Talk:Saladin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Saladin's name

Kurdish before Arabic

Dear Wikipeadia-people,

As a Kurd I am most deeply insulted by seeing an Arabic translation of Saladins name in front of the Kurdish one. I believe that to be erreonorous since Saladin was a Kurd. Thus the Kurdish name should be placed first, if one wishes to place an Arabic text at all!

I do not see any reason (historical or cultural) why there should be an Arabic translation of his name. Afteral he was a Kurd, depite of what Arab nationalists say.

I dont see Queen Elizabeth getting an Arab name attachd to her English name, why so here ? Just because westerners preceive us all to be the same, doesn't make us the same or speak the same language. The rest of the world should respect that.

So I believe that removing the Arabic translation would be the correct thing to do, since there is no justification on helping Arabs claim parts of history that was not there own, to put it straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.122.181 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to be offended. Saladin wrote and corresponded in Arabic, and others wrote about him in Arabic. There is no record of him doing anything in Kurdish, only a record that he was ethnically Kurdish. It is only natural that we include his name the way he and others during his time wrote it, in Arabic. (And, obviously, he did not write his name in the Hawar alphabet, as is currently in the article.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You absolutley miss the point here,

you claim: 'Saladin wrote and corresponded in Arabic and others wrote about him in Arabic' that is absolutley no reason to "include" an Arabic translation of his name.

You don't suppose that people should include an Arabic translation of Napoleon beacause Arabs wrote about him to, do ya ? (by the way Arabs where not the only ones writing about Saladin, so why shouldn't we put a French or middle English translation of his name there too?)

Corresponding with Arabs at the time in Arabic doesn't make you an Arab, just as corresponding in English with you doesn't make me an American. In others words: The only right criteria is his etnicity. Just as is the case with all other persons on Wikipedia.

As an fellow academic I respect your arguments, but I find them to be erronerous. I'll wait for your reply, and will change the text if I see no further objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.122.181 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the point. All we know is that he was ethnically Kurdish. We don't even know if he spoke Kurdish; for example, Usama ibn Munqidh, who often notes that he can't understand someone blabbering in other languages, freely conversed with Saladin in Arabic. Saladin's empire had Arabs, Kurds, Turks, and all sorts of other people, but is there anything particularly Kurdish about him or his state? It is totally Arab, or even Turkic. We also do this for other medieval people, in Europe - say, Frederick Barbarossa. It would be silly to insist on using his name in German, just because he was ethnically German, and to omit any reference to his name in Latin, the language of Europe at the time. Being German was just not very important then. And I don't mean to be insulting, but being Kurdish was not very important either. It was an interesting fact, but has almost nothing to do with the rest of his life. There was no Kurdish nationalism back then and Saladin's empire was not a "Kurdish state" equivalent to modern ideas of Kurdistan. We need to use the Arabic because Arabic was the language of Saladin's world. Noting his modern Kurdish name is fine, but not to the exclusion of the Arabic. (And we do use his name in French/English - the title of the page is Saladin, after all!) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect.

The point is that we're writing about Saladin now, (in the 21 century) in English and thus could refer to his Kurdish name, and the way it should be pronounced or written in Kurdish but not to an Arabic translation of his original Kurdish name.

Because other people conversing with him in Arabic doesn't make Saladin an Arab or forget his own language, Saladin was an etnic kurd, he himself, his officers, and his empire was an Kurdish Dysnasty. It is true that his army wasn't, but to claim the Ayybid dysnasty was an Arabic dynasty would be like claiming that that the Mughal empire was Indian.

It not Kurdish nationalism claiming or Kurdifing Saladin, but the other way around. The lack of establishd Kurdish identity (in the 21 century) that causes Arabs, Turks and Persians to “claim” Saladin to them selfs. By including an Arab translation of his name. Be my guest and take a look on the Ayyubîd-dynasty page on Wikipedia (and don't forget to check the discussion board), and see for your self: it was an Kurdish Dynasty.

So it should be an English article withe a references to his Kurdish name.

To prevent the Arabification of Saladin.

By the way I havn't seen Barbarossas name in Latin (maybe beacause it's an article on Barbarossa, an etnic German, and not about Latin texts about Barbarossa in mediaval history) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.122.181 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Barbarossa is Italian. Not German anyway, which was the point being made.86.167.12.34 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But we don't even know his Kurdish name. He has an Arabic laqab (as I'm sure you will agree "Salah ad-Din" is an entirely Arabic construction), and a general religious name (Yusuf) that is popular in Arabic; what is Kurdish about this? His father is the same way. His uncle Shirkuh, at least, seems to have a Kurdish name, or perhaps a Persian one. You want to give priority to his "Kurdish name", but that really means the modern Kurdish spelling of an Arabic name. What does that have to do with Saladin? Of course we can mention it, but as I said, not to the exclusion of the Arabic. We should also say everything we know about this subject, which, unfortunately, is only that he was recognized as being ethnically Kurdish. We can't say "he was a Kurd who ruled a Kurdish empire", because it is not that simple. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Adam's argument is valid. Saladin had an Arabic name, his military and lieutenants were Turkic, and the cultured he revered was Arabic and Persian. There is no point in fantasizing that he valued his "Kurdish identity", a 20th century concept. If he had, he would not have had an Arabic name. In fact, the only reference to his Kurdish identity comes from a disputed phrase, where he is actually being "accused" of being Kurdish. We have no claim that he considered himself as Kurdish. Cleobella (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a no discussion, even though he was kurdish, his name is an arabic name and should be written in its properway. If you would say Salah ad-Din as a kurdish name, it's nothing but if you read it in arabic it gets a proper meaning... I can't see why it should be written in kurdish anyhow as it is definitely not the way his name was written or pronounced... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.254.48 (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is meaningless construction of idea walking over the name to find ethnicity. My uncles name is Muhammed and we are Kurdish. Kurds and Arabs and Turks and Persians always been together because of belonging to the same religion. Sooooo, having names between any of those ethnicity, it is just decision of father; we can say. May be did not this as well; the family of Salahaddin is Kurdish but lived with Arabic Eyyubis... Clear enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.104.56.194 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction of Farsi in lead

This is not necessary; he was a semi-Turkicized Kurd who spoke Arabic, therefore I don't see why having his Farsi name is relevant. Also, there is no need to place "Persian" ahead of Arab or Kurdish in the sentence. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

order of his names in different languages

lets say Saladin is of Kurdish background although nobody did see him speak Kurdish, and since the ayyubid state ruled over mostly Arab-populated middle east and its official language was Arabic, we put his Arabic name. (actually Kurdish names comes from Arabic but thats not the point) my question is, if somebody is of different ancestry although he/she was assimilated oradopted new culture, should we use his/her ancestral name or adopted name. that would change so many articles, especially about Turko-Persian dynesties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.10.19.53 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation of name

I think that it would be useful for a translation into English of Saladin's name to be placed in the introduction. Not many people in the West know that "Saladin" was not a personal name at all but a 'praise-name.' Also his additional title Al-malik An-nasir isn't mentioned. Some reference to the literal translation of his name "Strength-of-the-Faith, Joseph, the Great King" should appear prominently.Urselius (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a bit about this in the Early life section. I guess we could add al-Malik an-Nasir too, but that title isn't really specific to him, and he had a bunch of other titles too. (I think Ibn al-Qalanisi lists Zengi's titles and it goes on for a page or more, haha...it's probably the same for Saladin.) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Turkish name in the lead section

Is it really necessary? Because he liked Turkish language or more important historical facts about Saladin which related to Turk and Turkish? Zyma (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No reply? --Zyma (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessary, but I suppose it's a compromise, since people so often change the entire article to say that he was completely Turkish. For that matter, his Kurdish name isn't really necessary either. The only contemporary name we know of is his Arabic one. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Because of his ethnicity (cited by sources), Kurdish name is helpful for both readers and editors. But I don't see any good points in his Turkish name inserting. If he was related to Turks and Turkish, then it should be supported by enough cited RSs. As I know, only relevant non-English names/templates should be added to the articles. Not personal interests or add an alternative name to solve edit warring/content dispute. For example, maybe someone likes to add French version of Mozart's name to his article, but we know it's not allowed. Only relevant languages for his article is English and German. Same for Saladin article. Arabic and then Kurdish (optional). --Zyma (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately Turkish historiography sources has not enough articles in English, but it does not mean that we can discuss "it's necessary in Turkish or not" for this poorness. Maybe the guilty are Turks or maybe it's English or anyother, it does not matter for this issue. This insufficiency is a different subject. But when you discuss about Turkish history, first you have to understand understanding of Turkish historiography correctly. You have to do this for every nation's history if you talk about them. Yes he is so important in Turkish history/historiography, at least he has enough importance in Turkish historiography as in Arabic history. There is so many legitimate claims about his ethnicity in Turkey. In Turkish middle school books he is depicting as a Turkish ruler who ruled Arabic Egypt like Mamluks, I think it shows you that there is enough sources in Turkish, I mean depicting him as a Turkish sovereign in middle state school history books. Regretably, you have to know well Turkish language and Turkish history to claim a serious thing. Because Turkish history is not a thing, a very very large sphere we are talking about, you can not imagine if your nation have a little history, and so many different cultures at the same time (Turkic/Turks I mean). They were like Arabic, they were like Persian, they were like European, they were Jews, they were Buddhist, they were Christian, they all were Turks, yep. If you say "it's not necessary" with that word you must accept that Kurdish is not necessary too. So, seems like you are insufficient to discuss about this subject or even this little edit "it's necessary or not", but still if you ask the answer of the question, well, yes, it has absolutely same necessity with Kurdish and Arabic ones. Have a good day. Karak1lc1k (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Saladin's Relationship With Nur-ad-din Zengi

I always have seen this Saladin and Nur-ad-din Zengi portrayed as rivals,however that is not the case infact saladin was a student of Nur-ad-din Zengi and they had immense respect for each other and saladin was helped by Nur-ad-din Zengi when saladin wanted to take most of the forts from the crusaders during the fight against the oppression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Films and computer games

Any objections to cutting the whole paragraph about films and computer games? Without a source to say these are notable depictions the paragraph seems trivial. There must be thousands of cultural depictions of Saladin. We should only cover those depictions found notable as depictions, not all the ones that occur in notable works of art, otherwise there would be no limit. Mike Christie (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I made this same suggestion recently [1], so I definitely support its removal. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not encyclopedic at all. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Three for and no one against so far; I'm going to cut the paragraph. If anyone reverts we can take it back here to talk. Mike Christie (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest making a new section called "Saladin in popular culture" as is common for many icons like this.

TheQw 10:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQw (talk • contribs)

Cleaning up article

This article needs to be cleaned up. A lot of confusion comes out of the complicated names that most westerners are not familiar with, so the language needs to be re-structured to include more informal terms in collaboration with the formal names, using using "his uncle" in some sentences rather than the name "Shirkuh" - this will avoid names of people and places some times appearing to be unexplained or newly introduced. The first section "early expeditions" especially suffers from this stringent structure. It needs to flow better instead of being so dry.

In that particular section (Early expeditions), the role of the crusaders, where they came from, why they were involved and both who they supported and why needs to be included because that information is currently painstakingly missing. TheQw 10:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Allenby

This passage is at the very least not accurate.

According to the some sources, British Commender General Edmund Allenby during World War I, proudly declared "today the wars of the Crusaders are completed " by rising up his sword towards statue of Saladin after capture of Damascus from Turkish troops.

In 1920, there was no Statue of Saladin in Damascus. There was the mausoleum of Saladin, but the statue was not erected until the 1990s. Yazan (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

please note in the text as it reads right now the first quotation mark is missing. 68.118.52.121 (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Shadow Dragon.

Dante

It's very interesting, and very significative of the great respect that Europeans had for Saladin, that he's the ONLY MUSLIM that Dante Alighieri put in the Limbo with the other "virtous pagan". And we're talking of Dante, who put Mohammed the Prophet in Hell, with a punishment which I prefer to not talk about ;-) Wikipedia page should report that, in the apposite section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.24.36.21 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Runciman

The section on the capture of Jerusalem cites 84, which leads only to the historian Steven Runciman. It doesn't list the actual source of his words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.194.230 (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Vol 2, p 465, from the look of it. Details added.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Linklights

In the source it's just all one word, maybe the space should be removed. I don't know though, because I have no clue what the godforsaken things are. They sound really neat, he gives them to his men to stop intruders. Are they torches hooked together by strings, so if one falls or gets tugged on, the other men come running? I don't know!

I looked through Google Books, and found one source that says, "The old musket will soon be in the category of brimstone matches, sedan chairs, the dodo, and link-lights a memory of the past." He's wrong! We don't remember! 68.80.249.86 (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Quba Osman

It is a torch, I have never been able to determine exactly what type, but those on sale in London, in the nineteenth century, for a penny, possibly were some form of rushlight. The general term, though may be wider. A Merry Christmas! Rich Farmbrough, 03:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC).

Someone should remove the blurb about the archeological site in the section "Muslim World"

Among the forts he built was Qalaat al-Gindi, a mountaintop fortress and caravanserai in the Sinai. The fortress overlooks a large wadi which was the convergence of several caravan routes that linked Egypt and the Middle East. Inside the structure are a number of large vaulted rooms hewn out of rock, including the remains of shops and a water cistern. A notable archaeological site, it was investigated in 1909 by a French team under Jules Barthoux

This clearly has little or nothing to do with the article. Likely it was submitted by someone who worked on the dig or is a supporter of Jules Barthoux. The story may be accurate and referenced, but it is completely irrelevant and only of interest to a VERY few. Someone with unrestricted access should remove this unnecessary piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.127.142 (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Highly POV section

I am removing the highly POV section "Religious intolerance and a deceptive media view" which is referenced by http://www.coptichistory.org/new_page_115.htm and is not written in English and from what I can tell, is unpublished. If such facts exist then they can be found in English sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting subject, but the way it has been added is inappropriate. Saladin's relationship with the Copts was not unequivocally positive or negative, and the same could probably be said for all the other religious groups who lived in Ayyubid territories, whether in Syria or Egypt. Sometimes he favoured them, sometimes he didn't. They were probably worse off under the Mamluks though. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not commenting about the removal of the section, but just noting that while non english sources are prefered, they are not mandatory. Additionally "published" is not a requirement for verifiability (although the particular website in question could of course have issues that would make it not a good source - But im sure many many historical wiki pages use english sites of similar quality/reliability. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Verifiability states this:The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source....

According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources....

Therefore, being published is a requirement.

Many historical wiki pages are in dire need of reliable sourcing and not the opinion(s) of some website(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that particular resource should be used, but it's worth noting that "published" can also mean "published online". That doesn't extend as far as self-publishing online, though. 77.250.97.191 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's still going on, and two IPs are involved (User:41.238.175.239 and User:41.239.188.231 on top of User:41.232.129.159 in September) so I've semi-protected it for a month. It's worth noting that the same two IPs who most recently made these edits did something similar at the Hagia Sophia article, which I've also protected. Nev1 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

POINTS TO CLARIFY

I come to this article have very little knowledge of Saladin and only a vague sense of the history of this area in this time period. I felt the article was comprehensive but unclear in a number of respects, including the following:

1. first paragraph "and founded the Ayyubid dynasty." should add: which, based in Eqypt, briefly ruled much of the Middle East during the 12th and 13th centuries CE. Otherwise one has no idea what the importance of the "Ayyubid dynasty" is.

2. Second paragraph - seems written from a very Western-centric point of view. Reading the article my sense was that Saladin's primary importance was his dominance over the various power centers that existed in the Levant at the beginning of his career. His conquest over the European Crusaders was only a small part of his effect on the region and, indeed it seems, may have been incidental compared to his taking power in Egypt and Syria. As I read it, Saladin may have had more lasting fame in Europe than in the Middle East until the rise of Arab nationalism in the 19th/20th century brought his name to prominence again in the Middle East. Perhaps a better paragraph might read:

Saladin led some of the first successful forays to push back against the occupations by European Crusaders. Because of this fact and the (Western) perception that his behavior toward his Crusader opponents was "chivalrous," he has always had substantial renown in the West. Within the Middle East itself, however, due to the the short tenure of his dynasty and the passage of time his accomplishments were less well-known until the rise of Arab Nationalism in the late 19th century when the history of his efforts to oppose the Crusaders led to him being celebrated as an important historic figure.

3. KURDISH ISSUE - I have no knowledge about this, but wouldn't it be appropriate to add a line at the end of the first section saying something like. "Saladin was a Sunni Moslem raised in the Arab areas of what is now contemporary Iraq. However, many believe he was of Kurdish background and, as such, he has become an important figure to contemporary Kurds."

4. EARLY LIFE: second sentence. There are a number of references to "HE" which are very unclear given that the sentences talk about Saladin, his father AND his uncle. Should be clarified who is meant.

Also, "Saladin was now in Damascus"  ??? OK - how did that happen. Is he a boy with his father or uncle? Or is he a young man on his own? 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.190.155 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing information on family information

There seems to be information missing from the family information. No mention of parents etc. Even this talk page references uncles. There is also a mention of a sister at Wikibooks:History of Western Theatre: 17th Century to Now/Late German 18th. Cross linking significant personages would be an interesting contribution to the article. --79.168.11.181 (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

His father, uncle, brothers, sister, and one wife are mentioned throughout the text, although maybe they could all be mentioned together in the family section. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2012

Dear Madam, Dear Sir,

Perhaps this image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_Lievens_Saladin_1.jpg

Provides a more appealing main image, since the painting is world famous and very old and portayes him in a Royal way. Could you change it? Thank you.

Best regards, Meyer Meyer Goldberg (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess we could add that to the Legacy paragraph. Is there a version without the canvas? ~ Zirguezi 13:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean without the frame? Personally, I prefer the current infobox image since it shows only one person. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. It's not good for the infobox. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is this image being added to a ton of articles, no matter how tangentially related? It`s okay for Saladin and Guy, maybe... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The ornate picture frame is extremely distracting and would add an unacceptable amount of visual clutter to the article. If someone were to upload a cropped version, your request could be revisited at that time (just change the "answered=" parameter at the top of this section to no). Rivertorch (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

$50 in modern money?

Do we have already a world currency or... what the heck is "$50 in modern money"? --Againme (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 Changed to modern times ~ Zirguezi 21:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue is more significant than this. How do you even start to compare money from 1000 years ago to now? Is it based on mean annual income? The cost of bread? Rent for a family house? ..... etc. I just don't see how there can be a casual mapping from ancient currency to a modern one. The references don't help. Even if these references were accessible I doubt that they provide a meaningful mapping between ancient currency and 2010 ish dollars. Mtpaley (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)"

To tell you the truth I only changed it because I thought it was a language error. But you're right. There is no way to convert currect money to money of a 1000 years ago. ~ Zirguezi 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Gold. But yes purchasing power has shifted around for lots of things. — LlywelynII 13:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

sufi aspect

the article is missing the point that saladin promoted sufism as stated here.[2] Baboon43 (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, go ahead and add the info if you have the sources. I'll try to add more on the domestic front of Saladin's reign soon. The article is largely dominated by the military sphere. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Recognition and legacy section

Anybody mind if I restore the "Recognition and legacy" section back to its prose version, seen here? It's currently a bunch of facts, a lot of them trivial, cobbled together in a list form with numerous subsections. Albeit that the older version was not really satisfactory or comprehensive and needs a lot of work itself, I think it was better than what we currently have. Thoughts? --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was it removed? I support its restoration! Was their no recognition and legacy of such a great leader? Faizan (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel pain about how the legacy section has been treated

An unknown person and Al Ameer son have made serious MAJOR changes without any explanation except mentioning that it is a list of TIVIAL facts, i can not understand how is the Saladin Dirham Coin named after him is a TRIVIAL fact. This is also the same for all the other legacy facts that were removed by an unknown IP address then the deletion was approved but after very minor changes by Al Ameer son. Perhaps he or someone else should provide a more detailed explanation.--Ashashyou (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You should have commented on the section above since we're talking about the same subject. Anyhow, my reasoning stands. The deleted section was mostly a list of short, random facts (this team and that building were named after Saladin, etc.), none of which were supported by sources. The solution should be to find a source that states and explains the general phenomenon of naming things after Saladin, which shouldn't be hard to do and would not be trivial. As for the dirham coin, this has nothing to do with recognition of Saladin or his legacy. This was an old coin minted during Saladin's reign. All major rulers, including caliphs, sultans, emirs and even powerful governors would issue coins bearing their name. It could be mentioned in a different and more appropriate section. There was no such thing as a "Saladin Dirham" after his rule ended. It's an artifact. However, there should be a subsection titled "Architectural legacy" where, with sources, we could write about the mosques, madrasas, forts and other buildings that Saladin ordered to be built. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

New Image.

Am i the only one that thinks the new image looks horrible??? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I added the picture because the previous one was removed. You could replace it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No it is not, i think you have misunderstood what happened, i have added the image back on. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Undoing recent changes

Hello, I've undone these changes [3] by User:Sonerbcrc due to the discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Saladin. Unfortunately this has also undone some constructive edits, for which I apologise. If those editors would like to re-insert those changes I have no concerns with that. Unfortunately it seems the unconstructive edits in question weren't dealt with early enough to allow a simply "undo". However, due to the issues they raise, and the importance of this article, they could not be left as they were to be corrected piecemeal. Again apologies if that has offended anyone. Anotherclown (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, just restored them. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Death of Nur ad-Din

The article briefly mentions Nur ad-Din's death as a result of poisoning, however the article on Nur ad-Din states he died due to Peritonsillar abscess with no mention of poison. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.237.90 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange edit

Here.. removes some material about difficulties between Saladin and Nur-a-din and introduces am strange template. I'm tempted to siml;y revert. A Merry Christmas! Rich Farmbrough, 03:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC).

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3