Talk:Deus vult

More info

There is already some discussion about this on Talk:First Crusade. This article originally said It means "God wills it" in Lingua Franca, an international language (similar to some degree to the modern Interlingua) of Western Europe. "Deus" is Latin for God. "Lo" is Italian for "it." "Volt" is third person singular for the Medieval French verb Voler - to will, wish, desire, want. That's pretty strange, to say the least.

The phrase appears variously as deus vult, dieu le veut, deus lo volt, etc etc...and even though every book about the crusades mentions it in one form or another, no one ever says where it comes from. It might be bordering on original research to try to figure it out, but I think it is impossible to claim it was "deus lo volt" or anything else in the vernacular. The only sources for it (that I can find so far) are in Latin, and only Robert the Monk seems to mention it at all. The Pope and the audience were probably not speaking Latin, nor were the crusaders on the crusade itself, but we don't really know what they would have said or how they would have spelled it in their own languages (11th century forms of French, Occitan, and Italian were hardly standardized). Adam Bishop 22:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all good info that should be part of the article, we can just say "it is unknown" to avoid original research. I was going to say this should probably be moved to wiktionary, but given the uncertainty of it, probably could justify its own article here. -- Stbalbach 22:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"...The war to which they are called is a Holy War and Deus volt is the fitting battle-cry..." - quoted in J.F.C. Fuller's "A Military History of the Western World," with a footnote of "There are various versions of this appeal: the original version has not come down to us. On this question see D. Munro's 'Speech of Pope Urban II at Clermont, 1095', in The American Historical Review (1906), XI, pp.231-242"
Fuller's book was published in 1954 and I'm not sure how to acquire a source he used that was published in 1906, but this would perhaps lead to more information on the phrase since he quotes it as "Deus volt."JW (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Research libraries might have the AHR that far back; it's on JSTOR anyway. It's still a pretty decent article despite it's age. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I think you'll find the phrase originates long before that. Try Augustine. Cited in Harnack's History of Dogma, "197 Augustine indeed could further explain why the form, in which the good takes possession of and delivers the soul, must consist in the infusion of love. So long as the soul along with its will is confronted by duty (an ought), and commands itself to obey, it has not completely appropriated the good; “nam si plena esset, nec imperaret ut esset, quia jam esset” (Confess. VIII. 21). Accordingly, the fact that it admits the duty, does not yet create an effective will ex toto. It must accordingly so love what it ought, that it no longer needs command itself; nay, duty (the ought) must be its only love; only then is it plena in voluntate bona. The “abyssus corruptionis nostræ” is only exhausted when by love we “totum illud, quod volebamus nolumus et totum illud, quod deus vult, volumus (Confess. IX. 1). Doubtless online somewhere ... Parzivalamfortas 01:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Benjamin (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a comment? AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The first usage of "Deus Vult" in Paradox Interactive games appears to be in 2007, [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

alt-right

@Mendaliv, GregDennings, Exemplo347, Deepred6502, and Maxaxax: There are reliable sources that describe how this phrase has been co-opted by the Alt-right. While some claim WP:RECENTISM others seem to think this usage is beneath Wikipedia's mention.

the content in question
According to Press reports, this phrase was occasionally used as a code-word on social media by adherents of the alt-Right movement during the mid-2010s and was among phrases spray-painted onto the walls of two Mosques in an act of vandalism. References

This is a single, well-sourced sentence so I don't think there's undue coverage. While I agree contemporaneous accounts are RECENTISM, that didn't stop full articles like Humayun Khan (soldier) and Khizr and Ghazala Khan from surviving AfD. This single sentence is why most readers will likely look for this article. I'm seeking consensus to include this material. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The entire section regarding the “far right” seems biased and argumentative. 2600:6C9D:2340:B6:61AB:560C:A757:2934 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that said section seems to fairly reasonable and important to the subjects modern day legacy Gaismagorm (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

GregDennings Response

I feel this an important (And maybe unspoken) aspect of this decision deals with the personal feelings many editors (reasonably) have with the Alt-right movement. I feel that at present there is not enough evidence to support a widespread 'co-opting' or 'adoption' of the phase 'Deus Vult' in the Alt Right Movement. The phrase existed as an internet meme for several years before any use for alt-right purposes, and even currently a few isolated cases of it's use with anti-Islamic vandalism (or vandalism that is assumed to be anti-Islamic as is the case with the USM graffiti). The Washington Post does cite evidence of alt-right supporters linking their movement to the crusades, but the use of words like 'co-opting' and 'adoption' suggest a formal adoption of the phrase when in reality its use is largely constrained to a small minority college aged 4chan browsers on twitter accounts. Adding the statement linking "Deus Vult" to the Alt-Right movement in this way only legitimizes its use as a rallying cry for the movement and alters the general perception of the phrase. Exemplo347's alteration of the page as seen at the end of 11/27 with the change of "adopted" to something more in line with "sometimes used" would be the most factual and nonbiased way to approach the issue in my opinion. I hope this is an adequate and appropriate response. - GregDennings (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Exemplo347 Response

I was quite concerned to see that a completely factual & well referenced statement, supported by reliable sources and deliberately phrased in a neutral way, was removed - the reasons given were spurious and the premise for the removal is so thin that the impression is given that the removal is based on the editor's personal feelings. One of the principles of editing Wikipedia is that factual, well referenced information that is relevant to the article should not be removed. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Guest Response
Huffington Post and Washington Post are not reliable sources. Besides, if anything, Desu Vult is only being used as an insignificant meme. It makes absolutely no sense to have Wikipedia mention it in an objective article. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. 15:51, 08 December 2016 (UTC)

One of the links used as references actually uses KnowYourMeme as reference. In general, between those three links, there appears to be a lot of cross-referencing with no actual reliable sources. I know WP has an agenda to follow, but this part of the article is incredibly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.57.248.127 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you're confused. Those three links are the "reliable sources." What I think you meant to say is that HuffPo, WaPo, and Portland Press Herald are writing articles based on what they read at KYM and that's gutter journalism. I agree. Wikipedia's issue is covering topics of interest and sticking to the faith we put in so-called journalists. If the newspapers, magazines, TV shows, and books we use as sources are themselves compromised by poor editorial decisions then our material must necessarily reflect that. Wikipedia has neither professional writers nor an editorial staff so we write based on the outlets that do. My issue with you is your accusation of bias. How exactly, would you propose we change the article? Just cut that sentence out? Why? Do you think mentioning the alt-right is verboten? What "agenda" is being served by including the sentence? My guess is the fact that it mentions a political topic you think somehow criticizes those that use the phrase is problematic so you'd rather sidestep the issue. If you have a real suggestion as to the problem and its solution then feel free to discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

In adding the Alt Right part it makes it seem as if its use today is mostly by the Alt Right and that its the Alt Right that are making the memes, which isn't true. The Alt Rights Aboption of the meme isn't as notable as the meme itself, yet its not mentioned to be just a meme, its mentioned to be a alt right meme which is untrue, its merely been used by people who are potentially Alt Right Having the only part of the article that talks about the phase's use as a meme (which is a large part of why the phase is even in use today which isn't reflected in the article) instead talk about the alt right is disingenuous and shoe horned agenda pushing. Personally I think the whole part about the Alt Right should be removed or at least the sentence be reworded to show that its not an "alt right meme". 82.16.107.140 (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say. No one is writing this stuff to push an agenda. If you don't like those sources, find better ones. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The alt right uses a large amount of innocuous memes, as do other people. Mentioning the use by the alt right in particular is absolutely misleading. No one has to provide sources to prove a negative, and there are no sources that seem to reliably prove that it’s used in particular to the alt right. This obviously needs to be edited. True Sakana (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to constantly reverting my edits in silence, I would like some feedback here. Mentioning it’s use by a particular group over others is misleading. Chris Troutman dismissal of the problem was worthless and unconstructive. True Sakana (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this article being categorized into “Alt-right”, not only because the motto has been used for almost one thousand years but because this is nonsense and derogatory. It is the same thing as categorizing Frog into Alt right, Hat into Donald Trump or White people into Nazism. ―Eduardogobi (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

notes on tense usage

Just want to make a note here on the wording of a sentence in this article.

The original wording "this phrase was occasionally used as a code-word on social media by adherents of the alt-right movement during the mid-2010s" just sounds completely wrong, as we are currently still in the mid-2010s. It sounds like the writer is pretending to write from the perspective of the future, something which is of course impossible. I don't know where user Exemplo347 got the idea that this is correct usage, but I have never seen this anywhere on WP in the 10+ years I have been reading and editing the site. This is why I changed it.

If my alternate wording still isn't acceptable, perhaps we could use the progressive perfect as a compromise?

"this phrase has been occasionally used as a code-word on social media by adherents of the alt-right movement since the mid-2010s "

I think this would convey the sense of temporal detachment while avoiding the writer-from-the-future thing.

--2.218.112.149 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah this gets back to Bill Clinton asking about what the definition of "is" is. If "is" means "it was and continues to be" then I can understand shooting for the past tense since we don't know how long it continues. That said, we're still really close to the time specified; it can be changed at some point in the future in your suggested compromise. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think your change is fine, 2.218. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC).

21st Century Usage

To editor Gxgxfx: You don't have consensus for your changes. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Chris troutman: Maybe offer suggestions, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gxgxfx (talk • contribs)

@Gxgxfx: Don't edit. You're violating WP:NPOV which causes me to assume you're a partisan. You're trying to cite sources to make a claim, which you cannot do here. If you want to say Deus Vult has something to do with islamification of Europe then you need to find a source that says that specifically. What you're doing is original research, which is disallowed. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Chris troutman:Nope, just trying to be helpful. At minimum I would suggest significant updates to the way this section is worded. Suggesting (with the original cites): "The phrase has become more mainstream on social media, often appearing in memes and frequently used by the alt-right movement. [BR] There have been several cases where vandals have used the phrase to deface the walls of mosques, however none of the cases have been able to identify the perpetrators." Gxgxfx (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gxgxfx: I'm unclear then, what you're proposing. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Chris troutman:Updating the last two sentences to what I indicated above as one is a run-on and quite disjointed. Gxgxfx (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Neutrality: This is not POV and Time.com is most certainly a reputable source. Please read the cite I had included. Specifically, "Demographic changes, including lower birthrates for non-Muslim Europeans, are contributing to the changing face of Europe's religious and ethnic make-up. The above map shows historical data and projections for the growth of Muslim populations in Europe in 2030." citeGxgxfx (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Gxgxfx: The Time magazine article does not mention the words "Deus vult" or anything like it - what you are doing here is WP:SYNTHESIS. Neutrality^talk 17:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This is definitely older than "mid-2010s". This right-wing usage has existed at least since ~2000. Maybe earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.73.94 (talk • contribs)

I do not see any notability here. "Some internet trolls said 'deus vult' during the Trump election" isn't really much to go on. The best neutral source on this seems to be knowyourmeme.com. From the google search trend cited there, it seems obvious that (a) overall interest was very limited, and (b) it only peaked briefly in October 2016, outside of the internet trolling surrounding the presidential election there is next to no interest. None of this even remotely breaks the threshold of notability relative to the historical use of the phrase. If the phrase is relevant to some recent events, cite it in the articles about these, but "A is notable enough to be mentioned in the context of B" does not imply that "B is notable enough to be mentioned in the context of A". I find it inconceivable to cite something like

" On March 2nd, 2016, FunnyJunk[7] user thedankmemer submitted a gallery titled “Deus Vult! Meme Collection”. On July 10th, Imgur[4] user TheBigGay submitted a gallery of image macros referencing the Crusades and “Deus vult,” which reached the front page of the /r/dankchristianmemes[5] subreddit two months later"

with a straight face in an article about medieval historiography. --dab (𒁳) 13:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think it'd warrant at least a brief mention. I came to this page with that context in mind, and I'm sure many others do too. Benjamin (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Dbachmann: You would do well to more often use edit summaries and gain consensus for your edits. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I have tagged it as trivia as standing now. It may be reasonable, as Benjamin says, to mention it briefly. Presently, the account is just based on partisan sources trying to inflate the notability of the thing. Please try to find one serious source on this and then use just that. So far, the best I have seen is "knowyourmeme.com" which is plainly inappropriate. I understand that the political hysteria in the US needs a lot of space on Wikipedia, and I have no problem with that, but I am slightly unhappy when people insist it simply has to spill over into articles about medieval or ancient history. --dab (𒁳) 19:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dbachmann and Chris troutman: Why the page move to the vulgar Latin, btw? Surely not per WP:COMMONNAME- although since there has been no discussion on the matter I suppose I'm unlikely to know  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the page as I found it was completely broken. It was poorly researched, poorly referenced, and full of false claims (such as the one deriving the phrase from 1 Timothy 2 [of course without naming 1 Timothy 2]. This may sound arrogant, but I frankly do not understand how there can be "discussion" about a matter before anyone has even done the legwork of looking up the actual references.

I have spent some time researching the topic, and the page is now based on WP:RS. It has turned out that the original phrase, reported in the context of the First Crusade, is always cited with the article, and much is made in the literature cited of the presence of this article. The form "Deus vult" is secondary. You will find, if you check the references, that all the relevant sources either have Deus lo vult or Deus le volt. Some give a number of minority manuscript readings, but these are the ones appearing in the text of critical editions. --dab (𒁳) 20:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"I frankly do not understand how there can be "discussion" about a matter" Wikipedia does not belong to you. There are a limited number of things you are allowed to do unilaterally. It is common for editors to start a discussion or request a move. It is less common for an admin or page mover to just move stuff without so much as leaving a courtesy message explaining why. You can revert yourself and then start a discussion where you can make your case. You might be right. I just insist that you edit collaboratively. While I appreciate you improving the article, that does not create buy-in nor does it purchase administrative discretionary leeway. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree withdab. I came here because I saw a documentary on falconry where a bunch of Arabic dudes were saying "God Willed It" whenever their falcon caught a pigeon, when complementing a falcons features during an auction, or whenever anything happened really. I also remember hearing it a lot in the movie Kingdom of Heaven. Does that mean either of these observations warrant an encyclopedic reference in the annals of historical record? Do video game reference or political jokes shared by a dozen people? When references like this are considered important historical record makes me question quality of information. 30 years ago I wouldn't pick up an Encyclopaedia Britannica and expect Ronald Reagan cartoons.Jawz101 (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Modern usage

I doubt the "21st century usage" stands alone. The quote attributed to Alfred Thayer Mahan shows that the phrase has a modern history of proponents of just war from a Christian perspective. The "Internet meme" thing does the same, and should, if at all, be treated from this perspective. The problem with the "Internet meme" is that it is partly ironic, and that the very nature of "trolling" implies that the reader is not supposed to be aware of the irony. Nothing of this internet stuff can be taken at face value in any reasonable coverage of the meaning of the phrase in the context of just war.

But I am sure if actual publications by actual, identifiable authors are consulted instead, we will find a wealth of references to the phrase in the 20th century which consider the phrase seriously. This might also lead to a better understanding of its current usage. "Better" compared to the current approach of perusal of google hits from huffingtonpost covering "memes" the past 12 months or so.

The drawback of the approach I have outlined is that it will take work, and somebody interested in improving this article would have to spend a few hours on researching it. --dab (𒁳) 20:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Here I found a 2014 article which uses the phrase seriously, in the context of the rise of jihadism and ISIS, by a (Catholic) author who signs with his own name, John L. Ubel. This reference alone is worth more than the current state of the "21st century" coverage. The topic of jihadism, and the calls or attempts to defeat jihadims, is quite serious, and citing "alt-right" and "4chan" vs. "huffington post" as representing the "21st century" is not just lazy, it is also needlessly disparaging to our century. --dab (𒁳) 20:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Deus Vult is term that traces back centuries before the inception of the alt-right or white nationalism. It has been used internationally, mainly in the Middle East and Europe, both in everyday situations and as a battle cry. Deus Vult (Latin) translates directly to 'in sha' allh (Arabic) and both are used interchangeably in the Middle East and elsewhere, among members of all different races and religions, as a term of willingness to comply or do something in the future. Something that I hear quite often is,"I will be there God willing('in sha' allh or Deus Vult)." Both phrases have been used in that way by Christian and Muslims for centuries.

To label the saying, Deus Vult, as belonging to white nationalists or the alt-right, is anti-Catholic and anti-Christian and is a complete degradation of the religious and cultural heritage of the Middle East and Europe.

Any attributes of this phrase with regards to white nationalists or the alt-right should immediately be taken down as anti-Catholic and anti-Christian hate speech. Veritas et fidei (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunate as it may be, the term is used by white nationalists and the alt-right. To omit this usage would mean the article provides incomplete coverage. I think the article gives reasonable weight to the historic use and the more recent use (misuse? usurpation?) of the phrase. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Move back to Deus vult

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.

---

Why was this moved to the less-correct "Deus lo vult"? Certainly that variant should be mentioned in the article but the title should be "Deus vult". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title of the article, Deus lo vult, represents proper ecclesiastical conventions and remains the motto of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem (EOHSJ). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The EOHSJ has its own page. Their reasons for using "deus lo vult" could be discussed there, or here even - but under the proper title "deus vult". Adam Bishop (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support The move was done without explanation or discussion. There's a COMMONNAME argument for it to exist where it did versus where it is now. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment there should have been a WP:RM for the initial move. I'm not sure whether it should be moved back before the full discussion; it probably should. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support moving it back to the original title: the "discussion" above was singularly unhelpful; sentences such as It has turned out that the original phrase, reported in the context of the First Crusade, is always cited with the article, and much is made in the literature cited of the presence of this article are unecessarily complex to parse. Deus vult certainly seems to get enough usage in the contemporary news and literature to cast substantial doubt on the assertion that it is "secondary" within the nomenclature. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"Deus lo vult" is a strangely hybrid form ("Deus" and "vult" are Latin words, while "lo" is indeterminate medieval Romance), but that form was apparently used during part of the middle ages... AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, although it's a bit difficult to find out who used it, and when. It's hard to find where "deus vult" was first attributed to the crusaders too, actually; but I would still say "deus vult" is still the earlier and more correct phrasing. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 15 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that this is the correct title. (closed by page mover) Bradv 01:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Deus vult → Deus lo vult – Procedural nomination after an out-of-process move. It's unclear what the most accurate phrasing of the battle cry of the first crusade is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging earlier participants and recent page editors: @Adam Bishop, AnonMoos, Serial Number 54129, Chris troutman, Anupam, Dbachmann, Bishonen, and Steinbach: power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank User:power~enwiki for moving this back, starting this Move request, and for the ping. If I could, I would like to Support Oppose this move, on the grounds I laid out above, which I think still apply. I can't think of a better target than this: I find very few references to other forms of the phrase in RS (although they do exist), but per WP:COMMONNAME, this appears to be perhaps the most basic and thus the most popular. However, I claim no expertise, etc., so if there are persuasive arguments to the contrary, you find me ready to be persuaded. "I will it", actually  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates}

To be pedantic, your comments above support the move back to Deus vult. This move proposal is phrased to move the page (again) to Deus lo vult; I assume you oppose that move. As far as previous locations are concerned, the page was created as Deus lo vult in 2005 and renamed to Deus vult in 2006, where it had been until December 9. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly I do not will my eyes strongly enough either! -many thanks, will adjust accordingly. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose moving to "Deus lo vult" - just from a simple grammatical point of view, "Deus vult" is the only possibility for a Latin phrase. I've attempted to trace the origin of the "lo" variant in the past and I usually get nowhere fast; I'm willing to suspect at this point that it's just an error in 19th-century historiography (or earlier) that gets repeated as fact. It's also likely that the "deus vult" story does not originate with the participants of the First Crusade, but in any case, the oldest and most correct form must be "deus vult". Adam Bishop (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Per User:Adam Bishop._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move. There's no clear rationale for this move to take place, and "deus vult" is the proper Latin.  ONR  (talk)  05:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This is why admins should be more careful of acting beyond their remit. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

is an obscure blog a reliable source?

A whole paragraph - roughly 10 percent of this article- entirely relies on AND mentions in text an obscure blog (oilab.eu). Is this blog considered a reliable source? I'd argue WP:IRS states the opposite, and since oilab is obscure even for a blog (it doesn't carry an imprint and doesn't name a responsible editor or publisher) it should not be quoted and should even less be named in the article text). Based on that I suggest to delete this paragraph from the article. Wefa (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I just removed it. If this content were backed by reliable mainstream sources, it would be worthy of inclusion, but that is not the case. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Deus Vult" is NOT in the Vulgate.

Despite the citation in the lead paragraph of this wiki entry, the phrase "Deus vult" does not appear in the Latin Vulgate. This fact is easy to verify. Someone should correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.52.130 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

modern usage

To editor 14NathanAllan: Rather than edit war, please discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nathan is actually technically correct (the best kind of correct), because the sources he's deleting do kind of suck. I can think of a bunch of academic work being written on this subject that would be more appropriate to cite here, although I'm not sure any of it has been published yet... Adam Bishop (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My primary concern is that the sources cited in the modern usage section, specifically sources 12-15, are at best shoddy reference work, and at worst a dishonest attempt to make it look like there are many sources supporting the final paragraph. I think the article would be improved by removing (as a fair, middle ground) the links to the Vice News, Polygon, and Newsweek articles. Not only are they objectively bad, in agreeance with Adam Bishop, but both the Newsweek and Polygon articles reference back to the Washington Post article, creating circular/redundant references. I can’t tell if this is accidental or intentional, so I won’t speculate further, but the point remains, all of this rests heavily on the Washington Post article by Ishaan Tharoor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14NathanAllan (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Dubious tag

Hi Ellbekarym. I think the dubious tag you added, to "By co-opting the slogan, racist movements in the U.S. intend to evoke a fantasy of a "pure" white European heritage, a nostalgic view that is historically inaccurate, and has been denounced by medievalist scholars as a gross distortion of history." As far as I can tell, the denouncement by scholars was focused on the co-opting of medieval symbols/slogans in general, not "deus vult" in particular. I tried to rewrite the sentence to make that clear. Does that resolve your concern? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact that right-wing movements invoke the medieval imaginary in general, and that of the Crusades in particular, is indisputable. What's much more questionable is the second part of the sentence, after the comma. It's not clear what this "nostalgic vision" is, and consequently how it could be wrong (is it simply a matter of saying that in medieval Europe there were lots of white people and lots of Christians?), and the source articles are weak. As far as I'm concerned, this second part should be deleted, or we should be much more specific about the vision to be refuted - but it doesn't seem important enough to me. Ellbekarym (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I read the "nostalgic view" as being that there was a "'pure' white European heritage". That is the view that is challenged by the cited sources. If your issue is one of source reliability, would you consider switching to a different tag? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand that: what does it mean that there is a pure Europe? The view that's supposed to be wrong isn't defined, and again the sources don't mention it (they just say that there are currently many non-white Christians on the one hand, and that there were Jews and Muslims in medieval Europe on the other). So my problem is that we don't understand what it's about and the sources provided are useless. Ellbekarym (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Not "pure Europe", but "pure white Europe". The sources talking about non-white Europeans are providing evidence against the existence of such a thing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

No, the sources give absolutely none. The first merely states that the demographics of the Catholic Church today are very diverse - which is true, but off-topic - the second that medieval Europe was not 100% Christian, but that there were Muslims and Jews... That's why I'm asking for an explanation of what is meant by "pure white Europe" ( I understood correctly): if it's a question of saying that all Europeans of the past, without exception, were white or Christian, then yes, the second source contradicts it, but I don't think anyone is claiming that. Ellbekarym (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The idea that there were white people in medieval Europe would be a novel one, the concept is generally not believed to have existed at the time but to evolve slightly later. It is that very use of modern ideas to re-order the past which the sources take issue with. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't be novel that there were White people in Europe, there are White people in Europe today, most will be able to trace their ancestry back to the Medieval era. They may not have identified themselves as part of some grand overarching White race but they were what we would today consider White. Outside of border regions like Iberia and Italy, Western Europe was by and large majority White in the era. Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2024

Change "...was first used by Catholics.."

To

"...was first used by Christians/Christian Crusaders"

As the term Catholic wasn't really used at the time, and is misleading from a historical perspective. 2A00:23EE:1950:6CCA:E0EF:80C8:B3DD:7D27 (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⸺(Random)staplers 18:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiple Issues - Modern Usage Section

This section violates NPOV. The language being used is very pointed and biased. Some of the biased statements are not supported by citations. Some of the citations do not state, or back up, what is being claimed. Some of the sources are original research or simply not reliable sources. Please add the NPOV tag to the article until this section is fixed and more neutral/encyclopedic. 2601:840:8001:9500:D5EF:D667:1FD6:92D3 (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)