Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 5

No consensus means status quo
Dear all. I have been blocked for 24 hours for highly disputable, and highly disputed (thank you!), reasons (User talk:PHG). I have now formally posted a complaint about Elonka’s hijacking of this page at ANI. As she is an Admistrator open to recall, I have also asked her to step down from her position of Administrator due to unethical conduct (especially for False claim of consensus and misrepresentation). I think she is supposed to step down after receiving such requests from a total of 6 users.

Now, regarding this article. I am glad that several editors are intent to discuss content, and I will happily work with them on that. However, the basis of this work is currently a 70k emended POV version which has been forced by Elonka without consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance), and is therefore illegitimate per Wikipedia rules. For Wikipedia’s legitimacy and everybody’s motivation, it is important that rules be respected, even by a few very enterprising editors who are bent on smearing and misrepresenting others. In the absence of a consensus, Wikipedia rules dictate us to maintain the status quo, i.e. the full, highly documented, original version of the article (195k, 400 academic references) which has been developed over a period of 6 months, and discuss collaboratively from that basis. So let’s do it please, it is only the right thing to do. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute, Elonka's admin status is not relevant unless admin tools are used. I also would not call this a "hijacking". As for the block, I will say that regardless of the merits of ones position, if one acts disruptive when advocating that opinion they can be blocked. (1 == 2)Until  15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the 400 academic references. See above, Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, where I asked some questions 4 days ago about some of the sources. I'm not saying that most of the sources aren't academic (they probably are), but until I can actually find them, I don't know. Neither I nor the other readers of this article are mind readers, we can't know for sure what a footnote of "Instanbul" p. 16 means. PHG, Im more than happy to work with anyone, however continuing to call the long version full of academic references when I have concerns about some of them and my concerns have gone unanswered, doesn't help my feelings of cooperation. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection
I have full protected this article for 2 weeks and encourage the interested parties to work this out on the talk page in a cooperative and civil manner. I do not see that Elonka used he admin tools here (point it out if she did) so this appears to be a content dispute, not misuse of her tools and she has not hijacked the page. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you at least to have blocked this article, as what was going on was totally against Wikipedia's most basic editorial rules. User:Elonka and a few supporters were trying to impose their own version instead of the main article, inspite of the abscence of a consensus to do so. In the meantime, the original FULL ARTICLE (deleted - see alternative link) will be available on my userspace for everyone to review, edit and improve, until we can reinstate it properly on the main page. Best regards. PHG (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What part of everyone but you and someone you canvassed isn't a consensus? Have you noticed the discussions going on here?  We're all working on the current article version to improve it.  Is there anything we can do to convince you that there is no need to revert our work? Shell babelfish 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Shell, why don't you want to acknowledge that there is no consensus for implementing Elonka's 70k version?: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 4. I would also appreciate that you correct your other false claim that I "created" 46 paragraphs of new content as I reinstated the full article: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Regards. PHG (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While the main article is under protection, I have installed a copy of it at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. Since I know that we're in the middle of some detailed sourcing questions, and many of the changes that we want to implement are non-controversial, I find it helpful to have a subpage available where the small tweaks can continue. Therefore, anyone who would like to edit my subpage is welcome to do so, and then (assuming that there are no disputes) we can easily copy in changes to the main article later, after protection is lifted. --Elonka 12:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, please note that you hereby keep trying to impose your 70k "summary" inspite of the fact that you have no consensus for it (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 4). According to Wikipedia rules, in the absence of consensus, the original "full version" (deleted - see alternative link) (195k, 400 references) should be reinstated, so that everybody can collaboratively edit from it. Your behaviour is highly unethical, and extremely disruptive.
 * May I also remind that you falsely claimed that I added "50k of new content" to the full article as I reinstated it (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance), so I would appreciate that you retract yourself and properly apologize for the personal attacks. Regards. PHG (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough PHG. I am finding your rhetoric beyond tiresome now. Are you just going to keep throwing accusations at Elonka or are you actually willing to work collaboratively on this article? It is becoming apparent to me (and to a number of other users it seems) that you don't have the slightest intention of allowing anything other than your prefered version in this article. Have you read the comments from people on the request for Arbitration in relation to this article? Do you acknowledge that editors find your version far too long? That they question the accuracy of your writing and your presentation of sources? Or that your ownership of this article is perceived as a major issue? Elonka is asking for suggestions to improve the presently protected article. She is listening to the comments that people are making and working towards agreeing changes for when the article is unprotected. Do you have any intention of joining in that process? I'm sorry but Elonka's behaviour is not unethical, it represents a sensible approach to group editing. Your constant refusal to have any content removed from your over long article is exactly what prompted the need for her to propose and implement an alernative version - something I supported and encouraged. Your ridiculous splitting of disputed content over multiple aritcles (resulting in a waste of the community's time on deletion discussions) and your failure to engage in productive dialogue with the now many editors calling your editing pratices here into question is what disruptive here. WjBscribe 13:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I think that the protection was useful at the time, I'm not sure that we really need to "serve out" the full two weeks. I think that the poll below makes it pretty clear that we have a consensus on the major issue of whether or not to condense the article. There have been no new comments in a few days, So, unless there are major objections, I'm going to request that protection be lifted, so that we can move forward with article improvement. --Elonka 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslim sources
Besides Christian sources, Muslim sources are actually the most specific (in fact, extremely specific, about the subject). According to the historian Sylvia Schein "Arab chroniclers, like Moufazzal Ibn Abil Fazzail, an-Nuwairi and Makrizi, report that the Mongols raided the country as far as Jerusalem and Gaza." (Schein, "Gesta dei per Mongolos 1300", p.810)

In a 1301 letter, the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir accused Ghazan of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem, "the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca" ("In a letter dated 3 October 1301, Ghazan was accused by the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem 'the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca!". Schein, 1979, p. 810.):

""You should not have marched on a Muslim country with an army composed of a multitude of people from diverse religions; neither should you have let the Cross enter sacred territory; nor should you have violated the sanctity of the Temple of Jerusalem.""

- Letter from Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir to Ghazan, October 3rd, 1301. (Quoted in Luisetto, p.167)

The Arab historian Yahia Michaud, in the 2002 book Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI, describes that there were some firsthand accounts at the time of forays of the Mongols into Palestine, and quotes two major contemporary Muslim sources (Abu al-Fida and Ibn Taymiyyah) who state that Jerusalem was one of the cities that was invaded by the Mongols: (Michaud Yahia (Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies) (2002). Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI (in French). Chap. XI.)

""The Tatars then made a raid against Jerusalem and against the city of Khalil. They massacred the inhabitants of these two cities (...) it is impossible to describe the amount of atrocities, destructions, plundering they did, the number of prisonners, children and women, they took as slaves"."

- Abu al-Fida, Histoire.(Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI)

""The Mongols first marched against Syria in 699 (1299-1300)... In Jerusalem, in Jabal al-Salihiyya, in Naplouse, in Daraya and other places, they killed a number of people, and made a number a number of captives only known to God.""

- Ibn Taymiyyah, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI.(Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI)(Also quoted in "L'Orient au Temps des Croisades", p.125)

The 14th century Muslim historian Al-Mufaddal also mentions the massacres of the populations of Jerusalem and the nearby city of Hebron (30 km south of Jerusalem) by the Mongols during the 1299-1300 campaign,(Referenced in Luisetto, p.205) and even mentions, together with Al-Nuwayri, that a cross was raised on the top of the Mosque of Abraham in Hebron. (Luisetto, quoting Al-Mufaddal and Al-Nuwayri, p.206). All details in User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) (deleted - see alternative link), which have been suppressed in the "short version". Best regards PHG (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian vassals
First I would like to state that I prefer the shorter version and believe that it ought be the basis for future discussion. This version, the one now locked, is closer to the prevailing view of scholarship in this area and is free from the egregious eccentricities of longer version.

I am pleased with the tenor of the section entitled Christian vassals. I believe that the emphasis on vassalage is correct. A few editors' insistence that the Principality of Antioch and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia were not vassals but allies has been the source of much conflict. On this point I would suggest that editors examine Reuven Amitai-Preiss' Mongols and Mamluks: the Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281 (Cambridge 1995). The book is a recent, scholarly work by a noted academic. It deals precisely with the issues at stake in our article. On pages 24 and 25, Amitai-Preiss addresses these Christian vassals. He uses the words "tributary" and "submission" with respect to these, and while acknowledging that the Armenians hoped for some kind of benefit from their allegiance to the Mongols, states that their relationship was that of subordinates. These pages may be seen here. There is even an assessment of the history of Hayton of Corycus (Het'um).

In the past when I have tried to introduce this book into the discussion (here), I received a response from PHG where he seems to suggest that Amitai-Preiss supports his side in this discussion (here). This is a misreading of the book: a clear case of noticing trees but ignoring the forest.

Furthermore I would suggest that the view that the Armenians of Cilicia were not vassals but equal partners allied with the Mongols is tied up with a specifically Armenian and nationalist point of view. I would caution that Armenian sources, both primary and secondary, ought to be carefully examined for such biases. Aramgar (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The fortress of al-Bira is located on the Euphrates; the link to al-Bireh is not correct. I visited the place in 1995. Maybe it ought to have it's own article. I'll see if I can't find my photographs. Aramgar (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Birecik / al-Bira has a page already. Aramgar (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aramagar, you're making a lot of baseless statements there. a) The source that you provided merely regurgitates Peter Jackson (see footnote 97). A minority if not a fringe view. b) Your totally absurd and outrageous unfounded claim that Cilcia was allied to Mongols is an Armenian nationalist pov seriously hampers your participation in this dispute. c) Take a look at: User:Eupator/Mongol historians.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Aramgar. Your support of Elonka's short version is well known as you have been reverting to it inspite of the absence of a consensus to do so, an act which in itself goes against Wikipedia's most basic editorial rules.
 * Regarding "Allies" and "Vassals", the issue is not about choosing one expression over the other: both are used extensively in the literature. For some of the literature using the terminology "allies" see here. The point is that both views should be mentionned, as per NPOV "All significant views should be presented. This is non negotiable". The full version (deleted - see alternative link) already does that extensively, listing both views, and often using expressions such as "allies/vassals". As far as I know, the historical ground for this "allies" wording is that neither Cilician Armenia nor the Principality of Antioch were ever invaded by the Mongols, and chose to side with them voluntarily (of course they could have chosen to stand and fight, but instead chose to go along). Relations were usually cordial, and even marital alliances occured (see Sempad the Constable). To me, it's not one wording against the other, but only a matter of using both to properly reflect sources and avoid a pov presentation of facts. Best regards. PHG (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but so far I have only seen two sources (Jackson and Stewart) contest the alliance. This still makes it a minority view. Their thesis also doesn't make much sense, Stewart at least says that Cilician forces were used in the Mongol offensives against the Ayyubid emirs of Syria so they must have been Mongol vassals.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eupator and PHG: That the Mongols invaded neither the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia nor the Principality of Antioch has no relevance. The threat of such an invasion in the 1240s was sufficient and both states submitted to the Mongols. This is the view of Amitai-Preiss and majority of scholars in this field. I have seen your list, Eupator, and I have seen PHG's uncritical assemblage of quotes; neither of you seem willing to discuss the list of sources that Elonka has collected here, merely dismissing them as "amateur authors" or as representing only one POV side of a dispute. Perhaps you should stop claiming "absence of consensus" or impeaching my credibility and actually address these claims.
 * As for the Armenian sources, nationalistic bias is a well know problem in historiography and hardly limited to Armenians. Perhaps you, Eupator, have noticed such biases in Turkish sources; I myself come across them almost every day. Aramgar (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you or Elonka discussing those lists? Mine is far larger and less ambiguous btw, ergo my assertion of a MAJORITY view. I directly criticized the main thesis of the main source that Elonka presented for example. As such your above claim of blind disregard is false. I already explained to you that it is not the view of Amitai-Preiss. It is the view of Peter Jackson, see footnote 97. Neither you or Elonka has provided any shred of evidence that it is the view of the majority of scholars in this field but I have. So I don't understand on what basis are you continuing to make that claim.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. What's the purpose of you even bringing that up? No secondary "Armenian source" has been used by anyone. Please answer.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am discussing sources from Elonka's list, specifically Amatai-Priess. I see the footnote and fail to see how it pertains to the discussion at hand. Reuven Amatai-Priess and Peter Jackson are different people. Both are noted scholars in precisely this field. That they agree is significant. Aramgar (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While ignoring everything else, specifically the majority view. Amatai-Priess' bases his claim on Jackson's opinion not on his individual research. I don't know how notable he is within the field given how he's using modern secondary sources much like we are.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reuven Amitai-Preiss is a notable scholar in the field. The pages of his book are dense with footnotes to primary sources in Arabic and Persian. Page 24-25 are in the first chapter "The Historical Background"; it is a general overview were the established understanding of the subject is set forth. But do not take my word for it; read what you can of it here. I would also suggest that the Cambridge University Press does not typically publish the non-notable. Aramgar (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He's still citing another scholar who is already used here. This discussion is pointless.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the book, Eupator. That Amitai-Preiss and Jackson agree is significant testimony of academic consensus; that's how scholarship works. And as I said above, the first chapter in which this section appears is a general overview of the established understanding. Or did you miss that point? Aramgar (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe establishing academic consensus requires a lot more than you choosing an author who cites another that supports your view in what i'm supposed to believe was meant to display a general overview.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) I agree with Aramgar that the mainstream view of historians is that Cilician Armenia submitted to the Mongols. Any historian who discusses the situation in depth makes it clear that it was a submission. A voluntary submission, but a submission nonetheless. Jean Richard, Angus Donal Stewart, Reuven Amitai-Preiss, and Peter Jackson are all clear on this. I am collating a list of pertinent quotes, which can be seen at User:Elonka/Mongol historians. They are quite unambiguous. --Elonka 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eupator, are you sure you want to be the one to pose a thesis that aggrandizes Armenia? Think about it. El_C 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * El_C, the only thing i'm doing here is supporting the mainstream scholarly view. I have collected quotes from ten authors regarding this matter in a short time which includes Anne Elizabeth Redgate, Richard Hovannisian, Michael Angold, Edmund Herzig, Steven Runciman etc. as well as Cambridge published books. Until now, these sources have been dismissed or not even addressed. There doesn't seem to be any spirit of cooperation in this regard.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This whole argument is meaningless, and I think, very un-Wikipedian and needlessly rude. The only interesting point is that some historians describe the relationship as alliance and some as vassality. There is no need to pitch one against the other. Both views are significant, and therefore both should be expressed according to NPOV. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eupator, point taken. I will look into it. Thanks for taking the time to compile that material. El_C 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have no sources or books that even begin to address this subject, so just wanted to say that I'm not addressing issues because I have nothing to add. It's not dismissing anyone's concerns, it's just plain ignorance. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The view that the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia was a vassal of the Mongols is supported by a wide degree of scholarly consensus. As an illustration I would like to cite a tertiary source: the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium in its entry on "Cilicia, Armenian" (vol. 1, p. 463) says, "The recognition of Mongol suzerainty by the Het'umids in 1253 bolstered Armenian Cilicia for a time, but its political situation between the Seljuks of Rum, the Mamluks of Egypt, and the Mongols remained precarious..." The authors of individual entries in the ODB, like those in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, appear under the article. The author of "Cilicia, Armenia" is Nina G. Garsoian, Centennial Professor of Armenian History and Civilization at Columbia University. Aramgar (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I appreciate that Eupator took the time to compile sources, I am concerned that some of them appear to be biased, unreliable, or cherry-picked. If we want, we can go source by source through the list. I've already pointed out how practically none of the authors at Eupator's page are authors that are commonly used in academia for the "Mongols and Europe" studies.  I would also point out that Eupator is listing Steven Runciman as a proponent of the "alliance" theory, but I don't feel that that is accurate.  Just because Runciman (who, though he did fine work at the time, is now considered somewhat outdated) used the word "alliance", doesn't mean that that was the only way he referred to the relationship.  In his chapter "The Crusader States, 1243-1291" for Setton's 1969 Crusades, Runciman was clear that the relationship was a vassalage.  I would also not lean too heavily on Maalouf's Crusades through Arab Eyes, since an offhand comment in a general-audience (and non-peer-reviewed) book should not be used to argue against detailed analysis by modern scholars. Perhaps it's time that we made a "rated" list of sources, where we sort by the A–D classes that I recommended down in ?  Eupator, which of your sources would you regard as "A" sources, meaning modern works of scholarship that argue that the relationship was an alliance and not a vassalage?  Then we can take a look at those for ourselves. --Elonka 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's best for neutrality's sake that someone other than Elonka or a user canvassed here by her decides which sources are acceptable or not. I'll continue to populate the list. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do that...I've been doing it all along, on occasion. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy with that regardless of the outcome :).--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 04:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eupator, I too would be happy to assess the sources on your list. I was canvassed by no one and have access to an excellent library. Aramgar (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the Mongoliberations (of the Holy City!)
One of the most interesting passages quoting Jackson in these articles, I found, was his sentence from page 173 (a sentence which PHG has added to scores of related articles), about the "Mongol liberation of the Holy City" I'm interested in an elaboration (i.e. beyond PHG's ubiquitous "according to Jackson" in the articles) on what Jackson actually meant by this "Mongol liberation of the Holy City." (i.e. exact dates, under what conditions, responses from the historiography, etc.). Start with quoting the entire pertinent passage, please. Thanks in advance! El_C 20:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if no one answers you by Tuesday, I should have my copy of that book then. Hopefully someone else with a copy actually in their hands can answer before then. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can answer it. PHG is (again) misquoting and misinterpreting sources.  Peter Jackson's book absolutely does not say that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem, but Jackson does discuss the rumors of the time, as did Dr. Sylvia Schein in her article "Gesta Dei Per Mongolos", the first page of which can be seen here. Here is Jackson's statement in actual  context:
 * --Elonka 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * --Elonka 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the next paragraph (may as well have that) continues to deal with Jerusalem? On multiple articles I looked at (mostly deleted revisions), PHG added the "According to Peter Jackson, the Mongols liberated the Holy City," without further qualifications. Could I get PHG to responsd as to what he feels Peter Jackson is claiming in this passage? Thx again. El_C 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no next paragraph, as that is the end of the section. The next section header is "The mechanics of Ilkhanid diplomacy" which starts off, "In their successive attempts to secure assistance from the Latin world, the Ilkhans took care to select personnel who would elicit the confidence of Western rulers and to impart a Christian complexion to their overtures." It then goes on to discuss envoys such as Rabban Sawma, Richardus, and others. --Elonka 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll wait for PHG to respond, but I note that adding to many articles that "According to Peter Jackson, the Mongols liberated the Holy City" per se., yet failing to note Jackson is referring to "tales," "stories," "rumour[s]," etc., is serious. El_C 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Jackson says here that the capture of Jerusalem is a false story, just that the account of the capture of the city circulated in the West and was exploited by the Pope in castigating other rulers: "The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument". He just gives it as an example of how events in the Levant came to be circulated, amplified and sometimes deformed by Western observers. His paragraph is actually a mix of true events (the campaign of Ghazan, the capture of Damascus) and fabulous one, and since he does not say "the alleged capture of Jerusalem" or "the false story of the capture of Jerusalem" as he does with other doubtfull events, then it is normal in this context to consider that for him the capture of the city is just a fact. If Jackson is otherwise known to deny the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols, then, fine, I agree we could take the quote out, but such positive evidence would be needed: we cannot extrapolate or editorialize from what an author does not say.

Besides Jackson, numerous historians also unambiguously refer to the capture of Jerusalem as fact, so it's really nothing extraordinary:


 * In Les Templiers, Alain Demurger states that "in December 1299, he (Ghazan) vanquished the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs and captured Damascus, and even Jerusalem". (Demurger, Les Templiers, 2007, p.84) and that the Mongol general Mulay occupied the Holy City in 1299-1300 ("Mulay, a Mongol general who was effectively present in Jerusalem in 1299-1300", Demurger, Les Templiers, 2007, p.84)
 * According to Frederic Luisetto, in 1299-1300 Mongol troops penetrated into Jerusalem and Hebron, and are recorded to have committed numerous massacres there. (Frédéric Luisetto, p.205-206 "Troops penetrated in Jerusalem and Hebron where they committed many massacres (...) In Hebron, a cross was even raised on top of the Mosque of Abraham", also p.208 "We have knowledge of the violences perpetrated in Jerusalem and Damas")
 * In The Crusaders and the Crusader States, Andrew Jotischky used Schein's 1979 article and later 1991 book to state, "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia" (Jotischky, The Crusaders and the Crusader States, p. 249).
 * Steven Runciman in "A History of the Crusades, III" stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. (Runciman, p.439. "Five years later, in 1308, Ghazzan again entered Syria and now penetrated as far as Jerusalem itself. It was rumoured that he would have willingly handed over the Holy City to the Christians had any Christian state offered him its alliance.")
 * Claude Mutafian, in Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie mentions the writings and the 14th century Armenian Dominican which claim that the Armenian king visited Jerusalem as it was temporarily removed from Muslim rule.(Claude Mutafian, p.73)
 * Schein, in her 1979 article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos", stated "The alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened," (Schein, 1979, p. 805) but in her 1991 book mentioned in a footnote that the Mongol capture of Jerusalem was confirmed because they had removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock, and transferred it to Damascus ("The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350, ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163).

Now, I am not trying here to prove that the capture of Jerusalem occured (although it is indeed very likely given the extent of the Mongol invasion as far as Gaza, the fact that they occupied the Levant in its entirety for 4 months, and the numerous contemporary accounts of the capture of the Holy City by Arabs, Armenians and Christians alike), but just that both views exist among historians: some consider it as fact, while other doubt it. Both views are significant and should therefore be expressed according to NPOV (this principle is even said to be "non negotiable"). Detailed account regarding the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols at User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) (deleted - see alternative link) Regards to all. PHG (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to not actually "vote" one way or the other until I get the book in my hands, but right now I'd have to say that the passage is uncertain in the meaning. Clearly he's talking about rumors, so at best we'd be guessing at what he means. I'll note though, that most of what he's talking about are clearly rumors. Even the reference to the capture of Damascus is this sentence "It was even reported that following the occupation of Damascus and the return of the entire Holy Land to the Christians he had gone on to conquer Egypt." which is clearly false in the last part, so I'm guessing he's referring to the rumor in it's entirety. Clearly it is NOT clear that Jackson is stating that Ghazan captured Jerusalem. Elonka, do you have the full context for that footnote from the 1991 Schein? I'm afraid I didn't order it, it was a bit pricier than I wanted to spend, given everything else I splurged on. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I've got the book in my hands, it's clear that Jackson is referring to rumors in that section. No where in the main section before that does he discuss the capture of Jerusalem by Ghazan. He discusses in detail Ghazan's operations in 1299 and 1300 on page 170.
 * No where in the pages from 165 to 173 (where Jackson is laying out the chronology of the reigns of Hulegu, Abaqa, Teguder, Arghun, Gaikhatu, Baidu, Ghazan, and Ghazan's successors.) does he even mention the capture of Jerusalem, EXCEPT in the quote above where it is clearly in the context of rumors and tales. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing quite a few mentions of it in Hebrew online sources, actually. Arachim Seminar — "In 1244, Jerusalem was conquered by the Mongolians."; Da'at Jewish Encyclopedia — "In 1244, Jerusalem is conquered by Mongolian tribe until 1850 (in 1860 they again conquered it for a short while"; Britannica (Hebrew version) — "The city was conquered again by Christians and even by Mongolian tribes."; Hebrew Wikipedia (History of Jerusalem) — Exact same sentence (who borrowed what from whom?) The Mongolian Empire one, however, states — "two important cities that were not conquered were Jerusalem and Vienna"). There certainly appears to be mixed views on this. Is this really all that Peter Jackson has to say about this in this book which seems to be hailed as so seminal? El_C 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Hebrew, but I can tell you what those sources are confused about. In 1244, Jerusalem was conquered by the Khwarezm Turks, who had just been displaced by the Mongols.  The Mongols didn't even get raiding parties into the area of Palestine until 1260.  So if anything is saying 1244, it's obviously referring to the Turks, which is well-accepted and mainstream history.  Then, once Jerusalem was under Turkish (Muslim) control, it stayed under Muslim control (Turks to Mamluks to Ottomans) until 1917, when the British took it from the Ottomans. --Elonka 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Hebrew, but I can tell you what those sources are confused about. In 1244, Jerusalem was conquered by the Khwarezm Turks, who had just been displaced by the Mongols.  The Mongols didn't even get raiding parties into the area of Palestine until 1260.  So if anything is saying 1244, it's obviously referring to the Turks, which is well-accepted and mainstream history.  Then, once Jerusalem was under Turkish (Muslim) control, it stayed under Muslim control (Turks to Mamluks to Ottomans) until 1917, when the British took it from the Ottomans. --Elonka 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the texts are somewhat confused. I do not accept the Daat text--it is essentially a religious text, which happens to insert a timetable. The Daat text is questionable in that it says that the Khwarizmim were the Mongol tribe. The Britannica text is the least committal, just mentioning the Mongol conquest in passing. Danny (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Mordecai Naor and Baruch Gian's Jerusalem: A City Embracing Light (Ministry of Defence Publishing House, 2007), which I have in my possession (and highly recommend), the Khwarizmim in 1244 were actually tribes who were repelled by rather than being part of the Mongolian invasion (i.e. יחידות של לוחמים ח'ואריזמים שנסוגו מאימת פשיטות המונגולים). As for the 1260 event, a quarter Century ago in his "The Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260" (The English Historical Review, 1980), Jackson notes only "a single armed clash that occurred." El_C 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with the statement that the Khwarizmim in 1244 were arriving because they had been repelled by the Mongols rather than because they were part of the Mongol invasion. The Mongols had been advancing westward in 1220, and attacked and conquered the Khwarizmim Empire. However, though they had taken the land, they were not able to decimate the people. The forces of the Khwarizmim fled westward, away from the Mongols, and survived by serving as mercenaries in northern Iraq.  They were also later offered an alliance with the Egyptian Mamluks, and along the way to Egypt, the Khwarizmims conquered Jerusalem, taking it from the Christians, and triggering the call for the Seventh Crusade.  I'm not sure why any Hebrew sources would say that Khwarizmim were Mongols. All I can guess is that since the Mongols at that point had conquered the Khwarizmim territory, that that area was absorbed into the Mongol Empire, which made that area "Mongol," even though the mercenary forces most definitely were not. --Elonka 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslim sources
Besides Christian sources, Muslim sources are actually the most specific (in fact, extremely specific, about the subject). According to the historian Sylvia Schein "Arab chroniclers, like Moufazzal Ibn Abil Fazzail, an-Nuwairi and Makrizi, report that the Mongols raided the country as far as Jerusalem and Gaza." (Schein, "Gesta dei per Mongolos 1300", p.810)

In a 1301 letter, the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir accused Ghazan of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem, "the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca" ("In a letter dated 3 October 1301, Ghazan was accused by the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem 'the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca!". Schein, 1979, p. 810.):

""You should not have marched on a Muslim country with an army composed of a multitude of people from diverse religions; neither should you have let the Cross enter sacred territory; nor should you have violated the sanctity of the Temple of Jerusalem.""

- Letter from Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir to Ghazan, October 3rd, 1301. (Quoted in Luisetto, p.167)

The Arab historian Yahia Michaud, in the 2002 book Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI, describes that there were some firsthand accounts at the time of forays of the Mongols into Palestine, and quotes two major contemporary Muslim sources (Abu al-Fida and Ibn Taymiyyah) who state that Jerusalem was one of the cities that was invaded by the Mongols: (Michaud Yahia (Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies) (2002). Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI (in French). Chap. XI.)

""The Tatars then made a raid against Jerusalem and against the city of Khalil. They massacred the inhabitants of these two cities (...) it is impossible to describe the amount of atrocities, destructions, plundering they did, the number of prisonners, children and women, they took as slaves"."

- Abu al-Fida, Histoire.(Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI)

""The Mongols first marched against Syria in 699 (1299-1300)... In Jerusalem, in Jabal al-Salihiyya, in Naplouse, in Daraya and other places, they killed a number of people, and made a number a number of captives only known to God.""

- Ibn Taymiyyah, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI.(Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI)(Also quoted in "L'Orient au Temps des Croisades", p.125)

The 14th century Muslim historian Al-Mufaddal also mentions the massacres of the populations of Jerusalem and the nearby city of Hebron (30 km south of Jerusalem) by the Mongols during the 1299-1300 campaign,(Referenced in Luisetto, p.205) and even mentions, together with Al-Nuwayri, that a cross was raised on the top of the Mosque of Abraham in Hebron. (Luisetto, quoting Al-Mufaddal and Al-Nuwayri, p.206). All details in User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) (deleted - see alternative link), which have been suppressed in the "short version". Best regards PHG (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Source concerns
Once more, I direct PHG's attention to the section above Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Specific concerns. I'll just note that that was posted on 07:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC), and except for the removal of the Christianity among the Mongols, nothing I've listed has been addressed. I'm sorry, the painting issue has been addressed also. I'm afraid I can't agree with "original, highly documented" until I can actually find some of the documents. WP:CITE says "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used." Please address these issues, which I'll note are still present in the long version you're linking to above. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Roux, Jean-Paul, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol, Fayard, ISBN 2213031649
 * Foltz, Richard (2000). "Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century". New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-23338-8.
 * ... To be completed soon. Best regards PHG (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Setton, Kenneth M., History of the Crusades (Later Crusades, 1189 to 1311) Univ of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 0299048411
 * Morgan, David, The Mongols, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007, ISBN 1405135395
 * Demurger, Alain, Croisades et croisés au Moyen Âge, Champs Flammarion, Paris 2006, ISBN 9782080801371
 * Delcourt, Thierry, Les Croisades : La plus grande aventure du Moyen Âge, Nouveau Monde (20 septembre 2007) (Français), ISBN 2847362592
 * Reuven Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281, Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization, ISBN 0521522900
 * Sicker, Martin, The Islamic World in Ascendancy: From the Arab Conquests to the Siege of Vienna Praeger Publishers (2000) ISBN 0275968928
 * ...more coming soon. PHG (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New data
From :

p. 123, from the chapter "A Chronological Outline of the Crusades"

"1299 - The Mongol Il-Khan, Ghazan approaches Henry II of Cyprus (1285-1324) and the military orders to participate in his planned invasion of Syria. The western interests took no action. Dec: Mongols defeat the Mamelukes at Homs."

"1300 - Jan: Mongols occupy Damascus. Feb. Boniface VIII announces the first jubilee year in Rome. He uses the flock of visitors to promote a crusade and to captialise on the Mongol successes. Late: Mongols undertake a further campaign in Syria but fail to consolidate their conquests."

From :

"(page 9) Moreover, in the course of the 1250's the entire political situation in the Middle East was rendered more complicated, and possibly more hopeful for the Franks, by the arrival of Mongol armies. Hulegu, brother of Mongke Khan, took Baghdad in 1258 and Aleppo and Damascus in 1260. Since 1245, when Innocent IV had sent the Franciscan John of Piano del Carpine to the Great Khan's court to convert him to Christianity, some Christians had seen potential converts and allies in the Mongols. None the less, when Hulegu sent his general Kitbuqa southwards to attack Egypt the Franks decided to remain neutral, either because they feared Mongol suzerainty more than the threat of Mamluk conquest, or because they did not want to irritate the Mamluks by allying with Hulegu. Perhaps, too, they hoped that even without Franksih support, the Mongols would inflict enough losses on the Mamluks to make them less of a danger thereafter. It was a disastrous, but understandable miscalculation, for nobody could have foreseen the decisiveness of the Mamluk victory over Kitbuqa at Ain Jalut in September 1260, or the completeness with which Hulegu withdrew to Iran, leaving the Mamluks masters of Syria as well as Egypt."

"(page 21-22) As for the Mongols, events in 1299-1303 showed how serious a threat they could still present. In 1299 the greatest of the Ilkhans, Ghazan, who was hostile to the Mamluks despite his own conversion to ISlam, launched an invasion of Syria. He preceded it with a suggestion to King Henry II of Cryprus and the masters of the Military Orders that they should contribute troops, a move which led nowhere but confirmed the wisdom of Mamluk strategy in expelling the Franks fromt he mainland. In December 1299 the Mongol army crushed the Mamluks at Homs, and in January 1300 it occupied Damascus. For the Christians, the next few months were full of hope. Henry II and the Military Orders undertook small-scale military operations on the Syrian and Egyptian coasts, and in response to appeals from Ghazan, who declared himself willing to return the Holy Land to the Christians, Pope Boniface VIII encouraged preparations for a crusade. But Ghazan proved unable to consoloidate his successes of 1299. An invasion in the winter of 1300-1 achieved nothing, and in April 1303 the Mamluks defeated a Mongol army near Damascus. In 1304 Ghazan died, and after an abortive invasion in 1312-13 the Mongols never again presented a danger to Mamluk Syria. The only Christian gain from Ghazan's successes was Ruad, an island off the coast opposite Tortosa, which remained in the hands of the Templars until the Mamluks captured it in 1302. And although Oljeitu, Ghazan's successor, made several overtures to Philip the Fair, Edward I, and Pope Clement V in the new century's first decade, no alliance was forthcoming. Despite the urgings of the Mongols themselves and of their Armenian allies --for whom collaboration with the Ilkhans had long been a fact of life-- the overall lesson for the West of the extraordinary events of 1299-1303 was that regaining the Holy Land through military co-operation with the Mongols was not viable. That formidable task was the burden of western Christiandom alone, and in the forty years following the disasters of 1291 it was to invest much energy and substantial resources in attempts to fulfil it."

From :

(page 159-160) A real change in the Mongol attitude towards Europe did come about, but not until after 1260. Events around that time marked the break-up of Mongol unity, and the Ilkhans of Persia, faced with the hostility both of the Mamluk regime in Egypt and of their cousins of the Golden Horde, speedily dropped the old hauteur and began to see the Christian powers as potentially useful allies. The basic idea behind such projects for alliance was a combined operation against the Mamluks: a crusading force would be sent from Europe and its activities would be co-ordinated with an Ikhanid invasion of Syria. Should Syria be conquered by the allies, the Crusaders would again take possesion of Jerusalem; and there was always the tantilizing possibility that the Mongols would themselves become Christian converts. These negotiations, as we now know, were intitiated by Hulegu in 1262, when he sent his letter, recently discovered, to Louis IX. We cannot in fact be certain that Louis ever received the letter: Professor Richard's attempt to identify a Mongol embassy in Paris in 1262 with the delivery of the letter from Persia is interesting, but that particular embassy seems more likely to have been sent by Berke of the Golden Horde. But from 1263 until well into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance, and these appear to have been entered into in perfectly good faith by both sides.

(page 161) The conversion of the Ilkhans to ISalm had made no difference to their political enmity towards the Mamluks, and only the Mamluk-Ikhanid peace treaty of 1322 cause the Mongols of Persia to lose all interes in an alliance with the Christian powers. By this time the Christians had been deprived of their last foohold in Syria: Acre had fallen to the forces of the Mamluk sultan al-Ashraf Kalil in 1291. No really effective join action had ever been organised: in thirteenth-century conditions the problems of co0ordination appear to have been insuperable. The loss of Acre did not bring negotiations to an end. Indeed, at one point Europe was swept with rumours that the Mongols had actually taken Jerusalem from theMamluks and had returned it to Christian rule. Although this had not in fact happened, the stories did reflect the reality of Ghazan's remarkable successes in 1299-1300 when he drove the Mamluk forces completely out of Syria, on ly to withdraw again to Persia. That's some of what I've found just in the first few look throughs. I'll note that does not mention once any alliance (or even attempt) by the English with the Mongols. In 370 pages of text.Ealdgyth | Talk 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ealdgyth. Tyerman gives many details about the various events of the relations between the Franks and the Mongols in God's War: A New History of the Crusades (2006). He does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", although he specifies that in the end it led nowhere,("The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" p.816) and turned out to be a "false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom." (pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, with Louis IX's early attempts at capturing "the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories, and Edward's largely unsuccessful attempts. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another concern
In both versions, there is talk about a 1262 letter from Hulegu to Louis IX of France. In the longer version, this is even referenced to Jackson's book. However, I think it's important to note that on page 166 of The Mongols and the West, Jackson says that "It is unclear whether the letter, of which the only known manuscript has survived in Vienna, ever reached Paris." He then goes on to explain why it is unclear. However, both versions of the article imply strongly (the longer version even more so because it references Jackson's quoting from the letter later in the discussion (page 178 of Jackson)) that the letter arrived at Louis, without any discussion of the fact that it isn't clear if it did or not. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that this detail has long been mentionned in the Hulagu article: "It is unclear whether the letter ever reached Louis IX in Paris, as the only known manuscript survived in Vienna, Austria.(Jackson, p.166)" PHG (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me get this correct. This is the current long version statement:


 * Note that this is specifically referenced to Amitai-Preiss (who you refer to as Rueven-Amitai, but whatever) as saying "King Louis sent the embassy with the letter to Pope Urban IV. John the Hungarian transmitted to the Pope Hulagu's request for help..." and give page 95 of Mongols and Mamluks as the reference. However on page 95, the full text of this makes it clear that the author does not believe that Louis had anything to do with sending John the Hungarian to the Pope:


 * To say that this is a bit of a concern about using sources is an understatement. Amitai-Priess says something different in tone and content on that page, than what is being footnoted to him. The fact that the detail is in the Hulagu article is irrevelant. It is in the long version, and it appears to be incorrect. Perhaps you might rewrite the long version? Ealdgyth | Talk 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The current article gives Richard's view of the fact that Urban IV's bull Exultavit cor nostrum but Jackson on page 166 gives the view that in last 1264 Urban was still referring to the Mongols as an enemy along with the Mamluks, and dates the change to viewing the Mongols as possible allies to Clement IV in 1265-1268. This makes it not a given that Urban's pontificate was a turning point. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. I went ahead and rewrote the "Papal communications" section in my userspace:diff (new section)  Does that sound like it addresses concerns?  --Elonka 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks better to me. The fun of nuances, joys joys. History was much simpler back in the days of Washington chopping down the cherry tree and saying "I cannot tell a lie"....Ealdgyth | Talk 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so much a concern, but a tweaking prose comment. In the Papal overtures section, the first paragraph, the third sentence is awkward, and is sourced to Runciman. I think a better wording would be "These Turks allied with the Ayyubid Muslims in Egypt, and took Jerusalem from the Christians in 1244." My source for this would be Mayer, but I suspect that Tyerman or others would work as well. Mayer actually calls them mercenaries, in fact. The next sentence, I've lost track on the numbering of the Crusades, which Crusade was it that was called? Or did the call not lead to a crusade? The text leaves this hanging in the air. The next paragraph, I think the sentence "This initiated what was to be a regular pattern in Christian-Mongol communications" would actually work combined with the first sentence following the quotation in something like this... "This initiated what was to be a regular pattern in Christian-Mongol communications: first the Europeans asking for conversion and the Mongols asking for submission. The pattern repeated over and over during the coming decades." And when did Innocent send the mission with Ascelin? at the same time as the one with John? Or later? The structure is unclear. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wish, feel free to edit my subpage directly: User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. :) --Elonka 03:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a biggie. Figure might as well let others see what I'm proposing too. They may have better wording, and I'd rather not source the first bit to Mayer in the article. I'm still waiting on some of the books. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took another copyediting pass, and substantially reorganized the section. I incorporated some of your suggestions, and other parts I decided to go a different route, like moving the "pattern" language up to the top of the section in a "setup" sentence. Let me know what you think? :) --Elonka 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, time to be a pain again
I think it's time to sort out the references. Yeah, I hear the groans. Right now we've got most of the sources listed in the references section, but there are a few listed in the notes that aren't listed below. NOrmally, I'd just go ahead and list them below. The problem is that the short footnotes list "Jackson p. #" and if I put another article by Jackson below, it is going to become unclear which Jackson is referred to. I suggest we go with one of two systems for the short footnotes, either "Author, Title p. #" or "Author (date) p. #". I slightly prefer using the title, as that makes it easier to trace for the reader, but a lot of folks like the date version. Since I didn't write the article, I don't wanna go in and change anything without some sort of input from folks. So .. suggestions?Ealdgyth | Talk 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and since I at least have a translation of Richard's Crusades book, any objections if we source to the English language version? I am not going to suggest going through and removing any sources that aren't translated into English, but since there is a translation, I submit that it makes more sense to quote an English language source when possible. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I too would prefer sourcing things to the English-language books. It's been difficult to keep track of books (such as Jean Richard's) that are both in English and French, especially because the page numbers aren't in synch.--Elonka 18:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Last chance on input. If there are no complaints in a couple of hours, I'll go ahead and start straigtening out the references and use the "Author Title p. #" format for the short footnotes.Ealdgyth | Talk 03:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No objections here. Do what you think is best, it'll be great to have some more help on the article.  :) --Elonka 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed over. Just one question, which Nicolle is being referred to? I couldn't tell, so the ones I didn't know have "????" in the middle of the footnote.Ealdgyth | Talk 05:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your work on this! I'll go through and try to fill in any of the gaps. :) --Elonka 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All the Richard citations are changed to the English edition, except I think one that I left a hidden message about. And the more I read of Maalouf, the more I think we need to find other sources if possible for things sourced to it. It's not very well documented. It may be correct, but without some way of telling where things are coming from, it's not the best scholarly source.Ealdgyth | Talk 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Maalouf is not the best source, and I would be happy to see all references to Maalouf either removed or upgraded. --Elonka 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why? You added Maalouf as a source to an article that was promoted to a good article status and is linked from your userspace.. What changed your mind?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. :) The more I've read about the history, the more I've become aware of the deficiencies in Maalouf's book.  Don't get me wrong, Crusades Through Arab Eyes is a good general survey of the time-period, it's widely-available in general bookstores, and as such, was one of the books that I read when I was working on the Knights Templar article. Maalouf's writing definitely sparked my interest in other subjects, such as Shawar and Fustat.  There's definitely a lot of good information in Maalouf's book, and it is a valuable resource for getting an Arab perspective on things.  However, given a choice of citing Maalouf, or citing a definitive academic and peer-reviewed source, I would prefer a more academic source.  In cases where there aren't a lot of high quality academic sources, and we're talking about non-controversial information, I think Maalouf may be still be acceptable as a source.  But here on Franco-Mongol alliance where we are having disputes about which sources to use, I think that the best course is to stick with the highest-quality sources available, and I don't think Maalouf meets that standard. --Elonka 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Franceso Gabrieli's "Arab Historians of the Crusades" is much better than Maalouf, but it is out of print, apparently. How ridiculous is that? You can also find published translations of some Arab sources, although maybe not for this period...anyway, I also wanted to say that using the original language is usually preferrable, at least academically, but this is not academia so English is probably better. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, found a used copy of Gabrieli and it's on its way. Gotta love Amazon. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

More footnote stuff
I think the next big step would be to prune down the quotations in the footnotes. I understand that there are a few points where it's nice to have the quotation, but there are just way too many in the footnotes. They make editing tedious, and a lot of times they add little to the article. I figure to start pruning tomorrow unless someone raises big concerns. Since there is a bone of contention in the Armenian section, I'll leave those alone. Also any that are connected to the whole 'was there an alliance' debate. Probably won't be until tomorrow evening, I have exciting plans of hitting the local university again for more JSTOR work. Another fifty or sixty EHR articles need to be downloaded, whee! Ealdgyth | Talk 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm going to disagree on this one. It's my opinion that we really need most of the quotes, since we've got a pending arbitration case on "misrepresentation of sources." Since most of the sources are not online, the quotes are needed to help bring third-party reviewers up to speed. I understand what you're saying about how some of them are contentious and some aren't, but I'd rather that we just left all of them alone, until after the the disputes are settled. --Elonka 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will agree with Elonka on that. Quotations give a high level of guarantee that sources are being used and interpreted properly. I think it is much better and precise to work from quotes than an "Author, p.xxx" format, especially when the material is disputed. PHG (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is just as easy to quote out of context as it is to fabricate a citation outright, so quotation really does not solve the problem of misrepresentation of sources. Srnec (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, we've seen time and time again quotes being cherry-picked or redacted to say what the editor wants them to say. Point us at the reference and let us read it ourselves. Shell babelfish 10:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to the quotes clutter. It's fine two have one, maybe two quotes that are extremely relevant but not more. They should be there to clarify or back up an existing statement, not make one.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still in strong disagreement here. I use the "popups" tool when I'm reviewing a page, and I find it enormously convenient as I'm reading an article, to simply hover my mouse over a particular reference and see what it's referring to. And seeing something like "Luisetto, p. 38" is not helpful unless I actually have a copy of Luisetto's book in front of me.  I do own dozens of reference books, but I don't own all of them, and I have to make frequent trips to the library.  When sources are online, it's easy enough to look things up on the spot, but for offline hardcopy sources, this gets much more difficult.


 * Can we find a compromise here, where we leave the quotes in place while the article is in dispute (and during the ArbCom case)? I see the quotes sort of like the "scaffolding" around a building that helps during construction.  Once we've got the article stable, I'll be okay on removing some of the quotes, but for now I think it would greatly add to confusion to remove them. --Elonka 17:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have two concerns. Well, two and a style concern. One concern is identical to Srnec above. Just a sentence doesn't give the full context. It is entirely too easy to cherry-pick quotes. (As a side note, I find that Google-scholar almost encourages this but that's another rant). Another concern is the one I brought up about the ease of editing, and tied into that is the fact that it makes the footnotes hard to read for readers also. And the style issue is that while the older historians (E. A. Freeman and others of the late Victorian and turn of the century) often put extensive quotations (usually in the original language) in the footnotes, that style of historical writing has gone out of style in academia. It just looks OLD to me. I know that's because I approach this more from an academic standpoint, but I'm sure that it looks old to the readers too.
 * Perhaps we can compromise on splitting the quotations from the actual references? Make a footnote with the citation and an accompanying one for the quotation? At the very least can we standardize the placement of the citation, I prefer the end, not the front. But I would prefer they go. I see your point Elonka, but I honestly think that they aren't going to help that much with the Arb Com case, since the main concern is cherry picking, which one and two sentence quotations won't help much with.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A simple way to get rid of most of these problems is to use citation templates. Ever since I discovered them that's the only way I reference. is particulalry helpful for multiple citations to the same reference and greatly diminishes clutter.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am starting to wonder if we are talking about the same thing? To my knowledge, we already do use the "multi-citation" system.  As for splitting refs and quotations, that bewilders me, because the idea of doubling the quantity of citations seems totally bizarre.  Is it possible that when we say "quotations" that we're talking about different things?  When I'm saying "quotation" I mean a sentence or two from the actual (modern) historian.  But if we're talking primary source quotations, then I agree that those should be removed as they are not that helpful. --Elonka 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me number my concerns. 1)I would like to see citation templates used exclusively. Makes it clear and professional. 2)Multi-citations should be improved. It's annoying to see so many Runciman's for example. Why have a separate citation for each page. Why can't it be like pp. 452-457? 3)No primary quotes at all. Minimal usage of quotes from scholars if it's done neatly and formatted next to a citation template. The less quotes the better. Other articles which cover controversial topics often have a subpage for bibliographies with quotes or even a FAQ. It's just not going to be a good article with stuffed quotes be they in the body or footnotes.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just suggesting a compromise about allowing the quotations (if you're insistent) and divorcing them from the actual citations. I'd really rather not do that, but am also trying to find a compromise and think outside the box here... (grins). I agree with Eupator that some consolidation of close pages of references would be helpful in cutting down the clutter, but since I don't have a copy of Runciman, I can't do that. I'm also hesitant to do too much editing on the article while the arb com case is open. Not having taken part in one before, I'm not sure if wholesale revamping is a good idea on the "evidence". Ealdgyth | Talk 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, Eupator brings up a good point on the page # citations, so I'm willing to discuss some condensing there. I'm honestly not certain where the line should be drawn on best practices though?  I know that when I'm double-checking a reference, that it's helpful to have the exact page number.  I also know that it's not helpful if I see something like, "Runciman, pp. 300-350", because I don't want to have to read through 50 pages of text to track down one factoid. Where do we draw the cutoff though, between one page and fifty? --Elonka 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For me, I like to use it in chunks of three four pages. Sometimes more, if the source is a section that's five pages. I'd think ten would be the max. A good example from the current article would be footnotes 30 and 31. They could usefully be combined to be one that was pages 246-250. That's not too many pages to find it, but still consolidates some stuff. Same for footnotes 15 and 16, which could be pages 111-112. If no one objects, I can go through and do the ones I have books for. I'm hesitant to do ones I don't have the sources for, though. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good but neither of you commented on the use of citation templates. Yes it takes time to fill it up but you only do it once and in other instances just use the multi-ref tag to recall it. The end result is worth it.--  Ευπάτωρ   <font color=#974423>Talk!! 19:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want the full citation template with each footnote? Or do we want to stick with the current system where the full citation is in the References section, and the Notes section just has short Author Title Pages listings? Either way, I'll use the ref name tag so it can be recalled. I'm assuming that what you mean by the multi-ref tag is the tags, right? I slightly prefer using a short form footnote as it cuts down on the clutter in the article. But if consensus is that we put a full citation in the article every time a book is mentioned, I can do that too. As far as filling things in, I've cheated and made User:Ealdgyth/History References which I use to have the references I use often already filled in with the template so I can just copy paste. I'm lazy.Ealdgyth | Talk 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I normally use the citation template within footnotes because then the reader doesn't have to look for more info in a separate section. Yes regarding the multi-ref tag. If we're sticking to the existing system, I suggest that the refs that are not used as footnotes are moved to a separate section titled Further reading.--  Ευπάτωρ   <font color=#974423>Talk!! 19:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll wait and see what others suggest on the footnotes section. Consensus is good, or something like that. Besides, I don't want to change everything and then need to change it all back. Blech. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Clumping footnotes into groups of 3-4 pages sounds reasonable to me. I'd still like to keep the (in reference) quotes from secondary sources though, while the arbitration case is in-process. --Elonka 01:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to get started on that sort of gnomish behavior tomorrow sometime. I spent the weekend gathering articles from JSTOR, whee!Ealdgyth | Talk 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've done what I can for now. Didn't do Grousset at all. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the article is starting to look much tidier! I'll take a pass too and see what I can find for cleanup. :) --Elonka 22:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus poll
To help clarify opinions on the question of, "Is there consensus for condensing the article," could everyone please weigh in below? Specifically:

When page protection is lifted, should we continue with the condensed 73K version of the  Franco-Mongol alliance article as it exists now, or switch to the 193K version which is  currently  in PHG's userspace (deleted - see alternative link):?

Please provide one comment per editor, thanks:


 * Keep condensed version. It better reflects the consensus of talkpage discussions, is easier to read, uses better sources, and avoids a multitude of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE issues that are in the longer version. --Elonka 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Shorter version less primary source quotations, the source issues are addressed, and it doesn't bring my browser to its knees everytime I load the page. If PHG can come up with a short version before page protection is lifted here, I reserve the right to reconsider. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ealdgyth. I did write a shorter 140k version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franco-Mongol_alliance&oldid=184477134) which could have still be shortened further, with more detailed split-out content in the articles by dates, but the splits were deleted for "POV-fork", so we're back with just one article having to hold the 195k content. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain I don't like either. Elonka's version is problematic (disputed issues aside) because it's missing quite a lot of information contained in PHG's version. Both versions are poorly referenced in terms of formatting. Long quotes should be eliminated entirely. I can understand one, but so many? Each reference should be used as one note and multiple citations lettered automaticaly with a, b, c, d etc. Perhaps as we go along with the section by section editing PHG can tell us which parts he wants to re-add to the current section. I also recommend reducing the number of primary sources in inline citations and just moving them to the References section. I would like to see what PHG has to say before I change my vote. --  Ευπάτωρ   <font color=#974423>Talk!! 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Condensed/Short version As I said earlier, it is substantially shorter, well-sourced, and offers, I believe, a better balanced picture of a fairly complex historical situation. It eliminates the troubling over-reliance on primary sources and provides a good summary of modern academic consensus. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain, due to an off-wiki relationship with Kafka Liz, though my opinion is well-know and my interest in the Middle East during the 13th and 14th century well-attested. Aramgar (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain because I am sick of taking sides. I propose we delete everything and start from scratch. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A consensus poll does sound like a bit of an oxymoron. El_C 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep condensed version. We're all working on it anyways, it is less problematic than the longer version and is a considerably more sound starting point for further work. Shell babelfish 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: this article is just plain weird. PHG's original article from back in August was (relatively) tightly-written and looked good. It was structured and made sense. But it turns out it was poorly-supported by sources on several key points. This downside has only gotten worse in PHG's later versions, to the point where it cannot be accepted in articlespace for the sake of the reader, who already takes WP with a large grain of salt... and probably trusts an article with 200+ citations! But, I'm not sure if the current article is "about" much. Adam is onto something when he says "start from scratch", but who in hell would be willing to do that after 6 months of haggling? Maybe we can start creating subpages from scratch and use them as a basis for reforming this article. (And, frankly, that sounds much less daunting to individual editors, I think.) The section-by-section critique/review I suggested above and which seems to have been met with approval may still work, though PHG's behaviour in creating and continuing to edit the "full version" in his userspace is scary. Can I nominate a user subpage for deletion? Srnec (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reinstate the full 195k version, and split/condense from that. By the way, the wording of the question is misleading: the shift to Elonka's short version doesn't have a consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 4), which means per Wikipedia rules that the original full version (the one before Elonka tried to impose her "summary") is the default and should stay, and should be the basis to work from. The full version is simply much richer in content and much more documented and referenced (400 references). PHG (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The current article is the ~73 KB, so it seems perfectly accurate to say "continue with the condensed 73K version ... as it exists now". --  tariq abjotu  05:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To be exact (and fair), we should say "Switch back to the 193K version"... I added it in the poll question. PHG (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Although I see it has been removed. The wording of this poll is deceptive. The status quo is the long version. PHG (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

More comments
So Elonka doesn't scream (note I'm teasing Elonka here, she wouldn't really scream) that we've derailed the poll, a spot for more comments
 * Comment The more I dug today, the more I think a total start from scratch is not such a bad idea. I'm not quite ready to "not-vote" that way, but I can't say that the idea of an overarching article on a singular alliance is striking me as the right way to go. And certainly, some of the legacy prose is worrisome. (Not Elonka's fault, I figure she was trying to incorporate as much as possible from before to lessen feelings of having work destroyed and having to start from scratch). To be frank, this whole concept is starting to strike me as OR or a fringe theory. Yeah, I need to read more of what I've gotten in, but what I've read so far makes me think we're going to have to dig through every single sentence and source, and if we're doing that, wouldn't a fresh start be easier? I dont know, just some thoughts.Ealdgyth | Talk 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What of the idea of combining a secton-by-section approach with starting from scratch and building up sub-articles which can form the basis of revamped main article? Srnec (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know yet. I just have this niggling feeling at the back of my mind that something is just off with the whole thing. It's the feeling I get when I read say Holy Blood, Holy Grail or Gold of the Gods. (Yes, I read that tripe. I find it vastly amusing, I have two whole shelves of 'pseudo-history' to amuse myself with when I want that sort of thing). What I need to do is take both versions, sit down and read the citations and compare them to the actual works. But gah...Ealdgyth | Talk 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To me the first choice would be to start from the article with the most material (195k, 400 refs), but I would be quite OK to start from scratch as well, as there are now many editors involved and we could build up a good, neutral, content together. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a very good point Ealdgyth; something has been bothering me about the way even the condensed version is presented and your comment finally pointed it out to me -- its nothing more than a compaction of the original problems. I'll take the smaller pill, but my preference is to avoid the pill all together.  Perhaps a rewrite, while painful, is the best thing -- if we keep working on things we know to be flawed, can we really expect a flawless gem to emerge? Shell babelfish 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, there is plenty of documentation for the most ridiculous things. "There is nothing so absurd that one philosopher or other has not said it," says Descartes. Documentation, references, citations are not enough on their own. The quality of the sources is more important and that is what is being challenged about much of your work on this article. Furthermore, Wikipedia doesn't have rules per se, so you cannot claim a "default" status for anything. If the community does not revert Elonka or tell her to self-revert, then she is on strong ground. In fact, other editors have sided with her, though none seem bold enough to revert her version for yours. The accuracy issues lie primarily with that one. For now, PHG, you should work on finding unobjectionable content in the long version which has been removed from the short one but which may in fact be interesting or helpful and bring it up on the talk page here for discussion so that it can be added when the page is unprotected. But I stress unobjectionable. As is, though, this whole project may begin again from (near-)scratch if Adam, Ealdgyth, and I have our way. Srnec (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Srnec. The subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance, although arcane, has nothing to do with fringe. See about 30 authors who do consider the alliance as fact: User:PHG/Alliance. A huge amount of facts are known about this alliance, but I suspect that European historians are generally more prone to see it as an effective alliance, probably because of their better access to Old French, Muslim, Latin and Armenian sources. Just an impression. PHG (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I switched the poll wording back to the original. I know it may not sound like a big deal, but trust me, switching poll wording midstream is A Really Bad Idea.  I'd rather just run a clean poll, get everyone's opinions for a few days, and then we can see where we're at and judge how best to proceed. --Elonka 07:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, your wording of the question is misleading. "Switch back" at least does give an accurate picture of the events. You make it sound like your "summary" version has always been in place, which is misrepresentation, since you tried to impose it in place of the full 195k article since January 20th without an actual consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 4). Please reconsider: you are distorting the poll with deceptive wording. Regards. PHG (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, give us some credit for reading ability, please. I think everyone has a good idea of what's going on. This isn't a political election where folks don't know what's going on, so let's not fuss. Ealdgyth | Talk 13:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk about a fair poll... the comments of these two editors were deleted by Shell before closing:

PHG (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Matt57: "This removal of refrenced material is simply wrong and should be reverted. PHG has worked hard to put this all together." (before being intimidated into leaving this page...)
 * User:Justin: "Once we have it back to it's original form, I think everyone involved here needs to stop editing the article. Talk pages are here to form a consensus... A lack of consensus = status quo"
 * That's because you added those comments, not those users. There is no case in which those will be counted.  Its also sad that you are again canvassing in an attempt to sway things your way. Shell babelfish 11:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell, you are deleting proper statements made by proper Wikipedia users. I am just mentionning them, because they took a clear stance regarding this issue. Since you wish to disregard their opinion, I am asking them to confirm or infirm what they have written. PHG (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can and often does change. Comments that editors made before this entire page of discussion may not be relevant to current discussion.  There is absolutely no precedent for adding other editors prior comments to a straw poll -- it is just a tool used to gauge current consensus and encourage further discussion -- it is not a vote.  We're not disregarding anyone who's contributed to the discussion, whereas you have tried to change the polls wording, been incredibly incivil to Elonka and brought up old comments only from people who sided with your viewpoint.  Frankly PHG, we're all getting rather tired of the antics. Shell babelfish 12:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a consensus??
So, 4 users have said they prefered to go with Elonka's short version, 3 users have abstained, 1 user (me) has said we should reinstate the long version, and 2 users (Mat57 and Justin) had already said before this poll that we should keep the long version. So that's what, under 50% of voters specifically agreeing to Elonka's version? How is this supposed to be a consensus in favour of installing Elonka's short 75k version? If anything, I believe this is a lack of consensus, which means that the status quo full article (195k, 400 references) should be reinstated as the basis for editing. Guys, please just respect the rules. PHG (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not vote counting, ever. You have everyone but yourself agreeing that the long version is flawed, and some even going to the point that the shorter version is flawed because of this.  It is likely that many areas of the article will be completely rewritten to divest them of the problems that are being discussed.  Absolutely none of the discussion above, save your own, suggested that going back to the longer, more incorrect version was preferable.  There is no rule that says you get to have your way on an article if everyone else doesn't side directly against you -- in fact, we have a rule that says exactly the opposite; please review WP:OWN.  You might also find Tendentious editing and Disruptive editing enlightening. Shell babelfish 12:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus decision-making is notoriously difficult; especially when there is no unanimous agreement. The Consensus decision-making gives a lot of background that may help determining where to go next. (A warning against using the U-X levels tough-Wiki debates tend to have few participants, so adopting U-3 when 4 people engage, would mean that a single editor would achieve consensus even if all others disagree; I would use at least 75% majority as the absolute lower level for any minor consensus- so U-3 requires at least 12 people engaged). Arnoutf (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, Shell is correct that PHG added the two comments. If this is not so, please put the diffs where the editors themselves added it here. I'm protecting the article again. Next time I'll block whomever reverts an agreed upon version. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: this article in "short" form is 75K, about 100-110k is max length for wiki for a quality article and people start complaining about size at 90k or less. Making it almost 200k is WAY beyond the size where it needs split apart solely for size reasons. I suggest you all work out a way to have this other info put into subarticles and keep the size of this one reasonable. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that the majority of the information contained in the long version is horribly intermingled with original research and statements which mangle the sources original intent. The original text is so flawed, that we've even touched on the fact that the condensed version, which was based off the full, suffers because of it and may need to be completely rewritten.  A lot of the improper text weeded out of the larger version has already been copied to multiple articles and many POV forks created to support novel theories; its already been a nightmare to clean up.  Please, please don't suggest to PHG that he do so a second time.  The rest of us would like to get the article (and related articles) right first and then move information if we end up with a long article again. Shell babelfish 02:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page history clearly shows those two editors never edited it for the poll. Arbcom just accepted the case, so I'm unprotecting. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be delighted to split the article into more manageable parts. The best thing in my opinion would be to split it by periods, corresponding to the regnal dates of the Mongol rulers. When I acted boldly and splitted the article, I was accused of POV-fork. When I reinstated the original content, I was accused (wrongly) of created 50k of new content. And now that the original article is back to 200k, it is said that it is too large to be manageable and accused (wrongly) of original research. The solution is not to avoid the sources and avoid the issues by deleting 300 references and 120k of properly sourced content: it is indeed to split things and work from that. The original article should be reinstated and then condensed and split. Anything else destruction of proper, sourced, data. What a shame that many of the users on this page should be so partisan and so aggressive. PHG (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your data is not properly sourced, that is probably the biggest concern with the article, the source of the whole argument so far. No matter how often you repeat "properly sourced" in one paragraph, it is not going to magically become true. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it is Adam. Everything is referenced from properly published material. Please be specific of you wish to make such accusations. PHG (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Kitty Kelley is published. Dan Brown too. And properly. Publication means little on its own. Your sources have been disputed and your use of them (your "interpretation") as well. I don't think you've addressed these concerns adequately. Srnec (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Srnec, could you kindly point to specific sources you would have issues with? PHG (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked PHG 31 hours. See his talk page. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Rlevse. You claim there is a "consensus" for the short 70k version, but since when is a 4 "yes"/ 3 "either"/ 1 "no" a consensus, especially when several users had already said that they preferred to start working from the original version? I don't think it stands as a consensus by any Wikipedia standard. In the absence of a clear consensus, the right thing is to work from the status quo article (=the 195k version).
 * You say that "you more than double the size to almost 200k in one edit": of course, this is the size of the original article! What we should do is start from the status quo article. I don't think that's a reason to block anybody. PHG (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, since when is 4 "yes"/ 3 "either"/ 1 "no" a consensus to delete 195k of content and 300 academic references? As far as I know, this is an obvious flouting of Wikipedia rules. Without a clear consensus, the status quo should be reinstated to the full version: Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) (deleted - see alternative link). Repeated reverts to a shorter version, repeated blocks of the original contributor (myself), or constant and multiple bullying, are not going to change the fact that this is made in defiance of Wikipedia editing rules. PHG (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And again being the pain
PHG, would you care to address my concerns from Feb. 1 above under the Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance thread?Ealdgyth | Talk 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the insufficient refs you listed are not mine (I think there are quite a bunch by Elonka). I'll see what I can do though. PHG (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's the point about Amitai-Priess, third indention under "Another concern". And the insufficient refs are taken from the long version, but they are archived. There were two lists of sources that needed full information, one from the long version, one from the short version.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hum... please note that my original text was "King Louis transmitted the letter to Pope Urban IV, who answered by asking for Hulagu's conversion to Christianity.", and this was referenced to the Encyclopedia Iranica article (not Amitai-Priess) as late as January 14th:. As I edited the article I probably mistakenly removed the reference to the Encyclopedia Iranica article for this comment. I think there were also some discussions at that time (by you?) that references to an Encyclopedia were not so desirable. I will reinstate the Encyclopedia Iranica reference. Regards. PHG (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Content deletion, lack of consensus and editorial stuckness
So, it seems that nothing new has happened on this page or the the main article for a week now? Have Elonka's supporters got tired of attacking me, or somewhat realized that the original content may not have been so bad after all? Or got stuck and discouraged with all the personal attacks? I maintain that Elonka's deletion of 120k of content and 300 academic references is an atrocious procedure, and is not even supported by a real consensus (3 supporters/3 neutral/ 1 against). Content should be discussed, and balanced by alternative sources if necessary, not just deleted outright after 6 months of hard work. This is the only way of properly handling things in the spirit of Wikipedia. I also have a big issue with people just deleting proper published sources just because they don't match their storyline or pre-conceptions. According to NPOV, all significant views should be mentionned, and this is non-negotiable. Nobody should delete proper secondary sources because of their own interpretations, or their wish to privilege only one point of view. This is a strong disservice to Wikipedia and goes against Wikipedia editing rules. It seems that some users such as Elonka are only interested in personal attacks, and spend a huge amount of time trying to gain whatever online and offline support. This is quite a shame, quite a waste of time and energy. I believe all users involved should stop personal attacks, focus on what published sources actually say, and just work at arranging the information in a NPOV way. No need for constant personal attacks, hopefully this is not what we are here for: Make content, not war! I am personnally very busy in real life right now, and will not be available on a daily basis anytime soon, but I strongly recommend that we return to proper editorial procedures, and work with, not against the content that has been painstakingly developed over 6 months: Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) (deleted - see alternative link), going our way with appropriate rewriting/ split/ condense or even expansion when needed. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, things have been done. I straightened footnotes and consolidated, some other work has been done. However, it was Valentine's day here this week, so I was busy with that, and frankly, RL issues also (we just bought 5 acres of land and will start building a house shortly). I certainly don't feel like things are stalled, not sure about others. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG, we have all tried to work with you on this topic. Your assertion that everyone who offers criticism is personally attacking you is unwarranted.  Consensus regarding the shorter version has been established; the fact that editors other than yourself and Elonka now feel free to work on the article is testament to that.
 * On a side note, may I ask what the Dalai Lama has to do with this discussion? I am unaware of his involvement with either the Franks or the Mongols. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's untrue, you haven't "tried to work with me" on this topic. You only followed Elonka's personal vendetta in deleting a 190k article developed over 6 months, and sticked to her partisan 70k version with much less informational value. "Working together" would mean starting from the material already in place, and edit/ split/ condenses as necessary. This is also the way things are supposed to be done on Wikipedia. To me the Dalai Lama is a symbol of goodwill and generosity, something I have seen totally lacking on this page. PHG (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I said "we have all tried to work with you," by which statement I mean myself, Aramgar, Elonka, Ealdgyth, Srnec, Adam Bishop, Eupator, and Shell Kinney - a long list of editors who have expressed concern over your methodology and behaviour. I personally have read both versions and read substantial portions of the sourced cited in each, and find that Elonka's shorter version provides a much clearer and more accurate view of the acadmic writings on this subject.  You come across as completely unwilling to listen to or work with any of the other editors here (not just myself, and not just Elonka), and unable to accept any changes to what you seem to view as your own article. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More info for Ealdgyth :)
I have a little more than two hours ahead of me, so here is an update to Ealdgyth's looooong list of requests: This undocumented reference was from Elonka. I suppose she refered to: The Crusades: Islam and Christianity in the Struggle for World Supremacy (Paperback) by Geoffrey Hindley, Carroll & Graf (May 26, 2004)ISBN 0786713445 This is one of my books (already mentionned in the reference list): Foltz, Richard (2000). "Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century". New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-23338-8. This is Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1993, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521390385 "The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization", John M.Hobson, Cambridge University Press (July 5, 2004) ISBN 0521547245 One of Elonka's undocumented references. Apparently: History in Dispute: The Crusades, 1095-1291, History in Dispute: The Crusades, 1095-1291 Author(s): Showalter, Dennis E.; Abate, Mark T.; Allison, Robert J.; Frankel, Benjamin, Publisher: Gale / Cengage Learning, ISBN 1558624546 Already detailed in the reference list: Hazard, Harry W. (editor) (1975). Volume III: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Kenneth M. Setton, general editor, A History of the Crusades, The University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-299-06670-3. One of Elonka's undocumented references (I think): probably David Morgan "The Mongols", Wiley-Blackwell; 2 edition (May 18, 2007) ISBN 1405135395 One of Elonka's undocumented references. I have no idea what this is, and couldn't find a reference on Google. One of Elonka's references: Adam Knobler (Fall 1996). "Pseudo-Conversions and Patchwork Pedigrees: The Christianization of Muslim Princes and the Diplomacy of Holy War". 'Journal of World History' 7 (2): 181-197. This is a conference: David Wilkinson, Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, Studying the History of Intercivilizational Dialogues, Presented to the United Nations University, International Conference on the Dialogue of Civilizations, Tokyo and Kyoto, 31 July--3 August 2001. Link One of Elonka's undocumented references. I don't know exactly what this is. Right, I will have to sort that out when I'm back home. It is "Gousset" (with one "t"). Right, I will have to sort that out when I'm back home. Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281 (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization) by Reuven Amitai-Preiss, Cambridge University Press (February 24, 1995) ISBN 0521462266 The Islamic World in Ascendancy: From the Arab Conquests to the Siege of Vienna, by Martin Sicker, Praeger Publishers (June 30, 2000), ISBN 0275968928 One of my books: Histoire de l'Empire mongol (Paperback) by Jean-Paul Roux, Fayard (October 6, 1993), ISBN 2213031649 This article: One of my books: : Les Croisades Thierry Delcourt, Editor: Nouveau Monde, 2007,  ISBN 9782847362596 One of my books: Alain Demurger, Croisades et croisés au Moyen Âge, Champs Flammarion, Paris 2006, ISBN 9782080801371 Le livre des merveilles du monde. Marco Polo, by Marie-Thérèse Gousset, Bibliothèque de l'Image (29 août 2002), Langue : Français, ISBN 2914661509 Grands documents de l'histoire de france, by Pierre Vallaud, Reunion des Musees Nationaux (5 octobre 2007), Langue : Français, ISBN 271185325X Boyle, in Camb. Hist. Iran V, pp. 370-71, quoted in Encyclopedia Iranica article: An undocumented reference by Elonka. Probably Andrew Jotischky The Crusaders and the Crusader States Publisher: Longman (November 20, 2004) Language: English ISBN 0582418518 Answered above: One of Elonka's undocumented references (I think): probably David Morgan "The Mongols", Wiley-Blackwell; 2 edition (May 18, 2007) ISBN 1405135395 An undocumented reference by Elonka. Probably Amitai, Reuven (1987). "Mongol Raids into Palestine (AD 1260 and 1300)". JRAS: 236-255. An undocumented referenced by Elonka. This would be Recueil des Historiens des Croisades An undocumented referenced by Elonka. I don't know what it is and can't find it on Google. This is François Raynouard (1805), who wrote Précis sur les Templiers (1805). An undocumented referenced by Elonka. The New Knighthood : A History of the Order of the Temple (Paperback) by Malcolm Barber, Publisher: Cambridge University Press (September 29, 1995) Language: English ISBN 0521558727 I am not sure what you mean here. Could you explain your question? As far as I know, this quote is by Elonka. This reference was brought it from another Wikipedia article on Bizantium. The full reference would be: Byzantine Armies AD 1118-1461 (Men-at-Arms) Ian Heath, Publisher: Osprey Publishing (November 13, 1995) Language: English ISBN 1855323478 I don't know where that formatting comes from (possibly from the article on gunpowder). We might as well get rid of these two references for the time being. One of my books: The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation (Paperback)by John M. Hobson, Publisher: Cambridge University Press (July 5, 2004) Language: English ISBN 0521547245
 * Hindley:
 * Foltz:
 * Pringle:
 * Hobson:
 * History In Dispute:
 * Setton's Crusades:
 * Morgan, David. "The Mongols and the Eastern Mediterranean":
 * Glenn A Lytell Chronicle:
 * Knobler (which is given a full citation in a footnote, true, but it should be in the references also):
 * David Wilkinson, Studying the History of Intercivilizational Dialogues (which has a link):
 * Stewart, "Logic of Conquest", there is a Stewart listed below, but this is not the title:
 * You refer to Grousett a number of times, but do not say WHICH of the two Grousett works are being referenced.
 * Same for Maalouf
 * De Reuven Amitai-Preiss Mongols and Mamluks, :
 * The Islamic World in Ascendency: From the Arab conquest to the Siege of Vienna by Dr. Martin Sicker:
 * Jean-Paul Roux, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol:
 * Encyclopedia Iranica article (which ONE?)
 * Les Croisades Thierry Delcourt:
 * Demurger, “Croisades et Croises”:
 * "Le Livre des Merveilles":
 * Grands Documents de l'Histoire de France Archives Nationales de France:
 * Boyle in Camb. Hist. Iran V:
 * Jotischky The Crusaders and the Crusader States:
 * The Mongols by David Morgan:
 * Mongol Raids - note this may be Reuven Amitai "Mongol Raids into Palestine" in JRAS, but as its in italics like a book, and the Amitai is a journal article, I can not be sure of this.
 * Receuil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Armeniens I....
 * Libro d'Ottramare 1346-135:
 * Rancois Raynourd (1805) to a link
 * Malcom Barber The New Knighthood:
 * footnote 356 .. is that quoting Ghazan's letter direct? It appears so, although the formatting on the footnote isn't clear
 * A. Mostaert and F. W. Cleaves "Trois documents mongols des Archives secretes vaticanes'' H. J. A. J. xv 419-506 and a link to Journal of Semetic Studies.
 * I. Heath Byzantine Armies AD1118-1461 (Is this an Osprey Book?)
 * Footnotes 388 and 389 are wikilinked back to the Franco-Mongol alliance article:
 * "the Eastern Origins of Western Civiliation'' John M. Hobson:

This is "Istanbul", by Dominique Brotot, Publisher: Hachette 2006 Langue : Français ISBN 2012403786
 * "Istanbul" p. 16.:

You're right, we could get rid of that. You're right, we could get rid of that.
 * Some of the sources used are not scholarly at all. These include:
 * Online Reference Book for Medieval Studies (footnote 82 in the long version) It is not a referenced work.
 * Saudi Aramco World website for the Battle of Ain Jalut (footnote 95 in the long version.) This one can be cut, as it is only referenced to an sentence that has another citation (96)

I think this reference was by Elonka, but it is not in the article anymore afaik. I don't know, but as far as I know his ""The Monks of Kublai Khan Emperor of China" is quite authoritative and gives the standard translation for the travels of Rabban Bar Sauma.
 * Citing the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, while not exactly wrong, gives the impression that you are reaching for something to cover the citation. And as the fact being sourced to the Catholic Encyclopedia is the accession date of a Mongol Khan, it looks decidely dodgy that a more modern history of the Mongols isn't being used.
 * Didn't Budge die in 1934? Surely there is something more recent than his 1928 work.

Ahhhhh.... glad I got to the end of it. You will notice that the majority of undocumented references were actually put in by Elonka. It's OK though, we'll just fill them into the article. It would nice though if she could double-check that they are correct. Good night to all. PHG (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now you should probably make sure that all these get changed in your version... remember work is good for you! Ealdgyth | Talk 16:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, ok, just give me a few more days until I can find the time to include all this in the article. PHG (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge all of the above issues are addressed in the current live version of the article. I think it would be a waste of effort to implement them in the version in PHG's userspace, which is probably going to be deleted anyway, if not voluntarily, then by WP:MFD. --Elonka 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward
Towards getting this article to FA status (and resolving this longrunning dispute), here are the steps that I recommend. Some of these would need to be handled in order, and others could be done in parallel:
 * Determine if the "Disputed" tag can be removed from this article, or identify exactly what needs to be done so that that can be accomplished
 * Cleanup related articles, to ensure that they do not contain disputed information
 * Ensure that any other unneeded POV forks are deleted, and/or submitted for WP:MFD
 * Determine what the consensus is, on the proper title for this article (see below section)
 * Submit the article for Peer review (especially at the Military History WikiProject)
 * Submit this article for Good article status
 * Submit this article for Featured status

Thoughts? -Elonka 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, you replaced the original article abusively with your 70k version. We should simply return to fair editorial practices and improve the article from its January ORIGINAL 190k VERSION before you forced your short version in. Nothing good can come out of a twisted procedure. PHG (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag
Since things seem calmer here (minus one editor's concerns), it seems to me that the article is pretty close to a consensus version. As such, can we discuss the removal of the "Disputed" tag? Or, which things in particular do we feel that we need to address, before that can be done? --Elonka 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that, if everyone else is. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I still have concerns about the actual scope and concept of the article, but that's not a big one. I still feel the article title gives the wrong impression that ONE alliance existed, which my reading of the sources doesn't support. But it's not a big enough deal to leave the disputed tag on.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting 300 references and 120k of referenced material is a total shame. Also, erasing the views of numerous historians on the Franco-Mongol alliance (User:PHG/Alliance) is akin to book-burning and goes against NPOV which states that all significant views should be presented. Ladies, it is obvious that you enjoy banding together and force your own version of things, but this is highly disputable and I think deserves a "disputed" tag. PHG (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note, I find the linkage of book burning with editing a wikipedia article slightly offensive. I also dislike the implication that everyone who doesn't agree with you is part of some cabal or something that is out to force issues. And I really don't enjoy conflict at all, thank you very much. I did not "band together" with anyone, and would prefer it if is you did not lump everyone together. If you read my note above, you'll see that I disagree with others about some things. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, based on the above comments, there don't seem to be any specific reasons that the article should be kept in a "disputed tag" state, except possibly for the article title. PHG, disagreeing about the length of the article is not enough to tag it as disputed -- do you have any specific "points of fact" in the current version that you think are actively wrong?  If so, please bring them up.
 * Anyway, I've started a new thread on title below:, and unless anyone else has specific things they'd like to bring up, I think we should go ahead and remove the tag. We can still definitely continue work on the article though, towards getting it into a "peer reviewable" state.  :) --Elonka 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that PHG has re-added the disputed tag. However, he has not given any specific rationale as to which facts are disputed. Therefore, I am going to remove the tag. Does anyone else have an opinion on whether or not the tag is appropriate? --Elonka 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I will hereby reinstate the "Disputed" tag, because, as a matter of fact, this article is disputed. PHG (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * RATIONALE FOR "DISPUTED TAG:
 * Elonka's version is actually highly POV in that it dismisses any notion that the Franks or the Armenians could have been allies (instead treating them as "vassals" or "submitted to") the Mongols, inspite of the numerous historical sources that say they were indeed allies.
 * It is also highly POV in that it stresses that there were only "attempts at an alliance", although a quantity of highly reputable editors consider the alliance as fact (User:PHG/Alliance)
 * It also fails to represent factually the details of the alliance, in favour of a generally dismissive narration. This subject deserves actually mentionning the various embassies, epistolary exchanges, and military collaborations FULL VERSION)
 * Generally, her version is an unprecise narration that favours a single very biased POV that there were no allies and no alliance worth mentionning, inspite of numerous academic sources to the contrary. It obviously contrevenes to NPOV which states that all significant views should be mentionned.
 * The introduction sentence is highly representative of this bias, only mentionning "attempts at an alliance", whereas the obvious NPOV choice would be "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance" (as agreed to by Elonka on November 14th, but later disowned by her).
 * Only factual precision can make a good encyclopedia article, and deleting 120k of referenced content and 300 references as she did is certainly not the right direction to go. If the article is too long, we'll just split the material, but ending up with un-precise summaries is certainly not the solution.
 * PHG, I believe that we have already discussed all of those and achieved consensus. Do you have anything new?  Or, aside from the fact that you disagree with the talkpage consensus, is there anything that you feel has not yet been properly discussed? --Elonka 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything new here. The fact that PHG still disagrees with the conclusions reached doesn't warrant tagging the article. Shell babelfish 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka. First of all, just two users have supported your request to remove the tag, and you call this a "consensus"? I am afraid your understanding of consensus is beyond anything we have ever seen on Wikipedia. Second, I have never heard of a consensus (let alone a false one) being necessary to have a dispute tag in. Usually, if someone disagrees with the content of an article, he has the right to put a "Dispute" tag in. Third, I certainly do not think that my rationale for dispute has been addressed, let alone resolved. PHG (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Article title
There seems to still be disagreement on what the exact title of this article should be. Various suggestions in the archives have been:


 * Franco-Mongol alliance (current title)
 * Franco-Mongol relations
 * Franco-Mongol diplomacy
 * Franco-Mongol diplomatic relations
 * Crusader-Mongol relations
 * Crusader-Mongol diplomacy
 * Mongol-Catholic relations during the Crusading period
 * Mongols and the West
 * Mongols and Western Europe
 * Mongol relations with Europe
 * Crusader states and the Mongols
 * Ilkhanate diplomatic relations with Europe
 * Ilkhanate-Crusader relations (or variations)

Are there any other suggestions? Or if not, could everyone please list what their 1 or 2 or 3 favorites are, and we can try to winnow things down a bit to determine the proper consensus title? Thanks, --Elonka 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Franco-Mongol diplomacy, 2. Franco-Mongol relations   Aramgar (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Ilkhanate diplomatic relations with Europe 2. Ilkhanate-Crusader relations 3. Franco-Mongol relations Although I'm not going to scream if it waits until the end of the month (leaving tomorrow on a trip) (or for that matter waits a good long time. It's not a priority of mine, in other words) Ealdgyth | Talk 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am afraid this is typical of Elonka, coming back again and again and again even if the question has already been resolved several times:
 * Major "KEEP" for "Franco-Mongol alliance" in September 2007
 * No consensus again changing article name in January 2008
 * And now again challenging the name in February 2008.


 * Is this a normal Elonka tactic to keep agressing "oponents" as she tries to push her opinion, systematically disregarding previous poll results again and again? Should I myself challenge every month again and again the introduction sentence and ask for new polls, even though she broke her mediation promise about it? This is a complete waste of time, and a complete lack of recognition of previous opinions, personal agreements, and polls. I think this is again a huge behavioural issue by this user: she makes editing a constant battlefield of attacks and disputes, systematically disregarding previous resolutions until most editors get tired or disgusted or simply have moved to something else, and she forces her point of view to get through with just a few remaining votes claiming "consensus". PHG (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with PHG here, why are we doing this again? Whether or not there was literally an alliance, this term has been used by academic literature. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Mongol relations with Europe 2. Franco-Mongol relations 3. Crusader-Mongol relations. As for why we're discussing this again, it's been six months since the last RM, so it's worth discussing again, as Consensus can change. We tried to bring it up in January but got sidetracked, and the thread disappeared because the page was scrolling so fast.  So, let's just ensure we take a good look at the title and check consensus.   If consensus is to keep the current title, then we can keep it.  If not, then we keep talking.  --Elonka 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So should I also constantly challenge every single agreement on this article every month or so, saying that "consensus changes". I am afraid this is a highly disruptive approach. Since "consensus changes", shall I again constantly challenge the introduction sentence with polls, especially since you broke your Mediation agreement regarding it? Let me remind that "Franco-Mongol alliance" is an expression used widely in academic literature (User:PHG/Alliance), and as such deserves its own article. The article is intended to cover just that: dipomatic relations and actual instances of strategic and tactical alliance on the field. "Mongol relations with Europe" would have to cover all the contacts in Eastern Europe as well (including the Mongol invasion of Europe), which would make the article huge and unmanageable, and altogether focused on a different subject. "Crusader-Mongol relations"/ "Franco-Mongol relations" would have to cover other subjects, such as the very important trade relations, cultural exchanges etc...: "Franco-Mongol alliance" would be a sub-article of that. PHG (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The current title is fine. There is simply nothing wrong with having an article about an entity whose actual existence is disputed. See photon for a more obvious example. And as PHG and Adam say, the term has scholarly currency. That's more than can be said for any of the other suggestions. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence here. I think Adam Bishop and Srnec have good points here, yet I have a difficult time endorsing a title that reflects a fiction non-event (to borrow a phrase from Sylvia Schein (regarding the capture of Jerusalem, lest anyone be unclear)). Nevertheless, I suppose that my first choice would be (1) retain the current title (for which I have a certain affection at this point), and second (2) Franco-Mongol relations.  The others just seem a bit awkward to my ear. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as Srnec said, there are lots of titles like that. Photon, Bigfoot, droit de seigneur, Donation of Constantine... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. I do agree that the actual nature of the Franco-Mongol alliance is disputed, particularly its extent (it can be qualified variously, as "limited", "an ultimate failure" etc...), and sometimes even its existence. But generally qualifying it as a "fiction" is probably an exageration: the fact is that Mongol and European rulers did exchange letters and agreed to collaboration in writing (although often vaguely, but sometimes very concretely as when Abaqa sent an army under Samagar in a written agreement to help Edward I), itself a sufficient condition for the definition of an "alliance", and there were even multiple occurences of strategic and tactical collaboration on the field as a consequence of these agreements over a period of 50 years. These occurences (agreements and collaboration on the field) constitute facts rather than fiction and I think that's why they are qualified as actual "alliance", "collaboration", "entente", "rapprochement" by a vast number of historians (User:PHG/Alliance). Regards. PHG (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(wrapup) It appears that though we are not unanimous, the consensus is to keep the article title as "Franco-Mongol alliance". I am fine on this, unless/until we have other differing opinions come into the mix. Note that this does not mean that we are agreeing that there was an alliance, but the concept of an alliance, in that there were attempts to form one, seems well-known enough that it's worth its own article to discuss the diplomatic contacts involved. Everyone else okay on declaring consensus on this, and moving on? --Elonka 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just say there is no consensus at all for your request to change the title Elonka. And no, I don't think you should again ask for a vote everytime "other differing opinions come into the mix", as you've been doing. And, no, these were not only attempts Elonka, not only attempts :). As always, you are only pushing your point of view, leaving aside numerous historians who describe the actual occurence of the Franco-Mongol alliance (see User:PHG/Alliance). PHG (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Franks
The unqualified and unclarified use of the words "Franco" and "Franks" in the intro suggests that the whole article will be written from the Muslim point of view. Europeans collectively simply don't refer to themselves as Franks, and they never did. The use of the term "Frank" for crusader by Muslims was simply a result of ignorance of the structure of Western Europe. An English crusader was no more a "Frank" than he was a Japanese. It is very remiss that the introduction to the article does not even acknowledge that it is using terminology that will be unfamiliar to the majority of English-speakers (a tiny group of academics are irrelevant, as they are not the audience for a wikipedia article - if you want them as your audience, get a paper published in one of their journals, not here). It simply assumes that its use of the term Frank is straightforward and non-controversial, which is both biased and sloppy. After such an unencyclopedic beginning, I have no confidence that the rest of the article is even worth looking at. Samdom (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose by "tiny group of academics" you mean crusade scholars, but the term "Frank" is pretty straightforward and non-controversial. Even the crusader states in Byzantine territory are called "Frankish". I don't understand why this must be ignored. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I altered the intro, providing links and clarity, because I could understand if it was a little opaque to the uninitiated. That said, there is nothing controversial or sloppy about calling European Crusaders "Franks". That's the terminology. It was used by Muslims, Greeks and, yes, "Franks": the Catalan Company in Greece called itself a company of "Franks" in "Romania". Srnec (talk)

Revisiting
Since PHG has been banished from this and other articles, should we now start to discuss what needs to be done to salvage these articles? john k (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He can still participate at talk, but yes, by all means, bring up anything you want towards damage control. I see that Kafka Liz has been working through the templates and userpages, tagging for deletion as necessary. For my own part, I'm trying to work through the list at :, if anyone wants to help with that. Especially anything tagged as an "active dispute", it would be helpful if folks could weigh in to ensure we have a solid consensus for whatever needs to be done. --Elonka 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of most instances of Franco-Mongol collaboration
Although this article is supposed to be about the Franco-Mongol alliance, most instances of Franco-Mongol collaborations have simply been strongly minimized or even erased. I believe that at the very least these examples of collaboration on the field should be given the credit they deserve:

<large chucks of text copied from POV fork redacted, to review see here>

These are but a few examples of the major cases of cooperation between the Franks and the Mongols. These have been essentially eliminated from this article, although they are central to the subject matter. These should be reinstated in the main article, if it is supposed to have any encyclopedic value at all regarding the Franco-Mongol alliance. Full text available at User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) (deleted - see alternative link). PHG (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

''For PHG's original post, see here. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed PHG's post because it included huge chunks of his preferred version of the article, currently hosted in his userspace. Spamming the talk page with huge chunks of material that almost everyone agrees is inappropriate is not a productive way to enourage discussion. Furthermore, the ongoing MfD indicates that PHG's "full version" of this article will almost certainly be deleted; if the material is inappropriate in his userspace, it's not any more appropriate on the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand why you removed the post and I sympathize, but I'm not certain that we've ever specifically responded to each point. Earlier conversations tended to be "restore everything", which got a simple "no" for many reasons.  Lets look over the list with a keen eye and make sure we're intending to exclude each one and give an explanation why.  This is a step in the right direction and I think its worth fairly assessing each point to ensure we haven't over looked any usable parts. Shell babelfish 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that things are getting split up below with reference to sources and discussion I have removed the large dump of quotes from PHG's POV fork and left the link should anyone wish to see his wording. PHG, please put any further discussion of these points in the appropriate section so that we can discuss the different areas individually. Shell babelfish 19:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian participation to the Siege of Baghdad

 * In the current article, this section is the first paragraph of Fall of Baghdad.

The section, as it stands in the article now, appears to be a summary of the Mongol involvement in Battle of Baghdad (1258). While the main article discusses the composition of the army, here we seem to discuss only the Monogols -- the article may be missing statements that would clarify how this relates to Franco-Mongol relations.

It appears that the sources which discuss the involvement subservient Antiochs and Armenians are:
 * Kirakos Ganjakets'i.History of the Armenians.Chapter 58 (old primary source)
 * Grigor of Akner.History of the Nation of Archers.Chapter 12 (old primary source)
 * Alain Demurger.Les Templiers.p.80-81
 * Alain Demurger.Croisades et Croisés au Moyen-Age.p.284
 * Steven Runciman.A History of the Crusades 3.p.303

Are there any concerns about those sources; do they fairly portray the involvement of "Franks" in this battle? Should the Fall of Baghdad be written more from a viewpoint of what cooperation there was? Is the summary here better covered in a history of Mongols article? Should we have this section at all or should the article have sections, for example, on the submission of the Antiochs which then discusses their involvement in this battle? Shell babelfish 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Franco-Mongol alliance article definitely deserves at least a mention of the Antiochene troops, as the submission of Antioch is cited in some history books as "the closest thing" to the Franks actually fighting under the Mongol banner. I can probably dig up a cite on that, but don't have my books handy at the moment.  I wouldn't give it more than a couple sentences though.  The current version of the article looks okay, though I wouldn't be opposed to adding another sentence or two to clarify the role of the Antiochenes.  To go into exact battle tactics though, would be beyond the scope of the alliance article, and should probably go into the Battle of Baghdad (1258) article instead. --Elonka 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Joint capture of Damascus

 * In the current article, this section is the second paragraph in Fall of Baghdad.

The article already discusses the capture of Aleppo and Damascus and the Franks involvement, so I believe the contention PHG is making here is that we've excluded the mention of Bohemond's presence.

Detailed discussions have already been held on this subject at Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_3 and Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_3 where the consensus (sans PHG) was that the sources claimed to support Bohemond's involvement were either being misquoted or quoting old inaccurate sources. Evidence was given that modern scholars consider Bohemond's involvement to be a manufactured history to make for a better story. Unless there are new arguments or sources in this area, I think we can consider this issue closed. Shell babelfish 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we've already discussed this one and the consensus is clear. No further discussion is necessary. --Elonka 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Modern sources actually support the fact that Bohemond VI entered Damascus with the Mongols:
 * Jean Richard, p.423: "Bohemond... supported Hulegu with his troops in the siege of Aleppo; he also occupied Baalbek, and entering into Damascus with the Mongols, had the satisfaction of celebrating mass in the great Mosque"
 * Jean-Paul Roux: "On March 1st 1260, Damascus had to let general Kitbuqa inside its walls. He was accompanied by king Hetoum and Prince Bohemond" Jean-Paul Roux, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol, p.346
 * Claude Mutafian: "The Mongols then attacked Muslim Syria, and they were accompanied by Hetoum and his son-in-law Bohemond when they took Aleppo and Damascus", Claude Mutafian, p.58
 * Peter Jackson wrote in 1980 that Bohemond VI of Antioch was said to be present in some later accounts but not in contemporary sources, and that it was likely a later legend (Peter Jackson, "Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260," English Historical Review 376 (1980) 486) but in 2005 however, he wrote that Bohemond is recorded to have participated to the Mongol conquest of Baalbek, not far from Damascus, and that he may have ridden into Damascus with the Mongols. (Jackson, "The Mongols and the West", p.117. Jackson also references Al-Yunani as recording Bohemond in Ba'labakk (Baalbek), and later asking to receive the land from the Mongols.)
 * De Reuven Amitai-Preiss concludes that the accounts may be exagerated, but have some truth to them, and says of Bohemond VI that after his passage at Baalbek "it is most probable that he also passed through Damascus". ("While this report cannot be taken literally, it may contain a grain of truth. Armenian troops were part of Ketbuqa's force, while some time during the Mongol occupation Bohemond visited Baalbek and even intended to ask Hulegu for possession of the town. (...) If this prince reached as far as Baalbek, it is most probable that he also passed through Damascus." De Reuven Amitai-Preiss, "Mongols and Mamluks", p.31).
 * Modern sources therefore clearly balance towards recognizing the claim that Bohemond entered Damascus with the Mongols. It is therefore totally legitimate to mention this fact in an article on the Franco-Mongol alliance. Not doing so would actually be quite a lapse. PHG (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The dispute is over his presence in Baghdad, is it not? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Combined operations in the Levant

 * In the current article, this section is Christian Vassals/Antioch

Except for being worded differently, it appears the article already covers this information. Shell babelfish 18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I compared PHG's version with what's currently in the article. The current version looks fine to me, I don't see a need to add further quotes from primary sources. --Elonka 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Cooperation during the Aragonese Crusade

 * In the current article, this section is the second paragraph of Abaqa

The only significant difference is PHG's use of the quote from Reuven-Amintai, "Mongols and Mamluks", p.102 which indicates that the Mongols may have joined in some of the attacks from this Crusade. Since the current article already indicates that Abaqa sent a small force, is there any reason to include a direct quote stating the same in a more ambiguous manner? We have to be sure that any quoting is justifiable via fair-use and conforms to the guidelines from the Manual of Style. Is there any reason to believe this quote would add anything to the article that isn't already being said? Shell babelfish 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This actually has nothing to do with the "Aragonese Crusade", but rather was simply an Aragonese-sponsored Crusade. I recently added a section on the Crusade of 1269 to James I's article. As you can see, the connexion with the Mongols is usually presumed, but it is tenuous at best and hardly very "effective". The article addresses it sufficiently as is, unless more imformation in reliable sources comes to light. Srnec (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Combined action by the Hospitallers with the Mongols

 * In the current article, this section is found in the first and last paragraphs of Invasion of Syria

There are no significant differences; these actions are already mentioned in the current article. Shell babelfish 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Assembly of a naval raiding force in Baghdad

 * In the current article, this section is found in the third paragraph of Arghun

A summary is given in this article. The same statement, with the missing number included, is given in the main article Arghun. Should we include the number 800 in this article as well? (Sources appear to be Peter Jackson.The Mongols and the West.p.169 and Jean Richard.Histoire des Croisades.p.468) Why is the text duplicated; do both articles need this level of detail about the incident? Shell babelfish 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The number "800" is important as it gives a simple illustration of the level of involvement of the Genoese in this enterprise. In an article that claims there were "only attempts", it is important to remain objective and mention that there were quite sizable commitments from time to time. 800 was a big number indeed in Medieval times. The current article also forgets to precise that the Genoese actually reached the Ilkhanate realm and indeed built ships for Arghun, quite an example of effective cooperation: "Only a contingent of 800 Genoese arrived, whom he (Arghun) employed in 1290 in building shipd at Baghdad, with a view to harassing Egyptian commerce at the southern approaches to the Red Sea", p.169, Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West". In an article on the Franco-Mongol alliance, it is only normal to describe with some precision actual instances of cooperation. PHG (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Endeavour to organize actions with the Mongols (Templars)

 * Text about the Templars or Jacques de Molay's involvement in signing an alliance does not appear in the current version.

This text was discussed in detail at:
 * Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_1
 * Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_2
 * Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_2
 * Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_3
 * Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_3
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3
 * Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_3

The consensus (sans PHG) was that Demurger was being misused since he specifically called the Templar involvement a fantasy, Dailliez is an unreliable source for controversial claims and Dailliez's novel theory should not be mentioned as it would give undue weight to what appears to be a fringe theory on the Templars. Unless there is any new information on the subject, it looks like this has been discussed to death. Shell babelfish 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Shell. I agree Dailliez could be left aside, but I am not aware of Alain Demurger "calling the Templar involvement a fantasy". Would you have a reference for that claim? Demurger actually writes in "Jacques de Molay" (French edition) p.139 "During four years, Jacques de Molay and his order were totally committed, with other Christian forces of Cyprus and Armenia, to an enterprise of reconquest of the Holy Land, in liaison with the offensives of Ghazan, the Mongol Khan of Persia". Also p.283: "But especially, from 1299 to 1303, he [Molay] plays the Mongol card to the utmost. With his Order, and the other Christian forces of the kingdoms of Cyprus and Little Armenia, he tries to coordinate some operations with the Ilkha Khanate.". Also: "The order of the Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols against the Mameluks in 1299-1303, in order to regain a foothold in the Holy Land" Alain Demurger in an interview with Le Point, "La Chute du Temple", May 27th 2008. Also: Online article. Jacques de Molay is also known for his letter to Europe saying he waited for Ghazan. Since this article is about the Franco-Mongol alliance, I think this is very relevant to mention these events and the involvement of Jacques de Molay in particular . PHG (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This one is a no-brainer for me, as we've spent way more electrons on this one than needed. Laurent Dailliez is not a reliable source, and I am deadset against using him for any kind of controversial claim, especially this "Templar treaty" thing. If PHG brings this up again, I would see it as another  violation of his sanctions, specifically the one about, "If something has already been discussed, accept the consensus and move along, don't keep repeating the same argument."  Since PHG has  been blocked again right at the moment (another 48 hours), it may all be moot, but I wanted to get this on the record.  As for the other things brought up, I've weighed in on a few of them, and I'll get to the others as I can.  But I absolutely don't want to be spending the majority of my wiki-time "responding to PHG", especially when he just keeps repeating himself.  My understanding of PHG being allowed to participate at talk, is that he needs to be able to do so in a civil and good faith way, where he's participating at talk, and suggesting plausible new additions -- not browbeating other editors and repeatedly copy/pasting the same information. --Elonka 05:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (reply to PHG) We already cover the attempts at joint operations, here: Franco-Mongol alliance. I don't think it's necessary to go into more details about the Templars or De Molay in particular, as Ghazan was in communication with other military orders, not just the Templars.  Yes, Demurger's book talks about the Templars in particular, but Demurger's book is a biography of Jacques de Molay, so of course it's going to be Templar-focused.  But that doesn't mean we should give undue weight to the Templar connection. --Elonka 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not what Demurger actually says. He writes very clearly that "The order of the Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols against the Mameluks in 1299-1303", meaning they took the central role in the alliance. This is a highly significant fact which fully deserves to be included in an article on the Franco-Mongol alliance. This is also corroborated by the letter of de Molay explaining that he was waiting for the Tatars:
 * "And our convent, with all our galleys and ships, transported itself to the island of Tortosa, in order to wait for the army of Ghazan and his Tatars." Jacques de Molay, letter to Edward I, April 8th, 1301. Quoted in Demurger, p.154.
 * "The king of Armenia sent his messengers to the king of Cyprus to tell him (...) that Ghazan was now close to arriving on the lands of the Sultan with a multitude of Tatars. And we, learning this, have the intention to go on the island of Tortosa where our convent has been stationed with weapons and horses during the present year, causing great devastation on the littoral, and capturing many Sarassins. We have the intention to get there and settle there, to wait for the Tatars." Jacques de Molay, letter to the king of Aragon, 1301. In Demurger, p.154-155
 * All this ended with the Siege of Ruad, which therefore would also deserve a link in the article. The role of the Templars and Jacques de Molay is also highlighted by other historians, such as Jackson: "The Templar Master, Jacques de Molay, seems to have been particularly enthusiastic about the campaign" (Jackson, "The Mongols and the West", p.171). These are highly significant facts, which deserve to be mentionned. Why try to hide them? PHG (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You've argued this for eight separate archives across two pages, the appearance of extra detail in one source does not merit extension in this article. <font face="BickhamSCriptPro-Bold" size="5" color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 20:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alain Demurger is a very important source and a specialist of the involvement of the Templars in these events. If there are other scholarly opinions, we should just balance them in an NPOV manner as properly done here. PHG (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Demurger is also not the only source on this:
 * Patrick Huchet in Les Templiers, une fabuleuse epopée relates that "Jacques de Molay, elected Master in 1292, associated himself with the Mongols to set up military operations on the island of Ruad (near Tortose)."
 * Sean Martin The Knights Templar: The History and Myths of the Legendary Military Order Page 114 "Six hundred knights were sent to Ruad with orders to wait for news of the expected arrival of a combined force of Mongols under the Il-khan Ghazan"
 * Malcom Barber The Templars: Selected Sources Page 292: "The island of Ruad lay just off the coast and from 1300 the Order had attempted to establish a base there, both to make contact with the Mongols and as a preliminary to an invasion of the mainland."
 * All these are very significant mentions by very significant authors, and there is therefore no reason why this should not be mentionned in the article. PHG (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To repeat: We already cover this sufficiently, as can be seen at Franco-Mongol alliance.  PHG, no one else is concerned about this except you.  We've discussed this, and reached a consensus, and we need to close this discussion now.  If you keep bringing this up, I will see it as a violation of Remedy 4 in your Arbitration sanctions.  Please stop. --Elonka 22:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope everyone can be happy with my solution: one short sentence cited to Barber, a renowned Templar expert. There is no reason not to just fulfill PHG's wish and put a citable fact in the article. Now the subject really must be closed, PHG. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Srnec! I believe it is really normal that actual cases of Franco-Mongol cooperation, or attempts at collaboration, be mentionned in an article on the Franco-Mongol alliance. Best regards PHG (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of reference
In the introduction, a reference is being misused to back up the claim that "there was no long-term successful military collaboration between the Franks and the Mongols". Here the current text:
 * "However, despite many attempts, there was never any long-term successful military collaboration. "

Actually, the reference only describes the reign of Arghun (a short period of 7 years which indeed does not show examples of collaboration except for the dispatch of 800 Italians to Baghdad), and therefore does not apply at all to the span of Franco-Mongol relations in general or to the claim being made here. I therefore suggest the claim and reference should be removed, or that another, appropriate reference should be found to support this claim, but as it is it cannot remain. As User:Elonka seems to be the author of this text, I would appreciate if she could give an explanation, and, if necessary, correct the text herself. Best regards, PHG (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, this is now the fifth time that you have asked this question, and you continue to ask in an uncivil way. No one shared your concerns the first four times that you asked, and indeed, Akhilleus even deleted the thread entirely.  In other words, please stop bringing this up, as this is a violation of both Remedy 4 of your ArbCom sanctions (it can be disruptive to keep repeating the same argument), and Remedy #1, which states that you can only participate on talkpages if you are able to do so in a civil fashion.  If you have something new to bring up, and you can do so in a civil way, please do so. Otherwise, please drop it. --Elonka 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am being fully civil, and I am asking you to explain the misuse of a reference, which is a perfectly legitimate request on Wikipedia. Please explain and correct as necessary. Best regards. PHG (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, this is just stupid. The sentence is undeniable, even PHG wouldn't (I hope) claim any "long-term military collaboration". The footnote, however, does not support it. I have fixed the situation. It can be disruptive to repeat the same argument over and over, but it can be disruptive not to listen. Elonka, I think you can see that PHG is correct that the footnote does not support the text it's attached to, and that was the crux of your complaint against his abuse of sources! It's easy enough to fix. I know PHG has been uncivil at times (who hasn't?) and that he has particularly collided with you, but instead of dismissing every comment he makes, try to argue it. PHG, instead of putting more of the same on this talk page, since you have of late occupied too much of Elonka's time for her to bear with good will (I can understand), maybe it is best if you have any issues like these last two (i.e. obvious tweaks for accuracy/improvement), that you just bring them directly to me at my talk page and I will look into them. Srnec (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Srnec for your help! The main sentence itself sure is quite undeniable: actual instances of collaboration have indeed always been sporadic and shortlived (even if the attempts at collaboration spanned a period of almost 50 years). Of course, it's the misuse of a reference which was the issue, as well as the systematic refusal to acknowledge an obvious mistake and correct it. Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Valuable Reference for this article
I apologize that I don't have the time to help with this article or even read this source, but I thought this article in the Summer 2007 Issue of French Historical Studies might be useful for anyone who is working on the article:

Simpson, Marianna Sheve. "Manuscripts and Mongols: Some Documented and Speculative Moments in East-West/Muslim-Christian Relations," French Historical Studies, Summer 2007; 30: 351 - 394.

It is available online here: http://fhs.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/30/3/351

If the link changes, just look for it in the archive of French Historical Studies which is online.

Trust request
Hi everyone. I'm Scorpius59 and I'm contributing on french wikipedia. I started to translate this article but I just noticed there were many conflicts based on contents and/or references. I wouldn't want to create a disputed article if it is the case. Reason why I'm asking you (current contributors) what is the current trust level we should consider for Franco-mongol alliance. In the meanwhile, I suspend my translation and will continue it as soon as I'll have a feedback. Thanks in advance for your opinions ! Sincerely 142.213.188.6 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)