Contents

Talk:Siege of Antioch (1268)

Military history: Medieval / Crusades Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Crusades task force

Middle Ages: Crusades Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

I got myself a Crusade sbook by Thomas F Madden, So I'm gonna be BOLD and do some serious editting. STAND BY FELLOW CRUSADERS!!!!Tourskin 06:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mcpaul, is it really necessary to quote Michaud? His work is almost 200 years old...Jean Richard's book should be sufficient, if you're also using that. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should think the older the source the better when we're talking history, unless of course it predates the event, but even such a one might provide a bit of context.64.60.100.162 (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not for secondary/tertiary sources. The older those are, the more out of date they are likely to be. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An "out of date" history? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) But I agree as regards tertiary sources; better to find the primary if at all possible. 64.60.100.162 (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does this, the second sentence, mean? "Prior to the siege, the Crusader Principality was oblivious to the loss of the city as demonstrated when Baibars sent negotiators to the leader of the former Crusader state and mocking his use of "Prince" in the title Prince of Antioch." To paraphrase: "The city was lost even before the siege was laid, but the Crusader Principality either didn't know or didn't care." I don't know how to paraphrase the part after "as demonstrated", for it makes no grammatical sense. Someone who knows the intent, please rewrite. Thanks! 64.60.100.162 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]