Talk:Crusades

The current article is incorrect in that it shows the First Crusade continuing until 1101. Most if not all historians view the First Crusade as ending at Ascalon on 12 August 1099. I'll be happy to provide sources if this is disputed. The previous structure of the article had a main section "Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1147" with a lead-in describing the advent of Baldwin I, with subsections on the Crusade of 1101, Establishment of the Kingdom, and The rise of Zengi. This makes more sense both chronologically and logically. It also reflects virtually any reference out there. Some redundance between the "First Crusade"; and "Kingdom..." is expected with the naming of Godfrey as ruler as part of "First Crusade." But the "Kingdom..." section should begin with Godfrey and go through the intrigue that led to Baldwin's election as king. Give the reader a break. The original structure should be restored. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The repitition and redundancy referred to is one issue with the previous structure. In WP this is not to be expected, it is to be avoided. The titling of the subsequent section is misleading as the Kingdom of Jersualem because this article is about the crusades and the section covers a much wider scope. Thirdly the chronology and logic was a bit confusing.

I have moved the information on the 1101 campaigns into the following section to take into account the first point above and renamed it to the neutral Early 12th Century. I have also attempted to give the reader a break with regards to the chronology. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point but the section titles "Kingdom of Jerusalem..." and "Establishment of the Kingdom" are perfectly consistent with an article on the Crusades. cf. Tyerman or Ashbridge. As you recall, we had to fight signicant battles to get the material from 1099–1147 included at all. And those titles served well for many years. I don't think a restructuring was warranted, at least without a discussion. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The last time this article passed an assessment the part of the article was sectioned as 12th century. The last time it failed at FAC it was Zengi's conquest of Edessa and the Second Crusade. The material added makes perfect sense, but its subject is across all the crusader states, the politics in Europe at a particular low point for crusading and not just Jerusalem. It has been changed to Kingdome of Jerusalem without discussion, but hey that is WP. What you suggest it be called considering it covers all the Crusader States, a particular low point for the crusading movement and the period from Ascalon to the Second Crusade? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I can’t fix it since the page is locked, but there is a typo in the military orders section.

The passage currently reads: “While there was talk of merging the Templars and Hospitallers in by Clement V…”

If a date cannot be provided, the word “in” should be removed. The Real Lisan al Gaib (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

the section about the arts and architecture of the crusades has a mistyped article link, where it is "Art of the Ccrusades" it should be changed over to the article "Art of the Crusades" Legoarsonist (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Legoarsonist:  Done; thanks for contributing! penguinencounter2@enwiki:~/talk/contrib$ 19:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

hi i want to add a few links and also points from my history textbook as im a icse studentthank you and hoping for a positive feedback Ya.not.happening (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)