Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
There is a usage note discouraging from the use of "crusade" for positive efforts, and which seems suspect to me. There is at least one use that seems positive, in the title of the book: "Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software". The first paragraph of the usage note has been entered on 15 August 2005.
I would just delete the usage note, but am going here to RFV, to be sure. --Dan Polansky 14:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a little wordy, but not false. There is negative response to the word among Muslims. The definition also seems a bit too concerned with ironic uses. The sense line should mostly be about denotation, I would think. DCDuringTALK 16:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
(to Dan Polansky) I am wholly supporting you, since any tenebrous dubitations cast on the significance and the positive thoughts, which the crusade evokes, seem suspicious. I would like just to quote Blest Urban II, who explains here who the crusaders en effet are (many of whom had had humble or profane or even reprehensible occupations and are bestowed upon eternal prize simply by partaking thereof):
Nunc fiant milites, qui dudum exstiterunt raptores. Nunc aeterna praemia nanciscantur, qui dudum pro solidis paucis mercenarii fuerunt.
(now those who were previously burglars become soldiers. Now those, who were previously mercenaries/people who are engaged/ for pennies, attain the eternal prize), which means that the crusade is a purification for the people who participate no matter how ignoble they were before the participation. Blest Urban II calls the adversaries of the crusaders
gens tam spreta, degener, et daemonibus ancilla
(despicable, degenerate people, by daemons thrall) (I thought that thrall of demons is more appropriate, but the case is ablativus) which means that against whomever a crusade is directed, he is eo ipso to become an epitome of inferiority and ignobility. Therefore I think that crusade is always positive and whoever claims the opposite(I do not mean anyone in particular), is simply not familiar enough with the works of Urban II. I exhort all to remove yonder fallacious admonition. Bogorm 16:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I can understand how Muslims feel about it, but do we need such a lengthy explanation in a dictionary, when a short one like that at negro would do? (BTW both my 1995 and 2000 OALD editions give only "positive" examples for the figurative use: crusade against corruption / to preserve the valley's wild flowers and crusade against crime / moral crusade respectively.) Or is it just an exercise in political correctness? --Duncan MacCall 19:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Now we are three different people condemning the magniloquent and loquacious, but unnecessary and tendentious admonition aimed at denigrating the noble notion of the crusade (as per Blest Urban II, not me, I am only recollecting it by quoting). May I already delete the maladroit remark? Bogorm 16:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, Wiktionary is not the venue for such sort of exercises. Bogorm 16:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete altogether? Wouldn't that be moving to the other extreme? Why not just edit it to, say, "Because the medieval Crusades were wars waged by [[Christians]] on [[Muslims]], the use of the word '''crusade''' for a campaign on behalf of a noble cause may be inappropriate in some circumstances"? --Duncan MacCall 19:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
That would be a big improvement. DCDuringTALK 22:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold and done it, then. --Duncan MacCall 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I still thing that the political correctness is as exaggerated as superfluous and is out of place, at least according to Blest Urban II, whom I unanimously and entirely concur with. Bogorm 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Can we get some References added to the entry to back up these assertions please people? †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The note was deleted by Ruakh and as I only put it there to get rid of that "mini-essay" which had been there before (as described above) - striking. (In fact I believe some Muslims might feel that way, but I'm the last one to do their verifications for them. They had time aplenty.) --Duncan 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
RFV failed, usage note removed, sorry. (I actually think it sounded reasonable, but given Bogorm's and Doremítzwr's objections, it seemed wrong to keep it without any references whatsoever.) —RuakhTALK 17:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)