Talk:Second Crusade

Baltic?

The box on the right hand side mentions crusader victories in the Baltic. The main body of the article does not mention this. Is this really correct? (The Baltic seems a long way from the main action!) SolarMcPanel (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)94.171.230.254 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the section about the Wendish Crusade. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Nur al-Din the same as Nur ad-Din?

Is Nur al-Din the same as Nur ad-Din? the article refers to both of these people but they seem to be the same person. If so, which is the right spelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.240.85 (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually both are correct, it's just that the Arabic definite article "al-" is pronounced differently if it's followed by certain letters, including D. In Arabic (and other languages that use the Arabic alphabet), this word for example is always spelled "al-Din", but it's pronounced "ad-Din". Sometimes the English spelling reflects the pronunciation change, depending on the style of transliteration being used. Wikipedia's manual of style suggests using "ad-Din", and personally I have always spelled his name "Nur ad-Din" here, but the rule is haphazardly enforced at best... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Crusade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120210073013/http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/ferzoco.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/ferzoco.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It was a total muslim victories

The christians have expanded out of orient so its a muslim victories, your guys should wrote it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Decisive victory by Muslim forces is already written on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.34.13 (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Read the article and check your spelling before you post, even more for an unnecessary comment.

ICE77 (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Stephen of Blois (junior) was not in the Second Crusade

Stephen of Blois (senior) certainly participated in the First Crusade. Stephen of Blois (junior) did not participate in the Second Crusade (as explained in the article). Hence, why is the second listed in the right column?

ICE77 (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

There are issues with maps:

• File:Crusade 2.jpg isn't a free image. It comes from this website which says "Unless otherwise stated, all maps on this site are © ExploreTheMed"
• File:Deuxième croisade.JPG is unsourced, in French, and low quality
• File:Byzantium1173.JPG is unsourced and terribly ugly. Commons says that this map "has been superseded by File:Byzantium1173.svg" but that SVG map shows different borders (and is also unsourced). Which one is correct?

Once we have reliable sources, we could ask new maps on the Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop A455bcd9 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Crusade 2.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion on Commons. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Results

The Muslims won in the levant by retaining their territories in battles like Siege of Damascus and if you are doing Muslim or crusader victory then Mecklenburg shouldn’t be included because Muslims didn’t fight there. Seljukjerusalem (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the question in my last edit summary - the word used in your actual edit was 'retrained', which confused me, but I see you meant 'retained' which makes sense. I'd be interested to hear what other contributors think about the changes Seljukjerusalem has proposed (see the last couple of edits). Girth Summit _(blether) 08:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that I have no problem with the removal of the Mecklenburg section 'Result' field in the Infobox - Mecklenburg gets a single passing mention in the article, so it does seem odd to include it in the Infobox. If there was no territorial gain for either side in the Levant however, I'd have thought 'Status quo ante bellum' was correct. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit I think Mecklenburg should be removed. It is an area completely outside the fold/theatre of Muslim-Christian conflicts in contrast to Anatolia, Iberia, and the Levant. It already has its own page at Wendish Crusade. Noorullah (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

As for the Levant, the Status quo ante bellum is fine as it is alongside the Zengid Military victory, no sides made territorial gains. (From what I know). Noorullah (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to you removing it if that's what you think is best. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The Crusader victories in Iberia

The aftermath of these crusade includes the crusader victories in Iberia including the conquest of Lisbon and Tortossa. The article's aftermath section needs to be modified along those lines. Glockerov (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No, because it's already discussed in the § Background section, because it's background context—occurring as the body of Crusaders was setting off from Europe. Remsense ‥ 论 11:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It is an integral part of the crusade, not "background context". The Crusaders conducted the campaign under the command of papal bull and with their crusade indulgence guaranteed. Therefore, the aftermath of those campaigns is the aftermath of the whole crusade. I think we've found common ground there. You seem to be under the impression that the Crusaders must leave Europe before a crusade starts, however, that's wrong. Papal sanctioning is what makes a campaign a crusade and the wester campaigns have that. Thus, the campaigns are part of the crusade and the results part of the aftermath of the whole crusade. Glockerov (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Quadrupling of article length with 60+ years of added backstory

@FantasticWar, I apologize for having to do this given your clear enthusiasm for the subject and for contributing to the article, but I think it's necessary to take a step back and remember this is an encyclopedia article. That is, this article is meant to be a balanced tertiary presentation of a subject, but it's not clear whether you want to write an entire book yourself or not. It is only a guideline and every article is different, but you will see that Wikipedia:Article size broadly recommends articles over 15,000 words almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. Before you started, this article was 5,500 words – an average length, perhaps on the shorter side for this topic given it's a bit of a watershed moment. But you have ballooned its length to over 21,000 words, almost entirely by adding further and further past events that frankly are not where readers would expect to understand the actual conflict itself. This article is not a biography of Zengi—his article is that biography!—or a spotlight on any of the ancillary subjects you have further detailed in your additions.

Again, I see how much you've worked on this, but I can only stress from experience that its present state is far, far worse for our readers, who may be approaching the subject for the first time and expect to be able to grasp its background like they would on an article like World War II, where the background material isn't two-thirds of the total length. I repeat, the article is not structured to aid them unless they want to read a book-length work, and we do not publish those.

Not to pile on further, but your additions have many internal issues as well as a lack of understanding of what is important context for this article—the tone is laudatory, hagiographic, and generally unencyclopedic. There are many violations of our WP:Manual of Style that take a lot of editor time to correct. Worst of all here, you've neglected to actually include the works you are including short citations to, so readers would not be sufficiently able to verify any of the claims you've added to the article. If you're copying material from elsewhere, you've totally failed to explain where from or give the necessary attribution.

This is a WP:featured article—no article is finished on here, but I will stress that the process where articles attain FA status almost always amounts to a guarantee that it is not going to be found to be under a quarter of its proper length. It was largely fine before—I am not sure if there are less cataclysmic additions you think would improve coverage, but it's clear what you've done here is severely unbalance what was thought-out by others before, at a bare minimum. Please reply here if you have questions—I know you're new and this is disappointing, but it's important to learn more about our content policies and Manual of Style before attempting future overhauls on already-mature articles like this one. Remsense 🌈 论 16:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)