Talk:Crusading movement#Further examples of plagiarism and close paraphrasing

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Crusading movement}}

Signed for archiving Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This appears to relate to Talk:Crusading_movement/GA4 (GA4) Several scholarly PoVs are overemphasised: The movement enabled the papacy to consolidate its leadership of the Latin church. (A contrasting view is presented by Norman Housley, also cited in the article. /Housley 2006, pp. 147–148/). Housley's historiography mentioned actually appears to agree with the sentence. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:Housley writes The one area in which the development of the medieval papacy was indubitably shaped by crusading was the curia's control over the Church at large.

:Without wanting to closely paraphrase this looks pretty much the same thing to me. However, would be interested in alternate phrasing suggestions if required. Page 148 btw. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::Do you have any comment to make @Borsoka? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:::OK, in the absence of feedback I'll remove the banner. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Talk:Crusading movement/GA5}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusading movement/archive3}}

The article currently presents the Crusading movement primarily from a Western Christian perspective, which limits its neutrality and comprehensiveness. For instance, the motivations and theological framing of Latin Christians are explored in depth, but there is very limited discussion of how the Crusades were perceived and experienced by Muslim, Jewish, and Eastern Christian communities. For example, the article briefly notes the massacre of Jews during the First Crusade but does not explore the broader impact of repeated crusading on Jewish life in Europe. Similarly, the section on the Islamic response is minimal, with no mention of the intellectual and cultural consequences of the Crusades in the Islamic world.

Additionally, some language may unintentionally reflect bias—for example, referring to certain military campaigns as "remarkable victories" (e.g., the capture of Jerusalem in 1099) without qualification or acknowledgment of the accompanying civilian massacres. Such phrasing can appear triumphalist and fails to reflect the complexity of events or the perspectives of those who suffered.

To improve neutrality, the article should incorporate the viewpoints of non-Western groups more thoroughly and ensure that language remains factual and balanced. Including well-sourced content on Muslim reactions and adaptations, Byzantine concerns over Western interference, and Jewish responses to crusading violence would contribute to a more rounded and objective account. Avoiding value-laden terms and presenting differing interpretations side-by-side will also help achieve a more neutral tone.

ChasetheDevil (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:The article is about the movement, which clearly narrows the scope to one more focused on the Crusaders. Compare the focus of this article versus that of the articles about each of the Crusades themselves. Remsense ‥ 论 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:"the broader impact of repeated crusading on Jewish life in Europe" Do we have written primary sources about how the Jews viewed the pogroms at the hands of the Crusaders? Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the responses. Regarding the scope: while it’s true that this article is about the movement rather than individual campaigns, that actually supports the case for broader contextualization. A movement, by definition, encompasses not only those who participated directly (e.g., Latin Christian crusaders), but also those affected by it over time—politically, religiously, and culturally. Even within a Crusader-focused frame, the movement's formation, evolution, and justification were shaped through interactions with—and responses from—Muslim powers, the Byzantine Empire, and Jewish communities. These are essential to understanding how the movement developed and how it was perceived beyond its own adherents. Comparable thematic articles (e.g., Jihad or Islamic revival) regularly include external reactions and impacts, which is a precedent worth following here to ensure encyclopedic balance.

::On the question of Jewish sources: yes, there are several contemporary Jewish accounts of the First Crusade pogroms, particularly in the Rhineland massacres of 1096. The Hebrew Chronicles—such as those of Solomon bar Simson and Eliezer bar Nathan—are vivid and widely cited in secondary literature. They not only detail the violence but also give insight into Jewish theological and communal reactions. These sources have been translated and discussed in modern scholarship (e.g., in Robert Chazan's European Jewry and the First Crusade), making them both accessible and verifiable within Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. Including perspectives based on such sources would help present a fuller, more balanced view of the Crusading movement's consequences. ChasetheDevil (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)