User talk:Dweller/Crusades

Discussion
please add as many citation needed tags to this as you like but only in the specific areas you think opinion is given as fact. Say here when you're done with this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * please don't edit the text until that's done/ --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. I do not say that the section contains original research or it is not verified, but I say it is not neutral. I will choose another tag. Originally I placed tags at the end of the sentences, but they were deleted, because Prawer is a leading historian. :) Borsoka (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Any leading academic in any field can have his views on certain things challenged and if that challenge is notable, we should reflect it. Amend it how you like here (you can't break anything because it's not live text in the encyclopedia, that's the beauty of working on drafts in userspace) and then Norfolkbigfish can see what you've done and suggest improvements. No big rush. WP:NODEADLINE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, history is developing, like the constitution of the Jerusalemite kingdom. I copy here the text that Norfolkbigfish deleted, that still could be a start, because it is neutral: "Historian Peter Lock states, "legal and constitutional developments in Jerusalem kept abreast, if not in the forefront, of similar developments in Europe". The holders of the major fiefs were members of the kings' High Court—an advisory, legislative and judicial body. The great officers of the realm also attended the High Court. The monarchs convened the delegates of knights, clerics and burghers to general assemblies to discuss matters of general interest. The laws passed at the High Court, or the Assizes of Jerusalem, were collected by Philip of Novara and John of Ibelin in the 13thcentury. The aristocrats protected their fiefs against the monarchs' arbitrary actions, insisting on their right to be judged by peers and withdrawing their loyalty from kings ignoring their liberties. Aristocratic opponents to the Hohenstaufen monarchs established the Commune of Acre to replace the High Court, because only the monarch or his representative could summon the High Court. " Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

—please add your tagging to the user space— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dweller/Crusades —as Dweller requested. You did it for the article so it should be straight forward. As I committed, I won't amend until you post that it is completed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * do you agree with Norfolkbigfish's above suggestion? I placed the tags in the section as you requested above. Borsoka (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I had intended that you just add tags or similar to the text I lifted from the article and dumped into the userpage that's on the flip side of this talk page, but now I'm not sure. Are you suggesting rewriting the section from scratch, Borsoka? I don't mind either way, but if you are, I'd want to check that you both think that's the right approach. It's more of a challenge, but I suppose there's actually more chance you can both end up with something you're happy with. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. Yes, I think rewriting is the best approach. My tags in the article show that there is a serious neutrality issue. Borsoka (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you happy to proceed with that? It will be more difficult but ultimately there's more chance of real success. I'd suggest you begin by both suggesting utterly uncontentious inclusions. Be really strict with yourselves in choosing what you know the other will definitely have no problem with. I've blanked the other page in readiness for it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, lets give it a go. I have added what I think is uncontentious to the page, with a paragraph per point (formatting can be sorted after the content. There are some points that may be contentious:
 * When didt the constitutional arrangements of Jerusalem stopped evolving, in contrast to the centralising European courts developing new administration, judicial and legislative systems. I suspect the compromise is the fall of the First Kingdom
 * The commune of Acre is not mentioned explicitly or the War of the Lombards
 * Jotischky mentions the principle of the King in the High Court, this very important and needs inclusion. All those who paid homage directly to the king were members of the Haute Cour of Jerusalem, sovereign authority rested not solely with the monarch, but with the monarch in consultation with the Haute Cour e.g. all fief-holders.
 * The period from 1186 to 1286 when the kings were either minors or consorts and the kings' authority disappearing in the 1220s needs mentioning. Perhape it needs to be chronological? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the above points are now reflected in the current version. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The current tagging in the article is:
 * At the beginning of the 12thcentury governance in Jerusalem was similar to that throughout western Christendom is tagged dubious with the reason Riley-Smith and Lock make it clear that at least until the fall of the first kingdom governance was similar to that throughout western Christendoms.
 * The text and the objection look identical to me, I assume the objection is to the beginning used in the text as opposed to the fall. Although the original was sourced, the draft text now does not refer to the beginning and considers the period up 1187 as the period for discussion. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Control was exercised at the Haute Cour— high court— or Curia Regis between the king and his tenants in chief. was tagged dubious with the reason Lock makes it clear that other institutions, such as an early form of general assembly of the knights, burghers and clergy existed.
 * I assume it is Lock's reference to Nablus ? He doesn't appear to refer to this as another instituition, rather than an enlarged version of the high court. That is not to say there wasn't other courts e.g. at a feudatory level, burgesses, market and amongst the native peoples. But this section is about the Monarchy, is it not? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * After 1125 the constitutional arrangements of Jerusalem stopped evolving, in contrast to the centralising European courts developing new administration, judicial and legislative systems. was tagged dubious with the reasons
 * 1. The section contradicts itself: the last sentence writes of new consitutional institutions emerging in the 1220s.
 * Assume this refers to the commune of Acre? This only lasted 12 years before the barons were able to re-establish control of Jersualem. All the same this is commented on in the draft text. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. Riley-Smith praises the intellectual achievement of the mid-13th-century lawyer barons.
 * Riley-Smith's rather dim view of the barons is quoted in the draft text now. The achieevement was the written works rather than the legal system, which is why, I think, Jotischky describes their work as sophisticated theoretical treatises. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The cause may have been the prioritisation of military needs, the increase in power of the nobility as opposed to the increase in power of the monarchy seen in Europe or the Haute Cour changing from offering counsel to the position where the king was compelled to follow it. was tagged dubious with the reason ''Steven Tibble demonstrates that the monarchs were able to manipulate the great barons, because the barons were not rich enough to be independent from the crown.
 * I don't have access to Tibble, can it be elaborated which kings, how they manipulated and when. To me, if the kings needed to resort to manipulation it implies they didn't have sovereign authority.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For similar reasons, as Guy Perry demonstrates, even John of Ibelin was able to control the administration of the kingdom until 1225.''
 * I assume it is John of Brienne that is refered to here rather than John of Ibelin and notwithstanding the fact he was forced from his title and exiled by Frederick II, Asbridge disagrees: John....spent much of his career seeking to assert his right to the Jerusalemite crown-styling himself as king despite the objections of the local nobility, ...now claiming the title of king,, his support for a pact with Egypt was rejected by the Fith Crusade,, his advice to retreat from Damietta was rejected, and In the early 1220s John still claimed the title "king of Jersusalem" [Asbridge's quotes] through his role as regent for his daughter Isabella II, but faced an uphill battle to assert his legitimacy against Outremer's independent-minded Frankish barons, who had now become paticularly adept at using the laws of the realm to limit royal authority,Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All those who paid homage directly to the king were now members of the Haute Cour of Jerusalem, sovereign authority rested not solely with the monarch, but with the monarch in consultation with the Haute Cour e.g. all fief-holders. was tagged dubious with the reason Close paraphrasing combined with original research: Jotischky only writes of jurisdiction and the idea of judgement by peers.
 * No, Jotischky writes that sovereign authority rested not in the king alone but in the king's judgement in consultation with the High Court and sovereignity rested with the king in the High Court. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  This was made possible by the period from 1186 to 1286 when the kings were either minors or consorts. was tagged dubious with the reason Perry makes it clear that the kings' authority disappeared in the period of absent monarchs in the 1220s. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clearer in the draft text, and the reference to minors and consorts has been removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Little break from me
I may not be onwiki that much over the next few days. If you get to the point where you're doing contentious stuff and think you might like to have a go at it without me, do it one statement/reference at a time and don't move on to the next until you are both happy. You can use this page to discuss. If/when you get stuck or you'd rather wait for me, that is fine. Don't get upset with each other (expect a problem!) just ping me here and I'll ping you both back when I have time to take this on again.

You might see me onwiki in the meantime. It'll be me doing things that require little or no time/brain. Don't think I'm ignoring you. This needs proper attention to resolve amicably. You're both fine contributors and just need a little help to get past this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Enjoy the break, I think we will be here when you get back! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Back in
Hi. are you ready to critique the text on the userpage? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, but there is an AN and I understood the mediation was closed. Borsoka (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If we can come to some agreements here, it would help reduce the conflict. Big if I know. But I'm an optimist. Who knows, if we settle this, we could move on to the Turkic question. Let's try? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. For the time being, I do not have time, but a couple of hours later I can deal with this issue. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

For both of you. There is NO RUSH. Don't edit here in a hurry. You need time to be calm and thoughtful. Me too! If this takes six months, so be it. Whatever. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. :) Borsoka (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Been distracted from this IRL, will start picking up on this now, but time may be limited at first. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As this appears to be dormant I have moved the proposed text into the article to see if any other editors wish to comment. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving Around
Looking at this again some of the text in the crusade narrative fits better in the Monarchy section. I have added this to the draft so they can be worked up together. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

—I have moved this from the user page to the talk. It is more sensible to keep all the discussion together and leave the user page as text for the article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Borsoka
A text should reach a level to be edited or commented. The above text does not reach that level. Sorry, I commented the lengthy article which contained original research, original synthesis, close paraphrasing and PoV-pushing for more than two months. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A little more politeness than this yes, it is difficult to understand - especially to those who have not read a single book about the crusades wouldn't go amiss. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above is a neutral and civil summary of facts. Borsoka (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)