Talk:Crusading movement/Archive 4

Tags, verification and clarification
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If you indeed want to clean the article, please compare your texts with your sources before publishing your edits. Your latest edits contain unverified statements, including two whole sentences. If you do not reveal your actual sources, no one will be able to guarantee that your text remained free of plagiarism and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have at least four times indicited that the allegedly cited sources do not verify the two tagged statements. You have always deleted my tags without addressing the problem. I must say that reviewing your articles is an especially irksome task although I have reviewed dozens of articles, including some about much more controversial subjects. Borsoka (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I moved this comment from above. To help uninvolved editors make sense of this it is better to keep the plagarism/rewrite thread on topic and have another thread to cover verification questions and clarifications. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Historians trace the beginnings of the crusading movement to the significant changes within the Latin church enacted during the mid and latter eleventh century
This was flagged failed verification with the rationale Bull writes of the mutationist modell on the cited pages. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Bull writes The launching of the First Crusade was made possible by a revolution which had overtaken the western Church since the middle of the eleventh century. From the 10405 a group of reformers, first with the support of the German emperor Henry III and then in opposition to his son Henry IV, had taken control of the papacy. This institution they shrewdly. Without closely paraphrasing and being objective this looks verified. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now, I found the quote on an other page. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

A group of reformers took control of the governance of the church with ambitions to use this control to eradicate behaviour they viewed as corrupt.
This was flagged with failed verification with the rationale Bull writes of the mutationist modell on the cited pages. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Bull writes The launching of the First Crusade was made possible by a revolution which had overtaken the western Church since the middle of the eleventh century. From the 10405 a group of reformers, first with the support of the German emperor Henry III and then in opposition to his son Henry IV, had taken control of the papacy. This institution they shrewdly identified as the best means to pursue their programme of eliminating abuses within the Church. Without close paraphrasing and being objective this looks verified. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now, I found the quote on an other page. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The changes were not without opposition, causing splits within the church and between the church and the emperor.
This was flagged as failed verification with the rationale No similar statement can be found on the cited page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This was cited to Morris p82 This group was itself split by the policy of Gregory VII. Whether or not his ideas were a logical consequence of earlier policies, their application created a new situation, with an open breach with the emperor and a schism in the papal office. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Change made Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

However, the reform faction successfully created the ideology for men they saw as God’s agents. It would enable them to later refashion the church along the moral and spiritual lines they believed in.
This was flagged as clarification required with the rationale The chronology of the events is unclear Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sentence absolutely ignores chronology in the paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Latham writes Simply put, it provided the constitutive discourse around which crystallized an element within the Latin clergy whose members saw themselves as divinely inspired agents of moral and spiritual renewal within the Christian commonwealth. By the middle of the eleventh century, this social force found itself dominant, if not yet hegemonic, within the Latin Church. Seizing this opportunity, popes Leo IX, (1048–1054), Nicholas II (1059–1061) and Alexander II (1061–1073) all took specifi c steps to address the ills they perceived to be at the heart of Latin Christendom’s moral corruption and spiritual decay—especially the “immoral” practices of simony (the purchase of clerical office and the related practice of lay investiture of abbots and bishops) and clerical concubinage. With the accession of Gregory VII in 1073, however, this process of renewal and revitalization took a different tack: it evolved from being an essentially legal and hortatory effort—involving both the promulgation of canons prescribing these practices and a variety of efforts designed to delegitimize them—to one focused on transforming the papacy into a powerful institution capable of more effectively pursuing the socially constructed values and interests of the reform faction of the clergy. Thus, in addition to his efforts to continue the work of his predecessors and extirpate the sins of simony and clerical concubinage, Gregory also took steps to assert control over the bishops and to strengthen the administrative apparatus of the papacy. This was the Gregorian or Papal Revolution of the eleventh century, a phenomenon perhaps best understood as an enactment of the basic constitutive script of the Latin clergy in the distinctive conditions of post-Carolingian feudal Europe. He it turn cites this to Cantor refering to the “Gregorian World Revolution.” in Norman F Cantor New York: Harper-Perennial, 1994, The Civilization of the Middle Ages, 243–76. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Borsoka would like a clarification on "later": in particular, I think, that the ideology seems to have become the norm in the mid-C11th and that the refashioning happened under Gregory from about 1073. On a more general point, while editing an article to improve it is always good, it's probably not particularly useful to add tags for secondary issues like clarity and chronology while we're in the process of fixing a bigger problem: as the article is not currently in contention for GA or FA status, we can and should take the proverbial beam out of its eye before looking too closely for specks. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If all they are looking for is a date then I have added From the second half of the 11thcentury. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for drawing my attention to my useless acts. You are right, to be particularly useful, I should again and again review this article to improve it instead of tagging the problems I detected when they are detected. As I mentioned above, I am fed up with reviewing this article, so I suggest you should review it to solve the bigger problem. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)