Crusading movement is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 1, 2026.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 13, 2022 Good article nominee Not listed February 11, 2022 Peer review Reviewed July 8, 2022 Peer review Reviewed September 2, 2022 Good article nominee Not listed June 4, 2023 Good article nominee Listed March 11, 2024 WikiProject A-class review Approved April 7, 2024 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 10, 2024 Good article reassessment Delisted January 14, 2025 Good article nominee Not listed March 28, 2025 Peer review Reviewed October 16, 2025 Good article nominee Listed November 27, 2025 Peer review Reviewed March 28, 2026 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 19, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the crusading movement defined concepts of warfare throughout medieval Europe? Current status: Featured article

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes Section size for Crusading movement (56 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 3,549 3,549 365 365 Background 609 10,880 51 909 Classical just war theories 2,653 2,653 221 221 Tripartite world 1,926 1,926 131 131 Holy wars and piety 2,894 2,894 268 268 Church reforms 2,798 2,798 238 238 Prelude to the First Crusade 4,727 4,727 383 383 Crusading campaigns 358 11,045 39 877 First Crusade 1,705 1,705 170 170 Crusades for the Holy Land 3,691 3,691 335 335 Other theatres of war 2,859 2,859 205 205 Later crusades 2,432 2,432 128 128 Theory and theology 314 4,081 30 361 Justification 1,335 1,335 116 116 Crusade indulgence 2,432 2,432 215 215 Crusaders 1,323 10,452 98 789 Knights and aristocrats 2,393 2,393 204 204 Clergy 1,880 1,880 86 86 Patricians 2,078 2,078 107 107 Commoners 2,778 2,778 294 294 Enemies and contacts 542 21,798 48 1,651 Muslims 5,245 5,245 269 269 Eastern Christians 5,423 5,423 430 430 Pagans 4,190 4,190 311 311 Western dissidents 2,801 2,801 237 237 Mongols 1,842 1,842 208 208 Jews 1,755 1,755 148 148 Women 4,799 4,799 344 344 Crusading in practice 312 9,016 32 635 Declaration and promotion 2,186 2,186 124 124 Taking the cross 1,614 1,614 122 122 Privileges 1,664 1,664 141 141 Finances 3,240 3,240 216 216 Warfare 382 8,488 49 715 Command, strategy and troops 3,039 3,039 223 223 Military architecture 1,531 1,531 91 91 Military orders 3,536 3,536 352 352 New states 310 4,731 32 464 Crusader states and Cyprus 1,899 1,899 194 194 Frankish Greece 1,081 1,081 105 105 Order states 1,441 1,441 133 133 Contemporary criticism 3,020 3,020 194 194 Architecture 2,497 2,497 253 253 Arts 2,424 2,424 182 182 Literature 297 6,949 30 607 Chronicles 2,145 2,145 187 187 Songs 1,857 1,857 107 107 Muslim, eastern Christian and Jewish works 2,650 2,650 283 283 Legacy 2,106 2,106 251 251 Modern perceptions 3,053 3,053 195 195 Historiography 4,263 4,263 406 406 See also 103 103 0 0 Notes 34 34 0 0 References 30 30 0 0 Bibliography 30,679 30,679 0 0 Further reading 2,546 2,546 0 0 Total 151,270 151,270 9,581 9,581

I think the lede needs to more clearly explain what this article is about and how it differs from Crusades. I understand there have been various discussions on the need for this separate article, but for a non-expert, it's really difficult to see what the difference is. The lede also currently reads as very biased towards the Christian pro-crusade POV - perhaps this would be less of a problem if it were very clear that the article is not about the crusades per se but their organisation? Given the current geopolitical system, where the US dept of war is explicitly framing an ongoing military campaign against the Middle East as a crusade, it's particularly important to ensure balance in an article like this. I am not an expert on the crusades, and don't fully understand the distinction between this article and Crusades so I'm finding it difficult to have more concrete suggestions, sorry about that. Lijil (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the article's scope has been discussed several times, and the current division between an institution-focused article on the Crusading movement and a military-focused article on the "numbered" Crusades to the Holy Land has proved to be a lasting solution, although I did not initially support it. The first sentence of the lede clearly introduces the article's subject, and the first paragraph also includes a link to the Crusades article. However, I am not convinced that recent events should determine how we present a medieval and early modern phenomenon. Borsoka (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I have trouble getting past the first three words: The Crusading movement was a major religious, political, and military endeavour.... Why is "Crusading" capitalised but not "movement"? If we're talking about a specific thing then both words should be capitalised as a proper name. If it's more of a general concept, then both words should be lower case. Having a mix seems strange and uncertain. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Both should be lower-case, I agree. It's certainly not a proper name. Ravenswing 03:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am an American, and I can tell you being too PC or whatever over modern issues isn’t really a concern. We’re important, but not that important. ~2026-26389-06 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also not really seeing the lede being biased. ~2026-26389-06 (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka, would you please use the Talk page to explain your revert, in particular why you think that using the 'Further information' template at that point is more encyclopedic or preferable to linking the article from the prose? -- Deeday-UK (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please verify your edit citing a source? Could you explain why do you think the further information template is not helpful? Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Further information template at that point is unnecessary because Early Middle Ages can be easily and naturally linked from the opening of the first sentence, which gives the reader context and better understanding.

What exactly is your objection to my edited sentence:

During the Early Middle Ages, new Christian kingdoms emerged from the ruins of the Western empire, largely ruled by Germanic warlords.

-- Deeday-UK (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, could you cite a reliable source verifying your edit? The Early Middle Ages lasted from around 476 to around 800/1000. These states were established between around 410 and 510. Borsoka (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah finally you explain yourself; you could have said that at the beginning. I'm not questioning your dates or your sources; I'm trying to make that text more meaningful and helpful to the reader. How about

During late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, new Christian kingdoms emerged from the ruins of the Western empire, largely ruled by Germanic warlords.

-- Deeday-UK (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something, but I am still not seeing a clear improvement. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it from the point of view of the lay reader: I get to a section titled Tripartite world and then see a link that says only Further information: Early Middle Ages. What is Early Middle Ages? What is its relevance to the Tripartite world that I'm reading about? Should I follow the link (possibly only to find out that it's not relevant to me right now) or should I read on? Instead, by incorporating the link into the prose, it becomes a lot clearer that Early Middle Ages is the period in history when the events discussed in the section take place, so I don't have to click on that link to make an informed choice.

Now your turn: explain how linking to Early Middle Ages from a Further information hatnote would be preferable to a natural link in the prose. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the function of the “Further information” template. It simply indicates that the linked article contains additional information about the subject of the subsection. I would also expect the average reader to understand that the Early Middle Ages is a period without needing to click the link. Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not explained your actions. "I am still not seeing a clear improvement" and "not improvement" are not explanations. I have already given my reasons why this version is preferable to the previous one, but I'll summarise them here for your convenience:

• It puts the linked article Early Middle Ages in a more meaningful context for the reader, clarifying its relevance to the topic being discussed in the section.
• It reads more naturally than a 'Further information' template, without distracting from the flow of reading.
• It links to an additional relevant article, Late antiquity, which was missing from the previous version.

Again: your turn now to argue why the previous version would be better than my last one. Either explain yourself of stop reverting. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I explained myself above. Borsoka (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't; you said only that in your opinion the edit is not an improvement. Explaining yourself means saying why you think it's not a improvement. Do you not agree with my three bullet points above? Then explain why you do not agree. If you think you are exempt from giving reasons for your edits, think again. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not intend to discuss this further. My arguments are set out above. If you still believe your proposed edit would improve the article, please seek a third opinion. Borsoka (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion requested at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. Deeday-UK (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Short answer: The use of hatnotes should not be changed without a clear consensus, given that there is prior consensus for their use by some ten editors involved in the FA reviews.
Long answer:
This article has been reviewed a staggering 13 times in the past 5 years, recently achieving FA, and I totally understand 'defending' the article to maintain that status and the considerable amount of work that went into it. Nine reviewers took part in the FA review earlier this year and they thought the article represented the encyclopedia's best work. Granted, there's always room for improvement.
I didn't find much guideline advice on section hatnotes. Wikipedia:Hatnote is mainly about disambiguation links at the top of articles, though it does note There should be as few hatnotes as possible. WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE recommends using {{Main}} when a section is split into a child article. It notes that {{Further}} and {{See also}} are other options, but offers no advice on their use. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking only offers advice on the placement of section hatnotes, not on their use. The template documentation for {{Further}} and {{See also}} doesn't give advice on when to use them. So it seems that the use of section hatnotes is entirely up to the editors involved, what they feel is appropriate for the material and the reading experience.
I then looked for prior and related discussions. I found at the first FA review in 2024, there was discussion among multiple editors about the Main hatnotes and how they applied to the Century sections then present in the article. This was resolved by reorganizing the article so that the sections were a little more logical (without arbitrary century breaks), and the new sections aligned with the hatnotes. So the use of hatnotes in the article had been addressed; as many of the same editors took part in both FA reviews, it seems to me that they were aware of the issues raised and approved of the hatnotes in the version that passed FA. So that establishes recent consensus of appropriate use.
To get a broader benchmark of appropriate use for section hatnotes, I looked at some other recent Featured Articles as examples of what the community considers best practices. Here are the ones I looked at, noting the number of hatnotes and sections in the article body: Operation Forager logistics 3/13, Dualism 2/12, Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Women's singles 2/10, Madonna 7/21, 1923 season 2 1/14, Great white shark 5/25, Nile 11/30 sections, Black hole 20/46. Then there were Big Duck, SMS Prinz Heinrich, Misti, Phryne, Rugrats: Search for Reptar, Wild Australia Show, Conscription in Rhodesia, Rain World, Curlew sandpiper, Murder of Wang Lianying, and The Horn of Plenty which had no body hatnotes. More than half of these FAs had no body hatnotes, and those which did tended to use them sparingly. The exceptions (Madonna, Nile and Black hole) were long articles which had many subtopics split into separate articles. I will note that Conscription in Rhodesia is long (9k words) but had no hatnotes.
My general take is that section hatnotes are used more often with well-developed topics which lend themselves to hierarchical structure – military history topics being a good example of that. This article has some 48 sections and 33 hatnotes (19 Main, 5 Further, 9 See also), which is exceptionally high in comparison to those I surveyed. Most of them look good to me, though I would tend to recommend removing See also: Medieval Warm Period as a bit of a stretch and Further information: Crusade of 1101, Second Crusade, Third Crusade, Fourth Crusade, Fifth Crusade, Sixth Crusade, Seventh Crusade, and Eighth Crusade which is rather long and somewhat redundant as these are linked from the Main directly above it as well as the section text.
This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it is of help! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your third opinion. I have revised the article accordingly. Borsoka (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  At least we agree that those two hatnotes are too egregious to stay. Borsoka, I'm sure you noticed the remark that the number of hatnotes in this article is "exceptionally high", but from your reasoning (or lack thereof), I guess your understanding of the quoted guideline that There should be as few hatnotes as possible is that following it would not improve the article. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to merge the "Crusades" article with the "Crusading movement" article (or vice versa)? As a reader I'd rather see just one overview article instead of two. I realize that the current state of affairs is the result of a discussion between editors, but jumping between articles creates a dissatisfying reading experience. ~2026-27135-18 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to see a merger, but it will necessitate shortening some sections and probably splitting off some material into subarticles. No material need be lost, however. Srnec (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects of the two articles are quite distinct. Crusading movement focuses on the institutions connected with papally sponsored military action in various regions, whereas Crusades is chiefly concerned with the military and political aspects of the expeditions to the Holy Land. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]