Talk:List of works about the archaeology, cartography and numismatics of the Crusades

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A question[edit]

What is the source of this article? For instance, which reliable source lists Ahmad ibn Rustah or Michaël Eytzinger among the historians of the crusades? Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Grampinator: what is this article's subject? Could you refer to reliable sources listing Ahmad ibn Rustah, Michaël Eytzinger, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, etc. among the "historians of the crusades" or as arhaeologists, cartographers or numismatics? Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the title is a problem, hopefully the content isn't.

I'm not 100% sure of what you are questioning, but it think it is why are they called historians. That's probably a bad word, as most aren't, and maybe sources is a better word. I can point you to a number of Crusades compilations that identify that pilgrimages, archaeology, geography, etc., are sources for Crusader histories: the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Crusades (Bibliography and Sources), the bibliography in Setton's six-volume set and the Routledge Companion to the Crusades. This article hasn't gelled yet as the major pieces were just put together.

As to your specific questions on Michaël Eytzinger, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea and Ahmad ibn Rustah, here's what I have: Eytzinger, referenced by Titus Tobler; Origen, in Chapter II of Volume I of Setton, Eusebius in PPTS, ibn Rustah in Ency Iranica by C. E. Bosworth.

I think the title is wrong, but I'm not sure how to right it. They are all part of the auxiliary sciences of history, but that doesn't make a very good title. I open to suggestions for titles, structure and content. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again thank you for your comments. Yes the title is misleading. My principal concern is that I do not see any references to the crusades in many sources cited in the article. Which source verify the listing of Eytzinger, Origen, Eusebius, Ibn Rusta, etc. among the sources/historians/archaeologists/cartographers/numismatics of the crusades? Perhaps you should decide the article's scope. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Grampinator: are you sure that authors listed in section "The Pilgrims of Christ before the Crusades" are mentioned in any reliable source as historians/archaeologists/cartographers/numismatics of the crusades? If yes, the source should be added. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that I am 100% sure that each was mentioned somewhere, but only 95% sure of where they came from. Most in that section are from PPTS, but I will make sure that every one has a source, as some are somewhat obscure. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also 100% sure they are mentioned somewhere, but I am not sure that they are mentioned as historians/archaeologists/cartographers/numismatics or sources of the crusades. In the article's context, each individual's presence should be verified with a reference to a secondary or tertiary source specifically mentioning him/her as a historian, etc. of the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Grampinator: the article is apparently being expanded primarily based on sources that do not contain a single reference to the crusades. Why do you think large parts of the article do not contradict WP:NOR? Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. The last three additions were: Harry Luke, a contributor to the Wisconsin study on the Crusades, Volume III, and the two references specifically discuss the history of the Crusades; Philip Labbe who wrote an early version of Corpus Scriptorum Historæ Byzantinæ (CSHB), recognized as a key source of Crusader history; and Stanley Lane-Poole who wrote numerous histories of the Crusades. All three appear in numerous bibliographies of the Crusades. How is that original research? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote texts from the sources cited that verify that Philippe Labe or Jean Alexandre Buchon can be listed as historians of the crusade? Which source verifies that "De Byzantinæ Historiæ Scriptoribus" is a historian/archaeologist/cartographer/numismatic? The claim that Eytzinger, Origen, Eusebius, Ibn Rusta and "The Pilgrims of Christ before the Crusades" are historians/archaeologists/cartographers/numismatics of the crusades is still unverified. Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd formatting of this list[edit]

@Dr. Grampinator: I'm urging you to discuss here on the Talk page. Can you give a rationale for the way you are formatting this list? Wikipedia's style guide does not approve using bold text in the way you are using it for each list item, unless there's some guideline I haven't seen. Having each list entry repeated twice - once bold and unlinked, the second unlinked - is a very odd and redundant way of writing the list. Can you point to any other list on Wikipedia that uses this formatting style? What are you basing that formatting on? MartinPoulter (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinPoulter: I can't point to any particular list that is in this particular style, but I can tell you my motivation. As you can see, I was trying to put together a list that generally (but not exclusively) consisted of an author (with some brief description and basic references) and his/her relevant works. Bulletizing was my first choice, but then how to list the works? I really don't like the way double bullets or doubly indented bullets look. The problem is compounded by the fact that some entries are multiple people, grouped works or single works. Many have a Wikipedia entry, some don't. A table is a possibility, but readability is a problem.

So, I did the list with the name bolded as it is easier to follow, with the bold letters basically serving the function of a bullet or number in a standard list. The bolded part is sometimes a shortened name that the author is best known as. This is not without precedence, as the Manual of Style/List shows the conversion of a prose paragraph into a list that is in the similar style. I have seen bibliographies that are formatted similarly, but this tries to incorporate hyperlinks in a way that isn't distracting. I'm open to suggestions as how to format it. I'm not hard over on any particular style, just trying to put a list together that is both easy to read and easy to use.

As I was looking through the Wikipedia style guide, I did notice this example of the use of bold in descriptive lists: Glossary of the American trucking industry that is similar to what's done here. The only substantive difference is the use of "Main article." At any rate, I'm open to suggestions. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Dear @Dr. Grampinator: just like the related articles/lists which we are discussing at Talk:List of later historians of the Crusades#Original research, this article has great potential, but currently does not comply with WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. 2 years ago in January 2021, Borsoka already pointed this out under "A question" on this talk page, but as we agreed at Talk:Historians and histories of the Crusades#Various issues, it's probably more practical to centrally discuss these issues at Talk:List of later historians of the Crusades#Original research.

A separate issue I have with this article in particular is its title, and thereby also its scope and structure, which MartinPoulter touched upon in March 2021 under "Odd formatting of this list" on this talk page. The issues here are similar to those at Talk:Historical sources of the Crusades: pilgrimages and exploration (both pointed out by 72.69.3.100 in December 2021 under "Focus" and by me yesterday under "Primary sources and scope"). As you have already acknowledged the problem by saying Clearly the title is a problem (...). I think the title is wrong, but I'm not sure how to right it., I won't have to explain, which saves us time. ;) To make a long story short: What is this article really about, and how could we describe that concisely and accurately in the title?

  1. List of works about the archaeology, cartography and numismatics of the Crusades seems to me the most obvious.
  2. List of archaeological, carthographic and numismatic works about the Crusades is a close second. We could replace about with on if people prefer that.

Have you got a preference, or perhaps an alternative to these two? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_works_about_the_archaeology,_cartography_and_numismatics_of_the_Crusades&oldid=1213956710"