Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William of Tyre/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:12, 15 November 2009 [1].

---

William of Tyre

Nominator(s): Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/William of Tyre/archive1

I've been working on this article for over six years, and in the past year I've been expanding it and referencing it to bring it up to Featured Article standards. Yes, he's another medieval bishop, but amazingly I am not in collusion with Ealdgyth! His bishopness is only incidental to his importance as a chronicler. I haven't been involved in the FAC process recently, but based on reading other nominations, I'm sure I will enjoy the process - I should have the proper knowledge and resources to answer any questions or make any improvements. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment There's no dabs or broken links, and all images have alt text (I like the map by the way), so it looks good so far. That said, I made two edits to the lead text; give it and the article another skim to make sure there aren't any remaining errors or if you think I fail at error correction. :) --an odd name 22:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My only concern with the map is the incongruous use of Sans-Serif and Pseudo-Miniscule, and the different layout of the sans that makes it look like two sans fonts have been used. The map obviously drew my attention immediately, even before I went to look at your footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I figured someone would comment on the fonts. If there's any doubt about them, it's certainly safer to just use plain old sans-serif (like WP does in text by default, I think) all around. Easier to read, if slightly more boring, that way. --an odd name 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now that I don't know how to fix. I was just using the map from the Kingdom of Jerusalem article. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a deal breaker, it just might be worth improving if you can rustle up support. If I get to keep whinging, Konya is too closely spaced, Euphrates too loosely spaced. Even within the Sans Serif the variations in display are too great. I would humbly suggest that if a Miniscule has to be used, that one with high legibility and visual appeal be used, the one currently in use is of low legibility due to thin sections of characters. (You'll also get a free 1c / 2c review out of me later with a statement on the article's progression) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, well, I left a message with User:MapMaker, its creator. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your note, Adam, on my talk page. See you there, MapMaster (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A new map has been swapped in, specially designed for the article. I have changed all the characters to a sans serif font, and moved, upon Adam's suggestion, the timeframe to 1165. I added a few places mentioned in the article to the map and removed a less relevant ones. Hope this works for you, MapMaster (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Its beautiful. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments, to start with, this is a very well done article. Mostly minor things that cropped up during my read-through, although some may just be questions that I had because of my lack of familiarity with the history:

• The prose is exceptional, but I would do a quick read-through to see if it's possible to break up some of the longer sentences into chunks that are more manageable for the reader. For example, the sentence in the lead that starts, "The chronicle was translated into French..."
• Given the importance of religion in his life story, I would wikilink Christianity early
• "however, he could not have been German as he had little knowledge of that country" I think this conclusion bears a little (and I do mean a little) more explanation, if it's possible based on your sources. Plenty of people have an ancestry they have little knowledge of.
• why quote 'apparently well-to-do' instead of converting it into prose?
• "The scholaster, or school-master, John the Pisan taught" maybe a better copy-editor can weigh in, but shouldn't there be a comma after 'John the Pisan'?
• "married Maria Comnena grand-niece", missing comma?
• "was elected archbishop of Tyre to replace Archbishop of Frederick" is the latter a title or a name? should it just be Archbishop Frederick?
• is it the Third Council of the Lateran, or the Third Lateran Council - you write it both ways in the article
• The sentence that starts, "Peter Edbury and John Rowe" is convoluted and a little unclear
• "the final book is unfinished, but it may have been completed and the pages may be lost" - it's incongruent to claim that it may have been completed, but state definitely that it is unfinished
• The sentence that starts "William's history can be seen as an apologia," is convoluted as well
• "His account of the foundation of the Templars is the earliest description" of?
• "are also a typical topos" explain 'topos'
• "R. B. C. Huygens notes that..."the French needs translation to English
• the last section as a whole strings together a lot of quotes, some of which could perhaps be folded into a regular prose summation

As I said, exceptional work. Geraldk (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of those are just missing commas or have leftover words from when I rewrote a sentence (I seem to have done that a lot based on the other comments...). Some of the quotes are there just because I liked them; there is something about the way Huygens says "apparently well-to-do" that amuses me. It is assumed that he wasn't German because whenever there are German crusaders around, he doesn't know anything about them, so he presumably didn't speak German and had no contacts in Germany. The "earliest description" is of the foundation of the Templars...what I mean is, even though people wrote about them before, he is the earliest author to mention their actual foundation, although he wrote it fifty years later. I guess the sentence is backwards currently. I'll clarify all this, thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about that last paragraph. While you've managed to collect a lot of great quotes, it's disconcerting for me as a reader to dig through a long series of them. I would pick one or two to keep as quotes and maybe paraphrase or summarize the rest. Geraldk (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've split up the sentence about the chronicle being an apologia, but could you be more specific? What else is convoluted about it? (Is talking about an apologia too jargon-y?) I'll see what I can do about the last paragraph; what does everyone else think? Too many quotes? (I like them, anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like, we can wait until another reviewer weighs in on that, I don't feel that strongly about it. So I'm set for now, but will wait to support until source and image checks are complete. Geraldk (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Support now that source review issues seem to be resolved. Geraldk (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but it needs some work.

• Much of it repeats the captions, but alt text should discuss only the part of the the visual appearance of the image that the caption omits; please see WP:ALT#Repetition. Also, alt text normally should not contain any details that cannot be verified by a nonexpert who is looking only at the images; see WP:ALT#Verifiability. Problematic phrases that should be removed or moved to the caption, on repetition or verifiability grounds, include "from an Old French manuscript", "William of Tyre's chronicle", "showing William", "his history", "the future Baldwin IV", "not being hurt", "a sign of leprosy", "Saladin", "end of chapter heading", "text of chapter", "Godfrey of Bouillon in the Hofkirche of Innsbruck. It was mainly on William's authority that Godfrey became the hero of the First Crusade."
• The alt text for the map doesn't convey to a visually impaired reader what the gist of the map is, namely the geographical locations and relationships among those regions. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance here.
• Please try to pretend that you're briefly describing the image over the telephone to a non-expert.

Eubulides (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I completely misunderstood the point of alt text, sorry. (I didn't even know there was such a concept until the Peer Review!) Is it better now? Would it help if I cropped that image of Saladin burning the town? The text in the image is irrelevant (the others would have it too but they have been cropped differently). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's great now; thanks! There's no need to crop the text from that image from an alt text point of view; if you do crop it for other reasons, please adjust the alt text accordingly. Eubulides (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: 1c, 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Decline 1c, 2c. (detailed line by line list available later) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. 1c: Inadequate indication of when commentary chapters are being used from definitive translations versus when the translation is being quoted. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. 2c: Inconsistent. p / pp style versus pg style. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Multiple works in single footnotes which contain the first citation of unbibliographied works. Inadequate bibliography for a historical article (all works go in). The multiple citation styles make me want to go plagiarism hunting, btw. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) And I am not impressed that a history article was brought forward with multiple citation styles in the document, 2c as a criterion is pretty clear. Extensive footnotes which should either be incorporated into the article, or culled. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I admit that my citation style is never perfect (this is a problem in real life as well, actually), but what would you suggest? How should I indicate "commentary chapters"? The Babcock and Krey translation has their own introduction (which I have noted, at least sometimes - I added one that I missed when I was editing just now), and then William's prologue. The Huygens edition also has his own introduction. How can I distinguish these more clearly? I did not think I was using "multiple styles", but perhaps this comes from other editors. Also, I've tolerated a good load of bullshit on Wikipedia over the years, but accusations of plagiarism are a little much. It will help, I'm sure, if you actually tell me which notes you have problems with. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Introductions should be cited as such, Author author (year) Introduction to William Tyre Work Provenance data, in the current style you're using. Works themselves should be cited William Tyre Work trans. Foo and foo. If the manuscript and translation have different titles, the published title should be used. When the article switches, seemlessly, between Foo Work pg. 40 and Foo Work p. 40 it becomes rather obvious two authors have been involved, and that the citations haven't been checked before the FAC. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it now? I've tried to make it more clear. I don't see the problem with the way I cited things, to be honest. I've also cleaned up the references, so everything I cited in the text is now included. Would you prefer a "notes" section for what you have called "extended footnotes", where I have explained something that I didn't think fit into the text? I don't think it would be useful to cull that information. For "p." vs. "pg.", as far as I can tell there are no instances of "p." so I don't know what you're referring to. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rechecked, you're consistently using pg. for singles... its not a style I've seen, but you're consistent, and that's all that's demanded. Your chapter citations are still out, see "Dictionary of the Middle Ages (ed. Joseph Strayer; article "William of Tyre" by Susan M. Babbitt (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1989), vol. 12, pg. 643)" which is actually "Susan M. Babbitt, "William of Tyre," Dictionary of the Middle Ages ed. Joseph Strayer New York: Charles Scribners's Sons, 1989, vol. 12, pg. 643." (Compare to your citations of articles, or R. C. Schwinges in Tolerance and Intolerance.

Okay, should be fixed now, but you may still have a problem with more than one work being cited in the same footnote. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have noted where I am referring to the introduction of Babcock/Krey and Huygens, rather than William's text. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

2c I discovered I was too hasty declaring your page numbering indicators to be consistent. resolved Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Latin, or English? You use a mix of pg. for singular, and pp. for plural. pp. is the plural of p. not of pg. The plural of pg. is pgs. (See OED 2 P, (n) 10a.). Pick one of:
  1. pg. for singular pgs. for plural.
  2. p. for singular pp. for plural. (Wikipedia's templates follow this style).
  3. no page prefix indicator. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. For some reason in high school I learned to use "pg." and I have stubbornly stuck with it ever since, even after learning the plural "pp." later. I've changed it to "p." Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Its all lovely now. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support. Good article. My specific concerns have been addressed. But there are still a lot of over-long sentences, and a few poorly-constructed ones.:* William is praised by current scholars in the section "modern Assesssment" as "one of the greatest medieval writers", "the greatest crusade historian" and "one of the finest historians of the Middle Ages". Isn't this a key element of his notability? And shouldn't mention of this therefore be prominent in the Lead?

• "known as William II to distinguish him from William of Malines, the first Archbishop of Tyre by that name" - Shouldn't this be "of that name"?
• "He grew up in Jerusalem at the height of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was established in 1099 after the First Crusade, and spent twenty years studying the liberal arts and canon law in the universities of Europe." - Did the Kingdom of Jerusalem study liberal arts and canon law? Sentence should be broken after "Crusade", and then continue with "Then he spent..."
• "In 1179 William led the eastern delegation to the Third Council of the Lateran, but as he was involved in the dynastic struggle that developed during Baldwin IV's reign, his importance waned when a rival faction gained control of royal affairs." - The causality between the first and second parts of this sentence is not very clear. Why not break it after "lateran"? Then the next sentence could be reframed: "However his importance waned after he became involved in a dynastic struggle that developed during Baldwin IV's reign, and a rival faction gained control of royal affairs."
• "Baldwin II, expanded and secured the kingdom's borders so that the kingdom was roughly contiguous with modern Israel and Lebanon." - It wasn't Baldwin's intention to emulate the borders of modern day Israel and Lebanon. Why not replace "so that" with "until" or something similar?
• "During the first few decades of the kingdom's existence, the population swelled with pilgrims who could now safely visit the holiest sites of Christendom, and with merchants from the Mediterranean city-states of Italy and France who were eager to exploit the rich trade markets of the east" - "was swelled by" would be better than "swelled with". Again can you cut the sentence in two after "Christendom"? Then the next sentence could be: "Merchants from the Mediterranean city-states of Italy and France were also eager to exploit the rich trade markets of the east."
• "He was born in Jerusalem around 1130, to parents who were probably among the French or Italian merchants who had settled in the kingdom and who were "apparently well-to-do", although it is unknown whether they participated in the First Crusade or arrived later. " - Suggest a sentence split after "1130". Then start "His parents..."
• "He studied liberal arts and theology in Paris and Orleans for about ten years, with professors who had been students of Thierry of Chartres and Gilbert de la Porrée; he also spent time studying under Robert of Melun and Adam de Parvo Ponte, among others. He also studied the classics with Hilary of Orleans, and mathematics ("especially Euclid") with William of Soissons. For six years, he studied theology with Peter Lombard and Maurice de Sully. Afterwards, he studied civil law and canon law in Bologna, with the "Four Doctors", Hugolinus de Porta Ravennate, Bulgarus, Martinus Gosia, and Jacob de Boraigne." - Very long, confusing list. Could be improved by starting: "For about ten years he studied liberal arts and theology in Paris and Orleans, with professors who had been students of Thierry of Chartres and Gilbert de la Porrée." Then a new sentence.
• "William's list "gives us almost a 'Who's Who' of the grammarians, philosophers, theologians and law teachers of the so-called Twelfth-Century Renaissance", and shows that he was as well-educated as any European cleric, such as his contemporary John of Salisbury, who had many of the same teachers." - Not grammatical. Sentence could be split after "European cleric." Then "His contemporary, John of Salisbury, had many of the same teachers."
• "After his return to the Holy Land in 1165 he was well-suited to rise through the ranks" - "well-fitted" might be better.
• "The subsequent events have often been interpreted as a struggle between two opposing factions, the "court party", made up of Baldwin's mother, Amalric's first wife Agnes of Courtenay, her immediate family, and recent arrivals from Europe who were inexperienced in the affairs of the kingdom and who were in favour of war with Saladin; and the "noble party", led by Raymond III of Tripoli and the native nobility of the kingdom, who favoured peaceful co-existence with the Muslims." - Sentence too long and confusing.

Suggested alternative: "Subsequent events have often been portrayed as a struggle between two opposing factions. These were the "court party", made up of Baldwin's mother, Amalric's first wife Agnes of Courtenay, her immediate family, and recent arrivals from Europe, who were inexperienced in the affairs of the kingdom and were in favour of war with Saladin; and the "noble party", led by Raymond III of Tripoli and the native nobility of the kingdom, who favoured peaceful co-existence with the Muslims."

Xandar 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I am fond of long sentences. I see that some of them were needlessly confusing though. I fixed most of that, so it should be more to your liking. The only one I had a problem with was "so that". It doesn't necessarily imply intent, it can just be a simple result of the main clause. (I don't like "until" as a replacement, but maybe there is something better than both "so that" and "until".) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I missed the "swelled by" comment. I've changed that, and the bit about the borders. Does "which encompassed roughly the same territory" work? I also added Palestine, just to be fair. Also "by that name" sounds more correct to me than "of that name". I initially changed it but it just didn't seem right. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thought I will defer to Google's 44 million results for "first of that name"! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. I think the article flows better now. Xandar 00:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note I contributed at the Peer Review) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Not yet How did Ealdgyth miss this?
  • William's European education allowed him to compose his chronicle in almost flawless Latin, with numerous quotations from classical literature.

    This is unsourced (and unlikely); there were Latinists in Outremer.

  • His writing also shows phrasing and spelling which is peculiar to purely classical Latin but not uncommon in medieval Latin, such as:
    • confusion between reflexive and possessive pronouns;
    • confusion over the use of the accusative and ablative cases, especially after the preposition in;

    To Cicero, these are on a par with English ain't Anyone who does these things, is not writing flawless Latin; he is writing (say) "excellent

Latin for his time, studded with quotations from Ovid [or Livy, or whoever it is]." The list of mediaevalisms continues; but the rest is mere spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was unsourced because it's in the lead, heh. Huygens and Edbury/Rowe are my sources for his abilities as a Latinist but perhaps they do not say "flawless". I'm not quite sure what you would like me to say, but I've changed it to "excellent", compared to other medieval authors. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have two problems with the lead:

• It implies that William wrote the Latin of Cicero, Petrarch, or Erasmus - which he plainly did not.
• It implies that he would have written wrose than he did if he had not travelled to Europe. If this is true, it is surprising, and requires a source; there's no reason he should have needed European training any more than the students of Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

He's not the Cicero of the crusades, I don't mean to imply that. The point is just that he's really good for a medieval author. There are certainly other authors of the same period, or a bit earlier or later, who are also very good, or better than William (Bernard of Clairvaux is much better, the Gesta Francorum is much worse, etc etc). But where else would he have learned to write like that? There was no university in Jerusalem. Of course he had to go to Europe. (Even Gildersleeve studied in Europe!) I can probably expand on this, I have a few ideas of where to look. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Gildersleeve's students didn't have to study in Europe (some of them did, but not all); they had Gildersleeve. Now it may be that no competent Latinist went on Crusade (if so, it would be fascinating); but yes or no, let's have a source. Good luck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The implications of this line of thought are that William could have written a thousand-page Latin chronicle with just the Latin he learned as a youth, or that he could have gotten a university-level education in a place where there were no universities. But maybe this would not be obvious to the average reader. Sources to come. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I thought I would find something in the articles about William as a student by Huygens and Mayer. I am looking for something that specifically says there is no university in Jerusalem so higher education had to be undertaken in Europe, but the best I can find is in Tyerman's "God's War", "the kingdom of Jerusalem...sent its best and brightest students to the west for education, such as William of Tyre." (pg. 218) Is that an appropriate statement and source? I will also look for something that specifically says William must have learned his advanced Latin in Europe, which is what I think you want; maybe the intro to Huygens' edition will have that. (This is harder than I thought, I guess it's more of a logical assumption than something that is ever stated plainly.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, I wrote a whole essay about William's education once, and I still have no specific refs for the lack of a university in Jerusalem. I did find a good one from Charles Homer Haskin's "Renaissance of the Twelfth Century" though, which talks about Orleans as a centre of classical study. Does that help? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Some of Adam's responses here are effectively that grammar and rhetoric are university-level work (and presumably the distinction between accusative and ablative transcends the usual course of study). That's not true now; it was even less true in Gildersleeve's time - were medieval universities really that bad? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • But that can apply to almost any subject. I learned math at school, but am I a mathematician? Of course not. I've studied and taught Latin at university, but can I write a book in Latin? Can you? (With enormous amounts of effort I can perhaps write a few pages.) Obviously that level of composition requires more than simple grammar homework. Sometimes he uses "in" with an ablative when there is movement involved and he should have used an accusative; sometimes he uses nominatives or accusatives where we would expect an ablative absolute; Huygens talks about some of his other quirks. Maybe Cicero doesn't write Latin like that, but not only was Cicero a native speaker, he is also artificially the standard for all Latin grammar. How convenient for him! But Plautus, Caesar, Seneca, and Tacitus didn't write like him either, so why is it so surprising that a medieval author is also different? Hopefully you approve of the clarifications I have made, but if not, I don't think you're arguing against what I have written, but what the sources are saying, and there's not really anything I can do about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I've done a tweak myself, which may solve the implicit comparison with Cicero - or Erasmus, who was also writing a foreign tongue; for the other half, supply a source for the superiority of his European education, and I am answered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        • "for his time" is perfectly fine with me. I guess we wasted a lot of typing for nothing :) Erasmus (or Petrarch, or Boccaccio) is a little different, I'm sure everyone would agree that humanists are better than medieval writers. For the superiority of his European education, haven't I provided sources for that in my last few edits? What else can I say? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I must be thinking too narrowly. You would like a source that talks about medieval universities in general, not something about Jerusalem or William, right? (That is, the problem is that there is not enough historical context for the non-specialist reader?) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
            • No, you're not thinking as narrowly as I was. But I've ventured another tweak: if his education weren't already in the lead, I would have written William had a European education; his chronicle is written in excellent Latin for his time and let the readers make their own conclusions. But the first clause is redundant, so I left it out. As far as I am concerned, this quibble is settled. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the next sentence it is the only source for the history of Jerusalem at that time written by a lifelong resident I think this is intended to mean that there is no other source which was written by a native of Jerusalem; but it is very easy to read this as the double claim There is no other source for the history of Jerusalem at that time and it was written by a lifelong resident. Recast? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That is the intended meaning. I'll fix it. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• File:William of tyre.jpg - Please add a source and author to the image description page for this image.

• File:BNF, Mss fr 68, folio 359.jpg - Please add an English translation of the image information to the image description page. Also, please fix the source link.

I look forward to striking this oppose. Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted the users who uploaded those images for assistance. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are they okay now? The source link for the second image is currently down, either because Gallica has reorganized its site or because the actual manuscripts in France have been moved (as apparently they have been). If we can't find the link again I guess we could just delink it. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for the English translation. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've added that in brackets (I don't really use Commons so I'm not sure if there is a fancier way of doing it). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - I read the article before it was nominated, have just reread it and nothing jumps at me that's wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note to PMAnderson - Ealdgyth missed the above because she's not a grammarian or a linguist, and my eyes glaze over when articles start discussing wording and language choices (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments -- I read the article over. An interesting read. You certainly like the perfect tense Adam! Anyway, couldn't get hold of any of the principal works on the topic, so am unable to offer substantial content points. But I'll leave the following comments for now:

• Go over the article and make all the "Xth Century" consistent. I noticed the form in "twelfth century" is the one that is predominant, but "13th century" and "fourteenth-century" are there too.

• The article used the word "also" far too much. I cut many of these out in my c/e

• William's origins have been variously claimed as English, French, German, or Italian; however, he rarely mentions Germany or German affairs, and does not know the names of many German crusaders, so he probably had no connection to that country.

  I think a footnote elaborating this is necessary. I.e. a note describing who, with refs, has claimed what. The debunking of the German claim is likewise unreferenced (or at least, it is not clear where the information is drawn from). Incidentally, surely a guy with the name "William" and a brother called Radulf would likely be [agnatically] French, rather than Italian?

• Amalric died prematurely

I know what is meant, but that phrase never makes sense out of context. ;) I got rid of the "prematurely".

• Miles of Plancy briefly held the regency for the underaged Baldwin IV, until his assassination in October of 1174; Raymond III was soon appointed to replace him.

  Who was assassinated? And who replaced whom? Needs to be rewritten for clarity.

• Can't this chronicle have an article of its own, and be referred to in the text? It's not very common for chronicles of this era to have "authentic" names known to modern historians, and many if not most are purely conventional. It would read better with something like Historia Rerum than "the chronicle".

• The first half of the articles sorta swings in and out of biographical material, and it isn't always obvious why KoJ stuff is mentioned. I think a lot of the contextualography could go, but having said that it read well going enough, and cutting it out might sacrifice informativeness for the unworthy sake of being concise.

That's my lot for now ... Good work! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Deacon, I will make some more clarifications. The centuries with the hyphens are always the adjectival form, or at least that is my intention ("in the twelfth century" vs. "a twelfth-century author"). I did have a lengthier note about who claimed he was English and German but I either cut it out or never inserted it into the article. I thought it might be distracting...in fact it might be distracting the way it is, perhaps I should just say he was French or Italian and leave it at that. And yeah, everyone generally assumes French anyway, not just from the names, but also because Italy is mentioned as "beyond the Alps". The chronicle could have its own article, as it does in Italian and Latin, and the Old French continuations could have their own article as well, but no one has gotten around to them yet. I'm not sure what to call it within the article, sometimes academic literature uses "Historia", sometimes "Chronicon", and sometimes the way it is here. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• Excellent writing/punctuation/grammar. Even the sentences on steroids (such as "William gave a more nuanced... ") generally did not distract me from the narrative.
• "His education and ability..." Two sentence "paragraph".
• I'm a little unhappy about the citation format. I know that we only require consistency, but that's a lowball standard. I've never seen this firstname-first style; I think it's a disservice to readers to buck the lastname-first system that is, as far as I know, consistent across all major citation styles.
• Can you explain three cites to "Babcock and Krey" vs. five to "William of Tyre, trans. Babcock and Krey" vs. a lone cite to "Emily Atwater Babcock and August C. Krey"... all in the notes. OK, so... the full cite is given in the first instance; abbreviated cites later. Even if I accept that (which is problematic, since the full cite is given in the Sources section, so why redundantly repeat it redundantly?), the other two are inconsistent.

  IIRC I demanded the article differentiate between Babcock and Krey's commentary, versus the actual text by Tyre which they merely translate. One's the scholarly introduction, the other's the MS text as assembled and translated. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "after the disastrous Second Crusade in 1148, when the crusader armies were defeated at Damascus, Muslim territory to the east of Jerusalem had fallen under the control of the powerful sultan Nur ad-Din" Wasn't it 1154 when Nur ad-Din took control of Damascus? The sentence makes it seem as if that happened immediately after the siege in 1148. Moreover, isn't Egypt southwest, not west, of Jerusalem?
• " Amalric had come to power in 1164..." This sentence is a bit disjointed. Suggest: " Amalric had come to power in 1164, and had made it his goal to expand the Kingdom of Jerusalem to the southwest by conquering Egypt. Muslim territory to the east of Jerusalem had fallen under the control of the powerful sultan Nur ad-Din after the disastrous Second Crusade in 1148, when the crusader armies were defeated at Damascus. However, the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt was a far weaker opponent."
• "was often taken for granted in the past." Can we get something a bit more concrete? What general time period (a certain decade, forex?) did opinions begin to change?
• "possessive pronoun (s;" Is that supposed to be pronoun(s)? In other words, what's that (s supposed to indicate?
• While we're here, that whole linguistic section is a bit undercited. Is it all from Huygens? Three or four words to that effect would be good; just add them to the current note. But... the bit about the calque stands out. Should it be cited separately?

• Ling.Nut (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry Ling.Nut, I accidentally deleted your comments, I must have edited an older version of the page). Do you mean the citations for the sources at the end? That's true, last name should be first there. The footnote format is as Fifelfoo says. The cites for "Babcock and Krey" are for their introduction to the translation (they do say "introduction" in there somewhere), and the others are William, as translated by them. A full citation is given first, then abbreviated, then a full cite again in the bibliography, because, well, isn't that how it's supposed to be done? Yes, Nur ad-Din took control of Damascus in 1154, but it was sort of his protectorate more directly after the Second Crusade; in any case, yeah, "after" is a little ambiguous there. Egypt is southwest, and for that matter Damascus is northwest. The "(s" is part of an explanatory addition that I changed my mind about and apparently incompletely deleted, heh. The linguistic stuff is all from Huygens, yes. I'll work on this and Deacon's notes when I get a chance. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support First-name first alphabetization; it makes linking easier, and the only reason for last-name first is to make checking alphabetization easier for semi-literate support staff - which we don't have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It does, but making a piped link is not difficult. And if we want to adopt other stylistic norms like "p." and "pp." why not last-name-first? (I don't care about that so much, I actually wish we could have hanging justification for bibliographies, it's easier to read that way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, plus comments. This is an honor system support; I'm sure you'll go ahead and clear up that small pesky patch of disjointed prose and other minor blemishes. I won't (cannot!) oppose because of the citation format. But linking is no more difficult one way or the other, since it can be done via piped links (as mentioned above):[[Steve Smith|Smith, Steve]].. The present system makes it darn awful inconvenient for me to check for alpha sorting when there's a given name in the way... [Note to self: Create "Semi-Literate Support Staff Barnstar"; award first one to self.] My eyesight is starting to fade a bit, so the less squinting the better. Lastname first also makes it a widdle bit easier for the audience to locate a ref in a long ref list, if theyare interested in doing so. Finally, as I said before, why not go along with ... you know ... everyone else in the whole wide world on this matter?? But this matter is no matter. Rules is rules. The system is consistent, and the article is admirably thorough and well-cited and well-written and so on. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Deacon and Ling.Nut, I've incorporated as many of your suggestions as I could. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, it'd still be good to be referring to "the chronicle" by one name, esp. if this goes on the front page. Make an editorial judgment as a historian of the topic (looks like "Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum" is the preferable title, but hard to tell in the absence of a widely available edition bearing a Latin title [e.g. Libellus de Exordio). But this is not an FA/non FA matter. I'll register my support for this. Good to get a historian on board the FA train. BTW, you need to [get someone to] fix the dashes, as the article is using hyphens where n-dashes are required, and so on. Surprised no-one's got on to that already! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I just ran the dash tool over the article, so that should be taken care of... oops? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks Ealdgyth! Deacon, for the title, the conventional shorthand for Huygen's edition in crusader studies is just "WT", so that's not too helpful. Edbury and Rowe call it "the Historia" and I think I've seen that elsewhere as well. Since the English translation also uses "History" I think we can legitimately call it "the Historia". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

      Historia as a short-hand isn't perfect for the article, as one of the titles among his lost works begins with the same word. Historia Rerum +/- Gestarum maybe. Do you plan on making a stub for the chronicle? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

      True, but I don't think there would be any confusion with a lost work which is only mentioned once (and obviously we can't be referring to any edition of it). "Historia rerum gestarum" doesn't sound right to me, and I don't think it is ever referred to that way. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

      I left out the assumed title of the "history of the eastern princes", which leaves us free to use "Historia" for the surviving chronicle. I don't know if I'll make an article for the chronicle. There is more to say about it but I don't think I have the time to do a good job on it (same for the Old French translation). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• I not very fussy about capitalization, but: "Raymond named William chancellor of Jerusalem, as well as archdeacon of Nazareth, and on June 6, 1175, William was elected Archbishop of Tyre to replace...among the others was Heraclius, Archbishop of Caesarea, Joscius, bishop of Acre and William's future successor in Tyre, the bishops of Sebastea, Bethlehem, Tripoli, and Jabala, and the abbot of Mount Sion." can't all be right. I've changed "was" to "were". Also "On his return from Rome in 1170 he may have been commissioned by Amalric to begin writing a history of the Kingdom" higher up.
• "His writing also shows phrasing and spelling which is peculiar to purely classical Latin but not uncommon in medieval Latin, such as:..." - "peculiar to" means "only found in"; presumably what is meant here is "sound peculiar in". I am surprised PMA missed this :)
• We have a precise link for Maximilian II's tomb at Innsbruck (the picture) but I can't be bothered to find it. It won't take you long. Is Godfrey of Bouillon linked above? He should be linked in the caption too. - These now done. "It was mainly on William's authority that Godfrey became the hero of the First Crusade" appears only in the caption & needs a cite.
• "emphasis on the miraculous intervention of God in human affairs" - "miraculous" is the wrong word here; maybe just cut it.
• "probably more knowledgeable of Byzantine affairs" awkward in UK English; maybe ok in US?
• I found a number of missing words etc which I have corrected, but the prose could do with a careful run-through.

Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed to the best of my abilities. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.