text:
Talk:Crusades/Archive 10

Featured Article Review
Editing has been quiet on this article for some time but it is worth being aware it is undergoing a Featured Article Review. Support for that would be welcome both in enhancements to the article or comments on the review page

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi —I can't read all of archive 2 after you closed the Featured Article Review it gets truncated. I would like to work through the feedback, resolve and resubmit. Is there anyway you can give access, or post the content here please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There was evidently some mistake in the closing, which no doubt Ian will correct, but you can get it all via "page history" per normal. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

—Thank you for the pointer to the history, I hadn't thought of that. —I have copied and pasted your FAR feedback below (and thank you btw) so we don't lose track of what has been said and what has been done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Misspelled above for ping Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack
Reading now, but probably will need a second read. Great to see an article of this importance here. However, I think this still needs work in terms of readability and comprehensibility. Preliminary suggestions below:
 * The background section focuses on the debates of current historians. However, this section should be primarily help the reader without prior knowledge to get into the complicated topic. I would start with introducing all relevant parties (and all important associated information), providing much more basic information as background. For example, the background section could make use of a map showing the relevant empires just before the beginning of the Crusades.
 * —Can you give examples here please. I look at the background and don't really see current historical debate in the background, or do you mean lede? I am a bit heads down with this so a second pair of eyes is helpful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The background section revolves around the question if the Crusades where a "surprising and unexpected event" or not. This is actually from the first sentence of that section. It thus directly dives into complicated, very specific questions. Consider that this is a Level-3 vital article and thus should be as accessible as possible. A background section is supposed to provide the reader unfamiliar with the topic with the context necessary for comprehending what follows. What do you think about starting with the basics: Introduce the main powers in both Europe and the middle east first (the constellation just before the first Crusade), together with the most important facts and histories that the reader needs to know in order to understand the rest of the article. Only then I would discuss the question why the Crusade actually started, and if it was foreseeable or not. This is my personal opinion, and I might be unreasonable, but I am just worried that the article makes it unnecessarily difficult for, lets say school childs, to comprehend the background section, and I myself didn't found it an easy read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thinking on this —the info is inportant but take your point. What about if I summarise where the background is, and add a section lower titled something like 'Cause'? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * — how does the Background section look to you now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinion was split further due to a lack of dialogue leading to differences of custom and this resulted in the Christian Church to splitting along Latin/Orthodox lines – a convoluted sentence, perhaps rewrite more concisely, and mention the term schism?
 * —Reworded but didn't metion Schism to keep this simple as you suggested Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This status quo was disrupted by the western migration of the Turkish tribes, particularly the Seljuqs. – link Seljuqs (as first mention), also state when this migration happened.
 * —date added in Cause section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Egypt had been ruled by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty from 969. – Needs more explanation; it does not become clear that Egypt was conquered by the Seljuqs. I would add more background on the Seljuqs (e.g., when did they conquer Egypt)
 * —THis isn't background or cause—it is covered in detail in the 11th century section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the succession of information is not ideal yet in the background section. You are talking about the Christian world first, then about the Seljuqs, then about Christians (the Byzantine Empire) again.
 * —Reordered Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is still redundancy between the background and the new "causes" section.
 * —redundnacy removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it makes sense to have the "causes" section as a subsection of "background" (or as a major section just after the "background")?
 * —moved up Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would make sure that every person is introduced at first mention. E.g, instead of just "Peter the Hermit", I would write "the priest Peter the Hermit". I think it helps the reader a lot to get a first impression of what is behind those names.
 * I've gone through the article and tried to do this for everyone who is simply named, or only identified by an epitet, adding "count", "king", and such to give better clarity on why someone mattered in the time. Some figures were harder than others and I chose identifies like "French Noble" or "Franciscan Friar" to help identify them. I'm pretty sure I got everyone. Lord0fHats (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you — does this cover your points? I don't want to amend LordOfHats fine work if it does—if you still think it needs work how about I work through again and extract some of the names to Notes. If it works for you two it would would read narratively to those who only want a certain level of detail but the detail would remain for those who want more. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When discussing the Peoples Crusade, I miss some info about the reasons for the massacres of Jews. Similar massacres occurred in later Crusades, so this might be an important point to elaborate on a bit more right at this point.
 * I think the point is that there was a level of religious intolerance in Latin Christianity, not sure the drawing the reasons out adds much value to this article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * —changed mind and added detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For an overview article of this level, it is loaded with names. This makes it challenging for the reader. Two ideas: 1) Maybe you could check if some of the names could be removed, keeping only the most important ones. 2) When names that already have been introduced are mentioned again later on, it is difficult for the reader to remember "who was that". So it might make sense to remind the reader by repeating their status/function. For example, instead of "visited Zengi's son and successor", you could say "visited the son and successor of Zengi (the governor of Mossul)".
 * I'm going to try and work on this later. I'm familiar with the Crusades, but not so much that I know everyone involved by name and was confused more than once as the article went on. Additionally, some figures don't seem to be named at all (The sultan of Baghdad and the Abbasid Caliph are both mentioned but not named) and someone might need to help with that. Lord0fHats (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * — picked up the names and also tried rephrasing. What do you think {{ping|* Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The third decade saw campaigns by Fulk V of Anjou, the Venetians, and Conrad III of Germany and the foundation of the Knights Templar. – This article needs to be readable for people without any prior knowledge, especially since the Crusades are such an central topic. This sentence is an example of how the reader may get lost: What is the relevance of the Knights Templar for the Crusades? They need to be properly introduced at first mention.
 * added introduction Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Egypt was ruled by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty from 969, independent from the Sunni Abbasid rulers in Baghdad and with a rival Shi'ite caliph – considered the successor to the Muslim prophet Mohammad. The caliph's chief administrator, called the vizier, was chiefly responsible for governance. – This is the kind of background information that is also needed elsewhere in the article. This specific information comes too late in my opinion; why not moving it to the "background" section?
 * — text moved Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In 1163 the deposed vizier – I can't quite follow, it was previously stated the invasion was halted, so how comes the vizier got deposed?
 * —rephrased for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Doge Enrico Dandolo – "Doge" should be linked, and ideally explained, at first mention.
 * —Added expnanation of title & linked Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * However, the French Crusaders eventually had their excommunications lifted. – What "French Crusaders"? I thought it was the King of Germany and the Doge of Venice?
 * —I have removed the sentence as this seems superfluous Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When the original purpose of the campaign was defeated by the assassination of Alexios IV Angelos, they conquered Constantinople, not once but twice. Following upon their initial success, the Crusaders captured Constantinople again and this time sacked it – this reads quite confusing. They conquered Constantinople twice and than sacked it? Not sure how to understand this.
 * —RedraftedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * to prevent an alliance between the Latins and the Mongols – Also, important players such as the Mongols need to be properly introduced. They appear out of nothing in the text.
 * — added Mongol explanation Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You use both the terms "French" and "Franks", are these synonyms? If so, this is confusing; I suggest to stick with one term.
 * —No, they are not synonyms. French is used for the subjects of the King, and residents of France at the time, Frank is explained in terminology, it is the generic term for any Western European/Latin Christian crusading in the Levant. Used to differentiate Latin and Greek Orthodox Christians. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

minor points: --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Western chronicles present the First Crusade as surprising and unexpected event – "a" missing?
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The resultingGregorian Reform – space missing
 * {{ok}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They were joined by Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin I of Jerusalem – But I guess Baldwin I didn't had this name ("of Jerusalem") at this point already, before the Crusade?
 * {{ok}} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

second look: Thanks for all the improvements so far. I'm still not completely convinced about the background section though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think there should be more general background. I would even start with the spread of Christianity and the Umayyad conquests (Muslim conquests is listed under "Further information", but no word in the text about this). Something similar to the second paragraph of the "Historical context" section of the First Crusade article, but with less detail. Just to get an idea where the Seljuqs and Fatimids are coming from.
 * {{ok}}—Added something similar to the First Crusade article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world existed across the Mediterranean Sea. – Needs a date. Since when?
 * {{ok}}—Now follows from aboveNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Muslim control for more than four centuries – Also, this needs a point of reference. Four centuries before the start of the first Crusade? The preceding sentence states "From the 8th century", so this has to be assumed to be the temporal point of reference, but this can't be.
 * {{ok}}—Now follows from aboveNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * and Norman adventurers led by Norman nobleman Roger de Hauteville (Roger I of Sicily) conquered the Muslim Emirate of Sicily. – Maybe it does not hurt to mention this, but is there a direct relevance for the crusades?
 * {{ok}}— This illustrates the frontier conditions and is analogous to the Reconquista. In addition the Kingdom of Sicily, the de Hautvilles and the Normans conflict with the papacy and the Byzantines are all covered later and have significant importance Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The legal rights of Christians in the Holy Land are explained in detail, but other aspects lacking, I just have the feeling this is still quite unbalanced.
 * {{ok}}— How does it look now. The realtions between faiths at the point of the First Crusade is crucial while other factors of life in the Levant are not. If you explain how and why you think it is unbalanced I will investigate  Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey —are you able to support this now? Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the fixes, it is much improved. However I still haven't read the rest of the article. First bunch of issues below.

 * The three-month march to Antioch was arduous – should be mentioned that this city was Muslin-held; one can guess from what follows, but it disrupts reading flow.
 * {{ok}}—added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * massacring the Muslim and many Christian Greeks, Syrian and Armenian inhabitants – "Greek", because of "Greek inhabitants"? I would also add "orthodox" to the "Christian" for better accessibility.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}}reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some Islamic contemporaries promoted the idea that there was a natural Islamic resurgence under Zengi, through Nur al-Din to Saladin although this was not as straightforward and simple as it appears. – This somehow interrupts the Saladin narrative, and makes the text quite difficult to follow. I also does not become clear why it was not "as straightforward and simple". Maybe just delete this sentence.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}}deleted Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Saladin imprisoned all the caliph's heirs'' – I cannot right follow here. In the previous sentences we learned that Saladin became ruler of Egypt. Did he really imprisoned the heirs before he seized Damascus and Syria?
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}}now this is interesting but perhaps overly detailed so I have deleted Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * King Louis VII and Conrad III led armies from France and Germany to Jerusalem and Damascus without winning any major victories. – This is the only information the article gives on the effects of the second Crusade in the Holy Land. Would it worth adding that they were defeated by Seljuks, reached Jerusalem, and started a failed attack on Damascus? Maybe make the point that it was a failure?
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}}too true, rewritten for more detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * King Guy of Jerusalem – linked more than once
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}}not only done this one but remove all overlinking through the article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As a result, much of Palestine quickly fell to Saladin including, after a short five-day siege, Jerusalem. – Here it would be helpful to know where King Guy of Jerusalem went (as he remains important in what follows, not clear where his army was coming from when he lost all of his lands).
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} added recover Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On 28 August 1189 King Guy of Jerusalem besieged the strategic city of Acre – Information appears a bit detached (ok, the bigger picture becomes clearer later). But I think it would be helpful here to state if Acre was under Crusader control but fell to Saladin, or if it was always under Muslim control.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The journey to the Eastern Mediterranean was – Who was travelling here? It lacks a clear connection to the preceding information. I suggest to move the sentence "His successor as Pope, Gregory VIII issued a papal bull titled Audita tremendi that proposed a further Crusade later named the Third Crusade to recapture Jerusalem." right before this one, to keep together what belongs together.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * due to insufficiency of numbers – not sure if this is needed, could be removed?
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}}done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * a new military threat to the civilised world – this would mean that the Golden Horde was not civilised. I doubt we can make this point.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}}reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Baibars had three key objectives – Comes a bit out of nothing, does not connect with the former. Is it possible to combine this with the sentence where Baibars is first mentioned and introduced?
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}}moved Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Crusader states were fragmented, and various powers were competing for influence. – Again, no connection. Also, this sentence is so general that it does not really tells us anything new, and seems redundant to the first sentence of the paragraph.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The fleet returned to France, leaving only Prince […] This ended the last significant crusading effort in the Eastern Mediterranean – leaving him where? In Tunis? That is not eastern Mediterranean.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}} corrected Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Religious fervour enabled amazing feats of military endeavour – "amazing" is not neutral, and inappropriate here imo.
 * {{ok}}{{mdash}}corrected Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

{{mdash}}all done, what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|Jens Lallensack}}{{mdash}}could do with some more feedback before I release the GOCE guys on it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Richard Nevell
In the legacy section, I think it would be worth mentioning the use of crusading imagery by extreme right-wing groups, cf Koch 2017. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Good idea, will edit in before review completes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * —added content and referenced to this article—what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've included a note on this in my longer comments below. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There should be room for Carol Hillenbrand’s The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will have a look and cross check. She was cited as a source but the text the citations were supporting have been edited out over time. Unsure if there is any benefit of adding the source just for the sake of it. When there are detailed comments will look to tie together with this suggestion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * —good idea, restored Hillenbrand. I will add further references when they come up during the FARNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this article to FAC. Topics like this are hard to address and it’s encouraging to see someone tackling it. I appreciate it takes a lot of time and energy, and I hope it’s been rewarding. The outcome is that the 130,000+ people who read this page every month have a very useful source of information. Adam Bishop said the topic might be too big to be dealt with on Wikipedia. Given its complexity and impact, it’s possible he’s right but I’m glad we’re trying!

I’ve put some comments below which I hope will help improve the article. Not all of them need to be ‘actioned’, and some of them may just be food for thought.

Lead: The lead mentions the Rhineland massacres, but in such a way that makes it sound like an isolated event. I think it would be worth adding a bit more context that the crusades inspired religious hatred against non-Christians, which was acted out on Jewish communities across Europe on multiple ocassions.

 * —rewordedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Terminology: On a few occasions the term 'class' is used to refer to different social groups. I'd be cautious about using it, since ideas of class are often closely linked to working, middle, and upper class which are more reflective of early modern and modern society than medieval.

 * —I think in Prawer's case he probably was writing in terms of class but I take your point. I have rephrased all metions Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What is meant by 'frontier conditions'?

Images: The images relate to the text, but I think could be shuffled a bit. Royal MS 16 G VI is aligned with the paragraph before where Philip II (who is depicted) is mentioned. That's not too big an issue on a desktop, but on mobile view there's a substantial separation between image and text. A whopping 65% of readers of this page are on mobile so it's worth considering.
 * —as you asked I have reworded slighly, what is meant, and I seem to remember the source is Asbridge, is that these were the border between jursidictions but in the medieval way this led to occasional friction (typically violent raiding, banditry etc) while inhabitants on both sides actually had a lot in common (socially, economically, politically) and at other times significant contact. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good change. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Of the 14 images, three are maps, ten are illustrations from illuminated manuscripts, and one is a 19th-century painting. It's a nice mix from a range of periods, but it's missing physical things - artefacts from the period which would evoke a sense of the crusades. Some of the manuscript images were created a couple of centuries after the events they depicted, are there options on Commons which are closer in time? I realise we have to work with what we’ve got, but I’d prefer to get within say 50 years if possible.

 * —added a couple of photographs, castle & coins. As for contemporary images I have struggled. Unless I am mistaken I suspect they were too busy fighting and there arn't any :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

With the manuscript images, thank you for including the shelfmarks! Would it be useful to include the folio number too, or would that add too much clutter? At the least, it would be useful to have them on the image description pages.

 * Unless this is a deal breaker I will leave this, beyond my Wikipedia knowledge Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Content: I’m unsure how much to include about the Children’s Crusade since it kind of didn’t lead anywhere – the current text seems enough if we’re sticking to high-level detail, but I think Gary Dickson’s book should be cited. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about how to discuss the Children’s Crusade.

 * —Interesting book, so I have added to the bibliography. Don't think there is space for more than the couple of sentences in the narrative though—wasn't Papal sanctioned, dissipated in Europe and never reached its destination. Useful to demonstrate religious fervour though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 * My two cents' worth: It's definitely worth including. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but even I've heard of it. Worth a couple of lines to explain it, if nothing else. I haven't checked the text yet for it, I'm holding back on that until I do the CE.
 * Cadar (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The information on the Baron’s Crusade feels a little light to me. What’s your opinion on including more information, and how would you go about it?

 * —broke out into its own paragraph Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There’s not much about the material culture of the crusades. The crusades led to the construction of castles and churches, and the use of relics (such as the Holy Lance) make for an interesting study which should be mentioned.

 * —added architecture and culture section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for adding content on the use of crusading symbolism in the present day. It’s a topic which is frankly unpleasant to deal with but is important to address. I wonder if it needs to be more explicit though. For example, ‘certain circles’ begs the question ‘who?’ when we are able to say that it’s the extreme right.

 * — reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarity: 'historical analysis has demonstrated it was foretold by a number of earlier developments' makes it sound like the Crusades were prophesied. If I'm understanding correctly, the point is that there were conditions which make such a conflict more likely.

 * — enabled rather than foretold? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"... this marked the beginning of politically motivated Crusades" the absence of the French king from the First Crusade was politically motivated, so evidently a concern from the start. Perhaps this needs finessing, though I'm not sure about an alternative wording.

 * —reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Nit-pick: directions (ie: north, south, etc) are sometimes capitalised, but since they’re nouns rather than proper nouns they don’t need to be.

 * —picked this one up.......thought I would start with the quick ones Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Overall: The article does a good job of weaving changes in interpretation into the text. It is strong on the political and military history, but I’d like to see more social history woven in. The level amount of information is generally appropriate: detailed without being overwhelming. There are occasions where it would have been easy to go into more detail (accounts of battles for example) but on the whole the article strikes a balance between a high-level view and enough detail to be engaging. That said, I think there are gaps to be filled as outlined above. To keep the article a manageable length, it might be worth considering trimming a little detail from the First Crusade. I can see why there’s a lot of emphasis on it, but that’s also where we’re seeing more detailed accounts of events in the article.

An article like this is fiendishly difficult to write because there are so many factors to consider. What we have here is a good page. I don’t think it’s Featured quality just yet, but that’s not to say it couldn’t be. This is a very important topic, perhaps more so today than five or ten years ago, and efforts to improve the page are greatly appreciated! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

—could do with some more feedback before I release the GOCE guys on it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Text missing
The last part of the introductory text is unfinished. " Medieval romance, philosophy and literature were galvanised by the wellspring for accounts of heroism, chivalry and piety that crusading..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:983E:4D00:9422:CC30:BCD6:51BB (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2019
The Crusades are erroneously depicted as religious wars between Christianity and Islam. This is not historically correct! The guiding cause of the Crusades was to prevent further Islamic conquest of additional lands Europe! Islamic teaching requires evangelism! Evangelism by combative force is permitted! It is the war initiated by followers of Islam, that caused Europeans to enter into this mischaracterizeed conflict! Contrary to historic fact, the west, and specifically Christianity, is blamed for the "Crusades!" In fact, the "Crusades" were "The Crusades of Islam!"

I am perplexed by the continuing twist in presentation of pivotal historic information regarding the "Crusades!" A proper understanding of what propelled the West to enter into the "Crusades" provides a calming historical clarification of this extended period of history!

The involvement of the European empires that were Christian was incidental to this war! It did provide a rallying cry to motivate recruits! However, did the military draft in the USA cause the war in Vietnam! No, the draft was a means of projecting Western military power into the Vietnam conflict!

The suggested change is at the beginning of the article! The following should be added: """ The Crusades are erroneously depicted as religious wars between Christianity and Islam. The guiding cause of the Crusades was to prevent further Islamic conquest of additional lands Europe!  Islamic teaching requires evangelism!  Evangelism by combative force is permitted!  It is the war initiated by followers of Islam, that caused Europeans to enter into this mischaracterized conflict! """ Tang brav (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Please review No original research and Reliable sources.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Papal Supremacy
In January 1054 he despatched a legation to Constantinople under Cardinal Humbert de Moyenmoutier, and ordered them to obtain confirmation of his claims to papal supremacy.

I think you tagged this verification failed by mistake this cited source covers this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will comment this issue. My concern is that the Great Schism is not the main subject of Davies' work. I will quote texts from specialized works to show that this is a highly simplified approach. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Jotischky 2004, pp. 26–27
Here is what he says: Alexander II, anticipating the need for military resources, had developed a system of recruitment to the papal cause by means of oaths taken by members of the nobility to defend the papacy. This was extended by Gregory VII, with the result that by his death in 1085 a network of the fideles Sancti Petri had been created throughout Italy, northern Spain and the French and imperial lands. The investiture stuff is on p. 25: Although the immediate cause of the conflict known (somewhat misleadingly) as the Investiture Contest was the issue of appointment to bishoprics, the course of the war itself shaped and refined the reform agenda. The material is cited. Contrary to your personal view, every sentence does not need a separate citation. If you have a problem with the wording, fix it. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The article says: "This struggle, now known as the Investiture Controversy, was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics. To gather military resources for his conflict with the Emperor, Pope Alexander II developed a system of recruitment via oaths that Pope Gregory VII extended into a network across Europe." Which sentence from the cited work verifies that the Investiture Controversy was "was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials"? Borsoka (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

 * The sources says "immediate cause", the editor who added this sentence went with "primarily about". The source says "issue of appointment to bishoprics", which is of course meaningless on its own, so the editor supplied context (maybe not enough) by adding "whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials". The issue here is wording, not a lack of citations. "Church officials" was his biggest mistake. Srnec (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the editor's biggest mistake was that he/she thought that the conflict was limited to the Holy Roman Empire. Furthermore, neither the Catholic Church nor the Holy Roman Empire wanted to appoint church officials. Reformist clerics demanded that Church officials are to be elected by clerics and their opponents maintained that the patrons of the churches and the monarchs (not states) are entitled to invest clergymen with churches, bishoprics, abbacies, ... Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Srnec makes a valid point on my phrasing but also reinforces that what the article says matches the source. It also pretty much matches Investiture Controversy which starts The Investiture Controversy or Investiture Contest was a conflict between church and state in medieval Europe over the ability to install high church officials through investiture. Davies goes further the Investiture contest was a straight forward struggle for power noting that Gregory VII threatened excommuinication of all secular rulers who invested candidates for church appointments without reference to ecclesiastical authority. (pp339-442, source in article) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Your text refers to the "Holy Roman Empire", the quote to "all secular rulers who invested candidates for church appointments". The Holy Roman Empire was a single state, the secular rulers in case were multiple monarchs, aristocrats, who invested bishops, abbots, clerics with Church offices. Borsoka (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The main point is that the article is supported by the sources. Where this is relevant to the crusades and the article is the conflict between the Hohenstaufen and the Papacy in the period 1138 to 1254. This relates to the motivations of Popes and Emperors, politics in Italy and the impact this had on the ability of the West to raise crusades to the east. All of which the article refers to in some detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the text of the sentence was not verified and the conflict between the Hohenstaufen and the Papacy has nothing to do with the crusades' background. All the same, the sentence was deleted. Borsoka (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If the word Bishops was swapped for clerical officials it is was fully verified Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Do you know what is the difference between a single state and hundreds of rulers? Rulers are human beings, states are not. The term "Holy Roman Empire" does not include the Holy Roman Emperor, the kings of England, Hungary and France (who all opposed Pope Gregory VII's attempts to limit their prerogatives relating to Church appointments). Furthermore, the Investiture Controversy was not limited to bishoprics. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article should have used Emperors rather than Empire, I agree. But the core of conflict was over whether the HRE was the leader of the Christian World or the Pope. It is not same as those other kings. The HRE thought they could appoint Popes, the other kings didn't. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. We are discussing the following sentence: "This struggle, now known as the Investiture Controversy, was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics." Do you see any reference to the control of the Christian world? Sorry, if you do not understand the difference between the emperors' claim to be the supreme leadership of Christianity and the appointment of bishops in Spain, Norway and England, you should not edit articles concerning this topic. Borsoka (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Something wrong with figures in one sentence
Article currently says "He estimates that by 1200 that these figures had risen to 35.6 million in Islamic territory—Anatolia 7 million, Syria 2.7 million, Egypt 2.5 million and North Africa 1.5 million— while the Crusader's home countries population was 35.6 million". I think someone has typed / pasted 35.6 twice here - would someone with access to relevant sources be willing to fix this? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * —should have 13.7 million in Islamic territory. That would have been a population explosion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I must say, having once looked under the bonnet of medieval estimates for Islamic populations & economies, the underlying data are almost unbelievably thin by European standards, & the estimates should imo be treated with the greatest caution. In particular it is positively misleading to give them an undeserved air of precision by not rounding to the nearest million. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod
Also worthwhile not losing touch of these unactioned notes from Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm loathe to add many points to this page - the quality of comments seems to be deteriorating down the page, not that I have read all. But:
 * we're not linking Lisbon?
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 * "In the 15th century the pivotal events in Christian–Islamic relations were marked by two events: " - stop at "were"?
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 * "Modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the crusaders" - "views" better?
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 * "By the end of the 11th century, the age of Islamic territorial expansion was long gone.[23] However, fractious frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world remained across the Mediterranean Sea. The territory around Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries." - Hmm - importantly for the 1st Crusade, Antioch was only taken in 1084, and in the Balkans expansionary efforts continued for centuries. Never mind Central Asia, Russia etc.
 * —well Antioch is 1000km from Jerusalam, but I take your point. Limited the comment by Geography Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 * "There were several key doctrinal divisions between east and west" - were there? Really only Filioque was "doctrinal", and it is hard to call that "key".
 * I did this. The source refers to theological disputes plural, but names only unleavened bread and filioque as main ones. [filouque = "one of the main points at issue"; It also says these were matters of custom rather than fundamental doctrinal differences, but the politics made the issue worse... It goes on to make the point I quoted above.... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 * " This was a turning point in an irreparable split known as the East–West Schism" - hmm, not so much a turning-point as the culmination of several centuries of increasing detachment on both sides. And I expect both sides would have been astonished to find it still unrepaired 930 years later.
 * ENGVAR - "centre" but "This account has fallen out of favor".
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 * "a thirst for adventure and a general liking for warfare" - some of your sources must say that the acquiring of fame as a warrior was an extremely powerful motive for all kinds of medieval elite foolishness, just as in ancient and later times.
 * "Finally, one motivating factor may have been spiritual – a desire to gain penance through warfare" - seems grudging, and not well-expressed; most historians think spiritual benefit was key for many crusader leaders, and grace better expresses what they were after rather than "penance". I find myself querying lots of points cited to Jotischky.
 * "the Norman community of southern Italy" seems an odd way to refer to this tiny piratical band.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Nicaea - no link
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 * "the Muslim city of Antioch" - it had only been Muslim-ruled for a few years, and the civilian population was still very largely Christian
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 * "raised by the general Kerbogha" - he was effectively independent as ruler of Mosul.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 * "The original ideas that Jerusalem would become an ecclesiastical domain and the claims of Raymond were discounted in the face of the contingent of troops from Lorraine" - "idea". The end is unclear.
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 * "forced Bohemond to acknowledge Alexius feudal as his lord"
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 * More later. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Defensive war?
The article currently has an odd passage that didn't sit well with me as a lay reader. It says: "Some historians, such as Thomas F. Madden, argue that modern tensions are the result of a constructed view of the crusades created by colonial powers in the 19th century and transmitted into Arab nationalism. For him the crusades are a medieval phenomenon in which the crusaders were engaged in a defensive war on behalf of their co-religionists". There are two problems. The article says "some historians such as Madden" but cites only Madden. If there are more, they should be cited. However, there may be another solution. These snetences currently occur at the end of a paragraph on 'Legacy'. In which case perhaps the following sentence should be deleted, or taken elsehere in a historiographical diascussion? "For him the crusades are a medieval phenomenon in which the crusaders were engaged in a defensive war on behalf of their co-religionists". I don't think the sentence belongs at the end of this paragraph late in the article. If this is a serious feature of crusade historiography, then this should be being discussed near the start of the article ('causes and precursors'). It seems pretty fundamental. Also, in that regard, I found it difficult as a lay person to discern the meaning of "defensive war" in this context. There is no wikilink. Can this be either linked or explained more fully? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

—good point, I have moved to historiography. The Madden argument, which is share amongst other US historians, is a bit of an outlier. Important to recognise, but doesn't really fit with current academic consensus. I will add a paragraph to reflect when I deal with other comments in that section. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Verification
—what edition of Jotischky are you using for verification checking? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I, and the article, are using the 2004 first edition—this may explain some of the failed verifications Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for raising the issue. I think he expanded his book during the 13 years between the two editions. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Onceinawhile
Very important not to lose track of this comment by Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I can’t precisely put my finger on it, but the article feels overweighted towards the Crusaders. A good comparator article is the Norman conquest of England - both are about invaders coming from outside, but this article is focused more on the invaders themselves whereas the Norman conquest of England article is focused more on the place being invaded. It comes across in the relative weightings of description of the various protagonists and their armies and institutions, the legacy of the Crusades in Western Europe vs the Byzantine Empire and the Middle East. I realize this comment is vaguer than the others, but it is arguably the most important one to get right given WP:WORLDVIEW. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I second the suggestion. No, it is not vague. Modern historians dedicate pages to the native population in their books (I refer to Malcolm Barber and Peter Lock's books mentioned above). I do not understand why do we need to concentrate on the individual military campaigns, especially because separate articles are dedicated to each campaign and its each commander. Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 * This is a summary article, other reviewers have requested that the article fully covers the historical narrative. You must think about a reader coming to the subject without any knowledge and what they would expect to learn here without clicking through to the vast number of articles within the Crusade subject area Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are too many details about individual rulers, battles and campaigns, and we have almost no information about the population of Syria and the Holy Land. We can delete plenty of uninmportant details. Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Review
The latest review of the article shows that it most probably does not meet GA criteria. It contains unverified claims, misinterpreted facts, it does not address the main aspects of the topic, but it also goes into unnecessary detail and it is not neutral. Relisting the article could hardly add value to our community work, so I think the article should comprehensively reviewed. I am ready to start a review, but it is not a one-man-show, especially because I am not a native English speaker and I am not an expert of the crusades. As suggested at least four editors -, ,  and myself - should cooperate to improve the article. I also ping because he/she completed the last GA review more than two years ago. What do you think about my proposal? Thank you for your cooperation in advance. Borsoka (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yuk. Going into GAR would be an unnecessary detour IMHO, whether or not you feel it's GA-worthy. If no one agrees to work toward FA, then go to GAR. If people agree to work toward FA, then WP:IAR, don't GAR, don't delist, leave it GA, on the condition that everyone continues to work toward FA... the goal is article improvement, not rule-following. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fully agree. We should improve the article, not relist it., I guess you have deeper knowledge of the crusaders than any of us. Would you join? Borsoka (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with as well. While acknowleding that it needs improvement I disgree profoundly with Borsoka. The claims track back to the sources, facts match current academic thought, the detail has been requested by many viewers and has maintained a NPOV for a difficult subject. What is lacking is more on the Islamic world and response. The last FAR got four supports, not exactly the sign of an article that is below GA. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that the article also passed a Milhist A-Class Review for what it is worth Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your readiness to cooperate. I copy my previous review here and I will continue it. I suggest that at least the following new sources should be introduced to secure that facts indeed match current academic thought:

I have access to about a dozen further books about the history of the crusades in my home library, but most of them are too specialized, concentrating to certain personalities or crusader states. I think we should not use too specialized books. What about my above suggestion? Borsoka (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the comments above are pretty largely nonsense, frankly. I have said I'm willing to continue my review. I think sufficient sources are probably already being used, and there are probably too many editors involved, pulling the article in different directions. I think it should return to FAC after a while. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Riding on "s "too many editors" comment, let me say that I say without false modesty that I have exactly nothing to offer here except a willingness to work. And since several others are involved, I will now bow out, unless you need a warm body to do yeoman's work. I support your efforts to bring this back to FAC. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, yes, WP is a huge community and hundreds of editors are to cooperate. I am afraid we can hardly avoid adding further sources, if we want to provide a fair picture of "current academic thought". If my understanding is correct, you suggest I must finish my review without your support. Can I ask a last favour? There are many unverified statements in the article. I will place "citation needed" and "failed verification" tags after each unverified sentences. I understand you have enough knowledge of the crusades to review the article without cooperating with other editors. I am sure you could assist Norfolkbigfish to find proper sources to verify those claims, because one editor can hardly finish this work. I want to avoid that editors who are not deeply involved in this proces open the article's GA review to relist it for original research. Thank you for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this edit was an improvement. What were you trying to do? Srnec (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. That was the principal reason I reverted a similar edit to the previous version . Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Intention was to ensure the lead matched the body (as Basoka suggested)Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The replaced sentence was a perfect summary of the body: "The crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period. The best-known crusades are the campaigns in the eastern Mediterranean aimed at recovering the Holy Land from Muslim rule. The term crusade is now also applied to other church-sanctioned and even non-religious campaigns. These were fought for a variety of reasons including the suppression of paganism and heresy, the resolution of conflict among rival Roman Catholic groups, or for political and territorial advantage." Borsoka (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Illustration idea
Hi Norfolk, if you want another image, the maps at Cartography of Jerusalem are worth looking at. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

End of 4th crusade
The continuation of the crusade was now impossible because many crusaders now lacked the desire for further campaigning and the crusade did not have the Byzantine logistical support required. has been tagged as dubious because ''The crusaders departed from Europe without hoping Byzantine logistical support. They conquered Constantinople and they had the full logistical support of Venice. I know that the title of the section in the cited work contains the words "logistics", but nothing proves that the author draws a similar conclusion than presented in the article.'' I will look at the paraphrasing and sourcing for this. It is already pretty close to Jotischky's intent and the source. It is not necessary for every sentence in the article to match, although not paraphrase, a source as long as the summary in the article is supported by the source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you open a new section for this part of the review? Thank you for informing me about your every planned actions. Please inform me when you finished each page in Jotischky's work. I am so excited. Borsoka (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Venetian "Plan"
The plan was that when these were achieved, Alexios IV's restoration was the 'just cause' but he would have to repay the debts owed to the Venetians and fund the assault on the Holy Land or Egypt. has been tagged as dubious because ''The wording suggests that the Venetians' lust for power was the driving factor of the conquest of Constantinople. However, Asbridge only proposes this and other sources cited in the article clearly contradict this claim. We should present a scholarly consensus.''. I have looked into this and think that this was a consensus that has now fallen out of fashion. So I think the editor in question is correct. Useful, discussion to expand in the article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you open a new section for this part of the review? Above I suggested a possible solution: Alexios promised something and the crusaders accepted it. Borsoka (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While factually correct, that is not an academic answer. In fact it is not even 100% correct—some crusaders accepted, some did not. The question is why did the Crusaders attack Christian Constantinople, that does not answer it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You should read the cited sources before making comments. My above suggestion quite closely reflects the views of those specialized scholars who are cited in article. Yes, there were crusaders who did not accept the offer and went to the Holy Land instead of attacking Constantinople. They have not been mentioned yet. Of course, we can mention them. Borsoka (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hussite Crusades
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Remove unhelpful additions". I think it is relevant and should be included.

"The Hussite Wars, also known as the Hussite Crusade, involved military action against the Bohemian Reformation in the Kingdom of Bohemia and the followers of early Czech church reformer Jan Hus, who was burned at the stake in 1415. Crusades were declared five times during that period: in 1420, 1421, 1422, 1427, and 1431. These expeditions forced the Hussite forces, who disagreed on many doctrinal points, to unite to drive out the invaders. The wars ended in 1436 with the ratification of the compromise Compacts of Basel by the Church and the Hussites."

-- Tobby72 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Hussite Crusades should obviously be mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

✅mention added—FYI the wars continued after 1436, there was another between 1465-1471, although more political, according to Tyerman(page 359) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Reassessment
, I will complete the review of the article in a couple of weeks, but I am not sure you will have enough time to address all issues. Close paraphrasing problems should be fixed as soon as possible. If you do not have time to fix them, I will modify the closely paraphrased sentences because even my simple English could only improve the article in this respect. Please, also inform me if you do not have time to complete the article, because in this case the article should be reassessed. We cannot pretend that this article "meets a core set of editorial standards". Yes it is well written and it is illustrated by relevant images. Furthermore, it is much more neutral than at the beginning of the review, but we can hardly describe it as a neutral article. Significant parts of the article cannot be verified because they contain original research or original synthesis. The article does not address the main aspects of the crusades, but it also goes into unnecessary details. Please let me know what to do. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am glad that you are working again. If my understanding is correct, you think that close paraphrasing is not an urgent issue. As far as I know, WP takes copyvio seriously. I also would like to ask you (again) to concentrate when editing. You made only two edits and made three new errors: and . Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material
A consensus has emerged among modern historians against the view of a generation of Spanish scholars who believed that a Spanish religious and national victory over Islam was inevitable. was deleted. I think the editor was unaware of the historiographical debate on the place of French and Spanish nationalism in crusader research. I will restore on that basis. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand the continuity of a discussion is intolerable to you for some personal reasons, so I open a new section below for addressing your above remark. My answer will be similar to the argumentation that I provided above in section "Review by Borsoka: Reconquista". Borsoka (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of superfluous material
, you restored the following sentence that I had deleted: "A consensus has emerged among modern historians against the view of a generation of Spanish scholars who believed that a Spanish religious and national victory over Islam was inevitable." You assumed that the "editor" (I assume it is me) "was unaware of the historiographical debate on the place of French and Spanish nationalism in crusader research. I will restore on that basis." As the "editor" (that is me) explained you above (in section "Review by Borsoka: Reconquista"), they suggested the deletion, because ''"This is a large article, plenty of details of the crusades are not mentioned. Do we need to provide pseudo-information? "Yes, it was inevitable. No, it was not. But it was. No it was not." Either it is a consensual view, or not, we do not need to mention it, because we do not need to explain the details of this debate."'' I maintain that the sentence does not provide information: we are informed that there used to be a scholarly PoV, but we are not informed its basis, and we are also informed, that historians recently do not accept that old scholarly PoV, but we are not informed, why the new sholars refuted it. Furthermore, I do not understand why we need to emphasize that Spanish historians' PoV changed during the last centuries if we do no mention that French, German, Italian, Hungarian, Arab, … historians' PoV also changed. Neither do I understand why do we need to mention a scholarly PoV which is not accepted by anybody. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to French nationalism in this context. Borsoka (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead
, the "lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article", according to WP:LEAD. We cannot introduce new (unverified) facts in the lead section. Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Crusades/Archive 10


text:
Talk:do exactly what it says on the tin

what it says on the tin
Not idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 06:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The following sample of more than a hundred b.g.c cites disagree:
 * Europe, America, Bush: Transatlantic Relations After 2000 By John Peterson, Mark A. Pollack 2003 (page ix). "'This book', we promised our audiences (and prospective readers), would do 'exactly what it says on the tin').
 * The Netherlands By Neal Bedford, Simon Sellars 2007 (page 226). [of an entertainment venue] "It does exactly what it says on the tin: serves up steaming portions of hot jazz in wood-bound surroundings...".
 * Why We Make Art: And Why it Is Taught By Richard Hickman 2005 (page 91). "I remember the adrenaline rush of having to work and think quickly, the pleasure of discovering that materials could be used in more ways than 'just what it says on the tin'...".
 * Leading Change: A Guide to Whole Systems Working By Margaret Attwood 2003 (page 64). [In a section titled "'What's On The Tin?' - building organisational identity] "An activity is organised called 'delivering what it says on the Tin'. Its purpose is to: • Take stock of what the agency already says about its purpose,...".
 * Scotland By Alan Murphy 2004 (page 156) [of accommodation in Glasgow] "The luxurious, atmospheric and backpacker options have been joined by a bewildering number of large, no frills, chain hotels, all doing just what it says on the tin.".
 * Lecturing: A Practical Guide By Sally Brown, Phil Race 2002 (page 61). "We need to ensure that this method of fostering students' learning is 'fit-for-purpose' in that it is undertaken [...] in a way that is appropriate for the context and the student cohort and that, in the jargon, it does what it says on the tin!.".
 * The E-Marketing Handbook: An indispensable guide to marketing your products and services on the Intenet by Matt Haig - 2001 (page 158). "As virtually every market sector is represented by thousands of Web sites it makes sense to have a domain name that gets to the point and, to use the old expression, ‘does exactly what it says on the tin'.".
 * Thryduulf 07:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the overkill . It was not clear that this Britishism applies to books and other things, presumably not packaged in tin.  Keep.  --Connel MacKenzie 08:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect phrase
The full phrase is "it does exactly what it says on the tin". That is very different from "what it says on the tin". In the first case, it does something, and no further explanation is needed - that is the whole point of the idiom, no further explanation needed. In the second case, "what it says on the tin", there is nothing being done, and thus the idiom makes no sense, unless you already knew the meaning of the original idiom. It's a sort of shortened slang version of a slang phrase. I suggest this article be renamed to the full original phrase. Green Cardamom 02:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But in usage, it's not always present tense, sometimes is not always do, and even then not always exactly. DAVilla 07:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:do exactly what it says on the tin


text:
User:Laurendpeters/sandbox

Article Evaluation:

The article I read was called Comfort behaviour in animals. The content in the article was relevant to the topic, however it was very brief and did not go into significant detail to explain the points the author discussed. For instance, the definitions given for comfort and maintenance behaviours at the beginning of the article did not particularly explain what these behaviours involve. Instead, the author used examples of the types of behaviours that fall into these categories. At the end of the article, there is a list of comfort behaviours and although some of these behaviours are very basic, one cannot assume that all of the readers will know what each behaviour entails or means. Therefore it would have been useful for the author to give a sentence or two to explain each behaviour as opposed to only listing the names of the various behaviours.

The article is neutral as it is not a subject that requires the author to take a certain position on the matter. It is strictly explaining a concept as opposed to giving an opinion, there is no use of first, second or third person references in the article. As the article progresses to further explain comfort behaviours, the author does not include many details about it, which is rather surprising since it is the main topic of the article. The use of sentences that say "for example," and give various examples without adding any additional content to the sentence were used in the article. These types of sentences are not a sophisticated way to present information. There should have been more substance included to elaborate and explain the points in more depth and for clarification for the reader. An additional suggestion for the content is that there could have been more elaboration in other sentences, one in particular for instance said, "comfort behaviours are performed from an early age and change during development". There is no explanation of how the behaviours change during development or how the behaviour start originally at young ages. Small additions to these types of points could really help to make the article more interesting and informative. Another situation where more information could have been given in the article is when the author claims that comfort behaviours can be associated with physiological changes and they proceed to give only one example about changes in a horse. This could have been elaborated by giving several examples of different animals enduring physiological changes as a result of these behaviours. The typical changes frequently observed or expected in general for several animals could have also been discussed.

Most of the citation links worked well, for one in particular, you would need to log in and set up an account with a microsoft program to access the source, which is not convenient for users who do not have this type of account. One source titled, Heart rate reduction in horses from grooming, did not appear to be a published paper as it contained telephone and fax numbers in the heading of the article. It appears to be a university paper, however it was not published from a scholarly journal or what appeared to be a reputable source. A website that was used as a source was not a scholarly website. It was created by an individual that did not cite any sources in their work and it did not appear to be professional nor a trustworthy source. For instance, the pictures on the website about birds contains pictures of glass and porcelain birds as opposed to real birds. The entire comfort behaviour article only used four sources in the main information paragraph. There are several sentences that give information and do not include footnotes to a source which could be problematic as perhaps not all of the information was properly credited with a source.

There are not many previous conversations on the talk page. There was one comment left by someone who said they reverted the spelling of behaviour to the American spelling style. I left an additional comment on the page to let the author know that I noticed a grammatical error in the article, the word categorized was spelt incorrectly as "categorised". The article does not appear to be part of any WikiProjects.

We have not yet talked about these types of behaviours covered in the article in class yet as we have just recently finished the history section of the course and started genetics today. Perhaps as the material progresses we will study comfort behaviours in animals.

Choosing possible topics (Assignment 5):

The first article I found that is of interest to me for a potential paper topic is called Companion dog. This article is fairly brief, including only four small sections (working vs. companion, competition obedience titles, companion vs toy dogs and list of companion dogs). I would like to elaborate more on why companion dogs are important and how they are beneficial through their behaviours and actions. As mentioned on the talk page for this article, the "competition obedience titles" section is not very relevant for this topic. I would perhaps remove this section to incorporate one instead that elaborates on the typical behaviours displayed in companion dogs. I would also research the history on how these dogs were shaped to become companion dogs (domesticated) from wild animals and provide a historical background about this at the start of the article. The companion vs toy dog section is not very useful to this article. It does not provide a detailed contrast between the two categories and it would also need to include more information. I would also add into the list of companion dogs section that it does not include all possible types of companion dogs.

Another article that would be of interest for the paper is Canine cognitive dysfunction. This article talks about dogs that exhibit similar symptoms as those found in humans with dementia. This would be an interesting topic to explore as I have often been curious to find out whether dogs or even animals in general can suffer from mental illnesses similarly to humans. The article I found on wikipedia about this topic does not elaborate significantly on the clinical signs of this illness in dogs. I think it would be important to find out additional information on how it can be detected and the symptoms should be explained in more detail as opposed to using general terms. The treatments section of the article is also not very detailed. The lists for the possible medications given to the dogs to alleviate the symptoms does not include significant details for specifically how the medications help or improve the symptoms. On the talk page for the article is says it is part of the WikiProject Dogs and therefore there are no personal comments made from other users on wikipedia.

title: User:Laurendpeters/sandbox


text:
LAN-Chile Flight 621

LAN-Chile Flight 621 crashed in the Andes on 3 April 1961. All twenty-four people on board were killed, including eight professional footballers and two members of the coaching staff from CD Green Cross. It was Chile's worst ever aviation disaster at the time.

Aircraft
The accident aircraft was a Douglas DC-3, registration CC-CLDP. It had been manufactured in 1943 as a military Douglas C-47A, manufacturer's serial number 9716. At the time of the accident, it had accumulated 18,300 hours.

Accident
The Douglas DC-3 airliner was one of two aircraft used to transport the football team home after an away game. It was on a domestic flight from Castro to Santiago when it disappeared in the Andes. The last radio message reported ice covering the wings and propellers.

The tail of the aircraft and a few human remains were found on 10 April 1961. Some official accounts indicate the wreckage was located on La Gotera Hill in the Lastima-Pejerreymin Range; all on board had been assumed killed. Other contemporary accounts identify the crash site as Cerro Lastimas.

In February 2015 the aircraft's fuselage was discovered after more than 50 years in the Chilean Andes. A member of the expedition that found the wreckage was quoted as saying "So this story is getting a rewrite since this is not where original accounts said." While the climbers declined to provide a detailed position of their find, it is consistent with the terrain and altitude of Cerro Lastimas.

Notable victims

 * Eliseo Mouriño
 * Berty Gonzalez

title: LAN-Chile Flight 621


text:
Patrick Christopher

James Patrick Christopher (born June 3, 1988) is an American former professional basketball player. He played college basketball for the California Golden Bears and was a two-time first-team all-conference selection in the Pac-10 (now known as the Pac-12). He briefly played in the National Basketball Association (NBA) for the Utah Jazz.

High school career
Christopher was born in Artesia, California. He attended Mayfair High School in Lakewood, California, his freshman through junior years. He averaged 19.8 points per game as a junior in 2004–05, helping his team to a 19–10 record.

For his senior year, Christopher moved to Dominguez High School in Compton, California, where he averaged 21 points, 9 rebounds and 3 assists per game, earning first-team All-CIF honors for the 2005–06 season. He was rated the No. 44 overall recruit and No. 6 player in the state of California by Rivals.com and was considered the No. 17 shooting guard in the country by Scout.com.

College career
After graduating high school, Christopher attended the University of California, Berkeley, where he averaged 15.6 points, 5.4 rebounds and 2 assists as a senior for the Golden Bears. He was named first-team All-Pac-10 after both his junior and senior seasons and finished his Cal career ranked third in Golden Bear history in scoring with 1,700 points and fourth in three-pointers made with 164.

Professional career
After going undrafted in the 2010 NBA draft, Christopher played for the Detroit Pistons in the NBA Summer League. He later moved to Turkey for the 2010–11 season to play for Antalya BB. In 28 games, he averaged 15.9 points, 4.4 rebounds, 1.7 assists and 1.3 steals per game.

In December 2011, Christopher signed with Cholet Basket of the French LNB Pro A. In 26 games during the 2011–12 season, he averaged 12.8 points and 2.4 rebounds per game.

In July 2012, Christopher joined the Sacramento Kings for the NBA Summer League, but did not play. He later returned to Turkey for the 2012–13 season to play for Beşiktaş. He averaged 11.0 points, 2.8 rebounds, 1.1 assists in 26 Turkish League games and 8.4 points, 2.3 rebounds and 1.0 assists in 24 EuroLeague games.

On September 27, 2013, Christopher signed with the Chicago Bulls. He was waived by Bulls on October 2 and joined the Iowa Energy of the NBA D-League on November 1, 2013. In 52 games during the 2013–14 season, he averaged 14.8 points, 4.0 rebounds and 2.2 assists per game. He was named to the NBA D-League All-Defensive Second Team.

On September 25, 2014, Christopher signed with the Memphis Grizzlies. He was waived by Grizzlies on October 25 and was reacquired by the Iowa Energy on October 31, 2014. On December 10, 2014, he signed with the Utah Jazz. On January 6, 2015, he was waived by the Jazz after sustaining a knee injury. He appeared in four games (starting one) while averaging 1.5 points and 1.5 rebounds in 7.3 minutes per game.

On September 14, 2015, Christopher re-signed with the Memphis Grizzlies, only to be waived by the team on September 23. On October 31, 2015, he was reacquired by the Iowa Energy. He was deactivated by the Energy on November 11, then reactivated on February 16, 2016. In 20 games to finish the 2015–16 season, he averaged 15.3 points, 2.7 rebounds and 2.5 assists per game.

In July 2016, Christopher played for the NBA D-League Select Team in the NBA Summer League.

On September 11, 2016, Christopher signed with Eisbären Bremerhaven of the German Basketball Bundesliga. However, after failing to pass the physicals due to a knee problem, the team voided his contract on September 22, 2016.

Personal life
Christopher is the son of Patricia and Laron Christopher. He is the brother of current Sioux Falls Skyforce forward Josh Christopher. He is the godbrother of former NBA player Tayshaun Prince.

In 2019, Christopher founded Sloan and Bennett, a luxury menswear brand named after  the cross streets of his childhood home in Compton, California.

NBA
Source

title: Patrick Christopher


text:
Chen Hu (physician)

Chen Hu (17 February 1962 – 24 July 2019) was a Chinese military physician and stem cell researcher. He served as Director of the PLA Institute of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Research and the Beijing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Therapy Laboratory. Known for his research on hematopoietic stem cell therapy for leukemia, he was awarded the State Science and Technology Progress Award (First Class) in 2015 and the Ho Leung Ho Lee Prize in 2016. In 2017, he and Deng Hongkui engineered resistance to HIV in mice using CRISPR gene editing, and for the first time used the technique on an AIDS patient. He died of a sudden heart attack before their findings were published.

Biography
Chen Hu was born 17 February 1962 in Chongqing, China, with his ancestral home in Luoyang, Henan. He enlisted in the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in September 1979 and enrolled at the Third Military Medical University (now Army Medical University). He earned both a Ph.D. and an M.D.

After graduation, Chen became a physician at the Affiliated Hospital of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences. He later served as Director of the Beijing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Therapy Laboratory and Director of the PLA Institute of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Research at the Fifth Medical Center (formerly the 307 Hospital) of the People's Liberation Army General Hospital in Beijing.

Chen spent more than 30 years researching treatment for leukemia, with a focus on hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) therapy. He treated more than 40,000 patients and performed over 3,200 HSC transplants, improving the survival rate from nearly 0% at the beginning to 65%. In 2015, his research on the treatment of radiation damage using adult stem cells won the State Science and Technology Progress Award (First Class). A year later, he won the Ho Leung Ho Lee Prize for Science and Technology Progress.

In 2017, Chen and his collaborator, Deng Hongkui of Peking University, used CRISPR gene editing to transplant human HSCs with the edited CCR5 gene to mice, and conferred HIV resistance to the animals. They subsequently used the technique to treat an AIDS patient who suffered from acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). It was the first time CRISPR was used on a human HIV patient. 19 months later, the patient's ALL was in complete remission. Their research demonstrated the safety of CRISPR for humans, although the therapy was not effective for curing AIDS as only 5% to 8% of the patient's bone marrow cells carried the edited CCR5 gene, much lower than the ideal 100%. Their research was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in September 2019, after Chen had died.

On 24 July 2019, Chen Hu died from a sudden heart attack in Beijing, aged 57. At the time of his death he was a candidate for election to the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

title: Chen Hu (physician)


text:
User:Heltec/Greeting temp

 * Hi! Welcome to Wikiversity! This is a MediaWiki project that is dedicated to Wiki-lessions. Feel free to contact me with Any questions you have about Wikiversity. Heltec  talk

title: User:Heltec/Greeting temp


text:
A. T. Brand

Alexander Theodore Brand (1852 – 23 June 1934) was a British physician and cancer researcher.

Brand was born in Chicago of Scottish parentage. He graduated M.B, C.M. with honours from Aberdeen University in 1881. He started medical practice in Driffield in 1882 and obtained his M.D. in 1884. Brand practiced medicine for forty-five years, he retired in 1927. He was a member of the British Medical Association for over fifty years. He was President of the East Yorks and North Lincolnshire Branch during 1902–1903. Brand was a major in the Royal Army Medical Corps and commanded the No. 2 East Yorks Field Ambulance.

Brand took interest in studying the origin of cancer and promoted an infectious theory of cancer due to an undiscovered microorganism. He authored the book Cancer: Its Cause, Treatment and Prevention, in 1922 and often debated the origin of cancer with other physicians who disputed his theory in the British Medical Journal.

Selected publications

 * A Contribution to the Aetiology of Cancer (1902)
 * The Etiology of Cancer (1902)
 * The Exogenesis of Cancer (1903)
 * Some Remarks on the Infectivity of Cancer (1907)
 * Cancer: Its Cause, Treatment and Prevention (1922)
 * Prevention of Cancer (1923)

title: A. T. Brand


text:
Geology of the southern North Sea

The North Sea basin is located in northern Europe and lies between the United Kingdom, and Norway just north of The Netherlands and can be divided into many sub-basins. The Southern North Sea basin is the largest gas producing basin in the UK continental shelf, with production coming from the lower Permian sandstones which are sealed by the upper Zechstein salt. The evolution of the North Sea basin occurred through multiple stages throughout the geologic timeline. First the creation of the Sub-Cambrian peneplain, followed by the Caledonian Orogeny in the late Silurian and early Devonian. Rift phases occurred in the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic which allowed the opening of the northeastern Atlantic. Differential uplift occurred in the late Paleogene and Neogene. The geology of the Southern North Sea basin has a complex history of basinal subsidence that had occurred in the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic. Uplift events occurred which were then followed by crustal extension which allowed rocks to become folded and faulted late in the Paleozoic. Tectonic movements allowed for halokinesis to occur with more uplift in the Mesozoic followed by a major phase of inversion occurred in the Cenozoic affecting many basins in northwestern Europe. The overall saucer-shaped geometry of the southern North Sea Basin indicates that the major faults have not been actively controlling sediment distribution.

Paleozoic era
Two major orogenic events occurred in this era, the Caledonian Orogeny and the Variscan Orogeny, allowing a complex geologic history to begin. During the late Silurian and early Devonian the Caledonian Orogeny occurred with episodes of uplift and erosion leaving unconformities. The Caledonian event occurred due to the collision of three land masses – Laurentia, Baltica, and Avalonia – which would eventually lead to the creation of Pangea. This collision allowed for a mountain belt to form NW–SE in the northern portion of the current basin, and in the south extending SW–NE. Following the Caledonian Orogeny approximately 380 Ma the Variscan Orogeny started and ended near the Permian. During this time period the orogeny caused Carboniferous rocks to become folded and faulted. The last collision occurred in the late Carboniferous where two supercontinents collided leading to the Varsican mountain range, Laurasia and Gondwanaland. Late Permian deposition of evaporites created the Zechstein supergroup which act as a salt cap for the fine grained sediment.

Mesozoic era
During this era the end of extensional tectonics had been well constrained in the southern North Sea basin; the extension occurred from the late Carboniferous to the Triassic. There had been some reactivation of Varsican basement faults due to the subsidence of the Sole Pit Basin and allowing basin tilts creating a peripheral graben system around the basin. Due to the reactivation of the basement faults it led to the beginning of halokinesis in the basin. The halokinesis allowed major uplift during the Mesozoic because of the presence of salt and the reactivation of basement faults; the thrusting permitted the sediment to thrust over the diapirs and float on top of the Zechstein salt. Due to the Kimmerian phase uplift in the northern portion of the North Sea, it allowed subsidence and deposition to fill the basin, creating sandstone. Due to differential loading along the faults, salt diapirs developed and played a huge role in the southern North Sea basin and all salt tectonic structures. Reverse faulting associated with late Carboniferous basin inversion is recorded by a wide range of Carboniferous stratigraphy subcropping the Permian sediments. The subcrop pattern indicates a strong influence of NW–SE tectonic trends during this inversion. This inversion event was followed by deposition of upper Carboniferous red beds, which pass up into sands of the Permian Rotliegend Group; these are overlain by evaporites of the Zechstein Supergroup. A major phase of basin inversion during or at the end of the Late Cretaceous affected many basins in northwestern Europe, including the Sole Pit Basin and the Cleveland Basin, and has been attributed to strike-slip reactivation of basement faults.

Cenozoic era
During the end of the Mesozoic and into the Cenozoic era the Alpine orogeny occurred which led to reactivation of faults and structures. In the beginning of the Tertiary, inversion involving basin tilt and reactivation of basement faults transpired. The center part of the southern North Sea basin comprises the Silver Pit and Sole Pit trough and the Cleaver Bank High, which are all distinguished by a series of salt swells and walls which occurred in the Tertiary. A reversal of basin tilt during the Tertiary uplifted the thick sedimentary wedge in the Sole Pit Trough to form the Sole Pit High. Since the orogeny reactivated the Mesozoic rifts it permitted the Zechstein salts to act as a buffer or detachment layer separating two structural regimes, which can lead to traps for natural resources.

Caledonian phase
During the Paleozoic there were three major landmasses that collided, Laurentia, Baltica, and Avalonia closing the Iapetus ocean. The event created a mountain chain trending North to South in the northern portion and an East to West trend in the South. The reason being that there is a North to South trend in the North is because Laurentia coming from the West and Baltica coming from the east meeting at the center to create a compressional regime. Through time eventually Avalonia coming from the south closing the Iapetus ocean, collided with the two landmasses to create a T-junction giving an East to West trend in the southern portion. This event is the first major event that would lead to the creation of Pangea. The tectonic event comprised the entire Ordovician and into the early Devonian, the Caledonian rocks are the basement of the current North Sea.

Variscan phase
From the late Devonian to the end of the Permian ending in the Paleozoic era the Variscan Orogeny occurred. The super continents of Gondwanaland and Laurussia collided creating an extensive mountain range just east of the pre-existing Caledonian mountains and creating Pangea the super continent at the end of the Variscan phase. The collision of these plates plays an important role in the potential of hydrocarbons in the Southern North Sea basin. The start of this phase is the collapsing of the Caledonian orogeny and a general extensional regime which would cause a depression to fill with sediment. There are four major phases in this orogenic event. First phase known as the Bretonian reflected in changes in the sediment input and the reactivation of a south plunging subduction zone. The second phase, the Sudetian, was of volcanic event and extrusive metamorphic and igneous rocks with uplift and mild folding of grabens in the vicinity which lead to inversion. The Asturian tectonic phase created fragmentation of the Variscans and its foreland due to the complex fault system of conjugate shear faults and secondary extensional faults. The last major phase, the Staphanian, caused the majority of faulting and deformation expressed in wrench faults. The accumulation of hydrocarbons in the south was permitted due to the basin that was formed, the foreland basin was barely disturbed by tectonic events in the northern region and eventually sealed up by the salt caps of the Zechstein formation. Since the Caledonian and Variscan orogeny are closely related in time both events helped create Pangea and the Caledonians slowly phase into the Variscan orogeny.

Kimmerian phase
The break up of Pangea occurs during the Kimmerian tectonic phase for most of the Mesozoic, until the early-mid Cretaceous, this marks the start of creating the present position of our continents today. During the Jurassic, rifting activity reaches its maximum and North America starts to move apart from Eurasia following that event in the Cretaceous the southern part of North America starts to open up the Atlantic Ocean with the separation of South America and Africa. At the end of the Mesozoic the North Sea reached its final position where it lies in present day. Throughout the Cretaceous rifting eventually slowed down and came to a halt which later created the North Sea failed rift system because the regional stresses had shifted on to North America. The Jurassic is probably the most important geological time for hydrocarbon exploration in the North Sea. Many accumulations are in Jurassic reservoir, the Kimmeridge clay is considered the most important source rock and structures formed during rifting form excellent traps. In the first place rifting was responsible for the deposition of organic rich source rock due to anoxic conditions in the deep isolated rift basins. Possibly the most important phase to create structures and traps for the natural resources we try to collect today.

Alpine phase
This phase is currently active today and started in the Cretaceous.In the late Cretaceous and in the Tertiary inversion phases in the Southern North Sea region occurred due to the Alpine orogeny and its compressional stresses. Since there had been inversion the Zechstein salt played a huge role by acting as a buffer between two structural regimes. Although the phase reactivated pre-existing faults it allowed the salt tectonics to remain active during the Tertiary as the sediments were deposited, and later became penetrated by the salt diapirs. The Alpine phase did add more structural confusion to the geologic history, but it also help create more traps with the Zechstein salt.

Rotliegend group
The sandstones of the Southern North Sea region form gas reservoirs. Deposition started in the early Permian, and near the end of the early Permian finer sediment was deposited in an environment of lacustrine and saline/sabkha.

Zechstein group
The Zechstein group consists of evaporites which sealed the Rotliegend group for reservoir formation. Sedimentation was dominated by the development of mixed carbonate-evaporite depositional system throughout the southern Permian basin. Climatic conditions allowed the deposition of five major sedimentary cycles of progressive progradation and desiccation of the basin after an initial recharge through basin flooding.

Cromer Knoll group
The Cromer Knoll is deposited on top of an unconformity at the base of the Cretaceous period. Regional uplift and erosion allowed the unconformity to appear in the late Triassic and depositing the Cromer Knoll and chalk groups.

Salt tectonics
Salt tectonics is the movement of a significant amount of evaporites encompassing salt rock within a stratigraphic sequence of rocks. Within the southern North Sea basin this plays a huge role in the oil and gas industry because the tectonic events throughout the geologic timescale allowed these halokinesis structures to trap areas of natural resources. The major salt basins were clearly deposited by gravity driven measurements with three basinal areas: the German, English and Norwegian basins. The southern North Sea basin concerns the English and German Zechstein salt basins. The German basin can be categorized as a salt wall which is a linear diapiric structure possibly related either to basement faulting or to the controlling effect of regional dip, and the English basin is categorized as a salt pillow type of structure, developed in association with thinning of overlying beds but without diapiric effects. The major types of salt structures in this basin are salt pillows or swells which lie in the cores of buckle fold structures.

Petroleum geology
In general the reservoir potential is restricted to aeolian sandstone, although poorer quality potential reservoirs are found in fluvial sediment. About 85% of the gas production in the southern North Sea basin comes from the pre-Zechstein Permian sandstones and 13% from the Triassic fluvial sandstones. The sandstone deposited prior to the Zechstein evaporites are essentially the area in which the oil industry is pulling the natural resources from due to high quality seal from the salt diapirs and pillows which acted as a buffer between structural segments. Triassic sequence fluvial sandstones are of lesser quality of a reservoir because it was not sealed in a trap such as the Rotliegend.

title: Geology of the southern North Sea