Talk:Kingdom of Heaven (film)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kingdom of Heaven (film). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20060225191013/http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/29/093635.php to http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/29/093635.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090810181722/http://www.ugo.com/channels/dvd/features/tristanandisolde/kingdomdvdreview.asp to http://www.ugo.com/channels/dvd/features/tristanandisolde/kingdomdvdreview.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304160558/http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/kingdom-of-heaven/3676 to http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/kingdom-of-heaven/3676
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728054434/http://video.stv.tv/bc/entertainment-hotnow-20060919-interview-ridley-scott-exclusive-/ to http://video.stv.tv/bc/entertainment-hotnow-20060919-interview-ridley-scott-exclusive-/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Large removal of content proposed by
This user has tried to make this edit twice, blanking the Academic criticism section of the article. If 2602:306:8389:4120:d43b:bd33:8499:b1a0 could please explain below why this removal should take place, we can establish consensus on what actions to take in regards to that section. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) 23:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Academic criticism" section neutrality
Does anybody else read this section and feel like the person who wrote it just got upset that the movie portrayed Muslims in a non-negative light, then linked a bunch of articles from conservative news sites that were also upset about this? The whole section reads like some sort of take-down of a perceived glaring academic error that the directors made by not portraying Muslims as barbarians.

Maybe I'm wrong in how I read it, but I'm sure others have read it the same way. Either way, can we all agree that this is a very one sided section?

Postaltoad (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing it, but I'd be willing to defer to the views of other editors. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, in fact I just came to the Talk section to see if the issue had been raised. It's academic criticism, but solely from a conservative Christian standpoint. I'm not commenting on the validity of such criticisms, but neutral this section is absolutely not. It also reads like a list of early-2000s neocon talking points in terms of its discussion of Muslims. Mpaniello (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment. The section gives too much space to Riley-Smith's review and it is unnecessarily reinforced with Harlow's input. While these perspectives are of significance to the conversation, there is no critical response provided from Muslim academics or reviewers, which can easily be found on a broader web search.
 * While medievalist perspectives on the accuracy of the Crusades doesn't take on quite the same bias, it fails to engage Riley-Smith's and Harlow's claims. These claims aren't incorporated to any scholarly degree either; their significance is purely with regards to modern lens, and while "Islamic fundamentalism" is notably permalinked, there is no expanded conversation with regards to relevant anti-Islamic sentiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia). Hestia Péres (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Ur plot is longer than mine
Srsly, u dont even know how to keep a frickin plot short and precise Titan2900 (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The earlier plot is 694 words, yours is 758, without imparting new information. Your first sentence reads: In medieval France, Balian, a blacksmith who is haunted by his wife's recent suicide after the death of their unborn child, meets a group of Crusaders who visit his village. It's technically correct, but squeezes too much in that clause. "In 1189" is more "short and precise" than "A few years later". 70.163.208.142 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @70.163.208.142 and who the hell cares when is the movie set?? Its fictionalized, so nobody cares when is the movie set, plus mine is more precise and specific. Titan2900 (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not doing yourself favors here. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Categorization
I don't think the categorization about the film being "about Islam" makes sense. This is a religious war epic, but does not contain any content about the religions themselves generally. The category relating to "religious war" are obviously accurate, but the "about Islam" or "about Catholicism" categories appear to relate to films that are "about" those religions or practices particular to those religions. Proposing to remove those categories and rely on the religious war-related categories instead.Homagetocatalonia (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)