Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Historiography of the Crusades

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Historiography of the Crusades
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it turns out to be suprisingly interesting as a subject. The article is now fairly neat and tidy. It has just passed a GAR and it would be interesting to see what feedback you kind folks at Milhist would care to give it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7
There are some parts where the meaning of the text is unclear:


 * The debate between religious idealism, military conflict, and pragmatic contingency meant that crusading was always controversial. The debate is not between these things.
 * Removed The debate between Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It maintained a rhetorical, legal, and emotional connection to the objective of the Holy Land, but also proved applicable to other areas of interest to the Catholic Church. What are we talking about here? The crusades? The debates? Or the histiography?
 * With the rephrsing above this now reads better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Eastern Baltic is not pointing at the right place.
 * Baltic Region Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * the argument between the idealistic and the materialistic motivations of crusaders Again, argument is notbetween these things.
 * Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * critical history boasted the subject Is "boasted" the right word here?
 * changed to increased interest in'


 * against pagans, heretics, or for alleged religious ends Suggest: "against pagans and heretics, or for alleged religious ends"?
 * Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Historiographical issues:


 * considered a penitential exercise rewarding the participants with forgiveness for all confessed sins Was this case from the beginning?
 * Yes, added surviving quote in translation from the surviving eveidence of Pope Urban II's decree in 1095 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The modern English "crusade" dates to the early 1700s. Adopted from the French?
 * .....and Spanish & Latin, done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Later commentators Who? What names and numbers were posited. Since the article is on historiography, this should be there.
 * Used Pasquier as the earliest I could find and reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Attitudes toward the Crusades during the Reformation were shaped by confessional debates What were they about?
 * Changed confessional debates to the breakup of religious orthodoxy and expanded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * For them the positive effects of crusading, such as the increasing liberty that municipalities were able to purchase from feudal lords, were only by-products. Um, that's correct actually.
 * Removed by product and expanded to get closer to what they meant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You critique Michaud before introducing him. Suggest reorganising the section.
 * Fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby was very conscious of possible offence arising from crusading rhetoric or triumphalism This needs to be explained; most readers will not know what you're talking about. Ditto for the Kaiser's 1898 trip.
 * Moved, and expanded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The British media were not so sensitive and apocryphal, but repeated quotes were attributed to Allenby. Another sentence that makes no sense. Also seems to be in the wrong section.
 * Expanded for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * a dated polemic that was derivative, tendentious and misleading even at the time Derivative of what works? Tendentious in what way? Mislaeading about what issues?
 * Expanded this to relect who it was derivative of and why it was tendentious. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Giles Constable attempted to categorise what is meant by Crusade into four areas of contemporary crusade study. Sounds like he is classifying the works, not the meanings of Crusade. Unless I've completely misunderstood what you're trying to say, which is quite possible. (Apparently I'm a popularist.)
 * I am more of a generalist myself, but I think Constable was only having a bit of fun with this. I have rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * For him the crusades are a medieval phenomenon in which the crusaders were engaged in a defensive war war on behalf of their co-religionists. This leads us towards a discussion of the whole just war doctrine.
 * This is more of a statement than suggestion . Would you care to elaborate? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Other:


 * Don't link modern-day countries like Israel, Germany and Italy
 * Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The usage of the term "crusade" can create a misleading impression Move this sentence to the next paragraph.
 * Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Link jihād, William of Tyre, Albigensians, Waldensians, indulgences, clash of civilisations
 * Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * De-capitalise "rationalists"
 * Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi : what are your thoughts on the responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Article looks good now. When I first reviewed I had doubts, but the work done in response to my comments ond those of others has addressed my concerns.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Image review: Two images, both fine.
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

 * Lead


 * "competing interpretations from the capture of Jerusalem" "from" → 'since'.
 * done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "The religious idealism, military conflict, and pragmatic contingency of crusading was always controversial." I think that you are trying to fit too much into this sentence. Religious idealism was always controversial: Umm, well, at least I understand that. Military conflict was always controversial: really? In what way? I know this is the lead, but what is this trying to communicate to a reader? The pragmatic contingency of crusading was always controversial." You what? What does "pragmatic contingency" even mean?
 * Ammended to reflect use of violence & compromises the crusaders made with morality. Does this work? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "While it maintained a rhetorical, legal, and emotional connection to the objective of the Holy Land" Either delete "the objective of" or add what the objective was - eg 'to the objective of capturing/holding the Holy Land'.
 * done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "These wars created a body of literature, liturgy, and new religious orders" I think that you mean 'These wars created a body of literature and liturgy, and new religious orders'.
 * done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "culturally normative" Could this be rephrased for a more general audience, per WP:TECHNICAL.
 * done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "The secular and religious were considered fundamentally different and historians found agreeing a consensus reconciling the idealistic and the materialistic motivations of crusaders challenging." 1. "The secular and religious were considered fundamentally different" - from the 17th century; prior to it; or both? And by whom? 2. Are "secular and religious" meant to align with "idealistic and the materialistic" If so, it may make easier reading if only one pair of words is used. (And in the same order.) If not, I don't understand the sentence.
 * From 17th century, by enlightement thinkers & yes. Does it make more sense now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Enlightenment thinkers considered the crusaders culturally inferior and Protestants considered them morally so." To what? It doesn't seem to make sense to set up a comparison with no comparator.
 * themselves done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "In the early 20th century this became a focus on the Crusades as drivers of conquest and economics." It is unclear if this is suggesting that the Crusades were drivers of conquest and economics in the 20th Century; while they were taking place; both; or during some other period or periods.
 * medieval done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "This was reinforced by the establishment of Israel in 1948 which prompted the historical parallelism that still reverberates today." Unless a reader already understands this point, I am not sure that this communicates much. (And, eg, can one prompt historical parallelism, or is it 'prompted efforts to draw historical parallels'?)
 * It is the latter Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Crusading historiography continues to develop using the latest techniques" Which seems to beg the question of what these techniques are.
 * I have just removed the latest techniques, wouldn't be sensible to use out of date techniques! :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish: Apologies if the above seems over critical. I had thought myself passingly familiar with the topic - in a broad and superficial way - but having read the lead several times - but not, yet, any of the article - I can't say that I actually understand what it is trying to communicate. I have tried to break this down into actionable comments, but it may be that you are attempting to cram too much information on a technical subject into the confines of the lead.

I will take a break and come back at the main article later. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem with the the criticism, as ever it is appreciated. It is a dense and difficult subject (for me anyway) and I think you may be right and I have over summarised technical detail in the lead. Will work through your comments. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a bit of a mess, hope it is better now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Terminology


 * "in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries" "and" → 'or'.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "for the Holy Land" Should "for" be 'to'? If not, something is missing.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "The conflicts to which the term is applied extended to include" Possibly 'The conflicts to which the term was applied were later extended to include'?
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "against pagans, heretics and for alleged religious ends." These three bundle poorly. Suggest 'against pagans or heretics and for other alleged religious ends' or similar.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "From the very beginning and the only surviving copy of the first papal decree" Delete "the very beginning and the only surviving copy of".
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Link "penitential". To Repentance (Christianity), not penitential.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "were used for the campaign" Maybe 'were used to describe the campaign'? Or 'were used to describe participation in the campaign'?
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "the modern English word "crusade" is derived Spanish, French and Latin" Is there a missing 'from'?
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "was used for a religious war of Muslims against unbelievers" Optional: "of" → 'by'.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "often taught as a duty by the Quran and traditions" Maybe 'and Islamic traditions'?
 * —rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "By the mid 13th century the cross became the major descriptor of the crusades with crux transmarina—"the cross overseas"—used for crusades in the eastern Mediterranean" By this definition the Eighth Crusade was not crux transmarina. Is that intentional?
 * — ~Afraid not, rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk)


 * Background


 * "the Palestine, Syria and Egypt" Delete "the".
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Western-ruled" This needs expanding or recasting.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "The East–West Schism" Suggest adding 'between the Roman Catholic Church of Western Europe and the Greek Orthodox Church of the Near and Middle East'.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Link "sacking" to looting.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "church protections for property and family" 1. Why is "protections" plural? 2. Maybe 'for a crusader's property and family'?
 * —Well there was more than one type of protection but I have generalised it to match Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Medieval & Reformation


 * "most notably Gesta Francorum" Should there be a 'the'?
 * Now, my knowledge of Latin is virtually non-existent, but I think the answer is no. I take this from the practice of not putting a the in front of {{lang|la|Magna Carta, I assume that the the is embedded in the Latin. I have added the language tag though.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there a link for "Papalist"?
 * Popery and Papism is where Papalist links to. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Papacy continued to authorise crusades in the 16th century such as in the 1520s for the defence of Central Europe, in 1536 in England for the Pilgrimage of Grace, in 1568 for the granting of indulgences for killing Huguenots, in 1571 the Battle of Lepanto and in 1588 for the Spanish Armada." Issues with the bit "The Papacy continued to authorise crusades in the 16th century such as ... in 1568 for the granting of indulgences for killing Huguenots" which doesn't really work.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "reached a peak in the legal writing of Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius" It would be good to add approximately when this was.
 * in the late 16th and early 17th{{nbsp}}centuries Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Just War concepts replaced those of Holy War" I don't think that should be an upper case Ws.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "He also condemned the use of the Crusades against" Optional: "the Crusades" → 'crusades'.
 * — standardised on crusade throughout Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Pasquier highlighted the failures of the crusades" Is the lower case "c" deliberate?
 * No, see above Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Pasquier highlighted ... he highlights" The tense used should be consistent.


 * Enlightenment


 * "The sole positive effect of crusading was the increasing liberty that municipalities were able to purchase from feudal lords, which had enabled towns to become the source of a new civilised rationality." I think that you have missed a "in their view" or similar.
 * I had assumed it was unwritten, now it is written :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "opinionions"? {{smiley}}
 * —done :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "The cultural consequences of growth in trade, the rise of the Italian cities and progress are elaborated in his work." The "and progress" sits a bit oddly. Just progress generally?
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Much of the popular understanding" This needs dating; eg, 'in the 19th century' or 'today'.
 * Went for today Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Link Romantics.
 * Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Link Ancien Régime. I am doubtful of its plural use; is it commonly applied to anywhere other than France?
 * Linked but left plural as Tyerman uses it as an analogy for all the traditional regimes in Europe. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "touring the Near East in 1831" Just the Near East?
 * —rephrased, used visted, it was only his time in the Near East that is relevant, don't you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "commissioned by king Louis-Philippe" Upper case K.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "and two Armenian volumes including related miscellania" Why no publication date(s) for these volumes?
 * — 1869 and 1906 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Modern


 * Link polemic.
 * — Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "even at the time" I think that this is redundant; when else would a reader assume was meant?
 * — Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Greek specialist George Finlay" → 'the Greek specialist George Finlay' per false title.
 * — Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Not much reflection was given to the inclusion from the Early Modern Period of other theatres of war" Optional: → 'Not much reflection was given to the inclusion of other theatres of war from the Early Modern Period'.
 * — Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "The German historian Carl Erdmann presented a significant challenge" I am not quite following this. A challenge to who or what?
 * — reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "By 1977 Riley-Smith, who was a dominant influential figure in academic crusade studies, proposed a wider definition." "By" → 'In'.
 * — Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "The key to definition rested with papal authority" This reads as if the pope had the authority to decide the definition.
 * — rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "into four areas with differing definitions" Maybe 'into four areas each with differing definitions'?
 * — Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "His view was that Traditionalists such as" Why an upper case T?
 * {{mdash}} typo Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "with where the crusades were aimed" I am not sure here if you mean at what the crusades were physically aimed; 'at what they were aimed at achieving; or at where they geographically took place.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Jerusalem & the Holy Land Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Latin holy wars". I think this needs defining.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Historical parallelism": is there a more accessible way of phrasing this?
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "even if only for propaganda purposes" Delete "even".
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "a struggle against a religious enemy" Optional: → 'a struggle against a perceived religious enemy'.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Colonialism and nationalism


 * "espoused propaganda of the country's Mediterranean colonies" I don't think that this is grammatical. (And I am not sure what it is meant to convey.)
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "and provided a source of popular models that were criticised and dismantled when empires ceased to hold academic approval" This is grammatical, but needs unpacking a little more in order to communicate comprehensively.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} .... and again Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "and Francisco Franco-era Spain" Delete "Francisco" and link to Francoist Spain.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Early modern period and Francisco Franco-era Spain presented a special case where nationalism and national identity could be projected onto the crusades." I agree that this needs saying, but I think that it needs overtly tying to the Reconquista.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "the crsuades''.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "with ostentatious tour" Insert 'an'.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Islam


 * "The Muslim world exhibited little interest in the crusades as they were not considered significant events until the middle of the 19th{{nbsp}}century." → 'The Muslim world exhibited little interest in the crusades until the middle of the 19th{{nbsp}}century, as they were not considered significant events.' maybe?
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "a more marginal issue compared to" Delete "more".
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "the collapse of the Caliphate through the Mongol invasions" Optional: "through" → 'caused by'.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "who suppressed Arab nationalism" "who" → 'which'.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Arabic-speaking Syrian Christians began translating French histories into Arabic" Since when?
 * "the Egyptian Sayyid Ali al-Hariri producing the first Arabic history of the crusades" When? And what was it called?
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Muslim forces' triumph over their enemies" This is very broad. Do you mean something like 'Medieval Muslim forces' triumph over the crusaders'?
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Saladin's Western reputation for chivalry was not reflected in the Muslim world" I don't think that "reflected" works. Something like 'the Muslim world did not consider Saladin to possess a reputation for chivalry in the way that was popularly assumed in the west' maybe?
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "He had had been largely forgotten and eclipsed" Delete "forgotten and"'
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "The visit and anti-imperialist sentiment" "The visit" → 'Wilhelm's'.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Primary Sources


 * Why is each entry in the last three sections dated, but not those in the first?
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Phew! I am going to take a breather. If I have not started responding to your responses in two or three days, feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks {{mdash}} how is it looking now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Take two
You will want to check my copy editing.


 * "subsequent debates that followed" One of "subsequent" or "that followed" is redundant.
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "debates that followed often remained controversial" Do you mean 'were controversial'?
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "examined the Crusades as the origins of nation building, government, commerce, and modern civilisation" I get "origins of nation building", but are you really saying that there was no functional government, commerce nor modern civilisation before them?
 * removed functional government, commerce and modern civilisation Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Crusades themselves as a nationalistic ideal" Suggest "ideal" → 'endeavour'.
 * Left this as is, itention was to use ideal as in Existing as an idea or archetype Norfolkbigfish (talk)


 * "in 1571 the Battle of Lepanto" The church didn't authorise the battle, it authorised a series of maritime campaigns, one of which involved the battle.
 * Reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "History of the crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land" Upper case C when in title case.
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Scott's description of an inferior culture attacking a more sophisticated one mixed with Michaud's proto-colonialist conviction." Optional: ad 'in the popular imagination or similar.
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Constable's four types: three have upper case initial letters, "traditionalists" doesn't. Is there a reason?
 * mistake, none of them are proper nouns so all lower case now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Constable should include the page numbers for the article.
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a heavy reliance on one source. Not that there is anything wrong with the source per se. I shall leave the issue for whoever does the source review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Now a very tidy little article which covers the A class criteria so I am supporting. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Robinvp11

 * This is an A-class review so I'll be brutally honest, because I think you've ignored most of the points I made. I'm interested in the topic, but I found the article in general incomprehensible, over-written (ie never misses the opportunity to use a three syllable word, and if possible, several), and really hard to read. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; in its current state, I can't see a general user reading it.
 * Don't take away the impression I have ignored your comments, been away, busy and cycling round to how best to address them Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many statements in this article I would challenge eg The near constant stream of military campaigns from Europe to Palestine, Syria and Egypt make it virtually impossible to differentiate separate campaigns; or what does 'crusade enthusiasts' even mean? However, that would be re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic, while ignoring the gaping hole below the waterline.

''From the 17th century historians began rejecting religious interpretations and instead examined the Crusades as the origins of nation building. From this period they began considering that secular and religious motivations were fundamentally different and it was found that agreeing a consensus reconciling the idealistic and the materialistic was challenging. Enlightenment thinkers considered the crusaders culturally inferior to themselves and Protestants considered them morally so.''
 * The Lead is confusing and needs to be tighter and shorter, eg I've read this several times, and still don't understand what it means. It also makes a series of really sweeping statements.
 * Maybe you missed this but as before, I have no idea what this means, and it contains a number of very debatable statements that aren't adequately supported by the article. In fact, I've read the entire Lead several times and I'm genuinely unsure what I should be taking away.
 * The whole article needs simplification, much greater attention to grammar, and elimination of long, run-on sentences is eg His view was that traditionalists such as Hans Eberhard Mayer are concerned with the crusades geopgraphical objectives i.e. Jerusalem and the Holy Land, pluralists such as Riley-Smith concentrate on how the crusades were organised, popularists including Paul Alphandery and Etienne Delaruelle focus on the popular groundswells of religious fervour and generalists such as Ernst-Dieter Hehl focus on all wars fought by members of the Latin Church for religious reasons.
 * The structure bounces all over the place, eg the section on Colonialism starts with France, Francoist Spain, then reverts to Kaiser Wilhelm, before Allenby. Plus, since it ignores the Reconquista, referring to Franco makes zero sense.
 * Or The German historian Carl Erdmann theorised that crusading was a political ideology within Western society rather than a glamourised frontier conflict. In 1977 Riley-Smith, who was a dominant and influential figure in academic crusade studies, proposed a wider definition. For him the key determinent of whether a campaign was a crusade was whether it was undertaken on papal authority. The connection between Erdmann and Riley-Smith escapes me, 'crusading' is not the same as 'campaigning', and it looks as if this is trying to tie two references together. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed and focussed on the Holy Land Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You mention other Crusades in the Lead, then ignore them. Arguably more people died in the Albigensian Crusade than any of the ones to Jerusalem, the Teutonic Knights built Poland, the Knights of Malta ended up as Papal privateers - so either be specific (ie Holy Land), or expand.


 * Edited these out of the lead Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Then you also need to change the name of the article, because its not about the Crusades, but Western intervention in the Holy Land. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Much of the popular understanding of the crusades today derives from the 19th century novels of Scott Really? although I'm happy to blame Scott for many things, as an Alfred Duggan fan, I beg to differ.


 * That does appear to be the consensus among crusade historians. I have read and enjoyed Knight with Armour and Three's Company but for popular understanding Duggan is not really comparable, is he? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I should probably clarify; I don't believe Scott is a major influence on how we see the Crusades, and the article doesn't explain why you think he is. The Duggan reference was tongue in cheek, but he wrote considerably more (Lady for Ransom, Count Bohemund, Lord Geoffery's Fancy etc), plus his 'History of the Crusades' was a school text book.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I missed the humour. You don't believe Scott was a major influence but a number of modern British historians do, including Tyerman to whom this is sourced. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You could usefully expand on 19th century Russian and German attitudes towards the Crusading past, particularly how it drove political conflict in the 19th century Balkans. You mention Kaiser Wilhelm's Protestant reactionary posturing, but not why German archaeologists were so keen on that specific past, or the direct links between the crusading Teutonic knights, and 19th century German nationalism.


 * Maybe for FAC? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Not if this an A-class article on the Historiography of the Crusades; I think you've written an article on a very specific aspect. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ignores impact on French colonial thinking eg support for the Maronites prior to 1914, annexation of Syria post 1918.


 * Colonialism is mentioned, I think this may give undue weight Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, I cannot see how you can have an A-class article which doesn't consider the impact of Western thinking on the post 1918 redrawing of the Islamic world, or why Bush referring to a Crusade had such impact. How can that be undue weight? You mention the foundation of Israel - what do you think is behind the Trump administration's recognition of Jersusalem as its capital? Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Over reliant on one Source, and very much a Western one. There is tons of material on this eg Modern Historiography: The Relevance of the Crusades in Islamic Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Winter 2007), pp. 527-558; worth reading, as it critiques Tyerman's approach and compares it to others.


 * Let me repeat; it is over reliant on one Source. I have found tons of free online articles on this topic without even trying hard.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * More pictures or maps would be nice.


 * The article needs work for me. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If we were talking about FAC I would agree, but still think this is servicable at ACR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Articles are written for users; why is so hard to persuade people to include graphics that make it easier and more attractive for them to access it? Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Srnec

 * The medieval section is pathetic. If this article is supposed to cover all historiography from contemporary to 21st-century, then it falls way short. The only way to remedy this short of a huge infusion of content is to refocus and probably retitle the article to about modern historiography of the Crusades.
 * Not convinced this is constructive criticism? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The list of primary sources is oddly selective. Twelve Latin chronicles of the first crusade, plus some Armenian, Muslim and Jewish sources. Michael the Syrian isn't Armenian and is the only Syriac writer listed. No Greek works. No Latin works about any crusade after 1100. No vernacular European works.
 * True, rather than include an arbitrary list I have deleted the section. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I cannot see how it passes the comprehensiveness criterion at this time. Srnec (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5

 * areas of interest to the Catholic Church Unlink Catholic Church is by MOS:OVERLINK too common to link.
 * I don't think centuries should be linked like days, weeks and years by WP:DATELINK.
 * by the Roman Catholic Church against pagans Unlink Roman Catholic Church.
 * "Outremer" from the French outre-mer Unlink French which is a major language per MOS:OVERLINK.
 * campaigns from Europe to Palestine, Syria and Egypt Maybe switch the links about both countries with the regions?
 * and 1099 with a second wave 1101–1102, the Second (1146–1149), the Third (1187–1192), Fourth (1198–1204), and the Fifth (1217–1221) --> "and 1099 with a second wave 1101–1102, the Second (1146–1149), the Third (1187–1192), Fourth (1198–1204), and the Fifth (1217–1221)"
 * in the Sixth Crusade (1228-1229), as did Louis IX of France in the Seventh (1248-1254) --> "in the Sixth Crusade (1228–1229), as did Louis IX of France in the Seventh (1248–1254)"
 * follwed between 1844-1895; five collections of French translations of eastern texts between 1872-1906 --> "follwed between 1844–1895; five collections of French translations of eastern texts between 1872–1906"
 * Roman Catholic Church is overlinked by the Latin Church.
 * and the replacement of Arab rule by the By MOS:OVERLINK Arab should be not linked.
 * In the "Primary Sources" section all the "c", "d" and "fl" should have their own templates.
 * Removed these as they are a bit inconsistent. Don't necessarily think a long list of possible sources adds values here. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe adding a circa template at its first appearance? Could be handy. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

✅—I have addressed all the above, thank you Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Grammer That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * was one of the first to make an attempt Remove "make an".
 * Greek Orthodox Church of the Near and Middle East became irrevocable An article before the Middle East is needed.
 * become the source of a new civilised rationality Remove the second article.
 * abuse of papal authority, irresponsibilty A typo of irresponsibility?
 * Six volumes by western historians follwed Typo of followed?
 * and 1906 that included related miscellania You mean miscellanea?
 * Western society rather than a glamourised frontier conflict Per Ngram glamorised is more common.
 * For him the key determinent of whether You mean determinant?
 * with the crusades geopgraphical objectives You mean geographical?
 * encouraging ideas of a modern jihad and a long struggle; Remove the first article.
 * he was very conscious of possible offence Maybe add an article between "of" and "possible"?
 * He had had been largely eclipsed by more successful Two "had"s?

✅—thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Grampinator
I have to agree with Srnec and Robinvp11. The article is both incomplete and incomprehensible. I realize that this is not constructive, so here are some observations:
 * The first paragraph conveys nothing about what is in the article. The first two sentences are incorrect factually and grammatically.  The second and third paragraphs are indecipherable.  The lead section needs to be “a concise summary of the article.”
 * Why is there a picture of Peter the Hermit? Why not one of William of Tyre who is curiously missing from the article.
 * Since Tyerman’s work dominates the article with 27 citations, why not read and reference his article on historiography in Murray’s Encyclopedia of the Crusades?
 * It is a rare Wikipedia article that is much more obtuse than the source material. Giles Constable’s article and Tyerman’s entry referenced above provide clear and understandable introductions to the material.
 * Since historiography is concerned with methods of historical analysis, why are there no discussions on charters, archaeology, numismatics, and historical geography in addition to chronicles and letters?
 * The medieval section and sections on original sources needs to be updated and categorized (e.g., by Latin, Greek, Arabic,…., and period covered). In addition to Murray and Wisconsin, the sources sections of Runciman’s three volumes are good.  Also, the Fordham University Medieval Source Book on Crusader Sources is excellent.  As a glaring example, the article doesn’t reference the Alexiad.  Really?
 * The modern (i.e., post-medieval) sections the article are fixable but are unclear, incomplete and in many cases biased. For example, why the attack on Runciman’s work?  This reads like a Yelp review left for a bad meal.  If his work is so bad, why is it referenced in virtually every Wikipedia article?  Riley-Smith’s quote is inappropriate for this article.  What about Tyerman’s quote for balance.  Whoever wrote this is clearly biased against what many people think is regarded as seminal.
 * Why no reference to the Wisconsin collaborative History of the Crusades? Seems to be pretty relevant.  Also, read the bibliography section of Volume VI.  It’s very enlightening.
 * A couple of other comments. The disclaimer says: ”This article is about the historiography of the Roman Catholic religous wars.” No it’s not.  And religious is spelled wrong.  Why is this even there?  If a casual reader thought it was about the History of the Crusades they would know they were in the wrong article if the introduction said what the article was about.   The first line talks about “popular memories of them”.  None are later identified.  Are these to be part of historiography?
 * Section on Islam: I don’t know a lot about this, but I would change it to something like Modern Islamic Histories of the Crusades.  Maybe include reference to works by some actual Islamic history scholars like Aziz Suryal Atiya and Farhad Daftary.

I basically have comments on every sentence I read, many of which I can't immediately tell what the sentence is trying to say. I think it needs to have a major rewrite.

this has been here for three months, and despite your supports there are three reviewers who have serious reservations about the article. I am of the view that there isn't likely to be consensus for promotion in the near future and am thinking of archiving it. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. Srnec, Robinvp11 and Grampinator all have good points.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As nominator, I agree as well. After passing GAR, I was interested to see what feedback an ACR would give and how far away the article was. Answer seems to be some way. might pick this up when everyone moves on. This is as far as my time, sources and inclination can take it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It certainly hasn't achieved consensus and it doesn't look as if it will. I think that archiving is the correct decision. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)