Talk:Council of Tripoli

Council of Tripoli has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 24, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Middle Ages: Crusades Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

Lebanon Low‑importance

	Lebanon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Council of Tripoli appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 February 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that summons to the Council of Tripoli were issued in the name of the Church to bypass the issue of whether a king could summon a prince?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Council of Tripoli.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 01:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that summons to the Council of Tripoli were issued in the name of the Church to bypass the issue of whether a king could summon a prince?
Source: "But Tancred owed no allegiance to king Baldwin. Therefore Baldwin summoned him in the high name of the church of Jerusalem..." (Fink 1969, p. 397)
- ALT1: ... that, whether consciously or by chance, the Council of Tripoli revived the border between two uninvolved states?
- ALT2: ... that the Council of Tripoli has been interpreted as a sign of a "formal confraternity" between the Christian rulers of the Middle East?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Reactions to the 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses
- Comment: Nominating Borsoka's work which I just noticed. Hopefully it can be forgiven for being a bit stale.

Created by Borsoka (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 204 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I really like ALT0 but all should be good as far as interest goes. I'm personally fine with giving a few days leeway on the nomination as well. Would you be able to pull the sources for the hooks? And place them here? I'm fine with looking for them myself but it'll be best for then prep builders and queuers will be working on it as well. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, Darth Stabro. Cited for ALT0, which I too think is best. Surtsicna (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0 approved, Nihil obstat. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

SilkPyjamas (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your copyedit which allows me to make a GAN. Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Council of Tripoli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 04:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am on it, but it might take me some time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, a chronicle written by the German monk Albert of Aachen contains – needs comma behind "Aachen"?
Done.
the head of Western (or Catholic) Church, – "the" Western (or Catholic) church
Done.
Another crusader leader Godfrey of Bouillon – comma after "leader"
Done.
Bohemund – Is this the same as the aforementioned Bohemond?
Done.
Daimbert of Pisa arrived to the Levant – "arrived in"
Done.
Their conflict was resolved at what Albert of Aachen calls "a council of magnates" – resolved when?
Done (?)
Content-wise an excellent article. However, I found it quite difficult to follow, simply because of the large number of names and facts provided (e.g., some of the names introduced apparently did not play any role in the concil itself). Within all those facts, the key information, the take-aways, the big picture somehow gets lost. I am not sure if it is possible to improve on this, and how, but if you see information in the background sections that are not precisely pertinent to the council itself, it would help the reader to remove them in order to draw attention to the things that matter. Having said that, this point is optional for this GAN. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you review. I try to shorten the article in accordance with your suggestions in a few days. Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Since this last point is optional, and I am not entirely sure myself if this has to be fixed or what the best solution would be, I am promoting now. Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.