Talk:Crusades/Archive 14

Recent split
I oppose the recent split that created crusading. Not only is this pair of titles confusing, but such a major change to an article that gets as many views as this one and has been the subject of as much debate should have a clear consensus behind it. This doesn't. This article is now larger than before it was split. I never thought its size was a problem, but if there was consensus that it was then a discussion of how to split and what to split should have followed. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In the long GOCE debate above in which you took part, I asked the question on consensus back in March about whether this article should be split. Only answered, his answer was affirmative (I simplify, the trail is above). However, I agree that the titling could be confusing. In the debate size wasn't particularly raised as an issue by anyone apart from myself. There was no objection to the idea that an article on crusades in the Levant and an article on the paradigm of crusading were required. After six months of inaction I took the initiative to push this forward.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am well aware, since I answered you on March 1 when I said "I oppose a split for now". Johnbod supported one "rather sadly" and said it starts "with getting agreement here (new section needed I think)". Did you open a new section? Johnbod also "completely agreed" with me. This is why further discussion was necessary. On March 6 you asked, "I hope the consensus is as I understood it?" but why did you ignore Johnbod's recommendation about procedure? Perhaps six months of inaction was indicative of a lack of support for splitting?
 * For the record, I think the proper way to look at this article is as a summary style article in which the articles on the numbered expeditions and the various other theatres are on a par with each other, so that the non-Levantine crusades do not overpower it. I think this reflects the relative weighting in scholarly works on the crusades. It's like a Venn diagram in which the crusades circle overlaps with, e.g., the Reconquista circle. The latter is included just insofar was it was regarded as a crusade, but the total history of the Reconquista is not included. Outremer, on the other hand, falls completely within the crusades circle. Srnec (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have restored the article to its September 23 state. The current situation with this article and crusading is unacceptable. I am unsure how we got here after re-reading the old discussion. I just don't see an appetite for a split along these lines. Two people reverted your creation of crusading. Instead of trying to establish that you have consensus, it would be better if you tried to justify what you are doing. Srnec (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored the Milhist detail that the above revert removed, but the rest of the reversion remains in place. Much of this was in the older versions of the article that passed GA and ACR but has been deleted over time. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I also oppose the split. Per my comment above from back in February, I continue believe we need to first nail down what the exact scope of this article should be. In 20 years this has never been finalized. We have clarified above that historians define the term in four ways:
 * 1) Traditionalists: only campaigns aiming to recover Jerusalem – i.e. the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13thcenturies to the Holy Land
 * 2) Pluralists: all campaigns with vows and privileges, not only in the Holy Land – e.g. against pagans, heretics;
 * 3) Popularists: all campaigns that were characterised by popular groundswells of religious fervour;
 * 4) Generalists: the widest definition, including all forms of Latin holy wars.

Perhaps we need an RfC on the simple question of "what should be the scope of the article Crusades", with the four options above. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per a recent section above, I support the split. Your four definitions are no doubt right, but the case for keeping Crusades focused on the Levant is not really about definitions from historians, but about finding a short title that is the best possible match for our readers' understanding & expectations, and what they are likely to be looking for. What we call the other one is an open question. Perhaps an Rfc would be best. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need an RfC. Taking into account that at least two editors with a deeper knowledge about the crusades say that the narrow definition may not represent recent scholarly approach, we should not limit its scope to the title of the other article, because we may not need an other article. What should be the scope of the RfC? Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but under our policies whether "the narrow definition may not represent recent scholarly approach" is not really the issue, so much as what the various possibilities convey to our readers, and how they match what these are likely to be looking for. Self-declared "editors with a deeper knowledge about the crusades" don't matter here as much as readers with mostly a rather shallow knowledge. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right "self-declared editors with a deeper knowledge" would not matter here, but none of the editors have so far declared themselves as such. Furthermore, none of us can represent "our readers" - instead of referring to them, to "average English-speakers" or to "humankind", we can say "I think" or "I am convinced". Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
Following the above exchange, I propose that important Crusade content not directly related to the Crusades in the Levant be split into a separate page called Crusading. I have already removed the redirect on the target page and began populating the page with such content. It seems like the debate above broadly agreed that there is a need for an article on the Levant and this is it, but also there is a need for an article on the broader subject, paradigm, wider geographies and periods. The scope question is important, but the naming less so. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that you know my view on this. That sounds like a sound idea. I don't really care about the name(s), but I agree with your summary immediately above. (I assume that this leaves scope for articles on the various other crusades?) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this, though the names may need fine tuning. But "Crusades" should remain the Levant article. Bit puzzled by the sequence of sections here. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Perhaps it is a question of language barrier, but I have not realized that a broad agreement was reached about this article's split and scope. I suggest we should first decide whether the article should be split. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Question. What is the difference between the splitting proposal and the RfC below? Borsoka (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This section is asking whether there should be a split in this article. The RFC is asking what the subsequent articles should be called if consensus is that a split is required.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The two issues could hardly be decided parallelly, because remarks in the sections above and below show there is no broad agreement that this article is to be dedicated to the Levant. Borsoka (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor typo at the end of the first paragraph of Ideology
Ideology

The use of violence for communal purposes was not alien to early Christians. The evolution of a Christian theology of war was inevitable when Roman citizenship became linked to Christianity and citizens were required to fight against the Empire's enemies. This was supported by the development of a doctrine of holy war dating from the works of the 4th-century theologian Augustine. Augustine maintained that an aggressive war was sinful, but acknowledged a "just war" could be rationalised if it was proclaimed by a legitimate authority such as a king or bishop, was defensive or for the recovery of lands, and a without an excessive degree of violence.[26][27]

I think there is an extra 'a' here.

--194.204.50.9 (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor typos in Conflict with Egypt including the Fifth and Sixth Crusades
Fourth paragraph, first sentence.

The conflict between the Holy Roman Empire and the papacy meant that the responsibility for the f campaigns in the Crusader states often fell to secular, rather than papal, leadership.

Also same paragraph, fourth sentence.

Fixed, thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Jerusalem was sparsely populated but in Christian hands and the kingdom's territorial reach was that of the before the 1187 disaster at Hattin.

I think this sentence should be repaired to be:

Jerusalem was sparsely populated but in Christian hands and the kingdom's territorial reach was the same as before the 1187 disaster at Hattin.

--194.204.50.9 (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor typo in Crusader states in the Levant
Fifth paragraph, almost at the end of it. An extra y has slipped in, also an extra space at the end of the sentence. For twelve years the rebels held a surrogate parliament in Acre before prevailing in 1242, leading toy a succession of Ibelin and Cypriot regents.

Fixed, thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Seventh paragraph

Despite all efforts, the ports were unable supersede Alexandria and Constantinople as the primary regional commercia centres but the communes did compete with the monarchs and each other for economic advantage. Power derived from the support of the communards' native cities rather than their number, which never reached more than hundreds. By the middle of the 13th century, the rulers of the communes were barely recognised crusader authority and divided Acre into several fortified miniature republics.

were unable to supersede - commercial centres - communes barely recognised

--194.204.50.9 (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC on the naming of articles within the Crusade topic
Ok, right. In association with the debate on splitting Crusades there is a related question on what the article or articles should be called and related to that what the content of each should be. Academics working in the crusades constantly argue between themselves over this and sometimes even argue against their own positions. This has issues of both depth and width of content. This article cannot cover the subject at an appropriate depth while also covering the bredth. A summary article has the challenge of inappropriate emphasis being given to topics only included in order to cover the bredth of the subject. It is unlikely that these issues could be resolved in a major tome let alone a single article on WP.

This requires a pragmatic solution. There is no summary article for the Crusades in the Levant/Near East. Although there are summary articles that have been in turn summarised here e.g. the C-Class Northern Crusades and Reconquista. This is in effect that article. But in being that article, some peoples' view of what the full bredth of the subject is cannot be covered here, the wider geographies and periods, the theories, politics, historiograhies, criticisms & ideologies. Neither would the average anglophone lay reader expect them to be covered. They would expect Muslims v Christians, Medieval warriors fighting in the Holy Land. Once they found it, they might feel inclined to make the academic journey and end up with Riley-Smith's near millenia of crusading through to the 19thcentury.

Comment is welcome on two questions:

* 1) What should this article be called?

* 2) What should any split articles be called?

To answer these two questions feedback on the scope of 1) and any other split articles would also be helpful.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments and questions. 1. None of us is in the position to refer to the average lay anglophone reader's views. I am a native speaker of Hungarian, but I could hardly represent the average lay hungarophone reader, although less than 15 million people speak this language. I doubt that an average lay anglophone reader living in the Baltic region associates the crusades with wars between Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. I am pretty sure there are tens of millions of average lay anglophone readers who have no knowledge of the crusades. Can we suppose that an average Nigerian, Kenyan have whenever read of the crusades? For instance, I have almost no knowledge of the history of Nigeria or Kenya. Whenever we want to refer to the average anglophone reader, we should rather say "I think"/"I want". 2. I suggest we should first decide whether this article should be split at all. Two editors stated above that they opposed the split. 3. I am not sure I understand your proposal. Do you suggest that the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade should not be described in the article dedicated to the Crusades in the Levant? The Byzantines were not Muslims and Constantinople was not situated in the Holy Land. I assume this approach would be quite original. Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) This article should be called "Crusades" and it should be about the crusades as scholars cover them (when they give them a general treatment). The focus and balance of the article right now is about correct. It may require tweaking, but it does not require splitting. 2) An article on the political crusades might be a useful way to head off any bloating in the Europe section. It is not clear to me what Crusading is supposed to be, but that title is not a good one. An article on the ideology and theology of crusading would be good (and could alleviate §§5.2 and 5.5 a bit if that's a concern). There seems to be a concern that this article lacks sufficient "milhist". I do not agree. Quite the opposite. I think the military history is best left to lower-level articles. That said, the article military history of the Crusader states could certainly be beefed up. Srnec (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Srnec that the title and scope should remain. In a review of comprehensive histories including the Wisconsin project, Murray's Encyclopedia, Riley-Smith's Oxford History, Tyerman's God's War, Runciman, and Routledge, all treat the Crusades as a whole, regardless of location and objective. That being said, where to stop becomes an issue. Most stop in the 15th century, but there are some later activities concerning the military orders that should be considered. I would support a second article where all of the ancillary items, such as art and architecture, political crusades, ideology, finance, criticism, chivalry, etc., could be collected. They could be at the end of the article, but I can think of 20 topics off the top of my head, so maybe something titled "The Crusades: Additional Topics" would work.

The balance and structure is about right, although the section on Crusader states is too long. The big problem I have with the current version is the footnotes. As a summary article, I don't feel it needs to be exhaustively sourced as the main articles will do that. Also, why are there citations to a dictionary that requires a subscription? The casual reader isn't going to have access to them. I doubt that many people do. Do we really need a dictionary definition of crusade, Frank, Latin, etc.? Also, the references that are there represent a very limited set of viewpoints. Of the six works above, only God's War is cited, just once. I would suggest that citations point the reader to a variety of works that are accessible rather that a bunch of books people are not likely to have. With the exception of the Routledge companion, all of the sources above a available on-line. Older works lay Michaud, Archer, Mills and Munro are accessible in English and are surprisingly good reads. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks —as matter of interest what are the 20 topics off the top of my head? Norfolkbigfish Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

. Here's my cut at them (only 19): Art and Architecture, Military Arms and Armament, Assassins, Crusader Castles and Fortifications, Chivalry, Criticism of Crusading, Economy of the Levant, Financing the Crusades, Archaeology of the Holy Land, Numismatics and Sigillography (coinage, etc.), Historiography, Holy Relics, Itineraries and Travelogues, Ideology, Literature of the Crusades, Naval history, Propaganda, Recovery of the Holy Land, Women in the Crusades.
 * An excellent list. If we decide that this article were to cover all crusades, I think the following proposed topics should only tangentially be mentioned in this article: Assassins, Economy of the Levant and Archaeology of the Holy Land. Instead, I propose two or three further topics: Popular/Local Resistance (presenting the forms of resistance of local Muslims, Greeks, Prussians, Livonians, Estonians against the Franks, Latins and Teutonic Knights); and Crusader Societies and possibly Crusader Economies (covering the main features of Outremer, Cyprus, Frankish Greece and the Teutonic Knights' Baltic realm). Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , what exactly do you mean by Itineraries and Travelogues, and do you have any dood sources? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think there should be two "main" articles, mainly on WP:COMMONNAME and size grounds: one on the Levant, and one on the whole historical phenomenon.  I feel fairly strongly that the first is what most readers are likely to be looking for, and understand by the term Crusades, so I support keeping this article at that title. I'm flexible on the other title, but the current Crusading is ok, if not ideal.  But open to other possibilities.  Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot refer to most readers in any way, because I do not know them, but I know that a reader like me seek a fair and full general picture of the crusades as they are defined in recent scholarly works. Although I always imagine tomato as a red fruit, an article also mentioning yellow, orange and purple tomatoes would not shock me, rather I would be grateful to the article's author for developing my knowledge about tomatoes. On the other hand, two separate articles - "Tomato" about red tomatoes and "Tomatohood/Several kinds of tomatoes/..." about red, yellow, orange and purple tomatoes - could easily bewilder me. Size would not be a problem if we do not describe insignificant details of each military campaign and do not mention all battles in this article. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, as discussed at considerable length previously, I disagee on nearly all these points, but please don't let's go on about it here and now. Your habit of smothering talk page discussions casts some doubt on your perception of when size is a problem. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stating that it is your view, without referring to our readers or to humankind. As far as I can remember you allegedly do not like ad personam remarks. They do not astonish me, but please use my Talk page to make comments on me in the future. More than one editors have so far stated that size can hardly be a problem. Of course, we may be wrong. Borsoka (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This is class 101 on how to not do an RFC.... Question one is answered clearly with no debate at WP:COMMONNAME. As far as splitting, the article is 111.338kb. Is there an overriding justification at the moment not to split it? WP:Split on the basis of size there's a justification to split.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are right. Editors who were not involved in the debates about the article's scope could hardly understand the RfC, especially, because the core of the debate is presented in three separate sections on this Talk page. Furthermore, the introduction to this RfC alludes that the scope is clear, but comments above (and at other Talk pages) clearly show that this is not the case. Let me ask the question more clearly. What do you think the term "crusades" covers? Do you think it covers only the crusades in the Levant, or it also includes the Northern Crusades, the Albigensian Crusades and similar "holy wars" in Europe. Please also take into account that the article was actually split: each individual crusade has its own article. Perhaps the proper application of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE could solve the size problem. Borsoka (talk)
 * The purpose of an RFC is to get a consensus when there's at the very least an argument. RFC's work best when kept simple. If want to know what it should be named its better in an RFC to have the available options. And well to split or not split is a separate question. And I agree with you WP:SUMMARYSTYLE seems a pretty apt way on how to handle the split.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Borsoka, your question "What do you think the term "crusades" covers?" is not at all what we need to decide, & it is unhelpful to pose it in such misleading terms! Of course all the others you mention can be described as crusades - that by no means answers the questions of what articles we should have, and what they should be called.  It is also unhelpful to say "each individual crusade has its own article" - the Levantine ones do, but the others are generally (very sensibly) grouped as you have linked them -  most of the Northern Crusades have their own articles, but the individual Albigensian Crusades don't.  Your proposals would deny the Levantine crusades a similar group article, a role the present one fulfills. I would suggest this is the article most readers want to see first. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, I did not propose anything. As to your remarks, 1. There are multiple editors saying that this is the article to be dedicated to the crusades as a general topic. You have always been applying a terminological approach when challenging this proposal: you are saying the term "crusades" covers primarily the Levantine crusades. Consequently, terminological approach was not introduced by myself. 2. Each individual Levantine crusade has its own article. Of course, a summarizing article about the Levantine crusades could also be created if this article proved to be dedicated to all crusades. 3. Of course, we could try to decide everything during one RfC, but the above comment shows that such a complex RfC could not be completed properly. Consequently, we should first decide what is the subject of this article. Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably worth a quick summary of where this debate is now.
 * On splitting the article comments are fairly divided, but with a narrow majority in favour.
 * Broadly speaking there appears a majority in favour for the current scope of this article
 * That said there is broad support for one or more additional articles to cover cover the topic across wider geographies, time periods and non-narrative topics of which provided a useful list above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above interim (?) summary. Could you clarify your interim position? What is the scope of this article, according to your understanding? How do you want to deal with the concerns of editors who had not been involved in this dispute before? Borsoka (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Borsoka (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

*Comment Again what are the justifications that it not be split? There is a clear basis to split with the size of this article alone. A consensus is not a popularity contest folks. If you are against a split you need a clear justification for it and it would need to be one not based on personal preference.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ? Who do you think is not in favour of a split? Not Norfolkbigfish, who actually did start to split it, but got reverted/complained about. I think everybody thinks it is too big, but there are disagreements as to what to put or leave under this and other titles. We might even end up with a disam page, but this would be a pity imo. I don't blame you for being confused though. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment I just read the article. Does it need to be split? No. Why? Because this article has already been split Multiple times. There's 8 paragraphs in this article on the crusader states. That can be checked against the article on the Crusader states and trimmed, removed, and or transferred as appropriate. Almost every section in this article has already been split. This article just needs the appropriate clean up. You should remove this RFC tag and stop wasting peoples time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * —the debate is more complicated than this. The content on the Cruasder States could be pruned but some editors above have suggested that further content be added which will return the article to the current situation pretty quickly.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your right it's not as simple as just pruning crusader states and in the comments above I didn't make it as simple as that. You'd also have to prune all of the other sections where the article is split. This article has been split around 19 times or so already and it has a whole lot of room for clean up. After that clean up has been done would be the time to ask about further splits, if there is any justification to do so.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Agree with the comment above that this isn't the right way to do an RFC - see WP:RFCBEFORE. I'd spend some more time discussing options and generally boiling them down into the main choices that have at least some chance of obtaining consensus, then creating an RFC to choose between them. An RFC can't provide you with an in-depth solution to a problem, because the editors aren't going to know the full history and details of the page; it's not reasonable to expect them to all figure it out from scratch themselves. You need to boil down the dispute to its key points and find a way to express them clearly as straightforward options. --Aquillion (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary—well it would seem that there is broad consensus that I didn't ask a very useful RFC! However, there seems to be broad consensus that this topic requires more than one general article (probably one on that covers those crusades whose objective was Jerusalem and one that covers the broader paradigm}. Or am I reading the thread incorrectly? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you are reading it incorrectly. But of course I do, right? I think part of the problem is that there is some talking past one another. I see opposition in this thread from myself, Borsoka, Dr. Grampinator and Serialjoepsycho. In the previous section, Onceinawhile also opposed the split (18 Oct.). You, Johnbod and Gog the Mild support it. By "the split", I mean what you did in creating Crusading. Borsoka seems to be okay with the idea of a Levantine-only article, but not with it at this title. Onceinawhile seems to accept that a split will happen at Talk:Crusading. That leaves myself, Dr. Grampinator and Serialjoepsycho who think the article is already split into many sub-articles and can continue to be split in this way without any change in scope to the main article. To me, this is a textbook "no consensus". I admit, though, that I do not even know what the problem is that you and Gog (and Johnbod?) think needs fixing. To me, the balance in this article is/was fine. And the length is also fine. World War II is over twice as long. For six years. Srnec (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, Srnec, and it is probably for the others to speak for themselves, particularly who above seems to support a second article. But that is majoritarian rather than consensual. Do I take from this that it is your opinion is that we should forget size, summarise much of what is here e.g.the Crusader States section and add the topics that Dr G thinks are relevant (and possibly others)? Personally, I think that means we lose a summary article for the traditional crusades  which is a valid topic in its self and typical of a significant number of general works, and this article get much larger which will soon attract criticism for size.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My "problem", which I think I have stated pretty clearly a number of times, is that I think WP needs a big main article on the Levantine crusades, including, yes, the military history, and a summary political history. Actually the only person I can recall objecting to this idea is you, Srnec, who thinks the individual per crusade articles are enough. I strongly disagree with this.  I'm absolutely fine with another big main article on the wider concept of the medieval crusade.  But I don't think both can be done in the same article. You are, it seems to me, only 'not in favour of a split' because you are content just to erase most of what used to the subject here, leaving a broad concept article.  This article used to pretty much cover what I think is its proper scope, though at an unsatisfactory level of quality.  Now it has been half-converted (before the recent split) to a broader concept article, apparently leaving no one very happy. What to call the two articles is really a different and secondary issue.  I hope that clarifies my position.  Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your position has always been clear for all other editors who do not accept it. Let me paraphrase your previous comment on the same issue without repeating your ad personam remarks: "why don't you go and write ... an article on Levantine crusades?" Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not for Srnec, apparently. But probably for those who agree with me. I have absolutely no intention of editing much in such a contentious area (any more than you, it seems), which is anyway far from any specialisation of mine. If I were to, I would be begin by returning this article to its state some time ago (as a basis for improvement), while finding a good home for some of the other stuff that has appeared. Johnbod (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the article as it looked when put up for FA a year ago. And this is the earlier FAC version. I think it was basically OK in scope and balance and I do not believe it has been broadened since. This is why I am confused. I am not suggesting it be broadened; it's already broad. Nor do I think it needs much trimming. After all, I'm the one defending its length. Srnec (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, please assume that you are able to explain your proposals and we all understand it. If the crusades are far from any specialisation of yours, why do not you allow other editors with more experience in this area to determine the scope of this article? At the end of the day, we should present the crusades as they are presented in recently published, renowned, peer-reviewed scholarly works, because "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia." Srnec, Johnbod already referred to the GA version of this article as a good example . For me, it is a par excellence example of a mixture of randomly and arbitrarily selected texts, filled with unrelevant details, but it treats the crusades as a general phenomenom. It could be accepted as a starting point. Dr. Grampinator's above proposal contains important topics that should be mentioned in the article and most details of the individual crusades could be easily deleted. Borsoka (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You must surely know that it is very far from WP's way to allow such matters to be decided only by those with expertise. In fact I have a couple of shelf-feet of books on the Crusades, most of which I've read (a long time ago). In fact I seem to remember you making a similar disavowal, at least as far as the Levantine Crusades are concerned. Yes, "we should present the crusades as they are presented in recently published, renowned, peer-reviewed scholarly works" somewhere (ignoring the horrible & inappropriate word "renowned"), but what goes into a particular article & what it is called is governed by other things, including for titles WP:COMMONNAME above all.  I wasn't aware I had particularly given the GA text as a good example, but I agree it is a starting point.  Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly unclear to me as to what's being proposed and what people's positions are. Here is my understanding. There are really only two options under discussion (forgetting about naming, which is secondary):

Option 1: A single article covering all Crusades, lets call it Crusades-T. Option 2: Two articles, Crusades-A, covering the background and traditional (numbered) Crusades; and Crusades-B, covering everything else. All options are summary articles that have links to supporting, more detailed articles. Crusades-T is what exists today.

I support Option 1 for the following reasons: (1) Every modern comprehensive treatment of the Crusades follows Option 1. (2) No one has ever written a book devoted exclusively to the subject matter in Crusades-B, and I don't think such an article would hang together. (3) Modern books exclusively on Crusades-A are almost non-existent. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Point 3 is incorrect, in fact there is one in the Bibliography, Asbridge. Not that it negates your argument. I think we can all agree that WP needs the Crusades-T article but this is not it. This is largely like many works on the subject, almost entirely Crusades-A but with somewhat cursory pointers/references to the wider topic. makes the perfectly valid point that there is no summary article for the wars in the Levant other than this. Crusades-T requires a greater balance and warrants an aticle on its own. In many ways it is easier to start from scratch rather than attempt to rewrite this article to meet Option 1. I whole heartedly agree that naming is secondary, and that the article you call Crusades-B makes no sense. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dr. Grampinator's take strikes me as correct. My own opinion is that the third option being touted—both Crusades-T and Crusades-A articles—is needlessly redundant. We have an article at Military history of the Crusader states that could perhaps be expanded into the kind of article that Norfolk, Gog and Johnbod are calling for, with a stricter focus on military matters and the Holy Land. All the crusades save the first are, after all, part of the military history of the Crusader states. And we are not forced to keep that title anyway. Thoughts? Srnec (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Fourth Crusade had much to do with the military affairs of the Crusader States. GPinkerton (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , might disagree. In any case, my only point was that a "military history of the Crusader states" article may include expeditions from overseas in assistance to the Crusader states. So I think that article could be expanded to include the kind of narrative military history of the expeditions that some editors want to see all in one place. Srnec (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I figured that someone might challenge Point 3 above as it was somewhat controversial. Asbridge is possibly the best example of a "Crusades-A" and I left it off only because it doesn't much background material. Ditto for Jean Richard's tome. I could support a "Crusades-A" article but in more of a chronology format which tends to focus on major battles and political events. Not excruciating day-by-day detail like in Routledge, but more like 200 years in 2 pages. As I look at it, the Military history article is very close to that. Maybe adding a timeline that includes some key non-military events like "Baldwin I becomes king" and "Saladin dies" along with the battles and conquests. But not the popes, please. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for curiosity. If we all agree that we need an article covering all crusades and we also agree that naming is secondary, why do not we decide without any further discussion that the article "Crusades" is the perfect place to present all crusades? An article about the Levantine crusades can be created any time. Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion . It would address many of the challenges that this article has faced at it's repeated FACs. I am with that WP:COMMONNAME makes this article the most appropriate location for that article, perhaps merging in Military history of the Crusader states which is only Start Class anyway. It would then leave a space for the proper Crusades-T article that was your Option 1? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If my understanding is correct, we returned to the basic problem: naming does matter because some editors still maintain that the article "Crusades" should primarily cover the military history of the Levantine crusades. I do not think this is the best approach to reach a consensus. Borsoka (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no reason to restrict the subject of the main "Crusades" article to Christians-vs-Muslims (or more accurately Catholics-vs-Muslims) in the eastern Mediterranean rim. When I hear "crusade", I think of the Albigensian Crusade(s) and the Teutonic Knights. I'd like to see the Holy League and the Battle of Lepanto covered under the same head as the Council of Clermont, and the "crusade" proclaimed by both sides in the Second Barons' War, for example. One suggestion: Crusading in the Holy Land is probably suitably vague and all-encompassing for the numbered crusades and unnumbered crusades that blend into the "military history of crusader states" concept. For my part, I'd like to see the Kingdom of Cyprus added to the scope of Crusader states, since it could hardly be denied it was one of them. For the crusading article, I oppose the present title, and suggest crucesignatus instead. That way we could treat of crusading as it existed as a medieval pass-time/vocation/legal status/duty/punishment, which often had nothing to do with actually going on an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem and more to do with spiritual or tax benefits of claiming to be preparing to do so, as well as the actual cultural practice of really going on armed pilgrimage to conquer or convert. That could also deal with some of the more obviously non-Crusade "crusades" (e.g. the European civil wars, etc.) in which crusade language and ideology was employed. GPinkerton (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021
The date of the crusades is 1096-1272 98.114.254.117 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2021

 * 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: Not moved. There is firm consensus against moving Crusades to another title. As for Crusading, if someone can suggest a better title, be my guest, but it is probably helpful to hash that out before starting a new RM. -- Calidum 15:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

– Please answer two questions: A: What should be the name of the article about the Papal wars directed to the Holy Land? (the "traditionalist" definition of Crusades) B: What should be the name of the article about all examples of Christian Holy War? (the "generalist" definition of Crusades).
 * Crusades → ????
 * Crusading → ?????

We currently have two articles, Crusades and Crusading. The former is currently close to definition A, and the latter to definition B, but there is consensus at Talk:Crusading that the current titles are confusing as they are too similar. The scholarly debate over the use of the term Crusades is summarised well by Giles Constable, in the excerpt below. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

—you have all expressed thoughtful opinions on this matter, your votes/opinions would be useful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Votes which address the question
* A: Crusades in the Levant; B: Crusades Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A: [proposal]; B: [proposal] ~
 * My iVote of Oppose on A was moved to the discussion section below. 'Oppose' seemed self-explanatory enough, but it may have lost its meaning during one of the Crusades. I have no opinion on B. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A should remain as it is, both in title and scope. It is not exclusively "traditionalist". B should be split into articles on specific topics, as I suggested at its talk page. In other words, I reject using Constable's distinctions for defining the scope of top-level articles. Srnec (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A: the "crusades" article should cover all topics about the crusades ("generalist approach") B: we do not need it. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A: Crusades; B: Crusading. This is in line with virtually all of the sources I have come across, and in the absence of any RSs being referenced to support any other nomenclature. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * could you name the reliable sources defining the term "crusading" and quote their definition? Borsoka (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A: Crusades; B Other Crusading Stuff. Sorry, my answer's a bit tongue in cheek, but can't really think of anything for B.  Certainly Crusades should stay at "A" as per common-name.  I am not sure why there is even a B article.  Isn't most of that material already contained in the specific pages of individual crusades?  If it is meant to be an umbrella page, it should be no more than a "List of Crusades". If it wants to talk about specific things that don't fit in any particular crusade, say "Women in the Crusades", or "Historiography of the Crusades", then split it up and use the title of those other things.  Parts of it feels like its trying to be an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. So I am not sure. B has to make its mind up what it wants to be, and decide on its own title. I don't think its decision should implicate the title for this article. I am sorry I can't be more helpful. Walrasiad (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My view of B is the same as Walrasiad's. Srnec (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A: Crusades; B: Crusading. No changes needed. In my opinion, both articles are useful and concisely titled. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A: Crusades, or Crusades in the Middle East (or "Levant"); B: Crusades outside the Middle East or Crusades in Europe. A general Crusading might be best on its own. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No change on either. Absolutely fine as it is. The wars described are the clear primary topic for Crusades. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No change on either article, I think the premise is wrong here. Crusades is already events of A and B and more, and Crusading is a broader article.  While Giles Constable writing is well-respected, it is not the only view and WP:WEIGHT seems ‘the’ Crusades are traditionally eight or nine campaign events aimed at the Holy Lands (even if the 4th ran astray...), with other ‘Crusade’ in WP:COMMONNAME for other items including unsanctioned ‘Popular Crusades’ and Papal sanction for ‘Political Crusades’ and Baltic area ‘Northern Crusades’ etcetera.  So yes work out what the focus is for each, but do not move.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A: Crusades; B: Crusading Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * [First discussion point here]
 * Oppose, 'Crusades' is the most common and familiar name. That its replacement has to be listed as '????' kind of proves the point that the page is already where it should be. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please reformat this as requested, or move it to the threaded discussion below. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems clear enough. An Oppose is an ivote. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion relates to two articles. If you wish to vote that both articles should retain their current names, the correct format is “A: Crusades; B: Crusading”. Many thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I've said a few times now, am opposed to moving Crusades, which means that it seems fine as it is. The second article is an in-depth look at Crusading as a broader topic, and the title seems fine as well. I'm missing the controversy. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose moving Crusades as that is the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, please could you kindly look at this comment at Randy Kryn's talk page: Crusades is the common name for multiple topics with different scopes, as explained in the opening above. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for answering the questions as requested. Much appreciated. On A, you wrote that the scope should remain as is. Please could you clarify what you consider the scope of the current Crusades article to be? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I consider the scope of the current Crusades article to be all the Crusades with an emphasis on the east. I see no need to excise §5 In Europe. Srnec (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, to follow my language above, am I summarizing correctly to say that you think Crusades should be: "all Christian Holy Wars with an emphasis on Papal wars directed to the Holy Land"? I think this is closer to B above, no? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a risk of WP:UNDUE with this position. There is a great detail for the period between the 11thcentury and 13thcentury in the geography of the Eastern Mediterranean. But the Crusading lasted until the 19thcentury and also spread across Western and Northern Europe according to Riley-Smith. These details are rather tagged on in Crusades and would be better deleted. At a summary level this could be dealt with in a renamed version of the Crusading article. The aditional articles you talk about could be spun off from that article, leaving a renamed version of the current Crusades article to dive into the detail of the period from the 11thcentury to the end of the 13thcentury in the Levant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – This does not seem to be a requested move. Perhaps an RFC would be a better approach for such open-ended topics.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Crusades" is the most common name and is universally known. Wretchskull (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please could you clarify? It is the common name for a variety of scopes. Which scope do you have in mind? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Crusades" is universally known in the English language. Even if you might have something that is more accurate, it is about how they are presented to people. Readers are familiar with "Crusades" and not "Crusading" or some other title that suggests during which centuries it happened. Crusades has always been the correct word and is also the main description of all English dictionaries, for example (Merriam-Webster): "Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover control of the Holy Land from the Muslims". Therefore, I very strongly oppose this move request. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you. I believe your comment means that you believe the correct scope for the article Crusades is A: the Papal wars directed to the Holy Land, rather than a more general definition of Crusades in B above. It would help us if you could kindly confirm if this interpretation is correct. Many thanks, Onceinawhile (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have read Constable's paper and would be interested to see where his categorization has been applied to modern historians. He gives only one example of a traditionalist (H. E. Mayer) which I think is suspect as Mayer has written books on Crusades other than the "usual" ones. I am also particularly interested in which of the Crusades are regarded as traditional, and what the difference is between a pluralist and a generalist. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Srnec. The main Crusades article needs to consider the full range. The characterization of Constable was developed for his study of historiography dating back to the 13th century and is not really applicable to modern historians, who are never referred to by this classification. Virtually all modern treatments of the Crusades (Asbridge being an exception) follow this model. That being said, I'm not opposed to an article on the "original Crusades" that would include all the interesting stuff that happened between the "numbered" Crusades. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, a quick correction – the excerpts from Constable are part of his chapter "Recent Trends in Crusading Historiography". When they are quoted by other scholars, they are consistently interpreted to be referring to modern historians. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In danger of taking this OT, but Tyerman's take on this (Constable) is that pluralists such as Riley-Smith focussed on how crusading was initiated, authorised and organised. That is to say there was always a legitimate crusader vow and resultant privileges. It is a definition that excludes popular crusades such as the Shepherds and Childrens. Popularists such as Alphandery and Delaruelle include these, but only the First Crusade because the defining characteristic is prophetic and eschatological. Generalists such as Hehl stretch the scope far wider to include any and every religious war, so could include the European Wars of Religion and English Civil Wars. Riley-Smith thought Jean Flori a popularist but Norman Housely considered him a traditionalist. Erdmann at various times has been considered a generalist and a pluralist depending on which work that is under discussion. But this debate is about two, and I still think there should be two, articles. This requires pragmatism. Historians largely ignore definition these days, and it was a debate that existed only in certain schools of thought. Definition does not impact the work of such as Tolan, Pryor, Dickson, Ellenblum, Pringle, Kedar, Edbury, Rubenstein or French, German and Italian scholarship. The modern focus is on critical interogation of the sources, not on adopting a position on any abstract definition. That takes us back to two articles: one to cover the traditionalist scope that readers expect and one to cover all the broad range of topics that have come up on this thread. The later of course would become enormous and can be split as some think but an article on the level of the Northern Crusadesand Reconquista for the traditionalist crusades is also required, if only for balance. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * At a consistent 5,000+ views per day, this is one of the most-read history articles, probably the most-read medieval one. I'm entirely sure that what a plurality of these are initially looking for is basic information on the Crusades to the Holy Land. Per WP:COMMONNAME these should take the plain term. Failing that, I prefer "Middle East" to "Levant" as being understood much more widely - I'm sure school geography hasn't taught about the Levant for many decades. I'm unmoved by what various historians have said at various points, especially as they don't agree, or even clearly fall into two groups.  Crusading doesn't seem to work as a title; it isn't clear what the contents would be, & it's averaged only 27 vpd this year, including the recent attention from this discussion. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems conflating a question of what the scope of Crusades should be with a different article Crusading.  I think it best as is - keep Crusades covering the military events whose WP:COMMONNAME label as a Crusade, and make that scoping clear in the article lead while also clear that ‘the’ Crusades traditionally refers to those 8 or 9 campaigns for the Holy Lands.  To split does not seem necessary or as good even if it was into clearer labelled titles like by the existing groupings “Crusades (Holy Land)”, “Crusades (Northern)”, “Crusades (Popular)”, “Crusades (Political)” and so on.  The historiography of what Crusades are is a topic discussed in texts, e.g. Crusading and the Crusader States   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The RM covers the whole question, & rightly so. This has been extensively discussed for a long time - Crusading was split off after earlier discussions & this is round 2 (or round 16 perhaps). Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With regards to what seems to be the prevailing consensus, I will revise my vote above. Crusades as an article has clear support, it is less clear for Crusading but it does seem to have majority support. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, as you assume that the term Crusading cover "all examples of Christian Holy War". Could you refer to the pages in reliable sources verifying this definition? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I lack the time or the motivation to do so. My understanding was that the onus is on an editor, or group of, wishing to change a long-established consensus. So could you provide RSs demonstrating that there is a scholarly consensus for some other  term? Until and unless this happens I cannot see this discussion being closed with anything other than the status quo, and so prefer to allocate my limited time to more potentially fruitful activities. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for your above message. I fully agree with you. Yes, we all prefer to allocate our limited time to fruitful activites instead of asking our co-editors to explain their votes. Yes the onus is always on who wants a change. Please remember that the Crusading article was created by Norfolkbigfish through copying large parts of the Crusades article on 4th October 2020 . This action was opposed from the very first time by multiple editors . The use of the term "crusading" as a synonym for "all examples of Christian Holy War" has not been verified for months . So I again kindly ask you to refer to reliable sources defining the term "crusading" in accordance with your vote, or withdraw it (to save our time for our more fruitful activities than discussing original research). Borsoka (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've expained above, I don't think Crusading makes a good article title, and yes, if we keep it some refs for the "range of definitions" bit in the lead would be nice, but essentially this is a pedantic straw man argument. We don't really need more than the dictionary definition of "crusading" as essentially "doing crusades" etc. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Or an argument by editors who are familiar with basic WP principles. Many editors have stated that "crusading" essentially refers to a vigorous campaign on a social or political issue and this definition can easily be verified by dictionaries. Consequently, the use of the term "crusading" for "all examples of Christian Holy War" contradicts two relevant WP policies: WP:NOR and WP:COMMONNAME. On the other hand, the use of the term "crusade" for "Christian Holy Wars" outside the Levant can be verified without difficulties . Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think it is a good article title, but the Crusades meaning of crusading is in those same dictionaries. It's certainly not WP:NOR, that's just being silly - there might be a WP:COMMONNAME issue. Johnbod (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a quick research: 1. Cambridge Dictionary for the verb "crusade": "to make an effort to achieve something that you believe in strongly", and it also quotes a sentence about "act of crusading", but its context is unclear (it may only refer to the traditionalist concept of crusade) 2. Merriam-Webster provides the following definition for the same verb: "to engage in a crusade", but its definition for "crusade" does not include "all examples of Christian Holy War", because it covers only the traditionalist concept of crusade and "a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm"  3. Collins: "crusading: campaigning" . These examples suggest that "crusade" and "crusading" can be treated as synonyms (but in this case both terms cover the same types of holy wars, either traditionalist or generalist crusades). Consequently, suggesting that they have a different meaning in this context is a clear example of original research. And yes, dictionaries also show that the term "crusading" primarily refers to a vigorous campaign on a social or political issue, consequently the present title of the Crusading article also ignores WP:COMMONNAME. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is "suggesting that they have a different meaning in this context"? Another straw man. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both. There is a commonname issue. That was why I started this RM. We now have clear consensus that the "Crusades" should be reserved for the traditional Levantine Crusades. So we now need to decide how to proceed with the article on the more general type of crusade. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Checking the consensus.
Just checking that we indeed have a consensus that we are OK to have one and only one article that covers all crusades and that, in this article, crusade is used in the wide sense of holy wars, without any restriction in scope, thus including institutional aspects such as ideology, effect on architectures, etc. This means that other articles about crusades should be on a very specific aspect of the crusades (e.g. women in crusades) or about a specific group of crusades (e.g. Northern crusades). Those who mostly contributed to the two articles are listed below. We especially want their opinions. Note that the question of the title(s) is not asked here. We can discuss titles later. It also does not matter at this stage which article will have this subject. We need to start somewhere, but a key point is that the article will not belong to a particular group of editors or to a particular position on the subject. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I do not have special privileges or I am not in a special position just because editing an article. Borsoka (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you say so. I did not meant that. Still, your opinion matters. I am sure that people that just come here to provide opinions will very much appreciate to know the opinions of those who worked on these articles. More importantly, this is also a reminder that people working on a subject do not always have to rely on Rfc. It is perfectly fine to discuss with each others and take decisions together. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we are not all "OK to have one and only one article that covers all crusades" - see the most recent discussion. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have read the previous discussions and indeed I have seen ideas to separate the subject in two top articles, but I thought the agreement moved against this. It is complicated and will encourage too much POV pushing in each separate article. Unless there are very good reasons to do so that are supported by the literature on the subject, this kind of forking of a subject is not encouraged in Wikipedia. In any case, it is something that people working on the subject must first decide. Once it is decided, then a Rfc is indeed needed to confirm that such a forking of the subject is acceptable. I don't believe that a clear decision to do this fork into two articles, both about all crusades, was taken. There is certainly no evidence of this in the recent discussions.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No, your intentions are good but you have misread the consensus. This is pretty much for two articles; a general crusades and a summary article for the the traditional crusades whose objective was Jerusalem. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This was addressed to Johnbod, because I understood you, Norfolkbigfish, when you explained that one of the two was about Jerusalem. Could both of you provide a link (ideally a diff) to specific edits in the previous discussion that best justify your understanding of the consensus, please. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusades&diff=1014501515&oldid=1014498630&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusades&diff=1013145925&oldid=1013134895&diffmode=source for starters Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

No need to hold editing while this debate continues
I have restored s edit that reverted. I think they provide a positive contribution and that editing is the way forward with this impasse. Should consensus ever be reached the two articles can be edited accordingly but until then it doesn't help if criticisms of either cannot be resolved while debate rages. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For robustness, it will be necessary to extend the local consensus (about the global organization) at a larger scale as soon as possible with the help of a RfC. In particular, this will have to clarify the local consensus so that it's clear that no Wikipedia rules are broken such as unnecessary duplication. It may be obvious for some that no rules are broken, but it needs to be confirmed at a larger scale, because a lot of confusion prevailed in previous RfCs and this cannot be left like that. Of course, some text will have to be written to explain the local consensus. Otherwise, it will be another mess.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was grateful for Dr. Grampinator's revert, because Johnbod's two edits did not improve the article. Especially the linking of the adjective "crusading" was totally surprising. However, I do not want to open an edit war on this issue. I agree with Dominic Mayer's remark about previous rfc-s. Borsoka (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also find Johnbod's edit a bit strange, but I do not oppose the global idea of improving the link between the two articles and remove duplication while we clarify the situation in the talk page. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Another rule that needs to be not broken is Notability in the case of Crusading. Again, it may be obvious for some that it is not broken, but the fact is that the extension beyond the traditional crusades is now being proposed as a separate subject (this is my understanding of the local consensus) and as such it must pass the Notability criteria separately and, even if it is a formality, we must make sure that it passes the Notability criteria based on sources. This means that there must exist some quality sources that discuss the other crusades definitively more than just, say, a final chapter at the end of a book.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this last point is nonsense. In fact "a final chapter at the end of a book" alone, or just a few pages, would easily pass GNG, and in fact there are libraries of books on all aspects of all definitions of crusades, as can be seen at the more specialized articles. What does "the extension beyond the traditional crusades is now being proposed as a separate subject (this is my understanding of the local consensus)" mean anyway?  Is this the mysterious "third article" returning? Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed them again - hard no to this. It suggests that "crusading" has some significant difference in meaning or scope relative to "crusades", which is not really supported by the sources and which there is clearly a serious objection to on talk. This isn't a minor change unrelated to the debate; it's a change that patiently tries to resolve that the entire long-running debate about article scope by coming down hard on one side. At this point, given the level of clear opposition, if you want to add "crusading" to the article as if it makes for a meaningful division in topics, you must clearly run an RFC first - especially about whether the split between Crusades and Crusading is going to be retained, since that seems to have been a highly-controversial split that was made without consensus and which has attracted constant disputes since. I don't see any way to move forward without first deciding that basic question; that split, more than anything else, is what lead to the confusing mess we have here. --Aquillion (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert at this point, but my edits were an attempt to reflect the division of the articles agreed some time ago - reverting this is indeed "coming down hard on one side". If the smallest edits to reflect what the current situation is supposed to be are reverted, we are just going to keep spinning our wheels in the mud! A deeply unhelpful contribution. No wonder no one wants to actually edit these articles rather than endlessly going over the same ground on talk. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The only reason why this discussion does not end is because there is no agreement on the respective scope of the two articles and how they relate. Yet, it should be possible to clarify this. I am not saying that it is very easy, because there are overlaps (e.g. background), but with some good will, it should be possible to find a way to avoid too much overlap. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored Johnbod's edit which was at least in good faith and an attempt to move forward. The revert as a first contribution to the debate was deeply unhelpful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is that these edits are (perhaps wrongly) interpreted as a support for the status quo. Whoever hope for the status quo should know that there will be an RfC and they can judge for themselves the chance that a status quo will prevail. The best way to proceed is to have an agreement here in the talk page (see below) that will be submitted for an enlarged consensus via RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a side remark: at least three editors have expressed their view that Johnbod's edits were not helpful. By the two reverts, their views were totally ignored. Perhaps this mentality prevents editors from editing these articles. Who wants to get involved in a never ending edit war? Borsoka (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it certainly was "support for the status quo". I had commented above on the lack of such a link. As long as we have an article on Crusading, it should absolutely be linked where appropriate - denying this is against all policy. Previous experience shows that the chances yet another Rfc will take things forward may be slim. Dominic Mayers II, you have added 61 Kbytes to this page in a month and two days - where has this got us, do you think? Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about all of the above (see, I haven't commented until now) but I agree at least partially with the section title, that the best way to proceed is to get out a book or other acceptable source and either improve the existing article or try to work on some solution regarding the issues raised (at some point discussion also requires something concrete to discuss about - otherwise its just vague suggestions without substance). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit warring mostly derrives from discussions between more than one editors, each convinced that at least one of them is against all policy. Otherwise I agree with Johnbod. We do not need another RfC. As I mentioned below, I rather suggest we should complete this article adopting a generalist approach, because what is clear that we need a general article about the crusades. After this general article is completed, we could discuss whether we actually needs an article about traditionalist crusades. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)