Talk:Crusade of Barbastro

NPOV

In my opinion, this article breaks the NPOV policy. Especially in the Consequences section, the armies are called "crusade soldiers" or "crusaders" which I think these terms only used in events directly related to the Crusades. Other than that, there are many hyperbolic words or phrases. Hope that someone will make much better improvement. Regards, Ign christian (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in place. The pope called a crusade against the Muslims, and this campaign was all about that (and about power). Hyperbolic is exaggeration, this is not, that is what happened, and it is verified. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This conflict somewhat predates the traditional crusading period, and the labeling is discussed in historiography (real (1st) crusade, prelude, proto-crusade, holy war...reading)... So maybe the "crusaders" point can be a minor issue (which can be dealt with quotation marks). It is factual the Pope issued a bull calling for it, though. It's true the "reportedly 50.000" reads like an adding-zeroes typo, to be honest.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That is what the source says, so let's keep just one standard for the WP as a whole, and let it be. That is why "reportedly" has been added, one can gather their own conclusions. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too exaggerate by calling hyperbolic. However, I don't doubt its factual event but the wording or accuracy. Thanks for Asqueladd, you explained it well. In addition, the lead states: "Ramón Menéndez Pidal famously described the expedition as "a crusade before the crusades"." It seems like the only sourced statement to link this event with the real Crusades. So the armies or soldiers should be called simply "armies" or "soldiers", not "crusade soldiers" or "crusaders". Or at least, as suggested by Asqueladd, quotation marks should be used. The sentence which begins with "Another source tells us that ..." seems like a personal opinion to drive readers, at least I, to agree with what the writer thinks, makes subsequent sentences or that part doubtful. Ign christian (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we can agree 50,000 is at the very least one order of magnitude over the population of that town. Before 5,000 (which is also high) was the number in the entry. Reportedly (to whom? "as per The Medieval Telegraph"?). Attributing it to some contemporary account should not be difficult as it should be featured in the secondary sources. I get the reading of Marín, Manuela. (1992). Crusaders in the Muslim West: the view of Arab Writers. The Maghreb Review 17. should be fruitful in order to put a context in this issue, but unfortunately I don't have the journal available. Ign christian: Maybe the lead needs nourishment (and being less sententious), but there is plenty of historiographical discussion dealing with the connection of this event and the crusades. There are no consensus about it, that's it.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Listen, calling one thing or the other "crusade" is just like Reconquista, there is no close episode called "Crusade" or "Reconquista", it is just how some historians decided to call it. There are, however, some campaigns called by the popes billed as "crusades", and this was one of them. However, this did not target the Holy Lands, like the following ones. That is the difference.

The author in the reference states that the relevance of the town was much bigger during that period, and cites 50,000, so it is verified. You are welcome to bring other sources that call that into question or provide another figure. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Been there. Done that. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Asqueladd, it's better now with more than one pov, and it is more readable for all. However, if no scholarly consensus to call this "Crusade of Barbastro", I think note should be taken. I simply wondering if this article could be written with good pov, just like the Crusades dan First Crusade articles. I'm sorry I can't contribute, and just commenting, since I don't know this spesific topic. Regards, Ign christian (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Article name move

If your concern, Ign christian, is the use of the term "crusade", this is how it is mentioned in several sources, particularly by Spanish historians, and, in fact, the article in the Spanish wikipedia (originally translated from this one with the title in Spanish as "War..." was subsequently moved and the article is now "Cruzada de Barbastro". Regards, --Maragm (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I do not know what all the fuss is about it being labelled or included within the "Crusade". Virtually all the sources are adamant on that point with profuse evidence. Yes, the chapter of the official, historiographic "Crusades" to the Holy Land comes a bit later. However, this is a full-blown crusading campaign. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Examples: Ubieto Arteta's Historia de Aragón (online, p. 54, p. 64 pdf) Chapter: "La cruzada contra Barbastro (1064)"; Chaytor (also online, Chapter 3 heading: "The Crusade of 1064"; and Lapena Paul (book which I have and can scan pages), p. 159: "La cruzada de Barbastro ... 30 years before the birth of the crusades or military expeditions to the Holy Land...Barbastro, known as the first crusade in history" (my translation). --Maragm (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC) pd, actually, I think this article should be moved to "Crusade of Barbastro" as verified in several sources.--Maragm (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, I should agree with Maragm. War is an engagement between two sides against each other, this was a town undergoing an expedition by alien forces under the ideology of 'crusade'. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if my comments here are considered as a fuss. My main consideration was the neutrality of wording and accuracy since it is a sensitive topic, but it's better now after Asqueladd's contributions which made it differs significantly. I can't comment about the article name moving since I don't understand Spanish and Spanish related things. However, I hope that this campaign satisfy you. Regards, Ign christian (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Proceed. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the issue between "crusade" and "war" has nothing to do with accuracy. My only concern with the new title, which is indeed more common in RS, is that we are not a scholarly source, i.e., we are not read mainly by scholars. The new title is an anachronism (nothing wrong with that, c.f. Byzantine empire), but many readers will probably walk away thinking, "So the real first crusade was in 1064 in Spain." Anyway, I plan to add to the article from Erdmann, Fletcher, Ferreiro and Vila Bosch (not currently cited) when I'm back at my normal computer. Srnec (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it does have to do, and the word 'war' is subject to much debate today when it comes to assessing different attacks affecting France and the US lately. This is a one-sided attack on a town, that is not a war. A crusade is a concept that goes beyond a certain historic set of campaigns, it is also a common noun. There was a crusade before the "Crusades"? Yes, s/he is right. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the move, but I find the reasoning about accuracy ridiculous. It should be mainly about usage.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Fletcher, Ferreiro and Riley-Smith are three historians who directly address the question and argue that it was not a crusade. As for "war": the city was garrisoned by the Muslims and then by the Christians and was attacked by armies. There were always soldiers on both sides. What's not a war? Can you cite any historian who discusses this? Ferreiro explicitly denies it was a crusade, but labels it a "holy war". To be clear, I am not saying that we ought to take sides in the debate over whether it was or was not a crusade, nor am I bothered by the current title. Srnec (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC

There is plenty of bibliography added, so the information is there. Regardless of that, the terminology is full of misleading historiographic cliclés, dichotomies, and received ideas, unacceptable to an exhaustive approach (Moors vs Christians, Spanish and French, the "Moors" massacred a garrison but the "Christians" killed the town Muslims...). Anyway, I'll give it a rest... Iñaki LL (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crusade of Barbastro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718171218/http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/283/2/Norman_and_AngloNorman.pdf to http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/283/2/Norman_and_AngloNorman.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)