zengi's death (p96)? Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When McEvitt refers to Joscelin he is writing of events half a century after Baldwin, when the county was very different. He is clear on the period in question (p71) that The Franks did not institute new legal regimes, oust old elites, or do anything that would announce the establishment of a new regime. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. You understood that Edessa was the capital of the County of Edessa, according to MacEvitt. However, you think that Baldwin was the count of a non-existing county, according to MacEvitt. Or what? Borsoka (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Chronology
I am always willing to follow a strict chronological order, because it is the most neutral way of introducing a subject. However, if we adopted a strict chronology, as you allegedly suggest, we could not present the history of the crusader states clearly. Chronology ignores geography and we should jump from an event occuring in Edessa to an other (most likely unconnected) event taking place at Tyre. Do you agree? Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)