Talk:Jerusalem during the Crusader period

Untitled
Please work with 
 * User:Staszek Lem/Jerusalem during the Crusader period Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
This article is one of a series of featured articles on the Hebrew Wikipedia describing the history of Jerusalem. These include Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods‎, Jerusalem in the Mamluk period‎ and Jerusalem during the Ottoman period. These create a full picture of this period in history which would be fractured if this article were to be deleted. I think all these articles should be "main articles" which branch of the various sections in the page Kingdom of Jerusalem. I do not think that the duplication of information is reason to delete this, and by extension these articles.--Coin945 (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The material in this article is fully covered in the major article Kingdom of Jerusalem and elsewhere in the English wikipedia, where it is also better written and better referenced. andy (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose speedy deletion: While this article could be trimmed to eliminate some extra-Jerusalem material, there is a historical record and remains which concern Jerusalem exclusively during this period. There has been considerable archaeological work in Jerusalem's Crusader period remains, as well as solid references for the history, so additional sources are available to provide citations for much of the content. &bull; Astynax talk 09:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't necessarily need to be deleted, if any new information is given, or likely to be given, then the article "which has a unique naming concept" should be kept but referenced in the primary article.TheHappiestCritic (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this article before now, but I would also argue that it doesn't duplicate much of the Kingdom of Jerusalem article. The Kingdom covered much more than Jerusalem itself, and in fact did not include Jerusalem at all for more than half of its existence. I have been working on the Kingdom of Jerusalem article for a long time (including some recent edits which led me here), and I never intended to cover the topography, architecture, etc of the actual city of Jerusalem (except where this would be relevant to the crusader kingdom as a whole). Of course this article could still use a lot of work, but it appears to be organized coherently, and has all the sources I expected to find (Prawer, Benvenisti, Boas). I would be happy to help editing and wikifying it, and I'll add a link to it from the K of J article. (I see there are some criticisms below, and I haven't fully read the article yet, but they should be easy to deal with.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I should also mention that we also had a pre-existing series of articles on the history of Jerusalem, including History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages), so some of the information is surely duplicated there. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Blanking and turning into a redirect
I have reverted the material which was blanked and restored the article. There is much material in this article which is not covered in Kingdom of Jerusalem. The focus of this article is, and should be, on the city itself rather than the broader subject of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which much of the time had little to do with the city. There are sources, including English language sources, regarding Crusader period events inside Jerusalem, excavation reports, etc. Turning the article into a redirect to a less-focused article with less information on the subject is not an improvement, even if there are many improvements that still remain to be made. &bull; Astynax talk 17:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say the redirect was very warranted. What we have here is an article which some lazy editor created by running the hebrew article through google translate, they even used the article text as opposed to the source text, hence all the [1]'s thoroughout. The result is a massive article which is pretty much unreadable and unreferenced, the only way to create a legitimate article would be for someone to begin again from scratch.-- Jac 16888 Talk 17:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, Kingdom of Jerusalem patently does not cover most of the subject material in this article. The redirect is improper for that very reason. Nor does the fact that it is a quick translation warrant removing: The machine translation is not completely unreadable, however awkward, and Wikipedia has many such articles and they eventually do get upgraded in quality. City-centric studies of Jerusalem during various periods form a distinct subject in the scholarship, and it isn't unreasonable to have an article on this period, for which there is a large body of historical and archaeological documentation. The solution is to get the work done to improve the article's quality. As I said, there are references in English (including some of those already cited) that cover the city during this period, so improvement is not out of the question. &bull; Astynax talk 18:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You going to tidy it then? Could you have it done by the end of the week, so I can move on to dealing with some other piece of crap article thats been left for someone else to deal with. I don't see how you can look at this article and call it awkward when there are masses of it that are just completely unintelligible. The point is that the place machine translations are listed to be dealt with is WP:PNT, and I can tell you right now that if you were to list this article there absolutely nothing would happen. Tidying this article would be a massive and incredibly difficult undertaking, and nobody there is going to want to do it. The only way this article would become anything is if it was started again from scratch and translated properly-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I will not be tidying it by "the end of the week", though I may assist at some point and time (the article is on my watch list for a reason). I see you have also been blanking/redirecting articles on other periods of Jerusalem's history, and am puzzled as to why you see removing information, no matter how poorly written, as being a better solution than to improve what is there. The original articles seem to be well-referenced, and surely a better approach is to edit—even if it takes months or years for editors to jump in with improvements—rather than delete info, especially when articles contain information that is not available elsewhere. &bull; Astynax talk 06:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you'll get around to it, just like the editor who created it will "get around to it" and never does because it's just too difficult. It's already been over a year since these "articles" were created, and there has been zero progress, and I doubt there ever will be. As you say, the original articles are referenced, which is why it would be much simpler, and much more likely, for someone to start again from scratch. Having articles like this helps no one, they are just too poor to be useful for anything, it's just embarrassing for articles to be sitting in such a terrible state-- Jac 16888 Talk 09:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft
This text is barely comprehensible and in this state it is of great disservice for wikipedia. I understand the importance and the effort. THerefore I moved it to User:Staszek Lem/Jerusalem during the Crusader period. Please contine the work there, until something readable emerges. The problem of unreadability is aggravated by near complete lack of references, so that it is almost iompossible to check the facts and make corrections whenever the text sounds ridiculous (due to machine translation). Machines are not valid wikipedia editors. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've just noticed that I am far from being the first to be appalled with the article state, yet it continues to resurrect. If you want to do this again, withoiut major cleanup done first,  please be advised, per wikipedia rules, one can delete any contested unreferenced text at any moment. By this rule I can delete 90% of the text in question, and you hav no right to restore it without providing references tio reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For translators
Be advised that the original Hebrew text is located here. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  15:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, for reference, I made some translation edits here that seem to have gotten pasted over. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  16:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Be also advised that
 * (a) traditions and rules of other wikis with respect to verifiability and original research significantly differ from accepted in english wikipedia. Therefore blindly copying from one wiki to another is not always a valid approach.
 * (b) The topic "Jerusalem during the Crusader period" is significantly covered in the article Kingdom of Jerusalem. Therefore, per WP:FORK, the verifiable content of "User:Staszek Lem/Jerusalem during the Crusader period" must be merged into "Kingdom of Jerusalem". On the other hand, "Jerusalem during the Crusader period" is a reasonable overview topic which is good to cover the pieces that fell off the topic "Kingdom of Jerusalem" due to its specific scope. Per WP:Summary style, "Jerusalem during the Crusader period" must contain a summary section "Kingdom of Jerusalem", bearing in mind that the content must not diverge. All new additions to KoJ topic must go first to the main article, and only the to the summary section, in form of a summary. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In response: (a) The original article is well sourced, although the references appear to have been obliterated during the machine translation. Those refs do indeed need to be restored. (b) The topic of Jerusalem during the Crusader period is (justifiably) not covered to much of any extent in the article on the Kingdom of Jerusalem political entity—any more than, say, Jerusalem may be said to be significantly covered by the Israel article. There is a very notable history and archaeology that is specific to the city during this period which is neither a PoV fork or part of or covered by the topic of Kingdom of Jerusalem. &bull; Astynax talk 17:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case please make sure that the article is indeed restricted to what had happened to the city, rather than repeat all political events in the (relatively small) area. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note to support what Astyanax said. The Kingdom of Jerusalem article (which I have been working on sporadically) is not about Jerusalem the city, it is about the state which also happens to be called Jerusalem. For about half of its history, the city of Jerusalem was not even a part of the kingdom. I admit that I only skimmed the article when it first appeared, but it did include all the reliable scholarly sources I would expect to see for this subject. This could be an excellent related article, whatever its current problems may be. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At a closer look, I have to agree with you. This article only superficially resembles that of "Kingdom of Jerusalem". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)