Talk:Samagar

Another POV fork
This appears to be another WP:COATRACK article to push the alliance POV. Much of the text, though it appears well-sourced, is just copy/pasted from other articles, and the sources as well seem to just be copy/pasted from Franco-Mongol alliance rather than actually having anything to do with the topic. --Elonka 09:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you call a "Coatrack" any article that actually goes into the details of the relationship between the Mongols and the Franks? This is simply ridiculous Elonka. PHG (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because most of this article isn't about Samagar, it's about other things. Further, most of the sources in this article are not about Samagar, they are about other things too.


 * PHG, this is why your talkpage is full of dozens of complaints, and there is an open Arbitration case on your activities. You have obviously created this article to push your biased POV.  The lead sentence of your new "article" says, "Samagar, also Cemakar, was a Mongol general of the Il-Khan ruler Abaqa Khan (1234–1282). He took an important role in leading an army in support of the English king Edward I during the Ninth Crusade.  This is part of your insistence that Edward I "allied" with the Mongols, even though we have gone into extensive discussions about the fact that there were "attempts" at an alliance, but that the attempts were unsuccessful.


 * This article should be condensed to what the sources actually say about Samagar, rather than using it as a coatrack on which to hang all kinds of other information about Mongol-European relations. But can anything else be said about Samagar except that he was a Mongol general? --Elonka 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is all properly sourced and gives most of the known information related to Samagar. It seems you just dislike seeing any details on the actors of Franco-Mongol relations. Stop your unwaranted accusations. We already went through this with Mulay and Kutlushah, and these articles also were recognized at totally proper. Stop your harassment and systematic stalking.PHG (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What does this paragraph have to do with Samagar?
 * Or the quotation from Baibars to Bohemond? The only information in the article about Samagar is this bit:
 * All the rest could be condensed down to enough to give background. Right now it's just a copy and past from your longer version, INCLUDING a whole pile of references that are not quoted or referred to in this article. Surely the Armenian historians aren't needed? It looks like to me that you just copy-pasted some information over from your longer version. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All the rest could be condensed down to enough to give background. Right now it's just a copy and past from your longer version, INCLUDING a whole pile of references that are not quoted or referred to in this article. Surely the Armenian historians aren't needed? It looks like to me that you just copy-pasted some information over from your longer version. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All the rest could be condensed down to enough to give background. Right now it's just a copy and past from your longer version, INCLUDING a whole pile of references that are not quoted or referred to in this article. Surely the Armenian historians aren't needed? It looks like to me that you just copy-pasted some information over from your longer version. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a start. I'm perfectly fine to trim down or expand appropriately. You are even welcome to help. PHG (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)