Talk:Crusader states/Archive 2

Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre
I think you again misinterpreted the cited source. Which text verifies the following sentences: "He took the title Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri. ... It was a position that Godfrey was already familiar with from this duchy in Lorraine." Is there any source claiming that the title of "Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre" was whenever used in Lorraine? Please also study Murray's work (to which Jotischky refers) before answering the question. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

An other question: why do you think that we should use the Latin form of Godfrey's title? Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri is what is used in the primary sources & what Godfrey would have recognised. Secondly, and ironically as you are editing in a language that is not your first this doesn't translate easily into modern English in a way that the average Wikipedia reader would understand. The word advocate (used in this case for A guardian, protector, or patron of a church or religious house) is archaic, rarely used and possibly obsolete. A casual reader would understand that a title in Latin was what was used at the time, but would struggle to understand what Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre actually meant without further context.

On your first point the position/title in question is Advocatus or advocate. The definistion is clearly A guardian, protector, or patron of a church or religious house. Holt is explicit on this point: ....the title and function of Advocatus were well known in the lands from which the Crudaers came:he was a layman who protected and administered Church estates. He also adds the word defender by way of explanation. (Holt, 1986:p23). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The main article on the title is Advocatus, explaining its uses in different countries. Dimadick (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Norfolkbigfish's argumentation is baseless. There is only one primary source and it uses the following title: "ecclesiae S. Sepulcri ... advocatus" . If "advocate" is unacceptable, why do not use an other well-known translation: "Defender of the Holy Sepulchre"? If an average WP reader does not understand the expression, why did you delete at least twice the red link? 2. You have not answered my first question, so I repeat it: Is there any source claiming that the title of "Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre" was whenever used in Lorraine? Borsoka (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you —I have edited to include the wl to Advocatus and rephrased to make clear that this was a common position in Western Europe. This is sourced to Holt (1986, p23). Hopefully, I have communicated this well enough to clarify the confusion. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, your sentences now make sense and can be verified. I edited them. Thank you for your attempt to fix the problem. Borsoka (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
according to WP:LEAD: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, 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." For no text in the article claims that the crusaders "usurped" Edessa, this statement should be verified by an inline citation. Borsoka (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point, usurped is used in one of the sources used in the article but I am nor pedantic enough to search though and indentify which. So I have rephrased to remove usurped and the tag. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Raymond
could you quote Jotischky's or Holt'S text verifying your following statement "Raymond claimed only Christ could wear a crown in Jerusalem, when he realised his leadership would be rejected"? Borsoka (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

''Although Raymond of Saint-Gilles justifiably regarded himself as the leader of crusade from autumn 1098 onward, he was isolated among the leaders. The realisation that he commanded insufficient supportto defend Jerusalem alone probably lay behind his pious refusal of the crown on the grounds that only Christ could wear a crown in Jerusalem. The title take by Godfrey may have been a clever resposnse to a strategem on Raymond's part to disuade others from assuming rulership but, as Murray has shown it was an office already familiar to the duke of Lorraine (2000;74-7).'' p62 2004 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you read the first two sentences carefully? We cannot present a PoV as a fact. Borsoka (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The text in the article matches the source.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Read it again. Borsoka (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Rephrased, better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I went further. Borsoka (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bohemond and Antioch
you again misinterpreted the source. Could you verify the following sentences? "Stephen of Blois deserted the crusade at Antioch, and while returning to Europe told Emperor Alexios its defeat was imminent. In response to what he had been told, Alexios withdrew to the west rather than join the siege. Bohemond claimed that when taken the city should be his because this was, combined with Tatikios departure, an act of treachery that freed him from his sworn oaths to the Byzantines." Please read Tyerman's narration of the siege of the town carefully before answering the question. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The departure of Taitikos in February 1098....allowed some notably Bohemond, to suggest treachery and dereliction from the agreements sworn between the Crusaders and Alexius in Constantinople.....these oaths...implied that, in return for his active assistance, Alexius would receive the allegiance of crusader conquests, at least as far as Syria. (p86) Alexius...his caution was compunded by learning of the crusaders plight directly from Stephen of Blois.....withdrew westwards... (p87) ''While it would stretch the evidence to suggest Bohemond had planned Stephen's departure and loade him with forecasts of doom in order to persuade Alexius to withdraw, Stephen's absence and the Emperor's failure to proceed to Syria suited Bohemond's purpose. It left him free to demand Antioch and provided a very effective weapon of propaganda to excuse the crusaders' breaking their obligations to the emperor on the grounds of Alexius's own supposed breach of contract. '' (p87-88)

Pretty much covers it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you misinterprete the source. How could Tatikios' departure and Alexios' return establish Bohemond's claim to rule Antioch? Godfrey, Raymond and other crusader leaders could have also claim the city on the same grounds. Tyerman writes: "By the end of May, [Bohemond] had persuaded his fellow leaders to agree to his keeping Antioch if he could capture it and if no help came from Antioch." Borsoka (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no misinterpretation involved, although the phrasing may not make the meaning clear. This comes in two parts: the crusaders claiming that Alexius bad faith freed them from their oaths to return Antioch to the Byzantines when captured (and the other Syrian territories); Bohemond persuading the other leaders that he was the one who should hold Antioch. I have rephrased and hopefully it is now clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You still misunderprete the whole story, so I repeat what Tyerman writes: "By the end of May, [Bohemond] had persuaded his fellow leaders to agree to his keeping Antioch if he could capture it and if no help came from Antioch." Borsoka (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is still no misinterpretation. The departure of Taitikos in February 1098....allowed some notably Bohemond, to suggest treachery and dereliction from the agreements sworn between the Crusaders and Alexius in Constantinople.....these oaths...implied that, in return for his active assistance, Alexius would receive the allegiance of crusader conquests, at least as far as Syria. (p86) Alexius...his caution was compunded by learning of the crusaders plight directly from Stephen of Blois.....withdrew westwards... (p87) While it would stretch the evidence to suggest Bohemond had planned Stephen's departure and loade him with forecasts of doom in order to persuade Alexius to withdraw, Stephen's absence and the Emperor's failure to proceed to Syria suited Bohemond's purpose. It left him free to demand Antioch and provided a very effective weapon of propaganda to excuse the crusaders' breaking their obligations to the emperor on the grounds of Alexius's own supposed breach of contract.  (p87-88) Clearly what Tyerman's research leads him to write is a sequence where 1) The crusaders make oaths to return all former Byzantine territory regained. 2) Taitkos leaves the crusade (for whatever reason) and Alexius withdraws (because Stephen tells him all hope is lost). 3) Point 2 allows the crusaders to claim for propaganda purposes that Byzantine bad faith frees them from their oaths). 4) Bohemond persuades the crusaders that he should be the one to hold Antioch. That is what Tyerman writes. The fuller sentences support this, but so does the single one you quote. [Bohemond] had persuaded his fellow leaders to agree to his keeping Antioch is effectively point 4 and in part if no help came from Antioch supports 2/3 in combination. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You do not understand what happened. Read Tyerman's own summary how Bohemond established his own claim to rule Antioch: "By the end of May, [Bohemond] had persuaded his fellow leaders to agree to his keeping Antioch if he could capture it and if no help came from Antioch." Borsoka (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Although well sourced I have removed the sentence that appears to be causing the contention on grounds of redundancy. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a good approach: we are not informed how Bohemond assumed power in a Greek city claimed by the Byzantines. Borsoka (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of information
according to my experiences you tend to replace text containing actual information with random terms or texts lacking context. For instance, you replaced the reference to Manuel's war with the Normans of Sicily with the term "other theatre than Syria". You also deleted the reference to the fall of the Fatimid Caliphate. During the A-class review of an article you completed one of the reviewers, an experienced editor, stated that "I basically have comments on every sentence I read, many of which I can't immediately tell what the sentence is trying to say." In most cases, I know what you are trying to say, because I know the context. However, an average reader does not know it and will not understand your text. Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Content debate or ignorance?
I have just finished the review of your latest "edits". If you do not have time to read the cited books carefully, why do you edit articles? If you do not have time to understand the books you are allegedly citing, why do you edit articles? An experienced editor,, stated that our debate is obviously a content debate. I assume Iridescent is not an expert (they have made a comparison between Steven Tibble's Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and Emil's Clever Pig several times). I maintain that you should not edit articles about the crusades. Let's forget the dozens of typos you are making, let's also forget that you refer to a new source (The Crusader States by Malcolm Barber) without mentioning it in the Bibliography section - although these are signs of unusual negligence. However, could you refer to a single scholarly work saying that Joscelin II of Edessa was assassinated by Assassins and a "Raymond II" was killed in the Battle of Inab? Do you think this is a content debate? Or is it a sign of the lack of your knowledge about the crusader states? Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Good call on Barber, now added to Bibliography and Joscelin (I don't know what happened there, maybe a ce error). Both now fixed. The Raymond point is a little different. Article said Pons was killed and Raymond II captured by Zengi . This is in fact correct. Added a citation to Barber 165 for you, source says Raymond of Tripoli was captured. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you refer to a single reliable source stating that a "Raymond II" was killed in the Battle of Inab as it is stated in the article? If you do not have time to read carefully, why do you edit the article? Do you think a long series of ignorant edits can be described as vandalism? Maybe could answer this question.  Borsoka (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As above, the sentence reads Tripoli lost its eastern territories to Damascus, Pons was killed and Raymond II captured by Zengi.. The source for the clause Raymond II captured by Zengi is Barber (2012:p165) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the tag bombing of the section (as of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusader_states&oldid=965223576), reason is listed below & response:


 * What does large mean? Please read our policy on close paraphrasing. Barber writes The Christians were therefore able to assemble a formidable army for the assault on Damascus. Used the synonym imposing.
 * What does large mean? Please read our policy on close paraphrasing. Used the synonym significant.
 * why the three rulers joined alone, without their troops?. It is a fairly safe assumption that these nobles didn't arrive alone, Barber himself thought of no reason to mention their troops. Added full stop and and those of for clarity though.
 * If Fulk defeated them, why should not we mention this info as it was mentioned in the version you edited off?. As the article mentions this campaign was unsuccessful and against Fulk, it is self evident that Fulk defeated them, or least was successful.
 * No reason given, but I assume the objection is to the word theatre used in the sense defined in the OED as b. A place where some action proceeds; the scene of action. On that grounds it would seem to be appropriate and accurate.
 * Yes, I know English is a difficult language and the history of the crusades is a difficult subject. There are so many peoples mentioned in books. I assume this is regarding Raymond II being killed at Inab. If this this is correct and sourced to Lock (p50) in the article.
 * Yes, I know English is a difficult language and the history of the crusades is a difficult subject. We should understand the chronology before editing.. Replaced Instead with In 1153.
 * He ruled alone, not only attempted to rule alone.. Attempted is more accurate, Tyerman (p123) describes the situation as near civil wars, including Hugh's rebellion (p125) which resulted in Angevin influence was reined in. Barber writes Whatever his original intentions, after the revolt the king seems to have taken extreme care to involve Melisende even in relatively unimportant matters.43 For at least a year afterwards the queen kept up the pressure, persecuting Fulk’s supporters and making life as unpleasant as possible for the king. He sources to Mayer's biography of Queen Melisende, charters & Willima of Tyre.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I repeated my above tags. Please read the books you allegedly cite before editing carefully. Please read the article before stating that it contains something. Please address the problems before deleting the tags. Do you think ignorant editors' negligent edits can be described as vandalism? Borsoka (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Just for clarification, no source claims that Pons, Alice and Joscelin II whenever made a campaign against Fulk (as you claimed in your first message above). Editors who do not often read books about history cannot easily understand that the end of a conflict is an important piece of information. If somebody wins in a conflict, this fact is always mentioned in historical books. 2. You deleted a reference to Antiochene, Edessene and Tripolitan troops. 3. I am so happy that you were able to realise (after three messages) that Raymond who died in the Battle of Inab is not identical with Pons (who was killed) or Raymond II (who was captured). I think you should read books on the crusades before editing this article. Your new edits also contain multiple errors. I must say you cannot make an edit without making an error. You have not answered my most important question: can an ignorant editor who only makes negligent edits be described as a vandal? Or our community should tolerate his/her/their activities? Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarification needed tag with no reason. I guess this is because of the typo in In 1127, Seljuk sultan Mahmud appointed Imad al-Din Zengi was atabeg of Mosul. w removed.
 * What does an "unsuccessful" alliance mean? If Fulk defeated them, why should we ignore this fact?. Didn't need correcting to change the meaning, but for ease of understanding against to defeated by.
 * Barber does not write of the 3 counts' troops. We cannot edit based on our assumptions as per WP:NOR. Well in that case changed back to match source.
 * Another without a detail. But assuming Barber (2012:p147-148) as a source supports the sentence and query—William of Bures was sent out to the south to the region of Hauran to forage for the army, but it appears that he lost control of his forces, which broke up into small groups, each intent on gaining plunder for itself. Taj al-Muluk quickly took advantage, killing and dispersing both the foragers and the knights detailed to guard them. The main forces, now fired up by a desire for revenge, immediately ran into a heavy storm and fog, which made the roads impassable, and, although they tried to struggle on, they soon realised that it was a hopeless task. An enterprise that, says William of Tyre, had so frightened the enemy now disintegrated, to the extent that the Franks regarded a safe return as ‘an immense victory’.176
 * No source claims that Raymond II was killed in the battle. Editors who are unable to distinguish prominent Frankish rulers from each other should not edit this article. Lock p50 July 29 Raymond of Antioch deteated and killed near Inab by the forces of Damascus and of Nur ad-Din. as cited in the article. Good spot on the rogue II, replaced with of Antioch Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

And again from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusader_states&oldid=965398489


 * Did the three counts join the campaign without an army? and the cited source puts it—All the other major princes in the crusader states were present, including  Bohemond  of  Antioch,  Pons  of  Tripoli  and  Joscelin  of Edessa.—revised to be closer still.
 * No reason given but possibly regarding Fulk's contribution— source writes Fulk himself  had  brought  a  large  contingent  of  knights  and  foot soldiers, and was accompanied by important Angevin lords such as Hugh of Amboise,  a  veteran  of  the  First  Crusade—rephrased to match.
 * If we know the exact location, we should name them—full list from Lock added, although this looks like unnecessary detail for a summary article
 * Why do you think the explanation should be deleted?—added, expanded and sourced (Barber 2012:p258
 * Did Al-Adid murder Shawar?. Expanded and sourced (Barber 2012:p252)
 * Why did you delete the information about the fall of the Fatimid Caliphate? You introduce lengthy text about the details of less relevant campaigns, but delete the information about the fall of one of the principal enemies of the Franks.—added, expanded and sourced (Barber 2012:p257)
 * No reason given, possibly regarding Amalric's visit to Jerusalem—expanded text and match to Barber (2012:p58)
 * No source claims he married her when Plancy was assassinated—rewritten the paragraph and sourced to Barber (2012:pp 264-265 & 267-269)
 * Further tag without explanation—assumed related to the above—as above.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your new edits again contain multiple errors and you have been unable to fix some of the old errors . I understand you do not want to answer my question, so I do not repeat it. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, as from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusader_states&oldid=965556444

1. If 90% of your examples can be described as "some", you are right. 2. Do you know what is the difference between a fact and a possibility. 3. I know that the cited work referred to Baldwin. Your text did not. You do not write for me. 4. I am happy you learnt to respect Barber. Some days ago you referred to him as "your Barber" (that is "my" Barber). However, Jotischky made it clear that they came with reinforcements (without mentioning the three counts). For some mysterious reasons you deleted the reference to him. Can we conclude that your edit rarely add value, but they always contain multiple errors? Borsoka (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors who have read books about the crusaders usually know when Manuel I ruled. Good point, some of these were John's distractions and the cite had the wrong page. Now corrected.
 * No reason given. Probably regarding Amalric's surprise visit to Constantinople? Barber (2012:p258) writes To the  shock  and surprise  of  most  of  the  barons,  Amalric  then  proposed  to  visit  Manuel himself,  an  action  that  suggests  he  placed  little  confidence  in  the  prospect of  effective  western  help  in  the  foreseeable  future,  for  no  previous  king  of Jerusalem had visited Constantinople. He set out on 10 March, accompanied by  leading  nobles  and  royal  officers,  having  sent  Philip  of  Nablus  ahead  to prepare the ground. Philip had resigned his position as master of the Templars specifically  for  this  purpose,  and  was  replaced  by  Odo  of  Saint-Amand,  a former royal marshal and butler who had served both Baldwin and Amalric since the mid-1150s and might be expected to continue to reflect royal inter-ests within the order.142Manuel was perhaps surprised by the visit, but he nevertheless arranged a lavish welcome, culminating in a personal greeting in a special audience room hung  with  precious  curtains. which is summarised in the sentence.
 * No source claims Baldwin was Barbarossa's cousin. The He refers to William, not Baldwin. Used William instead for clarity.
 * The sentence makes no sense reworded, is that better?
 * Did the three counts join the campaign without an army? Just for curiosity, who was the fourth, fifth or sixth leader of a crusader state, who is not mentioned in the list? Barber writes (2012:p147) All the other major princes in the crusader states were present, including  Bohemond  of  Antioch,  Pons  of  Tripoli  and  Joscelin  of Edessa. It is claerly assumed this includes their entourages and just about covers it. If is good enough for Malcolm Barber it it is good enough for this article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Saladin exploited internal strifes in the crusader states to expand his empire.
This sentence would seem to need work. It appears unrelated to the rest of the text in the paragraph and it is unsourced. Removal seems a better option but if it is to remain surely it would be more useful if it was expanded to explain what strifes (sic) the crusader states were experiencing, what expansion did this enable for Saladin and why. Btw strifes is not the plural of strife. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes, copyedit is always helpful. Provided it is made by an editor who is able to write a sentence without spelling errors. 2. If you understand what you wrote, you will understand the sentence. 3. If you read the books you allegedly cite, you will understand the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I have managed to make myself clear, this is your sentence and your spelling mistake, personally I think it adds no value. The point of raising it in the Talk is to give you a chance to respond. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is my spelling mistake. I have never stated it is yours. If I had opened a new section for each of your mispellings, 90% of the Talk page would have been filled. I fixed your mispellings. What should I respond? Do you really think a sentence explaining one of the reasons of Saladin's successful expansion is unrelated to Saladin's expansion mentioned in the subsequent sentence? I think it is you who should clarify your concern. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, in that case I have trimed to Saladin took the opportunity presented by this strife. and joined to the previous para which contained the Frankish strife content. Still not sourced to anyone so looks POV though but reads better and follows from the material above. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You deleted the reference to Jotischky. Do you think an editor who deletes a reference to a scholar from a sentence demands a verification for the same sentence can be regarded as a vandal? Borsoka (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find the text in the version of Jotischky I have to hand (1st edition, 2004) that supports this sentence. Could you please quote what he writes and say where it is in your version? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "The internecine quarrels engendered by Guy and Sybil's coup allowed Saladin time to complete his control of northern Syria by taking Mosul and Homs from the Zengids." "[Around 1182-1183] Although the danger of a further increase of Saladin's power was understood in the kingdom of Jerusalem the weakness of leadership and the struggles for power obviously prevented effective counter-measures being reached in agreement with Saladin's opponents [the Zengids]."  Borsoka (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing me at the Jotischky source, I have now found it in the first edition. There are other possible strategic reasons he mentions in the surrounding pages, for the rise od Saladin and the decline to defeat at Hattin for Jerusalem. I will edit them in, this sentence on it's own doesn't seem to cover this completely, don't you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can imagine how happy you are after reading new pages in Jotischky's book. Learning is important. Sorry, I stop discussing this article with you. I am convinced you should not edit it or any other articles about the crusades, but our community is more tolerant towards negligence and ignorance than myself. Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Council of Piacenza
why do you think we should not mention that the Byzantine Emperor Alexios approached the Pope at the Council of Piacenza for military assistance for the reconquest of Anatolia from the Turcomans? Alexios did not allow the crusaders to cross the Bosporus into Anatolia before their leaders pledged to return all reconquered lands. Alexios and his successors established their claim to suzerainty over the crusader Principality of Antioch on this promise till the end of the 12th century. Why do you think we should mention Alexios' wars with the Italo-Normans and the Cumans in the Balkans, taking into account that he had defeated them by the time the crusade was proclaimed? The article fails to mention many important details of its subject - why should we fill it with unimportant details? Borsoka (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Council of Piacenza & Asbridge's Islamic threat added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Asbridge's Islamic treat clearly refers to Turks. The following historians also make it clear:
 * "Appeals for European help from Byzantinum had begun after ... 1071 when the Byzantine emperor begged for military support on his eastern border aganist the Seljuq Turks. In the 1090s the Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus once again appealed to Europe which was moved by what it heard of Seljuq opperssion of Near Eastern Christians."
 * "At the ... Council of Piacenza ..., the emperor's envoys ... asked for warriors from the West, who would aid him against the conquering Seljuks, and thereby defend Christendom."
 * "The conventionally accepted view is that Alexius I ... sent ambassadors to [the Council of Piacenza] at which he appealed for military help for a campaign planned against the Seljuk Turks..."
 * [Pope Urban II's] "original intention was for primarily defensive action. It was to be action in support of the Byzantine Empire which ... saw itself threatened by the more powerful pressure of the Seljuks and already had appealed to the West, several times, for help against this. Indeed, Urban's speech at Clermont had been inspired by such an appeal for help from the Byzantine Emperor."

If reliable sources, most of the cited in the article, clarify that Alexious appealed for help against the Seljuks, why should not we mention this info. (I already quoted the text from Tyerman which also support this view.) Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Title
The sentence The use of the alternative, Crusader States, is considered less accurate because after 1130 very few of the Franks were actually crusaders. has been tagged as clarify with the reason If "Crusader state" is considered less accurate, why do we use it when naming the article?. It seems a reasonable question, but knowing the subject and the controversy it raises probably not an easy one to answer. For that reason it doesn't seem worth reoppening the debate that has occured twice since March 2019. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

—this was discussed at Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1 in March 2019 and again at Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1 in March 2020. Resolution unlikely to be easy, but the content tagged is sourced. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I know. And? Was Murray's definition taken into account during the debate? Was any scholarly definition taken into account during the debate? Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is fairly common to acknowlege that most Franks were not crusaders after the first generation and that Crusader States may be a misnomer on that basis. Murray is only one who makes this case, as referred to in the article. MacEvitt amongst the sources is another, to the point that Buck's refutation is in the further reading section.
 * If there are concurring scholarly PoVs why does the article present only one of them? Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary Tagging?
—it is not necessary to tag this article when it is already being reviewed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Crusader_states, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is not necessary, but it is useful. It helps to understand which part of the text is problematic. Borsoka (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A good example is Turkic migration permeated the Middle East from the 9thcentury, when rulers such as Abbasid caliph Al-Mu'tasim began utilising Turkic nomads as slave soldiers. Slavers captured prisoners from beyond the borderlands between Khurasan and Transoxania selling them to Islamic leaders. These were known as ghilman or mamluk and were emancipated when converted to Islam. was tagged with Not all prisoners captured were known as ghilman or mamluk when the meaning is clear when the piece is read as a whole. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you think billions of people know that ghilman and mamluk can only refer to soldiers, not to all slaves (as it is mentioned in the previous sentence)?
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Another was This included Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem although the bishops of Rome were particularly honoured because of their occupancy of the see of St Peter. that was tagged twice with Four cities (even if linked to patriarchal sees) could not make up a Pentrarchy. and Are our readers required to associate the bishop of Rome with the Pope when the meaning is clear. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the word "Pentarchy" refers to something that include four parts? Why do you think billions of people know that the four cities are in fact patriarchal sees? Why do you think Pentarchy refers to four cities? Why do you think billions of people know by heart that the bishop of Rome and the Pope are one and the same person? Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Another example is For specific campaigns against the Seljuks, the Byzantines welcomed western military support and in 1095 Alexios I Komnenos’s made a request for support from Pope Urban II. was tagged The exact circumstances of Alexios' request are important during the establishment and development of the crusader states, especially of the three northern crusader states. In this case the source considers sufficient: The Byzantines welcomed western military aid for specific campaigns against the Seljuqs. Specifics of Alexios's request would have undue weight at this point and have little objective impact on the history of the CS. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we do not want to mention that most crusader leaders swore fealty to the Emperor, promising to return all reconquered Byzantine lands. We can also ignore the above detail, if we do not want to explain why Byzantine Emperors made several attempts to assert their suzerainty over the princes of Antioch. However, if we did not mention these facts, we would adopt a quite original approach. Borsoka (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is the rationale for the tagging, these points are covered further down at a point when they can be covered objectively. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand. Why should not be mentioned here that the Emperor approached the West for military aid, because he wanted to reconquer the recently lost Byzantine territories? To what else "specific campaigns" (sic!) refer? Borsoka (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In 1095, Alexios I Komnenos’s requested support from Pope Urban II was tagged with This is the point we should be informed that Alexios wanted to reconquere the territories the Byzantines had recently lost to the Seljuks. This is a massive simplification resolved with the wider picture. Resolved by The Byzantines augmented their military manpower with the recruitment of Turks, Normans, western and northern Europeans. This compensated for a shortfall caused by the loss of territory, at a time the Byzantine Emperor faced enemies on many fronts: Seljuks, rogue Norman mercenaries, disloyal army commanders, Danishmends, other Turcic tribes, Italo-Normans in the Adriatic Sea, Pechenegs and Cumans in the Balkans. In 1095, Alexios I Komnenos’s requested support from Pope Urban II and Urban responded by calling for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you refer to a reliable source stating that Alexios requested Western military assistance against Italo-Normans, the Pechenegs and the Cumans at the Council of Piacenza? Borsoka (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tyerman Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you refer to Tyerman? He writes: "The plan to relieve Byzantium in Asia Minor followed by an invasion of Syria and Palestine was devised by Pope Urban II after a council held at Piacenza...at which Greek ambassadors asked for military aid against the Seljuk Turks." Why should we adopt an original approach when presenting the events? Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Byzantines augmented their military manpower with the recruitment of Turks, Normans, western and northern Europeans. This compensated for a shortfall caused by lost territory, at a time the Byzantine Emperor faced enemies on many fronts: Seljuks, rogue Norman mercenaries, disloyal army commanders, Danishmends, other Turcic tribes, Italo-Normans in the Adriatic Sea, Pechenegs and Cumans in the Balkans. was tagged Which reliable source says that Alexios' envoys approached the Pope at the Council of Piacenza for military assistance against Italo-Normans, disloyal army commanders, Pechenegs and Cumans?. This is an objective summary of Tyerman (pages 46 to 47). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still pending. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does he mention the Council of Piacenza? Why do you think the French, Occitan, Normann, Lotharingian and Italo-Norman crusaders crossed the Bosporus from the Balkans to Anatolia with Byzantine assistance and started fighting against the Seljuks, if Alexios wanted to use them against the Italo-Normans in the Ionian Islands or against the Cumans in the Balkans? Borsoka (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentences describes the sceanrio that confronted Alexios, why he needed reinforcements and the precedent followed.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So it has nothing to do with the establishment of the crusader states. In the context of the article, we need to know that that Alexios needed military support against the Turcomans of Anatolia (and that is why he sent his envoys to the Council of Piacenza). Borsoka (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Another The Byzantines augmented their military manpower with the recruitment of Turks, Normans, western and northern Europeans. This compensated for a shortfall caused by lost territory, at a time the Byzantine Emperor faced enemies on many fronts: Seljuks, rogue Norman mercenaries, disloyal army commanders, Danishmends, other Turcic tribes, Italo-Normans in the Adriatic Sea, Pechenegs and Cumans in the Balkans. was tagged Is this important in the article's context? Tyerman clearly states that Alexios needed military support agains the Seljuks. Why do we need to write a lengthy list about the Byzantines' previous enemies?. Explains context of the request. Alexios was short of manapower (due to lack of territory), had lots of enemies (not only Seljuks, named), set a precedent of mercenary support (detailed) and asked for some moreA. Addressed in only 97 words as The Byzantines augmented their military manpower with the recruitment of Turks, Normans, western and northern Europeans. This compensated for a shortfall caused by lost territory, at a time the Byzantine Emperor faced enemies on many fronts: Seljuks, rogue Norman mercenaries, disloyal army commanders, Danishmends, other Turcic tribes, Italo-Normans in the Adriatic Sea, Pechenegs and Cumans in the Balkans. In 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, Alexios I Komnenos’s requested support against the Islamic threat from Pope Urban II. Historians think he was probably hoping for a small detachment of Latin troops he could direct. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is a over-detailed list of enemies, but I can accept it. Can you refer to a reliable source that mention other enemies than the Turks against whom Alexios requested support at the Council of Piacenza? Borsoka (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Another This compensated for a shortfall caused by lost territory was tagged with If Tyerman specifies that especially the loss of Anatolia was harmful for Byzantium. Tyerman also refers to Bari and Antioch. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tyerman emphasizes that especially the loss of Anatolia was harmful. Borsoka (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Alexios I Komnenos’s requested support against the Islamic threat was tagged with All reliable sources specify that Alexios needed Western support against the Turcomans of Anatolia. Asbridge also clarifies this.. Islamic threat is Asbridge's exact phrasing. He also refers to Alexius still faced an array of foreign enemies, including the Muslim Turks of Asia Minor e.g. not exclusively Turks or Anatolia. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Asbridge clearly refers to the Muslim Turks. Could you name other Islamic enemies of the Empire in this period? Could you refer to a reliable source stating that Alexios requested support at the Council of Piacezna against other (non Turkic and non Muslim) enemies of the Empire. Please remember I already referred to Tyerman who makes it clear that Alexios needed support from the West against the Turks in Anatolia. Borsoka (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed the last two problems. Now the article reflects what the cited sources say about the Council of Piacenza and its direct antecedents. I think the list of the Empire's enemies is still long, especially, because most of them had been defeated by the time the crusade was proclaimed. Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I have also deleted the enemy list. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The atabegs were often powerful guardians ruling on behalf of minors. was tagged verification failed with the explanation This is not the exact definition of the term.. Cited source, Holt, writes The function of the atabeg was to act as tutor and guardian of a young Selkumid prince, and where his ward was the holder of an appanage, the atabegwas in effect a regent. Now rendered into the aricle as These were tutors and often regents of young Seljuk princes who often remained as military chiefs after the malik reached adulthood. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article still fails to explain who were the atabegs although some of the crusader states' most important enemies were atabegs. The summary in the article is not precise, does not reflect what Holt and Tyerman write. Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * First, he ensured that Godfrey promise solemnly that territory gained would handed to his Byzantine representatives and made Godfrey his vassal. was tagged as verification failed with the reason Godfrey promised to return territories lost by the Byzantine/(Eastern) Roman Empire, according to all sources cited in the article. It is unclear what territories were covered by the treaty, but no source says that all territories to be conquered were to be cede to the Byzantines.. Added Roman Empire as per primary sources. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In the mid-11thcentury a minor clan of Oghuz Turks named Seljuks, after the warlord Saljūq is tagged twice as certification needed with the comment Neither Holt nor Tyerman mention Saljūq.. This is sourced to Findley p68.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed with a new source. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The powerful position of atabeg was held by Mamluks. These were tutors and often regents of young Seljuk princes who often remained as military chiefs after the malik reached adulthood. was tagged verification needed with the reason Both Holt and Tyerman clarify under what circumstances atabegs assumed regency. Both historians emphasize that atabegs often took control of the govenrment or established independent states. Some important opponents of the crusader states were atabegs, so we should understand the institution. Holt writes The function of the atabeg was to act as a tutor and guardian of a young Seljukid prince, and where his ward was the holder of an appanage, the atabegwas in effect a regent with plenary powers. The atabeg was usually a military chief; hence the Mamluk instituition was implanted in the Seljukid military establishment, the office became a perquisite of the great Mamluk amirs This is rendered in the article as The powerful position of atabeg was held by Mamluks. These acted for young Seljuk maliksas tutors, guardians, and where the malik held an appanage as regents with absolute power. The atabegs were usually military commanders and the role became part of the Seljukid military establishment making some Mamluks powerful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still pending. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The poor Franks were dismayed by delays in progress to Jerusalem, which the army spent savagely capturing Syrian towns, before Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse proceeded leaving Bohemond behind in control of Antioch. was tagged verification failed because Asbridge emphasizes the consequences of the Siege of Ma'arra. What did the other crusader leaders do? We are informed about Raymond's departure. Perhaps we could say, only Bohemond stayed behind. Rewritten and sourced to France as As they had sworn at Constantinople, offered Alexios Antioch recognising the value of Byzantine help during the siege. When they later learnt of Alexios's withdrawal Bohemond claimed the city and the other leaders agreed, apart from Raymond who supported the Byzantine alliance. The dispute resulted in the march stalling in north Syria after the capture of Ma'arrat al-Nu'man. Eventually, Raymond left with Tancred and Robert Curthose to besiege Arqa while Bohemund remained at Antioch. In despair of the delay, many remained with Bohemond or joined Baldwin in Edessa. Pressure from the poor Franks forced Godfrey and Robert II, Count of Flanders reluctantly to join the siege. Relations worsened when Raymond welcomed an imperial embassy asking for further delay so that Alexios could join despite opposition from the other leaders. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OR fixed. Context is still needed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * These medieval French crusader states in the Middle East became known as Outremer or outre-mer, a phrase whose etymology was derived from outre or beyond and mere or sea was tagged what with the reason Not a single state has so far been mentioned., dubious with the reason Were they French? and dubious with the reason Does any reliable source verifies this claim? What about the County of Tripoli? What about the Kingdom of Cyprus? What about the Frankish states of Greece? Deleted and added a background section earlier to cover:The term Outremer is used to collectively describe the four Frankish states established by the First Crusade, in medieval and modern sources: the  county of Edessa (1097–1150), the principality of Antioch (1098–1287), the kingdom of Jerusalem (1099–1291), and the county of Tripoli (1102–1289). The southerly kingdom of Jerusalem extended over an area that is now Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and adjacent areas. The region was historically known as Palestine. The northern states covered what is now roughly Syria, south-eastern Turkey, and Lebanon. These areas known historically as Syria and Upper Mesopotamia. Edessa extended  east beyond the river Euphrates. The word's etymology derives from the French outre-mer, outre or beyond and mere or sea. Other languages have similar formulations: Spanish Ultramar, Italian Oltremare, and Middle High German daz lant über mer. The alternative Crusader States is less accurate because after 1130 extremely few of their Frankish inhabitants were actually crusaders. In the Middle Ages the states were also often collectively known as Syria and Syrie.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The alternative Crusader States is less accurate because after 1130 extremely few of their Frankish inhabitants were actually crusaders. was tagged clarify with the reason If the term "Crusader States" is less accurate, why we use it when naming the article? If we think the article's name is correct, why do we emphasize that our usage contradicts one (or more) scholar(s)' view?. This matches the source and is a common opinion amongst academics. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why we use a name for the article that does not represent a common opinion among academics? Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Medieval sources and modern scholars commonly use the term Franks for the ruling, privileged class of the Outremer. was tagged dubious with trhe reason Murray gives a different definition and makes it clear that he does not regard the Franks as the only privileged group in the Outremer in his article about crusader societies. The source, Murray's article and this article all agree. Murray writes Franks (Lat. Franci, OFr. Francs) is probably the most common term used in medieval sources and modern scholarship  to designate the ruling and privileged classes in the various  principalities of Outremer, Cyprus, and Greece that were established in the course of the crusades. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for quoting the text that actually verifies the sentence. Your previous quote did not verify it . I still maintain that the definition in the article does not properly reflect Murray's view as it is presented in secondary sources: [Outremer was] "ruled by French-speaking members of the Latin Chruch, who were descended from the original conquerors and from subseqiuent waves of immigration from Western Europe. ... [Franks] "seems to have been adopted as a collective designation by the settlers themselves, who originated from different part of Europe... The Franks of Outremer ruled over a complex array of native communities belonging to the three great monotheistic faiths...[The] relationship between Franks and natives in Outremer was ...[based] on a hierarchy in which the native people were differentiated and ranked according to how far they offered advantages and were prepared to cooperate with the Frankish rulers. ...Indigenous Christians clearly enjoyed a more privileged position than Saracens." Christopher Tyerman, who is cited in the article, writes about the Franks: the "Franks were too few to dominate and to many to integrate. ... By the 1180, the Outremer had become home to three or four generations of Franks, tens of thousands of people who, however, conscious of their special status in ethnicity, language, law and religion, no longer could see themselves ... as intruders."  Adrian J. Boas, in his book cited in the article, summarizes the following: "Frank...was the name used by the local population ... to refer to Westerners, both new arrivals as well as pulani (those who were born in the East), whatever their ethnic origins. The Frankish population included a minority of nobles and a large class of burgesses consisting of shopkeepers and artisans, many of whom were probably of peasant origin. In the countryside there seems to have occasionally been voluntary downward social mobility, when men who had previously were burgesses chose to become peasants." ) The sentence in the article does not properly summarize scholars' views' about "Franks". Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the above sources actually cut acrossed the article as written....to summarise Murray both at the time and now the term Franks is used, the Franks held a privileged position in the Outremer, Franks is what they called themselves and were called by the Greeks and Muslims. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Franks originated in western Europe was tagged dubious with the reason Murray gives a different definition in the Outremer in his article about crusader societies.. The source, Murray's article and this article all agree. Murray writes The Franks who occupied and settled these countries were of western European origin Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are Taranto (in southern Italy), Germany located in Western Europe? Murray writes in his work about the crusader states' society: "From their foundation until their final extinction in 1291 [the crusader states] were ruled by French-speaking members of the Latin Chruch, who were descended from the original conquerors and from subsequent waves of immigration from Western Europe." Please also read the list of peoples in the above quote from Boas' book. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The above quotes Murray:waves of immigration from Western Europe, the article says the Franks came from Western Europe, that pretty much marries up? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Franks who occupied and settled these countries were of western European origin was tagged clarify with the reason The cited sources specify that ghazi captured pagan Turks. Rewritten to Turkic migration permeated the Middle East from the 9thcentury, when border raiders captured unconverted Turkic nomads in the borderlands and sold them to Islamic leaders. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see in the article. The new text is closer to the cited works, but it does not properly summarize them. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * tertiary source inline tag was used with the reason Secondary sources cited in the article cover the sentence verified by this tertiary source. The source in question in an academic encyclopedia with an editorial board consisting of the leading academics in the field. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources...". Why do we need to introduce a tertiary source if secondary sources cited in the article could easily be cited? Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article already utilises tertiary sources e.g. Jotischky & Lock. The Murray work is an academic work recommended by . It is written by academics, reviewed by academics and has an editorial board representing the great and the good of Crusade scholarship. It is WP:RS. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jotischky is a secondary source, Lock could be argued to be close to a tertiary source. I did not say that that the encyclopedia is not a reliable source, I referred to a WP policy, emphasizing the importance of secondary sources. I also raised the question: if a statement can be verified by multiple secondary sources already cited in the article, why do we need to refer to a tertiary source? Borsoka (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * tertiary source inline tag was used with the reason Secondary sources cited in the article cover the issue verified by this tertiary source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources...". Why do we need to introduce a tertiary source if secondary sources cited in the article could easily be cited? Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article already utilises tertiary sources e.g. Jotischky & Lock. The Murray work is an academic work recommended by . It is written by academics, reviewed by academics and has an editorial board representing the great and the good of Crusade scholarship. It is WP:RS. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jotischky is a secondary source, Lock could be argued to be close to a tertiary source. I did not say that that the encyclopedia is not a reliable source, I referred to a WP policy, emphasizing the importance of secondary sources. I also raised the question: if a statement can be verified by multiple secondary sources already cited in the article, why do we need to refer to a tertiary source? Borsoka (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Edessa was a wealthy, predominately Christian with a large Armenian and Jacobite populations was tagged clarify with the reason Hostility between Orthodox on the one side, and Armenians, Jacobites and Maronites on the other side was an important aspect of Syrian policy. This should be mentioned in the previous section.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still pending. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * city that was ruled by a Greek was tagged unbalanced opinion with the reason Asbridge, Holt refers to him as an Armenian ruler. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutrality problem fixed. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Edessa was seized by a Greek was tagged unbalanced opinion with the reason Asbridge, Holt refers to him as an Armenian ruler.. Rewritten ans sourced to Edessa was seized by a warlord calledThoros of Edessa who the Chronicler Fulcher of Chartres labelled a greek. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutrality problem fixed. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Edessa was a wealthy, predominately Christian with a large Armenian and Jacobite populations, was tagged clarify with the reason Hostility between Orthodox on the one side, and Armenians, Jacobites and Maronites on the other side was an important aspect of Syrian policy. This should be mentioned in the previous section. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still pending. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The dispute resulted in the march stalling in north Syria after the capture of Ma'arrat al-Nu'man was tagged clarify with the reason The massacre after the siege raised fear and the local Muslim leaders made treaties with them, enabling their march towards Jerusalem. which isn't reflected in the source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still pending. That is why WP prefers secondary sources to tertiary sources. Secondary sources cited in the article provide a context. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The powerful position of atabeg was held by mamluks. These acted for young Seljuk maliks was tagged failed verification with the reason Not only maliks were the atabegs' wards. Expanded with better source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still pending. Now, the article properly summarizes the cited source, but contains out of context info. I think close paraphrasing may also be an issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * some mamluks powerful was tagged clarify with the reason In the article's context, the most important info, that some atabegs ruled independently of maliks. Expanded, with better source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still pending. Now, the article properly summarizes the cited source, but contains out of context info.


 * The Seljuks created sophisticated networks of allies and patronage which was enforced by targeted violent coercion. was tagged clarify. Sentence removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still pending. The deleted tag stated that we need clarification because "We should be informed that the Seljuk administrative system, with its maliks and atabegs fighting against each other, facilitated the crusaders' victory, thus the establishment of the crusader states." Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Byzantines augmented their military manpower with recruitment including Turks, Normans, and for membership of the Varangian Guard was tagged failed verification with the reason Tyerman does not write that all western or northern Europeans who were Normans were hired to serve in the Varagian Guard. Rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OR fixed. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Godfrey of Bouillon was one of the first noble crusader leaders to arrive at Constantinople. He was the second son of the Count of Boulogne and nominally duke of Lower Lorraine was tagged as verification failed with no reason. Asbridge covers this on p45. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed with a new reference. The text is still lengthy in the article's context. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The use of the alternative, Crusader States, is considered was tagged with by whom. Added some historians Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still pending. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Medieval sources and modern scholars commonly use the term Franks for the ruling, privileged class of the Outremer. was tagged dubious with the reason The sentence does not properly summarize the views of scholars who are cited in the article. Murray also provides a more precise definition in his book about pecularities of the crusader societies (for instance, he refers to other privileged groups as well). Murray writes Franks (Lat. Franci, OFr. Francs) is probably the most common term used in medieval sources and modern scholarship  to designate the ruling and privileged classes in the various  principalities of Outremer, Cyprus, and Greece that were established in the course of the crusades. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty close? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I also repeat my quotes from above: "I still maintain that the definition in the article does not properly reflect Murray's view as it is presented in secondary sources: [Outremer was] "ruled by French-speaking members of the Latin Chruch, who were descended from the original conquerors and from subseqiuent waves of immigration from Western Europe. ... [Franks] "seems to have been adopted as a collective designation by the settlers themselves, who originated from different part of Europe... The Franks of Outremer ruled over a complex array of native communities belonging to the three great monotheistic faiths...[The] relationship between Franks and natives in Outremer was ...[based] on a hierarchy in which the native people were differentiated and ranked according to how far they offered advantages and were prepared to cooperate with the Frankish rulers. ...Indigenous Christians clearly enjoyed a more privileged position than Saracens." Christopher Tyerman, who is cited in the article, writes about the Franks: the "Franks were too few to dominate and to many to integrate. ... By the 1180, the Outremer had become home to three or four generations of Franks, tens of thousands of people who, however, conscious of their special status in ethnicity, language, law and religion, no longer could see themselves ... as intruders."  Adrian J. Boas, in his book cited in the article, summarizes the following: "Frank...was the name used by the local population ... to refer to Westerners, both new arrivals as well as pulani (those who were born in the East), whatever their ethnic origins. The Frankish population included a minority of nobles and a large class of burgesses consisting of shopkeepers and artisans, many of whom were probably of peasant origin. In the countryside there seems to have occasionally been voluntary downward social mobility, when men who had previously were burgesses chose to become peasants." ) The sentence in the article does not properly summarize scholars' views' about "Franks"." Borsoka (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the above sources actually cut acrossed the article as written....to summarise Murray both at the time and now the term Franks is used, the Franks held a privileged position in the Outremer, Franks is what they called themselves and were called by the Greeks and Muslims. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the text quoted from Murray's, Tyerman's and Boas's books again. The text in the article suggests a binary division in the society: Franks vs natives ("Medieval sources and modern scholars commonly use the term Franks for the ruling, privileged class of the Outremer. The Franks originated in western Europe, were Roman Catholic and predominantly French speaking. This distinguished them from the states' subject populations."). Murray explicitly rejects this approach: "The range of evidence...suggests that the relationship between Franks and natives was not based on a binary divide ..., but on a hierarchy in which the native people were differentiated and ranked..." Borsoka (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Franks originated in western Europe, was tagged dubious with the reason The sentence does not properly summarize the views of scholars who are cited in the article. Murray also provides a more precise definition in his book about pecularities of the crusader societies. Murray writes The Franks who occupied and settled these countries were of western European  origin; they belonged to the Latin (Roman Catholic)  Church and were predominantly French-speaking, key characteristics  that were retained by the descendants of the original  settlers, thus distinguishing them from the subject populations  of the lands they controlled. Pretty close? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I also repeat my quotes from above: "Are Taranto (in southern Italy), Germany located in Western Europe? Murray writes in his work about the crusader states' society: "From their foundation until their final extinction in 1291 [the crusader states] were ruled by French-speaking members of the Latin Chruch, who were descended from the original conquerors and from subsequent waves of immigration from Western Europe." Please also read the list of peoples in the above quote from Boas' book." Borsoka (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the above Murray is quoted writing waves of immigration from Western Europe, it makes impossible to understand what the objection is? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the text quoted from Murray's book again, concentrating on the words preceding the text you quoted above. Please also look at a map showing Italy and Germany. Borsoka (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Crusader states were Latin Catholic polities created in the aftermath of the First Crusade at the beginning of the 12thcentury on the Levantine littoral. was tagged dubious with the reason This sentence contradicts the main text's first sentence that lists three crusaders states established in the late 11th century Rewritten. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please summarize the first sentence of section "Outremer" in the lead. Borsoka (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * These medieval French states became known as Outremer or outre-mer, a phrase derived from outre or beyond and mere or sea. was tagged clarify. Rewritten. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead
why do you think that "Version1" is a better opening paragraph in the lead than "Version2"? Borsoka (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Version 1 matches the main content. It introduces the four principal states setting the time period & geography. It explains the crusader states is a contested term, why, and also the derivation of Outremer for those readers who arrive at the page through the Outremer redirect. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I summarized below the problems with "Version1". Could you also summarize the problems with "Version2"? Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Lavantine littoral, beyond the Euphrates, Latin & French usage of Sytria, around 1100, some historians and north to south all removed. The noun and adjectives Roman Catholic polities remain—this precisely describes what was created, feudal added for extra information. The text explaining the geography in modern terms is also retained because it is useful to the reader especially the visually impaired who might be using automatic readers. Outremer is defined, and the question of definition tidied. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I requested a third opinion. Yes, visually impaired readers should not be ignored. That is why I suggested you to place the crusaders states on a modern map in the main text. You may want to add an alt text to the map to assist our visually impaired co-editors to understand the map. Please also check all pictures. I have just realised that the pictures that you have placed in the article are not accessible. Borsoka (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Restored fron Archive
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Article Name
Some historians consider the use of Crusader states as misleading because few Franks were crusaders after 1130. was tagged clarify with the reason ''If crusader states is a misleading term, why do we use it? Perhaps the article should move to have a neutral name.'' The simple answer is that after the succesful merge with Outremer following this discussion Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1 and the rejected move that follwed this discussion Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1 the consensus was this name was the best fit. The name can be both misleading and WP:COMMONNAME. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but you are insisting to explain why the present title is not correct both in the main text and in the lead. There are three theoretical approaches to deal with this situation: 1. an explanation that the alternative Outremer is old and obsolete (you deleted all versions of the text containing this explanation from your article, so I think you reject this solution); 2. deleting the sentence (you restored the text to your article, so I think you also reject this solution); 3. moving the page (sincerely, I think this is the worst solution, but this is your article and I will not oppose it). What is clear, for the time being the article emphasizes that its title is not correct, without giving an explanation. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Outremer is not obsolete according to the OED. Crusader States is a debatable term in academic circles, both sources used to support this sentence do so, but Buck argues at some length that is is correct. It can be both correct and misleading, which is why the article mentions it. If the term gives the impression that the CS were full of crusaders crusading it is clearly misleading. If the term is used to argue that the CS had a culture derived from crusading that is probably accurate, but I am not an academic. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Asbridge writes: "In the Middle Ages this region was sometimes referred to as "Outreme" ... while today the four major settlements ... are frequently described as the "crusader states". (Asbridge (2012), p. 114). The article only emphasizes, twice at the beginning, that its title is not correct. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not incorrect, misleading. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And, does it change anything? Borsoka (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

On WP the name of the article(s) has already been discussed. It was successfully proposed that the Outremer article be merged with Crusader states at Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1. The consensus was against moving Crusader States back to Outremer with this debate Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1. There is no question that both descriptors satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. There is no doubt that academics use both terms. For example, Tyerman in God’s War uses Outremer 275 times and Crusader states 15. Barber in a work called The Crusader States uses Outremer 17 times and Crusader States 148 times. That said historians do not agree whether these terms are accurate. Professor Christopher MacEvitt, Faculty Director at Dartmouth (https://faculty-directory.dartmouth.edu/christopher-macevitt ) among a general critique of the usage of the term crusader states published a paper ''What was  Crusader about  the  Crusader States? '' ( Al-Masāq, xxx  (2018), pp. 317–30). A response is cited in the article in by Andrew D Buck, formerly of Queen Mary University (https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Andrew-D-Buck-2123225758 ) and now a specialist at University College, Dublin. Academics do not agree on this, and it is clear there is no consensus among them.

For the lay WP reader this is probably confusing, and the casual use of these terms is misleading, it implies a certainty that does not exist. The article deals with this by using the passage cited in the article by Dr Allan Murray of the University of Leeds ( https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/history/staff/1010/dr-alan-v-murray ): ''An alternative name for the four Frankish principalities in modern historical writing is the “Crusader States.” Although common, this term is less accurate, since after around 1130 extremely few of their Frankish inhabitants were actually crusaders, in the sense of people who had taken a vow to go on crusade.  Thomas Asbridge, reader in medieval history at Queen Mary University ( https://www.qmul.ac.uk/history/people//academic-staff/profiles/asbridgetom.html ) cited in support of this writes The term ‘crusader states’ is somewhat misleading, as it gives the impression that these settlements were exclusively populated by crusaders and that their history might be interpreted as an example of ongoing crusading activity.  he goes onto acknowledge The issue of the continued influence of crusading ideology over the history of the Latin East is a more vexed question. ''' he then refers to a Riley-Smith article, but the work of MacEvitt and Buck is in the same area.(page 115 and page 698 note 49)

WP:COMMONSENSE would indicate that the article should use a title that is readily understood, but where that title could be misleading, contested or not completely accurate it should be mentioned. The article does this in the lead to explain the Outremer redirect and in the body for sourcing and expansion. There may be copy editing required, but no need for tagging or substantive change. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above issue is subject to a dispute resolution process. Borsoka (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)