Talk:Saladin/Archive 1

message: Was his name Salah al Din or Salah ad Din? -- Euyyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.20.172 (talk • contribs) 10:16, May 15, 2005
:Or Salah ud Din? Depends on the transliteration...those are all acceptable. As far as I understand it, al- can be assimilated to ad- in Arabic (or an-, or as-, or ar-, depending on the next part). Adam Bishop 15:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion in the article about his name 

message: I'm a little bit confused. It says in the article that he died in 1171, yet when you visit the link for May 22 Selected Anniversaries at the top of this page, it says that the Hash-assasins tried to murder him in 1176. If he died in 1171, then how could they attempt to kill him 5 years later. Either the article or the anniversaries page needs to be fixed. --Zeerus 18:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
:1171 refers to the death of the Egyptian caliph, which I suppose may be unclear at the moment. I'll fix it. Adam Bishop 07:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saladin's Death 

message: Are there any historical proof to Gibbon's claim that Saladin had received a christian knighthood?
--Tokle 14:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Decline and Fall vol. 6, chapter lix, part i:"his military character was established by the defence of Alexandria; and, if we may believe the Latins, he solicited and obtained from the Christian general the profane honors of knighthood." Gibbon's source was a chronicle; it would be more believable from an Arabic source.--Wetman 17:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But, Arabic sources would probably be reluctant to mention it if it was true, wouldn't they? (I'm sorry if this might seem prejudiced, that is not my intention). --Tokle 13:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's from the Itinerarium et Gesta Regis Ricardi, he was supposedly knighted by Humphrey II of Toron. Nicholson, the translator, has a note to the effect that it is a bunch of crap :) Adam Bishop 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  knighthood 

message: Before making any changes over this debate please get rid of all your prejudices, ok? I do not understand but anglo-saxon people seem to enjoy bias. John Kenney removed Shirkuh's being a Turkish statesman.. Do not get funny.
Please admire history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.206.113 (talk • contribs) 17:24, October 26, 2005 
: thanks for that! Get a grip people. The guy was from a Kurdish origin which means he was a speaker of a Kurdish dialect. The issue involved is not whether the state he was born in was part of Turkic or Kurdish or Persian or whatever kingdom. The reference is to his own ethnic and linguistic background. He was working for Nureddin Zangi, which was a Turk in origin. The fact is, those ancient people where much more open minded than us "moderns".--Khodadad 02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please look. Kurdish - Saracen - Turkish issue 

message: This page says he died in 1171, but the Ayyubids article says he was deposed - anyone know?
:He was not deposed, he gave up his rule over Syria in favour of his son, Al Malik ul Zaher. --Khodadad 02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to Al-Adid?

message: Here's the external link for the Star Trek reference.  It is http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/USS_Saladin
I just wasn't sure how to properly cite it in the article itself, so I'm posting the link here in the talk page.  Longshot14 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Trek Reference

message: In the first sentence the Arabic version of his name transliterates as: Al din Yusuf bin Ayyub Salah. Is this correct? It doesn't conform to the transliteration that is there and seems like a fragment. Ashmoo 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it must have to do with the way your browser splits the line.  The Arabic version of the page has it correct, but the Arabic characters in the English version are split funny, due to the browser treating them like English words left-to-right, rather than Arabic right-to-left.  That's a terrible explanation, I admit, but one that makes sense if you try typing in Arabic for just a few words around the end of the line in MS Word.  My browser makes the same mistake, but with the mix-up happening at a different point. The Frog 18:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too...mine says "ibn Ayyab Salah ad-Din Yusuf". Adam Bishop 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic Name

message: How is the Salah part of Salah al-Din written in Arabic?
Rabukurafuto 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: صلاح, if your computer can see the Arabic letters; the letters are saad, the laam-alif ligature, and haa, if that helps. Adam Bishop 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salah 

message: The arabic Wikipedia seems to have a much better main image. If someone can translate the image page and confirm that it is in fact a free image, it should be uploaded and used as the main image here. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The citecheck template is intended to flag articles where citations may misrepresent reference material.  I see no discussion to that effect on this page and have removed the template.  Please see Wikipedia:Cleanup resources if an editor here feels that some other template is needed, and please discuss these templates on talk. Durova 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed citecheck template 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this sort of information is better off in the main article, especially when there isn't very much information here yet. Adam Bishop 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I don't want to step on any toes so I'm suggesting this at core biographies and deferring to active page editors.  Regards, Durova 19:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Saladin]] 

message: In the section Rise to Power, there is written "Saladin revitalized the economy of Egypt, reorganized the military forces and, following his father's penis, stayed away from any conflicts with Nur ad-Din, his formal lord, after he had become the real ruler of Egypt." Unless there is a definition of penis which I don't know, I'm guessing that's not supposed to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.56.178   (talk • contribs) 01:06, November 13, 2006 
:That was already reverted, so you shouldn't be seeing it... Adam Bishop 07:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism? 

message: I know Saladin was a highly active military ruler who had to travel frequently but there's no mention of his preffered home when not fighting crusaders or conquering other lands. What city/castle did he consider his home?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackB69 (talk • contribs) 04:05, September 24, 2006
:: It is often mentioned that Saladdin had decided not to reside in a comfortable house but only to stay in tents until Jerusalem was saved --L Rothen 05:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saladin's Home 

message: in war against crusades the page shows that he had no mercy and excuted prisoners with happiness?!
can you check the sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xainoo (talk • contribs) 05:38, October 13, 2006
:"Most of this renown for chivalry and mercy is more myth than fact, when judged against the oppression of Christians and minority sects in Egypt and mass executions of prisoners of war and enslaving of other prisoners." Vandalism?
-sakredfire
I have the source on the event of Saladin having joy on his face while the Templars and Hospitallers were executed.
Here is the quote from Saladin’s secretary himself, Imad ad-Din, from the Ibid, page 138.  This occurred two days after the Battle of Hattin.
          
“He (Saladin) ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve.  Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair.”  
Saladin was an honorable man, but like so many men of his day, was also capable of brutal acts of violence.
Mk26gmls 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The context of these quotes is somewhat misrepresented. Salah-al Din enjoyed killing the Templars and Hospitallars because they killed his men, not because they were Christian. He wanted to pursue the Franks and called them Godless not due to their religion, but due to their behavior which was at odds with their religion. When did Saladin percecute the Copts? How about the Jews? Be more objective, pretty please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sakredfire (talk • contribs) 11:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok sorry, I guess you're right. I just think people need to hear more about heroic Muslims in this day and age. I feel bad for the way people are starting to portray them, so I try to teach people about the good things that have come from Islam, even though I'm not Muslim myself. But wishful thinking does not lead to good scholarship I guess. 
--Sakredfire 04:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Saladin 

message: The map is wrong!!! (The Middle East, c. 1190.) There should be Croatian-Hungary kingdom instead of K. of Hungary. Croats and Hungarian only had common king (at that time) with separate nationality and separate parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.64.233 (talk) February 26, 2007
: I don't think so. The Hungarians took Croatia from the Byzantine Empire. It was very much the Kingdom of Hungary, ruling Croatia as a vassal. Tourskin (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Map 

message: OK guys, what happened to the article here?Mk26gmls 16:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the article? 

message: Saladin is Turkish Commander. Saladin his mother and father is Turkish. StANDby007 13:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saladin is Turkish 

message: I've been looking for the man's family, but it seems the Englishspeaking part of the internet is totally devoid of such info. Maybe it'd be appropriate to add something about his children here. You can read "divided among his sons", but no where are these sons named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.46.221 (talk) July 1, 2007
:You are welcomed to add content if you got sources. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family? 

message: The article is in many aspects an assertion of the supposed “greatness” of Saladin, an alternative view of him is missing that is why in a couple of days, I will incorporate a section in the article that reads “Reassessment” dawn on a number of revisionist works in the academia such as: 
Saladin and His Admirers: A Biographical Reassessment,  
P. M. Holt
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 46, No. 2 (1983), pp. 235-239
Saladin
Andrew S. Ehrenkreutz
State University of New York Press; [1st ed.] edition (December 1972)
Cheers, --Suhrawardi 01:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment 

message: I'm going to be bold and dramatically trim the trivia section. I don't think we need to list every instance in which the name "Saladin" is used in popular literature, movies, games, etc....  A book which names a character "Saladin", but represents him in a historically inaccurate manner is not describing the Saladin of this article, and thus it does not belong here.  The same goes for video games. Basically, this section is just junking up the article and is very unencyclopedic.  Per WP:TRIVIA, please feel free to re-add the information if it can be incorporated in the main body of the text.  AlphaEta 17:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Saladin in media" section has become trivial and ridiculous

message: The article is full of POV and needs cleaning up.  Saladin was a great warrior and conqueror and the archetype of knightly chivalry.  But he was no freedom fighter, as the article seeks to depict him.  The original invaders of Jerusalem after the Romans were the Muslims.  The Crusaders were seeking to recover Jerusalem and other parts of the Holy Land from the invaders.  If you dispute this, fine, but it's one POV versus another.  Either make the competing POVs clear or depict the Crusades neutrally.  Also, Saladin is NOT regarded as the great national hero by the Muslims.  He is the Muslim hero for Europeans.  If any figure from that era is the great hero to the Muslims, it's Baibars. — J M Rice (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you clean it up then? (It may take more than a viewing of Terry Jones' show though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And Kalavun as well. Saladin was in third behind Baibars and Kalavun until the Arabs picked up the notion from earlier European writers. I don't advise watching Terry Jone's video as it is horribly inaccurate. ResurgamII (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you feel there are POV problems with this article, I think it would be helpful if you could either (a) explain what they are in more detail or (b) actually fix them.  I've read this article over thoroughly and don't see any POV problems.  The  tag is totally inappropriate, so I'm removing it.  I'll leave the other one for a bit to see whether it stimulates any action.  JYolkowski // talk 02:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a Saladin fansite 

message: When I was doing microbiology in school a couple of years back, a well known lecturer (reputable source) gave us a pop quiz - a middle eastern man ate with a group of travellers. A few hours later, he took a fever, and later on died. What bug did he contract?
As it turns out, the answer to the question was typhoid, and the man was Saladin. Anyone can corroborate this? it'd be a good addition to how he died, if it's true.
Squiggle (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Baha ad-Din (and Lyons and Jackson), he was eating with a group of pilgrims, but felt sluggish and had little appetite, and had been ill all winter previously. He then developed a "bilious fever", and lay sick for 12 days before he died. It doesn't seem like eating suddenly made him sick. There isn't much information about his death, everyone is concerned with ending the Third Crusade, and then, oh, by the way, he was sick and died. Is this consistent with typhoid? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Mussav, the problem is not about Iraq, the problem is that the sentence already says he is from Iraq. Now, it is also bizarre that you want to say he is an Iraqi Kurd, which, whether or not it is a valid designation today, is meaningless in the 12th century. He wasn't any particular nationality of Kurd, he was just a Kurd, from Tikrit, as the sentence clearly states. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Adam on this one. The text makes it clear that he was born in Iraq, and so it should. However, the terms Iraqi-Kurdish, Syrian-Kurdish or Turkish-Kurdish are all modern concepts as the border between these states were drawn less than 100 years ago. In the days of Saladin, most Kurds lived in the same country, the caliphate. JdeJ (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is strange that the text mentiones "he was born in Iraq", it is more suitable to say modern-day iraq or in the modern republic of iraq. Iraq at the time of Saladin did not include Tikrit, instead there were two iraqs, Iraq Ajami (khuzestan in modern Iran) and Iraq Arabi which streched from north of Basra to Baghdad, perhaps even Samarra, but not Tikrit. I also agree that the term "iraqi-kurd" is irrelevant as it has no historical ground, even today it is a problematic term as it does not coincide with the Kurds internal socio-culturall subdivisions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.3.14 (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi-Kurdish 

message: Al Ameer son, it's great that someone is finally updating the article, but I'm not sure the latest edits are really an improvement. Reston is an especially bad source for the crusades; Grousset is alright but he is very old. There must be newer sources we can use? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I'd like to see Reston go as a source altogether. His work is a historical dramatization. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reston and Grousset 

message: So...is it Saladin, or a "Jewish philosopher" as the anon keeps claiming? (Maimonides perhaps?) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a dig into the history of the image and, well, there isn't any, and both users involved seem to have left, so unless anyone recognizes it it has no provenance at all. How about this  (cropped appropriately). At least we know who that's supposed to be! Its already in the commons, but in a much worse scan: . There's the series of Doré engravings as well, but they're murkier and I don't know of a PD source. Bazzargh (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had another look and found it. See , and look at the cover of  Andrew S. Ehrenkreutz's 'Saladin',  (note the ISBN given by google books is wrong - that's the first of the 'see also' books on the last page). The book didn't get its cover from here, it was published in 1972. Its clear from the larger image that he is not wearing a tallit, as I guess the anon thinks, but a gorget. Unfortunately, the page that would identify the original source of the image is not part of the preview, but I think this is enough evidence for now to keep the picture. Bazzargh (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The following assertion from the article, which is already tagged for lack of reference, seems taken directly from the move "Kingdom of Heaven" instead of any historical fact:
"Saladin captured Raynald de Chatillon and was personally responsible for his execution in retaliation for previously attacking Muslim pilgrim caravans.[citation needed] Guy of Lusignan was also captured but his life was spared."
I propose this be removed from the text, unless someone can support it with a citation--it's removal will have no impact on the rest of the section.
65.175.60.130 (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While KoH dramatized this scene, it can be sourced e.g. to Runciman's History of the Crusades (page 759 in my German Omnibus edition - that's the middle of Book 10, Chapter II). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably where Kingdom of Heaven got it from, but it goes back to French, Latin, and Arabic sources who were present (or heard about it later). Of course, they all say different things about it, which is exactly what we might expect when dealing with witnesses and rumours for the same event! The Battle of Hattin and Raynald of Chatillon articles and talk pages have the stories and the sources. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: In Warriors of God, Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade by James R. Reston, the passage reads 
The Sultan passed it [Rose Water Sherbert] to the King who gulped it wildly and then passed the bowl to Chatillon. 
"You did not ask my permission to give him water", the Sultan said quietly, with an undertone of menace in his voice. "Therefore, I am not obliged to grant him mercy.
This was a point of honor. In Islamic custom a captor who offers his prisoner food and water must spare him. Now Saladin said to Chatillon, "Drink, for you will never drink again". After the capture of the rich Muslim caravan, the imprionment of his sister, Chatillon's disrespect for Islam after his pirate's raid on the holy sites of the Red Sea and his threatening Mecca and Medina and his many breaches of solemn truces, Saladin had made another vow that contemplated not mercy but justice.
pp.66 --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, Reston...since he idolizes Saladin, tends to fill in the blanks with his own imagination, and, in this case, jumbles every story together without bothering to critically examine them, he's not a good source. But yeah, that is the basic series of events. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The movie, "Kingdom of Heaven," is NOT a historical source. 

message: An editor has linked the Economy of Egypt to the phrase, "Saldin revitalized..." One does not expect that the article would have economic statements back to the middle ages! I don't think that this is a reaonable link. Student7 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bascially its to show his greatness and rise to power, his rep improved and this is why he trusted a lot of people began to trust him. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 16:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The economy of Egypt

message: LOTRules, would it be possible to fill in the edit summary so that other editors can understand what it is you are trying to do and why? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but most of the sources need to addedand I'm doing this quite efficiently. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure the massive changes have been that useful. Along with the many spelling errors, the article suddenly sounds naive or aimed at a naive reader. It seemed more encyclopedic before. I'm not so sure the article wouldn't be improved if the changes and sometimes very vague references wouldn't be totally reverted wo whatever was there bofore. I have no idea why you started this anyway. Nor does anyone else since the editor has chosen not to enlighten us either by discussion or by entering an edit summary. Student7 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The diction in some places is stilted, broken, and sounds like it was drafted by a non-native speaker; these issues direly need to be addressed.   Also, a cursory reading reveals contradictory claims -'He neither maimed, killed nor retaliated against the losers of the battle but allowed them to live in peace and harmony as long as they cooperated' and 'Saladin retaliated by killing all Franks captured from August 28 - September 10. Bahā' ad-Dīn writes, "Whilst we were there they brought two Franks to the Sultan (Saladin) who had been made prisoners by the advance guard. He had them beheaded on the spot"'.   Additionally, summations such as 'peace and harmony' are so highly subjective as to be of little worth; the article would be well served by adopting a more encyclopedic voice.Mavigogun (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: You might try using an English version of Mozilla for updates. It will underscore misspellings and suggest (like a word processor) alternate spelling.Student7 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you might want to take a look at WP:CIVIL.Student7 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you do first off. You insult my writing skills and then go on to tell me to be civil? Even the user on the next section here thinks you were not being nice. Still you haven't answered all my questions, frankly don't tell me what to do or insult me when you seem to contradict yourself, also don't attack me personally. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, a brief note before I leave. First, good job keeping this on the talk page. Second, part of Wikipedia is that our edits are going to be criticized and changed. I consider this a good thing and appreciate the evaluation of my work. LOTRrules, understand that this is part of the process. If one makes sweeping edits to an article, one must expect that their edits will be criticized, challenged, and sometimes removed. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: If I may give a fourth opinion, LOTRrules, you have not improved the article at all. Britannica is not a reliable source - all you have done is used another encyclopedia. The article may not have been great before but it hasn't gotten any better. 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference for the above is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources.12:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summaries

message: Hi, I just came here from a 3rd Opinion notice. First, I want to commend everyone for seeking resolution without allowing the discussion to be come aggravated into a dispute.  
The reason for the third opinion filing seems to concern the use of edit summaries. My opinion is that, although not required, they are good practice. Personally, I find them useful when looking at article's from my watchlist and to keep track of changes in articles. I recommend editors to use them, whenever possible. Also, I would add that it is customary to notify active collaborators of pending plans to dramatically change an article. This permits discussion and promotes consensus. LOTRrules, I would hope that you work with the editors on the page to help establish that consensus. Lastly, Student7, I encourage everyone to assume good faith regarding editors who have come to work on a particular article, thus LOTRrules can edit the article. However, I would hope that in the future he would discuss these changes on the talk page beforehand.
I hope this helped. Most kind regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may give a fourth opinion, LOTRrules, you have not improved the article at all. Britannica is not a reliable source - all you have done is used another encyclopedia. The article may not have been great before but it hasn't gotten any better. 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference for the above is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources.12:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: While we are on the subject (again), if any reference can be found to whether Saladin's administrators (after his death) opened Saladin's personal "treasury" (what we would call "his estate") as opposed to finding nothing in the funds that should have been used to run the army/administration, or whatever. I assume that the writers intended it to be Saladin's personal treasury (what might be called "The Privy Purse") and not funds of the realm. I have a feeling that the references are vague which is why it hasn't been precisely stated before when asked. Not all rulers have been able to successfully distinguish between the two until relatively recent times. Student7 (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And quite a few rulers in Africa are still having difficulty in distinguishing between the two. Meowy 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Treasury, again

message: This documentary is being used as a source in the article. I do not think it is a valid source. 
Using a TV documentary as a source is risky at the best of times, but this production seems decidedly unsuitable to be used as one. The imdb.com reviews of it are not encouraging. Quotes from various reviews: "funded mostly by Iranian state oil and mining companies, this documentary is dazzling in its presentation, but careless about the historical facts"; "tendentious"; "propagandizing"; an "infomercial"; "mostly propaganda"; "pseudo documentary"; "Great cinematography but biased"; "there is a decidedly pro-Islam bias pervading this film"; "don't take the "historical facts" too seriously"; "the director prostituted himself to covert politics", and so on. 
I have asked for the opinion of others at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Meowy 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny thing actually its a documentary by PBS and made in the US. So how can it be biased. Don't pay any attention to the comments - they're just opinions. Have you actually seen the documentary? There are links on the actual page to Google video and you can see it from there. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Where are the reviews? I have only seen one user review. The documentary was made back in the year 2000. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The best that television can do is to use the same WP:RELY sources that we are trying to use. At worse, they can use myths and legends. The latter can help promote a serious documentary into sensational stuff that is tremendously watchable but not terribly accurate. I don't trust television. I've run into more than one problem with well-intentioned editors who relied on a television "documentary." They all have "sweeps" or the equivalent. We are just trying for accuracy not a huge readership nor a Pulitzer! Let's stick with serious scholars and let tv go it's own way. Student7 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Television Documentary "[[Islam: Empire of Faith]]"

message: Thank you for your ongoing workout information. I would like to correct your Image: Ayyubid.png for the "Jerusalem" part which supposed to be Red as it was under Salahuddin kingdom!, since you're mentioning Salahuddin's History and glorey, not after he dies, because this what history is, as far as I know and verybody does!
I would appreciate you correct your image: Ayyubid.png so other people, muslims or other relogions understand and have clear picture about Salahuddin glory, not to forget the reader's satisfaction, which I believe is your ultimate goal as Wikipedia!
Thank you always!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.114.19 (talk) May 18, 2007
not so much a correction, as the removal of two lines of vandalized text some retard inserted:
Heyyy!
i Was Here! 11.24.O8
EVERYONE LovesZ Saja(=
Hey Sajaa(=
i Love U
This iZ Like Sooo Much Fun
lOl!
Antifornicator (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction. 

message: Could someone provide a section on Saladin's family, wives, brothers, children, etc.? One source, whose reliability is unknown to me, is Cawley, Charles (2007) "Chapter 6: Syria & Mesopatamia"  Medieval Lands Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. --Bejnar (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That site seems okay; so little is known about his family anyway. The names of some of his siblings, children, and especially wives are unknown. (There have been numerous discussions here about what ethnicity his mother was, by those offended by the statement that he was Kurdish - no one has any idea though.) I think all of his known family are already mentioned in the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Family

message: the first paragraph needs to be edited!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.225.172 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit! 

message: Feel free to insert this coin into the article. PHG (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Coinage

message: What's with the little rectangle characters in Saladin's name at the beginning of this article ("Ṣalāḥ")? Is my browser missing a needed plug-in? The rectangles bear no resemblance to any letters of our alphabet. Wideangle (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be an S and an h with dots underneath. I can see them fine, must be your browser. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  My browser is Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6.0.2900.5512.xpsp_sp3_gdr.080814-1236CO  Wideangle (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  If no other solution is found, I propose to replace the first rectangle by a plain "S" and the second rectangle by a plain "h" Wideangle (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that wouldn't be a technically accurate representation of his name. Have you tried switching your character encoding, maybe it's on Western and should be on Unicode? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The character encoding was already set to Unicode (UTF-8), and that gives better results than the others that I have tried.  However, the first and fifth characters in the first word of the first paragraph of this article are shown as rectangles. My browser is Internet Explorer 6.0.2900.5512 et cetera, with SP3.  I change the character encoding in IE by going to View/Encoding. Wideangle (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The rectangle characters

message: I think we should go back to the old section structure—meaning the removal of the "Biography" main heading. Since there's so much info out there for Saladin's lifetime, I say we structure the article based on the sections of the George Washington, Malcolm X, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, James I of England articles - all of which are good or featured articles. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section structuring 

message: Changed all references to "Nur ad-Din" and "Nur al-Din" to be consistent. Revise if necessary  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fz5656 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. No need to revise. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: This page states Saladin was born between 1137 and 1138. It also says he led the Islamic opposition to the Second Crusade, which took place between 1147 and 1149, implying that Saladin led the Muslim resistance when he was between 10 and 11 years old. I question the authenticity of this information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.56.26 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it should just be the Third Crusade. I've fixed it. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  accuracy 

message: Saladin is a Turkish warrior and statesman.
First the descriptin of nation changes often by time.
Sometimes the description of a nation means people that live in a country, sometimes means people that believe in same religeon, sometimes means people that has same origin, sometimes means people that has same culture.
In the time of Saladin, nation meant people that believe in same religion that is Islam.
The reality of Saladin was Turkish was accepted by the world untill 16. century but later 1-2 man said Saladin was Kurdish to create a nation in the region of the Middle East, but that was not real, that was only a form distorted of a thought. That thought was said after 350 years of Saladin was dead without a real prof.
If we need to examine the origin of Saladin then we have to make that with scientific eye.
Then we have to consider all the conditions and realities of that term.
Genetic come from father half and mother half. That means %50 from father, %50 from mother.
Saladin’s mother was Turkish, Saladin’ s father’s mother was Turkish, too. That was prooved by the scientific circle. And The wife of Saladin was Turkish, too.
That means if we dont know the origin of Saladin’s father’s father or if we know Saladin’s father father was Kurdish or Arabian, That never can’t change the reality of Saladin was Turkish. Saladin’s father’s mother was Turkish means Saladin’s father was half Turkish (%50) and Saladin’s mother was Turkish too means Saladin’s was carrying Turkish blood more than %75, and Saladin’s wife was Turkish too means Saladin’s sons were carrying Turkish blood more than %87,5 and that was very high level.
Those means Ayyubids were TURKISH, SALADIN WAS TURKISH.
   
Saladin accepted an eagle the symbol of his state, and eagle means the symbol of the Turkish states. Saladin was a commander of Seljuks that was a Turkish state, and Saladin speakt Turkish.
Saladin’ s brother’ s names was Tuğtekin, Şahinşah, Böri, Turanşah that is ancient Turkish names. Does a Kurdish family give the Turkish names to their children ? 
AS A RESULT, SALADIN WAS A TURKISH WARRIOR AND STATESMAN.
SALADIN WAS TURKISH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.216.244 (talk) July 15, 2007
As a kurd my whole family has turkish names, that doesn't make me turkish. --94.224.255.168 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SALADIN IS A TURKISH WARRIOR AND STATESMAN 

message: On Recapture of Jerusalem, "After the siege had started, he was unwilling to promise terms of quarter to the Frankish inhabitants of Jerusalem until Balian of Ibelin threatened to kill every Muslim hostage, estimated at 5000, and to destroy Islam’s holy shrines of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque if quarter was not given. Saladin consulted his council and these terms were accepted. Ransom was to be paid for each Frank in the city whether man, woman or child. Saladin allowed many to leave without having the required amount for ransom for others.[83][84]"
I have read many books and I have not read any thing about this. In fact, I believe this is a fictional claim from the movie "Kingdom of Heaven". I may be wrong, but that paragraph needs more verification.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.59.223 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has two references, to Steven Runciman and the Encyclopedia of Islam. (And if I remember correctly, they both take this story from one of the Old French continuations of William of Tyre. It's one of the few parts of Kingdom of Heaven that is actually surprisingly accurate.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  verify 

message: Substituted at 22:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment