Talk:Siege of Acre (1189–1191)

message: It is inevitable that as far as Military History is concerned, the English language wikipedia is getting hijacked left, right and centre. There is just too much bias and opinion to merit this as a reliable source, or indeed, most other articles that have two nationalities or religions fighting each other. Ban it all I say and encourage an academic and impartial appreciation of what happened as defined by the numerous historiographical books and journal articles out there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.66.138 (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the German Wikipedia had a much better article, so I've attempted to translate it. I hope it makes more sense now. Adam Bishop 20:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know, I think I just absent-mindedly translated that from German (and probably very poorly so). I think it means the first time the kingdom was on the verge of absolute destruction, not the first time the king was at the head of an army - if Baldwin had lost at Montgisard, that would have been equivalent to Hattin, but the kingdom was still intact at that point. If Godfrey lost at Ascalon, there wouldn't have been a kingdom in the first place, but then, he wasn't really "king" anyway :) That sentence would not be missed if it were removed, though. Adam Bishop 03:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor article

message: Isn't "Latin" a reference to Romans or modern Central Americans? Maybe you should refer to the "Crusader" kingdoms.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BeingDs (talk • contribs) 
:The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Acre are often referred to as the "Latin Kingdom", if the crusader context is obvious (which it should be here). The Roman Kingdom is never called that, and are there any Latin American kingdoms? What is the problem? Adam Bishop 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Latin" Kingdom? 

message: There have been five sieges of Acre, it is not obvious to me that this is the most important and the primary meaning.  In particular, the 1291 siege has the longer article on Wikipedia.  Does this siege seem more important than the 1291 siege because the Crusaders won the former but the Saracens won the latter?  If so, a clear example of systemic bias, see WP:BIAS.  If we do decide to move this, do we go for "Siege of Acre (1189)" or "Siege of Acre (Third Crusade)" or what? PatGallacher (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really bias, it's just that this one happened to be created first, and no one has bothered to move it yet. The Siege of Antioch still has the same problem (for the same reason). (And actually disambiguating those two by year would be slightly more difficult because they lasted more than one year.) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary meaning? 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Page moved to Siege of Acre (1189–1191). Ucucha 05:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Siege of Acre → Siege of Acre (1189) — There have been five sieges of Acre in history, this is a case of no primary meaning, already the approach of the French and German Wikipedias. PatGallacher (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Because of this move, there are now many links to the dab page Siege of Acre (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Siege of Acre). I fixed some, but perhaps some of the people here can also do a few. Ucucha 06:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Mostly done now, apart from a few that weren't clear from context. Several actually meant the 1291 or 1799 siege—a sign that this move was a good idea. Ucucha 12:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: There has been a lot of edit warring on the figures for the strengths and casualties.  I'm just a recent edits patroller, but it is very apparent that someone needs to find a verifiable source and provide inline citations for the figures, as the various edits that have been made have extremely different figures. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 05:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength and Casualty Figures 

message: Who was sieging and who was under siege?  Who ended up taking Acre?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.15.150 (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Siege of Acre (1189–91). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100223004900/http://www.third-millennium-library.com:80/readinghall/GalleryofHistory/Saladin/LIFE_17.html to http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/GalleryofHistory/Saladin/LIFE_17.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have copied some content from the Crusades article to help improve this one. Will look at it again if I get the chance later. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content copied from [[Crusades]] 

message: Hopefully the recent problem is now settled - we don't really need to mention either Israel or Palestine here, since neither the State of Israel or the State of Palestine existed at the time. But there is also no need to edit war over the link, especially now that is now piped and invisible. The title of the Wikipedia article is "Acre, Israel", because Acre is currently unambiguously in Israel. The whole area was sometimes called "Palestine" during the crusades, but it was also called "Syria", and of course no one would think of changing the link to "Acre, Syria". Can everyone agree on that? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel/Palestine issue 

message: ALthough there are plenty of French sources that mention Malevoisine (Bad Neighbour), I can't find any mention of "God's Own Catapult". The two sources cited here don't themselves cite their source, which makes the claim doubtful. See the source of sources: Ambroise, L'estoire de la guerre sainte: histoire en vers de la troisième croisade, translated by Gaston Paris, Imprimerie nationale, Paris, 1897, which is whence Malevoisine comes. Urhixidur (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on page 385 in your link - "la pierrière de Dieu". In the English translation (Ambroise, The History of the Holy War by Marianne Ailes), it's on page 98, but it's simply called "the Catapult of God". The other catapults are called "Bad Neighbour" and "Evil Cousin". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  God's Own Catapult 

message: “Do not use the coat of arms of a person as a stand-in for a national, military, or other flag.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:COA
From my understanding, this does not prohibit the use of Coat of Arms or flags for use in identifying medieval countries. Within the Infobox, especially when there are multiple countries listed, the use of the coat of arms makes the Infobox much easier to follow. I believe they should be added back. Digital Herodotus (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms