`  == current article ==  hi, currently article reads more like a medieval narration rather then a military article, its deals with long stories of wht saladin says wht Balian of Ibelin did etc, a military article must not be like this one. It ought to include details of battle and siege plans the assaults and resultant negotiations in much more ``militarized`` manner. It didnt site any source or inline citation which make it look like a sort of original research. more over i was surprised to see the new military doctrine in the article (before i corrected it) which claims the result as ``tactical draw`` for the battle, possibly done by some random crazy ip address. any ways when invaders gains their objectives, it victory, or wht else is victory. my main concerns are about the possible original research and the un-encyclopedic style of the article. this is an important article about a historic event and therefore must not be dealt like an orphan. I was disappointed to read it and it looked ``pathetic`` From tomorrow i will start working on writing a more wht i like to call ``militarized`` version of this article which will be based mostly on david nicolle's excellent work hattin 1187 and fall of jerusalem. I will try working it out in a week or so.    `