Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feudal wars 12th–14th century


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — VersaceSpace  🌃 00:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

List of feudal wars 12th–14th century

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. "Feudal war" is not a commonly recognised type of war amongst historians or other scholars. The fact that some works use the phrase 'feudal war' does not make it a type. This list could including virtually ANY war during the age of feudalism, which is very vague, although currently somewhat arbitrarily defined as 1100–1400 in Europe. Also, without justification, it states 'This list will not include religious wars.' Why not? It's just random, based on two random sources that aren't very good and merely use the phrase 'feudal war(fare)'. The scope is so vague defined and broad that it could be any type of war (except religious ones, for some reason), in any European country, at any time during 1100–1400. The potential number of items on this list is near infinite. This is just a not useful way of categorising information, no scholar will use this, no reader will find this helpful. If anything, it appears a partial WP:CONTENTFORK from War of succession, War of succession, List of wars in the Low Countries until 1560, and a bunch of other articles. Anything not yet mentioned in those lists can be complemented by items on this list, but otherwise I suggest deleting the whole thing. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: The author Tgec17 ignored Mccapra's warning not to publish this article due to a lack of reliable independent sources, and therefore moved it to Tgec17's draftspace: User_talk:Tgec17. Tgec17 simply republished it by saying 'There are plenty of citations and the article is suitable to remain published'. At the time, the article had exactly zero citations. Tgec17 has a long track record of not following policies and guidelines, and ignoring warnings from other users who tell Tgec17 to comply to these rules. I wonder why this user is not yet blocked; their behaviour shows a disruptive pattern rather than a willingness to learn and be constructive. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR:

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've transferred some useful bits and pieces to war of succession. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep List of nobles and magnates of France in the 13th century, List of nobles and magnates within the Holy Roman Empire in the 13th century, List of nobles and magnates of England in the 13th century, List of nobles and magnates within Scandinavia in the 13th century These are perfect valid as list articles and give a detailed chronological listing of the rulers in particular place over a particular time. At a glance you can see what is what. They satisfy WP:NLIST and shouldn't have been included in the Afd. It is absurd that they violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR when they all of one, in chronological order within their own group and there is a truly monumental and vast of number sources for each entry.  scope_creep Talk  08:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Is this actually the case? I don't think "nobles and magnates (with)in [country X] in the 13th century" has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Who is and is not a "magnate" or "noble" is in dispute. E.g. does this include or exclude clergy with only spiritual power? In the HRE article they appear to be excluded (only prince-bishops etc.), in the England article they are included, with the curious rule: "Bishops who ruled for less than three years will not be listed to avoid clutter." This is pretty random. No such rule is applied to temporal lords. E.g. Geoffrey FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex ruled from 14 October 1213 to 23 February 1216, which is 2 years and 4 months. This is excludable "clutter" according to the author's own logic, but nevertheless included. Another random rule states: "Several Archbishops are not listed because they were either not consecrated, set aside within 3 years, did not rule for more than a year, or were quashed by the pope/the king." It is similar to how "religious wars" are apparently randomly excluded from the list of feudal wars. Does "nobles and magnates" include or exclude emperors and kings? The HRE article includes them, the England article excludes them. Moreover, no distinction is made between Kings of the Romans, Holy Roman Emperors, anti-Kings of the Romans, and anti-Emperors. All are given apparently equal status and validity. The articles Holy Roman Emperor, List of German monarchs and Interregnum (Holy Roman Empire) do this way better. This is just not acceptable. I can mention dozens more issues with all these lists that show they are indiscriminate (or actually arbitrarily discriminate) and based on original research of what "nobles and magnates" are, and which groups do and do not belong in that category. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: Why are List of Holy Roman empresses excluded? Why are List of German queens excluded? Why are (princess-)abbesses from Thorn, Burtscheid, Elten, Rijnsburg etc. such as Ada of Holland (died 1258) excluded? Do women not count (no pun intended) as nobles or magnates? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment re "Feudal war" is not a commonly recognised type of war amongst historians or other scholars.
 * Civilian Victims in War, "By far the most disturbing element in early medieval feudal society was private feudal war", p. 59, ISBN 1412843758
 * The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages, distinguishes four legal states of war in the period, #3 being "feudal or covered war (guerre couverte), in which men could wound and kill without blame, but could not burn or take spoil", p. 104, ISBN 1317397592.
 * The Laws of Yesterday’s Wars, again recognises the concept of private feudal war as a distinct concept, pp. 103-104, ISBN 9004464298. SpinningSpark 11:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are etymologically confused by the word feudal. The list refers to feudalism, which comes from Latin feudum (wikt:feud), related to fee and fief, and means "An estate granted to a vassal by a feudal lord in exchange for service." On the other hand, a feud, blood feud, private war etc. comes from Proto-West Germanic *faihiþu (“hatred, enmity”) (wikt:feud), and means "A state of long-standing mutual hostility". Whether a "list of private wars" or somesuch is a legitimate topic for an article is an entirely separate question from the one we're addressing here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not confused. All three sources, to one extent or another, define it as war between vassals, as opposed to a war ordered by a Prince.  Not as a private, uncontrolled feud.  All three place more or less the same legal restrictions on such war.  I think it is the article that is confused, not me. SpinningSpark 18:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Either way, then this article must be deleted, or completely overhauled, to fit your definition. I think the author Tgec17 clearly meant "feudal" as in feudalism, also because the periodisation coincides with 12th–14th century, what they called "the golden age of feudalism", as that is all the intro is about. We could change it to mean "(blood) feuds" if you really want to, I just don't think that makes much sense, because many of the wars listed are not "feuds" as such at all. The article Feud also already has several lists, so if anything, I would start improving and expanding that article before creating this highly odd, arbitrary, nonsensical spin-off. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing to "List of blood feuds" is exactly the opposite of what I was promoting. Neither the article as it stands, nor the sources I linked are talking about any such thing. SpinningSpark 18:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I think you're in the wrong place. I would suggest you start writing your own article. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep - Apologies if I am not responding in the correct format its been a while since I took part in one of these discussions and I forgot what the exact format is. Several points were raised and perhaps I should explain the concept of the article more clearly. During the middle ages many wars which began were due to personal disagreements or feuds however this is not necessarily the case. The reason why religious wars were excluded is because they are wars based on a cause which is not initiated by a personal disagreement but rather a religious or cultural one. Similarly Mongol invasions should also be Excluded because they were not caused by personal disagreements. That is basically the concept of the article wars stemmed from personal disagreements in the middle ages. The part which makes it unclear is that sometimes the wars had multiple causes some of which were personal reasons. I have tried to use my best judgement of which wars to include but perhaps not all of them fit perfectly. So there is no question it is a clearly defined list. This concept of feudal war is well known in academic circles and I'm surprised anyone on Wikipedia would doubt its validity as an article.

The complainant mentioned inconsistencies in the articles as a way to discredit this article so I feel obliged to respond to these in this Afd; despite the fact that they are not relevant the complainant has brought them into the discussion. Namely the exclusion of several bishops and archbishops from the list, the absence of kings listed for England, and the absence of women in the lists. These inconsistencies were not done for no reason. The list of bishops is often exhaustive for 100 years sometimes reaching over 20 bishops in the century. Some of these bishops were contested or didn't reign for very long and sometimes the only thing known about them is there name. It doesn't make sense to include them it clutters the article. The complainant brought up how in the holy roman empire only prince-bishops were listed whereas in the others all bishops were listed. Again this is mainly due to the incompletition of the article but for the Empire the priority has to be on getting the high ranking magnates listed first. England and etc. mostly don't have prince-bishops so the bishops are listed instead. On the other hand the secular nobility rarely have more than 10 title holders in the century so even if there is a noble who ruled for only a few years he is still included because there is enough room for him.

During the 13th century England was a highly centralized country whereas France and the Holy roman Empire were very decentralized. England also had a very stable monarchy in the 13th century whereas the Holy roman Empire was a very unstable elective monarchy. The result was that often the rulers of France and the Holy Roman Empire were rivaled by their powerful vassals who had far more independence then the English vassals. Therefore the rulers are listed because in a sense they were magnates themselves who held supremacy whereas the king of England was in a stronger position of royal power (partly because all the land which was taken over after the battle of Hastings). As for Scandinavia again the position of king was EXTREMELY unstable often the kings would be murdered and replaced which indicates that they had stiff competition from their magnates. Also there are not many known magnates in Scandinavia at the time so it seemed appropriate to beef up the article a bit.

The reason the women were not given much attention in the original articles is twofold. One, because during the middle ages most of the time women did not hold land and were not magnates. Often when they did have a title it was as a regent and it would have been exhaustive to list every single regency. Two because the articles are incomplete as should be obvious to anyone who read them; if you think this is missing you should add it yourself.

Another thing which was mentioned was the fact that all rulers of the HRE were mentioned not just the legitimate ones. Indeed this is very appropriate for the article because it is looking at them through the scope of magnates not solely as rulers. The list of emperors gives a clear list of all the Emperors and Emperor claimants which also provides an intuitive timeline. During this time often the difference between claimants was not a clear cut and different parts of the Empire recognized different claimants regardless of which city they were crowned in. To me this was a pretty clear indication that the complainant did not understand the scope of the article because it is not meant as a list of kings but as a list of magnates; the kings also functioned as magnates in decentralized countries. There are Wikipedia lists which list the same things but under different qualifiers, this is why the kings are listed in this way because they are being listed as magnates.

It is also mentioned that religious wars were not included "without justification". It is true that there was no direct explanation why they wouldn't be included but I thought it was obvious to anyone who had read the first paragraphs of the article. Regardless I have added a justification "This list will not include religious wars because they are induced by ideological rather than personal or familial conflict".

As far as the etymology when I was writing the article I had the idea of using the word Feudal as in "feud; personal conflict" in the 12th-14th centuries which is a clearly defined list. During this time there were many of these feuds but the list is not infinite it is actually quite limited partly due to the lack of surviving documents. There are literally hundreds of Wikipedia lists which are far longer.

Another user has already explained why the article is not an indiscriminate list and I explained it too. The article also cites sources about what a feudal war is and why it is its own particular brand of war.

P.S. I wonder why the complainant felt the need to add this "I wonder why this user is not yet blocked; their behaviour shows a disruptive pattern rather than a willingness to learn and be constructive." It seems like a strange personal opinion which indicates bias, perhaps the complainant is not suitable to make such a deletion post at all. I have made many quality articles and frankly this is a bit insulting. --Tgec17 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It appears from the above that the intended inclusion criteria of the creator were in line with the definition given in the sources I provided. Any issues with improper inclusion can be dealt with by normal editing.  The keep rational above is tl;dr and I'm not following all of it, especially this dispute about bishops, but as I said, the article is broadly in line with sources. SpinningSpark</b> 13:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.