Talk:Crusades#rfc 95F79B6

{{edit semi-protected|Crusades|answered=yes}}

You are white-washing the name by saying Palestine. It should be Palaestina or Judaea. Please change Palestine to Palaestina or Judaea. That would be consistent with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(region) 2603:8000:CF00:D503:91F1:8D42:4FAA:FD4A (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Crusades|answered=yes}}

The hyperlink with the text "women and children enslaved" leads to the article for Fallout: New Vegas. This is obvious vandalism and should be removed. Razzberry8492 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Day Creature (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Crusades|answered=yes}}

I request for the Barbary slave trade to be added to the See also section, please. 2A0A:EF40:13B6:7201:11CD:C606:A05C:EE67 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: I don't see how the Barbary slave trade is in any way relevant to this article. Day Creature (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be some issues with editors over the wording of the lead, particularly with the language {{tq| "after the region had been conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate centuries earlier"}} and {{tq| "with the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans."}} I can't really speak to other people's reasoning, since no one seemingly wants to engage in BRD. That being said, the info seems perfectly relevant, and from a cursory glance has been in the article for over a year. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusades&diff=next&oldid=1222892862] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusades&diff=prev&oldid=1222892862]. As a result, I'm going to return the language to its WP:QUO version per WP:NOCON unless consensus is reached otherwise. Any input? Just10A (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Just10A, hi, which version were you intending to restore?

:You're right to point out that the material has been stable in the article for some time, which gives it some standing under WP:NOCON. That said, I think the key question here is whether the references to the Rashidun Caliphate and the fall of Constantinople are significant enough to the overall context of the Crusades to warrant mention in the lead.

:The Rashidun conquest certainly set the stage for centuries of Muslim rule in the Levant, which the Crusaders sought to challenge, but it occurred several centuries prior to the First Crusade. Likewise, the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans is relevant in the broader arc of Christian–Muslim conflict, but it happened after the main Crusading period had largely ended. So, while both events are contextually relevant, we should be careful not to give them undue weight or imply direct causal links unless this is clearly supported in the body and by reliable sources.

:I'm fine with restoring the stable version for now, but I agree it would be good to open a proper discussion here about what contextual elements truly merit inclusion in the lead per WP:LEAD and WP:DUE. Thanks again for trying to get the conversation going. ChasetheDevil (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think the reference to the Rashidun Caliphate should definitely be deleted from the lede. The situation in Jerusalem before 1095 is complicated and not really covered in the text. In fact, it's not even mentioned in the article about the First Crusade. I am less confident about the reference to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, but still think it is overkill in the lede. This article does not make that demarkation as the end of crusading not does the article Crusades of the 15th Century. So, my vote would to leave it at the current version. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::ChasetheDevil, I don't see the changes made in this edit particularly as an improvement; unless consensus determines otherwise, in my opinion the version as it stands now is sufficient. In the meantime, however, let's please wait until definitive consensus is made before making any more changes to the lead. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks all for weighing in — this has been a productive exchange so far. I’d like to offer a few thoughts that hopefully help move us toward consensus.

::::I agree with the general principle that historical context is important in the lead, but we need to be cautious not to overload it or introduce framing that isn’t clearly grounded in the body of the article or well supported by sources.

::::On the Rashidun Caliphate point: while it's true that the Muslim conquest of the Levant laid the groundwork for the religious and political dynamics the Crusades sought to challenge, that event occurred over 450 years before the First Crusade and isn’t currently treated in detail in the main body of the article. Including it in the lead, without that contextual scaffolding, risks both undue weight and chronological confusion for readers. I support removing it unless it’s more thoroughly integrated and cited in the main text.

::::As for the fall of Constantinople in 1453, it’s a somewhat different case. While it happened after the main wave of Crusades had ended, it did mark a significant shift in Christian-Muslim power dynamics and fed into late Crusading rhetoric. However, as others have noted, this article doesn't currently treat 1453 as a formal endpoint, and the Crusades of the 15th century article doesn’t either. So while there’s a potential case for inclusion, it may also be giving disproportionate prominence to a later event not central to the core narrative covered here.

::::In short, I lean toward keeping the current version of the lead without those references, in line with Dr. Grampinator and others, unless and until they are more fully contextualized and cited in the body. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, we can go either way, but let's just make a draft on the talk page, get it approved, and then add it per BRD. Since there's clearly a discussion going on with multiple parties, I'll restore the status quo antebellum version per WP:NOCON/WP:QUO. We don't have to explicitly discuss the Rashidun caliphate, but I think it is worth including that context of why it was *re* conquering and not just a conquering. Similar for the 1453 line. Either way, I'm happy to help wiht any proposed drafts. Just10A (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks everyone for the thoughtful input so far — this has been a productive and civil discussion, and it's clear that we're all aiming for a lead that accurately reflects both the content of the article and the historical significance of the Crusades.

:::On the two debated points:

:::1. Rashidun Caliphate:

:::I agree with others that the 7th-century Muslim conquest of the Levant is historically important background, but including it in the lead without supporting content in the article body creates an issue of undue weight and risks confusing readers about the immediate causes of the First Crusade. If we want to emphasize that the Crusaders aimed to "reconquer" territory under Muslim control, we could simply refer to "centuries of Muslim rule" or a similarly broad phrase that doesn't hinge on an event not explored in the article.

:::2. Fall of Constantinople (1453):

::: This is a bit more nuanced. The event had real consequences for European perceptions of Islamic power and did spark some later crusading rhetoric. But as others have noted, 1453 isn’t treated in the article (or related articles) as a defining endpoint for crusading, so its inclusion in the lead risks overemphasizing a post-classical development. If we want to include it, we might need to clarify that it reflects a shift in broader Christian–Muslim conflict rather than being central to the Crusades proper.

:::In short, I support the idea of drafting a revised lead here on the talk page, incorporating relevant background more proportionally and clearly. I’d be happy to help with that. In the meantime, per WP:NOCON, restoring the long-standing version makes sense — but with the clear understanding that we’re actively working toward a better consensus version. ChasetheDevil (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's the version that ChasetheDevil proposed:

The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and at times directed by the Christian Latin Church during the Middle Ages. The most prominent of these were the campaigns to the Holy Land between 1095 and 1291, aimed at reclaiming Jerusalem and its surrounding territories from Muslim rule. Beginning with the First Crusade, which culminated in the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, these expeditions spanned centuries and became a central aspect of European political, religious, and military history.

It's the one I like best.

None of the major books on the Crusades mention the Rashidun Caliphate and I see no reason to do so here. The reasons for the reconquest of Jerusalem are far more complicated than a simple phrase can capture. It is not in the text nor in the text of the article First Crusade. Similarly, 1453 is not identified in the text nor an end point in the article Crusades of the 15th century. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, @Dr. Grampinator — I appreciate the support and your points about source coverage are well taken.

:You're absolutely right that major scholarly works on the Crusades tend not to foreground the Rashidun Caliphate as a key framing device, and I agree that attempting to condense centuries of complex regional history into a single phrase risks both oversimplification and undue weight. Same goes for the 1453 mention — while relevant in the broader arc of Christian–Muslim conflict, it's not treated as a clear terminus of crusading in the article or the sources we cite.

:I’m glad the proposed version is resonating. To my mind, it strikes a good balance: it gives readers immediate clarity on what the Crusades were and why they mattered, without getting too bogged down in framing debates that the article body doesn’t fully support. That said, always open to refinements if others have suggestions.

:Happy to help move this forward if there’s consensus to update the lead accordingly. ChasetheDevil (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Why "Christian Latin Church" and not just "Papacy"? And "spanned centuries" is redundant. It looks like Jerusalem is linked twice; second link should be capture of Jerusalem. First link should just be religious wars. Srnec (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Fair point on Papacy, not sure that "spanned centuries" is redundant{{mdash}}while crusades to Jerusalem did last from the end of the 11th century until the latter decades of the 13th some academics argue that activity extended to the end of the 18th{{mdash}} and the second Jerusalem link already links to the siege of Jerusalem. ChasetheDevil (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::How about{{mdash}} The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and at times directed by the Papacy during the Middle Ages. The most prominent of these were the campaigns to the Holy Land aimed at reclaiming Jerusalem and its surrounding territories from Muslim rule. Beginning with the First Crusade, which culminated in the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, these expeditions spanned centuries and became a central aspect of European political, religious, and military history.

:::It must be noted that this sentence excludes Popular Crusades. ChasetheDevil (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This looks good to me. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thx, edited accordingly. ChasetheDevil (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)