Talk:Siege of Antioch
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 2, 2014 and June 2, 2015.|
Suggestion for the "The Siege of Antioch 1907-98"
Bullshit, the name of article "Siege of Antioch" alone is what I call bullshit. I would dare to suggest an article name of "The Siege of Antioch 1907-98" into the battle box, Certainly, before the first crusade, the Sassanians or Sassanids sacked the city of Antioch for 6 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeByGod (talk • contribs) 01:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it probably should be moved, it just happened to be created before the articles about the other sieges. It's not "bullshit". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Titles, Merging, and Summary style
- Popularity. --Stbalbach 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it might be better to build a Wikipedia:Summary style page with all the battles and sieges (maybe as "Battles of Antioch on the Orontes" to follow the usual title form), with each detail article using "(date)". Easy to handle! And Battle of Antioch could easily be merged.
- --William Allen Simpson 14:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
In the battle to break the second siege, the seventh rushed detachment was lead by "Rinaldo di Toul" according to an italian source. The name should be translated as "Rainald of Toul". I've been unable to find a reliable Italian to english translation of the name, else the information could be added in the main article.--Worthstream 16:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- The lead section just barely qualifies for GA status.
- It would be a plus if the paragraph starting with The success at Antioch was too much for Peter's skeptics. ... be footnoted in order to better see where it is from since no references were added to further ascertain the fact. Lincher 14:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Reasons for GA Delisting
This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;
LuciferMorgan 08:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the disambig page? Antioch was besieged in 1084. Tourskin 02:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Battle by R.G. Grant gives 25,000 Crusaders and 75,000 Seljuks & allies. Tourskin 21:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
25000 crusaders capture a city defended by 75000 men, that is just not seem true(did crusaders have tanks)+christian favoured+biased. in capture of constantinople by the turks, city is defended by 7000 men against 100000(to 200000) and they hardly captured- according to wikipedia. i think wiki is becoming unrelieble and a biased platform, that favours western-christian side and skips muslim point of view, not consider eastern sources as relieable. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Crusaders had 25,000 men that is true but defending forces maybe 6-7,000 and almost all of them were city militias, there were a few mamluks.
Wiki is biased because i can't even read massacre happened in Antioch. They slaughtered almost every Muslims, even some Eastern Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you are just biased against the Christian forces, who here won a substantial victory against great odds. I'd like to see you cite one source that backs the figure you have given for the number of defenders, 6-7,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I've added this man, who was a fearsome warrior and mighty count. He died at this battle, and although he was not high in rank, he was allready famous before joining the crusade. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 18:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- He is suspected as a hoax. Srnec 19:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, after a few days of working on the file and a few months of procrastinating in uploading it, I finally got it up. Any criticism would be helpful (especially if you notice a pronunciation error. I'm sure there's a few in there.) PhoenixOwl (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"Though Antioch changed hands twice between then and the arrival of the crusaders in 1097, "
So, the Byzantines held Antioch in the 6th century. The Muslims held it at the time of the Crusaders' arrival in 1097. How could it have changed hands twice, in between ?? Surely, it would have to have changed hands once, or three times, not twice ?Lathamibird (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)