Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Borsoka (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 30 June 2020 (→Content debate or ignorance?: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crusader states article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Vital article

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page.

	Crusader states has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 28, 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited April 7, 2020 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / French / Medieval / Crusades This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  European military history task force French military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Crusades task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages: Crusades High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Crusades task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Western Asia This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Former countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crusader states article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Requested move 10 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move to "Outremer"; no consensus as to whether article should be moved to "Crusader states in the Middle East" or remain at its present title. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Crusader states → Outremer – There has been a long debate on scope and definition of the Crusades at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Crusades. Consensus is that that article focusses on the Levantine crusades, rather than attempting to cover the entire scope of the subject, another article is created for the wider context but also this article focuses on the Outremer e.g. Levant rather than be broad collection of unrelated locations. These could be included in any new broader article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 15:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec:@Johnbod:@Onceinawhile:—correct me if I am mistaken but I think this is the substance of the discussion/consensus? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• That's completely correct as regards the focus of Crusades, and that this article should focus on the various "Outremer" polities. Nonetheless, I think this article should remain at Crusader states, for which the Outremer meaning is primary. That might change if a new article with a broader focus emerges, but for now this article should continue to mention the wider context and link to examples outside the Levant, but stay as it is. So Oppose this. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support on the basis of the sourced statement in the article which says “They are generally known by historians as Outremer, from the French outre-mer ("overseas" in English)”. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is intended to mean that historians use "Outremer" more than "Crusader states". If it was I think this is pretty dubious, and may not represent what the source says. Can someone check the source? Book & article titles alone suggest this reading is not correct. I think an "also" should be added. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I can'y help, I don't have access to the source. Asbridge uses frequently which is probably more precise. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Uses what? Missing words I think. Btw, if it is decided to move this, I don't think it should be to Outremer, but to Crusader states in the Middle East or "Levant", following sources. The meaning of these, especially the former will be intelligible to far, far more people than will have heard of "Outremer". WP:USEENGLISH probably applies. But I don't think it should be moved at all, as above, unless and until we get a big new article on the whole group (and maybe not even then). Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, badly worded-he uses the word frequently as in frequently known as.... Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as the better alternative to a disambiguater such as "Crusader States (Outremer)", which would be silly. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I am content to withdraw this suggestion based on Johnbod feedback above and having since edited the article. Unless of course anyone objects? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Norfolkbigfish, it needs renaming, as currently it makes no attempt to cover the title. I am agnostic as to what it is changed to, although I do like Crusader states in the Middle East. The current title reads like that of the overarching article of a topic of which this article is a member. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Fair point Gog the Mild I was hastily trying to get the tag removed as it appeared to have stalled, and {u|Johnbod}}'s suggestion of Crusader states in the Middle East seems the best option for the reasons he gave Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

*Support on the arguments above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Although I proposed it at Talk:Crusades, I too am having second thoughts. Frankly, I think we should just leave it alone for now. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• As above, I prefer to leave it, certainly at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• I asked BD2412 to review his close & he has kindly reopened it. Several people (including the nom & me) commented more than once, & I saw a clear movement towards Crusader states in the Middle East. Perhaps people could return and clearly express preferences between: A) Outremer, B) Crusader states, C) Crusader states in the Middle East. My view (reasons above) is: A) Oppose, B) Support, C) Support as 2nd best. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• As the nominator I now concur with Johnbod, in retrospect the move was not an improvement. When this is resolved Johnbod could you give the article a quick lookover and provide some feedback? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Outremer as it's not transparent what it means to a non-specialist audience. Many people will know what Crusader states are but never heard of "Outremer", and there doesn't seem to be a compelling argument to move there. I think the current name is better than "Crusader states in the Middle East" as more concise. buidhe 16:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a move per Buidhe on both counts. The concern that prompted me to suggest this move on a different talk page was that the term "Crusader states" is not always the best when speaking of the Crusader states collectively. It is explicitly political and plural ("states") and does not always make sense. I think there might be an argument for splitting: an article on Crusader states that covers the geopolitical angle and includes Crusader states in the Baltic and the Aegean and another article on Outremer (i.e., the Crusader states in the Levant) as a society. Srnec (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnbod, and that Outremer is increasingly, if not actually, an archaism. (And although it's strictly not what we are being asked, I agree with the tendential support for Crusader states in the Middle East being mooted above.) ——SN54129 15:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

Crusader states

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I emphasize that I have not thoroughly reviewed the article. I only quickly read it and found the following issues:

GA criteria 1b. ("it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation"):

• The first sentence of the article is not verified in the main text. (Actually, it contradicts the main text, which says that the crusader states were established as a consequence of the First Crusade).

• I am really happy that the fourth attempt to fix the principal problem in the text was successful. The previous three attempts (, , ) prove that the article needs attention from an expert who do not need external assistance to write of the topic. Borsoka (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria 3a. ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic"):

• The article does not mention the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia and the Near East, which gave rise to the Byzantines' demand for Western European mercenary forces and established the conditions of the quick conquest of the Outremer by the crusaders.

 Done—raised further issues below Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• In the meantime, an attempt was made to include the Seljuk conquest (). The attempt shows that the article needs attention from an expert who do not need external assistance to write of the topic. Now, about half of the section Background is dedicated to the Turks. Yes, the Turks were important actors, because 1. their conquest of Anatolia/Asia Minor forced Alexios I to ask for Western mercenaries and 2. their arrival contributed to the total fragmentation of the Muslim world, enabling the relatively easy conquest of Syria and Palestina by the crusaders. The new text provides extensive information about the Turks, with little connection to the Outremer, but the principal consequences of the arrival of the Turks in the context are not emphasized for readers. Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It was good call on your behalf on the lack of content on the Seljuks. In fact it should have gone further to differentiate between the polities of the Great Seljuk Empire and the Sultanate of Rum. Also missing was the other Turkic groups that had an impact on the Outremer such as the Danishmendids, the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) and Mamluks in general. Hopefully this gap in the article is now filled. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that the information on the Turks now dominates the Background section, but it does not make clear what was their role in the establishment and development of the crusader states. We can read unnecessary information about the waves of Turkish migrations, about the names of Turkish dynasties with no connection with the crusades, but we are not informed, for instance, about the important institution of atabeg (a Seljuk tradition contributing the disintegration of the Seljuk empire and enabling the crusades to dominate the political life of Syria and Palestine for decades). Furthermore, the Background section does not mentions the Armenians, the Ismaelites, the Italian merchants cities. The expansion of the Background section did not solve the previously mentioned problems either, but it created a new one: WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Armenians, Ishmaelites, Italians, and cities all added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done. The term "Armenian" is mentioned several times, but they are not introduced in context. While we are informed about the multiple waves of Turkish migrations, we are not informed about the Armenians' arrival, although alliance with the Armenians was at least as important in the formation of the crusader states, than the fragmentary nature of the Turkish states. There are also random references to Armenian warlords - do you really think this is a proper background? The University of Wisconsin Press's classical 6-volumed monography of the crusades dedicates whole sections to the Ismaelites and the Italian city states. Do you really think a "Background" dominated by irrelevant pieces of information on the Turks, but with almost no reference to the Armenians, Italian merchant communities and Ismaelites is fully in line with WP:DUE? Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There were more causes for the First Crusade than the invasions of Anatolia. Once underway the crusade the pilgrimage to Jerusalem beacme the primary objective. This brought the Crusaders into contact with other Turkish groups that should be explained. Indeed, after 1099 Anatolia was a minor intersect with the Crusader States Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Do you know anybody who have whenever challenged the above statement? Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There was a paragraph on this, I have moved to make more obvious to you. I don'y think you read all the changes. The history of the Christian kingdom of Lesser Armenia followed a similar pattern to the crusader states. Located to the north-west of Syria it was established on former Muslim territory that had been retaken, in this case by the Byzantines in the 10th century. It was populated with immigrant Armenians from between Lake Van and the Caucasus. When the Byzantine frontier collapsed after the battle at Manzikert in 1071 they dominated Cilicia and territory reaching east to the Euphrates. During the first crusade they gave support and assistance to the crusaders. After a long contest for supremacy between two families, the Rubenids and the Hethumids Leo I, King of Armenia was crowned the kingdom was formally established. The two families intermarried with each other and then with that of Antioch. The kingdom submitted to the Mongols in the 13th century before finally succumbing to the Egyptian Mamluks in 1375. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You seemed to have also missed this paragraph on the maritime republics. One Frankish weakness was the lack of sea-power. This was addressed by the purchase of naval resources from the Italian maritime republics of Pisa, Venice and Genoa. These republics were enthuisastic crusaders from the early 11th century whose commercial wealth secured the finacial base of the Franks. In return these cities, and others such as Amalfi, Barcelona and Marseilles, received commericial rights and access to Eastern markets. Over time this developed into colonial communities with property and jurisdictionial rights. I have moved it to make it more obvious. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

And this on the Ishmaelites Ismāʿīlist branch of Shia Islam of which the Fatamids were members. A group that had been founded by the Persian missionary Hassan-i Sabbah broke away and founded the Nizari Ismaili state in Alamut, Iran. This organisation known as the New Preaching also developed in Syria became known in western historiography as the Order of Assassins. They used targeted murder to compensate for their lack of military power. Nizam al-Mulk was their first victim. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done—as per above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUE: lengthy sentences about the Turks with almost no relevance vs. sporadic info on the Ismailites. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article almost makes no mention of women and if a woman is mentioned, she is a queen.

 Done paragraph added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Do you really think about two sentences is enough to describe the life of about 50% of the population? Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Again we must agree to disagree. As Tyerman notes Gender Studies in the Crusades is a realtive new area of research, more a question for Historiography. There are no authoritive works and this is also picked up in the body of the article so no need for specificity e.g. woman were governed in the same way, were part of the same economy, religions etc, lived in the same demography. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There are at least two specialized works on women's role in the crusader states. Hodgson's Women, Drusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative and the Gendering the Crusades by Edgington and Lambert. Do you really think that women can be ignored? Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article does not describe the commoners' everyday life in the Outremer. Where did they live? What did they produce and eat? What did they pay for their lords? How did they resist?

 Not done not convinced this is pertinent Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you really think that a country, a region, a town can be properly presented without mentioning the everyday life of common people? We are not here to write romantic novels about knights, kings, fair ladies, and castles to teenage boys, but we are here to provide a full picture of crusader societies. Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree in the absence of a third opinion. It is covered in appropriate detail without giving it undue weight. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article does not write of the international relations of the Crusader states.

What is actually meant by this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• You can read plenty of specialized literature about the relationship between the crusader states and their neighbors (Byzantines, Muslims, Armenians, Italians). Borsoka (talk)

I assume this means there is nothing specifically missing. Venice is mentioned 3 times, Genoa 3, Amalfi twice, the Byzantines 33 times, Aremnians 16, Maritime republics twice, Italians 27 times, Turks 17 times, Arabs 15 times and Muslims 32 times. It is not accurate to say the article does not include details on relations. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article does not write of the differences between the Crusader States.

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why do you think it is done. Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A number of paragraphs were added in the new Foundation section. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The results of archaeological researches are not mentioned, although archaeology is an important source of everyday life in the Outremer.

 Not done what value would this add?

• You are ignoring the results of a well established branch of science. Read Jotischky's remarks about the importance of archaeological research in developing views about crusader societies.

GA criteria 3b. ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"):

• The article contains lengthy text about the history of the Knights Hospitaller after the fall of the Outremer.

Trimmed this and moved to legacy where it probably warrants a mention? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• The last edit indeed improved the article. Thank you for it. However, the section still suggests that the Hospitallers were the first military order, and we are informed about the principal reason of the formation of the military orders in the third paragraph. Sorry, I must say that an article needs to be close to meet GA criteria before its nomination, because a GA review or a GA reassessment process is not destined to write an article. This article does not meet GA criteria and significant work is needed to improve it. Please also use the "Preview" bottom before saving your edits. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The section is in chronological sequence, so as the the Hospitiliers were active from the 1080smand the Templars commenced after the First Crusade this is correct. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I know that the Hospitallers were active from the 1080s, but it was not a military order - it only transformed into a military order after the establishment of the Knights Templar, adopting their example. If you write of the military orders and want to follow a chronological order, you should begin the text with the Templars. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

On the matter of the article's GA status, I fundamentally disagree. This article only recently went through a GAR and passed. On that basis the majority view is the article meets the GA criteria. You don't agree, which is fine, but that is not consensus. I am taking your suggestions in good faith as they do allow the article to improve but that does not mean I agree with your evaluation, because I don't. You have written yourself that you don't want to review in this topic area at present, I suggest this reassessment withdrawn, we wait until the move debate is resolved, I take time to reconsider your feedback, update the article and then if you still believe it is not at GA standard we resubmit for reassessment or even to get the expert view you believe the article needs submit for a Milhist A class review. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

As my brief comments show for weeks, the article did not (and does not) meet major GA criteria. For the article should have been completed before its GAN, I cannot withdraw the reassessment process. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Chronological order changed as suggested Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this version is much better. I tried to fix your typos - I suggest you should read the text again because even a non-native speaker could easily find 5-6 typos in your relatively short text. I also added some templates to sign where you obviously misinterpreted your sources or failed to explain the relevance of the sentence. () If all problems are addressed, I think we can conclude that this section reached the level of an average GA. I would consider deleting the Latin names of the two orders, because 1. this is the English version of WP and only people who do not have chance to regularly meet Latin terms think that their use is elegant; 2. the Latin names of the two other military orders are not mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done. We should make it clear what happened at the Council of Troyes. (I know that Asbridge says that the Templars were recognized by the Latin Church at the council, but actually the order's recognition was a lengthy procedure: first the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem recognized the order in 1120, next a synod of the French Church sanctioned their rule and finally the pope granted them privileges.) I fixed some more typos. I also tried to clarify that not only the common name, but the names of the Knights Templares derived from the association of the Al Aksa with Solomon's Temple. ()

 Done—added rule, and now using TyermanNorfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Sorry, I must say you still do not understand what happened when. Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well perhaps we have to agree to disagree. The article matches two different respected sources (Asbridge & Tyerman), it is only your pedantry that disagrees Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria 4. (it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each):

• The article contains the following text: "The barons of Jerusalem in the 13th century have been poorly regarded by both contemporary and modern commentators: James of Vitry was disgusted by their superficial rhetoric; the historian Jonathan Riley-Smith writes of their pedantry and the use of spurious legal justification for political action." Jotischky (who is cited in the article) on the subject: "The barons of the kingdom of Jerusalem in the thirteenth century have not, on the whole, had much sympathy from historians. ... It is tempting to view them as argumentative and lacking the breadth of vision to suspend their constitutional jealousies for the greater good of the kingdom. ... But it was this very quality of legal expertise and the ability to plead a case in court that the barons themselves prized. Ralph of Tiberias, for example, became a heroic figure among the thirteenth-century baronage for the constitutional grasp he showed in his resistance to Almeric II in 1198."

Not really sure of the point here? By Ralph, I assume that Jotischky is referring to Raoul of Saint Omer. A relatively minor figure that many sources do not even mention. His story rather illustrates the point made in the article. He made his case, the king rejected it and he was exiled anyway. If he was a legal hero it didn't do him any good. Adding this wouldn't really inform the lay reader of anything, in fact he would distract from the argument that Riley-Smith made that Jotischky was referring to. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article is mainly based on books about the crusades not on books about the crusader states, so the sources of the article concentrate on the military actions, not on the principal characteristics of the crusader states. Please read Riley-Smith's following remarks about Raoul of Saint Omer (whom you describe as "a relatively minor figure"): "...a man every bit as remarkable as ... Ralph, Lord of Tiberias ... evolved a method of defending himself in which the main themes of the later interpretation of the Assise sur la ligece can already be discerned: the argument that the law underlined the absolute necessity for a judgement in court in a case concerning the relationship between a lord and his vassal" (Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1973). The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174-1277. Macmillan. pp. 156–157. ISBN 9781349154982.) Your above remark shows that you did not understand my principal concern. The problem is that the article does not presents PoVs neutrally. Have you whenever read the adjective "spurious" in connection with the demand to be judged by peers? Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen spurious used, and so have you, on the same page of Jotischky as you quote above. He refers to terminology, the article uses justification, the meaning I think is the same. The article doesn't conflate this with the principle of judgement by peers at all, it has just one sentence on the barons reputation and behaviour summarised by a reputable historian and based on the same source as yourself—Riley-Smith's The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

No, none of the sources cited use the term in connection with Ralph's claim to be judged by peers. You picked up the negative statements about 13th-century barons from Jotischky's book ignoring the context: the monarchs' arbitrary actions. Borsoka (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither does the article, you have made this conflation. The context is fine, Jotischky is using the Ralph example to make a totally different point, that the Barons valued legal sophistry. Nowhere is judgement by peers mentioned, you raised this. What is mentioned in this single sentence is attributed comments, both modern and contemporary, on the behaviours and actions of the Barons, used in context and cited to reputable sources.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Would you please address my point? The article is not neutral and it does not properly summarize Jotischky's allegedly cited sentence: he summarizes both negative and positive views of the barons, but you only picked the negative remarks from his text. 2. He explicitly refers to Ralph. I tried to explain to you why this reference is relevant quoting Riley-Smith (who is mentioned in Jotischky's text): Ralph was the hero of the barons' because of his resistance to King Aimery's arbitrary action and his insistance on trial by peers. 3. If we want to provide a fair and neutral picture of the barons of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, we cannot insist on repeating the views of a 13th-century jurist and Riley-Smith of 13th-century barons, because the Kingdom of Jerusalem had existed already in the 12th century. 4. Furthermore, if we want to provide a full picture, we should present the movements of the Jerusalemite barons against their monarchs in a wider context: similar movements existed in 13th-century southern France, England, Hungary, Aragon. An encyclopedia cannot be built on texts randomly picked up from here and there. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous reply and suggest you read the paragraph in its entirety (I have added a sentence to say the barons themselves valued legal expertise. Magnates—such as Raynald of Châtillon, Lord of Oultrejordain, and Raymond III, Count of Tripoli, Prince of Galilee—often acted as autonomous rulers. Royal powers were abrogated and effectively governance was undertaken within the feudatories. What central control remained was exercised at the Haute Cour—High Court, in English. Only the 13th century jurists of Jerusalem used this term, curia regis was more common in Europe. These were meetings between the king and his tenants in chief. Over time the duty of the vassal to give counsel developed into a privilege and ultimately the legitimacy of the monarch depended on the agreement of the court. The barons of Jerusalem in the 13th century have been poorly regarded by both contemporary and modern commentators: James of Vitry was disgusted by their superficial rhetoric; the historian Jonathan Riley-Smith writes of their pedantry and the use of spurious legal justification for political action. Although the Baron's themselves highly valued the ability to make a legal case. You would be hard put to find any reputable historian who believes the Barons behaviour was admirable. Their love of the law and the work of the jurists is respected but that is not what is referred to here. Jotischky uses Raplh as one example, many sources do not mention him at all (e.g. Prawar in his 500 page+ work on the kingdom). This puts his importance into perspective. Furthermore this paragraph is about the Barons in the second kingdom, that is 13th century barons. Lastly as Prawar puts it, governance in Jersulem went on a journey in the opposite direction to France & England who created a centralised bureaucracy that controlled the barons. Whereas in Jerusalem centralised control decayed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

1. James Clark Holt, in his monography dedicated to the Magna Carta, emphasizes that the idea that the great vassals cannot be deprived of their fiefs without their peers' judgement spread in Europe-and also in Jerusalem in the 11th-12th centuries; he also writes that the great vassals' right to withdraw their support from arbitrary monarchs was enacted in several countries in Europe-and also in Jerusalem-in the 13th century. This is a quite obvious reference to parallel development in Jerusalem and Europe. However, this is not mentioned in the article. . Magna Carta. Cambridge University Press. pp. 76–80. ISBN 0-521-27778-7.] 2. Yes, I know you believe that Germany was centralized during Emperor Frederick II's reign, se decentralization of the Jerusalemite monarchy is unprecedented in 13th-century Europe. Sorry, I do not want to comment your belief. 3. Please read literature proving that the empoverished Jerusalemite barons were relatively weak against the monarchs (Steven Tibble , Gury Perry ). Borsoka (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we may be debating at cross purposes here, let me try and help. Firstly, in the 12th century it remained lawful for the king to conficate fiefs. Prawar writes An Assize that probably goes back to the time of Baldwin III (1143-62) who hardly made innovations in this field, assured the king the right to confiscate fiefs from his great tenants-in-chiefs without trial for a variety of reasons. (p 105) Whether this continued into the 13th century is rather a mute point as Frederick's Italian army and a 15 year civil war, the War of the Lombards, the battle of La Forbie and the rapid decline of the kingdom made this largely academic. Very much in the way that although Magna Carta paved the way for Anglo common law it was quickly repudiated and English monarchs at the very least were able to deal harshly with their Barons for several more centuries. Futhermore Prawar also comments Compared with contemporary developments, the position of the Crown seems to have followed a course in the opposite direction. So opposite, not parallel. He goes on The kings of Jerusalem possessed far more power in theory and practice. Conversely, by the middle of the thirteenth century, when Western Europe was dominated by powerful rulers as Frederick II, St Louis and Edward I the Crown of Jerusalem was but a shadow.(p103-104) He further expands this argument Starting from similar conditions, during the twelth century European courts had developed a machinary that could be adapted to the centralising tendencies of the crown......This did not happen in the Latin kingdom. The centralised machinary fossilised ....At the end of the First Kingdom (1187) this machinary was already anachronistic and during the Second Kingdom it proved completely obsolete. {p112). So what happened instead. Just after the middle of the twelth century the nobility, or more exactlt the great magnates, became the dominant element in the government of the country.....the main functions of government were thus exercised within feudal subdivisions...this left little scope for the development of a central administration.(p113) As Prawar writes the Haute Cour never became a parliament but was a meeting place for the different power factors in society, The jurists argued that The competences of the Haute Cour not merely included the right to sit in judgement over the king's vassals, but over the king himself but this is the theory of pure feudalism not a new legal innovation. Furthermore, In reality, we find no such instance in the kingdom's history .(p120) This pretty much reflects what the article contains, and supports Riley-Smith's evaluation of the 13th century Baraons. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I try to be as simple as I can, because you obviously do not understand my concerns. 1. We cannot summarize with a sentence from a book about the 13th-century barons the development of the complex relationship between Crown and barons from 1100 to 1291. 2. We cannot present Prawer's view about the High Court as a fact describing the 200-year-long constitutional history of Jerusalem. 3. We cannot assume that whenever a scholar mentions Frederick II, he or she refers to Germany, because Frederick II was the monarch of mutiple kingdoms (including the centralized Regno in Southern Italy). Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you being simple. Firstly, it is not one sentence but two paragraphs that cover this topic. I think you should read the article again. Prawar is possible the leading 20th century expert on the subject. You are mistaken on the source it is Jotischky. Again you are conflating what is written about Frederick with Germany, nowhere in the article is this connection made (or in fact would be made, the topic is the machinary of government. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I read the article. I did not change my mind: the article does not present the development of the political life of the crusader states neutrally and in context; the article's reference to a strong Frederick ruling Germany as a contrast to the Jerusalemite barons' fractionalism is hilarious. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue. Let other editors decide whether this is a GA. I think the issue is clear, the article has not been significantly improved. Borsoka (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 DoneI have tweaked the comment on Frederick to clarify the article was referring administrative bureaucracy and link it closer to Prawer. I think the confusion arrises from the difference between Frederick's German territories and his Italian, particularly Sicily. It is worth noting that the article never mentioned Germany in this regard, that is your assumption. On that basis this is  Done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and attention. I agree it is better for other editors to decide whether this article remains at GA. It had passed GAR only a few weeks ago and your attention has improved it further, so it is reasonable to believe it is a GA. The name debate has yet to conclude, when it does the article could still do with further improvement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I again emphasize that the above findings are results of a quick review. Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• You make some reasonable points Borsoka. You are a well read Wikipedian, it would be more Wikipedian to use that knowledge to improve the article rather than use it for a reasessment that no one has asked for maybe? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. The article should have been completed before its GAN. You may remember I spent more than a month reviewing an article about the crusades in December and January. It was also edited by you, it contained almost identical errors. For the time being, I do not want to review articles about the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka. Just on your last comment, I am missing your point. The quote you give seems to reinforce the wording of the article rather than contradict it. Maybe something from this could be worked into the article, but I don't see that it is an unfair viewpoint. Lawyers have always been self congratulational and widely disliked. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. Yes, the article presents the PoV of the 13th-century barons' opponents and of some modern historians. However, as Jotischky emphasizes, this approach ignores the barons' own position: they were convinced that a monarch could not seize their property or expel them from the country arbitrarily, that is without a judgement by their peers. I think this is a quite familiar concept to most of us. Jotischky refers to this when writing of Ralph of Tiberias. Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, the example of Ralph rather proves the point of what was written in the article. Ralph requested judgement by his peers, Aimery refused and Ralph was exiled for the rest of the reign. The nobles may have grumbled and withdrawn their feudal service, which at this point was nugatory but the outcome remained the same. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Which part of your above summary is reflected in the following sentence quoted above: "The barons of Jerusalem in the 13th century have been poorly regarded by both contemporary and modern commentators: James of Vitry was disgusted by their superficial rhetoric; the historian Jonathan Riley-Smith writes of their pedantry and the use of spurious legal justification for political action"? I am not a native speaker of English, but I have never read the adjective "spurious" in connection with a claim to be judged by peers. Borsoka (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish:, I kindly ask you to decide which book do you cite. Holt's allegedly cited work was first published in 2004. Borsoka (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Borsoka—The Age Of The Crusades-The Near East from the eleventh century to 1517 by P.M. Holt, published by Longman in 1986 ISBN 0-049302-1 according to the publishing details. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• https://www.bookdepository.com/Age-Crusades-P-M-Holt/9780582493025 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, you did not read the titles in the bibliography before the article's GAN (). Borsoka (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done well it is all resolved now, thank you Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• If the tags atop the article cannot be quickly resolved, then it should be delisted. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Srnec This needs some kind of dispute resolution or third party view. It has only just passed GA. The tags were added by one editor, who has then initiated a community reassessment himself and then wrote he doesn't have time to review. I would remove the tags as unwarranted, but I am reluctant to do this without consensus. I have suggested the this review is stopped until the community decide what the article is actually called (in the ongoing move debate), any required improvements are made and then if it is still required it is brought back for reassessment then. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, Iazyges—You took this through a CE and the first GAR respectively. Do you have a view on this, please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If a user initiates a community review by themselves, that review usually dies when they stop posting; I'm not necessarily saying we should close this now, but good odds that it will go without much activity and eventually be closed. I don't think any of the issues truly required the tagging and reassessment instead of just working through it on in the talk page, but whatever. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish, Iazyges, Gog the Mild, and Srnec:, I wanted to start a thorough review of the article. After the second sentence I decided to stop the review, because it contains original research: . The very first sentence of the article was not verified when the article was assessed as GA. The main text still contains original research. Original research, neutrality issues, factual accuracy: I kindly ask you to relist the article. Whatever you decide, I am convinced the article should be rewritten. Borsoka (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have addressed this on the article's talk page which is probably the most appropriate place to this —https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Crusader_states&diff=953870944&oldid=953641243&diffmode=source. I think your efforts would be better served, Borsoka, using your knowledge to add to and improve this article particularly in the areas you raise of the lifestyle of the inhabitants, women and archeology rather than arguing and tagging. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Arguing and tagging is a normal way of editing. Yes, I decided to rewrite the article based on books dedicated to the crusader states. Thank you for reminding me that I use the newest edition of Jotischky's book, so page numbers in your older version are different. Nevertheless, the sentence in the article does not properly summarize Jotischky's statements: . Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I will look forward to seeing the results of that. One point, you may not agree with Jotischky but article 100% matches what he wrote on page 40 of the 2004 edition. See Talk and exact quotes. It is the only edition I have. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have never challenged Jotischky - I have only challenged your selective use of his book. Borsoka (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Holt 1986, p. 25.
2. Prawer 1972, p. 112.

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

I've only read through the lede and some of the early sections. There's too much detail in the lede and I don't think that it's well written. There's massive overlinking and there are lots of style problems like inconsistent capitalizations, etc. I do not agree with all of Borsoka's comments, in particular his demand for daily life/lifestyle of the inhabitants, as I think that's outside of the scope of an article at this level, but I don't think that this is GA quality yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate links addressed. What capitalisation inconsistenties have issues? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The one that I remember most was first crusade vs First Crusade.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the old proper noun conumdrum. I have worked round this, now only two mentions, both proper nouns, both capitalised Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Great, now start trimming and reworking the lede. The entire second and third paragraphs should be reduced to a sentence or two apiece with the bulk of the material incorporated into the main body. You've covered the establishment of the Crusader States, but have nothing on their gradual disintegration under Muslim pressure or much on their history after their foundation. Remember that the lede is supposed to summarize the entire article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, made a start on the trimming Sturmvogel 66, I guess it will need a bit more but what do you think so far Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a start, although it's hard to know what to cover, which is why I almost always leave the lede for the last bit. So I'd suggest working on the various sections first before trying to summarize it all. Plus it doesn't really help that I'm only passingly familiar with the area in this period and don't know the scholarship hardly at all. I'd suggest reorganizing the lede to expand the political coverage (in summary form as the individual battles don't necessarily need to be mentioned) to include the infighting amongst themselves and the various wars and alliances with the surrounding powers. Since the art really didn't change during the Christian occupation, I'd drop that from the lede, although a mention of how the returning crusaders influenced Western art, architecture, fashion, etc. would probably be worthwhile.

Just be advised I don't have a lot of time to devote to this GAR, especially considering its size. So don't necessarily count on detailed responses from me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Taken your advice on art, ce down to Background so far, thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Article far from stable. Srnec (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delist. Article is being totally rewritten, and I say that as the major contributor to the article that passes GAR at the beginning of April. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Consequences of the Seljuk conquest

Here are some quotes (all, but the last one from books cited in the article) presenting how the Turkish conquest of Western Asia and how Seljuk appanage system facilitated the conquest of Syria and Palestine by the crusaders.

• "The tendency towards fragmentation which showered after the death of Malik-Shah was facilitated by the Seljukid tradition ... members of the royal house held provinces in appanage. This was to have serious results for Syria at the time of the First Crusade." (Holt, Peter Malcolm (1986). The Age Of The Crusades-The Near East from the eleventh century to 1517. Pearson Longman. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-58249-302-5.)
• " were ... involved in the difficult tasks of carving out a realm for themselves against their many political rivals and of begginning to reuniote the various post-Seljuq successor states, whose genesis had been occassioned by Seljuq weakness and fragmentation." (Hillenbrand, Carole (1999). The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Edinburgh University Press. p. 564. ISBN 978-0-7486-0630-6.)
• "...the Seljuqs never ruled their territories as a single centralised state, but rather as a collection of provinces ... Moreover, Seljuqs tended to fragment authority across ruling families, with the consequence that provinces or cities did not always act in concert with each other." (Jotischky, Andrew (2004). Crusading and the Crusader States. Taylor & Francis. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-582-41851-6.)
• "The core of the Turkish conquest remained in Iran ... provinces, though proclaiming ... the sultan as their supreme ruler, quickly split into independent principalities. Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine became a mosaic of small and constantly warring emirates. At this moment the armies of the First Crusade reached Asia Minor and ... marched into Syria and Palestine." (Prawer, Joshua (1972). The Crusaders' Kingdom. Phoenix Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-84212-224-2.)
• "The Turkish invasions from the 1050s destabilized the region, introducing an alien ruling elite backed by military coercion, causing as much if not more mayhem and disruption than the crusaders were able to achieve." (Tyerman, Christopher (2006). God's War: A New History of the Crusades. Belknap Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-674-02387-1.)
• "There was no hint of solidarity among the Seljuk cousins: to survive, you had to kill. Kilij Arslan's father had conquered Asia Minor ... without any help from his brothers, and when he attempted to move further south, into Syria, he was killed by one of his own cousins. ... a part of his paternal heritage through war, murder, and subterfuge. ... Nevertheless, when the arrived, the game was far from over. His rivals in Asia Minor were still powerful, although ... his Seljuk cousins in Syria and Persia were absorbed in their onw internecine quarrels." (Maalouf, Amin (1984). The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. SAQI. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-86356-023-1.) Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for these. Combined Holt, Hillenbrand & Jotischky to resolve. Used mosaic from Prawar as well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Verification Tag

Borsoka—Jotischky writes The age of Islamic territorial expansion was long past.....eleventh century Syria and Palestine were economically properous....being far from the centres of power in the Islamic world, it remaind peaceful until the advent of the crusaders Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I always forget that you use the old version of Jotischky's book. All the same, Jotischky also writes: "the Islamic Near East experienced profound political change in the eleventh century, as a result of which existing ethnic and religious tensions had become severely exacerbated by the time of the First Crusade..." We should present Jotischky's description of the Near East neutrally. Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

NP, I think the background section goes into your point about the political change up to the eve of the first crusade in more detail than Jotischky anyway. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish:, you again quoted a truncated text from an allegedly cited work, now from Jotischky's book. Jotischky writes that Palestine "remained relatively peaceful". Yes, in comparison with the power centers of Islamic world, Palestine was a relatively peaceful land, but Paul M. Cobb summarizes this relative peacefulness on the eve of the crusades with the following words: "Jerusalem ... one of the many cities that furiously changed hands with the coming of the Turks to Syria. ... Turcoman adventurer Atsiz had occupied the city in the 1070s, and he subjected it to a brutal reprisal when the Fatimids attempted to oust him. ... Jerusalem had recently been through three changes of hands, two of them destructive, and had been under the control of its Fatimid masters for less than a year." (*Cobb, Paul M. (2016) . The Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-19-878799-0.) Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

BorsokaI have no argument with the use of relatively, it is the middle ages afterall. I just thought this could be assumed. A sentence in the background on the exchange of Jersualem in the latter part of the century is warranted, without invalidating Jotischky's original point.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Second thoughts, it made as much sense to remove the contentious "remained relatively peaceful. How does that work for you? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What does relatively mean? I am not a native English speaker. If the destruction of the main town of a region twice within two decades is the sign of relative peace for native speakers, I must accept the adjective. Borsoka (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It was Jotischky's adjective not mine, perhaps you should raise this issue with him instead? In any case it has been removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I know it was Jotischky's adjective, but it had a context. You adopted it without the context. Borsoka (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Unexpected Reversion

Borsoka— I have reinstated the content that was removed with this edit— https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crusader_states&diff=955236197&oldid=955230548&diffmode=source on the grounds I do not understand why the good faith edits were reverted without recourse to the Talk section. I am aware that you wanted details of Ralph of Tiberias's High Court case added to the article to improve the articles balance, this I have done and sourced to Riley-Smith. I also added futher related details for balance. The section now covers the legal & political debate for the period 1099-1143, a period of 144 years of the 193 years of the Crusader States. Particular references are made to the jurists in order to give due regard to their achievements. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY. If you think that I have whenever wanted you to introduce lengthy texts, thousands of bytes, about the Turks or Ralph, you are wrong. I have never suggested anything similar to this. Yes, I can imagine that you think that the article now properly summarize the legal and political debates for the period. A good indication that the article needs attention from an expert. Borsoka (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality & Expert Opinion

I am not convinced with the necessity for tagging this article @Borsoka:. Perhaps you could kindly assist by objectively explaining:

• Where in the article the neutrality is contested;

Read my above messages. Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe that that your comments above have been addressed by recent edits. If this is not the case could you please explain what I have missed here @Borsoka: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Where and why there is a necessity for an expert to give this article some attention?

Read my above comments. Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the same as above @Borsoka:, I think that recent edits have addressed your comments. As I am unclear why this is not the case perhaps you could knidly explain. Norfolkbigfish Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I will not, because I made it clear above. I would not ask you to explain me how to fly or build a dam, because I would never be able to understand it. Your edits and all your messages show you are unable to improve this article. Copying random lengthy texts about aristocrats and queens is not editing. You should read more than three books about the crusades and European history before editing this article or starting a discussion about it. Borsoka (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Neutrality & Expert Opinion Required

Please see the above section. This article has been tagged as lacking neutrality and requiring the attention of an expert. Additional view are sought on what the issues could be and what steps should be taken to rectify these issues so the tags can be removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment. I have spent months to explain basic problems with Norfolkbigfish's edits on crusades and crusader states to him/her/they. I am now fully convinced that Norfolkbigfish's knowledge on the topic is limited and Norfolkbigfish's edits are negligent. I do not want to persuade anybody to read lengthy discussions, so I only refer to Norfolkbigfish's inability to provide an at least slightly proper definition of the term "crusader states" after completing this article: (), (), (). I emphasize that this was not an issue emerging from different scholarly definitions, but an issue of pure factual accuracy. I think no editors are required to spend further months commenting this "article" - a collection of texts randomly selected from scholarly works - sentence by sentence. The article should be rewritten by editors who have deeper knowledge of the topic and are able to explain it in the context of European and Near Eastern history. Editors who are ready to read former discussions on the topic can find them here and here, and also above on this Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: I would be grateful if you read books on the cusades and crusader states before editing this article. Your knowledge on the subject has not improved during the last three weeks. Sorry, but fixing your mistakes is time-consuming, reverting them can lead to edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What mistakes? Borsoka Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Armed conflicts described as quarels, ... Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

a. intransitive. Of a person: to contend violently, dispute, fall out, break off friendly relations; to become inimical or hostile, to disagree violently. Also in extended use, of animals. Frequently with over, about, or †for (expressing the grounds of dispute). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

So "an angry argument or disagreement between people, often about a personal matter" is equal to two commanders' armed conflict for a town? I also added a tag to show your misinterpretation of the source in an other sentence (). I do not want to be rude, but after more than six months I am fed up with your ignorance and negligence. I love singing in the bathroom, but I would never force you to listen my performance. You force me to read and fix your amateurish edits - this is inhuman. I am serious. Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I know that for you history is a pool filled with surprises. Yes, the Burids were named for Toghtekin's son, but Toghtekin is listed among the Burids. Not unlike the early Carolingians, Capets, Árpáds and Salians - they are also retropespectively named for one (or mere) of their prominent member(s). Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I know that almost everything about the history of the crusades is interesting. However, you do not need to summarize each page that you recently read (). Please come through some books, at least those cited in the article, instead of editing. You should read to be able to distinguish facts from PoVs, because we cannot present facts as PoVs. Borsoka (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hello both. I'd agree that (), while accurate, is likely a bit too narrative and specific for the purposes of this article. I'm a little rusty but I have studied the topic in question;- can I help arbitrate any disputed sections in particular? I'm afraid I'm also finding the talkpage difficult to follow. Maybe it would be useful to bulletpoint some specific areas to be looked at in this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVox (talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal. The issue was solved in the meantime. Borsoka (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of Turcoman

@Borsoka:— this article uses Turcoman, Turcomen, Turkmen seemingly interchangably for Turk and incorrectly for a variety of other Turkic tribes and languages. It would worth baring in mind the definition of the word in English, it is a British English article afterall.

1. a. A member of a branch of the Turkish people, consisting of a number of mainly nomadic and pastoral tribes inhabiting the region lying east of the Caspian Sea and about the Sea of Aral, formerly known as Turkestan or Independent Tartary (now Turkmenistan) and parts of Persia (Iran) and Afghanistan. b. The Turkish language of this people. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If you read the sources cited, you will be surprised reading that the Turcoman tribes started a westward migration around 1040 and established empires, such as the Seljuk Empire and the Sultanate of Rum. We can use the "Turkic" adjecitve as well, but "Turkish" would be misleading. Could we use "English" instead of "Anglo-Saxon"? No. The same issue. Borsoka (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point on Turkish, although describing Zengi as a Turcoman is clearly wrong. Oghuz is more accurate:

A. n. A member of a group of Turkic peoples who invaded Persia, Syria, and Asia Minor from central Asia in the 11th cent. and settled in Anatolia, or a descendant of these peoples.

1843 Penny Cycl. XXV. 395/2 For many centuries the Oghuzes were perpetually at war with the Persians.

1854 G. Larpent in J. Porter Turkey I. 155 The Turks divided themselves into the Uigurs or Eastern Turks..and into the Oghus or Western Turks.

1922 Jrnl. Hellenistic Stud. 42 39 Chalkokondyles describes how, early in the thirteenth century, one of their tribes, named Oghuz,..entered Armenia.

1965 H. M. Smyser in J. B. Bessinger & R. P. Creed Medieval & Linguistic Stud. 93 Ibn Faḍlān's descriptions of..Oghuz (Ghuzz Turks)..are fascinating.

1972 G. Clauson Etymol. Dict. pre-13th-Cent. Turkish p. xix In xi the Kipçak were west of the Oğuz in southern Russia.

1991 Jrnl. Asian Stud. 50 p. x It shows..what processes the..other stories in the collection have undergone after the transplantation of the Oghuz from central Asia to Anatolia.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

We can use any form, according to the sources cited in the article: "Turcoman", "Turk", "Turkic". If you read some books about the crusades, you will realize that "Oghuz" would be strange in this context. The Seljuk Turks/Turcomans were a branch of the Oghuz federation, but scholars prefer to describe Zengi as Turk or Turcoman. Would you describe Boris Johnson as a Germanic or Indo-European politician? Do you really want to refer to books published more than hundred of years ago? Borsoka (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Zengi's wikipedia artcilce begins: Imad al-Din Zengi (Template:Lang-ar; c. 1085 – 14 September 1146), also romanized as Zangi, Zengui, Zenki, and Zanki, was an Oghuz Turkic atabeg who ruled Mosul, Aleppo, Hama, and, later, Edessa. He was the namesake of the Zengid dynasty. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I know that you are editing based on WP articles, but it is forbidden (for further details I refer to Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source). Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No, editing in English using the Oxford English dictionary. You will agree that is a reliable source for the language the article is written in, surely? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you really say that Oxford English Dictionary describes Zengi as an Oghuz leader? Or does it say that Zengi was not Turcoman? Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The definitions of the words Turcoman and Oghuz from the OED are above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

And? Does Oxford English Dictionary describe Zengi as an Oghuz leader? Or does it say that Zengi was not Turcoman? Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is clear that in English Zengi does nor meet the definition of the English word Turcoman, but does meet the definition of Oghuz. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is also clear that Boris Johnson is Indo-European. You always forget that there are historians who describe the nomadic Turks who migrated to the Near East as Turcomans. However, as I told you I can accept the adjektive Turk or Turkic as well. Borsoka (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hello - though I'd be loathe to us Misplaced Pages as a source outright, the lede of Oghuz Turks does offer some perspective from linguistic sources;-

""The term "Oghuz" was gradually supplanted among the Turks themselves by Turkmen and Turcoman, (Ottoman Turkish: تركمنلر‎, romanized: Türkmen or Türkmân) from the mid 900's on, a process which was completed by the beginning of the 1200s. Mahmud al-Kashgari says that "Turkmen" has a broader meaning by saying that Karluks are also Turkmens but differ from Oghuz.""

My instinct from the above, which I hope you'll find plausible, is that Turcoman is the broad ethonym within which the cultural identity of 'Oghuz' is still self-contained during this period, though the distinction is in decline. As such, I would suggest the compromise 'Turcoman of Oghuz descent.' By way of a parallel, we still refer to the 'Lombard dukes of Sicily' in the 11th century, even thought they are 500 years apart from the Lombard invasions and this ethonym has been largely supplanted by their Sicilian identity in this period. I hope you both find this reasonable? VeritasVox (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yes, Turcoman would be a proper term, but Norfolkbigfish has no knowledge of the significant Turcoman ethnic groups in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran and he uses the Oxford English Dictionary to edit this article. Sorry, but there are so many issues to be solved in this article and I would not re-open this discussion. The use of the terms Turk and Turkic is a good compromise at his level of knowledge. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Holt

@Norfolkbigfish: just for curiosity: why do you think that Holt's book dedicated to the crusader states' relationship with their neighbors (which was published in 2004) is less useful in the context of the article than his book about Near Eastern history published in 1986 ()? Borsoka (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The defintion is from the Oxford English Dictionary. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: just for curiosity: why did not you read my question before answering it? Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Cilicia

@Norfolkbigfish: why do you think that each battle in Cilicia should be mentioned in the article ()? If you read some books about the crusades, you will realise that Cilicia was a marginal theater of war. Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting your lengthy text. This is why I say that reviewing your edits is an irksome duty: you think you understand the context, I have to spend hours to explain your mistake and we are on the verge of edit warring before you accept my proposal. I think for the time being you should write, edit and comment articles about specific events of the crusades. For instance, you could create an article about the Cilician campaign. After reading a dozen of scholarly books about the campaign you will be able to make a distinction between facts and scholarly PoVs. I suggest that you should read recently published books - books published in the 1970s, in the 1940s and in the 19th century can be excellent works, but based exclusively on them we can hardly write quality articles. I would gladly propose some to you. Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Tancred

I know that you have little information about the leaders of the First (and Second, and Third...) Crusade, but do you really need a source to verify that Bohemond was Prince of Taranto? Do you really think that there are editors who think that a southern Italian prince is from Normandy? If you think so, why did you delete the reference to his southern Italian domain? Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, Bohemond wasn't Prince of Taranto, a title that didn't exist. Although he did carve out territory in the area after his younger brother followed Guiscard as Duke. Yes, I do think that some readers may confuse the Normans of Sicily with the Normans of Normandy. No, he wasn't Italian. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Afterall Barber, a source you added to the article puts it better: Bohemond, although initially disinherited by his father, Robert Guiscard, had been successful in creating a lordship for himself in the territories between Melfi and the Gulf of Taranto at the expense of his half-brother, Roger Borsa.59 Bohemond had had a glimpse of greater possibilities, however, for, in the late 1070s, he and his father had attempted to carve out lands for themselves in those parts of the Byzantine empire across the southern Adriatic, and in 1081 they had taken Corfu and Durazzo. While the story of the chronicler Richard of Poitiers that Guiscard had intended that Bohemond should be made emperor and that he himself should become ‘king of Persia’ sounds far-fetched, it may reflect a caste of mind prevalent among the Normans of the Hauteville family; indeed, it was credible enough for a version of it to appear in Anna Comnena’s Alexiad.60 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I know you think if you read a page in a book, you acquired full knowledge of the subject. That is why you should not edit. (1) " used the title princeps even before he left southern Italy in 1096 to participate in the expedition to Jerusalem. After being disinherited by his father Robert Guiscard in favor of ... Bohemond pursued a campaign of opportunist revolt aimed at capturin lans for himself ... With these conquests he seems to have adopted the title of prince of Taranto..." (* Asbridge, Thomas (2000). The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098–1130. The Boydell Press. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-85115-661-3.). (2) Why do you think a man who was born in southern Italy to a man ruling a southern Italian realm and who himself also held a southern Italian principality cannot be described as southern Italian? If you think some readers can confuse Taranto with Normandy why did you delete the reference to his southern Italian domain? Sorry, but fixing your amateurish edits is really irksome. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You wrote he was a Prince, not that he called himself a Prince so it was incorrect. You wrote yourself he was Norman, not Italian. Find a RS that syas he is Italian if you can? I did not delete a reference to his realm, just the title Prince. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Would you refer to reliable sources challenging the use of the title? 2. Would you quote text from the article proving that I incorrectly used the adjectives "Norman" or "Italian"? Borsoka (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1) I know you are only being rhetorical but yes, the title of the article is contested by historians. The intersect between the history of the crusades and the history of these four states is increasingly considered tiny by modern historians. Additionally, after the first crusade these the history of these states diverged from the crusades, the argument is that France under Saint Louis is the only true crusader state. Some would also add the Teutonic State. But that is not a debate to have with you. 2) You wrote above Why do you think a man who was born in southern Italy to a man ruling a southern Italian realm and who himself also held a southern Italian principality cannot be described as southern Italian? If you think some readers can confuse Taranto with Normandy why did you delete the reference to his southern Italian domain. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1. No, I am not rhetorical. Would you refer to reliable sources challenging the use of the title "Prince of Taranto" when referring to Bohemond? 2. Would you quote text from the article proving that I incorrectly used the adjectives "Norman" or "Italian"? Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Chronology

Lock p22: Oct 17, 1097 Baldwin leaves crusade. Feb (early) 1098 Thoros invites Baldwin to Edessa. 20 Feb Baldwin arrives. 7 Mar Edessan revolt. 9 Mar Thoros murdered. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If would have been able to summarize this sequence of events, I had not have any problems. I know that consolidating at lest two books is difficult for you, but in this case you should. Otherwise, I will revert your text. Sorry, I told you that reviewing your text is irksome duty for me, because you are unable to write more than two sentences without making some errors. Borsoka (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I have restored this to the source you used. If the two sources differ perhaps this should be explained in the text. The article would improve faster if you took other editors good faith edits and built on them rather than reverting. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I did not mention that he left before the siege of Antioch, because I thought it was not so relevant (and I still think it is not relevant). I told you we do not need to summarize each page we have just come through. Are you still sure we should mention it? If you mention it, you should explain it in more details because there is a clear contradiction between your two statements: he is departing for Edessa twice. Borsoka (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No contradiction and no suggestion that he left the crusade twice. The left the crusade, sometime after this Thoros invited him (some say adopted him) to defend then territory. Thoros subsequently was replaced in a coup. It is interesting he left the crusade before the city was taken for a variety of reasons. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you read what you wrote in the article ()? Baldwin clearly leaves for Edessa before Thoros invites him to Edessa - in your text. Could you clarify what happened and why? Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't your sources tell you? He was doing what did habitually. Fighting and taking territory like Turbessel and Rawandan. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I know what he did. However, you do not write for me. Are you still sure that it is relevant? Are you still sure you improved the article? Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's relavant, it explains the creation of one of the states, and influences one of the others. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You again made some chaotic edits (). Sorry, I must revert them. Borsoka (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I am am only attempting to copyedit this into tighter and more appropriate British English. In doing that I have moved to chronological sequence and expand some vague detailing. In terms of your current tagging this involves the following.

• If you insist on writing on this episode in details, please explained why did he leave for Edessa (if he actually left for Edessa) before he was invited to the town. The sources are clear that Baldwin left the crusade in October, before the seige of Antioch, and headed into the Edessa region. This is what the edit says. Further it does not say he was invited to the town, it says he was invited to defend the town. This is totally different.

If you suggest that he left specifically for Edessa, you mislead our readers. He left for the East because he knew that the local Armenians would help him.

Do you have a source that supports He left for the East because he knew that the local Armenians would help him? Sources are generally more ambiguous. Bu the way that is what your source Lock says. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourced an answer fot this. Used geographic west bank of Euphrates and reason - to join the Armenian feuding Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Better text. It does not contain false information any more. I do not understand why you do not like to mention that the Armenians greated him as a liberator? If my undrstanding is correct, you insist on narrating his campaign, because you want to provide a background to the establishment of Edessa. He coukld establish Edessa, because the local Armenians supported him. (1)" headed east again in order to make a more permanent entry into Armenian politics. First he captured the important fortresses of Ravendel and Turbessel which controlled the territory west of the Euphrates. Everywhere, the Armenians under Turkish lordship greeted him as a liberator." (Mayer, Hans Eberhard (2009) . The Crusades. Oxford University Press. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-19-873097-2.) (2) " Bagrat suggested that Baldwin attack Tell Bashir. ,,, Gathering his forces, Baldwin prepared to launch an attack, when to his surprise the gates were thrown open and the Armenian citizens streamed out to welcome him, having already dispatched the Turkish garrison themselves." (MacEvitt, Christopher (2010). The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 60. ISBN 978-0-8122-4050-4.). We can conclude that Baldwin did not leave for Edessa and he closely cooperated with the Armenians, according to the sources you allegedly read. You wrote of his departure for Edessa and deleted the reference to his cooperation with the Armenians. ()

• All sources emphasize that the Orthodox Thoros was killed by his Armenian subjects. The edit says he was killed, it doesn't deny he was killed by his subjects.

Quite important information that the Armenians preferred Baldwin to their Orthodox Armenian lord.

You say he was Armenian, are you sure of that, many sources have him as a greek? What sources say that the Armenians preferred him? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I know that MacEvitt refers to him as a "Greek", saying that "he was an Armenian or even a Jacobite; all sources concur to name him a Greek". However, even in this context the reference to the Jacobites, that "Armenian" an "Greek" are not ethnic labels. For further details, I refer to Lilie's Lilie, Ralph-Johannes (1993). Byzantium and the Crusader States 1096-1204. Clarendon Press. p. 31. ISBN 0-19-820407-8.

Elaborating to include the mob killing and uprising. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Why did Stephen desert the County of Edessa?. The edit says he was deserting, but does not say from Edessa. All sources say he deserted the seige of Antioch and told Alexius the crusaders cause was lost. This is consider one reason why Alexius retreated.

I know that Stephen did not desert the County if Edessa, but your text clearly implies it.

The adjective only descibes Stephen as a deserter, which he clearly was, it makes no connection with Edessa. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Rephrased to suit. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It is still unclear. I will modify

• Why do you write that only Bohemond blamed the Byzantines if the cited sources make it clear that all crusader leaders, but Raymond thought that the Byzantines had deserted them?. The edit doesn't say only Bohemond. It says Bohemond. This is important because it is on this that Bohemond based his claim for an independent principality of Antioch. That is the key fact Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

We can mention that Bohemond took advantage of the situation, but the main point is that all crusader leaders, but Raymond agreed with him. Borsoka (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The significant point was Bohemond's use of this. Clearly all the crusade leaders didn't agree. Stephen had deserted, Baldwin had left and Raymond disagreed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Rephrased to match this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

After his desertion, Stephen could not be described as a crusader leader. Do you have a reliable source claiming that Baldwin offered Edessa to the Byzantines. Köhler makes clear the original text. Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Alexios

@Norfolkbigfish: you added the following text in the article: "The Franks defeated a relief force led by Ridwan of Aleppo. Emperor Alexios received reports of the situation of the crusade from the deserting Stephen and Blois. As a result he withdrew to the west." Your text replaced the following text in the article: "As a false report about the annihilation of the crusader army prevented Emperor Alexios from leading Byzantine troops to Antioch, the crusaders lost confidence in the Byzantines." Would you quote texts from any of the scholarly work proving that your text properly summarize the events? If you cannot quote, would you explain why do you edit this article? Borsoka (talk)

Tyerman 2019, pages 86 & 88, as cited in the edit Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: Tyerman does not verify your edit. Would you quote the text from his book? Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The departure of Tatikos in February 1098 possibly to secure more supplies and troops, allowed some, notably Bohemond, to suggest treachery and dereliction from the agreements sworn between the crusaders and Alexius....his caution was compounded by learning of the crusaders plight directly from Stephen of Blois in late June.....the Emperor withdrew westwards...suited Bohemond's purpose. It left him free to demand Antioch and provided a very effective propaganda weapon to excuse the crusaders breaking their obligations on the grounds of Alexius's own breach of contract Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: Tyerman does not verify your edit. Would you quote the text proving that Alexios withdraw to the west because Stephen of Blois informed him of the crusaders' victory (as your text claim)? Borsoka (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The quoted text support the article as written Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you already fixed your wrong text (that I quoted above) (). Borsoka (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thoros

The article contains the following text: "Thoros, who ruled Edessa invited Baldwin of Boulogne to assist in defending the territory against Turkic raids." Norfolkbigfish added the following remark "Failed verification - "McEvitt is claer that it was not just the Turks but the local population as well".McEvitt writes: "In early February, T'oros, the ruler of Edessa, sent the bishop of the city and twelve councillors to Baldwin to ask for his help defending the city from the Turks." (MacEvitt, Christopher (2008). The Crusades and the Christian World of the East:rough tolerance. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-0-8122-2083-4.) Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Page 67 McEvitt also writes he may also have hoped that the crusader would aid him against his populist rivals he talks of how Thoros previously bolsterd his military strength through am alliance with a Turkish prince. On p68 Toros hoped to gain an ally to defend the city against attack and to strengthen his position within the city. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: you challenged the following text: "Thoros, who ruled Edessa invited Baldwin of Boulogne to assist in defending the territory against Turkic raids." However, above you quoted text explaining why Thoros adopted Baldwin. The text I quoted above verifies the challenged text without any doubt. Borsoka (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The source explains why Thoros was also threatened by Christian rivals, not just Turks, and not just raids, amended to match McEvitt.

1. McEvitt states as a fact that Thoros invited Baldwin to fight against the Turks. 2. McEvitt states as a possibility that Thoros adopted Baldwin to secure his support also against his Christian enemies. You are mixing McEvitt's two statements. Borsoka (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

T'oros sought Baldwin's aid because he feared a rebellious populous. p67 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. He wanted Baldwin's help against his own subjects. Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Capital

@Norfolkbigfish: could you refer to a reliable source stating that Edessa was not the "most important ... city" of the County of Edessa "where the central operate from" around 1098? We have to verify only statements that are likely challenged. The article contains well-sourced reference to the transfer of the counts' seat from Edessa to Turbessel in the 1110s. Borsoka (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka I don't really understand your point here, can you elaborate please, before I start wading through the sources? I am guessing the root of the question is in language differences rather than factual. Norfolkbigfish (talk)

@Norfolkbigfish:, would you elaborate please. Do you suggest Edessa was not the capital of the county? 12:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in no way was Edessa the capital of the county at this point and I would be surprised if you could find a source to back that up. Capital is simply the wrong word in British English. It is also factually incorrect acording to McEvitt (p70) He brought with him only sixty Frankish knights (although the number increased after the crusaders captured Antioch) and therefore depended on the aristocracy of the city. He left the Armenian administration of the city undisturbed .Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Which town/city was the capital of the County of Edessa, according to your sources? Do you think McEvitt suggests that Baldwin failed to establish the County of Edessa when he left the Armenian administration undisturbed? Borsoka (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

McEvitt covers this pretty well. ...what exactly did the title convey? ....Baldwin I had governed the area through personal relationships established on the battle field and in realpolitik encounters with Armenian lords and urban communities...relationships were personal, not instituitional . The territory only consisted of small pockets of territory surrounded by lands ruled by autonomous warlords, either Armenian or Turkish. The city of Edessa was ruled which was an important centre of trade, and likely produced a substantial income but beyond that only Tell Bashir. Rawandan and Samosata were. Not only that the holdings were not contiguous but separated by the Euphrates river and the Armenian lords Abgharib and Kogh Vasil. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you think McEvitt suggests that Baldwin failed to establish the County of Edessa? Which town/city was the capital of the County of Edessa, according to your sources? Borsoka (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In English counties don't have capitals, they have County Towns. McEvitt is clear on what existed (see above or better read McEvitt's work). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope you do not think that a crusader state (the County of Edessa) had the same legal status as an administrative unit of a state (like a county in England). Or do you? Yes, McEvitt's words are clear - it was you who quoted them when answering my question. I still do not know when do you think the County of Edessa was established. Do you know the answer? Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Why do you think McEvitt writes about Joscelin II, Count of Edessa's attempt to "recapture his capital" when writing about Joscelin's unsuccesful assault on Edessa after Zengi's death (p96)? Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

When McEvitt refers to Joscelin he is writing of events half a century after Baldwin, when the county was very different. He is clear on the period in question (p71) that The Franks did not institute new legal regimes, oust old elites, or do anything that would announce the establishment of a new regime. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. You understood that Edessa was the capital of the County of Edessa, according to MacEvitt. However, you think that Baldwin was the count of a non-existing county, according to MacEvitt. Or what? Borsoka (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre

@Norfolkbigfish: I think you again misinterpreted the cited source. Which text verifies the following sentences: "He took the title Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri. ... It was a position that Godfrey was already familiar with from this duchy in Lorraine." Is there any source claiming that the title of "Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre" was whenever used in Lorraine? Please also study Murray's work (to which Jotischky refers) before answering the question. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

An other question: why do you think that we should use the Latin form of Godfrey's title? Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri is what is used in the primary sources & what Godfrey would have recognised. Secondly, and ironically as you are editing in a language that is not your first Borsoka this doesn't translate easily into modern English in a way that the average Misplaced Pages reader would understand. The word advocate (used in this case for A guardian, protector, or patron of a church or religious house) is archaic, rarely used and possibly obsolete. A casual reader would understand that a title in Latin was what was used at the time, but would struggle to understand what Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre actually meant without further context.

On your first point the position/title in question is Advocatus or advocate. The definistion is clearly A guardian, protector, or patron of a church or religious house. Holt is explicit on this point: ....the title and function of Advocatus were well known in the lands from which the Crudaers came:he was a layman who protected and administered Church estates. He also adds the word defender by way of explanation. (Holt, 1986:p23). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The main article on the title is Advocatus, explaining its uses in different countries. Dimadick (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Norfolkbigfish's argumentation is baseless. There is only one primary source and it uses the following title: "ecclesiae S. Sepulcri ... advocatus" (Murray, Alan V. (1990). "The Title of Godfrey of Bouillon as Ruler of Jerusalem". Collegium Medievale (3): 163–178. ISSN 0801-9282.). If "advocate" is unacceptable, why do not use an other well-known translation: "Defender of the Holy Sepulchre"? If an average WP reader does not understand the expression, why did you delete at least twice the red link? 2. You have not answered my first question, so I repeat it: Is there any source claiming that the title of "Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre" was whenever used in Lorraine? Borsoka (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Dimadick—I have edited to include the wl to Advocatus and rephrased to make clear that this was a common position in Western Europe. This is sourced to Holt (1986, p23). Hopefully, I have communicated this well enough to clarify the confusion. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your sentences now make sense and can be verified. I edited them. Thank you for your attempt to fix the problem. Borsoka (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Bohemond and Antioch

@Norfolkbigfish: you again misinterpreted the source. Could you verify the following sentences? "Stephen of Blois deserted the crusade at Antioch, and while returning to Europe told Emperor Alexios its defeat was imminent. In response to what he had been told, Alexios withdrew to the west rather than join the siege. Bohemond claimed that when taken the city should be his because this was, combined with Tatikios departure, an act of treachery that freed him from his sworn oaths to the Byzantines." Please read Tyerman's narration of the siege of the town carefully before answering the question. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The departure of Taitikos in February 1098....allowed some notably Bohemond, to suggest treachery and dereliction from the agreements sworn between the Crusaders and Alexius in Constantinople.....these oaths...implied that, in return for his active assistance, Alexius would receive the allegiance of crusader conquests, at least as far as Syria. (p86) Alexius...his caution was compunded by learning of the crusaders plight directly from Stephen of Blois.....withdrew westwards... (p87) While it would stretch the evidence to suggest Bohemond had planned Stephen's departure and loade him with forecasts of doom in order to persuade Alexius to withdraw, Stephen's absence and the Emperor's failure to proceed to Syria suited Bohemond's purpose. It left him free to demand Antioch and provided a very effective weapon of propaganda to excuse the crusaders' breaking their obligations to the emperor on the grounds of Alexius's own supposed breach of contract. (p87-88)

Pretty much covers it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you misinterprete the source. How could Tatikios' departure and Alexios' return establish Bohemond's claim to rule Antioch? Godfrey, Raymond and other crusader leaders could have also claim the city on the same grounds. Tyerman writes: "By the end of May, had persuaded his fellow leaders to agree to his keeping Antioch if he could capture it and if no help came from Antioch." Borsoka (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no misinterpretation involved, although the phrasing may not make the meaning clear. This comes in two parts: the crusaders claiming that Alexius bad faith freed them from their oaths to return Antioch to the Byzantines when captured (and the other Syrian territories); Bohemond persuading the other leaders that he was the one who should hold Antioch. I have rephrased and hopefully it is now clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You still misunderprete the whole story, so I repeat what Tyerman writes: "By the end of May, had persuaded his fellow leaders to agree to his keeping Antioch if he could capture it and if no help came from Antioch." Borsoka (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There is still no misinterpretation. The departure of Taitikos in February 1098....allowed some notably Bohemond, to suggest treachery and dereliction from the agreements sworn between the Crusaders and Alexius in Constantinople.....these oaths...implied that, in return for his active assistance, Alexius would receive the allegiance of crusader conquests, at least as far as Syria. (p86) Alexius...his caution was compunded by learning of the crusaders plight directly from Stephen of Blois.....withdrew westwards... (p87) While it would stretch the evidence to suggest Bohemond had planned Stephen's departure and loade him with forecasts of doom in order to persuade Alexius to withdraw, Stephen's absence and the Emperor's failure to proceed to Syria suited Bohemond's purpose. It left him free to demand Antioch and provided a very effective weapon of propaganda to excuse the crusaders' breaking their obligations to the emperor on the grounds of Alexius's own supposed breach of contract. (p87-88) Clearly what Tyerman's research leads him to write is a sequence where 1) The crusaders make oaths to return all former Byzantine territory regained. 2) Taitkos leaves the crusade (for whatever reason) and Alexius withdraws (because Stephen tells him all hope is lost). 3) Point 2 allows the crusaders to claim for propaganda purposes that Byzantine bad faith frees them from their oaths). 4) Bohemond persuades the crusaders that he should be the one to hold Antioch. That is what Tyerman writes. The fuller sentences support this, but so does the single one you quote. had persuaded his fellow leaders to agree to his keeping Antioch is effectively point 4 and in part if no help came from Antioch supports 2/3 in combination. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You do not understand what happened. Read Tyerman's own summary how Bohemond established his own claim to rule Antioch: "By the end of May, had persuaded his fellow leaders to agree to his keeping Antioch if he could capture it and if no help came from Antioch." Borsoka (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Although well sourced I have removed the sentence that appears to be causing the contention on grounds of redundancy. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a good approach: we are not informed how Bohemond assumed power in a Greek city claimed by the Byzantines. Borsoka (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Chronology

@Norfolkbigfish: I am always willing to follow a strict chronological order, because it is the most neutral way of introducing a subject. However, if we adopted a strict chronology, as you allegedly suggest, we could not present the history of the crusader states clearly. Chronology ignores geography and we should jump from an event occuring in Edessa to an other (most likely unconnected) event taking place at Tyre. Do you agree? Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Raymond

@Norfolkbigfish: could you quote Jotischky's or Holt'S text verifying your following statement "Raymond claimed only Christ could wear a crown in Jerusalem, when he realised his leadership would be rejected"? Borsoka (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Although Raymond of Saint-Gilles justifiably regarded himself as the leader of crusade from autumn 1098 onward, he was isolated among the leaders. The realisation that he commanded insufficient supportto defend Jerusalem alone probably lay behind his pious refusal of the crown on the grounds that only Christ could wear a crown in Jerusalem. The title take by Godfrey may have been a clever resposnse to a strategem on Raymond's part to disuade others from assuming rulership but, as Murray has shown it was an office already familiar to the duke of Lorraine (2000;74-7). p62 2004 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you read the first two sentences carefully? We cannot present a PoV as a fact. Borsoka (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The text in the article matches the source.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Read it again. Borsoka (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Rephrased, better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I went further. Borsoka (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

@Norfolkbigfish: according to WP:LEAD: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. ... Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." For no text in the article claims that the crusaders "usurped" Edessa, this statement should be verified by an inline citation. Borsoka (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, usurped is used in one of the sources used in the article but I am nor pedantic enough to search though and indentify which. So I have rephrased to remove usurped and the tag. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Content debate or ignorance?

@Norfolkbigfish: I have just finished the review of your latest "edits" (). If you do not have time to read the cited books carefully, why do you edit articles? If you do not have time to understand the books you are allegedly citing, why do you edit articles? An experienced editor, Iridescent, stated that our debate is obviously a content debate. I assume Iridescent is not an expert (they have made a comparison between Steven Tibble's Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and Emil's Clever Pig several times). I maintain that you should not edit articles about the crusades. Let's forget the dozens of typos you are making, let's also forget that you refer to a new source (The Crusader States by Malcolm Barber) without mentioning it in the Bibliography section - although these are signs of unusual negligence. However, could you refer to a single scholarly work saying that Joscelin II of Edessa was assassinated by Assassins and a "Raymond II" was killed in the Battle of Inab? Do you think this is a content debate? Or is it a sign of the lack of your knowledge about the crusader states? Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Good call on Barber, now added to Bibliography and Joscelin (I don't know what happened there, maybe a ce error). Both now fixed. The Raymond point is a little different. Article said Pons was killed and Raymond II captured by Zengi . This is in fact correct. Added a citation to Barber 165 for you, source says Raymond of Tripoli was captured. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you refer to a single reliable source stating that a "Raymond II" was killed in the Battle of Inab as it is stated in the article? If you do not have time to read carefully, why do you edit the article? Do you think a long series of ignorant edits can be described as vandalism? Maybe Iridescent could answer this question. Borsoka (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Good article reassessment nominees
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class military history articles
• GA-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• GA-Class French military history articles
• French military history task force articles
• GA-Class Medieval warfare articles
• Medieval warfare task force articles
• GA-Class Crusades articles
• Crusades task force articles
• GA-Class Middle Ages articles
• High-importance Middle Ages articles
• GA-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• GA-Class Western Asia articles
• Unknown-importance Western Asia articles
• WikiProject Western Asia articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English