Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages/Crusades task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk  → Discussion archives Style guide  → Essays Announcements and open tasks talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → New articles talk Assessment department talk  → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk Contest department talk Logistics department talk Outreach department talk  → Stress hotline talk Review department talk New! Special projects department talk Showcase  → Featured picture gallery Portals talk
Project organization Coordinators + talk Members talk  → Active  → Inactive Awards talk Project banner talk Project category Project history
Templates Infoboxes  → Firearm cartridge infobox talk  → Military award infobox talk  → Military conflict infobox talk  → Military memorial infobox talk  → Military person infobox talk  → Military structure infobox talk  → Military test site infobox talk  → Military unit infobox talk  → National military infobox talk  → War faction infobox talk  → Weapon infobox talk  → Command structure box talk  → Operational plan box talk  → Service record box talk Navigation boxes talk  → Campaignboxes talk Template design style talk
Task forces General topics Fortifications talk Intelligence talk Maritime warfare talk Military aviation talk Military biography talk Military historiography talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk National militaries talk War films talk Weaponry talk Nations and regions African military history talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk Baltic states military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Dutch military history talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk Middle Eastern military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Ottoman military history talk Polish military history talk Romanian military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk South American military history talk Southeast Asian military history talk Spanish military history talk Taiwanese military history talk United States military history talk Periods and conflicts Classical warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Early Muslim military history talk Crusades talk Early Modern warfare talk American Revolutionary War talk Napoleonic era talk American Civil War talk World War I talk World War II talk
edit · changes

Contents 1 Yes and no 2 Neutrality and subjectiveness 3 Glad to see this 4 Award 5 Portal 6 Core topic list 7 Project or task force 8 Saladin 9 Holy Leagues? 10 Siege of Damascus 11 Hubert Walter 12 Notices and miscellanies 13 First crusade 14 Bernard of Clairvaux 15 Crusader campaigns

[edit] Yes and no

I would like to join the task force, but I'm afraid my own contributions to crusade articles are not numerous or periodic enough to merit a membership. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, there's no requirement for a particular level of contribution; even occasional input is appreciated. I can't see any reason why your joining would be objectionable. Kirill 19:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll sign up. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality and subjectiveness

It is history.. that is to say things already happened and can not be changed, though we can learn from. Try forgetting race, nationality and religion when writing. =) Samsam22 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to see this

About time somebody started this! I now see we already have one, but I made this: User box: {{User Crusades Workgroup}} will make:

-- Secisek (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that the cross is maybe a bit too "in your face"? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the logo of the Templars, I did't see that we already had one when I designed it. I had the same thought you did when it was it done which is why I stuck on the talk page and not on the project page. -- Secisek (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award

I Made this, too:

{{Crusade barnstar}} which makes

. Be bold and award it to hard working editors. -- Secisek (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks...but is there any way to put the bibliography back on the main page? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be fairly easy to add another box to the page that transcludes the bibliography subpage; I'd suggest making it full-width.

I'd also suggest redirecting the talk page of each of the new subpages here, in order to centralize discussion. The alternative, given the small size of the task force, will probably be a fair number of "lost" comments.

(Personally, I'm not a big fan of the portal-like layout for projects—in my experience, it tends to generate extra work when something other than text needs to be shown on the page—but to each his own, I suppose. So long as none of the critical infrastructure elements are removed, I don't think there'll be any substantial problems having the page like this.) Kirill 04:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to put emphasis on the bibliography so it doesn't get lost, but re-adding it to the main page is best. Srnec (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. For that matter, if nobody likes the redesign, revert it. -- Secisek (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the bibliography as a separate box near the bottom; comments on the placement would be very welcome! Kirill 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. -- Secisek (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

I also started: Portal:Crusades. I propose we only feature GA or better content. Right now that is 3 bios and 6 articles. I have to look through Featured Pics and find the DYKs on this subject. -- Secisek (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest going with B-Class content as well, at least initially; otherwise, that'll really limit the number of different options you can have, which will prevent the portal itself from being featured. (On the other hand, if you're willing to wait on that count until the content gets up to par, that's probably workable as well.) Kirill 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That would give us something to work for, wouldn't it. Let's set the bar high. -- Secisek (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do the same thing with Portal:Military of Greece, however I found that the GA+ articles and the biographies too little especially if you plan of getting the portal to feature portal, so I started to use high level B-class articles. Kyriakos (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Over at Anglicanism we did it. As of now, 12 bios, 7 articles, and 7 pics - every one GA or featured. I am willing to wait for featured portal as a carrot on the end of the stick. That is just my opinion, if there is an article you want to see on the portal, add it. -- Secisek (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Core topic list

I put one together here: Portal:Crusades/Topics but it needs addition/removals and organization. Can everyone help? -- Secisek (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks much better. Anything else to add or drop? -- Secisek (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was adding to it but I think I went a little overboard... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project or task force

I originally conceived of this as a separate Project but there didn't seem to be much interest at the Middle Ages project. But now that I see the activity going on here, the existence of a Portal, and the almost 1000 articles that have been tagged as crusade-related, perhaps this should be a separate Project after all? Is there an easy way to import all this into a new Project? (Especially the article tagging - I don't look forward to re-tagging everything...) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to say yes...user:John Carter is the expert and I will check with him. -- Secisek (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In the longer term, that's a very good idea but it's probably better to build up a much larger editor base first. Where's the members list, by the way? It is somewhere obvious and I've missed it? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(Found it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk)

Look in the intro to the project. I added a link. -- Secisek (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment, but I don't really see myself as an expert in the area. I think that the banner would have to be converted, but that it can be done fairly quickly and easily by placing a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests, and asking only that the articles tagged with the specific parameters you want be changed. Depending on the backlog of requests, it might take a few days to get done, but once started it should be finished within an hour at most. John Carter (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that much of the activity is happening because this is a task force—and is thus able to funnel off editors from the parent project(s)—rather than despite it. Generally speaking, I can't see any benefits to seceding from the parent projects; you'll simply increase the maintenance overhead without gaining any real functionality (unless you plan to run your own full-blown internal processes, which I strongly suspect simply won't function at this level of activity). Kirill 22:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There you have it from John Carter, it is do-able. We just have to see if we want to do it. We would not be breaking from the parent projects - we would remain daughter-projects of them. We just would be more than a work group. The main purpose of piggy-backing as a work group is to ease project assessment, which we seem to have done a very good job by ourselves. Any other thoughts? -- Secisek (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's not quite true. While assessment is an important aspect, the purpose of integration into a parent project is to be able to utilize all of the internal infrastructure thereof; for example, peer review processes, article attention flags, and so forth. A separate project will be unable to do this easily (in practice, all articles will need to be tagged with the parent project tags as well, since the sub-project's one won't have the needed features).

A short-term burst of assessment activity is all good and well; but a project needs such internal work continuously in the long term, and a dozen-member group is not, in my considered opinion, likely to want to dedicate extensive attention to that. In my experience, this is significantly below the size where a separate project is even remotely feasible or beneficial. Kirill 22:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair points all. I was not yet even advocating for a seperate project, just repeating that it was possible. We do need more members, but I do not think there has been a membership push as of yet. -- Secisek (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough—it is indeed possible; I just don't think it's a particularly good idea. ;-) Kirill 22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saladin

I'd be very interested in working up the Saladin article but need a running mate to make me feel guilty when I've been side-tracked by other things for a while. Any one interested? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely interested in working on that; it's been on my list for years. I don't really have time to do more than keep it free from vandalism though...he's a difficult subject to write about properly. I have Lyons and Jackson's biography, and a couple of primary sources, so I will help as much as I can. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've actually got five or six on Saladin: Maalouf Crusades through Arab Eyes; Lyons & Jackson; Hindley Saladin: Hero of Islam; and Gibb Life of Saladin. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, we shouldn't use Maalouf, he's a pretty bad source. Francesco Gabrieli does the same thing but much better. Gibb is okay, just a little outdated. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But a good read :) I'll try to get hold of Gabrieli. 15:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Leagues?

Out of curiosity, are medieval & early modern "Holy Leagues" (e.g. the ones during the Italian Wars) considered to be in-scope? I would have thought that they weren't Crusades, properly speaking, but they've been tagged, and I'm willing to defer to the experts here. :-) Kirill 12:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Leagues formed against the Ottomans should be okay...regular European wars are kind of a grey area, since they sometimes involved crusade rhetoric (an enemy of the Pope is an enemy of Christianity, etc). I think we should find references for them being referred to as "crusades", which should be easy enough since there are a number of books dealing with crusades in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Riley-Smith, in The Crusades, gives a pretty good look at what he calls the "political crusades". According to him, the first of the temporal wars of the Papacy to be preached as a Crusade was that against the Hohenstaufen in Germany in 1239; in 1241, he even allowed the Papal legate in Hungary to commute vows to crusade in Outremer to vows against the emperor in Germany. The subsequent wars against the Hohenstaufen, through the death of Conradin and surrender of Lucera in 1269 were also preached as crusades. The War of the Sicilian Vespers was declared as a crusade against the Sicilians in 1283, and the Aragonese Crusade of course ran in parallel. Crusades were declared against various Ghibelline and other elements in Italy throughout the 14th Century for the benefit of the Papacy, and the Great Schism led to a few putative Crusades between the two parties, which had little effect. While the Reformation greatly undermined the authority of the Papacy, Riley-Smith still finds the wars of the Holy Leagues being preached with Crusade rhetoric, indulgences issued, etc. Choess (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the recent literature on the crusades treat the Holy Leagues up to the crusader victory at Vienna. If there were any beyond that, I have not seen them discussed in books on this subject. As the scholarship has progressed, the notion has fallen out of favor that the crusades came to a sudden close with the abolishment of the Templars, or earlier with the fall of Acre, or earlier still with the death of St Louis. I think this project should reflect the current scholarship and be as inclusive as possible without crossing the line Adam Bishop mentioned above. --Secisek (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to cut it off at the Reformation. One can even find sources that meet Wikipedia's standard that refer (mostly rhetorically) to the Iraq War as a "Crusade". I can understand the wars against the Ottomans in the 14th and 15th century, but to continue into the modern era seems to go beyond what is usually meant by the term "Crusades". But I'm interested to hear what "most of the recent literature" means in specific. Could you give some references, because I am unaware of this usage? (Though I am not surprised to find that Crusade indulgences were issued well into the 17th century.) Srnec (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Refs? As Choess already pointed out, see the works of Riley-Smith for one. ALso works by Setton, others include the latest stuff from Oxford Press - really most general works on the subject since Runciman dont cut off at the end of the middle ages. This not a fringe position. What current works/citations would you base cutting off the scope at the Reformation on? It sounds like you just think it is a good point to do so. No one can find a source that would describe George Bush's war as a part of the Crusades which our article (and Riley-Smith) describe as "a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal threats...Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins."

Nobody is taking crusader vows or expecting indulenges in Iraq, but the Poles who marched to lift the siege of Vienna in the 17th century all did. To limit this project to what is most popularly "usually meant by the term 'Crusades'" is to ignore current scholarship and limit the scope. Just my opinion. -- Secisek (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's good that we are going with "the most recent scholarly opinion" (since most of our articles, even on the crusading period proper in the 12th and 13th century, are out of date in this respect), but note that this also extends backwards to Spain and Sicily in the 11th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So the Norman conquest of Sicily is part of this taskforce? Papally-sanctioned Christian war against Muslims it certainly was, but I don't know if I've ever heard it called a "Crusade", though certainly it is typically mentioned as a "precursor". I guess I just want a narrower, if arbitrary, definition of "crusade"!

[N.B.: I never meant to imply that the war in Iraq was in any way a crusade. Setton stops in the 15th century, as do our current Crusade article and Crusades template. Perhaps some updating is in order? Clearly, though, I am not competent to do it.] Srnec (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been some discussion about the nature of the Norman conquest, yes...I'm not sure where to look for info about that since I've only really heard it at conferences but I know there are articles out there somewhere. But then where does it stop, really? The Angevin conquest of Ireland was papally sanctioned too, and surely that's not a crusade! Adam Bishop (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You reminded me how I almost posted a comment at this talk page right at the start of the taskforce to the effect of "Remember that not all papally-sanctioned wars nor all wars against Muslims were Crusades." I was initially pleased with the breadth of the project, but I thought it would be good to delimit it as well. Now I'm not sure where the best limits are. If the Reconquista is in, then is the Battle of Tours? Srnec (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I look to Riley-Smith. Reconquesta is in - because it was a Crusade as such, if only retroactively, Tours, Ireland, Normans in Sicily are all out because no scholar that I know of treats them as such. William's conquest of England was sanctioned by the pope, but it clearly wasnt a crusade. I entered everything I thought (IMHO) that we should cover into the "topics" section of the portal. Is there anything missing? Is there consensus to drop anything?

A crusade poject that does not include the Battle of Lepanto would really be missing an important part of the story. I feel the same about the siege of Vienna. The former broke Turkish sea power in 1571, public prayers were even said in Protestant countries for the success of the crusaders. The latter was like something out of a J.R.R. Tolken novel - the crusader victory at Vienna maybe the only reason Christianity even still exists.

BTW - it is great to see such activity here! Some of the other projects I belong to are almost dead. -- Secisek (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Damascus

Siege of Damascus needs some citations for the paras on the Council of Acre. If these could be provided, the article could probably pass GA. Can some one see if they can help? -- Secisek (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to fix that, let me see what I can do. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hubert Walter

Anyone want to tear it to shreds before I take it to FAC? Did the peer review thing, and now I'm just trying to psych myself up to actually put it up at FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to get the two infoboxes at the top to be the same width? If not, you might want to move one of them down; the step looks a bit strange at the moment. Kirill 00:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not have the second one, but everytime I remove one of the officeholder boxes, they just return. I'll try to move it. (We'll see if it stays moved) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to move it some time ago and was moved back. Sombody really wants it there. I can resize if it is moved again. -- Secisek (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notices and miscellanies

We have a Category:Crusade literature and a Category:Historians of the Crusades. Currently the latter is only for modern historians while the former includes all things related to Crusade literature (not just pieces of literature, but authors as well, including contemporary historians). We currently have no article on Crusade literature, though I am planning an article on the Crusade song, an Occitan literary form. There is no category for medieval authors/poets who wrote about the Crusades, nor are different types of Crusade literature (lyric poems, chivalric romances, histories, chronicles) differentiated category-wise.

Currently we have a List of principal Crusaders that I began, abandoned, and which saw a spate of work from Adam Bishop. I don't know what shape it should take or if should persist at all. It seems like it could be turned into something useful to me. The French Wiki has the same thing but completed. See Talk:List of principal Crusaders, where discussion was long ago begun...

We have Art of the Crusades and List of Crusader castles. The former has a picture of the Krak des Chevaliers and evidently encompasses art. Should it be "Art and architecture of the Crusades"? Does the MoS say anything? Would it make sense to have a Crusader castle article about the castles to accompany the mere list? Would that suffice as coverage of "Crusader architecture"?

Judging by the discussion above about the inclusion of early modern wars in this project, we need an article on this so-called Crusade indulgence. And since that seems to be a decisive factor in determining what gets called a Crusade, it makes sense to me to have an article or articles covering the political Crusades launched in Italy (and elsewhere) by the popes. Norman Housley does have a book entitled Italian Crusades which I read. Might Italian Crusades make a good article? Note that there are plenty of references to the wars of the Guelphs and Ghibellines at this project and all we have is that rather meagre introduction.

On the theme of books I read, I was compelled to pick up Elizabeth Siberry's Criticism of Crusading when I noticed it in the library a day or two after thinking to myself that Wikipedia needs an article on Criticism of Crusading outlining the criticisms it received: against political Crusades, against all Crusades, in defence of the Pope's designs on Italy, arguing for the Crusades out of Love, etc. Perhaps it could even include a large section on the trends in modern historiography, as this discussion revealed may be important.

And for the interested, Barbara M. Kreutz (in a book I have been longing to read) refers to the wars of the Emperor Louis II to rid southern Italy of the Muslim presence as a "Carolingian Crusade". Srnec (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of those sound like good suggestions. I went ahead and added Ranulf de Glanvill to the Third Crusade, since he died at the siege of Acre. How is the coverage of the Northern Crusades anyway? And are we covering the Iberian wars with the Moors under the Crusades? I especially like the idea of the criticism article. The literature stuff I can't help much with, I've never been good at intellectual history. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Northern Crusades are definitely covered by the taskforce, but I don't know how good they are. They aren't my cup of tea, except perhaps the early wars with the Elbean Slavs (but that's not part of the "Northern Crusades"). The Reconquista is covered too, and it and its related articles are generally in terrible shape, though I think Kingdom of Valencia is decent. The Reconquista definitely needs serious attention, probably more than any other area this project covers. Currently coverage is very sub-academic and unorganised. If it weren't so huge a topic I'd get working on it, since there is no real shortage of literature. Srnec (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to see another "Crusade people" category. We currently have Category:Crusade people (Christians) and Category:Crusade people (Muslims), but I've also got a lot of Mongol articles... People like Abaqa Khan and Hulagu Khan were definitely connected with the Crusades, but they don't fit into either of those categories. I don't think we really need a "Buddhist" category, but would it be better to have a more general "People of the Crusades" category, or an actual "Crusade people (Mongols)"? --Elonka 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Crusade people (Mongols) sounds fine to me, though only Buddhist Mongols really present a problem: the Nestorian and Muslim Mongols can go in the existing categories. Mind you, we also have categories for "People of the Xth Crusade (Religion)", such as Category:People of the Seventh Crusade (Christians), a very cumbersome format if you ask me. Srnec (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggested some of the same red links and some others in the topics section on the portal. If you have not seen it yet, check it out here. -- Secisek (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories on Wikipedia are kind of messed up in general. It's one effect of having amateurs try to organize things...imagine going to a library that wasn't run by librarians. Oh well. From the things mentioned, crusade literature, criticism of crusading and modern historiography of the crusades are probably the most important subjects. Modern historiography has been on my mind for some time but the scope is so huge that I haven't had time to work anything out. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern historiography is also a good subject. I'll try to look at the Northern Crusades articles at some point, and the Reconquista too, although I'm afraid I am not an expert on these things. I'll move Robert Curthose and Odo of Bayeux up on my list of things to do also. Anyone else English/Norman that really needs coverage bad? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just stubbed out Gilbert of Hastings. There is good article on him in the portugese-wiki here. He seems right up your alley! -- Secisek (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First crusade

This a current FA but it has a distinct lack of references. Only 14 in fact. I stumbled across the article and just thought I should bring it to your attention so improvements can be made before it is spotted and goes through FAR. I have no knowledge of the subject itself and thought I could leave it to people who know more about the subject and also because I have not got the required time to make these improvements. Thanks. 02blythed (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We are aware. I am working on Second Crusade for the same reason and will try to work on the First when I am done. Any help with either would be great. -- Secisek (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I might be able to help. I'll go get some books on the First Crusade tomorrow and see if I can add some cits. Kyriakos (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I added in about another 4 or so citations, I'll try to add some more in later this week when I have more time. Walbe13 (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Second Crusade could now probably pass GA as is, if not FAR. -- Secisek (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard of Clairvaux

Can anybody add any material or citations to Bernard of Clairvaux? I am going to try for GA with it soon. -- Secisek (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crusader campaigns

We must orgnize all the battles of the Crusaders in the Middle East into their own war article, just as has been done for the Northern Crusades. In this way, the non-existant Crusader-Ayyubid Template will be merged with a new more expanded one to include all battles from 1097 to 1291, or more if we include the Mongol attacks assisted by the Crusaders from Cyprus in 1300's. But we need some ideas going as to how to do this. So knock urselves out. I would like Crusader campaigns in the Holy Land as an article.Tourskin (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the only problem is that there isn't really a single term for these campaigns. They are mostly connected, at least from c. 1140 - c. 1195, but is there any academic literature that treats that as one subject? Some campaigns will fall under established crusades, some are separate actions by Jerusalem, Byzantium, and various allies, which are not, to my knowledge, ever called "crusades" on their own (the 12th century invasion of Egypt has all the signs of a crusade, except with no papal instigation, and that it is more like a simple war between neighbouring political units). Everything is covered in individual battle and crusade articles, the article about the invasions of Egypt, and the articles about the countries involved, so is it necessary to have another separate article tying it all together? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I have seen it treated as such elsewhere. Not in any modern source. -- Secisek (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we should change the title of the campaign box linking the articles at least. Tourskin (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, what is the proposal? --Secisek (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is either to change the name of the Campaign box Ayyubid Crusader Wars into something thats less temporally specific as it doesn't make sense to seperate the wars fought by the Ayyubids to be seperated by those fought by the Mamlukes, or the Fatimids or Zengids for that matter, or to make an article that includes all the actions of the Crusaders in the Middle East like Northern Crusades has. Tourskin (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, a month later, and now we have Template:Campaignbox Ayyubid-Crusader War, Template:Campaignbox Fatimid-Crusader War, Template:Campaignbox Seljuk-Crusader War, Template:Campaignbox Zengid-Crusader War, and articles Fatimid-Crusader War, Seljuk-Crusader War, and Zengid-Crusader War, and possibly more that I haven't found. I appreciate the effort to organize the information, but this is the dreaded Original Research. Correct me if I am wrong, since my knowledge of crusader military historiography is not as strong as it should be, but these terms are not used by historians. They are not even really separate wars, and many of events specific to one "war" have little to do with each other. "Crusader invasions of Egypt" is less suspect, since the concept is not original to Wikipedia even if the specific title may be. But what do we do with the rest? My suggestion is that we should make a "Military history of the Crusader states" page and include everything there. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Adam's suggestion for a Military history of the Crusader states article. Original research of this kind is misleading (it may be very good, it may be very bad, but it is always misleading to the reader). A defence could perhaps be mounted for the template (though I bet there is a better solution), but the articles are really not acceptable. Of course, since my knowledge of crusader military historiography probably pales in comparison to Adam's and he admits his is not as strong as it should be, I am eagre to be corrected if these terms are indeed used in the literature. For reasons cited, however, these terms seem inherently inappropriate, so I am doubtful of their currency among historians. Srnec (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a pretty good idea though I do have a suggestion. If the "Military history of the Crusader states" article was created, I would like to see the current articles fully merged into it so it doesn't loose the details and the information that the current articles have. IMHO, I see the crusader states wars as a cost Christian vs Muslim campaign and the "Military history of the Crusader states" would be a good way of showing it. Kyriakos (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created Military history of the Crusader states by simply mergnig material from the other articles, removing the OR terminology and slapping a lead on the thing. I kept the templates for now. Obviously this is a very incomplete article. I also did not redirect the other articles to it yet b/c I figured more discussion would be better first before proceeding. I also do not know if we should include the Greek Crusader states (or even the Kingdom of Valencia, but that seem unwise). I would hope that somebody else could take the reigns of this, but I really do believe it needs to be done. (And is the term Byzantine-Arab Wars scholarly or just Wikipedian?) Srnec (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Srnec! With "crusader states" we can safely confine the article to the four in the Levant. "Frankish Greece" or some such phrase would be better for the others, if an article about them is ever needed. I think the Byzantine wars are Wikipediologisms (??) too, but the Byzantinists will have to look at those... Adam Bishop (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)