Talk:Isa Kelemechi

POV concerns
I am also concerned that there's not even enough notability here to really justify an article about this individual. --Elonka 06:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This appears to be somewhat of a coatrack article, related to Franco-Mongol alliance. In actuality, very little is known about Kelemechi, he just has a few passing mentions in some sources.
 * The picture at the top right of the article has nothing to do with Kelemechi.
 * The lower image has a misleading caption, about an "alliance against Islam". That's a strongly POV phrase, and is not borne out by the sources


 * Fine :-) Changed "proposed an alliance" to "proposed collaboration"... what do you call it when you offer to unite forces against a common enemy? Illustrations just illustrate, and do not necessarily have to exactly represent the subject matter, hum... only illustrate it. Seems completely notable to me. I suggest you remove the tag. I removed the DYK nomination of the article, as I wish to please you and I am not interested in getting into this level of dispute. Best  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  06:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In reviewing the sources, it seems that Kelemechi was a member of the embassy to the Pope, and that the embassy carried a letter from the Ilkhan. There's nothing about negotiating "an alliance against Islam". Kelemechi was not charged as a negotiator, he was simply a messenger, or perhaps not even a messenger, but simply someone accompanying the messenger.
 * Also, the proposed collaboration was not "against Islam", it was against the Egyptian Mamluks.
 * As a side note, could I please ask that citations be formatted a bit better? Especially on Franco-Mongol alliance, which is currently undergoing GA review, so it's important to try and maintain some consistency in how the citations are formatted. Having the URL to Google Books is great, and makes things easy to verify, but as you know, to get an article to GA or FA status we also need years, publishers, ISBN numbers, etc.  Thanks, --Elonka 07:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wonderful. I'll incorporate these comments into the article. I'll see what I can do for the refs (won't be around during the week-end, so I'll do that next week). Cheers  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  07:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)