Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 6

Arbitration
This article, or rather, the conduct of the editors involved with it, is now being considered as the subject of a case by the Arbitration Committee. It has not yet been decided whether or not the case will be accepted, but anyone who wishes to post a statement, is welcome to do so, at Requests for arbitration. The decision will probably be made within the next couple days. If accepted, the case will probably take a couple months, and will go through evidence, workshop, and decision phases, but for now, preliminary statements are recommended. --Elonka 11:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (update) The Arbitration case has been accepted, and opened.
 * To post a statement, please add it to: the arbitration talk page
 * To add assertions/evidence, please create a section at: the evidence page
 * To suggest remedies, please post at: the workshop page
 * To monitor the arbitrators' discussion of their proposed decision, watch the proposed decision page


 * I recommend that all interested parties set the above pages on your watchlist.


 * Another useful link to read is this one: Requests for arbitration/How to present a case.


 * If anyone has any questions, let me know, --Elonka 22:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(update) The Arbitration has moved to a "Voting" phase. This means that a Proposed Decision has been written, and can be viewed here. This is not final, as there will still be discussion among the arbitrators over the next few days. They will vote, amend, add, and/or debate the various principles and findings, and then eventually "move to close". If a majority of arbitrators agree that it's time to close, then those principles/findings with sufficient support, will be moved to the "final decision" section. Anyone with questions or comments, is welcome to post here or at the Decision talkpage. FYI, Elonka 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom decision
(followup) The arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be seen at that link. As a summary:
 * is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year.
 * He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.
 * He is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole.
 * PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.
 * PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

FYI, Elonka 01:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement
Since PHG is continuing to violate his sanctions, I have posted a request for enforcement at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Any interested parties who wish to comment, are welcome to do so. --Elonka 17:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Motion to review sanctions
PHG is requesting an appeal on his sanctions. Any interested editors are invited to comment, at Requests for arbitration. --Elonka 05:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

New case
A new case based on PHG's above motion was opened on December 3, Requests for arbitration/PHG. Anyone who is interested, is advised to set that page on your watchlist, as well as those of the evidence, workshop, and proposed decision pages. --Elonka 18:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the threads on this page (from Franco-Mongol alliance issues to the "Mongol textiles" info) are being discussed with an arbitrator at the arbitration evidence talkpage. Any interested editors are invited to observe and/or comment. --Elonka 21:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Depiction of Mongol officers in Italian art
A nice painting by Ambrogio Lorenzetti (1285-1348) showing the matyrdom of Franciscan friars on their way to China in 1321 Source. The painting contains depictions of Tartars wearing conical hats and viewing the martyrdom Source. These Fransciscans, on their way to China through India, were executed in 1321 in Thana on the island of Salsette near Bombay for allegedly insulting Islam. According to Rosamond E.Mack in Bazaar to Piazza, Islamic Trade and Italian Art 1300-1600 ISBN 0520221311 p.151 "The Mongol physiognomies of the ruler and two warriors wearing tall pointed hats, however, were probably observed among emissaries whom the Il-Khanids sent to Italy during the first decades of the fourteeth century. This hat with a neck-covered flap and feather on top accurately depicts the headgear of commanders of one thousand men in the Mongol army. Such headgear might even have been seen in Siena:perhaps Tommaso Ugi, a Sienese who had taken the name Tumen, had visited Siena when he accompanied the Il-Khanid emissaries in 1301"... This could be a nice addition to the article! Cheers PHG (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding this image to the article! PHG (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mongol script in Renaissance painting
There are interesting examples of the adoption of Mongol script in Renaissance paintings during the time of the Franco-Mongol alliance. Please feel free to include this paragraph into the article. Portions of the book by Mack (which I own) are visible here. Cheers PHG (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

{{quotation|

Mongol script in Renaissance painting
During the period of interaction between the Mongols and the West, from the late 13th century to early 14th century, some Italian painters incorporated Mongol script (particularly the 'Pags Pa) into their religious painting. Examples can be seen especially in the frescos of the Upper Chruch of San Francesco at Assisi, or in the paintings of Giotto and related painters.

These inscriptions often imitated the Mongol 'Pags Pa, probably discovered by the artists through Mongol paper money or Paizu travel passes such as those Marco Polo was issued during his travels. Frescos of Saint Jerome, Augustine and Pope Gregory I in the Church of San Francesco in Assisi (1296-1300) are known where they study books written in pseudo-Mongol. The famous Renaissance painter Giotto and his pupils often combined Arabic and 'Pag Pa script in their paintings. In Giotto's The Crucifixion (1304-1312/1313), soldiers wears dresses inscribed with pseudo-Mongol bands. In Giotto's Madonna and Child (1320-1330), the Virgin Mary's robe is decorated with a hem in a mix of Arabic and Mongol script.

Besides the influence of exchanges between the Western and Mongol realms during the period, the exact reason for the incorporation of Mongol script in early Renaissance painting is unclear. It seems that Westerners associated 13-14th century Middle-Eastern scripts (such as Mongol and Arabic) as being identical with the scripts current during Jesus's time, and thus found natural to represent early Chrsitians in association with them. Another reason might be that artist wished to express a cultural universality for the Christian faith, by blending together various written languages, at a time when the church had strong international ambitions.

Mongol textiles in Renaissance art
The diplomatic contacts between the West and the Mongols during the period of the Franco-Mongol alliance (or "attempts towards an alliance") directly led to the arrival of Mongol Empire textiles in the West, which were to prove vastly influential in Italian art in the 14th century. Feel free to include this material in the article, or anywhere else :) The references from Mack Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art, 1300-1600 are available on Google Books: p.16 p.17 p.18 p.35 p.37 p.39. Cheers PHG (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

{{quotation|

Mongol Empire textiles in Renaissance art
Around 1300, an influx of Mongol Empire textiles found their way to Italy, and were to prove quite influential in Italian art,. These textiles even revolutionized Italian textile designs. Between 1265 to 1308, communications between Western and Il-Khanid rulers led to numerous exchanges of people and presents, as when about 100 Mongols in Mongol dress visited Rome for the Papal Jubilee in 1300. Large quantities of panni tartarici (Tatar cloth) were repertoried in the Papal inventory of 1295, and must have been diplomatic gifts from the Il-Khanate. Later on Western merchants were also able to purchase such textiles from Tabriz, and the Mongol capital of Sultaniya, established by Öljaitü between 1305 and 1313, and until the capture of the Cilician Armenia harbour of Ayas by the Mamluks in 1347. The Tatar cloths were a produce of transcultural exchange under Mongol rule.

The Mongol Empire textiles started to have a strong impact on Italian textile design from around 1330. A type of Tartar cloth that was adopted in the West consisted in small-pattern designs in dense composition. This sort of textile is represented in the clothing of the angel Gabriel in The Annunciation by Simone Martini (1333).

Other designs involved naturally flowing compositions of flowers and vines with fantastic animals. Such a textile is depicted as the background curtain in Giotto's Coronation of the Virgin (circa 1330), the earliest such depiction of a Tartar cloth. Chinese types of floral designs were also adopted, as visible in the mantles of Christ and Mary in Coronation of the Virgin by Paolo Veneziano (circa 1350).

Mongol allies
The article currently says "Traditionally, the Mongols tended to see outside parties as either subjects, or enemies, with little room in the middle for something such as an ally." without citation. My reading in Mongol history suggests that they did have a place for allies, and that not all allies ended up as subjects. I don't have specific citations at hand, but at this time, c.1260, wasn't the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia allied with the Mongols? ---Bejnar (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The citation for that particular comment is from Peter Jackson's Mongols and the West. I don't have the book in front of me, but can dig up an exact page number if you'd like one, probably from the chapter "An Ally Against Islam". It is true that the exact designator of Armeno-Mongol relations gets described in different ways. Some historians refer to it as an alliance, but (as I read it) this is usually as a shorthand term when they're giving it a passing mention, and then if you dig in deeper and see how they describe it when they're being more detailed, they're careful to describe it as a vassal or "submitted" relationship, rather than a true alliance. For specific quotes on how the relationship has been described by various historians, see User:Elonka/Mongol historians. --Elonka 16:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that the above "Some historians refer to it as an alliance, but (as I read it) this is usually as a shorthand term when they're giving it a passing mention, and then if you dig in deeper and see how they describe it when they're being more detailed, they're careful to describe it as a vassal or "submitted" relationship, rather than a true alliance." is a personal interpretation. To impose such a view would require establishing that this is a view is widely held by specialists, and until then, should probably not justify painting the Armenia-Mongol relationship as a "submitted" relationship" only. PHG (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Automated peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Elonka 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), organize (A) (British: organise), realize (A) (British: realise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization),  gray (A) (British:  grey), program  (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Neutrality issues
I have undone the most recent expansion of the article, because it seems to be an attempt to restore undue weight to the concept of an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols. I am also concerned by the recent attempts to further expand the article, which seem to just be a way to restore the information which was removed two years ago. Looking at the history of the article, it's clear that PHG (now Per Honor et Gloria) is just coming in once a day and pumping another 1-2K of information back in every 24 hours or so, but this is probably not wise. As is shown by the comments of the GA reviewer above, the length of the article is fine. PHG, I understand that your ArbCom-imposed topic ban has expired, but it would probably be best if you avoided re-inserting previously deleted information to this article. Let's concentrate on getting what's there now up to a better standard, such as to improve the citations, and replace the Runciman/Grousset sources with more modern works. --Elonka 21:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Elonka. Here is the sentence you just removed, which I took pains to document (according to your own formating recommendation) with online references. It describes in a concise manner the Mongol invasion of the Holy Land after the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar, which is currently missing from the article, and is quite important, and mentionned in most books on the subject. I believe it deserves being mentionned in this article if it is to be informative on the subject in any way. I also believe it is fairly balanced in presenting the various positions on the subject, and incorporating many of your views. Cheers  Per Honor et Gloria   ✍  21:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No. We already went through this, we had RfCs, a mediation, we went through an entire ArbCom case which resulted in your being completely banned from the entire topic area of medieval history for over a year.  It is extremely concerning that now that your topic ban is up, you are returning to the same POV-pushing about a Mongol occupation of Jerusalem.  Please, stop.  You are welcome to help with article cleanup, especially improving citations.  And images.  You're great at finding images. But when it comes to rewriting the definition of the alliance, or the alleged occupation of Jerusalem, please let other editors handle those parts. --Elonka 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to help with article cleanup, especially improving citations. And images. You're great at finding images. Many attempts were made towards forming an Elonka-PHG alliance... Haukur (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Elonka, it is hard to understand why you have such a prejudice about the notion of the Mongols raiding Jerusalem. Granted, it is an issue that is debated by historians, but nothing prohibits us from presenting both views. Have you seen the words of Reuven Amitai on the subject in The Mongols in the Islamic lands: studies in the history of the Ilkhanate, p.216 (Ashgate/Variorum, 2007, ISBN 0754659143):


 * ""...They entered Jerusalem and enslaved and looted" There is little doubt, then, that the Mongols included Jerusalem in the itinerary of this raid into Palestine".
 * Reuven Amitai in The Mongols in the Islamic lands: studies in the history of the Ilkhanate, p.216


 * Or the description of the raids on Jerusalem made by Eric H. Cline in Jerusalem besieged: from ancient Canaan to modern Israel, p.216 (University of Michigan Press, 2004, ISBN 0472113135):


 * We just have to accept that there are several views on the subject, and describe them, in a summary manner if necessary but shutting that out is not a solution. Cheers  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. In fact, this debate is already covered in detail at the article Mongol raids into Palestine. There is absolutely no reason that this debate needs to be re-hashed in the Franco-Mongol alliance article.  --Elonka 22:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems you use ten references to "document" 4 lines of text, which essentially just say "there were rumours, and because of that there were more rumours". And none of those rumours have any relevance to a purported alliance. So what exactly is "missing" here? --Latebird (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the same problem we had two years ago or whenever it was. PHG, who cares if you have 10 sources? Without even looking at them I can tell that some are inappropriate, and some will have used the others as their own references. I don't really have a problem with sticking these four lines into the end of the article, but you only need one or maybe two references. I notice also that the sentence says nothing about Jerusalem, so what is the big fuss about? Isn't this what you were banned for in the first place? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Adam! The proposed sentence above does mention Jerusalem, as many historians do. I am completely OK with much fewer references for this sentence. Now, if some people need more references, I'll be happy to comply. Here is a streamlined proposal:
 * Would that be OK with you? Cheers  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  05:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because it's already covered in Mongol raids into Palestine, and has little or nothing to do with a Franco-Mongol alliance. We already have a sentence mentioning Ghazan's troops in Palestine for a few months in 1300, and we have a "see also" to the Mongol raids article. That is sufficient. --Elonka 06:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a question to Adam :-) The whole Franco-Mongol alliance was about recovering Jerusalem (at least from the perspective of the Franks), so I think it is only legitimate to mention that Jerusalem was probably indeed reached by the Mongols (and they even went beyond to Gaza), but without results ultimately. It is absolutely inexact to say that it has "nothing to do with the Franco-Mongol alliance". This is precisely why all Christianity made such a fuss about this event (however exaggerated) in 1300.... Cheers  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  06:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need Adam's personal approval. You need consensus. --Latebird (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true. Also, since the Mongols didn't particularly care what the Franks thought, Jerusalem wasn't significant to them, and there were no Franks there in 1300, why does it matter in this article? I do understand why you want it here, I think - it's an interesting footnote. But since it may not have even happened, it does fit better in the article about the raids. (And no, you still don't need five references for something like this.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and re-worked the Ghazan section, and added, "The Mongols' success in Syria led to some wild rumors in Europe that the Mongols had successfully re-captured the Holy Land, and had even conquered the Mamluks in Egypt and were on a mission to conquer Tunisia in northern Africa. But in reality, all that was managed were some Mongol raids into Palestine in early 1300, which may or may not have even passed through Jerusalem itself. When the Egyptians again advanced from Cairo in May, the Mongols retreated without resistance." That should be sufficient, though if more detail is desired, it is better for the Mongol raids into Palestine article. --Elonka 08:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and re-worked the Ghazan section, and added, "The Mongols' success in Syria led to some wild rumors in Europe that the Mongols had successfully re-captured the Holy Land, and had even conquered the Mamluks in Egypt and were on a mission to conquer Tunisia in northern Africa. But in reality, all that was managed were some Mongol raids into Palestine in early 1300, which may or may not have even passed through Jerusalem itself. When the Egyptians again advanced from Cairo in May, the Mongols retreated without resistance." That should be sufficient, though if more detail is desired, it is better for the Mongol raids into Palestine article. --Elonka 08:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Elonka, this is wonderful! I am delighted and relieved to see that constructive dialogue is possible, and that we can improve these articles through exchange and understanding! My very best regards  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  17:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

French historians/ English-speaking historians
I reverted this edit by Per Honor for a couple of reasons. First, it reads like just quote-dropping into the middle of the text; it doesn't add anything not said elsewhere in the article. Second, the caveat "Among English-speaking historians..." is misplaced; it suggests there is a significant contention between English-speaking and non-English speaking historians (in which the English-speaking historians are implied to be wrong), though this is nowhere else mentioned in the article. If there is such contention, it needs to be addressed in a superior fashion. Third, the format was mangling. I'd have rewritten if I could tell why the quotes were being used, but as a reader, it looked like it was either using quotes to prove some point not directly deliniated in the text, which would be OR, or just dropping in quotes without context or indication why they're important.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Cuchullain. It's just that the only two authors who are already being quoted in the paragraph as describing "an actual alliance" are presented, for whatever reason, as "French historian, Alain Demurger" and "French historian Jean Richard", hence my desire to balance with non-French historians. You might notice that the paragraph in question is about the various views of various authors, hence the legitimacy of presenting a few of them and their take on the subject. I'll try to think of a better way to write this down, but I think it is import to reassure the reader that the authors describing "an actual alliance" are not only French. Actually, I'd be more confortable with dropping mentions of nationality altogether, as it's not quite relevant and might be interpreted wrongly. Cheers  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Saying "English-speaking historians" implies that there's some big contention between English- and non-English-speaking camps that we're trying to play down. If there's no real contention, the solution is not to pile on quotes, it would be just to not play it up in the first place. But to me it doesn't read like describing Demurger et al as French is doing anything more than kind of describing them a little, like saying "Irish actor Daniel Day Lewis turned 53 today" or "American astronaut Buzz Aldrin has published a new article in the New Yorker". But we can certainly work it out.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement request
FYI, since PHG is continuing to disrupt the GA nom, I have filed an AE request to extend his original topic ban, at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Anyone who has an opinion on the matter, is welcome to comment. --Elonka 00:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction, since it appears that the AE thread was not the proper venue, the request for the extension of the topic ban on PHG has instead been filed here. --Elonka 07:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (followup) The extension of PHG's topic ban was granted, and the discussion moved to here. --Elonka 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

More articles for review
It would appear that PHG is resuming his tactic of making coatrack articles. Since when he's on a roll, he does this faster than other editors can keep up, I'm maintaining a list here, so things don't get lost in the shuffle. If anyone else spots any new articles, or anything that's being edited in a POV fashion, please add it here, thanks. --Elonka 15:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Timurid relations with Europe
 * Ruad expedition

(note) This is a continuation of the list that is already at, but since that one was finally finished in January 2010 (after over two years of cleanup work!) I am starting a fresh one here. --Elonka 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Move?
I have done my best to avoid this article due to the unfortunate conflicts that have involved it, but I've been thinking that maybe it could be a good idea to move the article from its current name to Franco-Mongol relations, as it would be more comprehensive and, more importantly, avoid stating in the title as fact what is a historiographic hypothesis on which there is not a full consensus. This may be have already proposed and discarded before; in this case please excuse me, but I must confess I haven't had the courage necessary to pass through all the talk. So, again, what do you think of moving the article? Opinions? Aldux (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Aldux! Franco-Mongol relations would actually have a much wider scope (cultural relations, trade relations, conflicts as well as alliances would have to be covered... quite daunting). Instead, the Franco-Mongol alliance article is supposed to focus on the only instances of diplomatic and military rapprochement between the Franks and the Mongols. These rapprochements were rather few and sparse but are regularly described in the academic literature as "Franco-Mongol alliance" indeed . It is therefore an established expression and a subject of scholarly inquiry (also sometimes "Franco-Mongol rapprochement"). With someone courageous enough to build the content, I think we could clearly have a Franco-Mongol relations article, from which we could link to the more specific "Franco-Mongol Alliance" article. My very best regards  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aldux, I would support a move of this article to Franco-Mongol relations. This was suggested a couple years ago and rejected, but consensus can change, so it would be reasonable to try again. Since it's a controversial move though, I'd recommend filing a formal request through WP:RM. --Elonka 04:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure Elonka, I would never have thought of moving this article on my own when it is clear there is not unanimity. But I must admit that after having seen the previous discussions, while, as you correctly observe, consensus can change, there didn't seem to be great enthusiasm, so maybe it's better to let it be, even if I do think that Franco-Mongol relations would be better.--Aldux (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from PHG, no one else seems to be objecting... Couldn't hurt to file an RM.  If you'd like, I'll handle the paperwork? --Elonka 23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody's approving either... May I remind that this subject has been delt with and resolved 3 times already: 1: Request for move, 2: Poll for renaming the article, 3: Article title everytime in favour of maintaining the Franco-Mongol alliance title? Is it really wise and productive to again lose the time of the community on this subject, and again create a dispute on something which has already been so clearly settled?  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  00:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I missed this the first time around. I'd support a page move. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe consensus has changed... I think a try wouldn't be of hurt to anybody, PHG, after all, it only takes a week to get an answer. To make this the most open possible, I'd advise to inform those that have previously voiced their opinion.--Aldux (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I have neither participated in nor read the older discussions I think that the "relations" term is too general and misleading when applied to military matters. I have to also note that even if a general article existed on the wider "relations" there still would be a need for a fork on the "alliance" so we would have to recreate an "alliance" article anyway. Anyway when a wider discussion starts I will try to participate. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To provide a formal place for discussion, I went ahead and started the RM discussion below. --Elonka 01:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hydrae Capita: POV forks stemming from this article
As Ealdgyth has indicated above, the specious and idiosycratic POV represented in this article has extended further than those articles now being considered for deletion. Let us make a list so that these otherwise sound articles may be reviewed when conflicts are resolved. Aramgar (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's worthwhile to make a list of the articles that seem to have been the targets of biased editing. It appears that there has been an attempt to manipulate multiple articles, where biased information has been inserted in multiple locations, as a way for them all to reinforce each other. Some of these articles have now been nominated for deletion (see above threads), but others are going to require more careful review.  I agree with Aramgar that we should make a list of all articles about which there may be concerns, so that we can either review them now, and/or, once we figure out how we'd like to proceed and what the consensus is, we can then work through the list to ensure that everything gets cleaned up as needed. --Elonka 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it appears that the problem has expanded to a large number of articles. I was going to review them myself, but I think the problem is too large for one person.  So here's what I'm doing:  I've provided a list of articles below, which I identified as having either definitely been targeted, or may have been edited in a questionable way.  What I'd like, is help checking each article.  If you have reviewed an article and see no problems with it, meaning nothing that you think is controversial as regards a biased POV or undue weight issues, then simply cross out the article with and tags.  If you review an article and see that it definitely needs work and/or attention, please bold the article name in this list.  You may also wish to include a diff of an edit or two that you think are of concern.  If you're not sure, or want a second opinion, either don't modify the article name, or maybe italicize it?  And of course if you find other articles, feel free to add them to the list.  If an article's status changes, or you disagree with another editor's review, we can pull those articles out of the list for special attention in a separate section, since they may need separate consensus discussions.  Per common courtesy guidelines, if someone has flagged your own edits as something needing review, it's probably best if you don't challenge that, but instead allow another editor to then review the article and determine if its status needs to be changed.


 * Does that sound doable? --Elonka 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(followup) Per the recent ArbCom request, this list will also be used for other PHG-edited articles which may have been the subject of biased editing or original research, even if they are in other topic areas. So any editor who identifies such an article, is encouraged to add it to the list. All editors are also encouraged to review items on the list, and if the articles have been fixed or are no longer considered to be problematic, please cross them off the list! Thanks, Elonka 16:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

List of articles for review

 * Articles that are in bold mean that they definitely have text which needs to be reviewed
 * Articles that are crossed out have been reviewed and/or fixed, and been determined to have nothing controversial as regards POV or WP:UNDUE questions
 * Articles in italics are ambiguous and need a second editor's opinion
 * Articles in plain text have not yet been reviewed


 * Abaqa Khan
 * Abu Sa'id (Ilkhanid dynasty)
 * Aïbeg and Serkis (active dispute)
 * Alain Demurger
 * Amalric, Prince of Tyre
 * André de Longjumeau
 * Arab-Norman culture (active dispute)
 * Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia
 * Armeno-Mongol relations
 * Arghun
 * Ascelin of Lombardia
 * Battle of Ain Jalut
 * Battle of Baghdad (1258)
 * Bohemond VI of Antioch
 * Buddhism and Christianity
 * Buscarello de Ghizolfi
 * Byzantine-Mongol alliance
 * Catholic Church in Asia (appears to be a duplicate of Christianity in Asia)
 * Christianity among the Mongols
 * Christianity in Asia (merged with Catholic Church in Asia)
 * Christianity in China
 * David and Marc
 * David of Ashby
 * Doquz Khatun
 * Edward I of England
 * Fall of Tripoli
 * Ghazan
 * Guillaume de Villaret
 * Guiscard Bustari
 * Guy of Ibelin (died 1304)


 * Hayton of Corycus
 * Hethum I, King of Armenia
 * Hethum II, King of Armenia
 * History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)
 * History of gunpowder
 * Hulagu Khan
 * Ilkhanate
 * Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe (disputed)
 * Isol the Pisan
 * Jacques de Molay
 * Jayme Alaric de Perpignan
 * Jean II de Giblet
 * Jean-Paul Roux
 * Jean Richard (historian)
 * Jesuit China missions
 * John of Montecorvino
 * Kitbuqa (has a long quote in it, otherwise looks okay)
 * Knights Templar
 * Kublai Khan
 * Kutlushah
 * Latin Patriarch of Antioch
 * Laurent Dailliez
 * Louis IX of France
 * Leo II, King of Armenia
 * Mamluk-Mongol alliance
 * Marco Polo
 * Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China
 * Michael VIII Palaiologos


 * Mongol Empire
 * Mongol invasion of Europe
 * Mongol raids into Palestine
 * Nerses Balients
 * Mulay
 * Ninth Crusade
 * Öljaitü
 * Philip IV of France
 * Pope Clement IV
 * Pope Clement V
 * Pope Honorius IV (has a long quote, otherwise looks okay)
 * Pope John XXII
 * Prester John
 * Principality of Antioch
 * Rabban Bar Sauma
 * Rychaldus
 * Samagar
 * Sempad the Constable
 * Siamese revolution of 1688
 * Siege of Acre (1291)
 * Siege of Bangkok
 * Siege of Ruad
 * Siege of Tripoli (1271)
 * Silk Road
 * Simeon Rabban Ata (active dispute)
 * Sempad, King of Armenia
 * Sorghaghtani Beki
 * Templar of Tyre
 * Tommaso Ugi di Siena
 * Viam agnoscere veritatis (active dispute at talk)
 * Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) (active dispute)
 * Wang Khan

Updated: 03:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Could we move this list to a subpage of the arbitration case, perhaps Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Cleanup or some other central place? Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance is for discussing this one article, not all these others.  It would also be beneficial to place this list in a central location to encourage more editors to help. Jehochman Talk 20:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The case is closely entwined with this article. And as for a central location, I fail to see how moving this list to a page that isn't on people's watchlists would be of any use.  Better would be to focus efforts on getting the last remaining articles cleaned up.  Once they're crossed off the list, we can move this whole section to archive, and move on to other tasks such as getting this article up to GA/FA standard. --Elonka 04:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I just made some changes to Philip IV of France, cutting down the text of the mongol subtopic, and moving it to the bottom of the page. Could someone look it over for me, as I'm not very up on wiki markings for sources, etc. Want to make sure I didn't bork things. Thanks! 131.107.0.73 (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thanks for the help! :)  I would like to get a double-check on the story of the elephant, since the current source for that one is a bit weak, but other than that all seems fine. --Elonka 16:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked that reference out, it looks rather sketchy to me. There's no specific references given for any of the information in there, just a general bibliography (including only one biography on Philip) and most notably, has a gross factual error saying he succeeded his grandfather Louis IX of France to the throne. mistake on my part, misread.  I'll check further, but it doesn't look like that reliable of a refrence to me (and is merely a synopsis of other works which should be used as sources, rather than a webpage). Gnarlyhotep (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! I'd support removing the elephant story until/unless we can find a better source.  I'd personally never heard that story, and I've done quite a bit of reading on Rabban bar Sauma. Then again, it may just be a detail that was missed in the sources I've read so far.  Bar Sauma did bring many gifts ("enough for 30 riding animals") for the European monarchs, and I guess it's possible he may have brought a baby elephant with him.  However, it's also possible that he brought a small statue of an elephant, and the story grew from "a statue" to a real elephant. --Elonka 19:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead
At the Good article review for this article, it has been brought up by one of the reviewers that the lead of the Franco-Mongol alliance article is not accurately summarizing the article, per WP:MOSBEGIN. I've gone through the lead several times myself, but perhaps some other opinions would be helpful here. Would someone who hasn't been working on the article be interested in trying to re-write the lead? Or, do other editors feel that the lead is okay as-is? --Elonka 19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "A diplomatic and military rapprochement":
 * The problem is that the current lead seems to blanket-deny everything, whereas the fact that there was agreement, or multiple agreements, between parties (the Franks and the Mongols) towards a common goal (and that's the definition of an alliance) remains unassailable and is proved by the letters, the exchange of embassies and the historically recorded attempts at combined military operations. The substance of an alliance thus existed, but the whole enterprise ended in military failure, which is why the "Franco-Mongol alliance" wording is the one used in the academic literature, and why it is nonetheless often mitigated with expressions such as "attempted", "sporadic", "failure", "unsuccessful" etc: it is necessary that the intro reflects this ambivalence. Following User:Kanguole's very legitimate comment indeed on the structure of the lead, which should be per WP:LEAD built as a definition on the lines of "The Franco-Mongol alliance is ....", I stumbled upon a sentence which I think precisely reflects what the alliance was, and at the same time nicely avoids past pitfalls and disputes:
 * The point is, the lead should first and foremost express what this alliance was, with its limitations, rather than what it wasn't. Wouldn't this sentence be pretty perfect?  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  21:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because it's not backed up by how the sources describe the situation. The sources instead say that an alliance was perceived as "possible", and that there were "attempts" towards it.  Not that it existed. --Elonka 14:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe all authors agree that there was a rapprochement between the Mongols and the Franks: this is historically proven by the letters of agreement, the plans and movements for combined operation etc... The only variation (not even "dispute", the only dispute on the subject is really here on Wikipedia) is related to the ways of qualifying the extent of the alliance: to some it was full-fledged, to other intermittent, sporadic, fledgling, and yet to others again (admitedly numerous) just an attempt, a dream, a chimera. It's a bit like historians differing about the magnitude of a military victory: was it Pyrrhic, "crushing", "marginal" or even "strategically insignificant"??? Qualifiers will remain for ever at variance, but the very fact that there was a battle, and that one side won, remains generally anchored in facts and remains rather undisputed. To me, the safe way is to describe the Franco-Mongol rapprochement, and then to give an account of the various ways historians have qualified it. It shouldn't even be a dispute, just a matter of reporting what the various sources say on the subject.  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  23:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe all authors agree that there was a rapprochement between the Mongols and the Franks: this is historically proven by the letters of agreement, the plans and movements for combined operation etc... The only variation (not even "dispute", the only dispute on the subject is really here on Wikipedia) is related to the ways of qualifying the extent of the alliance: to some it was full-fledged, to other intermittent, sporadic, fledgling, and yet to others again (admitedly numerous) just an attempt, a dream, a chimera. It's a bit like historians differing about the magnitude of a military victory: was it Pyrrhic, "crushing", "marginal" or even "strategically insignificant"??? Qualifiers will remain for ever at variance, but the very fact that there was a battle, and that one side won, remains generally anchored in facts and remains rather undisputed. To me, the safe way is to describe the Franco-Mongol rapprochement, and then to give an account of the various ways historians have qualified it. It shouldn't even be a dispute, just a matter of reporting what the various sources say on the subject.  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  23:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My main concern with the lead is that it spends the bulk of its time debunking the idea of a formal alliance. While I understand how the lead grew out of past disputes on the article, it currently doesn't do much to give an overview of the article at all. Instead the lead should describe the different contacts from the religious to the secular to the military. Shell  babelfish 16:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. The debate about "alliance", "no alliance" "attempts at alliance" is artificial and rather pointless: what's important in this article is to document the various instances of rapprochement between the Franks and the Mongols.  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at creating a new draft of the lead, at User:Elonka/FMA lead. I'd appreciate if folks could look at it and provide constructive criticism?  It's probably a bit long and could be winnowed down further, but I'm not sure what to cut. --Elonka 21:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the first sentence does the job of defining the scope of the topic (even if repeating "Franco-Mongol" is a bit awkward). The second and third sentences go off on a bit of a tangent, I think.  Are the key trends the waning of Crusader power and the Mamluks' success?  And I agree that the lead as a whole is a bit long, and the second paragraph in particular ought to be condensed. Kanguole 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the comments. I went ahead and ported my draft over to the main article, and rewrote it a bit to try and address the concerns.  Regarding the second and third sentences, are you referring to the Prester John section? Or a different paragraph? --Elonka 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hummm, per WP:LEAD, when an article is entitled "Franco-Mongol alliance", then it is supposed to start simply with "The Franco-Mongol alliance was..." or something equivalent in order to define the subject matter, as earlier pointed out by User:Kanguole. I am afraid the newly proposed intro (already boldly implemented in the article apparently ) is rather inadequate, strangely constructed and most of all against Wikipedia editorial rules (in case anyone is interested, I think I made a nice proposal a few lines up)... Let me try another one, which hopefully leaves open the academic evaluations of how much the alliance was actually implemented:
 * Best regards  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  02:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Best regards  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  02:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant that the emphasis on Nestorians and Prester John in the opening paragraph doesn't seem to match the article, which seems much more concerned with Mongol and Mamluk expansion. Kanguole 09:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidents section
As a lay reader, there are many things I don't understand about this section. Isn't this an instance of the hostility of the non-Antioch Franks described in the following section, rather that some sort of border friction? Was Sidon "raided" or "destroyed" (as per the Sidon article)? Why was Baibars angered by Crusaders and Mongols attacking each other? How do the events of the last paragraph fit with the truce between Crusaders and Mamluks, which is presented as happening at the same time? Kanguole 09:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Transmission of textile designs
Transmission of textile designs: Iran/ Irak textiles of the 14th century with phoenix design and silk and gold thread (left), and Italian adaptation of the second half of the 14th century (right), also with phoenix design and silk and gold thread. These designs are of Chinese origin, and transited through the Mongol realm into Europe (Rosamond E.Mack, ISBN 0520221311 p.27-49)  Per Honor et Gloria   ✍  16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC) 