Talk:Third Crusade

message: The article makes nearly no mention of Phillip Augustus, who, according to my sources, actually did go to the third 
Crusade with Richard I, and then left because of quarreling with his brother. See Medieval Europe, a short History, to see what I mean. I will do more research on this subject and then make a formal change (hopefully).
Sorry, forgot to sign, Im new at this. (Polloc81)
:He's mentioned as Philip II of France.  I included what I know, which is that he did go, and then left.  I can't find much of anything noteworthy that can't also be attributed to Richard, but if you do, feel free to add it. Palpatine 06:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phillip Augustus 

message: I am uncertain of my disambiguation of plague:  due to the timing (1190) and location (not Europe), I didn't use Black Death - I'm sure this is a correct decision.  The question is: is it believed (with some certainty) that it was Bubonic plague or shall we link it to the more generic Pestilence?  Could someone more aware of such things please edit if necessary?  Thx.  John (Jwy) 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't the Black Death, but there was bubonic plague around since at least the 6th century...unfortunately it seems like everytime someone dies of an unknown disease, they are said to have died of "plague." (Or, if it's the 1911 Britannica, "dropsy".) Adam Bishop 05:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "pestis" was used for various infectious diseases. The diseases in the camp at Acre seem to have been malaria, typhoid, dysentery and scurvy. The main problem was dead bodies (human and animal) contaminating the water sources. Silverwhistle 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plague 

message: Removed this sentence .Nur ud Din got control of entire Muslim World,fro m Syria to Egypt.Whoever wrote thatMuslim world was bigger than these two countries in first twenty years of Islam and here some one has chosen to mark only Egypt and Syria as entire Muslim World....
--61.5.136.6 06:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Muslim World 

message: In the section on Richard and Philip's departure, it mentions that the ship carrying Richard's sister, Joan, was lost. However, in Regicide and Negotiations, it talks about negotiations to marry Joan to Alad-il. I myself do not know which one is correct, but I'm fairly certain Alad-il wouldn't have wanted to marry a drowned corpse at the bottom of the Mediterranean. --Ω 22:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ship was wrecked, Joanna of Sicily survived. Follow the links to her page. She died in childbirth some years later. Silverwhistle 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joan 

message: The first game in the Assassin’s Creed franchise is set in 1191 AD, when the Third Crusade was tearing the Holy Land apart. Shrouded in secrecy and feared for their ruthlessness, the Assassins intend to stop the hostilities by suppressing both sides of the conflict. Players, assuming the role of the main character Altair, will have the power to throw their immediate environment into chaos and to shape events during this pivotal moment in history. 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by  66.68.194.241  (talk • contribs)  20:51, 4 April 2007(UTC) 
:Is this in any way relevant to the subject? Swanny18 (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassin's Creed 

message: "However, on June 10, 1190, Frederick was thrown from his horse in the crossing of the Saleph River and drowned."
Actually there is some degree of source discrepancy over this one. According to Tyerman the exact cause of his death has been blamed on many different things although that River was certainly always involved.
Minor detail I know but the event had a high impact so I reckon we should get it right! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.35.136 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Death of Frederick 

message: "In July 1192, Saladin suddenly attacked and captured Jaffa with thousands of men, but the city was re-captured by Richard and a much smaller force of 55 men on July 31." Sounds dubious. I remember hearing something about quarreling between Muslim leaders causing the defeat. Details, anyone? Citations?
Top.Squark 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  55 vs. 1000? 

message: Was the call for the 4th Crusade 6 years later or 12 years later? The article says both... Cambion 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Innocent III called for a new one when he became pope in 1198, everyone ignored him until 1199, no one bothered to organize anything until 1200, and they didn't actually leave until 1201. Adam Bishop 18:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th Crusade 

message: I can understand the logic of having the Byzantines on the opposite side, but they definitely weren't a Muslim army!  How can we represent this more accurately? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; how's that? Swanny18 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was all to pot again; I don't remember leaving it in a mess, but... Anyway, I've fixed it again. Swanny18 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox1 

message: there were more than 5000 soldier they were coming with an army number 500 000.Lion heart Richard have 250 000 soldiers like Frederic Barbarossa.I dont know Frenchs.It couldn't be 100 000 or 10 000 there were so much crusaders.Write the truths.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.86.125 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOLDİER NUMBER 

message: When the infobox was put in the the result recorded  was simply Treaty of Ramla.
Since 28 September it’s been "Decisive Muslim victory", "Minor Muslim victory", "Minor Christian victory"; what’s next?
I’ve restored it to not mentioning victory at all; if both sides think they won, it’s a pretty safe bet neither did. Both sides came away with something; neither side got all they wanted. So a link to the treaty seems the most neutral way to record this. Swanny18 (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it looks now seems fine to me. The Crusaders did gain some territory, but their biggest victim was the Eastern Roman Empire, which permanently lost Cyprus as a result. The territories that Richard regained are ones that Saladin wasn't especially concerned with; Jerusalem was the prize and he held it. And the concessions to pilgrims visiting the Holy Places are something I am certain Saladin would have granted at any time in exchange for an end to the war. He was much more interested in defeating his Islamic enemies before Reynald of Chatillon called him out. Jsc1973 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victory? 

message: Perhaps we should have something the Crusader's ideology?  Consider for example: "In 1190, Kings Richard I and Philip of France jointly issued an edict regulating gambling with games of chance by members of the Christian crusading armies.  No person under the rank of knight was permitted to play any game for money; knights and clergymen could play for stakes lower than 20 shillings per day and night; the monarchs could, naturally, play for whatever stakes they chose, but their attendants were restricted to stakes of 20 shillings.  If any exceeded this sum, they were to be whipped, naked, through the ranks of the troops for three whole days."  See Ben Schott, Schott’s Mischellany Calendar 2009 (New York: Workman Publishing, 2008), November 18.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A calendar is not a source. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourceable to John Gillingham's Richard I. Not quite sure what its proper place is in the article. In the context given by Gillingham, it seems that gambling was a particular problem because Crusaders enjoyed immunity from debts contracted, and were trying to extend this to not paying their gambling debts. So I'm not sure the regulation actually reflects moral opposition to gambling per se so much as an attempt to head off a particular discipline problem. Choess (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Principals?

message: I’ve removed the listing for "Izz ad-Din Mas'ud I"  and "Mujahideen" from the infobox; Mujahideen links to the modern-day group, and there is nothing on the Izz ad-Din Mas'ud page that indicates he was involved in the Third Crusade. Does anyone have a source /any more information about it? Swanny18 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox2 

message: I’ve removed the listing for "Izz ad-Din Mas'ud I"  and "Mujahideen" from the infobox; Mujahideen links to the modern-day group, and there is nothing on the Izz ad-Din Mas'ud page or this one that indicates he was involved in the Third Crusade. Does anyone have a source /any more information about it? Swanny18 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox3 

message: The arms of Sicily are wrong, since the depicted ones didn't came into use until the 13th century. We should use the arms of the Hauteville family: the Normand dinasty that was ruling in the Kingdom of Sicily at the time. But I don't know how they are (or even if they exist). Perhaps the arms of the Duchy of Normandy () should be used?--RR (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arms of Sicily

message: I find it hard to believe that "Raynald of Châtillon expanded his piracy to the Yellow Sea". The Yellow Sea is in the Pacific, south of Korea. Unless there is a closer Yellow Sea which I do not know.
It is also difficult to admit that "Baldwin of Exeter, the Archbishop of Canterbury made a tour through Canada."
PO73 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that was vandalism, missed because of the bot edit immediately after it. Thanks. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigational questions 

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article that Richard and Saladin NEVER met each other face to face, they both used messengers to negotiate treatys etc. but they both had mutual respect for each other. I know in one instance Saladin got word that Richard had lost his horse and Saladin sent one to him and I think Richard returned the favor later. The C of E (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, The C of E; see "Siege of Acre" section. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard and Saladin 

message: Something should be added about the effects of the Prester John myth on the third crusade  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.243.37 (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have the Third and Ninth Crusades confused. Some crusaders of 1271-72 believed that the Mongols were connected to the tale of Prester John because they had once been led by a Nestorian Christian general named Kitbuqa, although Kitbuqa was killed at Ain Jalut in 1260. The Mongols did collaborate with the Crusaders, but weren't able to coordinate their attacks. There were many Prester John tales during the Crusades, but Richard the Lionheart was not expecting help from an Asian army of Christians, even if the Pope's agents were telling such tales back home. Jsc1973 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prester John 

message: (moved comment to correct place in sequence. Swanny18 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: (Soldier numbers, again)

message: I've made a small edit to that part of this page. Maymichael2 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Siege of Acre (1189–91)

message: I made a change to the Duchy of Normandy. Maymichael2 (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Coat of Arms

message: The infobox for this article has become intrusive. It takes up a huge space on the page and includes minor character commanders, minor sub-sections of states, obscure military orders who probably never had more than a few dozen members in the Holy Land. It has become quite ridiculous and is detrimental to the article. Urselius (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - looks pretty but not much use if you want a quick reference. Alansplodge (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox4 

message: or this article reads as if the Christians won the 3rd crusade? Naqdi (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the Third Crusade was largely successful. Acre, Crusader victory; Arsuf, Crusader victory; Jaffa, Crusader victory, the Ayyubids did not win one battle during the Crusade. The Crusader States looked like they were close to being destroyed after Hattin, but after the Third Crusade they lasted another century. Jerusalem was not regained, but Saladin had to agree to allowing Christian pilgrims access once again. Urselius (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I lost hope with wikipedia to be honest... Naqdi (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything I mentioned is factual, I take it that you lose hope with facts that do not coincide with your desires or viewpoint. Welcome, my dear sir, to reality. It may sting at first, but you get used to it with time. Urselius (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  is it just me 

message: I have gone through the edit history of this article and noticed that user:Urselius really messed with it and changed it from its true form to a much biased form that really has no sense of truth, i request that it be fixed and restored to its original state as this is just wrong, Thanks. Naqdi (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a professional researcher and have been trained to be entirely factual and without bias in what I write and I take grave offence myself at your groundless accusations. Urselius (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Unless you detail what you are talking about, there is really no way for anyone to respond. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if only you go through the revision history. Anyway i will tell you what i mean
in short it used to view it from both points but now
its biased towards the christian end and is making the Muslims look as if they don't know which end of the sword to grab. Yes the crusaders did win some battles and Muslims won even more but this current version is very upsetting and as a Muslim i take offense to it as it has no sense of truth.
I request that it be restored to an older revision, thanks Naqdi (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the article on Saladin's greatest lieutenant, Gökböri. Have a look at it, I wrote the whole thing, and come back to me again if you think that I am biased against Muslims. Urselius (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

text: You still provide no detail as to what you consider incorrect or which older version you wish to restore. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I would say this version with some updating Naqdi (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are talking about reverting literally hundreds of edits, and you still are not detailing what you think is incorrect. It would be more productive to propose changes to the current version.  But again, more detail about what you consider incorrect is necessary.  We cannot read your mind. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

text: The version you suggest is entirely unsuitable as it omits any mention of the two Crusader advances on Jerusalem - rather important events in a Crusade aimed at the recapture of the aforementioned city. Urselius (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have better things to do than argue with wikipedians, i just noticed a biased article on a wiki that is supposed to be about truth. Have a good day. Naqdi (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: The use of flag icons on Wikipedia derives from their use in articles on more modern topics. They are not at all useful for articles concerned with the Early to High Middle Ages. This is because national flags just did not exist at the time, and projecting either the symbols of royal families or later national flags backwards in time is not factually acceptable. Regarding coats-of-arms the same rationale applies. In the late 12th century heraldry was in its infancy and did not become codified much before 1250. The use of designs applied to flags and shields by nobles and knights were demonstrably largely at the whim of the individual. This is best illustrated by the arch-crusader Richard the Lionheart, his two great seals, produced about a decade apart, have different designs - the first: a lion rampant, or possibly two lions rampant opposed - the second: three lions passant guardant. We have no indication of the colours of either blazon. Urselius (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I will also add that at the small size they hardly serve as identification. Another problem is that most people reading here have not the slightest clue what the coats of arms are supposed to represent - the chances of your average reader identifying a commander from the coat of arms is very slim. The average reader is not going to look at :File:Austria coat of arms simple.svg and go "Oh, Austria!" They do not serve any identification purpose whatsoever. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: From a practical point of view, that an article without pictures is confusing, because I have to read it again and again to find some of the information I require, it's time consuming. The form " Albert II" is better for orientation than longer "Albert II of Brandenburg" which takes two lines and requires more time to read and search. In addition, some information turned out to be inaccurate and there were errors and it was not possible to notice it in time (Antioch as vassal of Jerusalem, which he never was, Cilician Armenia as kingdom, even though it was a principality at the time etc). Still, I think there is no reason to discuss this, because many articles use coats of arms or flags and there is no reason to grant an exception nor due to the coat of arms of England. Another article mentions three lions rampart in Richard's great seal. These were used further, so it's irrelevant to the hypothesis whether the previous coats of arms were more important. -- Dragovit 10:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 'Albert II of Brandenburg' is far better - it contains more specific information, we do not require readers to search through links in order to identify someone. Urselius (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "far better" just for you maybe, but we're now talking about the usual wiki style and most other articles use a flags or emblems that are in the size that was in the settings (all flags have a uniform size of 22px on the whole wiki, so it isn't appropriate to solve their size here) and the form "of Brandenburg" isn't commonly used because it's not the real name of a person, but only the name of some localion (states, but sometimes also cities and castles) that only makes the name too long. Your explanation cite "more specific information and readers searching through links" is your own and unique, which means that has nothing to do with the ordinary look of articles. I'm not explicitly against it, but it's a way how to reduce size of the infobox, because you also mentioned here enlargement of the infobox as a defect, so that was my compromise how to solve it. Unfortunately, you point out several shortcomings at once and they cannot be solved if they contradict each other. Unfortunately you have several conflicting requests at once, probably intentionally to avoid editing. - Dragovit 18:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

text: We're not saying it wasn't beginning, we're saying it isn't fully developed and not yet set into a system. You can't say there is a coat of arms for Richard and/or England because he used several during his lifetime. And a number of the nobles didn't use them in this period at all. And that doesn't begin to address the issue that claiming it's a way to "identify participants" is wrong because the average reader has no idea what the little blobs of color mean so they can't possibly use them to identify anything.Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Further - see :File:Holy Roman Empire Arms-single head.svg where it describes the file as "Coat of arms of the Holy Roman Emperor and/or the king of Germany as used in the 13th century (Hohenstaufen emperors)." And :File:Argent a chief gules.svg says "# Henri II d'Avaugour (1205 † 1281), comte de Penthièvre, comte de Goëllo, comte d'Avaugour, comte de Lamballe et comte de Tréguier, comte de Guingamp. (Bretagne)" And :File:Coat of Arms of Prince Bohémond VI of Antioch.png is for Bohemond VI of Antioch who was born circa 1237! And I can't see that :File:Seljuqs Eagle.svg is really closely tied to the Sultanate of Rum (hint - it's not used on the wikipedia page as an identifying symbol of the sultanate...) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

text: You are not engaging with the arguments against the inclusion of all of these images. Particularising to individual images, or asserting bogus rights to certain images does not constitute a cogent argument. An entirely separate reason to not include these images is that they increase the size of the infobox to ridiculous proportions, relative to the text of the article. Urselius (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The argument about image size and increase the size of the infobox is irrelevant because image size can be easily modified. 15px is the usual size, but can be reduced to 12px or even 10px, which is roughly the size of the text and images are still clear, the infobox doesn't notice it in any way. -- Dragovit 10:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Another concern is that there is no sourcing linking these images to the territories in the Third Crusade. Most of the image pages on Commons have no source giving any time frame for usage of the coats of arms - so they are basically unsourced additions. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously, only you have this concern and it's totally absurd, because the sources you require are in the articles about coats of arms where they are used, so you are looking for sources in the wrong place. If you question the accuracy of these coats of arms, you must refer to the articles directly that are related to the coats of arms, not the articles about crusades. -- Dragovit 10:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do 12th century emblems provide any useful function? A twentieth century article displaying the flag of the USA would add a recognisable visual emblem, that would be known to the vast majority of readers. Adding the arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, I would submit, adds no level of recognition for the vast majority of readers. If this is the case, why use it? Also you are ignoring the fact that most emblems shown are anachronistic, they either were not used at the time, or their form was mutable and had not settled into one form. A case in point, arguably the most prominent leader of the Third Crusade was Richard I of England. We know that his grandfather Geoffrey of Anjou was depicted once with a shield bearing a blue lion rampant on a white field. Richard's first great seal shows him bearing a shield with a rampant lion. Because only half the shield is shown, we do not know if his blazon was one lion rampant or two lions rampant facing each other. On his second great seal, dating to after the Crusade, his shield shows three lions couchant. We have absolutely no contemporary evidence for the colours used in either of his devices. Added to this, although Western European heraldry later became codified, the same was not true for Byzantium, or any of the Muslim regions. They never developed a codified system of heraldry, and ALL attributed devices were either personal whims or retrospective. Do you really want to inflict emblems with no contemporary evidence for their use on to a credulous readership, who probably would assume that they are factual? Urselius (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The 12th century emblems probably have the same function as 20th century flags, insignias and logos of organizations elsewhere – to present and identify the some entity such as the state, otherwise it is just a vague text, in some cases, if the names are similar, they may be easily interchangeable, it also indicates the importance of states and their statehood before other entities such as various groups, movements, etc. If you question purpose of the flags and emblems, then you question the whole basic wiki style, because this also applies to every flag, emblem and basically all wikimedia files, none is an exact copy, they are all reproductions of an graphic designer and with the 12th century emblems it isn't different, it serves to identify and highlight it to make it clear. It doesn't matter that the coat of arms isn't an exact copy if it corresponds to a blason (heraldic description). If you know the rules of heraldry, you know that following the blason means the validity of the coat of arms and their exact look or shades of colors aren't critical. I've already written it here: if England didn't have a final valid coat of arms in this period and it isn't possible to use the final version with three lions, that isn't reason for applied same way to all states and disrupt the usual wiki style. It's also pointless for military orders to be without crosses that were their insignia that distinguished them from others. Erasing all of them (so much content) seems like vandalism to me, I spent quite a bit of time with that and if it's not enough for you that I creating different versions, then you probably don't want to compromise. I prefer to decide which emblem to use and which to omit, so do you agree that I can use emblems without English? Other emblems you haven't questioned. Byzantine one isn't heraldic, but it's made of coins which are also considered a symbol of statehood, so it can also be used to present and identify, as you know, Chi Rho (labarum) was often used in articles for the same reason, but it doesn't belong to this period. - Dragovit 18:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a general problem with people considering that infobox spaces in Wikipedia have to be filled, just because they are there; whether filling them in is appropriate or not. I have just removed map co-ordinates for a Medieval battle whose exact location is unknown! We are not in the realms of using a heraldic charge description to produce a more or less accurate blazon here, that is just a disingenuous digression. We are looking at whether an example of heraldry or a symbolic device is appropriate for the period. I would assert that Western European heraldry was in its unformed infancy at this time and largely down to personal whim and uncodified, that Eastern European heraldry was even more unformed and that Byzantine and Muslim heraldry and symbolism never became codified at all. If you can find good quality proof that a symbol was in use in the late 12th century, then using this would be appropriate, mere back-projection from later sources is inappropriate for use here, as it is anachronistic. BTW a labarum, believed to have been that of Constantine the Great was preserved in the imperial treasury at Constantinople and is described as extant in the 9th century. A miniature labarum was part of the imperial regalia, often shown being held by emperors in conjunction with an orb. Urselius (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your answer is too theoretical and doesn't answer my questions. Therefore, your consideration of whether or not to use in heraldry this period doesn't apply to the Third Crusade, but to the entire Wikipedia. It is not appropriate to write these considerations here, because this isn't the good place to solve them. I see no reason not to use heraldry in this article when the coats of arms are in other articles about the same period. The article without flags or emblems seems to be unfinished. The question of whether heraldry is appropriate for this period is out of place, in the article about heraldry is written: "Although certain designs that are now considered heraldic were evidently in use during the eleventh century, most accounts and depictions of shields up to the beginning of the twelfth century contain little or no evidence of their heraldic character..." because this article is about the end of the twelfth century, so these considerations about the appropriateness of heraldry are out of place here. So let's decide which specific coats of arms to use and which to omit. If the coat of arms of England is inaccurate, we can use heraldry without it, but you didn't answer either. And finally, the Byzantine labarum does not automatically mean Chi Rho symbol, do not confuse these two words, but is described as a ceremonial banner, and the period depictions of it have different appearances. − Dragovit 15:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments are specious. Either a symbol is appropriate for a person or political entity in the period in question, or it is not. If a symbol can be shown to have been used by it being mentioned a contemporary descriptive written source or depicted in pictorial source, then it would be appropriate to use here, not otherwise. This is a simple enough concept. Urselius (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems specious to me that you are continuously blocking the editing of an article based on a discussion that has been going on since 2016 without any clear result or consensus, even though you claim that the discussion is still ongoing, the result is still uncertain and ambiguous after five years. Even the rules of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG say nothing about the fact that the use of flags in every infobox is not allowed everywhere, but it says that infoboxes about military conflicts and international competitions have an exception, which is understandable right here, because there are a lot of belligerents with a lot of commanders. Also the argument about the beginning of the Age of heraldry was also refuted, this isn't a period of time when heraldry was in "infancy", you're probably confusing the periods. So there is nothing to block the use of flags or heraldry. Then it's not just about symbols, but also that I can't ascribe a paragraph and correct the obvious mistakes that are there. It feels like a violation of my rights and my freedom. You cannot succeed without convincing arguments and disregard for the rules. Dragovit (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag and coat-of-arms icons in infobox 

message: Objectively speaking, how military victories are supposed to result in a truce? Victories lead to gains, concessions, surrenders or whatever, not "truces"... Bertdrunk (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Many wars end in truces, the victor is the side gaining the most advantage from the truce. In the case of the Third Crusade, the Crusaders won every major engagement - the siege of Acre and the battles of Arsuf and Jaffa - and the Ayyubids were consistently defeated. At the start of the crusade the Kingdom of Jerusalem was reduced to one city, at the end the kingdom had recovered all of the coastal area of Palestine and some inland areas as well. It was again a viable state, which was to last a further century. In the treaty Saladin recognised this new territorial status quo and granted access to Jerusalem to Christian pilgrims. The crusaders demolished the fortifications of the town of Ascalon and handed it back to Saladin. The truce was one-sided, most of the concessions were made by Saladin. Urselius (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to say that my friend, but you should really go to a dictionary and see what truce means. I asked how the war could have ended in a truce and you tell me a number of different reasons that describe why it didn't. Best regards, Bertdrunk (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem somewhat fixated on dictionary definitions, whilst ignoring historical realities. Whether a truce or treaty, the agreement reached at Jaffa is universally acknowledged as bringing a definite end to the Third Crusade. As the agreement involved far greater concessions by Saladin than by the crusaders the result was a crusader victory. Urselius (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox5

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Third Crusade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718171218/http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/283/2/Norman_and_AngloNorman.pdf to http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/283/2/Norman_and_AngloNorman.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711171258/http://www.historyavenue.com/third_crusade_1.html to http://www.historyavenue.com/third_crusade_1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified