Talk:Crusades/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Caucasus

The note of crusaders settling in the caucasus is bogus. I removed it, but I am willing to wait another few days for a reference. I am confident that it will not come! How long has this section been here? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

GA review

Still looks good ... :

But the image Image:Crusade.JPG doesn't state its fair use rationale. Lincher 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hussite Wars

I ran into an article Hussite Wars and as I was reading it called its purpose as an anti-hussite crusade with a papal bull and all. I was wondering if it was overlooked, for inclusion in the Crusades or it does not belong.--Tigeroo 10:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

More descriptive pictures?

It seems to me that all of the pictures in this article are either too small, or too docile. The crusades were a regime of blood and genocide, and I think some pictures need to illustrate that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Torus (talk • contribs) .

Images created centuries after the crusades are usually politically and culturally interesting not so much for what they say about the Crusades, but what they say about the time period when the images were created, and how they imaged the past. See Middle Ages in history for a brief outline. Generally we try to stick with contemporary images in history articles. -- Stbalbach 04:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Censoring and falsifying history

Str1977: "... the original Muslim aggressive war and conquest. ... Somehow that seldomly gets mentioned. ... Sthalbach, I hope you will agree with me that the view of one group should not be the basis for the exclusion of conflicting views, especially if they attributed and referenced."

I accuse Sthalbach of deleting information from other viewers because he doesnt like it. (Sthalbach's POV seems unreasonably committed to "sanitizing" Muslim history.) The Crusades were in part, "a response to Islamic imperialist expansionism". Islamic expansionism invaded both Europe's east (Byzantine Empire) and west (Spain), and the Christian Europeans were alarmed. Part of the Islamic expansionism engulfed Palestine. And later it re-engulfed Palestine. To not even mention this as a factor, and to actively delete it, betrays the lack of a NPOV. The article does not address Islamic imperialism because Stalbach keeps erasing history. --Haldrik 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You put it in the first sentence of the Wikipedia:Lead section as fact. What caused the Crusades is a huge matter of debate along professional medieval historians, so much so it could be its own article entirely. Also there is currently a school of thought among certain popular historians that Islam was at fault for the Crusades which you can find in New York Times best-seller lists (I can mention authors and titles if you wish). These popular accounts are written by, shall we say, non-neutral parties and non-professional medieval historians under the guise of not being politically correct -- I have no doubt that you think I am a "politically correct" person who "sanitizes" history, but please do your research, this article is based on academic sources, not political rhetoric like "Islamic imperialistic expansionism". -- Stbalbach 13:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It must be mentioned. To not mention it is lying. --Haldrik 14:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The word "expansionism" is what it is: the Islamic policy of expansion had been aggressive since Muhammad. The word "imperialism" is what it is. The original Arab Muslims colonized the areas they conquered.

Only for some very weird definition of "colonized". They were not classical colonies, and the conquering "Arabs" (actually, in later phases they often were other people) did not eliminate the native population, but merged with it, spreading Islamic culture, but neither a coherent Islamic rule (many of the new territorries where de-facto independent) nor Arab population. --Stephan Schulz 14:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, the Ancient Greek colonies arent "colonies" because they blended in with local population too. Funny. We still call them "Greek colonies", tho. And the "Greek Empire". Are the Spanish colonies in Latin America not "colonies" because they blended in with the local populations too? --Haldrik 15:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the classical Greek colonies (like the one in Greater Hellas) did not blend with the local population quickly, but remained distinct Greek polises, with a population that understood itself as "Hellenes" and that, to a large degree, was of Greek ancestry. Moreover, at least for some time after founding, there was a special relation ship between founding city and colony, not unlike a client/patron relationship. Also note that we don't count the conquests of Alexander (that are somewhat similar both in scope and nature of mixing/assimilation/cultural expansion to the Islamic expansion) as "greek colonies". And I've yet to see a serious historian to talk about a "Greek Empire", except as an alternative term to the East Roman empire. --Stephan Schulz 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Dont count the conquests of Alexander as 'greek colonies'". LOL! You mean?! All those colonies that Alexander founded (even called Alexandria, no less!) shouldnt be counted as "Greek colonies" even tho we call them "Greek colonies". ?! ?! ?! LOL! --Haldrik 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Classical Greek colonies remained with a population that understood itself as 'Hellenes'". And in what Islamic colony, did the Muslims not understand themselves as "Muslim". Oppositely, the Emperor Alexander who spearheaded helenism DID blend in quickly. --Haldrik 16:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As Stephan Schulz even admits: "The conquests (of the Empire) of Alexander are somewhat similar both in scope and nature of mixing/assimilation/cultural expansion to the Islamic expansion". Exactly. Couldnt have explained Islamic imperialist expansionism better myself! --Haldrik 16:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it is hardly the Islamic policy to "merge" with the "native population". Either they converted to Islam in order to marry other Muslims - frankly cultural genocide - or Islamic policy disempowered the native population as soon as possible. Exactly why are the Islamic imperialists so different from the Spanish conquistador imperialists? --Haldrik 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I cant help but suspect that if someone violated you in the name of Christianity, in the mildest of ways, you would cry for days. And every newspaper would know about it. And if you live in the US, the lawyers are already on their way. But you can witness atrocities committed in the name of Islam, and you do everyting in your power to explain it away. Just an impression. I hope I'm wrong. --Haldrik 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your mind reading device apparently is out of order. --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The word "Islam" is what it is. Your actions to silence the voices of history are distorting a balanced point of view. --Haldrik 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is achieved by presenting multiple views, not by eliminating the views you dont like. --Haldrik 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"What caused the Crusades is a huge matter of debate along professional medieval historians." Only if those historians are Marxists, I bet. --Haldrik 14:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an extremely stupid and uncalled for claim. If you think any debate about events 900 years back has a simple, settled answer, you have no idea about history.--Stephan Schulz 14:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm being humorous here, but it's hardly "stupid" to claim the human sciences are well-represented by Marxists (whether sociologically or politically). --Haldrik 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the "human sciences" are well-represented by Marxists, we should hire more. But I suspect that is not what you wanted to say. Did you try to say that "Marxists are well-represented among scientists in the humanities"? In that case either your definition of "well-represented" means "there are some", or your definition of "Marxists" includes everybody on the sane side of Rush Limbaugh. --Stephan Schulz 15:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"scientists in the humanities". We call that the "human sciences": psychology, sociology, anthropology, archeology, etc. --Haldrik 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is we? It's certainly the first time I have heard this term. --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Also there is currently a school of thought ..." Feel free to mention this "school of thought" too. While at the same time the "school of thought" that the Christian Europeans were scared out of their minds, is being mentioned, which is obviously a NOTABLE and well established argument! --Haldrik 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Christian Europeans"? As in a village peasant in Spain, the Pope in Rome, and the Eastern Roman Emperor, all at the same time? At the time of the Crusades, the Reconquista had been in full swing for a number of generations. The Eastern Roman empire was under pressure not by "Islam", but by a number of Turkish groups who happened to be Islamic. --Stephan Schulz 14:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Christian Europeans - a vilage peasant in Spain, the Pope in Rome, the Eastern Roman Emperor - all at the same time" ... "were scared out of their minds". Yes. Just like all Americans were scared out of their minds in 9/11. --Haldrik 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, not many of those I know. And of course the village peasant and the pope got their news presented 24/7 via FOX News as well...--Stephan Schulz 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just be careful that your own political motives arent undermining your ability to defend the need for multiple points of view. --Haldrik 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is your attributing the crusades to be the fault of the Islam religion. I don't know of any historian who does that, except the few I mentioned on the NYT best-seller list and some other recent documentaries that are clearly not reliable sources. -- Stbalbach 14:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Referring to Robert Spencer and his websites, books and films, stuff like "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)". -- Stbalbach 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not my intention to say that everything is Islam's fault. Obviously, Islam learned its "imperial expansionism" from the Romans. Nevertheless, Islamic imperialist expansionism is one of the main factors of the Crusades and must be mentioned. --Haldrik 14:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"The fault of the Islam religion."

• I live in a democracy, and I have the right to critique a religion if I feel like it! Nothing personal.
• Americans can and do critique Christianity and Judaism, and Islam is ripe for some critiquing too.
• Like any other ideologies, religions are vulnerable to human limitations (and worse) and can be ... and MUST BE ... prevented from becoming abusive.
• To refuse to let Islam take any responsibility for its own actions is wrong-headed.

--Haldrik 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fear of Islamic expansion as a cause of the crusades is a very old idea - even William of Tyre made the connection in the 12th century, and his history begins with the rise of Islam. Did he really think that was the cause, or was it a rhetorical device? We are not even sure that Jerusalem was Urban II's intended target in 1095; it sounds like you are completely unfamiliar with the immediate, 11th century cause, or with the organization of the Islamic world at the time. I agree that your argument has some merit, but I don't think anyone is going to let you hijack this article for your crazy anti-Islam ranting. Adam Bishop 16:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fear of Islamic expansion as a cause of the crusades is a very old idea - even William of Tyre made the connection in the 12th century." All the more reason, Islamic imperial expansionism must be mentioned. --Haldrik 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

But not as a simple fact and not in the opening line, which can quite suitably remain neutral about any theories of causation. Islamic expansion as one of the factors in the historical background is already treated adequately further below in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole premise of some of the above arguments is fraudulent. There are intellectual somersaults to force that "Islamic imperialism" isnt "imperialism". And "Islamic colonies" arent "colonies". And doubtless! - if this debate were about so-called "American imperialism" these somersaults would suddenly reverse in mid-air to argue that "American imperialism" really is "imperialism". And "American colonies" (eg. in Africa) really are "colonies". The whole intellectual process is disgusting.

Your mind reader is still out of order. --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The so-called "historical research" has devolved into a silly infomercial for Islam. --Haldrik 16:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it apparent to everyone else that this discussion has nothing to do with the crusades? Yes? Good. Adam Bishop 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The complaint is that the committed-ideology to "sanitize" Islamic history is distorting and even erasing a neutral multi-view of the crusades. This "sanitization" is disgusting. And intellectually dishonest. And no one would put up with this crap in a REAL academic field that didnt involve Islam. --Haldrik 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you've made your point, now go away, do your homework and come back when you've actually read some of the scholarly literature about the crusades. Like people in a REAL academic field would. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you say, Islamic imperialist expansionism isnt a factor in the crusades, you are a liar. --Haldrik 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia pretended there was a unanimous consensus in the scholarly literature that ascribed the crusades to "Islamic imperialist expansionism", Wikipedia would be lying. Debate over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesnt pretend that there is such thing as a unanimous consensus. The opposite. It REQUIRES all notable views of a subject matter to be included. At least up to this point, the actions to "protect" Islam from criticism by erasing other voices violates Wikipedia policy. --Haldrik 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that we do not protect Islam from criticism, but history from falsification.--Stephan Schulz 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Islam was expansionist. Europe feared it. When Islam expanded into Jerusalem, that was Europe's 9/11, and it flung Europe into war. Islamic imperialist expansionism is a main factor in the crusades. It must be mentioned. --Haldrik 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was deseived by the Marxists, for I attended a Soviet school, but I always thought Jerusalem is located in Asia. ... And, how many centuries passed since Jerusalem was lost to Arabs before the first Crusade? How in hell that loss "flung Europe into war"? —Barbatus 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Only about 450 years or 15 generations. --Stephan Schulz 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. It means that the Holy City had been in Moslem hands longer than it was part of any Christian empire by the time of the first Crusade. —Barbatus 19:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"In 1009, the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah had sacked the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre." (Those in the name of) Islam destroyed Christianity's holiest site on earth. --Haldrik 18:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just what exactly are you trying to prove? Should we list Christian churches destroyed by the Christians (like in Constantinople in 1204)? If you're trying to prove that Islam is worse than Christianity, it's futile, from my point of view. Both have long bloody history. —Barbatus 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is intellectually dishonest to hold Christianity or any other ideology up to scrutiny, and not hold Islam up to scrutiny. --Haldrik 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, now we are down to 100 years, or three generations. I can see pagan Dane Wulf Headcleaver tell his son Erik about what he heard as a small child, with Erik then moving to the British Danelaw, converting in 1066, and telling his son to work up a real good anger at the infidels, so that he can partake in a crusade when he is grown up. Moreover, that destruction was more than 300 years after Jerusalem had fallen in the first wave of Islamic expansion. And the church had been rebuild 50 years or so before the first crusade...--Stephan Schulz 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Christianity's holiest site on earth "was later rebuilt by the Byzantine emperor, but this event" of its destruction "may have been remembered in Europe and may have helped spark the crusade." No doubt.

Moreover, "the immediate cause of the ... Crusade was ... Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire." Not only is Islamic imperialist expansionism (the territorial advances of the Islamic Empire or Caliphate) a main factor of the Crusades, it is the main factor of the crusades. "In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire had been defeated" by the Islamic Empire, "and this defeat led to the loss of all but the coastlands of Asia Minor (modern Turkey)", being obsorbed into the Islamic imperialist expansionism. --Haldrik 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Curious ... whom are you citing here? What historian uses something like "Islamic empire," I wonder? —Barbatus 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The term Islamic Empires corresponds to Caliphates, as you well know. It is appropriate when describing Islamic among other empires in the region. --Haldrik 19:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No I do not. In what academic works is it used like that? —Barbatus 20:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A Google of the phrase "Islamic Empire" gets 249,000 hits. --Haldrik 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

With all respect to Google, it is not an academic work. —Barbatus 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If there was an Islamic Empire, it is not used to refer to that of the Seljuk Turks, but to the early caliphate, from Umar through the early Abbasids. john k 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The term Seljuk Empire is used here in Wikipedia in the normal and appropriate context in the Empire article. --Haldrik 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys, don't you know it started when the Phoenicians stole Io from Argos and took her to Egypt? It's right there in Herodotus. Conclusion: Asia's fault.

Uhu ... or was it Jupiter who stole Europe from Asia, who started all this? —Barbatus 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Herodot yes, but he does not write about the Crusades but about the Persian War. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was, per Herodotus, Cretan pirates who stole Europa from Asia, as I recall. Since Europa was, however, a descendant of Io, it must have been the Asians who started it. And of course the Crusades are just a continuation of that same constant struggle between east and west. I suggest we discuss these issues in considerable depth at the beginning of the article. john k 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if "Islamic Empire" might not be a proper term, the gist of Haldrik's post is correct. Even if there is no Islamic Empire as such (and the Caliphate was already on the wane), the fact of Islamic expansionism and, if you will, imperialism is undisputable. Islam conquered the Middle East in the 7th century (and quite frankly, for the issue whether the crusades were justified the length of Muslim domination is of secondary nature at best, but I digress). Hakim destroyed the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 but it was later rebuilt under the auspices of the Eastern Emperor in agreement with Hakim's successor Caliphs. However, in the 1090s a new power, the Seljuks took Jerusalem from the Egyptian Caliphs the status quo was shaken again. Thoughts like "if civilized Egyptians could do this, what will come off these Eastern hordes" are not that unreasonable, especially in the light of actual Seljuk infractions, even if these were later exagerated. Plus, the Seljuks had defeated the Emperor at Manzikert and threatened the Empire, which led to the Emperor asking for Western help (already under Pope Gregory). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

All very reasonable, Str, but that's not what Haldrik's really about. What Haldrik is about is attacking Muslims. Certainly the role of recent Seljuk aggressions, and of Hakim's destruction of the Holy Sepulchre, in the origins of the Crusades, are worth discussing in the article. So are issues of internal European politics, like the Pope's and the Kings' desire to decrease the constant feudal warfare in the west, and so forth, and such like. I don't see what any of that has to do with Haldrik, who's using this article to argue about contemporary politics, and does not appear to be the slightest bit interested in having a balanced discussion of causes. john k 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Thank you, John! —Barbatus 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

John Kenney is dead wrong when he says: "What Haldrik is about is attacking Muslims." Rather: What Haldrik is about is ensuring a "balanced discussion of causes". --Haldrik 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps a "fair and balanced" discussion of causes? john k 00:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want intellectual honesty. --Haldrik 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth does intellectual honesty have to do with calling the rise of Islam "the 9/11 of Europe"?? How can one rationally debate isues when you put them in such patently ridiculous and inflammatory ways? john k 01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Because some editors were questioning that the fear of Islamic aggression was a real cause of Medieval Christian Europeans going to war, I mentioned that as an example that many people could relate to, that such fear indeed is a real motive for going to war. --Haldrik 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

John, that is not how I took Haldrik's post I read above (I only read this subsection before posting, and the upper subsection only later, but that didn't change my impression):

I cannot look into his head and find out "why" he writes what he writes (WP:AGF) and so I content myself with the gist of his argument and that seems to me valid - that the Crusades were a response to Islamic expansionism, especially against its latest wave led by the Seljuks.

Yes, Haldrik often did not mince his words and he used somewhat problematic analogies (9/11) or wordings and unnecessary narrowing of the issue (e.g. the Marxists mentioned). However, there has also been personal attacks against him.

And much too often this debate here is drawn into side issues, e.g. Haldrik says "Manzikert was 9/11" and people are debating that (indeed problematic) analogy as if this was the entire issue and as if he wanted to included this into the article. No doubt, Haldrik bears his fair share of the blame for tempers flaring up but can we now cool down (all of us) and actually address the issue. Thanks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Crusade or Crusades?

This page really ought to be at Crusades. It is about the history of the Crusades, not the concept of a crusade (which would really be an issue for a dictionary. john k 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Larry Sanger made the same comment four years ago, and no one has ever bothered to move it :) Adam Bishop 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should be moved to Crusades. The concept of crusade, though, scores of books and articles devoted to it, and certainly merits a wiki article; this may or may not be satisfactorily covered at Religious war (which IMHO would be better as Holy War). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also be inclined support such a move. However, it would likely be somewhat confusing for the casual reader. This whole subject is a veritable minefield, as can be seen in the above exchanges between people of very strongly held views. Moreover, the subject is huge and cannot be fully dealt with here; this article can only really be a gateway into the subject and at the moment does a reasonable job.--M.J.Stanham 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we write about the abstract concept here, along with the historical events? That's the way it is now (although admittedly not very well done). Adam Bishop 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah we can't have separate articles "Crusade" and "Crusades", it would be a disambiguation problem, many people use those terms interchangeably, "main articles" can branch off if needed. As for the singular versus plural, it's half a dozen one way, six the other - you can find MoS rules and logic arguments that support each position - as soon as you change it to one, someone else will say the other. IMO we should be pragmatic and choose the name of least resistance based on "What links here" - choose the name that is most popular. -- Stbalbach 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What links here is bound to be somewhat prejudiced in favor of whatever the current page is. But this article really is clearly about the Crusades, and the rule that all titles should have to be singular was based on things like Elephant and Aardvark, not on things like this. But it's not incredibly important. Is there anyone who actually prefers the singular, all things being equal (i.e. is there anyone who, assuming that there were no article on the Crusades, would wish to start one at the location Crusade)? john k 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the current article ought to be divided so that it begins with a discussion of 'crusade' before proceeding to individual 'crusades' . I expect that as this article grows each individual crusade will eventually require its own page anyway (probably including unnumbered ones), which could be linked from here. I was quite surprised that there was no article entitled The First Crusade. The end result would be that this article would be about 'crusade', rather than 'crusades.' In my opinion, a desirable outcome, but a lot of work.--M.J.Stanham 13:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of First Crusade (no "The")?--Stephan Schulz 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I must have been half asleep not to notice that embedded in the article itself. I thought it was pretty strange. Thinking too much, sleeping too little. Sorry. --M.J.Stanham 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this even controversial? The Crusades are the Crusades. No-one refers to "the Crusades" as "Crusade". If anything, "Crusade" should be a redirect to Religious war. Even the text of the article says "Crusades". The current name seems to have been merely a mistake Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not controversial, but the idea of 'crusade' and the history of the 'crusades' are distinct.--M.J.Stanham 15:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. That's why I said "If anything, "Crusade" should be a redirect to Religious war". The article we have here is about the Crusades, not the idea of holy war or the particular concept of christian holy war, although obviously that has a place in the article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation problem, people refer to the Crusades and Crusade interchangeably meaning the same thing. The other pragmatic concern is that if this article is renamed, someone will need to go through the What links here and resolve all the redirects which looks like 3 or 4 hours of hard word, or a bot will need to be created. -- Stbalbach 16:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Better now than later. It will have to be done at some point. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say 'crusade' remains preferable as long as this article discusses 'crusade', provides an overview of 'the crusades' and functions as a gateway to articles about individual crusades. I would like to see more emphasis on the former aspect, though. --M.J.Stanham 16:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It says at the top of the article "This article is about the medieval crusades. For other uses, see Crusade (disambiguation)." Do we need a new article of the Crusades then? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)