Jump to content

Talk:Crusades/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

A proposal and a possible objection against it

I wonder if we could not reach a consensus in which the top article would have a strong emphasis on the traditional ones, but less than currently, because there would be another article on the traditional crusades that would be pretty much like the current one as far as the traditional crusades are concerned. The key point is that the emphasis on the traditional crusades would not be lost in the top article. This means some duplication, but it can be OK. In this manner, the top article would have more room for institutions. An objection against this would be that an emphasis on traditional crusades is in itself the viewpoint of many scholars, but not enough a consensus among scholars to justify that we base the organization of the articles on this particular view. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where or if things are moving. The TALK seems winding up similar to historians in debating how much of which ones to mention and taking note of the traditionally numbered nine campaigns but flux in defining what “Crusade” means.
Though historians commonly organise it by period rather than region, and select by consequences rather than WEIGHT of coverage. e.g. highlighting the First as the start of an era, the Spanish and French as leading to forming large nations (plus Colonization and the Renaissance), the Third for success and creating Outremer, the Fourth as leading towards end of Byzantine empire, and then going more into after that decline and why Crusading ended, lumping together 5-6 and 7-8-9 with various mentions of succession of migrations and distractions (New World, Protestantism) and effects.
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. The question that comes to mind is how we can base a decision on some "objective" view of the scholarly literature. The minimum, as a starting point, would be that every time we provide a view on how scholars present the overall subject Crusades, we provide references and ideally even specific pages where the authors describe themselves how they will cover the subject and why. Maybe in this manner, in an eventual Rfc, non experts would be able to more easily make informed comments that will help us find an answer to the following question in terms of the scholarly literature: "What is the widest scope of the subject Crusades that is yet sufficiently precise for one (possibly two) article(s) in Wikipedia". I know the question is a little bit vague, because "widest scope" could be interpreted as "which crusades" only when in fact it also asks for what aspects of the crusades should be covered and with how much weight. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Estimating due weight is a challenge here. What is the due weight for the institutional aspect? What is the due weight for the traditional crusades? Answers based on what the individual scholars say will most likely conflict. We need a synthesis. The starting point, I suggested, is to have specific references. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Dominic Mayers II I see a discussion on historiography of Crusades coverage at the starting text in Crusading and the Crusader States, but most authors just don’t seem to include the reasoning of their book content. Figuring WEIGHT would be complex as actual scope of each text can be a specialty topic - one on the Northern Crusades, the next about First Crusade, another Chronicles of a Crusade (diaries from the fourth) - and compendium texts may be strictly battlefield or may be Reader compilation of writings as available. I have my general impression that coverage highlights the first, third, fourth, and Reconquista... but cannot see how to get an objective measure. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Markbassett, when I say a synthesis, I have in mind that we have more than a single reference. I mentioned that ideally the author describes what he covers, but the idea was not to rely on a single author, because the view of an author is only one view and we must make a synthesis of the different views. I see two cases:
  1. The different ways that scholars use to present Crusades in the literature cannot in an obvious manner be synthesized into a single article.
  2. On the contrary, it should be easy to do this synthesis of the literature, but there is either (2A) original research or (2B) POV pushing going on here.
My assumption, which will be confirmed by references, is that we are in the first case and we must nevertheless try to do that synthesis and if we don't succeed, since we are not in the cases 2A or 2B, there should result from that a good explanation for having two top level articles on Crusades in Wikipedia. Given that explanation, we will easily find two titles. By the way, it is not because there are opposite views in the literature that a synthesis is difficult. On the contrary, opposite views are pertinent to each other. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You guys really should have waited for a close to the RfC (WP:AN/RFC exists if you were not aware). @Dominic Mayers II: your signature is slightly confusing: you should either WP:USURP your old username (per the process there described) or alter your signature so that it includes the II. As to the issue at hand which you describe in your last post, there is no precedent for having multiple top level articles on the same subject that I know of. Speaking as mostly uninvolved, I'd expect that a serious top level effort (at whatever title it ends up: Overview of the Crusades; or Crusades, or another suitable title) should ideally include all major points (including the scholarly debate, presented according to NPOV as usual): politics, warfare, legacy, historiography, "other crusades", ... The RfCs seem to point in the direction that there should be a different top level articles for the Crusades (general) and the (middle-eastern) Crusades (traditional); but nothing about the European crusades Whether these need a top level article to themselves (or whether a "Deviation of the crusades"/something-similar-title section is sufficient) is an open question and wasn't much discussed. In any case duplication is best avoided and the use of hatnotes should allow readers to easily navigate between related pages, and disambiguating is always possible using parentheticals or more descriptive titles if need be. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Regarding splitting, see also WP:SUMMARY (with the example of WWII, which has many, many sub-topics). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry not to have waited. I am primary responsible for this. My logic was that the Rfc completely failed to provide the context and without context we naturally consider Crusades a top article and, of course, in this case we must retain the section. As you know, a Rfc is not a vote. The purpose should be a discussion to reach a consensus, a real one, based on a common context. But, I agree, I should have waited nevertheless and use WP:AN/RFC, of which I was not aware. I also thank you for the suggestion to WP:USURP my old account. Finally, not the least, I share your view against two "top" articles, but I would not have dismissed a good argument based on sources to support it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, we haven't had a big fat debate for, ooh, nearly three weeks now, so obviously it's time for another one. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I believe there is a good chance of reaching a common understanding. Many want Crusades to be a top article covering all crusades. However, there is a strong emphasis on the traditional crusades in this article and less on institutional aspects. So, the second article Crusading was created as a top article with the idea that Crusades would then focus more clearly on the traditional ones. The disagreement seems to be that some say that the focus on the traditional crusades is natural for a top article on all crusades and this is what is done in the literature, while others see instead that a top article should focus on institutional aspects and not focus so much on the traditional ones. So, the disagreement seems to be on what content is important in a top article, not that the different contents are in opposition. I suspect that both views (on how to present all crusades) are used in the literature and the solution is to use WP:NPOV in a top article, while having more specific articles to develop specific content. This will not violate WP:CFORK because it is not that we create a different article to develop on an opposite view. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I was not suggesting a new debate. I was suggesting concrete action, in the form of making appropriate sub-articles about the topic. That will be a lot of (long-term?) work, but it will make this far more useful to our readers. A proposed structure for the whole of this could be:
Proposal
  • Top-level article (Crusades or whichever title)
    • Top-level article on the "traditional" (middle-eastern) Crusades
      • Articles about individual crusades
        • Articles about sub-topics (if necessary), campaigns, individual events within these crusades
    • (optional; unsure): Top-level article about the non-middle-eastern crusades (or at least about some sub-parts of them, Reconquista...), but given their disparity this might be difficult.
      • Individual crusades
        • Sub-topics, campaigns, individual events, ...
    • Articles about sub-topics of the Crusades as a whole, with sections in the main article as needed (ex. Legacy of the Crusades, Historiography of the Crusades)
  • This structure should then be reflected in the top article, which would include, in addition to some background (the Crusades didn't pop out of thin air, and something needs to be said about why the Crusades targeted the Middle East) a section about the "main" Crusades (as a whole, with subsections for the most important ones); a section about other variants of the phenomenon (subsection about important ones, Reconquista, etc...); and sections about the other topics (legacy, criticism, ...). This would therefore hopefully clarify the scope of each article (issues about the specifics, such as titles, can be resolved as they come up). The input of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Crusades task force would be helpful. This, in essence, is what WP:SUMMARY says we should do. Shouldn't require a big fat debate, especially after the two RfCs which have shown there was an issue and which hopefully have also shown some guidance on the subject. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In my view, the key point in what RandomCanadian suggests is that contributors two both articles must accept that the global organization has to be reconsidered. Holding on the current Crusades article or on the current Crusading article as a definition of the global organization (to be reflected on a top article) for all crusades cannot lead to a fruitful discussion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Concretely, I suggest that we create a new top article, first as a draft, that will become the new top article under the title "Crusades", which means that the current article Crusades would eventually have to be renamed. This new top article would implement the WP:SUMMARY style. I would see it as citing well established sources as a way to introduce the two articles in a way that respects WP:NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Last word: I believe the disagreement is not so much regarding traditional crusades versus other crusades, but the traditional view versus the (institutional, etc.) view on crusades. The emphasis on traditional crusades being only one aspect of the traditional view, both views covering all crusades. We need to refer to sources to decide how to present these two views in respect of WP:NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
This last bunch of contributions (from both editors) ignores that the focus of the longest Rfc (three back was it?) was not just on geographical splits (or not), but on milhist & other narrative vs analysis of the overall reasons for crusading, and the ideological, political & social context. I think we have "why the Crusades targeted the Middle East" covered. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I am glad that you confirm that the issue is not only geographical (or historical) split, but also, as you say, "milhist & other narrative vs analysis of the overall reasons for crusading". Are you saying that all of this was discussed before and apparently no agreement was reached and there is no hope. I disagree. On the contrary, I cannot see how it could fail. It can be enforced that a third article to become the top article with title "Crusades" should be created (first as a draft). This will create a new context for discussions and because I only see wise contributors here, very knowledgeable, I don't see how it could fail. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the article here poses a solid framework (GA class is no mean feat, despite the misgivings we might have about its current status, and despite a possibility this might need reconsideration of that status). The question is how much content that exists at both articles can be merged, how much of it needs to be split out, how much we need to rewrite/reorganise... The previous FA seems to be mostly about copy-editing, but there are some concerns about a few passages if you scroll down far enough ([1]). I've added something about the legacy and modern history; there's more to come in the short term. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the FA. The GA class is deserved. It's indeed a great article, but Crusading is there and a question is raised as far as the global organization is concerned. This question won't go away by itself and two top articles, as it is now, is hard to justify. So, yes how much can be merged, split out, etc. must be answered. Perhaps a third article as a top article is not the final solution, but I really believe that trying to write a draft for such an article makes sense as a way to clarify the current situation. I am sure that I am not alone that must be asking why we have currently two top articles. I know that some say that Crusades should not be a top article anymore, but many feel it must remain a top article. So, trying to write some text, as if it was an article on top of both articles, even if we don't succeed, will have the benefit of clarifying the issue in a very concrete manner. Only discussions in PdD and rfc do not work. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The current two-article structure was the result of endless discussions, and though it by no means reflected universal agreement, it did achieve a broad consensus. Now two editors who did not participate in those discussions turn up and want to have a third top level article, covering who knows what. This doesn't seem a positive suggestion, to put it mildly. Meanwhile, content additions have pretty much ceased, understandably given the continuing uncertainty. I suggest you stop. Most of the many "wise contributors ... very knowledgeable" have just tuned out for now, understandably. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:Consensus can change; and I can't be faulted for "endless discussions" which happened long time ago and which you can't provide links for. What I'm suggesting is merging Crusading with Crusades (possibly moving to a new title) and working on from there as regards splitting and summarising. WP:SUMMARY is an accepted guideline and IMHO the best way to go. Britannica's article on the Crusades ([2]) - under that title - includes not only the middle eastern ones, but the Albigensian, and Baltic, and various later ones. Now I know some editors here have an aversion to Britannica but I think it's a solid model here and I fail to see what justification there is for article duplication - if the two articles were not so extensive and so well established, Crusading would be a candidate for WP:A10 (or in this case, probably speedy redirecting). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no need for a third article, and certainly no need to merge Crusading into this article. This article's predominent focus is the 'traditional' crusades between the 11th and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land, defend it and its aftermath. It is already acting as a sub-article for the overall subject. I dusted off the redirect on Crusading and added content with the objective of making that article the main article for what is an enormous topic. It is already more summarised and broader but needs more work and possibly a new name. I strongly suggest that the effort suggested should be directed at that article. As JohnBod notes editing has virtually ceased on both articles. This seems to me to be because contributing editors are exhausted by this circular debate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod wrote "The current two-article structure was the result of endless discussions, and though it by no means reflected universal agreement, it did achieve a broad consensus." Yes, but this "universal agreement" is not clear and, superficially at the least, seems to break WP:CFORK. Please do not try to intimidate people here by saying "two editors who did not participate in those discussions turn up and want to ..." These two editors are random editors. I have been randomly summoned to help and I am trying to do it thoroughly. Together with the "broad consensus" in favor of the two articles, there is also an apparent duplication at this time, which needs to be corrected. The question in the previous rfc confirms it. Unfortunately, there seems to have no consensus on how to proceed to remove this duplication. So, some further discussions seems to be needed. This discussion will have to play the same role among us as a third article on top of the two articles would have played. Norfolkbigfish, of course, contributors can take a break, especially when the discussions seem to go nowhere. I respect that totally. We need the contributions of people who can take the time or have taken the time (maybe due to their profession) to read the literature and become well acquainted with it. So, I have the utmost respect for those who have worked hard on these two articles and we can proceed slowly. Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I said there was no "universal agreement", which would explain you failing to find it! Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Care needs to be taken over the duplication question. As all the articles on the topic are semanticly similar there tends to be a high degree of overlap. The overlap between Crusades and both First Crusade and Crusader States is in fact larger than the overlap between Crusades and Crusading at 80% and 83% opposed to 78%. (Using https://www.cortical.io/freetools/compare-text/). The overlap between Crusading and Crusader States is significantly smaller at 68%. There are reasons for this, but the point is that claiming that the overlap between Crusades and Crusading was a unique, and the major, issue would be both simplistic and wrong. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:CFORK is a complete red herring - if you read it you will see it does not apply here. Who "summoned" you to help exactly? I agree with Norfolkbigfish over the duplication. In so far as there is a problem (which I don't personally think is very far at all), the way to resolve it is by editing. Previous discussions have not gone nowhere; they have got us to where articles are now. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, they have got us to two very original articles that do not reflect their sources' approach. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod It is a random process. Perhaps it was triggered by the Rfc, but that is irrelevant. It's not because the Rfc is over that you can invite me to stop intervening. The point, again, is that I am a random editor trying to help. Please stop trying to intimidate me. Yes, please go edit and resolve the duplication problem. As soon as I see that the so called consensus on two articles is real (see below), I will keep an eye on the subject at a distance as my contribution to Wikipedia. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Reframing this

I wasn't aware of the point Norfolk is making; but that maybe means that all of the articles need to be focused down and talk only on their specific topic. There's still one issue which was not addressed directly by either RfC or any "previous discussions" (links, please). Let's make an informal straw poll. Is there or is there not agreement that two articles which are (in the current state) de facto on the same subject are problematic duplication or not?. I of course agree with my own assertion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The practical question that I would have asked is do you agree with Norfolkbigfish's statement that Crusading is the main article and Crusades is for a sub-topic. This means that any work to minimize duplication will be done in this perspective and this context will be made very clear in any future rfc. If there is no consensus on this, then the so called consensus for two articles is very superficial. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Ignoring the titles ("Crusading" is not really a good one); and reading through both articles, I don't think Crusading should become the main article. In its current state it has too much focus on the non-eastern Crusades (while middle-eastern ones, despite not being the only "crusades", are the main focus of most studies on the topic, and later efforts called "crusades" are so because of the long-lasting impact of the middle-eastern ones). Crusading is also problematic, because most of the sections outside the "History" one are overwhelmingly focused on the middle-eastern ones (which again shows that these deserve most attentions).
In fact, bear with me for a moment, let's do a section-by-section comparison between the two articles
Comparative table
Section-by-section comparison (equivalents)
Crusades Crusading Commentary
1. Terminology 2. Definition The first two sections are in reverse order. A helpful clarification in both cases (much duplication). Crusading has some extra commentary, but some of it could go into historiography too.
2. Background 1. Background The section in Crusades is more thorough, detailed and nuanced. This might be because that section Crusading is based on only one source...
3. In the eastern Mediterranean 3.1 Crusades in the Holy Land The section in Crusades is much longer than in Crusading. Whether that level of detail is necessary for a top level article is questionable, but at least it does appear to be a good basis for future summarising, more in line with the SUMMARY style I was mentioning
4. Crusader states in Near East - Too much detail: as it stands, it could pretty much work (with some wikifying) as a stand alone article. But better than the relatively scarce mentions in Crusading: at least it can be summarised.
5. In Europe 3.2 et cetera Pretty much duplicates. Some of the topics covered in Crusading are not in Crusades. But they could all be reworked together into one article, not on two separate ones.
6. Military orders 4. Military orders These two sections are so similar they are practically the same as exact copies.
7. Art and architecture - Unsure whether this could be merged and summarised in the legacy section (since it is a cultural and economic legacy). It is clearly primarily if not solely about the impact of the middle-eastern crusades (although art and culture would likely have been impacted to some extent by the other ones too).
8. Female involvement 6. Women The section in Crusading is more thorough as regards the cultural aspects of this; while Crusades seems much more focused on the physical involvement aspect, and has little in the way of nuance. Elements from both could be merged. The focus is again pretty much solely on the Middle-East.
9. Finance 5. Finance of Crusades Crusading is more thorough again, but makes a few statements which might need further qualification, researching and summarising ("significant improvements were made in accounting and administration", for example, did not only impact, nor was it only caused, by the crusades).
- 7. Propaganda This seems to make reference to a few themes also present in "7. Art and architecture". But the papal propaganda could be covered in the background and history section, while the rest, such as "stories, songs, poems, news, and information", could be properly covered in a section about the cultural legacy of crusades.
10. Legacy 8. Legacy Very similar, primarily focused on the legacies of interaction with the muslim word (both are lacking in some areas), although Crusades has a clear explanation of the "legacy" in terms of the other conflicts...
- 9. Criticism This really should be included in the historiography section, since contemporary reception is part of that (just as much as later reception is, too).
11. Historiography 10. Historiography Same topic, and in both cases it applies mostly but not solely to the middle-eastern crusades. Crusading is more verbose, which is not a real quality.
Overall There is significant duplication between both articles and I do not think simply restricting the scope of one would resolve this (mostly because the non-middle-eastern crusades are part of the legacy of the middle-eastern ones, any article on the latter which would not spend sufficient attention on the former would be lacking; and these are too disparate to be well served by a top-level article dedicated solely to them).
After this long exercise, you'll excuse me, but I think that rather it is Crusades which should be kept and Crusading merged into it. A proposed organisation could be:
Proposed merger/re-organisation

(Lead section, obviously)

  1. Terminology/Definition
  2. Background
  3. History (in chronological order, with maybe some subsectioning to highlight the major divisions [1st as landmark moment, ..., later European crusades])
  4. Legacy
    1. Social (Military orders, women, ...)
    2. Economic (finance, trade, ...)
    3. Cultural (arts, architecture, ...)
    4. Historical
  5. Historiography

The "History" section should be roughly the same length as the "Legacy" one.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
To copy from the above, since I think it's the most direct answer to your question in all of it: "Overall: There is significant duplication between both articles and I do not think simply restricting the scope of one would resolve this (mostly because the non-middle-eastern crusades are part of the legacy of the middle-eastern ones, any article on the latter which would not spend sufficient attention on the former would be lacking; and these are too disparate to be well served by a top-level article dedicated solely to them)." In short I think we should not create a third article but rework the two into one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree that there is a duplication issue, but only because there is no clear consensus at this time on the overall organization of the articles: which is the main article, which is on a sub-topic, etc. I believe that once such a consensus will be clear, we should trust that the main contributors here will know best how to address duplication. If they all agree that a significant level of duplication is needed and it is not content forking (because of a failure to make a synthesis of opposite views), then it might not violate any Wikipedia rule. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree—but only because of how the question is phrased. All the topic's articles duplicate, particularly over the major events/subjects e.g. First Crusade, Crusader States, military orders and Crusades. That is not the problem. The problem is as Dominic describes above one of organisation. Modern scholarship avoids this in two ways:
    • The "kitchen sink" approach where evrything with even the most tangential connection to the crusades is considered in scope, this is very much where I saw Crusading going and is evident in Murray's encyclopedia.
    • The "minutiae approach" where the focus is on the detail of minuscal scope.
    I remain convinced the solution is one massively broad article and one focussed on the crusades for the Holy Land. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    I agree that a broad article is the solution, so we're at least in agreement on that point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    Also, I do not consider First Crusade a duplicate of Crusades - rather, it should be an expansion of the content here (which might need summarising) per the accepted practice of WP:SUMMARY; including other aspects when they are intimately related to the first crusade. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes RandomCanadian, we do agree that a broad article is the solution. I also agree with Johnbod that the crusades to recover and defend the Holy Land from Muslim rule needs an article, if only to have parity with Reconquista and Northern Crusades. I would also suggest that there is a strong case for additional summary articles for Crusades against Christians and Popular Crusades. I think both Johnbod and I would support, maybe reluctantly for reasons of WP:COMMONNAME, moving this article to something like Crusades for the Holy Land or more neutrally Crusades to the Middle East and then moving Crusading to this title. Although I am sure that Johnbod can speak for himself. The two additional articles could be added at them same time and then editors could knock themselves out reshaping Crusading under the name Crusades into the monster article it would, and would need to or should, become. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    "the crusades to recover the Holy Land need and article" - yes, but in the current state neither this one nor Crusading do the job since they both speak of the crusades in general. That the scope of the term "crusades" is disputed should be obvious by now; given the RM and the RfC. I'm opposed to moving Crusading (which was split from this) back here: it needs merging; especially given that many sections seem to be based on one source (which gives undue weight to that particular scholar's opinion), including: Popular Crusades, Finances, Women, Propaganda; Criticism (apparently this long paragraph was based on just 3 pages: needs a whole lot of summarising, me thinks...); Historiography (based on one source only, various paragraphs also show this problem of "based on one or two pages but very long nonetheless"). So no, I think what needs to be done is that Crusading needs to be massively summarised, and then what is left will probably need a merger here; and then an overview on the crusades in the Middle-East (which could be based on the existing Crusades#In_the_eastern_Mediterranean section, at least for the milhist part) would be created. See also my suggestions above about the structure of a proposed merger. In short: Crusading + Crusades = merged 'Crusades'; Middle-East crusades = new (so for non-existent) article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    What RandomCanadian said. Srnec (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree Crusading was only just separated from Crusades, as a result of a series of discussions and an Rfc with far more participants than this one. I think it is pretty much agreed (above) that the current Crusading has some over-detailed milhist narrative (isn't it?) and remains light on some aspects of the general "crusading" phenomenon. Further discussions about discussions won't solve this - editing will. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see the "series of discussions and RfCs" that put a consensus to have two duplicate articles. AFAICS, Crusading was split out (without too much content being removed here) back in October after more than a 6 month hiatus in discussions (Talk:Crusades/Archive_13#Copy_edit_comments_and_queries and [3]), and despite there being some objections at that page too... I'd start merging back in line with what I say above, but that will require far more time than I'm willing to spend on this today. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    Of course, the consensus was to have two different articles, with some inevitable overlap. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see such consensus, please link directly to a discussion or RfC establishing such a thing. At best, I see mild support "for having two articles: one at Crusader states that would cover the political organization of lands conquered in crusades, including not just the Levant but the Baltics, Greece and Spain as well, and another at Outremer that dealt with the Levantine Crusader states in detail including society, economy, art, etc". That is entirely off-topic to the current situation. It has nothing to do with having two duplicate articles on the whole of the crusades which don't have "inevitable" but "significant, nearly integral" overlap. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    Have you read the last three archived pages? And Talk:Crusading? Are you saying I should go through them for you? Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    You're claiming there were "discussions and RfCs" about this. If that is the case, you should be able to link to a discussion establishing consensus for the current state of affairs, since the WP:ONUS is on you to show there was consensus for this disupted change in the first place, beyond WP:FAITACCOMPLI. The only thing I find, beyond the RfCs I closed before getting in this, are sections complaining about the split and the bad title, along with very weak support for the split (on the conditional "On the assumption that you are going to further diverge the two articles in the very near future" Talk:Crusading/Archive 1 - 6 months on, and, as I you can tell from the comparison I did, the two articles are still very much not-diverged from each other). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomCanadian (talk • contribs) 5:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    I also reviewed the recent archives and saw no consensus for the split whatsoever - it seems to have encountered rapid objections that were never answered or resolved. There was an WP:RM, which it feels like some supporters of the split interpreted as support for their position, but the only thing it decided was not to change the name of this article, nothing else. I feel we need a proper RFC on the split before anything else can occur (if, as its supporters claim, it enjoys support, that RFC should make that obvious - but I'm definitely not seeing any such RFC in the past, and past discussions absolutely do not support the idea that it enjoyed any sort of clear enough consensus that it can be avoided.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    Moreover, even in the statements given here for the so called consensus, I do not see a consensus on the essential: the global organization. Johnbod kind of suggests that both articles are top level articles whereas Norfolkbigfish says very clearly that the consensus was a single main article (the new one) while the older article is now on a sub-topic: the traditional Crusades. I suspect that they might argue that there was still a consensus, only different perspectives on it. The problem is that this perspective is very important in rfc, for new contributors, etc. So, if there is a consensus, it must be clear and people must share a common perspective on it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't have any thought on which of the two is "top" - they cover different, though related, things, and sections in each should be the "main article" for the other. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    Clearly, Norfolkbigfish had a different perspective on this consensus. In my view, this explains why there is no progress, because when an RFC is done, people don't have a clear context. Moreover, if what you say is right, then it will be useful to take a step back and explain the relationship between the two articles. I don't really care about the creation of a third article that would be a top article, but having some text of one or two paragraphs that relates the two articles would be useful. Perhaps, such a text can be found in Crusading given that Norfolkbigfish says that it is the top article. Perhaps, such a text exists also in Crusades because you say that it is also a top article. Even then, I think it would be useful to see how these texts can be combined into a single coherent text that relates the two articles. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    Whatever they think, I need to clarify, again, that I am not suggesting creating a third article. I'm suggesting taking the two articles and merging them back together, since in the current state they are not helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    Often, there is not only one way to globally organize articles. It is most likely the case here. Having this in mind, I suspect that it is indeed possible to combine all the content into a single article, but this does not mean that it is the best organization. So, I suggest that we get a consensus with other editors here. Moreover, I am not suggesting that we create a third article anymore. The purpose of the text that relates the two articles is only to help reaching a concrete consensus. In fact, this text should have been created as a part of the previous claimed consensus, but it was not and this is why this previous consensus about the global organization is not clear. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    As has been frequently noted in these debates over the years, although summary articles exist for Reconquista and Northern Crusades, no such article exists for the primary anglophone definition and argubly WP:COMMONNAME definition of crusades unless it is this one e.g. A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. It is in effect this one. An article based on the wider definition of Any war instigated and blessed by the Church for alleged religious ends, a ‘holy war’; applied esp. to expeditions undertaken under papal sanction against infidels or heretics. would looke very different in terms of bredth, depth and scope. Even then this definition doesn't go as far as the widest possible definition that includes the popular crusades. Should Crusades and Crusading be mmerged this fundamental issue will remain. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Parenthesis on a technical issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On a technical point, I have no idea why we use bullets to separate comments under a vote. It's not what I have seen elsewhere. I don't like it. Anyone has a logic to explain why we keep using bullets? Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Bullets are typically used at RfCs, AfDs, etc... They also help clearly identifying each new person's comments from the rest (better than just regular indentation when it's a !vote. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I have not seen this in Rfc personnally. Of course, every vote is identified with a bullet, but there is no reason why there should be more confusion about who made a comment in a thread that is under a vote than in a regular thread. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
As I said it is an issue with MOS:ACCESS and how screen readers interpret html lists. If you want more we should continue this parenthesis elsewhere, though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am interested. You can continue here. The reason is that, even for MOS:ACCESS, there is still a problem. The last paragraph in Norfolkbigfish's vote should not appear as another bullet, because it would be interpreted as another vote in the list. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree that there is a duplication issue. The present structure is totally artificial and it is based on an original approach, unverified by the books cited in the two articles. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "the present structure"? Do you mean the structure of Crusades or the structure that is created by both Crusades and Crusading. Perhaps you mean both, the structure of Crusades alone as well as the structure that is created when we consider the two articles. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    Primarily I refer to the artificial split: most books cited in the articles does not make such a distinction between "Crusades" and "Crusading". The internal structure of the articles is also problematic, but it is not a key issue at this level of discussion. Borsoka (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    This is why we need a text that explains the relation between the two articles and to respond to your valid concern, this text should be backed by sources. Because I trust the contributors, I assume that these sources exist. There is no need, however, to see this exact splitting in the literature. The content needs to be verifiable, not the organization. It is perfectly fine to be "creative" in our way to organize the content, as long as it is not a content forking to avoid a synthesis of opposite views. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    Well, it isn't a content fork, especially as they are essentially by the same author(s). Let's remember that this whole process began (about 3 archives back) when Norfolkbigfish was looking for another run at FAC & correctly realized that the then excessive size of the article would prove fatal there (especially if all crusades were given the same level of weight, as some wanted, notably Borsoka). So a series of discussions began on splitting. This article is still pretty close to, or over, the size limit, I think. A re-merge is not an option on size grounds. As you say, a clearer introduction to clarify the difference, and reductions in one article in overlap areas, certainly in Crusading but probably here too, would go a all or most of the way to resolving the concerns here. As far as I can see, the lead of Crusades does not even link to Crusading at present. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you Johnbod, yes I was attempting to resolve the somewhat intractable hurdles for this article to pass a FAC. This version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusades&oldid=920521835 was probably closer to achieving that than the current one. But ultimately I think it is a question of perspective: one article needs to concentrate on the Holy Land, and one needs to concentrate on Catholic Holy warfare. At the moment there is too much effort being expended in the attempt to squeeze both perspectives into a single article and then "summarise" it. The only possible outcome from that is either a List article or an incoherent collection of unweighted factoids. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    Agree, this version is even worse than the one to which you refer above. Borsoka (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, and most of the authors present all crusades in one single book in sharp contrast with WP that makes a highly artificial and original distinction between "Crusades" and "Crusading". If the History of China or the History of Christianity can (and should) be summarized in one single article, we should not refer to the size of the article as a problem again (and again, and again, and again, ...). Just a side remark, I do not remember that I whenever wanted to give the same level of weight to all crusades. I cannot imagine that each campaign against the Moors of Spain or the Lithuanians that were declared crusade, could be presented in a single article. Borsoka (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Borsoka: "I cannot imagine that each campaign against the Moors of Spain or the Lithuanians that were declared crusade, could be presented in a single article" which is why we have WP:SUMMARY and should summarise the main points here and use {{main}} to direct readers to more comprehensive articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    Have you actually looked at History of China or History of Christianity? I haven't, but I would not be surprised if they do a terrible job, like many such articles on WP. Bad examples are no use. I see that the China one at least also has a size issue (at 134K raw bytes). As I am saying, the way to solve the size issue is to trim, but whereas the milhist has subsidiary articles to cover, many of the broader aspects don't. I don't think it is true that "most of the authors present all crusades in one single book" - as you know perfectly well, there are (at least in English) many more books on the Levantine crusades than either the general phenomenon or individual episodes, especially those not in the Levant. Of those that do cover "all" crusades, many in my experience focus mainly on the Levant, with other crusades given a nod in a few pages, which has been an approach also tried on WP. Again, this may be a characteristic of sources in English. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    (1) Yes, summary style can obviously solve the issue. I only said that I cannot immagine that each campaign could be presented in the article because Johnbod (wrongly) claimed that I wanted to give the same level of weight of all crusades. 2. Johnbod, do you really think that WP does not need an article about the History of China or History of Christianity? Do you really think that the two articles could not be completed? 3. For the time being, the articles refer to specific books. Most of these books, especially those published in this century, prefer a "generalist" approach. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    2 - no of course not. What on earth gave you those ideas? 3) I just checked the sources used, & I just don't think that's true either. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    (1) If we agree that WP needs an article about the more than 5,000 years of History of China or the more than 2,000 years of global History of Christianity, I do not understand why do you think that size is problem with an article covering less than 500 years of a segment of the history of Europe, the Levant and northern Africa. (2) Please check it again. Among the historians of the crusades cited in this article, Hindley, Jotischky, Lock, Madden, Nicholson, Riley-Smith and Tyerman present all crusades (including, for instance, the Baltic Crusades and the anti-Ottoman Crusades) in their works about the crusades. The multi-volume History of the Crusades edited by Setton and The Crusades: An Encyclopedia edited by Murray, both cited in the article, also present all crusades. Constable mentions all four approaches. The books written by Barber, Baron, Chazan, Davies, Koch, Lasker, Prawer do not write of the crusades, but about Jewish history, the Templars, etc (but Davies does not mentions only the Levantine crusades). Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    As most WP articles on very big topics show, the problem is writing a good' article on a very big topic within the size constraints (as I said in the first place, before you started your usual twisting of my point). You have placed a great emphasis on the sources actually, currently, used in the article, and effectively claimed only they matter. Now it seems those not wholly about the crusades don't count (or claimed to be not about the crusades, including, amazingly, Prawer). Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, writing a good article is always problematic. Could you quote texts from Barber, Baron, Chazan, Koch, Lasker and Prawer proving that their books cited in the article are relevant in this specific discussion? Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A summary of the discussion (inevitably biased) focusing on agreements

The most important agreement is the need of a single main broad article on the topic that covers all crusades. See this diff and also Borsoka's argument is mainly against a structure with two top articles articles that cover all crusades (I don't think it's against one main article article that cover all crusades and other articles on subtopics specific crusades or groups of crusades). Only Johnbod suggests that there should be two main articles. I am not sure whether Johnbod suggests two articles about all crusades. See this diff. RandomCanadian proposed a structure for this "main" article (see above). Norfolkbigfish explained the relationship between this "main" article and an article that focuses more on the crusades in the Middle East. See this diff. I have not seen any discussion explaining why RandomCanadian's proposal conflicts with Norfolkbigfish's view. There is also an agreement that Crusading has problems, but this in itself is not an argument against Norfolkbigfish's view. Johnbod and Norfolkbigfish argue that the way to address these problems is editing. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Nicely put Dominic, although I suspect that you slightly misrepresent Johnbod. I have always understood his position to be that there should be an article dedicated to the crusades whose objective was the fight with Muslims for what those that are religiously inclined call the Holy Land. I agree with this. In a web-based encyclopedia like WP there is no real need for a hierarchy of articles. I see the case made for an article that covers the whole phenomena of crusading, or rather Catholic Christian Holy Wars. I agree with that. I do foresee a danger with it though, that editors will attempt to make a chronology of the history section that becomes a list of events under the broadest definition of the subject, a list that contains what are effectively unrelated events or at the very least tangentially related events summarised to meet tight space/equivalence criteria. I think Dr G has already produced a list article of crusades? For that reason I think this article, or the better version from October last year, becomes the Crusades to the Middle East article and another, or possibly {{Crusading]], becomes the Crusades article focussing on the Papacy, Catholic Christian Holy Wars, their legacy and impact. I don't really see much in this view that diagrees with the above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, he is, but I think he is also misrepresenting you Norfolkbigfish. You said "I remain convinced the solution is one massively broad article and one focussed on the crusades for the Holy Land." I interpret this to mean the "one massively broad article" is (currently) Crusading and the "one focussed on the crusades for the Holy Land" is Crusades. I'm not too hung on article titles, other than that the obvious broad name most general readers will look for, "Crusades", should either go to a largely narrative account of the Levantine crusades (because I think this is what the quantum of readers will expect), or to a disam page. I've dealt with this meta argument about what is "main" above. It isn't a helpful way to approach things, and there is no need for it. "I have not seen any discussion explaining why RandomCanadian's proposal conflicts with Norfolkbigfish's view" - really? RC clearly says he wants just one huge article, as does Borsorka, and as we used to have. Norfolk & I don't, & there has been plenty of discussion of that. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I made some modifications in view of these comments, mainly I agree that a "main" article is not a well defined concept. I feel that this might have been at the source of a lot of confusion. In particular, the fact that the article that focuses on the traditional crusades only can be seen as the "main" article in some way and be under the name "Crusades" can be confusing for some, but this does not mean that it is wrong.
Another point: I agree that RandomCanadian was in disagreement about the role of what is currently under Crusading, but this does not mean that the specific structure that he/she proposed under "Proposed merger/re-organisation" (see above) is itself in conflict with Norfolkbigfish's view. I suspect that it is in conflict, but I feel it is important to argue in terms of the specific of the proposed structure—don't mind the merger aspect, only look at the proposed structure for the main article.
A final point: Johnbod wrote "RC clearly says he wants just one huge article, as does Borsorka", but I believe this is misinterpreting them, because it is against common sense not to put details in more specific articles and in this way have the "main" article smaller. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Not at all what I meant, obviously. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I mean that "RC (and Borsorka) want just one huge article" has to depend on a context, on the global structure of the two articles, otherwise their position seen as an absolute makes no sense. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
FWIW—Dr. Grampinator's List of Crusades to Europe and the Holy Land pretty much covers the "generalist" scope that any history section might contain. It is an excellent list, but would make for a ragbag article section if a chronological appraoch was adopted. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Good point. It shows that covering all crusades is not equivalent to being the main article, assuming that the latter is a useful concept. In any case, I maintain that for the purpose of reaching a clear consensus that will be useful later, we need a text (not necessarily to be used in an article) that describes the relationship between the two articles and reflect the consensus among those who propose to maintain the two articles. To be useful later, it is not sufficient that this text only argues that we need two articles, say because of limited space concern. It should explain the relationship between the two articles, their respective scope, etc. People might argue that this text should be in the lead of both articles, but it is simpler to write this text by itself for the only purpose of defining the consensus. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Dominic Mayers II—How about this for a start: Historically, crusades were military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. This definition was transferred to cover any ‘holy war’ instigated and blessed by the Church for alleged religious ends. Some academics, such as Ernst-Dieter Hehl, have taken this further and focus on the wider phenomenon of Latin holy wars which also includes popular outbursts without official sanction. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
That seems a good start. It does not give the scope of the two articles individually, but, the way I see it, it sets the context. To be used as a consensus, the opinion of Johnbod will be useful, because he is one of the main partisans of maintaining the two articles. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The first usentence covers the scope for one article and the last sentence covers the scope for the other. Of course, the middle sentence gives the scope for a third article (but I don't think that is really helpful)! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm not, I just have more stamina than most! You're still going on about "main" articles. If you going to do use the word, you have to be specific as to what it is "main" for. Obviously the main article for the First Crusade is First Crusade, and at present the main article for the group of Levantine crusades is Crusades, while the main article for the overall phenomenon of Christian crusading is Crusading (or that's the way the present structure is intended to work). I'm not actually sure that "Historically, crusades were military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims." actually works. One might add Catholics/Western Christianity, and this definition is probably more one of later popular definitions & historiography. It is, as Borsoka keeps saying, the definition we are choosing to use for the purposes of this article - others are available. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
About a confusion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Johnbod, so you mean that you are not a partisan of maintaining two articles? Are you supporting merging? I am confused. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I know you are! I'm not "one of the main partisans of maintaining the two articles" (I just have more stamina than most!). Of course I'm not in favour of merging. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the importance of the nuance that you are making. If you don't support merging and I assume do not propose to remove one of the article either, then you support keeping the two articles. That's all what I intended to say when I wrote "one of the main partisans of maintaining the two articles". I could have taken out the "main". This word seems problematic for you. Or maybe it's "partisan" that has a connotation that you don't like. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
This sentence from Johnbod might seem anodyne: "the main article for the group of Levantine crusades is Crusades", but I consider it very important. It goes along with this consensus (above in this page). If this discussion culminates in a text that reaches consensus, relates the two articles and defines their scope to a large degree (maybe not perfectly), we will have accomplished something very useful. Also, how could someone be against having two articles before we even know what these articles are respectively about? Clearly, there is a structure with two articles that can work. So, with the goal of achieving a global consensus, let us work toward a text that relates the two articles, not as they are now, but as they should become. The current idea, if I understood well, is that Crusades (as it is now) is close to an article that focuses on a group of crusades. So, it is simpler to use Crusading as an article that cover all crusades, but this does not mean that it becomes the main article on the overall topic—it's not even clear what "main article" means. There might be an issue with the titles of the two articles. However, in the archives, there seems to exist a consensus that this article, even though its scope is not totally clear should keep the title "Crusades" because it covers the traditional Levantine crusades, traditionally also called the crusades. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Crusades (as it is now) is close to an article about the phenomenon that we call crusades. It includes all crusades, not only the Levantine crusades. Why should we duplicate it? If we want to change its scope (that is, we want to limit it), the article should be rewritten based on books reflecting that limited scope. Borsoka (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Useless arguments for now
Borsoka, I understand that the traditional crusades are so important, they so much correspond to what we call crusades, that separating them is like separating the main entry from the other parts of the meal. But I don't think that a separation in two Wikipedia articles should be seen as a separation in two books. Instead, one article is simply the continuation of the other. As Johnbod said, in some perspective, the article "Crusades" remains the main article and Crusading is a natural continuation. The argument that books don't do this splitting, assuming it's true, is irrelevant, because a book is not an article in Wikipedia. The authors of a book do not have to take advantage of other books in the same way as the editors of a WP article must take advantage of the possibility of other WP articles. The requirement of verifiability does not apply to the organization of the articles. It applies only to the content. So, it is something that we must decide among ourselves. As a side note, regarding the book argument, I am surprise that no books focus on the traditional crusades. It would have been a natural book topic, in my view. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
FWIW Dominic Mayers II—there are numerous works that exclusively concentrate, or at least mention other crusades only in passing while constraining the period, on the scope of the traditional crusades. Some are even in the bibliography of this article e.g. Asbridge, Jotischky, and Hillenbrand. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there are numerous books, although Jotischky is not a good example: he presents all crusades. Hillebrand is not the best example either, because she concentrates on the crusades from medieval Islamic perspective. I doubt that medieval Islamic scholars dedicated works to the Baltic crusades or the Italian crusades. Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
"Natural continuation" is indeed a nice expression, although in this context the meaning of its both elements are obscure. What is the scope of the two articles? Do we want to present the Second Crusade without referring to the Reconquista and the Baltic Crusades? Do we want to present the Levantine crusades without referring to the development of crusading ideology or the practice of financing? Or do we want to present the development of crusading ideology and the practice of financing without mentioning the military campaigns? Do we want to present the crusades as military actions conducted by male nobles, without mentioning the role of women or the poor? Or do we want to write of women's role in the crusades without mentioning the military campaigns? So, again what is the scope of the two articles and how can we avoid duplications. I maintain we can hardly ignore how the crusades are presented in the books cited without ignoring WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote, even before you replied, it is useless to argue unless we have a consensus on a text that describes the two articles and how they are related. Note that I added a "s" to argument. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it is useful to argue against Borsoka at this stage, because unless we have a text that explains with consensus what are these two articles, Borsoka is correct by default. There must be a consensus on the scope of the two articles and how they relate. Without this consensus, there is nothing to argue about. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"There must be a consensus on the scope of the two articles and how they relate" Well, in that case, since I've tried to avoid the above since it seemed to make little more than noise, let's make my position explicit since it was open to some debate: 1) "Crusading" is a bad title 2) Crusading and Crusades cover the same topic (crusades in a large sense), therefore they need to be merged (I've been working on this in my user space [sandbox 5]) 3) Since neither of the current articles is appropriate for that purpose, a new article (probably taking much of the existing content and expanding it as it is summarised here) needs to be written specifically about the Levantine crusades 4) issues of title and common-name can be resolved once the articles are written and their scope is clear. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ir regards to: 1) Agree, and I believe there is consensus on this (although maybe informal)—the argument was always on what alternative there could be and there is no consensus on that. 2) I disagree, thematically they are different, although you treat this disagreement with 3) I agree, and I believe this is what Johnbod has been commenting for years. 4) Agree, although achieving consensus on this will be challenging to say the least. Taking all four points as a plan this looks pragmatic, it requires all four points to be actioned and it is a may forward that gives some chance of resolution. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
My first concern was that the idea of merging + adding an article on the traditional crusades was too much modifications, disrespectful of work already done, but actually this big change of perspective might be exactly what is needed to achieve the goal and there is no reason why the good work that was done would not be reused. Sometimes, having someone that shakes things (noiselessly ) can be very useful to allow some good cleaning. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I broadly agree with Norfolkbigfish on 1, 2 and 4. But I've certainly never suggested a new third article. I see no point in remerging to take us back 2 years. We should push on with shaping the two articles we have so that no-one can claim they are the same (not that I think they are now). What I've been saying for a long time isa that we need an article clearly focused on the Levantine crusades, with lots of narrative, and a broader conceptual article. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Is either of Crusading or Crusades "an article clearly focused on the Levantine crusades"? An obvious no for the first one; the second one is debatable but it clearly includes a separate section on the other crusades... What we need is something which deals exclusively with it's primary topic (in our case, that would be the Crusades in the middle-east and only those), and mention the consequences and related events as either brief notes in the narrative or as a "legacy" section - something closer to Northern Crusades or (better quality example) Reconquista than to the current articles. This could then be linked from the section/sub-section on the Middle-Eastern crusades here using {{main}}. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
As I've said many times above, Crusades is (supposed to be) clearly focused on the Levantine crusades, and I think it largely is. That it "includes a separate section on the other crusades" does not in itself contradict this, & I don't agree that "what we need is something which deals exclusively with it's primary topic" (my bold). It's a matter of relative emphasis. As I've also said above, Crusading currently has too much milhist narrative (& rather too little of the broad analysis it is supposed to concentrate on). The solution to this is editing. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod that every article can be a "main" article in the following sense that it can provide some context in the form of a summary of other articles. It can also appear as a main article by providing a context in the lead or by providing its own background, etc. There is no need to be strict that the article on the traditional crusades should only mention these crusades. This strict approach will not be useful to the readers. Reading RandomCanadian again, I see that he did not mean to be strict. So, the devil is in the details. Again, that's why we need to clarify way more than it is done now how the two articles should relate. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree with that. I have done a little cross-linking & "main" at both, but I think the most pressing task is to reduce the duplication by further condensing the Levantine milhist narrative in Crusading. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Johnbod's truism about main articles can hardly be debated, but two articles about the same subject are not necessary. I think our most pressing task is to reduce military history from both articles because general articles about whatever groups of crusades should not present the details of an individual "holy" war, but should focus on the common features of the campaigns and on their context. Borsoka (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
As ever thesedays, I find myself I find myself agreeing with Johnbod. The solution for this is in editing, the article that is currently called Crusading should have next to no Milhist at all. The article currently called Crusades should have significant Milhist, but on 11th to 13th century crusades aimed at the Middle East only. Any reference to the wider definition should be explained in the Legacy section as a high level summary. Unless RandomCanadian proposed solution matches these descriptions, I am afraid when he takes them through the formal Merger process he is doomed to fail to achieve the consensus necessary. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I am more optimistic. The article has been edited and commented by the same group of editors for years. The article has not significantly improved. It is high time that editors (including myself) who have been unable to produce a consensual version allow others to work. Borsoka (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Good point, well made Borsoka Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
As I've said many times above, Crusades is (supposed to be) clearly focused on the Levantine crusades, and I think it largely is. Absolutely not - that is the entire disagreement, obviously you cannot just treat it as settled when there's an active dispute that has never been resolved over it. I see no consensus for this in past discussions, and it is extremely clear that a massive chunk of editors disagrees; we need a proper RFC to resolve that before we can take any more meaningful steps. --Aquillion (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish, based on your last remark above, I assumed that you agreed that editors who had been deeply involved in editing this article during the last couple of years should allow others to work. Did I misunderstand your above remark? Borsoka (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusades/Archive_15&oldid=1031354352"