Talk:Crusades

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good article Crusades 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
January 11, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
November 14, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
June 2, 2013 Peer review Reviewed
June 23, 2014 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited
October 6, 2015 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited
January 3, 2017 Peer review Reviewed
April 26, 2017 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited
May 6, 2017 Good article nominee Listed
May 27, 2017 WikiProject A-class review Approved
July 15, 2017 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article


Death Toll 1099[edit]

The text on the death toll in 1099 got deleted, I re-entered it with additional reference (Asbridge and Kedar). In the past the numbers have been largely exaggerated but in the last 20 years the scientific discussion agreed on the current figure of 3.000 victims (using both Hebrew and Arab sources). In the past the erroneous numbers have been widely distributed and continue to be used in some quarters. In addition, they have been instrumentalized in some instances. Therefore the exact number of victims is important for this article. --FKSM (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There are grammar issues with the edit. And the biggest problem is the undue nature of the information - you're presenting one side of a historical debate in an article that is really an overview of the entire crusading movement. We don't need this detail on the numbers in an article devoted to the entire crusading movement. There is no 'Scientific discussion" in history - that implies much more precision than how the historical process actually works. You might have a point on the numbers if there had been numbers in the article already - but there weren't. The article correctly notes that the numbers in the past were exaggerated ... without going into undue details of who argues for which numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The places for numbers are First Crusade and Siege of Jerusalem (1099), but as Ealdgyth suggests, this cannot be regarded as a settled question. The lack of sources makes any talk of "scientific" precision inappropriate. I presume it is Joshua Prawer who kicked off the debate of recent years; his numbers were low, but very tentative. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
While I agree that the specific arguments about the numbers aren't really necessary on the general crusades article, it's a bit unfair to dismiss the discussion as "unscientific". It's what we call "scientific history" (which, on Wikipedia, redirects to historical method). You're right to say that it's not "science" in the sense that we can never actually provide a specific number of people who were killed. It's not chemistry or physics. But it is science in the way historians use the term, i.e. detailed study of the primary sources to find out not only what may or may not have actually happened, but also why the events were described the way they were, what other people thought happened and why they thought that, etc etc (which is the what Kedar's lengthy article in volume 3 of the Crusades journal does). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)