Talk:Battle of Jaffa (1192)
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Edits
editEdited for Grammer. Walbe13 (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. . --Rosiestep (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
editThis article has been vandalized to make it appear that Jaffa was a victory for Saladin. This is a well documented victory for the Crusaders. This needs to be corrected, as it's blatantly historically inaccurate.
- Hmm, that was pretty dedicated vandalism. Thanks, it's unfortunate that it took two days for anyone to notice! Adam Bishop (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Biased Language
edit"The defending garrison, although taken by surprise, fought with fanatical bravery" "The King again showed his bravery and worth on the field" " the Christians seemed to have better armor than those of the Saracens, allowing them to risk their persons boldly" "Fighting was intense and the brave monarch's horse was felled beneath him" Seriously, this doesn't read like a Encyclopedia article. 70.187.179.139 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, the passages of purple prose in question have been modified or deleted. Urselius (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Heraldic and other symbols in the infobox
editDo 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 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) 11:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW, this has already been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 16#Close the coats-of-arms loophole and there's a pretty robust consensus against using personal coats-of-arms in infoboxes. Choess (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I lose track of 'behind the scenes' discussions. Urselius (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)