Talk:Crusader states

Template:Vital article

Crusades expansion

I am expanding the crusader states section in the Crusades article. I will also copy across the text as relevant to help this one alongNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2020

Crusader states → Outremer – There has been a long debate on scope and definition of the Crusades at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Crusader states in Greece

There is only one passing reference to the Crusader states which existed in Greece in this article, such as the Duchy of Athens, Kingdom of Thessalonica, and doubtless others I had never heard of before today. Hopefully, someone with a bit more knowledge on the subject can suggest where I could learn more to maybe one day add these correctly into the article or, probably better, do it themselves. FrunkSpace (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit queries

Greetings all. I am cracking on with a copy edit. If I get something wrong, or if you don't understand why I have done something, feel free to flag it up here. I shall do likewise with my queries:

1. "Malcolm Barber, a British scholar of medieval history, indicates that in the Crusader state of the Kingdom of Jerusalem the Holy Sepulchre was added to in the 7th century and rebuilt in 1022, "after a previous collapse". "In 691–2 Caliph Abd al Malik had built a great dome over the rock here, a place sacred to all three great religions" " Why is this where it is? Much of it seems to have little to do with the rest of the paragraph. Indeed, does it need to be in the article anywhere?

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted this Gog the Mild. I may be pushing my luck but when you have finished here would it be possible to ce the Outremer section in Crusades—now reduced in size— from which much of the text in this article originated, please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, thanks. I was tempted to delete it myself, but I am aware that a copy editor is not a content creator/deleter and that seemed over-stepping the mark.

Crusades - sure. Could you remind me once I finish this? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Are you happy that "Crusader" has an upper case C? I don't see that it is a proper noun.

Me neither, lower case better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• "created a growing social class" This raises the question for a reader, and a copy editor, as to what social class is meant. Is "upper-" the missing word? Or perhaps 'elite'? Or 'urban'?

elite probably covers it best Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• What are "city centred products"? Products which are typically produced in [domestic] urban locales?

Yes, e.g. non-primary goods Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• In fact, the whole summary of pp. 352–354 doesn't really flow (sorry) and I don't have access to it to try and make sense of it myself. Want to scan and email me those four pages?

• Sure, np—what email address Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, Send me a Wikipedia email, I'll reply and then you'll have it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The Frankish population, estimated at roughly a quarter of a million people, provided an import market for clothing and finished goods." From Europe, or from the cities just mentioned.

Europe Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Is cite 51 in the correct place? Shouldn't it be at the end of the sentence?

Correct & done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• The "Military" section seems to me to end hanging. So what happened about Egypt? Maybe add 'However, repeated assaults on Egypt failed to achieve the benefits the crusaders hoped for.' or similar. Whatever you go for, I assume that you can source it; or I could probably dig something up.

Added detail on Fifth & Seventh crusades to address this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Right. That is my first run through done. I will have a look at Prawer, and then go through again. What sort of level are you eventually hoping to get this to? GA? FA? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think GA is far as it can go, without wider sourcing which I don't have access to, that would be for another editor I think. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

PS I assumed that it hardly needed saying that the lead needs rewriting. Would you like me to attempt a first draft of this? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Will give it a go Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Now done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies Gog the Mild—I thought I had finished with content as this point but noticed and absence of Art, Lilitary Orders & Legacy. In a rush of blood to the head I have added a chunk of additional content, after your first pass. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

And again

• "the last mainland outpost" Are we classing Cyrus as a "crusader state"?

My view on Cyprus is the smae as Johnbod's, that its inclusion is dubious. However I wasn't think of Cyprus when I wrote this but the Fall of Ruad that another editor raised some time ago. I have, however, rephrased this more neutrally. What do you think Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the lead is going to cause the article to fail any assessment above C class as there is next to nothing in the article regarding what it contains. Indeed, it could be argued that the second paragraph does little to "summarize the body of the article". (Quote from the MoS "nutshell".) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Re Cyprus (I assume you mean), it's status as a "crusader state" is somewhat dubious imo, like others away from the Levant. But I suppose yes. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Last two paragraphs quickly rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• "heterogeneity would have inevitably eroded formal apartheid" "would have" seems strange phraseology. This is an encyclopedia. Don't we need to say that it did or it didn't? Or that this source said such and such on the topic?

Removed first reference and amended second to although some historians assume that Outremer's heterogeneity eroded formal apartheid Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Describing the local, sometimes "natives" is used, sometimes "indigenous people(s)". It would be nice, but not essential, to standardise.

Done, indigenous Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The Franks ruled as an elite and unnumbered class." What does "unnumbered" mean in this context?

Typo, should be outnumbered Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Ha! I should have guessed that.

• "Muslim libraries contained classical Greek and Roman texts that allowed Europe to rediscover pre-Christian philosophy, science and medicine." This may be well sourced, but it is a highly contentious statement; can I suggest giving a little space to other opinions?

This is rather the general consensus amongst historians Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Since Christmas I have read a couple of learned accounts that barely give Islam a walk on part, but that must just be coincidence. It is unlikely to matter at GAN anyway.,

Emmm, I don't know what these accounts were so I cannot comment but I am interested, what were they Gog the Mild? Personally, I haven't read any contention to this statement from Nicholson. Asbridge puts it Historians have long recognised that the interaction between western Christendom and the Muslim and wider Mediterrean worlds during the Middle Ages played an important perhaps even critical, role in advancing European civilisation....By its nature, textual transmission of knowledge is easier to trace. In this area of exchange Outremer played a notable role-as witnessed in the translations made at Antioch. (pp=666-667) Relative importance in comparison with Sicily and Muslim Iberia is debated, but I haven't seen it fundamentally denied. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The growth of the system of indulgences" What has this to do with the crusader states? It is, I think, their first mention. Probably better in the legacy section of Crusades than this article.

Removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The crusades also had a role in the ... " Again, why is this in the crusader states legacy section?

REmoved Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Some parts of the last paragraph also seem to have little connection to the crusader states.

Removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• There should not normally be citations in the lead.

Removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Great. I am aware that I need to apply the source you generously sent to the economy section, but give me a day or two to get my breath back/deal with other stuff. Otherwise I reckon that it is in decent shape. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Outremer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 09:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Starting soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No dead links Y Suggest using Wayback Machine to archive them.
• No missing citations N:

  Consolidation in the first half of the 12th-century established four crusader states:/The County of Edessa (1098–1149)/The Principality of Antioch (1098–1268)/The Kingdom of Jerusalem, founded in 1099, lasted until 1291, when the city of Acre fell./The County of Tripoli (1104–1289, although the city of Tripoli itself remained in Muslim control until 1109) Seems like citation for all might be on the Tripoli one, if so please add it to the end of all of them and the end of the colon before the list. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Norfolkbigfish: Citational issues need to be dealt with; article is otherwise good to go. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for cutting me some slack @Iazyges:, but I checked the citation and it was in fact only for Tripoli. Now added for the other states as well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Norfolkbigfish: No problem. Wondering if I might ask you to review my FAC nom Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcian/archive2 if you have the time. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Prose Suggestions

Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

Lede

• with more serious offences dealt with by the Frankish cour des bourgeois. explain what cour des bourgeois means for those who don't know French.

• Y done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Economy

• Franks, Muslims, Jews and indigenous Christians traded crafts in the souks of the cities. explain what a souk is.

• Y done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Coinage

• Despite lords in Tyre, Sidon and Beirut minting silver pennies and copper coins there is little evidence of systematic attempts to create a unified currency. suggest Although lords in Tyre, Sidon and Beirut minted silver pennies and copper coins there is little evidence of systematic attempts to create a unified currency.

• Y done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Communes

Largely based in the ports of Acre, Tyre, Tripoli and Sidon, Italian, Provençal and Catalan communes suggest Largely based in the ports of Acre, Tyre, Tripoli and Sidon, communes of Italians, Provençals and Catalans

• Y done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Language

• As such, linguistic differences remained a key differentiator suggest As such, linguistic differences remained a key differentiator between the Frankish lords and the local population.

• Y done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

GA?

@Norfolkbigfish and Iazyges:, I have just realized that the article passed its GAN. I would like to ask you to either secure the article's full compliance with GA criteria or reasses it. After quickly reading over the text, my findings are the following:

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

• The article uses at least two different sets of templates for references.
•  Done

GA criteria 1c. ("it contains no original research")

• The article contains the following text: "The barons 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 in his work referred to verify the statement: "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."
  • An attempt was made to fix the above problem. The new text demonstrates the basic problems of the article: it presents scholarly PoVs as facts and tends to pick up random text from the cited sources instead of providing a full picture. (Now we are informed about the negative views of some scholars of 13th-century barons, but we have no information of the 12th-century barons and Jotischky's above quoted text suggest that other interpretations also exists.) Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• "The crusader states were the first experiment in European colonialism..." - I did not find anything verifying the statement in the two work cited. (And what about Greek and Roman colonies in Asia Minor, the Near East and Northern Africa in Antiquity?)
  • The above text was deleted, but the sentence still contains an unexplained term: "first experiment in "Europe Overseas"". This is a nice expression, but what does it mean? There were Greek colonies in Asia and Africa with and the Hellenistic states were ruled by a Greek elite in Asia and Africa. We should explain why Riley-Smith used this term. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 20 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. [Asbridge (2012), pp. 21–22; Housley (2006), pp. 36–37]
• The article almost makes no mention of women and if a woman is mentioned, she is a queen.
• 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?
• The article does not write of the international relations of the Crusader states.
• The article does not write of the differences between the Crusader States.
• The results of archaeological researches are not mentioned, although archaeology is an important source of everyday life in the Outremer.
• The article does not mention the reasons of the appearance of the military orders in the Outremer. It does not make it clear that the Knights Templar were the first military order. It does not mention other important military orders, the Lazarites and the Teutonic Order.
  • Think some of these definitely need to be included, such as the Seljuk, international relations, differences, and military order parts, however things like the life of women, the everyday life, and the archeology appear to either be mentioned as best they can or are non-essential. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• • During GARs on similar articles (Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301), Romania in the Early Middle Ages), I received suggestion that aspects of everyday life should be mentioned. And I fully agreed with them: we have to be informed about the life of the common people to be able to say that we have a basic knowledge of a country/a region in a certain period. Yes, women are often ignored in articles, which is itself a problem. However, in the case of the Outremer it cannot be tolerated, because the relatively free status of women in the Crusader States was one of the Outremer's distinguishing features. [I refer to, for instance, Schein, Sylvia (2002), "Women in Medieval Colonial Society: The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century", in Susan B. Edgington; Sarah Lambert (eds.), Gendering the Crusades, Columbia University Press, pp. 140–153, ISBN 0231125992. I could refer to further works.] Could we properly describe a flower without mentioning the colors and shapes of its petals? Archaeology is an importan source of our historical knowledge. If we ignore it, we ignore history itself. Furthermore, archaeology has a specific role in the recent development of our knowledge about the Outremer. Jotischky emphasizes the role of archaeological researches by Ronnie Ellenblum and Adrian Boas in the 1990s; they challenged well-established old views about Crusader societies and changed historians' understanding about the Outremer. [Jotischky (2017), pp. 18, 161] If we list sources in the "Reference" section (like Jotischky), we should not ignore their important conclusions. Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

• The article contains the following text: "The leaders of the Third Crusade ignored the monarchy of Jerusalem; disposing of conquests as if there was no need to consider the nobility of the crusader states and giving the throne to Conrad of Montferrat in 1190 and then Henry II, Count of Champagne in 1192." Jotischky on the same subject: "Richard's support for Guy, his Lusignan vassal, cost him the cooperation of Conrad [of Montferrat] and most of the native Frankish barons, for the duration of the crusade. ... Finally, in the spring of 1192, Richard was forced to abandon Guy and recognise Conrad as king. ... [Conrad of Montferrat's death] Richard ... wisely did not try to bring [Guy of Lusignan] back ... Instead, overlooking the fact thet in his eyes [Queen Isabel I of Jerusalem] was still canonically married to Humphrey of Toron, Richard proposed that the uncrowned queen now marry [Henry of Champagne]." [Jotischky (2017), pp. 171–172] Asbridge on the same subject: "...much of the surviving nobility of the Latin kingdom decided to back Conrad [of Montferrat against Guy of Lusignan]. ... Reconciled to compromise, the Lionheart convened a council of crusader barons ... A unanimous decision was reached, almost certainly with Richard's tacit approval, to offer the kingdom to Conrad of Montferrat." [Asbridge (2012), pp. 171–172, 494]
  • An attempt was made to fix the above problem. I assume the new text refers to the division of the remnants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem between Conrad of Montferrat and Guy of Lusignan. Of course, we can present this event as an arbitrary division made by Richard the Lionheart and Philip Augustus. However, in this case, we ignore most scholars' presentation of the facts: Conrad saved Tyre, the Jerusalemite barons hated Guy and were unwilling to serve him, Richard and Philip agreed to distribute the kingdom. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I emphasize that the above findings are results of a really quick reading. Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am still emphasizing that the whole article is an unconsolidated mixture of nicely written texts randomly picked from the works cited. It still contains absurdities: is there any scholar claiming that Frederick II centralized the government of Germany? It still failes to mention basic facts: where are the Turcopoles (soldiers of native origin) mentioned? These are only examples after a second quick reading. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Flibirigit (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• Outremer, or the Crusader states, were feudal Christian states created by a series of religious wars initiated, supported and sometimes directed by the Latin Church in the Middle Ages. These states in the Levant were the first examples of "Europe overseas" and became known to historians by the French version of the phrase, Outremer.

Improved to Good Article status by Norfolkbigfish (talk). Self-nominated at 16:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC).

• @Norfolkbigfish: can you provide a hook? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Might need you help on this one CAPTAIN MEDUSA, it is my first DYK. I though Outremer, or the Crusader states, were feudal Christian states created by a series of religious wars initiated, supported and sometimes directed by the Latin Church in the Middle Ages. These states in the Levant were the first examples of "Europe overseas" and became known to historians by the French version of the phrase, Outremer. was a hook for this. Apologies for my ignorance Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Norfolkbigfish, That is kind of like a sentence to me. I need a short hook, that is catchy, about the article. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• How about The Outremer created by the First Crusade in the Levant was the first example of an "Europe Overseas"? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that the Outremer created by the First Crusade in the Levant was the first example of an "Europe overseas"?

• I have formated the hook for you. Full review needed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that the Outremer, or Crusader states, were feudal Christian states supported and sometimes directed by the Latin Church in the Middle Ages? --evrik ^(talk) 05:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just a remark. I requested the reassessment of the article. The proposed hook is quite problematic: it presents a scholarly PoV as a fact and it ignores the experience of Greek colonies and the Hellenistic states in Antiquity. Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Given the sheer number of templates in the article, a review would not be useful at this time. Once the issues are settled such that templates are no longer needed, we can call for a reviewer at that time provided the article has not been delisted at GAR. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish: I'm going to say no on this one for now. Please relist it once the article gets the tags removed. Once you relist this, ping me and I will do the DYK review for you. --evrik ^(talk) 23:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed that this should be closed. It seems likely, too, that the article will be delisted—even Norfolkbigfish is in favor of delisting it. Should that happen, a renomination would have to wait for the article to be passed once again as a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closed nomination as per above comments. No prejudice against renomination if/when article passes GA status. Flibirigit (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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 ([1], [2], [3]) 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. [Asbridge (2012), pp. 21–22; Housley (2006), pp. 36–37]

 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 ([4]). 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. [Jotischky (2017), pp. 18, 161]

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. ([5]) 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. ([6])

 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 [King Aimery of Cyprus and Jerusalem] ... 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. [Holt, James Clark (2003) [1992]. 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 [7], Gury Perry [8]). 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 [around 1125]....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 ([9]). 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: [10]. 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/w/index.php?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: [11]. 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

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)

Edit

Borsoka, I am bemused by this Edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outremer&diff=952240436&oldid=952239277&diffmode=source.

The commentary is Thank you for removing your original research. Please do not remove templates if the problem is not fixed. The text still contains original research. Books containing about 100 pages do not contain information on pages 167-169 in this reality.. Holt's "The Age of Crusade" isbh 0-582-49302-1 published in 1986 has 250 pages. All three areas you have tagged as failing verification are in the chapter 19 The Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and its Successors which runs from page 167 to 178. Admittedly this is not the 2004 version sourced in the article but I am sure that version hasn't had 150 pages excised. I will amend volumes to match. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

My newer version of Holt's work is really short. Sorry, I always forget that I use the newest editions of your books.

I was also beamused that you placed the following text in this article: "The "Holy Land" had been under Arab Muslim control for more than four centuries, with fluctuating levels of tolerance, trade, and political relationships between Muslims and Christians. Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status, legal rights, and legal protection. Indigenous Christians were allowed to maintain churches, and marriages between faiths were not uncommon." You may remember that during the review of the Crusades article I already draw your attention to that fact that this text is not verified by the allegedly cited source (Findley (2005)). First you denied that it is your original research ([12]), than you provided a truncated text from Findley's work to verify your original research ([13]). You only deleted the text form the Crusaders article when I compared your quote from Findley and Findley's actual text ([14]).

We really need an expert who could fix all problems in this article without editorial bias. Borsoka (talk)

Good, that is sorted then Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:28, 21 April 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.)
• "[Zengi and Nur al-Din] 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 ... [the] 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. ... [Kilij Arslan recovered] a part of his paternal heritage through war, murder, and subterfuge. ... Nevertheless, when the [crusaders] 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)