Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenth Crusade

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tenth Crusade

See previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tenth_Crusade/Archive1

• Delete. Content is not notable enough to have its own article; very few actually refer to a "tenth" crusade. The metaphor of crusades has been used by bin Laden and other extreme Islamists to describe US presence in the Middle East for a long time; it is not a rhetorical device invented by Bush as the article claims. csloat 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I said it before, and I say it again, not notagle and is a neologism. The War of Terror isn't even the Tenth conflict, ten was used because of the rhetorical impact. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Critics of Bush can't have their crusade cake and eat their Jewish plot too. Endomion 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What do accusations of Jewish plots have to do with the continuing existance or otherwise of this page? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Might be justifiable as a larger study of right wing politics and religious conservatism in the United States, if well sourced and well written. Durova 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Tag for cleanup and Keep - 1,250 google hits suggests notability. Plus, as C. Sloat says above, many Muslims do think that Bush is engaged in a crusade. To delete the page because 'we know that he isn't' is reverse political correctness. And with respect, the article does not say that Bush invented the device, only that he used it. If bin Laden was using the term first, the fact should be added to the article but it doesn't present an argument for deleting the page, quite the contrary. I agree that 10^th is arbitrary, but the reason for the name is less important than the fact that the name is widely used. Perhaps the concept is misnamed, but it doesn't mean that the page is not correctly named or shouldn't exist. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Correction - many of those references are to Wikipedia; many others are to other uses of the phrase (e.g. the 1983 novel -- some 400+ hits on your results alone -- or the 2001 article about English in Tunisia). A lexis/nexis search of major papers finds three uses of the phrase, listed below, none of which are in the usage here:

1.Dench, Diesel make surprising sci-fi duo, Chicago Sun-Times, July 2, 2004 Friday, North City, WEEKEND PLUS; NEWS; Pg. 25, 721 words, HARRY HAUN

2.Books by Christopher Hyde, The Ottawa Citizen, June 20, 1999, FINAL, 389 words, Shelley Page

3.THE WORLD; A Roundup of Mideast Hostility, The New York Times, May 4, 1986, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 4; Page 2, Column 2; Week in Review Desk, 357 words, By Milt Freudenheim, James F. Clarity and Richard Levine

A search of magazines and journals nets nothing on lexis/nexis. You're looking at a few hundred google hits at best, most of them referring to or just copying the Cockburn and O'Brien articles; those are the only two real voices using this particular phrase in this manner; I would not call it notable, especially given its nonexistence in lexis/nexis, a better gauge of material that is actually published. If the article is kept, it should be radically revamped and its name changed to talk about the "crusades" metaphor as used in general rather than the specious "tenth" crusade, which, as others noted, this is not really the tenth anyway.--csloat 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For the hell of it, I searched the New York Times back to 1857 for this term and found three uses of it; twice in 1904 and once in 1917 referring to the actual Crusades, specifically the battle in Jerusalem. The 1904 references refer to a novel of the era by Frederic Harrison called Theophano.-csloat 03:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"tenth crusade" bush is 404 hits. -cockburn is still 231 hits, not that I see why cockburn should be excluded. As above, I'm not attached to the title so much as the concept. "bush crusade" gets 37,400 hits. "bush crusade" iraq gets 31,300 hits. There's a real concept here, perhaps the current page is misnamed and a mess, but I think there's something worth keeping? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the concept is notable but the title is a misleading neologism. There already was a tenth crusade, and it wasn't this one. There are no references to this in lexis-nexis, a far better gauge than what is on google.--csloat 04:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Which one is commonly known as "Tenth Crusade"? Standard numbering stops at 9. Yes, there were more, but then even the "Third Crusade" really is not. --Stephan Schulz 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we're heading towards agreement that the page should be kept and renamed? But to what? The only think I can think of is Bush Crusade or some variation thereof. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How about The Crusades (War on terrorism)?-csloat 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like it better than Bush Crusade, though that's not saying much. I'd prefer to somehow have "The crusade" rather than "The Crusades" because I think the whole War on Whatever is a single thing, even if the connections between the parts are pretty tenuous sometimes. We did for a while have a page called Crusade (modern) which is now a redirect to Tenth Crusade. If we wanted to go that way, I'd prefer Modern crusade. Other options which I also don't like but am going to suggest in case it gives anybody a better idea are Crusade against terror, Crusade against terrorism or War on terrorism as crusade? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as before. It's not particularly important, but it is reasonably notable and (now) well-written and NPOV. Disk space is cheap. I'm kind of appaled by user User:Endomion's statement. The article is not an opinion piece, but a fair description of an event (if you doubt this, improve it). Do you want to purge history of inconvenient facts?--Stephan Schulz 17:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep glad i found this. This is a notable phrase. Lots of google hits. Just because the phrase is POV doesn't mean that the article will inevitably be POV. Some consider the War on Terrorism a POV phrase, but thats a great article. 69.22.42.35 21:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as before. It is important that the US president considers this a religious crusade. This is the most important aspect of our Iraq War. That is why we can't leave Iraq. This conflict has grown in importance because of it's "clash of cultures" oventone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.48.167 (talk • contribs)
• Keep: It is used, and it is reflective of the positions of people in the world, thus it needs to be. Dark Nexus 02:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: It is a viable description of the current events. Perhaps the name should be changed to "Bush Crusade" or "Iraq Crusade" to prevent confusion with the "10th" crusade. --Kdcarver 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I had seen "the 10th crusade" mentioned but I didn't know what was meant. Then I found the meaning here at Wikipedia. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.197.253 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.