Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

=Motions and requests by the parties=

PHG advised to stop creating articles in this topic area
1) While this Arbitration case is active, shall cease creating any new articles in the topic area of Franco-Mongol relations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, because despite dozens of complaints, PHG is continuing to make more POV forks and coatrack articles. Most recently he created Aïbeg and Serkis and Samagar, The latter especially is an effective copy/paste from Franco-Mongol alliance, including a long list of sources which have nothing to do with the new article's topic. Each of the new articles could probably be covered with 2-3 sentences, but instead covers paragraphs of non-relevant information. I am requesting that the Arbitrators formally forbid PHG from creating more articles in this topic area, at least until this case is resolved, because each time he creates another one, it just wastes more time from the rest of us who have to move in for cleanup. Several of PHG's creations have had to be put through XfD (evidence), and we still have dozens of other POV forks that we are already working on, we don't need him making even more. --Elonka 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible given that PHG seems incapabe of seeing how disruptive this is becoming. As Mackensen below, I hope this could be a voluntary undertaking. WjBscribe 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty much through with content creation in relation to the Franco-Mongol alliance, and I'm currently quite busy in real life anyway. My two most recent articles Aïbeg and Serkis and Samagar are very straightfoward and fact-based articles, so I really don't see what the fuss is about "not creating new articles". This seems quite ridiculous. I compiled over a period of 6 months about 200k of material and 400 academic references on this subject (Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)), I am very proud of the work that has been done, and I strongly dispute any claim that this information is not legitimate. It is all sourced from proper published sources, and if there are disputes, it should be balanced with competing sources in a NPOV manner, not just deleted abusively claiming "consensus" in small-scale polling. I am willing to discuss specific issues, but I find rather disgusting to see Elonka and a few of her friends band together and just throw false accusations to try to block a goodwilling and generous user such as myself in order to have their point-of-view prevail. This is bullying and politicking to the extreme. Regards PHG (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Sensible, and similar in concept to the fait accompli principles from the Episodes and Characters arbitration. While a particular mode of conduct is disputed it makes sense to refrain until the matter is settled. It would be better if PHG could give such an undertaking voluntarily. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would support this, though I'm not sure this goes far enough. While we'd all like this to be voluntary, PHG appears to be unable to see the amount of disruption his behavior is causing.  For instance, see his comments about his latest block . Shell babelfish 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a pretty clear misinterpretation of the results of the poll. I agree with Shell, that PHG has never seemed willing to voluntarily moderate his behavior, or even to acknowledge the concerns of other editors. He just keeps plowing ahead on his own course. --Elonka 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment is highly dishonest Elonka: the poll in question does not give you a "consensus" to delete 120k of material and 300 references. As far as I know a 3 "yes"/ 3 "either"/ 1 "against" is not considered a consensus by any standard on Wikipedia. You are simply violating the rules. PHG (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt ArbCom is going to grant this request (and consider it even more unlikely that PHG is going to agree to it willingly). The problem is, on the surface at least, PHG seems entirely convinced that what his writing is sincere and weighted appropriately. Whether or not that's true is NOT something that anyone but PHG can know with 100% accuracy. While I initially supported PHG's version of the main article, it seems that several competent folks with considerably greater knowledge than me disagreed with many of his assertions.
 * Whether or not PHG's articles are really violating NPOV is out of the realm of ArbCom restrictions, whether preemptive or at the conclusion of this request. In light of that, ArbCom is likely going to ignore any requests for sanctions based on content issues. I'd highly recommend that everyone keep their focus (both here and at the /Evidence subpage) on behavioral problems. At the conclusion of this ArbCom review, if you feel the sanctions aren't broad enough, take the content issues to the community at-large (which has, and can, impose sanctions for constantly adding improper content).
 * While I realize you all are trying to prevent problems, in reality, this only obscures the problems that ArbCom can deal with. While initially I didn't feel the behavioral issues warranted ArbCom involvement, it seems they do. So perhaps it would be best to keep focus ON the behavioral issues, and not the content problems.  Justin  chat 05:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should try to speak for ArbCom. Falsifying sources is totally out of bounds, and needs to be stopped.  This isn't a subtle issue.  It's not a dispute about NPOV.  It's about a user perpetrating hoaxes in Wikipedia.  PHG's intentions don't matter, only the results and his failure to modify behavior after receiving feedback. Jehochman  Talk 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Justin, with all due respect, I think you may be confused on the difference between "content issues" and "conduct issues." A content issue would be where we had one group of editors saying "There was an alliance" and another group of editors saying, "No there wasn't," and then we'd ask ArbCom to rule on which group was right or wrong.  That's content.  However, when we have nearly every editor saying, "Stop making POV forks, stop misrepresenting sources" and one editor keeps on making forks and cherry-picking sources, then that's not a content issue, that's a conduct issue.  Yes, the editor is making content, but the real problem is user conduct.  When one editor willfully ignores the cautions of everyone else, that's a conduct issue. Which is exactly within ArbCom's purview. --Elonka 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also in reply to Justin, one of the core issues of this arbitration is whether PHG presents legitimate citations of expert research or whether he ransacks sources for passing mentions and vague phrases to construe into accordance with his own pet theories. In terms of site policies this is a question of no original research; if Wikipedia were a university it would be called academic honesty and treated with the utmost seriousness.  Durova  Charge! 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, I was going to ignore this, but decided to bring up a couple of points. I never once spoke for ArbCom. I gave an opinion that ArbCom wouldn't grant this motion, which they have not. And my original point stands: this IS a NPOV issue. Calling it a POV fork but not a NPOV issue is absurd. So I maintain my point... let ArbCom deal with the behavioral issues, let the community handle content issues, but more importantly, why not drop all of this nonsense until ArbCom has a chance to review it all?  Justin  chat 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all no editor should ever feel discouraged from writing articles or adding new content unless they are a blatant vandal. It is important that no editor is made to feel like they shouldn;t contribute and certainly nobody should ever gives orders to another editor to stop their work. However factual accuracy and reliable sources are very important to our encyclopedia. Shouldn't you be discussing how to agree on what is reliable and gives an accurate view of the topic and come to an agreement civilly with PHG to ensure that content is accurate and of a high standard? Does he use reliable references? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to discuss sources and matters with PHG on the talk page of the articles in question. Some of my concerns get answered, some are still waiting for PHG to return to the subject that he promised to return to "soon". In my view, some of his sources are reliable, some are of lesser quality, but might be able to be replaced with better ones, and some of his usage of the sources is questionable. He has addressed a few of those concerns, but others still are not being addressed. I like to think I've remained civil and constructive, and hope that nothing I've said would be considered a personal attack. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ealdgyth. As I said, I'll be glad to keep on discussing sources stuff. As I said, my free time is limited, so it is very hard for me to edit decently and respond to the kind of stupid accusations we have here. I must say you also have been working on the shorter version (70k) anyway, so I hardly see the point of having me working on the references of the longer version when Elonka and her supporters keep deleting it. PHG (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I strongly suggest that you identify those sources and information which you all agree is reliable and work around this. I seriously doubt PHG would write a bluff article. I would suggest that one of you including Elonka when you have a spare moment draw up a list of references or sections which you believe evades an accurate description of the topic and discuss how to replace it or affirm that the existing ones are accurate. It just isn't a good solution to make an editor feel unwelcome, particularly when they are trying hard to write an article they believe is good. Wikipedia needs as many constructive editors as possible. I;ve seen the picture of the books PHG is using and they look academical enough but somebody believes he is adding original research which isn't in the book? Mmm that complicates things if true but either way I'd try to find the root of the problem and try to filter out any books or sources which you believe are less than adequate. If PHG you are concerned about having your work deleted, why not write an article in your sandbox and then discuss with the others what should be done to make it the best possible. Then when you come to some form of agremeent add it to the mainspace when most people are happy with it. This will save having your work wiped and further trouble, time also is precious but it can be avoided if you discuss it ALL through and try to work together and assume good faith. I hope you can find a solution peacefully and without further conflict as working in an environment like that isn't a good thing for anybody. Love  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by PHG I'm pretty much through with content creation in relation to the Franco-Mongol alliance, and I'm currently quite busy in real life anyway. My two most recent articles Aïbeg and Serkis and Samagar are very straightfoward and fact-based articles, so I really don't see what the fuss is about "not creating new articles". This seems quite ridiculous. I compiled over a period of 6 months about 200k of material and 400 academic references on this subject (Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)), I am very proud of the work that has been done, and I strongly dispute any claim that this information is not legitimate. It is all sourced from proper published sources, and if there are disputes, it should be balanced with competing sources in a NPOV manner, not just deleted abusively claiming "consensus" in small-scale polling. I am willing to discuss specific issues, but I find rather disgusting to see Elonka and a few of her friends band together and just throw false accusations to try to block a goodwilling and generous user such as myself in order to have their point-of-view prevail. This is bullying and politicking to the extreme. Regards PHG (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you appreciate that Adam Bishop is a doctoral candidate in Medieval history, and doesn't trust your research? Do you appreciate that I hold a degree in history from an Ivy League university, and have serious concerns about your use of sources?  Anyone who wishes is welcome to check my bona fides.  Are you willing to entertain the possibility that perhaps you are neither being bullied nor politicked, but instead you might possibly be an autodidact with mistaken notions about historical method and historiography?  Durova  Charge! 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Durova. I have an MBA from an elite French school and a leading Japanese University, and did receive some of the best secondary and tertiary education in these countries. All the material I contribute to Wikipedia is from proper published sources. I know the subjects I tend to like and write about are extremely arcane (Indo-Greek kingdom, Franco-Mongol alliance to cite a few), but I have absolutely no doubt about the quality of my contributions. Regards PHG (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, I am beginning to question why you write about extremely arcane subjects - is it because you think you can get away with it? You can write any sort of nonsense because no one is going to be able to question you? Perhaps this is true for the Indo-Greeks, but you have met your match now. I bet you never thought you would come across so many people who knew something, anything, about the crusades. You weren't arcane enough this time! The more you repeat your mantras of "proper published sources", "400 academic references", "non-negotiable policy", the less credible you are. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Adam. You will easily see that many of my contributions are not so arcane either (User:PHG) :) My main interests revolve around cultural interaction through the Ages, and I enjoy developing content on these subjects. These are generally little-known subjects, and I enjoy bringing light to them. Some other examples are: Indo-Greeks, Boshin War, Hasekura Tsunenaga, Christianity among the Mongols, Sino-Roman relations, Roman trade with India etc... Like it or not, all my contributions are based on proper published material. I will be delighted to discuss if you have issues with them. PHG (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what someone said on the talk page once, just because someone says they are "academic references" doesn't make them so. Some are, some aren't. I too, studied history in college, and while I didn't finish an advanced degree, I did take the classes. I have concerns, that I've detailed on the evidence page, with the use of sources and the sources used, and those concerns remain unaddressed. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Degrees are moot at Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who a doctoral candidate is or isn't, since any information on that basis is original research. To be perfectly honest, I think you all look foolish for attempting to make a point with it. All of you have obscured the main purpose of this RfA, and turned it into some odd "my qualifications are better than yours" competition. To be blunt: grow up. This isn't about Harvard being better than Yale, or a doctorate in history making you a better editor. This is about behavioral issues related to several articles, and thus far, you've obfuscated that with this degree nonsense.  Justin  chat 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG opened the door to a credentials discussion by repeatedly insisting that the people who disagreed with him were incompetent partisans. He continues to claim full confidence in his article writing even though half of his featured articles have been defeatured.  One does not mediate with a habitual violator of WP:SYNTH because there isn't any policy that allows for Some original research.  The questions have been whether he violates WP:NOR deliberately and whether he can stop.  I would very much like to see him adjust to feedback and become a more successful contributor.  He is prolific and works in highly encyclopedic subjects, but his methods are unsound.  Durova  Charge! 00:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not the one who "opened the door to a credentials discussion" Durova, you did, by giving Adam Bishop's credentials and suggesting I was an "autodidact". And I never said that those who disagree with me are "incompetent partisans". Stop lying Durova, this is quite a shame that you should misrepresent the comments of others in such a way. Your other accusations are also totally unwarranted. PHG (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, please review your formal evidence statement here where you first state that Elonka didn't understand copyright, and then specifically name me as "another one of Elonka's friends" in a context that implies I don't know what I'm doing either. I politely requested you to modify that and you didn't.  That compelled me to submit formal evidence; what I've presented so far is the second draft--the short version.  Please withdraw the the accusation that I am lying.  I am not lying, and if you insist upon making honesty an issue here I can post the full statement I have already written.  You would really serve yourself better if things didn't go there.  Durova  Charge! 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Durova. I removed the speculation that you were one of Elonka's friend (I had a question mark there), but as far as I know the rest is true. Elonka made huge attacks on me based on a defective understanding (intentional or not) of Pd-Art . You actually owe me an apology for falsely claiming above that I "opened the door to a credentials discussion", that I call those who disagree with me "incompetent partisans", or suggesting that I was an "autodidact". I am fed up with your gratuitous attacks. Correct yourself. PHG (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've struck through my evidence.  Durova  Charge! 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Justin that this degree stuff is a red herring. The only reason anyone ever brought up their history degrees (or whatever) was because doesn't know how to research and write history, and we were trying to help. (But this will lead me to a rant on the inherent failures of Wikipedia that have nothing to do with Arbcom, so I'll stop.) (And if I am to be used as an example, well, the article has been critiqued and rewritten by many others with basically zero input from me at all.) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG advised to stop editing others evidence
2) PHG has been asked several times by Thatcher and myself to stop editing other editor's evidence and stop inserting his posts inside others. Despite these polite requests, he has not stopped is now edit warring with me at User:Shell Kinney/Tracking, a subpage I created for more lengthy evidence.
 * Hi Shell. This is dishonest. I have NOT been editing any of your evidence: I am just adding responses to the accusations you are laying against me, which I think I am entitled to. You cannot just build pages of accusations without allowing me to make proper responses: this is akin to creating Attack Pages. I started by writing my responses directly, but you objected to it and relagated my response to the Talk Page, in a way that makes it nearly impossible to link to each of your accusations. I then tried to just put a link to my responses at the end of each of your accusations, in an unobtrusive way, using the format: "Response by PHG: HERE". I think you at least have to allow for that. If you don't, it means that you are only interested in unidirectional accusations and try to make my responses as hard to access as possible: you have to give me a proper and easily accessible way of responding. I think the above "Response by PHG: HERE" is probably the best method. If you still object to me editing your user subpage, may I suggest that you move your evidence either here, or to a community-accessible page such as Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop/Shell Kinney Tracking. Regards. PHG (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it was moved here, you'd still have to add your responses to your own sections, just like the Evidence page where Thatcher sorted your things out. You've already indicated that your responses are on the talk page in your evidence and on this page. I am not suggesting that you not respond, I am asking that you not continue to edit within my evidence. Shell babelfish 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, people visiting your page User:Shell Kinney/Tracking should at least be informed that I have written a response to your list of accusations. You have to let me add a link "Response by PHG: HERE" under each of your accusations. You cannot just write up a list of slanders, and not allow other users to have easy access to my responses to it. I'd prefer that you put your accusations on this page, so that I can answer to them in view of all concerned, rather than claim the privacy of "User space" as a justification to eradicate and hide my answers. These are all very unfair practices. PHG (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * TO ADMINISTRATORS: Shell Kinney is effectively mounting an attack page against me User:Shell Kinney/Tracking, and she is blocking me from making responses to her accusations on that page, claiming the privacy of "User space". As far as I know, mounting attack pages is not acceptable Wikipedia practice. Either Shell allows me to respond on her page, or to link my responses from her page, or she deletes the page and moves the content here so that I can properly respond. PHG (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its part of my evidence, on a subpage to avoid cluttering the evidence page (its a large table). His lengthy responses were moved out of the table and on to the talk page, which he links from his evidence. *sigh* Shell babelfish 18:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Shell. Unfortunately, you are lying again. You moved out my lengthy responses, and I accepted it . Instead, I placed just one very small link to my responses, but you again deleted it . I then placed, small links ("Response by PHG, HERE), to my responses under each of your accusations, and you again deleted it . I've tried to make the links as unobtrusive as possible, but you kept deleting them. So, basically, you are denying me any form of response on your accusation page: this is in effect creating an attack page, and this is prohibited on Wikipedia. Please correct yourself. PHG (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else want to jump in here? I'm getting just a bit disgusted with the constant string of personal attacks and PHG's insistence that he doesn't have to follow the guidelines for evidence in an Arbitration. He's editing other people's things *again*. ,
 * Durova Charge! 04:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Shell. People visiting evidence pages should at least be informed where the responses are located. This is a matter of common sense. I only added a line on your evidence page "Responses by PHG to this table are visible here" so that people can get both sides of the story. Doing otherwise if like keeping an "attack page". Regarding Ealdgyth's page, I DID NOT get any request from her not to respond to her comments on her page. If she does, I will ask her also just to put a link to my responses. Don't act instead of Ealdgyth please. If you can't respect this I am formally asking that you put your "evidence list" on this page (as mentionned by User:Newyorkbrad hereunder), so that I can answer right under it and people can know where my response is. PHG (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * People do know where the answers are PHG, the format used in Arbitration isn't anything new and you have a link to it from your evidence just like I do from mine. However, since you feel so strongly that you should be the only one not required to follow the rules, I've replaced your link. It's simply not worth time spent listening to the same arguments and personal attacks. Shell babelfish 05:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Shell. I would prefer that you allow me to link my answers to each of your accusations so that people can follow the argument, but it's ok. PHG (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The format used on the evidence page is that each editor post evidence, including responses, in his or her own section. This makes each party's position simplest for the arbitrators to follow. As appropriate, you can create a subsection in your own section called "response to X" where you lay out the details of your response. Additionally, responses or dialog can be appropriate on this workshop page, which is one of the purposes of the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Questions to the parties=
 * Some of the parties to this case contend that sources relating to the disputed articles have been blatantly misrepresented. Please list up to ten instances in which it is alleged that a source has been cited as saying something that is completely unsupported by or contradictory to what the source actually says. The citations should not include issues of nuances or where legitimate disagreement over the meaning of the source is possible, but rather instances in which it is believed that the source is being totally misused or mis-cited. Please select from sources that are available in the public catalog of the New York Public Library or libraries of equivalent size. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick tip: Google Scholar works incredibly well.  It is possible to find many of the sources online by first searching for the title or author.  Then, it is possible to search within the book for keywords, such as "Mongol Jerusalem" to find references, and it is possible to post links to scanned pages of the book. Jehochman  Talk 23:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Response by Elonka
That's a dozen off the top of my head. My apologies for insufficient diffs, I am still logging on from a hotel room in San Francisco. I will work on it more later (and anyone else who wishes, can further expand the list). In the meantime, please tell me if this is what you were looking for? Or do you need things spelled out in more detail? --Elonka 02:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Multiple bad sources at Knights Templar, citing pseudohistory websites, or referencing Sylvia Schein to say that the Mongols had conquered Jerusalem, when her article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos" says the exact opposite.
 * Note in the exact diff also a technique of PHG's, where he puts his POV into primary placement in the article, but then relegates an opposing viewpoint to a secondary status or a brief footnote. In this case he states that Jerusalem was captured, references Schein, and then in the footnote says, "Doubts have been raised," when in reality the main thrust of Schein's article is that Jerusalem was not captured. PHG completely removed the opposing (mainstream) viewpoint from the article, placing it only in a footnote.
 * 1) PHG using a quote from the unreliable source of Laurent Dailliez's Les Templiers pp.306-307 (that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols).  See: Talk:Laurent Dailliez and Talk:Laurent Dailliez.  Specifically:
 * 2) * In Les Templiers, pp. 306-307, Dailliez says that Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, signed a treaty with the Mongols. Dailliez provides no source other than mentioning an unspecified "letter to the King of England." No date, no exact recipient, no footnotes, not even a "Recommended reading" at the end of the book.
 * 3) * When challenged about this, PHG then went to another book of Dailliez's that doesn't say anything about a treaty, and quoted Latin from it as though it backs up the statement in the first book. Here, PHG quotes from a letter in Latin, from Jacques de Molay to King Edward I, claiming that it's the only such letter known, therefore it must be the letter that Dailliez was referring to in the first book:
 * 4) * The Latin that PHG quotes, still doesn't say anything about a treaty. See Aramgar's translation below.
 * 5) * Despite multiple editors commenting on Dailliez's unreliability (see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 3, Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive 3, PHG still insists on putting this controversial claim into his version of the article.
 * 6) PHG stating in multiple locations (articles since deleted) that Dr. Peter Jackson said that the Mongols had liberated Jerusalem, when Jackson's book was only listing a series of rumors at the time.  See Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive 5 Exact ref:  Jackson, p. 173
 * 7) PHG citing multiple sources on an article, that did not actually discuss the topic of the article.  See Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis and other threads at that talkpage
 * 8) PHG arguing about the whereabouts of Bohemond VI in 1258, making outlandish claims that even though there were other sources which proved that Bohemond was in a different city, that "maybe he used a system of relay riders" in order to be in a different place at effectively the same time.  See Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 3
 * 9) Multiple instances at User:PHG/Alliance.  A couple of the more blatant ones:
 * 10) PHG claims that Christopher Tyerman in God's War, mentions the existence of a Mongol alliance.  Tyerman does use the words "Mongol alliance", but he talks about it as something that didn't happen, not as something that existed. Ref: Tyerman, pp. 798-799, 816
 * 11) PHG claims that Dr. Jackson's book Mongols and the West has a chapter "Ally Against Islam", and claims that this means that Jackson is affirming that an alliance existed.  In actuality, Dr. Jackson goes into many pages about why an alliance didn't occur. Ref: Jackson, pp. 1-6, 172-179, 362
 * 12) PHG using a painting in the Versailles, as a source that a battle occurred. See also Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_1.  Also, note PHG's comments that with his assertion that there was a battle, that the information needed to stay in the article unless we (other editors) could provide proof that there wasn't a battle.
 * 13) PHG created the article Mulay and copy/pasted in multiple sources that had nothing to do with the topic.  Same with Kutlushah.
 * 14) PHG claiming that medieval historians such as Templar of Tyre are "secondary sources"
 * 15) When he couldn't find a source in the text of a book, PHG decided to cite the marketing copy on the backcover of the book.
 * 16) Insisting that the descriptor for the relationship with Bohemond VI is "alliance" and in his edit summary saying, "Not a single historian denies this alliance"
 * (see User:Elonka/Mongol historians for the mainstream view, which is that it was a subject/overlord relationship)
 * 1) When he gets excited about something, PHG increases the number of cherry-picked quotes that he uses, to the detriment of the article.  Look at Ref #1 here, where a single reference has been extended to a length of multiple pages, as PHG copy/pastes in quotes from multiple historians.
 * 2) PHG created the page Oroqina Khatun, even though the vast majority of sources, including the source that PHG listed, refer to her by a different name, "Dokuz" or "Doquz Khatun". Ref: Runciman, pp. 303-304. It is possible that PHG simply copied information from an unreliable website for his text, and then sourced Runciman even though Runciman said something different.  See Talk:Doquz Khatun for details. --Elonka 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding sources to obtain that PHG has misquoted, I highly recommend obtaining:
 * Jackson, Peter (2005). The Mongols and the West: 1221-1410. Longman. ISBN 978-0582368965.
 * Tyerman, Christopher (2006). God's War: A New History of the Crusades. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674023870.
 * Schein, Sylvia (October 1979). "Gesta Dei per Mongolos 1300. The Genesis of a Non-Event". The English Historical Review 94 (373): 805-819.'
 * One other excellent source which he hasn't misquoted, but does go to the heart of the subject and can help you understand context, is this one:
 * Amitai, Reuven (1987). "Mongol Raids into Palestine (AD 1260 and 1300)". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society: 236-255
 * --Elonka 03:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Blnguyen
This is not evidence from me, but I still think it's pertinent and wanted to highlight it. (Recused) arbitrator, further down in this workshop page, commented that PHG has also misused sources in another topic area, that of the Indo-Greek Kingdom. "At least on IGK article, PHG is either unable or unwilling to use sources properly." --Elonka 23:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's response to Aramgar's translation
I concur with Aramgar's analysis of the Latin, in his section. Though I am not personally fluent in medieval Latin, one of the centers of Crusades research in the United States is here in St. Louis. I attend regular meetings of Crusades historians at Saint Louis University, meetings which are chaired by Dr. Thomas Madden, who wrote the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Crusades.

I had the opportunity to ask Dr. Clarence H. Miller, a renowned Latinist, to translate the Latin that PHG provided, and Dr. Miller said that there's nothing in there about a treaty. His translation also matches with what Aramgar has provided.

I have also spoken with Dr. Madden about Laurent Dailliez's claim that there was a treaty signed by Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar. Madden has never heard of a treaty.

I also had the opportunity to chat with Dr. Malcolm Barber, the world's leading authority on the Knights Templar, and he said he's never heard of a treaty either (and his next question was, "What's the source?" Without a source, the claim isn't credible). It was also pointed out to me that Jacques de Molay wouldn't even be in the position to sign a treaty, as he was simply the head of a military order -- he wasn't a head of state. Him signing a treaty would be like a general signing a treaty instead of the King.

However, despite the fact that I have presented all this information to PHG, I (and Aramgar) are still chastised for "original research", and PHG continues to maintain that if he has even a single published historian (Dailliez) saying that there was a signed treaty, that the Wikipedia article must include that information unless someone can produce a published quote from another historian saying that there wasn't a treaty. This is absurd, and a clear violation of WP:V, specifically WP:REDFLAG: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. But PHG seems unwilling or unable to grasp this concept. --Elonka 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to Elonka by PHG
My responses hereunder. All Elonka's claims (italics) are either untruths or misrepresentations.

1. Multiple bad sources at Knights Templar, citing pseudohistory websites, or referencing Sylvia Schein to say that the Mongols had conquered Jerusalem, when her article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos" says the exact opposite.
 * Untrue. Quite incredibly, the diff. you are giving actually shows me saying that "Doubts have been raised whether the conquest of Jerusalem actually happened: "Gesta Dei per Mongolos 1300. The Genesis of a Non-Event" Sylvia Schein", which I think is totally faithfull to Schein. I think you will try to show me wrong whatever I say :):) The sites you mention are two Templar sites that we agreed to remove long, long ago after discussion. PHG (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

2. PHG using a quote from Laurent Dailliez's Les Templiers'' (that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols) even though Dailliez's book is not a reliable source, the information in Dailliez's book was not backed up with any footnotes, and no other historian corroborated the claim. See: Talk:Laurent Dailliez and Talk:Laurent Dailliez. There is also further information at mediation where PHG was quoting Latin from one book to bolster a claim in a different book, and as it turned out, the Latin didn't say anything of the kind. If the mediation is opened (as I have requested and PHG has agreed, but mediator Tariqabjotu has refused), I can supply specific diffs.''
 * Laurent Dailliez, a quite famous French historian, does write:


 * I don't see what's wrong with mentionning this author, although it is true that I am not aware of this exact claim about a treaty among other authors (but I do not have access to so many publications). Jacques de Molay is however otherwise known to have dealt intensively with the Mongols and planned actions in alliance with them (User:PHG/Franco-Mongol_alliance_%28full_version%29). The letter to Edward is unique and well known (Alain Demurger), and is actually quoted by Dailliez himself in his book "Jacques de Molay". It is an medieval Latin though, and it is difficult to translate for anybody but a specialist I think. Again, it is not me who is claiming that the letter speaks about "a treaty", but Dailliez. From what I can see, the letter does mention however that de Molay was waiting for Ghazan's promissed arrival:

3. ''PHG stating in multiple locations (articles since deleted) that Dr. Peter Jackson said that the Mongols had liberated Jerusalem, when Jackson's book was only listing a series of rumors at the time. See Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive 5''
 * Does Jackson consider that Jerusalem was captured by the Mongols in 1300, like many other historians? (User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)). It does seem so, but I agree he is not crystal clear, and that there can be a claim for ambiguity. Twice however he mentions the capture of Jerusalem in a factual manner (p.172-173 hereunder) without explicity discounting it. He also mentions that the WHOLE of Palestine and Syria was wide open to the Mongols in 1299/1300, before their withdrawal in February 1300 and the re-occupation of the land by the Mamluks, a statement consistent with the capture of Jerusalem. (p.170, hereunder). Afaik, Jackson nowhere denies the capture of Jerusalem. To the contrary, his statements are all indicative that he considers the capture of Jerusalem as facts, just as many other historians. He also unambiguously writes that Jerusalem was raided by the Mongols in 1260 (p.116) (User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)):
 * In 1299/1300: “The whole of Syria and Palestine, evacuated by their Mamluk garrissons, lay open to the Mongols, who entered Damscus on 31 December. But Ghazan’s forces in turn withdrew early in February 1300, leaving the country to be reoccupied with the Mamluks. ” (p.170)
 * “The Ilkhan had also signaled his capture of Jerusalem by being baptized” (p.172). Here Jackson obviously challenges the baptism of Ghazan, but not obviously the capture of Jerusalem. (p.172)
 * "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.”(p.173) The background chapter is indeed about the stories and affabulations that circulated in the West, but it is highly unclear if he refers to the capture of Jerusalem (he does not say "the alleged Mongol liberation of the Holy City" or whatever), or the story that Pope Boniface built upon it.
 * Further, Jackson does say clearly that Jerusalem was raided by the Mongols in 1260: "During the next few months Mongol troops raided Hebron, Ascalon and Jerusalem, sacked Nablus, and received the surrender of Ba'labakk and Aijlun", so he is clearly OK with the notion of Mongols in Jerusalem.
 * Regarding 1300, Jackson may be contrued as ambiguous however, so I'd rather leave him aside (except for the Mongol raids on Jerusalem in 1260) and focus on the historians who unambiguously say Jerusalem was captured by the Mongols: 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, 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). Even Sylvia Schein in 1991 wrote that the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed" because they are documented to have removed the Golden Gate of the Temple of Jerusalem in 1300, to have it transferred 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) Numerous contemporary sources (whether Armenian, Christian or Muslim) also describe the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols ((User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)). PHG (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

4. ''PHG citing multiple sources on an article, that did not actually discuss the topic of the article. See Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis and other threads at that talkpage''
 * Viam agnoscere veritatis is the name of the letter brought back from the Pope by the Mongol envoys Aïbeg and Serkis. The letter and the envoys are connected by Roux, among others. Runciman, p. 259, Wilkinson (Intercivilizational Dialogues lecture), Grousset, p. 523 do not give the name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" but still do discuss that letter carried by the two Mongol envoys. I believe this is enough ground to mention them in this article. PHG (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

5. ''PHG arguing about the whereabouts of Bohemond VI in 1258, making outlandish claims that even though there were other sources which proved that Bohemond was in a different city, that "maybe he used a system of relay riders" in order to be in a different place at effectively the same time. See Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 3''
 * Elonka, you are knowingly misrepresenting our discussions. According to Alain Demurger (not me!) Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258: "Bohemond was present at Baghdad in 1258" ("Bohemond VI etait present a Baghdad en 1258") in "Jacques de Molay", Demurger, p.55. He also wrote about the presence of the Franks of Bohemond at the capture of Baghdad: "”The Franks of Tripoli and Antioch, as well as the Armenians of Cilicia who, as soon as the submission of Asia Minor in 1243 had to recognize the suzerainty of the Mongols and pay tribute, participated to the capture of Baghdad. – Demurger, “Croisades et Croises”, p.284. Now, some users started to make Original Research speculation that this would not have been possible since Bohemond is also documented to have been in Acre beginning of February 1258. I just responded that this was OR, and that it may have been possible anyway since Bohemond would have benefited from the transportation system of his allies the Mongols (Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_3). This is irrelevant anyway as a reputable author (Alain Demurger) does state that he was in Baghdad. PHG (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also note that André de Longjumeau, just a few years before Bohemond VI is known to have travelled under a Mongol guard using the “admirably organized” Mongol imperial post in 1249, on his way between Antioch and Mongolia. ("On allait grand train, utilisant la poste imperiale admirablement organisee" (Jean-Paul Roux, "Les explorateurs au Moyen-Age", p.110). Mongol horsemen were capable to travel up to 100 km a day. ("Le cheval de steppe (…) capable de parcourir 100 kilometres par jour quand il est bien nourri, bien repose, ce pourquoi on prefere les campagnes d’hiver quand il a ete gave d’herbes estivales", Roux, "Ghengis Khan et l’Empire Mongol", p.63). So there is really nothing outlandish saying that Bohemond could also have benefited from the same conditions. The Original Research speculations that Bohemond could not have been in Baghdad in February 1258 since he is also documented to have been in Acre beginning of February 1258 are thus contradicted by the reality of travel under the Mongols. PHG (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, this is crazy, we wouldn't even be discussing this if it wasn't for your imagination, based on a nonsensical statement by Demurger that was itself not even sourced. You said Bohemond used the Mongol post system, and that is original research! Do you really not understand this?  This is the sort of thing people write journal articles about.  Why don't you focus your energies on getting yourself published, then you can quote yourself? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Adam, Alain Demurger is a leading and highly recognized French historian. I strongly object to your calling his statements "nonsensical". He does write that Bohemond VI was in Baghdad in 1258. He does write about the participations of the Franks to the capture of Baghdad. Now, two Wikipedia contributors come up with original research saying that, based on standard travel times in the Middle Ages, it would have been impossible for Bohemond to be in Baghdad and Antioch in the same month of February. WELL, this is clearly original research and it is no ground to dismiss Demurger, and furthermore it is wrong original research: the Mongols were actually able to provide very fast transportation (around 100 km a day), that would make easy for someone like Bohemond to join Baghdad and Antioch in a little more than a week. Regards. PHG (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

6. ''Multiple instances at User:PHG/Alliance. A couple of the more blatant ones:''
 * PHG claims that Christopher Tyerman in God's War, mentions the existence of a Mongol alliance. Tyerman does use the words "Mongol alliance", but he talks about it as something that didn't happen, not as something that existed.
 * Untrue. Here is the exact text: Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, 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) There is a big difference between something that that did not happen (as you claim), and something that did happen but "led nowhere", as Tyerman writes. You are distorting what he actually writes. Tyerman 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. Tyerman does indeed talk about the alliance, but insists that it was eventually a resounding failure. PHG (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

7. PHG claims that Dr. Jackson's book Mongols and the West'' has a chapter "Ally Against Islam", and claims that this means that Jackson is affirming that an alliance existed. In actuality, Dr. Jackson goes into many pages about why an alliance didn't occur.''
 * Untrue. Jackson had a chapter entitled "AN ALLY AGAINST ISLAM: THE MONGOLS IN THE NEAR EAST" and goes into a detailed discussion the instances of cooperation between the Crusaders and the Mongols, before concluding that the alliance led nowhere. He does no deny that agreements occured and that there were cases of collaboration as a result:
 * In 1260, "Prince Bohemond VI, perhaps under the influence of his father-in-law King Het'um of Lesser Armenia, waited upon Hulegu in person and was allowed to reach a settlement that covered his county of Tripoli as well. He participated in the Mongol campaign against Ba'labakk, which he hoped to obtain from Hulegu, and may have ridden into Damascus with the Mongol army. (...) Mongol overlordship brought certain benefits in its wake. His [Bohemond VI] conciliatory attitude towards the Mongols had incurred a ban of excomunication by the Papal legate Thomas Agni di Lentino." (Jackson, "The Mongols and the West", p.117). PHG (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Not until Clement IV’s pontificate (1265-8), it seems, did the Curia begin to entertain the possibility that the Ilkhan might serve as an ally against Baybars", p.166
 * In 1267, the Pope agrees in principle to combined actions: “The Pope for his part had to tell the Ilkhan in 1267 that he would notify him of the timetable [for the next Crusade] once he had consulted the various monarchs” (p.180)
 * In 1271 “Only the English contingent, under the Lord Edward (the future Edward I), sailed on from Tunis and made contact with the Mongols. In September 1271, Abaqa asked Edward to coordinate his activities with those of the Mongol general Samaghar, whom he was sending against the Mamluks. (…) The Sultan was able to prevent any junction of his enemies. (…) Edward’s simultaneous attack on Qaqun was a feeble affair.” (p.167)
 * From 1273, Jackson also mentions the alliance of the Byzantines with the Mongols: “From 1273 Michael allied with Noghai, giving him an illegitimate daughter in marriage and using him as a means of putting pressure on Bulgaria when its king menaced the empire’s northern frontier in 1273 and 1279. When Michael died in 1282, he had just welcomed in Constantinople a band of Mongol auxiliaries whom Noghai had sent to assist him against the despot of Thessaly” (p.203)
 * In 1281 “Both Bohemond VII of Tripoli and King Hugh III of Cyprus were urged to join forces with the Mongols. But Hugh’s arrival was delayed, and the new Sultan Qalawun was able to position his army between Mongke Temur and the Franks on the coast. It seems that some Hospitallers from Margat (Marqab) participated in the campaign.” (p.168)
 * In 1288 the Mongol ambassador Rabban Sawma received promisses of Western support (although not concrete) to the Mongols: he “left only with many assurances of support and no promisses of concrete assistance” (p.169)
 * In 1291, concrete combined actions took place, as “a contingent of 800 Genoese arrived, whom he [Arghun] employed in 1290 in building ships at Baghdad with a view to harassing Egyptian commerce at the southern approaches to the Red Sea.” (p.169)
 * In 1299: “The king of Cyprus made some attempts to mount combined operations in harmony with the Mongol's movements. In the Autumn of 1299, he sent two galleys to occupy Botrun and to rebuild the fortress of Nephin, while a larger fleet of 16 galleys made what amounted to no more than a demonstration at Rosetta and outside the harbour of Alexandria before touching briefly at Acre, Tortosa and Maraclea. More serious was the expedition led in 1300, in response to another appeal by Ghazan, by the king’s brother Amaury, titular Lord of Tyre and Constable of the Kingdom of Jerusalem – the first attempt since 1291 to restore the Latin settlement in the Holy Land and to coordinate military activity with the Ilkhan’s forces. The Templar Jacques de Molay seems to have been particularly enthusiastic about the campaigns.” (p.171)
 * "In many respects, the Mongol occupation of Syria in 1299-1300 represents the high water-mark of Mongol-Latin relations" (p.172)
 * This continued to some extent until 1405: “In the Near East, Temur’s death only a few years previously, in 1405, marked the passing of the last “Tartar” sovereign who was widely regarded in the West as a potential, or even real, ally against the Muslim powers, the Mamluks and the Ottomans” (p.3)
 * Jackson generally describes the relations between the Mongols and the Crusaders as cordial but abortive: “The more cordial, though abortive, diplomatic relations between the Ilkhans on the one hand and the Papacy and Western monarchs on the other” (p.3), and stresses the ultimate defeat of all these efforts. PHG (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

8. PHG using a painting in the Versailles, as a source that a battle occurred.
 * I did mention indeed that the capture of Jerusalem was represented in a 19th century painting in Versailles, Paris and I'm proud of that (it is also mentionned by Alain Demurger). I didn't know at that time though that the event was controversial. It indeed seems that Jacques de Molay did not participate to the capture of Jerusalem (although 19th century historians, and one modern historian I know of, Laurent Dailliez, speaks about the event: "Jacques de Molay, who had ravaged, with his knights, the surroundings of Gaza, Jerusalem and the Krak, received the order to obey to the Mongol leadership (...) Ghazan (...) left Jacques de Molay in charge of Christian and Mongol troops. The Christians celebrated Easter 1299 in the Holy City, captured from the Muslims", original French: "Jacques de Molay, qui avait ravage, avec les chevaliers, les envirions de Gaza, de Jerusalem et du Krak recut l'ordre d'obeir au commandant mongol. (...) Ghazan (...) laissant Jacques de Molay a la tete des troupes Chretiennes et Tartares. Les Chretiens purent celebrer la fete de Paques 1299, dans la Ville Sainte reprise sur les musulmans", Laurent Dailliez, Jacques de Molay, p.28). The events of the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols are however attested by numerous contemporary (Armenians, Christians, Muslims) and modern secondary sources, including Alain Demurger himself: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version). Elonka knowns about this, so I am afraid she is not of very good faith in attacking me here. PHG (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

9.  PHG created the article Mulay and copy/pasted in multiple sources that had nothing to do with the topic
 * Untrue. All the pasted sources are related to the Franco-Mongol alliance. What's the big deal about having many sources? Is this really something you want to ban somebody from Wikipedia for? PHG (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

10. PHG created the article Kutlushah and copy/pasted in multiple sources that had nothing to do with the topic
 * Untrue. All the pasted sources are related to the Franco-Mongol alliance. What's the big deal about having many sources? Is this really something you want to ban somebody from Wikipedia for? PHG (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

11. PHG claiming that a fleet of Crusader ships "sailed under the Mongol banner".
 * Untrue. It is the historian Alain Demurger who claims so, based on the account by Le Templier de Tyr: "King Henry II of Cyprus, Jacques de Molay, and the Grand Commander of the Hospitallers decided to launch a fleet of 16 galleys (...) the banner of the Il-Khan was raised on the boats because he [the Khan's ambassador] was onboard" (Original French: "Le roi Henri II de Chypre, Jacques de Molay et le grand commandeur de l'Hopital decident en effet de lancer une flotte de seize galeres (...) la banniere de l'Ilkhan fut hissee sur les bateaux parce qu'il etait a bord" Alain Demurger "Jacques de Molay", p.147). Elonka knows very well this quote, as we have already discussed it. She is therefore probably raising it again in bad faith, trying to make it look as if it was my invention. PHG (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

12. PHG claiming that medieval historians such as Templar of Tyre are "reliable secondary sources"
 * Not quite. I just think it is interesting to quote Le Templier de Tyr from time to time, especially where he is quoted by secondary sources. PHG (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

13. Insisting that the descriptor for the relationship with Bohemond VI is "alliance" and in his edit summary saying, "Not a single historian denies this alliance.
 * Wow, and you want to get me banned from Wikipedia for making this statement? What I was saying is that as far as I know nobody denies that Bohemond VI fought together with the Mongols against the Muslims, in taking Aleppo and apparently Damascus (see: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol_alliance_%28full_version%29). Now, some call it "alliance" (User:PHG/Alliance), some call it "overlorship". But you were pushing to erase any notion of collaboration in the title (and, to a large extent, in the text), which is contrary to what all historians say. Please remember that pretty much every time you wished to balance an "alliance" with a "submission", I accepted to do so (using the cumbersome alliance/submission type of descriptive). I think this was at the time when you were claiming that Antioch was not a Crusader State, which is total historical nonesense... I'll ask for a 20-year ban from Wikipedia for that :) PHG (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

14. ''When he gets excited about something, PHG increases the number of cherry-picked quotes that he uses, to the detriment of the article. Look at Ref #1 here, where a single reference has been extended to a length of multiple pages, as PHG copy/pastes in quotes from multiple historians.''
 * Is it a crime to use a lot of refs on some occasions? I don't think so, especially when a subject is contentious: the more information the better. Of course, in your own short version, you've deleted all those references that disturbed you (300 altogether). It's so much more convenient to eliminate other views isn't it? PHG (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Limited comment by Durova
With regard to the attempt to use a 19th century painting as evidence that a Medieval battle occurred, we again run into problems with priority of sources. If this is to be entered or defended at any level, then I propose the following nineteenth and early twentieth century art as evidence for reevaluating the historical side the King Arthur article:

Yet instead of conceding this preposterous argument, PHG claims to be proud of it. He goes on to write he needed to be informed that imaginative nineteenth century paintings aren't always factual? This is an example of why this editor's contributions are so deeply problematic that the Committee would be justified in authorizing editors to remove his cited attributions wholesale as if they were unsourced until independent verification is supplied. The difference between fantasy and reality ought not to require debate. Durova Charge! 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't see what is wrong with mentionning that the capture of Jerusalem by Jacques de Molay is represented in a famous 19th century painting in Versailles, Paris (also in Alain Demurger). I think it is actually great that we can have this kind of information as well on Wikipedia. I didn't use it as "evidence", but rather pointed that it did exist when we had these discussions whether Jacques de Molay was indeed in Jerusalem or not. Since then, it turned out that numerous historians do consider that Jerusalem was captured by the Mongols in 1300 User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version), but only a few consider that Jacques de Molay was there (Laurent Dailliez and many 19th century historians, a view illustrated by this painting). Nowhere have I said that this 19th century painting was in itself "a proof" that Jacques de Molay was in Jerusalem in the 13th century (!!!): it would be quite meaningless to say otherwise. PHG (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and not seeing what is wrong with this approach speaks volumes. The visual arts of the nineteenth century were rife with imaginative and thoroughly ahistorical depictions of the Middle Ages.  See Pre-Raphaelite movement.  It does not strengthen your historical argument in any way to refer to such a painting in editorial discussion of Medieval history.  If such a thing were done, I could exploit this to illustrate how slashed sleeves were supposedly worn concurrently with pointed toed shoes, but they weren't: slashed sleeves were a sixteenth century fashion, worn with square toed shoes, and the nineteenth century artist who mixed those sleeves with a shoe style from the fifteenth century either didn't know or didn't care.  Your argument and subsequent defense sheds serious doubt upon your editorial judgement.  If you don't back away from even this obvious instance as a bad idea altogether, then what else can you expect us to trust?  Durova  Charge! 08:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Durova, this is ridiculous. It is of course OK to illustrate an article with a famous historical painting (as also mentionned by Adam Bishop hereafter), especially as the story of Jacques de Molay in Jerusalem has been quite a historical phenomenon. Of course the painting proves nothing, it is just an illustration that this story has been widely developed during the 19th century (and it is being retold by some authors today). PHG (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with a painting per se...as long as you clearly identify that it is a 19th century imagining. Many crusade articles are illustrated with Gustav Dore engravings, and one is adorned with a cartoon from Punch Magazine in which King Richard celebrates the capture of Jerusalem by Allenby in 1917. This is of course separate from the views of Daillez, etc. It is entirely possible for a published, reputable historian to be utterly wrong, in which case his views are irrelevant. If Daillez says Molay was in Jerusalem in 1300, Daillez can be safely ignored. PHG does not understand this, because he does not understand how to write history, which is one cause of this dispute. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam, thank you for restoring some sanity to this discussion about historical paintings. Regarding your second comment, I am not a historian, I am just a Wikipedian: I just read all the published material I can on a given subject, and try to organize the resulting data the best I can. I have very strong doubts about more or less anonymous Wikipedians without any formal credentials starting to select some sources against others in order to push their points of views. We are not here to play historians and to discredit secondary sources according to our own original research or judgement: we are only here to provide a synthesis of the published views available on a given subject, in a neutral manner. PHG (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is an insinuation that my identity and education is unknown and/or unconfirmable, I have already offered to provide bona fides. It is interesting that your responses do not account for the possibility that people who disagree with you might be motivated by any better motive than POV pushing.  The problem is that Wikipedia's function is not to provide an original synthesis, and in history as in any other subject certain lines of inquiry become obsolete.  I am not trained in economics, yet I know enough to refrain from editing articles as if mercantilism or the guild system were still viable concepts.  Can you respect that analogy?  Durova  Charge! 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

<- Hint for the unwary: Do not under any circumstances debate Durova on topics of Medieval fashion or armor. Jehochman Talk 00:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that you try, PHG; you just don't do it very well. And some of us are not playing historians, we are historians, who know what we're doing and your article would be far better off if you listened to us, which has been my argument for probably the last six months. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Adam, please stop with this condescending stuff. Wikipedia history articles are not reserved to "Historians" far from it. Anybody is allowed to contribute to these articles, as long as their contributions are referenced from proper published sources, which is my case. If you desire credentials-based editing by specialists only, you could apply to something like Knol. But this is not how Wikipedia works: we are basically all amateurs, who contribute published stuff, without playing historians with primary sources, or trying to discredit secondary sources through highly disputable polemics which should remain the subject of specialists and as far as I know have nothing to do on Wikipedia. All significant views are simply supposed to be mentionned and balanced in an NPOV manner, and this is "non negotiable" . That some views may have more merit than others according to some individual editors is totally irrelevant. PHG (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said they were reserved for historians; I have just repeatedly said that you are not referencing proper published sources, no matter how many times you repeat that you are, and you are unable to tell what a significant view is. (In short, I am not opposed to amateurs in general, I am only opposed to you.) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Adam :) Please provide evidence to your claim that I am "not referencing proper published sources". All I write is taken from proper published sources (I may have linked to one or two websites once in a while, but that's about it. Who doesn't?). For me a significant view is a view held by one or several significant historians. And to me, published material by reputable sources has more value than the personal research of any Wikipedian. I also think that this is the essence of Wikipedia: we are not here to challenge secondary sources, we are only here to present and balance all significant published opinions in an exhaustive and balanced way (NPOV). And this is "absolute and non negotiable" . Regards PHG (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone else is already providing ample evidence. And you can repeat all the other stuff as much as you want but it still doesn't make it true. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Adam. Please look at my responses to Elonka's claims and others above. Please look at my responses to Ealdgyth's tesbed:
 * PHG'S RESPONSES TO EALDGYTH'S TESTBED.
 * Please look at my responses to Shell's sources table:
 * PHG'S RESPONSES TO SHELL KINNEY'S SOURCES TABLE.
 * What exactly is your "ample evidence" that I am "not referencing proper published sources"??? Unsubstanciated accusations are worthless. PHG (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Shell Kinney
In order to keep things from being any more cluttered here, I am throwing my observations here. If anyone would like to add their own cases, please feel free to do so. I would ask that any comments are made on the talk page instead of disrupting the evidence table - thanks. Shell babelfish 02:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've completed my piece at Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence/Shell Kinney Sources Table. Shell babelfish 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG's response to the question of him misrepresenting Jackson's book Mongols and the West and the chapter "Ally Against Islam" is a classic example of what we mean when we say he is cherry-picking and misrepresenting sources. He has chosen bits and pieces of the chapter to claim that Jackson supports the idea that there was a formal alliance, however, everything that PHG has pulled out of the chapter is simply Jackson discussing the wealth of contacts and opportunities between the Mongols and the West. PHG is leaving out the intervening bits where Jackson talks about why each of these incidents did not result in an alliance, and the end of the chapter, which starts with Jackson asking "Why, then, did the diplomatic contacts between the Ilkhanate and the West fail to lead anywhere?". By taking Jackson's discussion of Mongol relations out of context, PHG makes it appear that Jackson is discussing the details of an alliance. Please read the chapter for yourself and see how far from the truth this really is. The major concern here is that PHG's use of references and sourcing looks completely kosher; you either need to be an expert or actually have the source in hand to catch what's really going on. Shell babelfish 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Another good one - because Jackson doesn't specifically say "alleged" each time he mentions the rumor of the Mongols capturing Jerusalem, PHG uses it to support his novel theory regardless of the fact that the entire chapter is completely clear about the fact that Jackson is simply discussing the rumors. Shell babelfish 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to Shell Kinney by PHG
My responses to your User:Shell Kinney/Tracking are on User talk:Shell Kinney/Tracking. PHG (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there is a difference between saying that diplomatic exchanges and various collaborations on the field "led nowhere" and saying that there was no alliance. The point is that there was an alliance, with numerous instances of collaboration described by Jackson, which obtained very little to no result in the end. A "fruitless" or "near-fruitless" alliance does not deny that there was an alliance and combined actions in the first place, just that it ended in failure. Just because an action has little or no result does not mean at all that the action itself never happened. PHG (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jackson's chapter mixes facts with fiction. It is not clear at all how he treats the capture of Jerusalem itself. And when he says that the Mongols had the whole of Syria and Palestine to themselves (hence also Jerusalem) he does write about facts (p.170), outside of the chapter on the rumours. Further, Jackson does say clearly that Jerusalem was raided by the Mongols in 1260: "During the next few months Mongol troops raided Hebron, Ascalon and Jerusalem, sacked Nablus, and received the surrender of Ba'labakk and Aijlun" (p.116), so he clearly supports that the Mongols had something to do with Jerusalem. Again, I'm ready to say he is not crystal-clear on the subject for the year 1300, and instead use other historians who describe the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols, such as Alain Demurger, Luisetto, Runciman or Andrew Jotischky (User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)). PHG (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Shell's claims about Schein

 * Shell Kinney's claims are in italics.

1. Schein is completely unambiguous as to her meaning, in fact, her entire paper is devoted to debunking the myth that the Mongols captured Jerusalem...

Response by PHG. I re-read the article, and I think the interpretation should be more subtle than that. Sylvia Schein nowhere says that "The Mongols did not capture Jerusalem" (and quite to the contrary, she actually writes in her 1991 book that the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed"). In her article she actually says that:

I think she denies that the "recovery" by the Christians took place (it is why she uses the word "recovery", "the act of regaining or saving something lost", which could only refer to the Christians, not the Mongols), not the conquest by the Mongols itself. Further in the text she describes the incident as an "ephemeral event" (meaning "short in duration", not "inexistent") (p.808). She also says that:

She also quotes numerous contemporary sources (Muslim, Armenian, Christian) which describe the capture of Jerusalem. I think it is quite unfair to represent Schein's article as a denial that Jerusalem was taken by the Mongols: for her it is visibly rather an "ephemeral" event or a "non-event", but not something that undoubtedly never happened. In a later work, Schein actually writes in her 1991 book, that the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed" because they are documented to have removed the Golden Gate of the Temple of Jerusalem in 1300, to have it transferred to Damascus:

And I am not alone: this is also the understanding of some historians: 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). PHG (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

2. ''From PHG's response, the "numerous contemporary sources" are hard to find; this is because they are footnotes on a section when Schein says modern historians got it wrong too and please see the reference for PHG's loose interpretation of the word "modern". He does the same thing when referring to the 1991 book; I do not have it on hand at the moment, but that's another footnote folks, not something Schein said. Further, in Schein's last book Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099-1187) published in 2005, she states on page 157 "Earthly Jerusalem, ruled by the Moslems (except for the short period of 1229-1244), was to loom large in all types of medieval apocalypticism." which clearly contradicts PHG's insistence that this historian claims there was a Mongol conquest of Jerusalem in 1300.''


 * Response by PHG: Untrue.
 * The "numerous contemporary sources" are not hard to find. She references or quotes at least 3 Muslim sources, 1 Armenian source, and dozens of Christian sources.
 * You're saying a footnote is "not something Schein said"??. As as far as I know, footnotes are written by the authors themselves, they are indeed part of their writing.


 * Schein in her last book Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099-1187) published in 2005, when she states on page 157 "Earthly Jerusalem, ruled by the Moslems (except for the short period of 1229-1244), was to loom large in all types of medieval apocalypticism." only makes a general and undetailed statement about the history of Jerusalem. She does not discuss the Mongol issue in detail. I believe this statement is too broad and general to have any relevance to her other precise discussions of the Mongol capture of Jerusalem. You might even remember that the Mongols were Muslims at this point (Ghazan had converted in 1295, followed by most Il-Khan Mongols), so that the sentence you are giving is actually NOT in contradiction to the Mongol capture of Jerusalem in 1300. PHG (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Response by uninvolved Aramgar
I would like comment briefly on the Latin text PHG has posted above and PHG's abuse of another Latin source at Viam agnoscere veritatis. The second of these is also a fair illustration of one of his POV forks and a demonstration of how PHG fails to work with other editors. I know that credentials do not matter here, but please know that I have some experience of 13th century Latin predating my involvement with Wikipedia and quite a lot since I became involved with the Franco-Mongol timesuck.

Letter of Jacques de Molay
The letter of Jacques de Molay that PHG has transcribed from Alain Demurger has been adjusted and muddled by Demurger himself. I transcribed it from the same source Demurger used and found the text far easier to read. I have posted it here. The letter is fragmentary and contains many holes but the sense is clear. It does not say what PHG, Demurger, and Dalliez claim. A summary follows:


 * After pleasantries, Molay informs Edward on the movements of the Khan. The Khan has fought and conquered "the Lord of the Iron Gate." People claim he is the Khan's brother. The Khan is expected to arrive in Babylon in September. Molay is expecting him with uneasy feeling (anxiis affectibus). Molay's convent with their ships... Molay is on the island of Tartusia in order to wait for the Khan and his army (in insula Tartusie Casani et suorum Tartarorum adventum attendendo). By the grace of God Molay's convent...losses to the Saracens and in order to destroy their castles...if God permits. Therefore Molay begs the king on bended-knee to join him in pursuing a crusade...

There is no mention of signing anything and no mention of an alliance. The most that can be said is that Molay was anxiously waiting for the Khan to approach.

Viam agnoscere veritatis
PHG created an article in early February about a papal letter to the Mongols entitled Viam agnoscere veritatis. This new article contained two statements, attributed to two older historians Grousset (1930s) and Runciman (1950s), that PHG claimed addressed the content of the letter: essentially that the pope was complaining to the Mongols about delays in establishing an alliance. Underneath the article PHG included a block of Latin text with the label "Excerpt of the letter:" The implication was that an authoritative primary document had finally been adduced that proved the existence of an alliance. (the article at the time )

When I read the letter, it said nothing at all about an alliance. It was later discovered that there were not one but three letters know as Viam agnoscere veritatis. These letters also had nothing to say about an alliance. The specious assertions of Grousset and Runciman were removed.

Two days later the same statements of Grousset and Runciman showed up in a new PHG article called Aïbeg and Serkis. For the uninitiated, these guys are total non-entities. They were Mongol ambassadors to the pope in 1248. We know their names only from a single reference in the work of a single Medieval author. Their career, such as it was, must be constructed from oblique references in papal letters and relatively obscure chronologies. To its credit Wikipedia now had an article on Aïbeg and Serkis, but the article included statements bounced out of Franco-Mongol alliance because they were out-dated and removed from Viam agnoscere veritatis because they were false.

Claims of original research
On several occasions PHG has called my investigation of these Latin letters original research. I would like to point out that I have never tried to insert my translations or details harvested from them into any article. To date the only person to do this has been PHG (here . my response ). I have offered my readings only in order to assess the reliability of secondary sources cited in the articles. In many cases I have found that assertions made by some older historians dear to PHG --Grousset, Roux, and Runciman-- are demonstrably false. PHG has been unwilling to allow these to be removed and resorted to edit warring (,, ; talkpage comment ). Aramgar (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to Aramgar by Adam Bishop
I would like to corroborate Aramgar's excellent work here - as someone who can also read the Latin, based on the stuff that has been posted here, I agree that these letters are a load of nothing, and are definitely not about any sort of alliance or treaty. (Sorry; I never got a chance to say so before.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to Adam Bishop by PHG
Hi Adam. This is your personal opinion, to which you are entitled, but personal opinions are not relevant material for articles on Wikipedia. Only proper published sources are. And the letters by de Molay about the Mongols are among the material which let an historian like Peter Jackson write that de Molay was particularly enthousiastic about combined action with the Mongols, referencing his letter to Aragon for example:

So, to actual historians, these letters are clearly more than "a load of nothing" to use your expression. Let's rely not on personal opinions, but strictly on what sources say. Regards. PHG (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Support and testimonies in favour of PHG
For your information, among others who have been defending me (such as User:Eupator, User:Justin, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, User:Wjhonson, User:Aldux), two users of very high caliber (User:John Hill a published specialist of Central Asian history, and User:Sponsianus a professor and specialist of the Indo-Greeks in the process of publishing a book on the subject ) have confirmed the continuous quality of my contributions to Wikipedia and the quality of my research over the years in a variety of areas (see John Hill and Sponsianus).

I am afraid this has far more weight than a group of Hollywood-minded critics who cannot see the Mongols otherwise than as a horde of blood-thirsty brutes bent on "abject domination", and will use any kind of accusations and misrepresentations to have their way. The reality is that the Mongols, from the Persia of Ghazan to the China of Kubilai were actually a quite highly sophisticated people (remember Marco Polo's admiration?), who greatly developed the arts, and proved highly tolerant of the various faiths (at least compared to their contemporaries), and that the Crusaders, supported by the Pope, repeatedly made diplomatic agreements, and actually engaged in combined operations with them on multiple instances. Regards. PHG (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aramgar's orginal research
I am afraid the above arguments by User:Aramgar seriously contrevene Wikipedia's editorial rules. As far as I know, User:Aramgar is NOT a reputable and well-published historian, far from it. With all due respect, his personal analysis of primary sources and personal deductions, constitute pure Original research and have no place on Wikipedia. He has absolutely no legitimacy in rejecting the comments and analysis of such reputable and highly published historians as René Grousset, Steven Runciman, Alain Demurger. If some published historians do contradict their statement, they should be mentionned with appropriate references, and balanced in a NPOV manner. But on Wikipedia there is absolutely no reason why individual personal research should get any kind of primacy over proper published sources. PHG (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG, this response makes it difficult for me to assume that you are not participating in good faith here. You are obviously twisting the definition of original research to fit your needs, to exclude damaging information while allowing information that favors your own POV in. What Aramgar has done is not "original research" but simple verification of sources; in this case, Aramgar has examined the sources other historians have used, & made a simple logical deduction that these sources do not contain the information that these historians say they do.


 * Anyone who has read carefully any period of history -- not just the primary sources, but especially the secondary sources -- will come to discover that all historians err; even great historians like Runciman, et alia, have their Homeric nods. This does not mean that they should not be considered reliable sources, just that they are human. This problem has been known on Wikipedia for a long time: see the essay These are not original research. While my version of how to deal with this problem is different from the existing version (see the section "Compiling facts and information"), I believe it is accurate to say that there is a consensus to acknowledge this problem exists. The lack of a consensus is over how to do this, & IMHO, this should be solved by allowing intelligent citation of these sources, not slavish copying. This intelligent use is one reason we need to rely on expert advice -- or at least on people who can verify that the sources say what it is claimed. -- llywrch (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Letter of Jacques de Molay
I don't read Medevial Latin, but I agree that, based on Aramgar's translation, Laurent Dailliez seems to make an unsubstantiated claim about Jacques de Molay signing a treaty with the Mongols. I am just very uncomfortable about anonymous Wikipedians without any formal credentials actually challenging the views of published historians. I'm really not sure this is the way Wikipedia works. I think we should quote Dailliez, and balance him with other sources who say otherwise. Here is another extract of a letter by Jacques de Molay, this time to the king of Aragon:

This again clearly shows that Jacques de Molay was waiting for the Tatars to engage in combined operations. Other contemporary Western rulers also wrote to Ghazan to assure him of their support(letter by Edward I to Ghazan on March 12th, 1302):

The king of Spain, in his May 18th 1300 letter to Ghazan complements him for his victories in Syria, and "offers to provide him with his ships, supplies and troops. In exchange, he asks for one fifth of the Holy Land and the territories conquered by the Mongols". (Luisetto, p.116) Dailliez may possibly be extreme in his interpretation about "a treaty", but the fact that Jacques de Molay and Western rulers were working towards combined operations with the Mongols as the exchanged written promisses is nonetheless clear and supported by numerous modern historians (User:PHG/Alliance). All this very proper information about Jacques de Molay's involvement in the Mongol Alliance has been deleted by Elonka in her short version, and I believe that's very unfair and that the information should be reinstated. Deletion of referenced material to fit one's point-of-view or one's storyline is unnacceptable. PHG (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Viam agnoscere veritatis
Again, I am very uncomfortable with an anonymous user without credentials such as User:Aramgar using his own personal translation of 13th century Papal Bull to discredit the work of major authors such as René Grousset (1930s) and Steven Runciman (1950s). We are not to play historians here: we are just Wikipedians, which means we are just supposed to put foward proper published sources and to organize them. I strongly object to individuals challenging established historians based on original research or their own reading of ancient material. Since Runciman and Grousset did have a lot to say on Aibeg and Sarkis, I think it is unacceptable to remove their work based on the individual interpretation of a user. Here is what they say, which Aramgar has been deleting:

Deleting such material is totally unacceptable and POV. Their views should be properly mentionned, and balanced by historians who might think otherwise. PHG (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Older historians"
Jean-Paul Roux is not at all an "older" historian. He is alive and well, and one of the foremost modern authorities on the Mongols and Central Asian history. I strongly object to your deletion of such majors sources as Grousset, Runciman or Roux. If you think they are wrong, just balance their views with those of other historians rather than relying on your personal interpretation of ancient sources. I supposed you are likewise targeting somebody like the historian Jean Richard, whom I use extensively, but let me remind that he is considered as "unsurpassed" by even someone such as Peter Jackson: "Richard's characteristically thourough examination of the Latin mission to Asia remains unsurpassed" (The Mongols and the West, p.2). PHG (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

No original research
1) Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing, or promoting original research in any way.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, from Sadi Carnot case. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems an obvious Wikipedia rule. All contributions should be sourced from proper published material, which is the case of all my contributions (although nobody is safe from seeing some of his sources being disputed once in a while). I actually sourced the Franco-Mongol alliance article with 400 references so that nothing could be construed as original research, but in her rewrite Elonka deleted 300 of them, thereby creating a much less documented article. PHG (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

No falsification of sources
2) Deliberate attempts to misrepresent or falsify the content of sources are extremely harmful to the project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, a basic Wikipedia rule. Quite ironically, Elonka has been caught misrepresenting sources on numerous occasions: Here Here, Here Here. Elonka also repeatedly emended and corrupted a quote by the French historian Laurent Dailliez to try to discredit him, trying to have him say historical untruths that he never said Summary/Full discussion. Elonka doesn't just misinterpret: she openly falsifies content to suit her intent. PHG (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Even longterm editors must be held to a positive standard of behavior
3) Positive contributions in one area of Wikipedia, do not excuse disruptive behavior in another.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Who is talking about disruptive behaviour here? Elonka breaks promisses made in Mediation: here, Elonka keeps making false accusations inspite of being desmonstrated she is wrong (like falsely claiming I added "50k of new content" as I reinstated the original version of the article here), Elonka deleted 200k of content and 300 academic references, falsely claiming "consensus" through minute tallying of a few editors , here. I am only upholding Wikipedia rules that all significant opinions should be represented per NPOV, and that in the absence of a consensus, the status quo should prevail.
 * Since Elonka is speaking about the actions of longterm editors: it is a fact that she has repeatedly been involved in the most lurid disputes all along, leading the most violent personal attacks . For my part, in four years of Wikipedia I've never had to experience ANI, or Requests for arbitration, or any kind of block until Elonka started to take me as a target. PHG (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Broadly applicable. Durova  Charge! 05:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Obsession
4) Users who display rigid or obsessional editing behavior may be fully or partially banned from editing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, from Copperchair case. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, I am afraid Elonka has an obsession against me :) Her obsession is even bordering on dellusion . I even had to file a claim for harassment here. The very broadness of the subjects I contribute to (more than 200 created articles on a great variety of topics User:PHG) speaks against any notion of me being obsessional about any given subject. I am actually highly eclectic. There are some subjects I am very interested in, and I love to spend some of my free time researching it. I am a highly balanced guy, with a great familly life, a very succesful carreer as an international business manager, and I practice a lot of sports!! I don't spend days and night gathering dirt against other editors as Elonka seems to love doing. PHG (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Reliability of sources
5) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, from Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Who can define "expertise" on Wikipedia? This is ground to huge arbitrariness and lobbying by some editors. Per NPOV all significant views should be expressed, and the criteria of where these views should come from is simple: proper published sources. PHG (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view
7) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy requires all encyclopedic content to be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly and without bias all significant views on a topic. Where reliable secondary sources disagree, per undue weight, views should be represented in proportion to the prominence of each. Minority views should not be given as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure this is what Wikipedia says. Per NPOV "all significant views" should be mentionned, and this is "non negotiable". Elonka has been using her above view to deny representation of a multitude of historians who describe the Franco-Mongol alliance (User:PHG/Alliance): she essentially deleted all reference to them in her 70k rewrite . Such partisan behaviour is completely against NPOV policy: we should balance existing sources, not destroy those one dislikes. PHG (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be one of the policies that PHG routinely misinterprets. PHG seems to feel that any published view, regardless of the age or reliability of the source, should be included on Wikipedia.  My own feeling is that the job of Wikipedia is to provide a summary of modern historical opinion, based on reliable secondary sources.  Specifically, secondary sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  Just because something is published, does not mean that it is reliable. --Elonka 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * The above proposal represents fairly current NPOV policy as it is expressed in the section & as it has been implemented. "Significant" is usually understood as referring to a large number of people, especially if they are expert in the field. "Minority" is understood to refer to a smaller number, or less influential group, of people. I haven't seen the term "tiny-minority" before, but I assume it refers to "fringe" or "unique" opinions; in any case there are some opinions that can be omitted from Wikipedia on good grounds, & doing so does not necessarily violate NPOV. -- llywrch (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Echoing Llywrch's comment, I'll supply an unrelated example. Nobel prizewinning chemist Linus Pauling spent the latter part of his career championing vitamin C as a cure for the common cold.  That's a significant opinion, but extensive later research showed minimal benefit from large doses of vitamin C.  Obviously, it would violate WP:UNDUE to weight an article about vitamin C or the common cold as if Pauling's hypothesis were actually or even probably true.  Durova  Charge! 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding PHG seems to feel that any published view, regardless of the age or reliability of the source, should be included on Wikipedia--not quite. He applies that standard specifically where the old and unreliable source can be mined for quotes that support his quixotic views.  This may be madness, but there's method to it.  Durova  Charge! 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. PHG seems to feel that any published view is acceptable, but only if it supports his POV. Whereas he often manages to completely ignore or minimize all the "published" text that doesn't agree with his POV. For example, look at the second sentence that he's added to his version of the article: "According to various historians, these attempts evolved into a regular alliance, complete with military cooperation,[1] while others consider that such an alliance was never really achieved and ended in failure.[2]  By my count, he lists over 20 historians for the first viewpoint (his), and only 3 for the second viewpoint (the mainstream view). Which conveniently disregards the dozens of historians at User:Elonka/Mongol historians, and/or he lists some historians as supporting his POV, even when they don't.  I also found it interesting that he lists Tyerman in both camps. :) --Elonka 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern sources are preferable to older ones
8) History is a steadily-evolving body of knowledge, as historians build upon earlier work, debate interpretations, reach a consensus, and move forward. For the purposes of Wikipedia, where there is disagreement between reliable secondary sources, preference should be given to modern sources which go into a subject in-depth, as opposed to older sources which cover a subject in a minor way.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is essentially a content decision, I think, regardless of how it's couched. It's somewhat simplistic for my taste, as well—the needed examination of sources is rather more complex than "newer is better", particularly if this is applied to areas where revisionist historiography is more common—but that's a minor point in comparison. Kirill 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think modern sources should probably have primacy over older sources, but I think this is no excuse to eliminate older sources altogether. As per NPOV all significant views should be mentionned, and, as far as I know, there is no discrimination between old and new. PHG (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Too many exceptions to formulate as a useful principle. Do we deprecate de Tocqueville on the French Revolution?  Gibbon on Rome?  Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War?  Durova  Charge! 05:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, this may be beyond the scope of this particular case, but just to answer the question regarding Tocqueville (1805-1859), Gibbon (1737-1794), and Thucydides (460 BC - 395 BC), what it boils down to is, "What is the prevailing consensus of modern historians"? For example, the Templar of Tyre (c. 1300) is considered a major primary source for events during the Crusades. He was a historian, he was published, and he is often cited.  But he is also often wrong.  Many of the "at the time" historians were also under pressure to write for propaganda purposes, or were working from limited information and dubious sources themselves. I can point to plenty of examples of medieval historians who were working in all good faith, but still got dates wrong, battles wrong, parentage wrong, etc.  So if Thucydides said something about a battle, vs. a modern historian talking about that same battle, Wikipedia should stick with the modern scholarship, rather than trying to give equal weight to Thucydides, who is over two thousand years out of date. Now, for non-controversial information, older historians may be perfectly acceptable, but if there is any dispute about a theory, Wikipedia should stick with the consensus of modern scholarship, rather than trying to give "equal weight" to theories from hundreds or thousands of years ago. --Elonka 15:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In a simple and general sense that is usually a good idea. It also gets into issues of historiography that go well beyond ArbCom's mandate and could lead to nonsensical outcomes.  I'd hate to see a journal article by some random graduate student get preference over L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution for a to discuss the concept of a revolution of rising expectations.  Durova  Charge! 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the longer formulation is a reasonable principle - perhaps it could be scoped even further down by more text, such as adding "Where a reasonable consensus exists among modern historians, there is no need to give equal weight to older secondary sources, even if they espouse what was the historical consensus at that time". That would give us backing to say that we CAN ignore a single revisionist historian. --Alvestrand (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be a poor idea to paint a topic as rich as history with such broad strokes (as User:Durova pointed out). User:Alvestrand's suggestion is even worse, because that makes this a very FIRM content issue, which is outside the scope of ArbCom. Fringe theories by "single revisionist historians" would be a violation of WP:UNDUE anyway.  Justin  chat 23:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As Durova states above, this principle would be so difficult to implement (& as a result, vulnerable to wikilawyering) that I believe we would be better off not adopting it -- at least as part of a ArbCom finding. (A discussion in the appropriate fora not only would be a better way to obtain its adoption, but might find a more useful way to express its intent.) However, if a statement similar to this one needs to be included, I suggest that it be qualified, viz. "All other considerations being equal, modern sources should be given preference to older ones." This wording would encourage editors who prefer, say, a source written in 1940 over one written in 2002 to explain why the older one is better than the newer. -- llywrch (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: although I disputed Elonka's proposal, if anything could persuade me to retract my objection it's PHG's response. Thucycides and Gibbon and de Toqcueville merit respect not because I or some other Wikipedian happens to like them, but because their work continues to be esteemed among experts in the field.  WP:NPOV is not the average of all expert opinions that ever existed, or else Wikipedia would be giving weight to the flat earth hypothesis and the introduction to the introduction to the genetics article would name Jean-Baptiste Lamarck alongside Gregor Mendel.  I might formulate a proposed principle out of this.  Durova  Charge! 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thoroughly reasonable point as an editing principle but I don't think this is within ArbCom's purview. I would support this proposal being suggested for addition to a relevant editing guideline, though. Orderinchaos 10:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors must accurately represent sources
9) Wikipedia relies on its editors to accurately represent the sources they use. Failure to do so seriously harms Wikipedia, and is a conduct issue which is extremely serious.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, based on activities by PHG such as citing an author for something that the author didn't actually say (evidence), citing sources that never actually mention the topic of the article, (see Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis) or listing references in articles, when those references never mention the article's topic even once. --Elonka 21:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

PHG promotes original research
1), has for an extensive period of time engaged in knowingly misrepresenting sources in order to promote his original research on Wikipedia.  This behavior has spread to dozens of different articles and POV forks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely untrue and a total lie. All my contributions are from proper published sources. I take great pain in sourcing all my material, whether litterary or photographical. This is to the extent that I can end up with an article with 400 references and a quantity of scholarly quotes, occupying up to a third of total article size . PHG (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I see little evidence that suggests PHG has "knowingly misrepresented sources" and in fact, stating as much is a little silly, given that only PHG knows if he misrepresented sources intentionally. According to the relevant policies, the difference between a content and POV fork is intent. And we can't really prove intent.  Justin  chat 23:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would delete the word "knowingly". The important issue is that he's been misrepresenting sources. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you base your accusations on? All my contributions are based on proper published sources. As far as I know, I never mis-represent sources, although there may be instances where interpretation can be disputed. In this case, we find an agreement, we reword, and that's it. PHG (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that knowingly should be removed, but the rest of the statement is sound. Shell babelfish 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One of my reasons for using the word "knowingly", is because of multiple examples of PHG cherry-picking fragments from a book, and deliberately ignoring all of the surrounding text. I could cite multiple instances of PHG mis-using Dr. Peter Jackson's book Mongols and the West.  For example, PHG claimed that Jackson supported the idea of an alliance existing, because a title of one of the chapters of the book was "An Ally Against Islam".  However, if you actually read the chapter, it is obvious that Jackson is using it to argue in great detail about why the Mongols were perceived as a potential ally, but no alliance took place.  From another section of the book, PHG cherry-picked from a list of rumors that Jackson presented, and then twisted this to use it as a citation that "Jackson said that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem."  The list goes on and on, where PHG would read a sentence that obviously said one thing, and then he would misquote it to try and make it support PHG's own pet theory. I cannot buy the concept that PHG did this unwittingly.  One or two examples might be errors of judgment, but this has been a deliberate and systematic campaign, in defiance of all other editors who were offering concerns.  And in the cases where he was shown beyond all shadow of a doubt that he was completely and totally wrong, he still wouldn't acknowledge it.  At best, he would simply "walk away" and start arguing on something different.  Look at his actions with creating POV forks: When his information about a Mongol conquest of Jerusalem was challenged, he went and created Mongol conquest of Jerusalem.  When that was challenged, he created Mongol conquests and Jerusalem.  When that was deleted at AfD, he dismissed the AfD results as "no big deal," he dismissed the 2-week-old RfC as "an ancient discussion", and then went and made Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300).  His actions clearly demonstrate that he is knowingly pushing this misinformation, in defiance of everyone else. --Elonka 17:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent. Jackson does have a chapter entitled ""An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and he does go into all the viscicitudes and the actual limited results of the collaboration between the Mongol and the Crusaders. It is not a matter of interpretation. He does write "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". I took this as meaning that he considered the Mongol liberation of Jerusalem as fact, as many other authors do, and he didn't say "the alleged liberation of the Holy City" or something of the sort. I agree this is ambiguous however, as the paragraph this is taken from refers to various false stories, and it is unclear if he refers to Pope Boniface usage of the event or the capture of Jerusalem in itself. I do agree this is ambiguous after all our discussions, and that it could be taken both ways, but nothing more. An actual quote of Jackson against or for the capture of Jerusalem by Mongols would be needed to clarify. PHG (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, to say that Jackson was "ambiguous" about a Mongol capture of Jerusalem, is absurd. To say that we need to list it as a possibility "unless he releases a clarifying statement," is also absurd. Again:  Of the editors that have actually read Jackson's book, no one agrees with your interpretation. We have discussed this at the talkpage, and shown the statement in context. See also Ealdgyth's comment, "Now that I've got the book in my hands, it's clear that Jackson is referring to rumors in that section." And yet despite everyone disagreeing with you about this, you continue to maintain that Jackson's statement is ambiguous.  PHG, can't you see that this is a problem?  It's okay to make a mistake once in awhile, we all do.  Where the problem comes in with your editing though, is that when you make a mistake, even though multiple editors point out that it's a mistake, you refuse to back down, you refuse to moderate your behavior, and worse, you continue to add the mistaken information to multiple other articles.  That is exactly why I think that you should no longer be allowed to edit Wikipedia.  We are a cooperative project, we work together, we check each other's work.  Where we have an editor who makes mistakes, and refuses to allow anyone else to correct his work, that's a problem, and that editor needs to be asked to leave. --Elonka 17:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Elonka, both for her reasons and PHG's insistence that he understands proper sourcing. He makes a good point that a significant portion of his citations are unchallenged.  His departures from standard practice aren't random, as one would expect from an editor who acted out of ignorance.  Rather, they construct and support pet theories.  He takes offense at the suggestion that ignorance accounts for these irregularities; what else can we do but hold him fully accountable?  Durova  Charge! 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell, this is disgracefull. You have been already been accusing me falsely, like saying "I added 49 new paragraphs" as I reinstated the original article, and I have properly shown this to be totally false (I was essentially only reinstating the main article before the split attempt and Elonka's deletions) . You haven't even apologized despite the obvious slander Here. I will gladly discuss however what you think might constitute misrepresentation, but until you succeed in demonstrating your point, this is gratuitous. I do not misrepresent sources: I stick to what they say exactly and most of the time go so far as quoting them in extenso. I work with academic sources about the same way I have been working in taking thousands of Museum photographs for Wikipedia: I take exactly what they say, to the point of bordering paraphrase. I am not a historian (just a down-to-earth MBA-wielding business guy), so I have no interest in formulating theories: I just take what historians say, and that's it. Now, we can have endless debates about exact interpretation, and that's OK, but I believe I am one of the most factual and meticulous editors around in using references. Check User:PHG/Alliance for background, or the 400 academic references I have been putting forward in the main article. PHG (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we would all appreciate it if you would stop try to discredit others by attacking them and stick to the topics being discussed. I am afraid I am convinced that you are not using sources properly. For instance, could you please explain the discrepancies between your version of the references (User:PHG/Alliance) and the actual quotes as listed at User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed? This is just one of many examples where by selectively changing or leaving out words or sentences you've prostituted esteemed historical work to create the impression you desire. You appear to sincerely believe in what you are doing, so I am sorry that it has come to this, however, you've had many chances and many editors try to assist you in realizing the problem. Shell babelfish 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you actually point to specifics? User:PHG/Alliance is a set of quotes by authors who consider the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact. In many instances, Elonka pointed that several of these authors also say that the alliance ended in failure in the end, but that's OK: the fact that an alliance failed it not a denial of their statement that there was an alliance nonetheless (an alliance has to exist before it ends in failure). Instead of general statements, I would appreciate if you could point to specific issues you may have identified, so that we can discuss. Regards PHG (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the specifics in detail, I suggest we take it elsewhere. I'm sure anyone interested can pretty quickly peruse those lists and see exactly what I mean. Shell babelfish 12:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please drop a specific note on my talkpage then, I will be glad to discuss. PHG (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG has not acknowledged problems with his behavior
2) Neither complaints from other editors, nor blocks from uninvolved administrators, have been effective in moderating PHG's behavior.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. One major factor in this dispute is that PHG has never acknowledged any wrongdoing, and has never even given any indication that he is capable of acknowledging that community consensus may be different from his own opinion.  Further, each time that he has been blocked, he has still been unable to acknowledge even a basic understanding of why he was blocked.  He continues to argue, and makes statements which imply that he is going to continue with his own course of behavior, regardless of consensus or the fact that he has been blocked. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the heart of the problem; the fact that PHG is disruptive seems well documented and in my experience the reason other avenues were unable to resolve the problem is that PHG is either incapable or uninterested in moderating his behavior. He has yet to show a single instance where he chose to change his behavior based on feedback and instead, argues vehemently his behavior is proper and all feedback has been incorrect or doesn't apply because of his interpretations of policy. Shell babelfish 06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All my contributions are from proper published material. Elonka has been deleting 120k of content and 300 references developed over a period of 6 months . It is only normal that I fight to have this content preserved. She, and a few of her supporters have criticized me for this, but I have also received several barnstars from other users for my work on the Franco-Mongol alliance. Regarding some edit arguments, I am only upholding Wikipedia rules that all significant opinions should be represented per NPOV, and that in the absence of a consensus, the status quo should prevail. I am actually quite a cooperative editor as also ackowledged by other users . PHG (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Self-evidently true. WjBscribe 06:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I believe claiming one's innocence is a right, not something that can be held against anyone as an accusation count (except maybe during the Inquisition!). I believe my editing is normal and legitimate, especially when looking at Elonka's predatory behaviour. Defending oneself against Elonka's constant harassment is legitimate, fighting against a non-consensual replacement of a 190k article by a POV 70k summary is legitimate. This is the duty of every Wikipedian in such circumstances. PHG (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Difficult to assess in a general manner, but consistent with my limited observation. Durova  Charge! 05:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just scanning PHG's responses in this thread seems to me like a convincing argument that this is a fact. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I do know an editor (User:Elonka) who does have a huge behavioural problem in constantly Wikilayering and attacking other users, and I have no intention to accept this kind of bullying. It is our role as Wikipedians to fight personal attacks and constant slandering. We are a group of volunteers with a love for knowledge sharing, and we are not here to be submitted to the repressive politics of a power-hungry self-promoting individual. Just share the knowledge, and fight vandals, not well-meaning and generous contributors such as ourselves. PHG (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG has violated WP:OWN
3), has repeatedly defied talkpage consensus, by edit-warring to restore his preferred version of an article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka has been deleting 120k of content and 300 references developed over a period of 6 months . It is only normal that I fight to have this content preserved. This is not about OWN, this is about respecting the work done by other users (me in this case) and respecting Wikipedia rules of cooperative editing. Elonka's actions are not only rude to me and a terrible insult to so many scholars who write about the Franco-Mongol alliance (User:PHG/Alliance), they are also flouting Wikipedia rules that content should be discussed collaboratively, not just erased for another version, trying to obtain a consensus after the fact. PHG (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (Elonka's response to Llyrwych's comment below) Thank you, Llyrwych, for your detailed analysis, and the kind words about my version. Though I can't take full credit for it, as the current live version was definitely created in cooperation with and in response to comments from multiple other editors at the talkpage.


 * However, regarding your suggestion that PHG simply be limited to a sanction on certain types of reversions, I'm afraid that that wouldn't be enough. Indeed, the main reason that my attention was drawn to PHG's activities in the first place, was because of small edits that he was making in other articles, such as the section that he added to Knights Templar.


 * The real danger from PHG is the multiplying factors from the kinds of things that he's doing:
 * PHG is not just pushing a bias into one or two articles, but is adding biased information to multiple articles, often with copy/pastes.
 * He tends to work in infrequently-visited areas, so the articles are not getting as much scrutiny from other editors as they might if they were in more popular topics.
 * He tends to cite obscure offline sources, often in other languages, which again make it difficult to see what he's doing
 * Left unattended, PHG isn't just creating biased articles, but he's trying to push them through to FA status. He nominated his Franco-Mongol alliance article for FA only one week after he created it.
 * Even when his activities are spotted, and multiple other editors express concerns about what he is doing, he refuses to back down. He keeps adding information to other articles, and even creating other articles, in defiance of comments and AfDs. He refuses to acknowledge any consensus that differs from his own opinion.
 * When other editors try to change his work, he just changes it back. This leads to conflict that wastes the time of other good editors
 * The other editors that he is wasting the time of, are the kind of editors we can least afford to lose. These tend to be editors who are highly-educated, speak multiple languages, and have access to large libraries, which is what's needed to even follow-up on what PHG is doing. These good-faith editors are the kind of editors who are working on the obscure historical articles that Wikipedia is weakest on.  So when we waste their time, we're not taking people away from documenting the latest pop culture phenomenon, TV series, or soccer match, we're taking people away from things like documenting medieval Turkish monarchs, or Papal communications during the Crusades.


 * Done in combination, all of the above factors multiply to a really nasty situation: An editor, PHG, who is adding in bad information, sourcing it to things that are difficult to check, promoting his biased articles to FA, and simultaneously restricting the increase of good information, because other good editors are having to stop what they're doing to clean up after him.  It is my strong opinion that if PHG is allowed to continue editing Wikipedia, he is going to keep on with more of the same biased editing, that he is going to continue to ignore everyone else's good faith concerns, and he is simply going to keep wasting the time of other good editors.


 * I do not believe that PHG's good edits, outweigh all the damage to Wikipedia that he is causing in other areas. If PHG were able to acknowledge fault, and to indicate that he's actually hearing concerns and is willing to work in a cooperative manner with other editors, then a solution such as you suggest might be worth a try.  We could hope that he was willing to change, and give him a second try, with sanctions in place in case he faltered.  But so far PHG has not indicated any fault with his behavior.  Instead this page has turned into a long tirade from PHG about how he is being harassed, and how his information is perfectly legitimate, and how he is right and everyone else is wrong.  As long as he maintains that attitude, he really isn't the kind of person that we want to be keeping around on Wikipedia.


 * We have really wasted enough time on PHG already, and this ArbCom case is even more exhausting for many other editors who would rather be spending their time doing other more productive things. It's really time to just ban PHG, move on with cleanup, and get back to creating a high-quality encyclopedia. --Elonka 01:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (I hope I'm not out of line responding to Elonka here, although I'm obviously not one of the parties involved.) The point of the dispute resolution process is not to punish anyone -- which banning PHG would be -- but to hopefully correct behavior if possible. Obviously PHG has been unable to admit that he is wrong here (both in his behavior & content), accept the corrections & move on. An edit restriction of some sort would address this. If it doesn't, then a ban might be appropriate.


 * Until I saw the material Aramgar submitted about the letter Viam agnoscere veritatis, I could not discern any troublesome quotations. I looked at the examples Ealdgyth compiled, but could not see any problems that could not be explained more plausibly by mistakes in understanding. One of the perennial problems we have with Wikipedia is that because anyone can edit, we deal with volunteers of all level of ability: some come to Wikipedia very skilled, while some need professorial attention to be useful contributors. Until this absence of a barrier to entry is raised or changed, we have to assume lack of skill in these situations unless the evidence is clear that an editor is intentionally misrepresenting his sources.


 * I state much of the above because, although I consider myself well-educated & reasonably informed, I know I have made numerous mistakes in the articles I have written for Wikipedia. (I've been learning about Ethiopia at the same time I've bene writing articles about that country -- something I suspect many contributors do.) While most of the time either I or another editor have fixed my mistakes, in a few cases I have done exactly what PHG is doing here -- I have been stubborn about my version of the subject being the correct or proper one. I probably get away with it because I, too, work in corners of Wikipedia that most people either do not have the expertise or confidence to venture into. (An important exception is Yom, who contributes fewer but better articles than I -- who is there to check his work? He can read Amharic, which I can't.) And as I follow these discussions, I worry that a sloppy decision in this case will affect my ability to write good (or at least useful) content.


 * Much of the dispute around this article comes from a far-to-easy misunderstanding of the word "alliance": it is often used by historians to indicate not a formal contract between two parties, but an informal series of negotiations between two political powers towards a common end. In fact, I find the title of this article inaccurate, not only because of this misunderstanding, but because the article deals very little with "France"; a better choice would be Diplomatic history of the Mongols and the later Crusades. However, it is not the job of the ArbCom to rename articles.


 * You write that many editors have wasted their time on this, & could have been better employed contributing elsewhere; I would argue the opposite, that this work has been valuable. It is in controversies just like this one that we need to examine the evidence as carefully as possible, & be twice as certain that the material is correct. Because we have no designated group of experts to review & advise less experienced contributors, Wikipedia needs to engage in cases which grind on tediously like this. Not only does Wikipedia educate its readers, but in many cases its contributors, who are forced to research their given subject. Yes, this can be tedious, but education & research is often tedious.


 * If you are exhausted by all of this, Elonka, I understand fully. This discussion is clearly stressful on everyone. I'd say you -- or anyone involved -- are well in your rights to take some time away from this & either edit other articles -- or take a break from Wikipedia entirely. This article will not vanish in a week or two, & I believe both sides have made their cases. The worse that might happen is that PHG revert to his practice of trying to make this a PHG-Elonka dispute -- which by now it obviously is not, & which will only weaken his case. -- llywrch (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Llyrwych, I am not proposing a ban because I want to "punish" PHG. I am proposing a ban because I want to protect Wikipedia from further damage.  In a large collaborative project such as this, it is important that the participants are interested in, well, collaborating.  In PHG's case, we obviously have someone who wants to participate in Wikipedia, but who is unable to work in a cooperative and collegial manner with other editors. PHG has been warned repeatedly about this over a period of months.  He has also been repeatedly blocked.  Neither the warnings nor the blocks have been effective in persuading him to moderate his behavior.  In such cases, the person just needs to be asked to leave.  It's not about hurting their feelings, it's about maintaining the integrity of the project, and letting everyone else get back to work.  --Elonka 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Of the charges levelled against PHG, speaking as a mostly uninvolved party, this is the most fitting charge. I see no other reason for him to prefer his version over the "Elonka" one -- the one currently in the article space.


 * I spent a couple of hours on Saturday comparing the version PHG saved in his user space & the current version of this article, & was surprised to find that there was little or no significant difference in interpretation between the two versions: ignoring the section on the Mongol conquest of Jerusalem & an irrelevant section about European embassaries to Mongol China in PHG's version, both told almost the same account of Crusader-Mongol diplomatic history. Maybe I missed something subtle, but I didn't see any original research or misrepresented quotations; in many cases both sources cited the same passages in the same way. That said, the "Elonka" version is better written, & far better organized. PHG's preferred version may have more citations, but that is due to numerous quotations sprinkled through the text which, IMHO, add little or nothing to the account; far too many of these quotations simply repeat exactly what the main text states. This repetition made this version much harder to read. The "Elonka" version was also better organized, following a clear logical progression, while PHG's version was simply "clunky" with sections that had only a weak organizational bond between them.


 * One thing that happens when one submits her/his writing to Wikipedia is that the text will be rewritten. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse -- but it will be changed. All one can hope for is to present a persuasive argument to preserve the most important parts from being harmed too much -- & the patience to endure bad edits. Reading PHG's many responses to what has been written here, he has failed to convince me that his version is better. If anything, his responses harmed his own case by his obsession over preferring this one version, which is not the better version. My opinion is that this does not deserve a general ban from Wikipedia, but is more deserving of a specific article ban: limiting his ability to revert changes to any articles he has contributed to in a substantial way. Whether this is workable is another matter, which I expect the ArbCom to consider more significantly than my statement here. -- llywrch (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the problem were confined to a single article or topic, or confined to ownership issues, then a more moderate solution would be in order. This is an editor who habitually violates WP:SYNTH and uses citations improperly.  He's shown no willingness to accept feedback and reform: he declares himself proud of even his most obviously problematic work and he construes polite and articulate feedback as if it were partisan POV pushing and harassment.  What's worse, he consistently focuses on obscure topics and raises those articles to featured status until someone does enough digging to locate the methodological flaws and get them de-featured.  This is a direct assult on Wikipedia's credibility and cannot be taken lightly.  Durova  Charge! 19:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG has misinterpreted and misused sources
4) has for an extensive period of time engaged in misinterpreting and misusing sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators


 * Comment by parties
 * Proposed, from the Sadi Carnot case. Evidence is here. --Elonka 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

PHG banned
1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Further, I would add a condition that even after one year is up, that he should not be allowed back unless he is able to state that he understands why he was blocked, and he must be able to promise that he will adopt a better standard of behavior in the future. If he cannot do this, then the block should be made indefinite. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is comical. I believe Elonka should be reprimended for constant harassment of users she has an obsession with (and I am apparently not the first case), constant misrepresentation of facts, constant politicking trying to get support online and offline. Her behaviour is predatory to the extreme, and highly disruptive to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Most regrettably this is necessary. Subtle perpetuation of ahistorical information causes great damage to the encyclopedia, is much worst than inserting potty humor into articles, because obvious mischief is easily corrected. The damage and loss of volunteer time has been very substantial in this case.  Some people are not compatible with the project and must be politely asked to leave.  Hopefully they do so with their dignity intact.  I do not think PHG is a bad person, but they misunderstand what Wikipedia is for, and they stubbornly refuse to listen to any advice.  I see no other option. If they eventually have an epiphany, they can apply for the ban to be lifted. Jehochman  Talk 15:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, you are being totally unfair. All the information in the Franco-Mongol alliance article is proper, and I will be glad to discuss if you think some is not. PHG (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad nauseum will not succeed. You have been misusing sources and refuse to acknowledge any sort of problem.  Show us please an exact quotation and page number from a reliable source where we can read that the Mongols invaded, conquered, occupied, attacked, beseiged, or otherwise harassed the city of Jerusalem during the Middle Ages. Jehochman  Talk 01:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I am afraid that this makes clear that you haven't even cared to read the material being discussed... (User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)) rather than just lend a sympathetic hear to Elonka's diatribes. How can you make the very serious accusations you have been making without even having actually reading the material ?? For some exact quotes on this subject (from the main article): 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, 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.") Regarding contemporary sources: 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)
 * Even the main Muslim protagonist in these events, the Sultan of the Muslim armies al-Malik an-Nasir accused Ghazan in a 1301 letter 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. He wrote:


 * This makes it beyond doubt that the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1300, as even their enemies complained about it in unambiguous terms. Again please see User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) for details. PHG (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've just more aptly proved my point about misusing sources that I ever could. With enough choosing of specific words and phrases and a good deal of gluing sources together, I suppose you could also have the Templars landing on the moon too? Shell babelfish 08:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, you have repeatedly been copy/pasting this information in multiple locations. But saying it over and over is not changing one thing:  No other editors are agreeing with you.  You have stated your interpretation of these sources, but everyone else who has actually read these sources, disagrees with your interpretation.  I realize that you think that you're right, and that everyone else is wrong, but what would it take for you to consider that you might be the one that is mistaken? I also hear you repeatedly say that you think that you're upholding Wikipedia policies, but again, other editors are not agreeing with you.  Do you really think that every single other editor here, is somehow blind to Wikipedia policies, and that you are the only one who is able to see things clearly?  What would it take for you to consider that you might be the editor with a blind spot here? --Elonka 18:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite Elonka. Don't make it sound like a false consensus, again. Several users have expressed great concerns at your actions and already taken my defense on this occasion (User:Eupator, User:Justin, User:John Hill, User:Sponsianus, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, User:Wjhonson). I am perfectly serene as all my contributions are from proper published sources. You have been extremely aggresive with me all along, and there is no way I will yield to your twisted rethorics. And, yes, it is for the sake of Wikipedia: I am really not sure it is good for Wikipedia to have the kind of masquerade we are seeing here, or to see you bullying well-intentionned users such as me. PHG (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Sorry, but this is comical. A one year ban is a typical remedy for someone with a history of problematic behavior. I think your findings of fact are embellished (at best) but even if they were all true, this would NOT be the proper remedy for this case. I think PHG needs to be reminded to avoid edit warring, and ownership, and the Franco-Mongol alliance be put on article probation (which I think it already is).  Justin  chat 23:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe banning is the only appropriate action when all attempts at getting the participant to moderate his behaviour have failed. We have wasted enough Wikipedia resources already on dealing with PHG. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you are or where you come from, but the 400 and so references in the Franco-Mongol alliance article are all proper . If you thinks that numerous scholars don't consider the alliance as fact, just look at User:PHG/Alliance. This is only about Elonka and a few of her supporters trying to bully an honest and generous editor who loves the subjects he writes about, and tries to go into as much in details as possible on a given subject for the love of Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistent with Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot where misrepresentation of sources after warning was also an issue. Ultimately, the question of intent renders itself immaterial: an editor who cannot use references appropriately is as harmful to Wikipedia's reputation as one who knows how and refuses to.  If Wikipedia were a university I would be bringing PHG to formal academic discipline and recommending expulsion.  Durova  Charge! 10:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be delighted to discuss your accusations that I "cannot use references appropriately". This is totally ridiculous and untrue. Please discuss content rather than keep making false accusations. For a start, look at the 400 and so proper references which I have accumulated for the Franco-Mongol alliance article . If you thinks that numerous scholars don't consider the alliance as fact, just look at User:PHG/Alliance. All these references are true and proper. Stop making false accusations! PHG (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you leave little doubt that you know how to use sources appropriately, and sometimes choose not to. Durova  Charge! 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ?? Could you clarify? PHG (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's one example: if nothing is wrong with your research, then you could begin by transcribing the relevant passages from the original Alain Demurger that Ealdgyth was unable to find in English translation. Quite a few of us here can read French and failure to respond on point to that part of User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed is quite damning.  If you expect to convince anyone that your research is proper, then stop saying it is and inserting photographs of your book collection and direct your energies into justifying, point by point, what makes each of these challenged citations correct.  I'll still be quite skeptical about your application of historical method, per my comments above, but you insist you already know this field quite well, so this much explanation must already be tiresome and further elaboration would be pointless.  Durova  Charge! 11:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Durova. I have not been aware that I'm supposed to respond to User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed. Until now I don't think anybody has asked me to do so, but I'll see what I can do there. Thank you not to consider my lack of response on Ealdgyth's sub-page as intentional... as I type this I haven't opened the page in question even once. I will be glad to share French language quotes with anybody interested. PHG (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now added all French language quotes and comments etc... on User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed. If someone doubts about the quotes themselves, I will be glad to upload page photographs if necessary (but ordering on Amazon might be quicker...). I don't see any major issue with Ealdgyth's Crusades quotes testbed, but I will be glad to discuss. All the quotes I have given are true, and if someone sometimes feels some more context is needed, let's do it: the more information the better. Please note that in many cases I only have the French original (Jean Richard, Alain Demurger, Amin Maalouf), so my English rendering may sometimes differ slightly from the "official" English version to which I have no access (although I am very litteral in my translations, and I didn't see great differences between both English versions so far). I will be glad to shift to the "official" English though, that would be better since it is available now, or maybe give both quotes when ambiguous (French+English). PHG (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal is really going too far! PHG has made many excellent and detailed contributions to the Wikipedia and I am distressed to see a proposal that he be banned from the Wikipedia even being considered.


 * Unfortunately, I know little about the Franco-Mongol alliance except what I have read here - so I don't feel qualified to comment on the historical validity of PHG's points, or the criticisms of them. However, articles that I have checked which he has written - and which fall into my own area of expertise - seem to have been interesting, well-written and researched and provided a real contribution to the Wikipedia.


 * I certainly don't know how to resolve all the issues - it seems that we have come up against a brick wall. Perhaps it would be best to reinstate PHG's article as it was before the deletions (is there a "sandbox" or similar place where this could be done?) and then try to deal with one point at a time? It does not seem productive at all to make major deletions of many referenced points at one go. What a waste of everyone's time and patience this has turned out to be! Please, let us try to make this process productive and stop accusing each other of bad motives. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much John for your testimony. I truely appreciate! Six months of hard work went into creating 190k of highly referenced material (400 references, mainly academic) on the relations between the Franks and the Mongols. The full article (before the deletions of 120k of content and 300 references initiated by Elonka) is still available here: FRANCO-MONGOL ALLIANCE (FULL VERSION), ready to be reinstated. Every time I tried to split content to make the size of the article more reasonable, Elonka pursued me with "POV-Fork" accusations. I am, as always, ready to discuss any issue raised, one by one if necessary, until we have a balanced NPOV article that can satisfy everybody. PHG (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 6 months -- that's exactly the problem here; numerous editors have spent 6 months attempting to help PHG understand why the sourcing problems, original research via synthesis and general article ownership were a problem. He's not been willing to change his behavior and as shown by his statements and proposals here, he clearly intends to continue on the same course.  Regardless of intent, the harm to the project is the same and needs to stop forceably if he refuses to do so willingly. If John Hill is correct and PHG's work elsewhere is sound, it may be that only a ban from this topic area is needed to resolve the behavioral problems. Shell babelfish 08:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, during these 6 months, Elonka and I had a lot of interraction, and a huge amount of material was already incorporated by her. For example all the ally/vassal disclaimers are a result of that. Elonka also added a large amount of statements and references. I mainly opposed her deleting my own references, and once write an essay-type paragraph (which was since then deleted per consensus as being non-encyclopedic), but the article really has been, and continues to be, wide open to modifications. PHG (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I retract my suggestion that John Hill may be correct based on his response to PHG's request to reinstate the original article below; if he's that easily taken in despite all the evidence given here, I have to assume that he applied a similar standard to PHG's other work and is likely incorrect there as well. Shell babelfish 06:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Featured_article_review/Indo-Greek_Kingdom/archive1 also discussed a former FA, in which a large proportion, 30% + of the footnotes looked up in books that were in libraries accessible to and myself, proved to not back up what was in PHG's article. After the FAR finished, PHG snuck in the incorrect/fake refs again. At least on IGK article, PHG is either unable or unwilling to use sources properly.  Blnguyen   ( bananabucket ) 06:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blnguyen, I am afraid this is untrue. Both references are totally correct:
 * The Boardman quote is totally exact. It describes the beginnings of Gandharan art as coinciding with the remaining Indo-Greek. It is not supposed to give a date and it doesn't. You seem to be implying that the absence of the mention of a date renders the quote invalid, but I don't see why it should be a necessity.
 * : Polybius does say that Antiochus offered the hand of his daughter to Demetrius: Antiochus received the young prince; and judging from his appearance, conversation, and the dignity of his manners that he was worthy of royal power, he first promised to give him one of his own daughters, so I don't see what issue you might have with this quote: it is perfectly exact. Or are you challenging that "offering the hand of" is not quite the same as "married"? If it's no case I have no problem adopting the expression "received the hand of", but this is clearly not a source issue. PHG (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding John Hill's (canvassed) comments in support of PHG's course of action, I would point out that John Hill has a history of blindly supporting PHG. For example, when PHG initially submitted the "Franco-Mongol alliance" article for FA (only one week after creating it), John Hill rapidly weighed in with a strong support, praising the article for its excellent research and references, even though the article at the time was full of pseudohistory and unreliable sources. (examples: The "Joint conquest of Jerusalem" pseudohistory section with Jerusalem "captured by surprise".  And even a cursory glance at the Notes section will show numerous blatant problems).  I would take anything that John Hill says in support of PHG, with a grain of salt.  And John, please, I would encourage you to actually take the time to read and cross-check what PHG is doing, before you say "well written and researched." We have a genuine problem here where PHG has been inserting dubious information into Wikipedia, and when other editors have expressed good faith concerns, rather than working with them, PHG has then escalated his behavior to insert the disputed information into dozens of other articles.  PHG has also been creating POV fork articles, which, when they were sent to AfD, PHG responded by immediately creating even more POV forks (see my evidence section  for details). --Elonka 08:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, you have been inviting many people to this page, so please allow me to invite a few. I have a long history of working with John, who is highly knowledgeable of Central Asian history, a subject I am also interest in. Please do not attack him just because he agrees to give a positive opinion. By the way, your other accusations, are, as usual, untrue. PHG (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You really ought to stop throwing out accusations that we've already found you're unable to back up. Its just starting to look very silly.  You gave just two examples, one was a person who was already involved in the dispute and another was Elonka's response to another person asking her about the case.  So essentially, at the end, you have nothing but your naked accusation without a shred of proof -- please stop attacking Elonka. Shell babelfish 08:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not attacking Elonka, I am only explaining her methods. So here's another case of Elonka inviting users on this page: User talk:Folantin. This is, by the way, also a case of Elonka slandering me and a case of stalking (within a few hours of my posting a friendly message on this user's page, Elonka came in and spread her venom). Another case of stalking me on the pages of friendly users: User_talk:Eupator/Archive_6. PHG (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And now Elonka just invited User:Latebird here . And again a case of slandering and stalking.... PHG (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And User:Adam Bishop has candidly admitted to being canvassed by Elonka and engaged off-Wiki: "Elonka eventually contacted me with her concerns over PHG's actions, so in some sense I was canvassed to join Elonka's side, and most of our discussions took place over MSN, not on Wikipedia." PHG (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I object to Elonka's statement: "...that John Hill has a history of blindly supporting PHG." I should point out that I am not able to easily check PHG's references as I live in a very remote area of bushland, well over 2,000 km from a library likely to to have the sources I would need to consult. As far as I can remember I have only written in support of PHG a couple of times and I have been very careful to point out that I have no particular expertise in this subject. As I have said above:


 * "I know little about the Franco-Mongol alliance except what I have read here - so I don't feel qualified to comment on the historical validity of PHG's points, or the criticisms of them. However, articles that I have checked which he has written - and which fall into my own area of expertise - seem to have been interesting, well-written and researched and provided a real contribution to the Wikipedia.


 * I certainly don't know how to resolve all the issues - it seems that we have come up against a brick wall. Perhaps it would be best to reinstate PHG's article as it was before the deletions (is there a "sandbox" or similar place where this could be done?) and then try to deal with one point at a time? It does not seem productive at all to make major deletions of many referenced points at one go...."


 * Does this sound like "blind support?"


 * It makes me wonder if some of her accusations against PHG might be equally off the mark - but I really don't know, and have no way of easily checking. I do, however, ask Elonka to kindly withdraw her unfair and untrue accusation against me. John Hill (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * John Hill, since this debate seems to be rich in sweeping statements... when you say "articles that I have checked ..... provided a real contribution to the Wikipedia", I think it would be best if you named the articles, and how you checked them. Details matter, and verifiable details matter even more. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me remind that User:John Hill, who is here defending the quality of my contributions on Wikipedia, is a specialist of Central Asian and Asian history, who, for example, is quite well known for his annotated translations of ancient Chinese Chronicles (especially the Hou Han Shu and the Weilue, soon to be published in books). He also published a long article on the history of Khotan: Hill, John E.: "Notes on the Dating of Khotanese History." Indo-Iranian Journal 31 (1988), pp. 179-190. His annotated translations from ancient Chinese are referenced by such historians as Iaroslav Lebedynsky in "Les Saces" (p.146, p.166, p.251, French edition, ISBN 2877723372). I believe his opinion has much more weight than that of many. Thank you John! PHG (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The rules of consensus should not be abused
1) Consensus should not be claimed abusively. Having 2,3 or 4 editors banding against another in a discussion does not constitute consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. PHG (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem to depend on the number of people involved. If after the question has been centrally advertised for comment, there are only 5 editors involved and there has been a full debate of the issues 4 agreeing would seem to be an acceptable consensus. It would create stalemate if the minority view could prevail indefinitely simply because insufficient participants have been interested by the discussion, or have the necessary subject knowledge to comment. WjBscribe 06:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with "centrally advertised for comments" indeed. On the contrary, gathering support of specific individual to get a few votes, whether on-Wiki or off-Wiki, doesn't meet this definition. PHG (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep mentioning this supposed canvassing. Do you have any evidence to support this accusation? Shell babelfish 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so I will make a list here over time: Elonka invited Kafka Liz:, Alvestrand , and many others. She is known for off-Wiki sollicitations of support as well . I'll quote Elonka: "The more different opinions that can be brought in, the easier it is for the Arbs to ensure that they're getting a well-rounded view of the situation." . PHG (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So she told one person who was involved in this dispute already, asked the opinion of one outside person and we're supposed to take a random editor's word that she's canvassed before, sometime, somewhere offline with not a shred of proof offered? You're kidding, right? Shell babelfish 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Another misinterpretation and out-of-context statement by PHG. Yes, I posted to Alvestrand's page,  but that wasn't me canvassing him, that was me replying to his comment on my own talkpage.  He found this case on his own, I definitely didn't point him at it, and to my knowledge he and I have never interacted before in any way. --Elonka 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? So here is a proof of why Elonka is misleading us here: here is another documented example of Elonka manouevering off-Wiki to obtain support: "Elonka has discussed some of the issues with this article with me privately and asked my opinion." . These things are usually hard to come by and hard to prove, but here it is: the fact is that Elonka lobbies off-Wiki to obtain on-Wiki support. I can only imagine the amount of slander and disinformation she is spreading this way, covertly from the community... Since Elonka typically relies on 2-3 friendly opinions to claim "consensus" such lobbying must have a rather high success rate for her. I am afraid polls and "consensuses" built on these methods are highly skewded. PHG (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal but I just wanted to note that when I said that Elonka had asked my opinion I meant that she had asked me for it privately, she never asked me to comment on wiki. I still thought the existence of our private communication was a fact worth disclosing so that's why I mentioned it. Haukur (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedians must uphold Wikipedia rules
2) If some users blatantly edit in a POV manner, or try to impose their own version of an article through a false consensus, other users have the right to be bold and dispute their edits, and in some instance revert them.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. PHG (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is a consensus to be judged a "false consensus" whenever it is one that PHG disagrees with? WjBscribe 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but I don't think 2 or 3 editors against 1 is considered a consensus on Wikipedia. Elonka has been regularly using this kind of tallying to claim "consensus".PHG (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This pretty clearly shows that PHG has no intention of abiding by consensus unless he agrees with it. Shell babelfish 08:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but to gain a real consensus, you need to have a rather large number of people agreeing on something. 1,2,3 or 4 is generally not sufficient to be deemend a consensus on Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then by the logic of your argument, consensus is practically impossible at any obscure scholarly subject. Suppose for a moment that your integrity were never questioned, and you encountered someone who was editing an article into compliance with his aunt's unpublished family tree.  Suppose you also caught him fabricating a citation based upon a nonexistent source, and again you caught him attempting to perform original linguistic research based upom a Medieval French poem (not even in its original state but from a 1977 translation into modern French).  If all those things were happening, and you tried mediation, content RFC, and peer review without success, what could you or anyone do to stop the problem?  Durova  Charge! 10:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is just a matter of following Wikipedia rules. A consensus is needed to destroy an article or (it's the same) most of it (here 120k of content, 300 references). 1,2 or 3 users siding with Elonka is, I'm sorry, not a consensus. As written by Arnoutf, you would need at least 10-12 users to express their opinion in a consensual way to be deemed a proper consensus. My content is proper and highly referenced, I am a longtime and prolific contributor, and I cannot accept that Elonka and a few supporters just come in and destroy everything without a proper consensus. That's all. Mediation was tried but Elonka did not even respect the agreements we reached there (introduction phrase) : she is again here acting in defiance of Wikipedia (and ethical) rules. Regards. PHG (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you really construe Wikipedia policies to require a consensus of 10-12 users to remove a birth date whose sole reference is an unpublished family tree? Those scenarios I named above weren't hypothetical.  They were some of the obstructionist tactics I overcame to raise Joan of Arc to a featured article.  And yes, we really had an editor who camped out at the page for a solid year because he thought he was descended from Joan of Arc's brother.  I tried practically every dispute resolution option available and we never got anything close to 10-12 responses--and Joan of Arc is one of the most recognizable topics from the Middle Ages.  Surely you recognize the weaknesses of this precept you advance: even if your own contributions are unimpeachable, this would make it next to impossible to dislodge nonsense from low traffic articles.  In order to solve that good editors would be compelled to make the rounds at the RFC lists, and instead of building articles they'd be the online equivalent of garbage collectors.  Durova  Charge! 22:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Durova. Maybe you should make a distinction between obvious crackpot contributors and someone like me, who has multiple barnstars, has brought multiple articles to FA status, has contributed thousands of pages and photographs to Wikipedia, has made 25,000 referenced edits to Wikipedia over a period of 4 years, and has very minimal history of dispute (my main dispute in four years has been with an anti-Greek Indian propagandist named User:Devanampriya, who had been councelled by Elonka to challenge the FA status of Indo-Greek kingdom ). What I am saying is that I am one of Wikipedia's best contributors, and as such deserve my material to be treated in a less cavalier way. If 120k and 300 of my references are to be deleted from the Franco-Mongol alliance article, I think I deserve a good explanation, and that, indeed, a proper consensus would be needed, not just 2 or 3 supporters of Elonka banding together. And appart from endless repetitive accusations mounted by Elonka, I don't think anybody has been able to establish so far gross distortion of sources on my part. The reason is an easy one: all I write is from proper published material, and I am very meticulous with my sources to the point of quoting extensively and sometimes even paraphrase sources. See User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed as an example. Regards PHG (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I was also dealing with someone who was not an obvious crackpot, who could read French and Latin. He knew his stuff--knew it well enough to remove only Shakespeare and Voltaire from a list of authors who had written fictional works about her because those were the only two depictions that weren't favorable.  He was busy around dozens of articles, acutally, infecting them with his POV.  He even mocked up a fake scholarly journal, rehashing a 1929 scholarly work that was available only in French as if it were his own research and fine tuning it to align with devout Catholic ideology, and used a sockpuppet account to slip it into the already-featured article as a reference and altered several paragraphs as he went; I was on wikibreak then and nobody else spotted the problem until I came back months later.  In the interim the article, including his quixotic original research, got translated into Chinese where it became a featured article on the Chinese Wikipedia.  I had the darnest time contacting people for help resolving that.  It took me 14 months of slow and patient effort before the community banned him as a vandal.  He had been at it for more than two years.  These people exist; there isn't enough of a defense against them already.  I cannot endorse an argument that makes the problem even worse.  These things drive good editors to quit.  Durova  Charge! 10:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User harassment should be discouraged
3) We are here to "make content, not war". User harassment and disputes are useless. Some users spend a huge amount of time mounting attacks against others. This should be discouraged.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. PHG (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Referenced material should be respected
4) Referenced material from proper published sources should be respected. If opinions diverge, all significant point of view should be included and presented in a NPOV manner. PHG (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. PHG (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be subject to not giving undue weight to fringe theories. Articles should make it clear if there is a primarily held scholarly interpretation. Whether a minority view is held by very few people, especially if only a lone academic advocates it, including it at all may constitute undue weight. WjBscribe 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but when about 30 scholars (from the little access I have to sources) do mention the Franco-Mongol alliance as a factual occurence, I don't think that has anything to look with "fringe": User:PHG/Alliance. Elonka has been deleting these references, but I am claiming that they deserve proper representation. PHG (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact is that these sources absolutely do not report an alliance as fact, you have simply made it look so by omitting key words and phrases that otherwise discount your novel theories. Shell babelfish 13:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's untrue Shell. All quotes are exact, and as far as I known do not omit key words or phrases. Should you have specific issues, I would be glad to review them with you. PHG (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How many times and how many people have to point you, specifically, to Ealdgyth's very clear, unambiguous chart which, very specifically shows exactly which quotes you left words out of, which quotes you left key sentences out of and which quotes you fabricated entirely? And that's only one small area out of your more than 400 quotes in one article... Shell babelfish 07:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, nobody's perfect; any of us could misread a source when we're tired or make a typographical error. It simply doesn't hold water to say mistakes didn't happen when detailed evidence demonstrates that they did happen.  And if you expect to retain any trust at all in the unchecked portion of your citations, it is imperative at minimum that you acknowledge and correct the verified mistakes.  What you ought to be doing is stepping beyond that, creating your own Crusades quotes testbed parallel to Ealdgyth's, and seeking the community's opinion on your material as compared to the transcribed sources.  That would be a demonstration of good faith and if you undertook it seriously I would come to your defense.  Durova  Charge! 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As explained, I just wasn't aware I was supposed to visit User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed and respond to it. I have now added all French language quotes and comments etc... If someone doubts about the quotes themselves, I will be glad to upload page photographs if necessary (but ordering on Amazon might be quicker...). I don't see any major issue with Ealdgyth's Crusades quotes testbed, but I will be glad to discuss. All the quotes I have given are true, and if someone sometimes feels some more context is needed, let's do it: the more information the better. Please note that in many cases I only have the French original (Jean Richard, Alain Demurger, Amin Maalouf), so my English rendering may sometime differ slightly from the "official" English version to which I have no access (although I am very litteral in my translations, and I didn't see great differences between both English versions so far). I will be glad to shift to the "official" English though, that would be better since it is available now, or maybe give both quotes when ambiguous (French+English). PHG (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Elonka abuses the concept of consensus
1) Elonka repeatedly claims "consensus" by just having 2,3 or 4 editors banding on her side. User:Elonka falsely claims "consensus" through minute tallying of a few editors, or here. In her latest effort at imposing her 70k version of the Franco-Mongol alliance article, she initially had no consensus at all but kept forcing her way. Even the latest poll at 3 "yes"/ 3 "either"/ 1 "against" cannot be considered a consensus by any Wikipedia standard. Elonka is systematically violating the rules of consensus, always trying to get 2 or 3 users by her side, and push her way through claiming consensus. This is apparently a habit of hers. PHG (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed PHG (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is absolutely incorrect. The consensus was developed by all editors other than PHG who staunchly refused to consider anything other than his own version; please see the actual discussion that occurred here which is a rather markedly different picture than what is painted by this finding. Shell babelfish 08:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the fact is that Elonka forced her version without a consensus at all: . The link you are giving shows a poll two weeks after she had been forcing her version. Even this last poll was a 3 "yes"/ 3 "neutral"/ 1 "against", which I am afraid is not really a consensus. PHG (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but as we've tried to explain before, consensus has nothing to do with counting, its about discussion. While not everyone agreed whether to go with Elonka's version or just completely rewrite, clearly no one other than yourself supported a return to your version. The fact is that despite these differences of opinion, six separate editors reverted your attempts to reinstate your preferred version due to its considerable problems. Shell babelfish 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Untrue. Elonka clearly did not have consensus as she was trying force her short version of the article. Many editors prefered working from the original, long, version, with 6 editors specifically disagreeing with her actions. Her actions were therefore contrary to Wikipedia editorial rules, and it was therefore normal to resist her changes. PHG (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Untrue? So six different editors didn't revert you? Can you show me where anyone other than you was edit warring with all the other editors active in the article? It also should be pointed out that your "six editors" were pulled by you from talk page archives and not any part of the actual discussion going on - consensus can and does change. Shell babelfish 07:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5-6 editors supported returning to the full version, and 5-6 favoured Elonka's short version . Nowhere on Wikipedia has this situation ever been a consensus to introduce Elonka's short version. In the absence of a consensus, it is normal to revert to the status quo so that proper editorial work can resume. If Elonka's supporters are more prone to again revert to Elonka's short version, that still does not mean that they have a consensus: it just means that they are more virulent, and possibly more prone to bullying their way around, whatever the reason. Some users specifically complained about such unjustified reverts in favour of elonka's short version . PHG (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, could you be a bit more specific of whom you are accusing of being viruses and bullying? Shell babelfish 08:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Virulent" means "Bitterly hostile or antagonistic; hateful." Sorry for you if you have issues with vocabulary . PHG (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm actually quite well aware and condescending about my supposed intelligence certainly isn't necessary. My question was, whom were you accusing of such? You keep making vague comments about "them" and "Elonka's supporters" and I'm curious as to who that includes. Shell babelfish 13:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See talk for my comment. Durova  Charge! 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Elonka flouts Wikipedia rules
2) Elonka edit wars by falsely claiming consensus (above), and by deleting a huge amount of referenced material (120k, 300 references) . Elonka breaks promises made in Mediation : how is it possible to have any respect for someone who doesn't keep her word, and dismisses it at the first occasion? This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour. This is totally against rules of collaborative editing: it is normal to make a stand against such practices. For other wrongdoings by Elonka on a different case see the sickening and ridiculous "Naming Conventions" dispute . PHG (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed PHG (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Doesn't this contradict a previous proposed principle that would allow editors to be bold in reverting edits that are based upon false interpretation of consensus? Durova  Charge! 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because on Wikipedia the absence of consensus automatically means a return to the status quo. PHG (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heading and wording falls way outside of ArbCom's mandate - they are not here to take sides on the dispute. Orderinchaos 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, all editors are given permission to "flout Wikipedia rules" -- see Ignore all rules. I'm not certain what exactly PHG believes Elonka did wrong here, so unless he wants to explain specifically what that behavior is, this proposal is a non-starter. -- llywrch (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Elonka harasses other users
3) Soon after I created the Franco-Mongol alliance Elonka and I entered into heated discussions with Elonka whether there was actually an alliance or not and other details. She first tried to have the article renamed, but failed (here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance (here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed (here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour (here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her actions in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin (here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages (here or for example). I even had to file a claim for harassment (here). Besides, I'm glad I'm not the only one: Elonka has a huge history of dubious disputes and litigations with many other contributors as well (an example). PHG (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed PHG (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a proposed finding its just a personal attack. Could you tone down the rhetoric please PHG? WjBscribe 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that Shell also has requested that PHG cease these attacks on Elonka -- a request I concur with. PHG would help his case greatly if he would cease making accusations about Elonka like this & concentrated on the comments about his contributions to this article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, I am a very, very peacefull Wikipedia editor, and I am also very, very peacefull in real life, but when I am being attacked this way, I have to react. I have been resisting all along to Elonka's harassment and offensive editorial methods, in a way I believe many of you would have also reacted if attacked in the same conditions. When you see your hardly developed content erased in one day without proper consensus or discussion, when you get slandered repeatedly at ANI etc... there a point where you have to make a stand. I believe Elonka is a highly aggressive individual (cajoling to friends, unrelenting towards "opponents"), and my editing does have to be seen in this context. I love Wikipedia, and am delighted to devote my free time to improve its content, please help me put an end to these sad practices. Regards to all. PHG (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I too am a very peaceful sort of guy, & have taken great pleasure in contributing to Wikipedia longer than perhaps anyone else posting to this page. I have also been attacked, have had significant portions of my contributions rewritten or deleted, & I have lost my temper, but when several different individuals have questioned my intents or contributions the one thing that has never occured to me to do is to single out one individual as a target for repeated complaints & personal attacks. (When two or more editors disagree with me or oppose one of my edits, my usual reaction is to recheck my assumptions because they might be right & I may be wrong in this instance.) Perhaps Elonka has acted badly in the past, but that is irrelevent here: she has been very restrained compared to you. And I suspect that were she to start a WikiBreak in the next five minutes, & be gone from Wikipedia for a few months -- or never to return -- you would still find some reason to rant about her & argue that she needs to be sanctioned. Please prove me wrong, & address only the substance of these comments, not who makes them. -- llywrch (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi llywrch. Please note I have only been acting in self-defense all along. I do have the right to present my case and explain how Elonka has been harassing me and taking inadequate steps in relation to this article. PHG (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka strongly disagreed with my requesting arbitration. However, due to the risk of harm to many articles through non-obvious misrepresentation of sources, I felt an obligation to protect the project.  I do not want to open the New York Times tomorrow and see the world laughing at Wikipedia because we published a bubba meisah about Mongols in Jerusalem.  I waited more than four months, but the community was not able to control the problem.  Editors do not own articles, nor do they own disputes. Elonka's behavior, while less than perfect, is not the problem. PHG's complaints about Elonka are a red herring. Jehochman  Talk 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jehochman. I understand your disbelief, but the Mongol capture of Jerusalem, although temporary, is considered and held as true by many historians. It is also described extensively in contemporary sources, whether Western, Armenian, or Arab. The full details are here: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version). 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, 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.") Regarding contemporary sources: 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. He wrote: "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) etc... etc... again please see User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) for details. PHG (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Comment by clerk
 * Personal attack removed. Thatcher 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Elonka deletes referenced material
4) Elonka has been deleting a huge quantity of referenced material that apparently did not match her own storyline. Her 70k rewrite consisted in deleting 120k of content and 300 academic references . In the process, she eliminated the opinions of tens of reputable historians who see the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact User:PHG/Alliance. This is akin to book-burning: references material should not be deleted, but laid out and balanced in a NPOV manner. PHG (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. PHG (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing content (even sourced content) is not necessarily a bad thing. Although Wikipedia is not paper, there are guidelines about how large articles should be to be manageable for readers and reducing article size can be a very sensible editorial decision. It may also be necessary to reduce the size of an article if a large amount of it gives undue weight to a particular POV. WjBscribe 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At least, I think you would need a clear consensus to do so. Fundamentally, I think removing referenced content from Wikipedia is a bad idea and goes against the fundamental orientation of the project. "Encyclopedia" means "all knowledge", not "small rounded articles with only a few selected references", nor "school texbook". We are making an encyclopedia, not a digest. Therefore all knowledge from proper published sources ultimately deserves representation on Wikipedia. This is what makes this project so extraordinary and allows to go into so much details on very narrow subjects. PHG (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  We are here to provide the sum of human knowledge, not all human knowledge.  You could take all of the millions of articles on Wikipedia (even the fluff), print them and bind them in hardcopy and stack them on shelves, but even so, all of Wikipedia would only take up maybe 1 or 2 aisles in the corner of one floor of a university's research library.  Human knowledge is vast, and it is not Wikipedia's job (or any encyclopedia's job) to reproduce all information, we're just trying to provide a basic summary.  We are here to create a digest, we are not here to provide "all knowledge from published sources."  Per WP:NOT, just because something is verifiable, doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion. --Elonka 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are playing on words. Wikipedia is indeed "to provide the sum of human knowledge". On a given subject NPOV is very clear that "all significant views should be mentionned", and that is "non negotiable". We are not here to chose certain views and eliminate other, as long as we are talking about significant views from proper published sources. There is absolutely no reasons to delete major references such as those in User:PHG/Alliance, as you have been doing: this is POV editing with a bad reason. PHG (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is a content question and one that was resolved by consensus on the talk. What is actually of concern here is PHG's edit warring to maintain his version against more than six other editors. Shell babelfish 08:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, when Elonka was trying to force her short version many editors declared they prefered working from the original, long, version, with 6 editors specifically disagreeing with her actions. Her actions were therefore contrary to Wikipedia editorial rules, and it was thus normal to resist them. PHG (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Somehow I don't see ArbCom using the word "book-burning" in a finding of fact wording. Orderinchaos 10:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Elonka reprimanded
1) Although Elonka is a smart contributor, her aggresive behaviour is highly predatory and detrimental to collaborative editing on Wikipedia. She mounts huge attack campaigns on other users (an amazing case here !), and keeps editing in a POV manner and leverages her efforts by falsely claiming consensus. She should be at least reprimanded. I also think that her lack of ethical behaviour should open her to recall as an administrator. I think that her predatory behaviour should be severely controled in the future. PHG (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed PHG (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka should not be reprimanded for doing her utmost to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. She has worked tirelessly to bring to attention the problems with this article, facing the difficulty that many others simply did not know enough about the subject matter to get involved. PHG's accusation of a lack of ethics is unfounded, and her admin status is not in issue here. None of the participants in the dispute used their admin tools in the course of it. WjBscribe 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka has a long history of harassment and confrontation . She has also shown herself to be extremely confrontational in relation to the Franco-Mongol alliance article, as pointed out by many of the oponents to her RfA : it is a recognized fact that Elonka is a highly controversial editor, and she has amply proven her partisan approach in relation to this article. I believe she is not pursuing the integrity of Wikipedia, only self-vindication and self-promotion. PHG (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Disagree - With all due respect, the Naming finding was 13 months ago. I have not seen any evidence of anything particularly notable in behaviour terms for approximately seven months. As such she appears to have learned from past errors of judgement. Agree with WJB's comments generally. Orderinchaos 10:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reinstate article status quo
2) The Franco-Mongol alliance article should be reinstated to its original 190k/400 refs condition before Elonka tried to force her 70k rewrite in mid-January (FRANCO-MONGOL ALLIANCE: FULL VERSION). A huge amount of data has been deleted, and all this without an actual consensus or even a proper discussion of what was being deleted. In the absence of consensus, the status quo should prevail. We will then be able to edit the full article cooperatively, by condensing/ splitting or rewriting it. 3 users have already stated that they were neutral about this, and 3 users (User:Matt57, User:Justin ,and myself) have expressed that they would prefer to start from the full article. PHG (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This lies outside ArbCom's power to order. The content of an article must be decided by editors in the usual manner. There are two options - consider readding material to the Elonka version, or removing it from PHG's version. The latter approach was tried for many months and PHG was resistant to all changes. The article actually grew in size. It seems to me sensible now to approach it the other way round. PHG should propose content to be readded and it can be discussed whether those additions are sound in terms of accuracy, NPOV and keeping the article to a reasonable size. WjBscribe 06:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never been against split/condensing the article. There have been no proposals or discussions in that direction though, until Elonka brought her replacement. Quite the contrary, I even did the splits myself. When I split the article however to decrease its size, I was systematically pursued for POV-fork. PHG (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Make that 4 people now who would like to see the full article reinstated and then the contentious points discussed and kept, modified or deleted one by one (or at least in related groups) according to the merit of each point and reference. Sudden bulk deletions of well-referenced material are, I believe, totally unjustified. Moreover, this whole questionable process is wasting an incredible amount of time, effort and goodwill and certainly makes one question whether it is worthwhile trying to contribute to the Wikipedia at all.John Hill (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ArbCom doesn't weigh in on matters of content. But to point out your error here, you're accepting "well-referenced material" at face value - please feel free to join in the talk page discussion over the content where you will quickly learn that looking well referenced and actually being well reference are two different things. One can say a certain book supports the article, but if that book doesn't actually say whats in the article, we remove that text, right? Shell babelfish 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, marking academic papers you quickly learn that it's easy to meet the requirements but a lot harder to actually make and support a contention. :) Orderinchaos 10:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree - ArbCom addresses behaviour, not content. Re Matt57: he has a past history of dispute with Elonka over unrelated matters, and while not judging the strengths and weaknesses of his positions on those, I think anyone would agree he is not neutral on this (nor does he claim to be, for the record.) Orderinchaos 10:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

WP:SYNTH
1) Innovative propositions based upon previously published sources are violations of the original synthesis clause of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Although occasional lapses may be understandable, habitual and stubborn violation of this policy is inconsistent with Wikipedia's role as a tertiary source of information.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Gets around questions about which sources are being used: if the editor persistently strays from the texts, then original synthesis is occurring.  Durova  Charge! 10:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorsed. This is a much clearer statement. Shell babelfish 12:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
2) Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is not the average of all opinions that ever existed; it reflects the weight of current expert consensus. Experts from previous eras deserve to be weighted in proportion to the esteem they receive from modern experts.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Durova  Charge! 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm too enamored with my own version above -- "All other considerations being equal, modern sources should be given preference to older ones" -- but I think Durova's version will lead to unintended harm. As I also wrote above, Wikipedia's coverage is increasingly encountering topics where the expert consensus is ...indeterminate. Either there are too few experts -- or none -- to provide a consensus. If no expert consensus can be reasonably determined, obviously we should favor the latest expert conclusions -- but be willing to also accept older ones if an editor can provide a reason to do so. (An example of this is how Fut.Perf. handled an unusual claim at Talk:Chaonians: although the material one user cited was more recent, Fut.Perf. patiently provided several reasons why the view of older sources -- some of them primary sources -- should be prefered.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In medicine, mathematics, and the hard sciences this is easy to demonstrate. Euclid and Archimedes are still relevant to mathematics, but Ptolemy is obsolete to geography.  We don't discuss phrenology or bloodlettings as if these were serious issues anymore, just because long-discredited experts used to advocate these things centuries ago.  Durova  Charge! 02:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tu quoque
3. Violations of Wikipedia policies or other standards of proper behavior by one editor or individual, however serious, do not excuse violations by another editor. However, in appropriate circumstances, provocation or the like may be considered as a mitigating factor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Borrowing Newyorkbrad's idea from another open case. Durova  Charge! 10:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Inmproper sourcing
4. When a significant portion of an editor's contributions are demonstrated to be improper citations by any research standard, and when that editor stubbornly refuses to correct or even acknowledge the problem, then at the Committee's discretion that editor's research may be deemed untrustworthy in its entirety, and removed from active article space wholesale as if it were unreferenced, until such time as editors in good standing reverify the purported citations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed as a means of cleaning up. Durova  Charge! 02:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG persistently uses improper sourcing
1) A significant proportion of PHG's citations are improper by any research standard. PHG persistently refuses to correct or acknowledge the problem.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Durova  Charge! 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Shell babelfish 07:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG violates WP:SYNTH
2) PHG's contributions violate the no original synthesis clause of Wikipedia's no original research policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Durova  Charge! 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Reverification
1) Cited edits made by PHG in article space may be reverted as if they were unreferenced material, until individually verified as properly researched by editors in good standing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Durova  Charge! 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editorial process
1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing.  Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally.  Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions.  Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard stuff. Kirill 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Absolutely endorse, yes. I was going to include this one in my own section, and got busy with other things and forgot. Thanks for bringing it back in.  :) --Elonka 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse. Durova  Charge! 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
2) Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires all encyclopedic content to be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly and without bias all significant views on a topic. Minority views should not be given as much or as detailed a description as more popular views.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Condensed a bit from Elonka's, above. Kirill 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Suggest incorporating something about being up to date? Ptolemy had a few ideas about the shape of the earth...  Durova  Charge! 11:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of sources
3) Determining both the reliability of sources and the relative prominence of their views is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The crux of the issue. Applying NPOV is a bit more complex than counting up the number of authors in each column and dividing the word count proportionately. Kirill 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreeing with the comment more than the proposed principle. The challenge is to precipitate nuggets of enforceable NOR and NPOV from an otherwise nebulous solution of content dispute.  People who abuse sources often get away with facile claims that the entire problem is mere disagreement; articles suffer and good editors quit because of it.  Durova  Charge! 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely certain this is the way to word it, but like Durova, I agree with the comment and intent here. We see too many times where editors toss common-sense and judgment out in favor of blind obedience to their perception of NPOV; somehow we need to correct this gross misunderstanding.  Dispute resolution doesn't currently handle more complex issues well and many issues are being dropped because good editors get discouraged or simply decide not to wade in knowing the kind of commitment that is required. Case in point: this issue has gone on for more than 6 months and required constant vigilance by many editors; its a shame that their time couldn't have been put to better use. The cleanup from this issue is likely to take even longer, assuming we can even find editors who can and want to rewrite and check hundreds of articles. Shell babelfish 07:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee
4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors, nor to issue detailed judgments on matters of article content and sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * More standard stuff. Kirill 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed, with caveats above. Durova  Charge! 11:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Detrimental editing
5) The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Originally from Stefanomencarelli; not quite sure whether this will be applicable yet. Kirill 19:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Think of how much work is going to go into reverifying and cleaning up PHG's contributions, and how much that sidetracks our best editors from other content work. Durova  Charge! 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Ownership of articles
1) Editors are not permitted to claim ownership over articles, even where they have contributed significantly to their creation or development. Overly defensive editing of articles is disruptive and may lead to users being blocked by an administrator.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. WjBscribe 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Elonka 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Agree. Durova  Charge! 11:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed per WP:OWN. Orderinchaos 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Status quo
2) The content of an article at any one time enjoys no special status over later versions. Where consensus is unclear, reverts should cease being made until it can be established. Those advocating changes have no greater onus to demostrate consensus than those advocating the status quo.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. WjBscribe 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's untrue. According to Wikipedia, a consequence of Consensus decision-making is the Preservation of the Status quo, giving "an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing state of affairs". In case there is no consensus for a major change (such as article deletion, content replacement etc...), the Wikipedia approach is to keep the status quo. The principle you propose would allow anyone to make a major change to an article and block everything until a new consensus is established, leading to a huge amount of litigation (as is happening here). Much better to start from the main article, discuss, and improve progressively. PHG (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to Durova, I think the fact that the status quo enjoys no special privilege is a logical result of WP:OWN and the fact that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. One should not give a special place to those who "get to an article first" if we're seriously going to have a collaborative model for editorial decision. Also, it is generally the case that where the accuracy of a reference for a statement is challenged, the onus is on the person wishing inclusion to demonstrate a consensus that it meets the relevant policies. The discussion you refer to are in my view different from discusions about article content - we do not claim that anyone can delete articles or decide what content is featured. Both of those are requests for something out of the ordinary to happen, whereas consensus forming discussions about what should be in aricles should be happening all the time. I think this article is a good example of the problem if one were to give preference to the status quo - a lack of interested editors could lead to original research and POV content remaining in an article simply because that content used to be in it. WjBscribe 08:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Is this intended to set articles apart from other consensus discussions such as deletions, featured content reviews, etc. where no consensus = status quo? Durova  Charge! 11:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that WP:V places the onus on an editor to justify inclusion, and that the difficulties in getting a large consensus at arcane topics shouldn't stop editors from acting upon the best consensus they're able to muster. Leave it as it is for the time being is usually a good working model during consensus development, yet that's prone to gaming if an editor stalls at one article and maneuvers a claim of ownership over new POV forks.  So I suppose the principle is sound.  Thank you for articulating the differences.  Durova  Charge! 09:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Editorial judgment regarding reliability
3) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise. Exceptional claims should be supported by strong sources.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed - adapted from Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Would seem to cover claims such as the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols. WjBscribe 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is possible to establish expertise on Wikipedia, as contributors are essentially anonymous and don't have formal credentials. I think the only legitimacy to mentionning an opinion is that it has been published by a number of reputable sources. This is easy to implement, easy to verify, highly NPOV, and allows to avoid endless disputes. PHG (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Expertise is a matter of reputation. Those editors who have verifiable credentials (example) and choose to connect their real life identity may develop a reputation faster than pseudonymous editors. Jehochman Talk 09:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Addresses part of the matter. Would prefer to see a principle that articulates how WP:NOR requires fidelity to one's sources.  Otherwise, what's to stop an editor from citing Crick & Watson while expounding on the triple helix?  Pick enough cherries and you can bake any pie.  Durova  Charge! 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories
4) Where articles discuss subjects that are disputed, the weight of relevant opinion on either side should be clear. Where a theory is held by a small minority this should be made clear. In some cases, it may be appropriate not to include the theory at all so as to avoid giving it undue weight.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. WjBscribe 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is probably very hard to impossible to give a proper weight to each opinions on a subject. There is the matter of the number of publications, but also that of the influence and popularity of each one. When about 30 scholars (from the little access I have to sources) do mention the Franco-Mongol alliance as a factual occurence, I don't think that has anything to look with "fringe": User:PHG/Alliance. Elonka has been deleting these references, but I am claiming that they deserve proper representation. According to NPOV all significant views should be listed, and this is "non-negotiable". There is no need departing from this most fundamental (and I think remarquable) of Wikipedia rules. PHG (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed. Durova  Charge! 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - self-evident. Orderinchaos 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Forking of content
5) Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. Consensus on one article should not be evaded by creating a new article with the disputed content.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. WjBscribe 07:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka herself repeatedly requested that the article be split/condensed and threatened that she would take the matter in her own hands if it did not happen . I complied and created several splits in order to accomodate content from the main article. Now, don't tell me that was a wrong thing to do. However, Elonka chose to attack me immediately with POV-fork accusations. This is totally unfair. PHG (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse. Durova  Charge! 11:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - consistent with WP:POVFORK and past ArbCom decisions. Orderinchaos 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG has edit warred
1) PHG reverted Franco-Mongol alliance to his prefered version instead of editing cooperatively with others., , , , , , ,.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. WjBscribe 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka clearly did not have consensus as she was trying force her short version of the article. Many editors prefered working from the original, long, version, with 6 editors specifically disagreeing with her actions. Her actions were therefore contrary to Wikipedia editorial rules, and it was therefore normal to resist her changes. In the absence of consensus, the rule at Wikipedia is to return to the status quo. PHG (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * He's written a proposed principle that would validate this conduct; so the fact that it occurred appears undisputed. Durova  Charge! 11:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - fair conclusion to draw. Orderinchaos 10:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether Elonka had a consensus or not is moot. Constantly reverting back and forth is by definition an edit war. Have to agree with this.  Justin  chat 05:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG has attempted to own the Franco-Mongol alliance article
2) PHG's extreme resistance to change to the article breaches the policy that Wikipedia articles are not owned.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. WjBscribe 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Franco-Mongol alliance article has incorporated all along large contributions from Elonka, such as the "Interpretation by modern sources" chapter, many new sources and rewrites by her, all the disclaimer style alliance/submission phrasings etc... This article has never been closed to anybody. PHG (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse. Durova  Charge! 11:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Orderinchaos 10:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG has created POV forks
3) PHG has created POV forks including: Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, Mongol alliances in the Middle-East, Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations), Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304) and Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300). These articles were deleted through the Articles for Deletion process.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. WjBscribe 07:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These are not POV-fork, only legitimate articles:
 * Mongol conquests and Jerusalem what created to outsource from the main article content related to the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300. The corresponding content is in the full article here: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) It is perfectly documented by a number of reputable historians.
 * The other articles (such as Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304)) were only an attempt to split the main article following Elonka's insistent requests. As the "Franco-Mongol alliance" title had long been accepted by the community, they only used the same title with the addition of a date. I don't think this constitutes POV-fork at all. As a first step, these splits permitted a reduction of the main article to 140k, with a neat structure. The articles were finally deleted because many editors said they wanted to have all the content in one place. However, Elonka then again used the large size of the full article (190k, 400 references) as an excuse to force its replacement by her own 70k/100 refs article, defeated the purpose of having all in the same place to discuss properly. PHG (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse. Durova  Charge! 12:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the difference between a POV fork and content fork is intent. Given we can't prove intent, calling it a POV fork is a misnomer.  Justin  chat 05:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse. When Articles for deletion/Mongol alliances in the Middle-East starts out by claiming that it is a POV fork, all the "delete" comments call it a POV fork, and the closing admin declares consensus to delete, I am willing to call it a POV fork. I don't have to judge intent to come to that conclusion. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Editors shouldn't be creating a myriad of articles in an attempt to have their POV stick somewhere. Shell babelfish 07:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

PHG placed on probation
1) PHG is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed - from Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Seems the best way short of an outright ban to allow the issues with PHG's conduct to be dealt with. WjBscribe 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not feel that this is strong enough. We've already been doing this, blocking PHG when he was being disruptive, and the blocks were completely ineffective in getting him to moderate his behavior. If he were able to acknowledge that he understands other editors' concerns, then a probation might be appropriate in a "giving him one more chance" kind of way, but he hasn't acknowledged concerns.  Instead, he seems to feel that this entire case is just harassment, that he is being bullied and stalked, and that everyone bringing up concerns is lying and slandering him, in a coordinated attempt to discredit him.   Unless he can acknowledge that he can actually hear the good-faith concerns of other editors, and that he's willing to voluntarily moderate his behavior and try to do better, he really isn't someone that we want to be keeping around on the project. --Elonka 20:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Looking over the Ed Poor case, I have to disagree. See Shell Kinney's evidence and Blnguyen's comment at this workshop page.  PHG goes far beyond a non-neutral point of view; he cherry picks sentence fragments and, from the look of User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, in several cases even attributes things that the source doesn't say at all.  Durova  Charge! 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I now have been able to address User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed. All the French quotes were filled-in, and if someone wants scans, I will gladly upload them. I don't see any significant issue in Ealdgyth's testbed, but I will be glad to discuss. The claim that I "even attribute things that the source doesn't say at all" is totally untrue. PHG (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement by PHG above is precisely why this won't work -- PHG doesn't see anything wrong with any of his behavior. Since he so firmly believes he is correct, it is impossible that he's going to be interested in changing the behavior.  Just look at how he's handling editing other people's evidence sections where the same pattern has emerged -- PHG determines that he is right and everyone else is wrong, he continues the disruptive behavior despite warnings and when challenged, resorts to personal attacks.  Since we keep seeing this inability to accept community input, I don't see a candidate for probation here. Shell babelfish 04:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd strengthen to a topic ban personally, but wouldn't oppose this solution either. Orderinchaos 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Topic ban on Franco-Mongol alliance and related
1) is banned from editing Franco-Mongol alliance and related articles and their talk pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Well, yes, it'll help, but I'm afraid that this isn't strong enough. It'll definitely address the problems with the FMA articles, but PHG's activities have been disruptive in other topic areas as well (such as Indo-Greek Kingdom).  While this situation has ArbCom's attention,  I think it would be worthwhile dealing with the full problem (PHG's editing behavior in general) rather than just focusing on his behavior on one single set of articles.  Otherwise we're going to need another PHG-specific ArbCom case in the future, which is going to waste even more time from good editors.  The amount of time that I have had to spend on this issue over the last six months is staggering.  It bothers me that I could have been working on many other articles in the meantime (which I did do, but not as much as I would have liked).  And indeed, I often questioned whether I should be spending time documenting PHG's bad behavior -- it was often tempting to just "walk away" and let it be someone else's problem.  But then I'd come back after a few weeks and see that he was continuing to escalate, and that it was still a "complex" escalation which other editors were having trouble dealing with.


 * The biggest problem with PHG's disruption is that it's so complex, and that he uses sources which are difficult to obtain and verify. If he were someone misquoting online sources, it would be much easier for other editors to identify the fraud. But when someone is misquoting offline hardcopy sources, it becomes much more difficult to see what they're doing.  This is multiplied when they start quoting sources in other languages.  For example, PHG has occasionally quoted something in French, or Latin, and said that it backs up what he just said. Most other editors don't read Latin, and so they can't argue with it.  But here, on this particular FMA dispute, we do have other editors with access to the hardcopy sources that PHG is misquoting.  We do have other editors who can read these other languages, and who are challenging PHG's statements.  And the really scary thing, is that even with multiple other editors pointing out that PHG is flat-out wrong, even with this entire ArbCom case expressing concerns with his behavior, he is still refusing to back down, he still refuses to acknowledge any type of consensus different from his own opinion.  This just isn't the kind of person we want on Wikipedia.  So let's take this opportunity to deal with an exceptionally disruptive editor, in a clear and unambiguous way.  Otherwise we're just filling in one hole in the garden, and ignoring the fact that we still have a pest who's going to be digging other holes.   :/ --Elonka 18:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These are empty accusations Elonka. Could you kindly point to actual cases of me misquoting Latin or French sources? I don't think I ever did, and I am ready to discuss your "evidence". On the other hand, I was able to catch you several times corrupting sources: Here Here, Here Here. You also repeatedly emended and corrupted a quote by the French historian Laurent Dailliez to try to discredit him, trying to have him say historical untruths that he never said Summary/Full discussion. You openly falsified content to suit your intent. If you have accusations against me, please be factual. PHG (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a very good point; even though there is unambiguous evidence that PHG has grossly misused sources, he is still not only pleading innocence, but also continuing to plead ignorance of the problem. This problem certainly isn't contained to just one subject he edits - we already know of at least one other subject area and editors are concerned enough that they're looking through PHG's other contributions too.  Banning him from one area isn't going to resolve this problem, especially when he refuses to even admit there's an elephant in the shower with him. Shell babelfish 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell, could you kindly give your "evidence" that I "grossly misused sources"? You previously wrote that everything appeared clearly in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, but there nothing of the sort: I was able to fill in all Ealdgyth's requests for the original French quotes, and as far as I can see there are no significant issues otherwise. Please be factual in your accusations. PHG (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the evidence page if you need more specifics. I'm afraid I've only gone back a month, but it should give you a good overview of my concerns Shell babelfish 08:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. (Note that a formulation of this would probably need to spell out "related articles" with more clarity, but I don't know enough on the topic to do so.) Orderinchaos 10:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where has this editor participated in a reliable manner elsewhere, that would justify the risks of this leniency? As Jehochman argues above, persistent misuse of sources is much harder to identify and fix than toilet humor vandalism.  If this passes I'll sit back and wait for the WP:FAC on Ostrogothic conquest of Ethiopia.  Durova  Charge! 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like it won't pass anyway, but the option wasn't on the table and I felt it should be available. The editor does seem to do good work in unrelated areas and I didn't see any reason to get in the way of that. Orderinchaos 00:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Adam Bishop has serious concerns about his work with the Indo-Greeks and I have licensing concerns about dozens of his uploads. In what area (if any) is this editor's work reliable?  Durova  Charge! 00:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that was a couple of other people...I just extrapolated from this incident that his other work might be suspect. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case I stand corrected on the particular, but the basic question remains: has there been any area where PHG's edits have been reliable? His refusal to acknowledge even the most obvious problems leaves me with grave concerns.  Durova  Charge! 05:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Durova, should you wish to evaluate some of my more "mainstream" works (I mean areas with more visibility, or less "arcane" if you wish), you could check a few of my FAs such as Imperial Japanese Navy, History of Buddhism, Boshin War (already too arcane? it was on Wikipedia's Main Page last month). You might also be interested by Roman trade with India or Hasekura Tsunenaga. Regards PHG (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Durova, that article would simply be a redirect to Second Italo-Abyssinian War. On the other hand, there are some particularly bizarre theories & ironies about Ethiopian history; I ought to retell some of them on my blog. -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO, Mussolini was an Ostrogoth? Durova  Charge! 06:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For instance, see Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom, and see the article history to see how many failed verification turned up on the checkable sources. Only some of the sources were accessible.  Blnguyen  ( photo straw poll ) 05:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Blnguyen. I am afraid your usage of "Failed verification" tags is really disputable (just as the two cases you mentionned in this page, to which I answered). It seems you tagged many proper references just because they did not repeated exactly every element of the preceding sentence. If they did, it would be paraphrase. As far as I know, a reference is supposed to bring support to a sentence or part of a sentence, not necessarily every single element in it. The Boardman quote you tagged is totally exact. It describes the beginnings of Gandharan art as coinciding with the remaining Indo-Greek influence. It is not supposed to give a date and it doesn't. You seem to be implying that the absence of the mention of a date renders the quote invalid. You also tagged a referenced by Polybius  which is totally proper. Polybius does say that Antiochus offered the hand of his daughter to Demetrius: Antiochus received the young prince; and judging from his appearance, conversation, and the dignity of his manners that he was worthy of royal power, he first promised to give him one of his own daughters, so I don't see what issue you might have with this quote: it is perfectly exact. Or are you challenging that "offering the hand of" is not quite the same as "married"? If it's the case I have no problem adopting the expression "was offered the hand of", but this is clearly not a source issue, and this would be more an issue of vocabulary than source. I will be glad to discuss other issues you may have. PHG (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just the fact that there are several editors working through PHG's articles right now (currently its limited to the Mongol, Templar and other ancient Chinese related topics) is a sign that this isn't going to resolve the problem. Blnguyen has pointed at another article with identical sourcing problems -- again, that's a scary thought and pretty damning.  Work is ongoing at locating other experts on wiki that can help out in some of the other obscure areas PHG has chose. Shell babelfish 07:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Shell. Be my guest: all my articles are listed on my User Page. All I write is referenced from proper published sources. Regards. PHG (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I am no expert on this topic, though it seems that there is a pattern repeating itself from for instance the Indo-Greek page; PHG, who is known to be a most meticulous researcher and AFAIK seldom is unreasonable, is attacked by some users who disagree with everything down to minor details even when PHG provides proper first hand sources. The tone became rather vitriolic after a while, in some case with nationalistic overtones behind. I had the specialist knowledge to address that topic, I do not have it here, but those interested should look in at the discussion on that page to see whether there is a pattern here and if the discussion is free from personal overtones. PHG has yet been a tireless contributor, he may not remain so forever if he has to spend most of his time on Wikipedia in endless debates about his every edit. With all due respect, Sponsianus (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your testimony Sponsianus! I truely appreciate. Let me remind that Sponsianus is a scholar (a Chemistry and Biology professor) who is also highly knowledgeable of the Indo-Greeks (he is currently publishing a book on them). We have worked together for several years, and he is kind enough to confirm the validity of my contributions and sources on this arcane subject. The Indo-Greek article has been extensively attacked by some users with apparently nationalistic leanings (and coached by Elonka ), but it remains nonetheless one of the best article on a little-known subject that we have on Wikipedia. I believe the opinion of Sponsianus is worth a lot more than that of many. PHG (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you care what a biology professor thinks? I'm sure Sponsianus is a fine scholar, but if I weighed in on some biology topic I would be rightly ignored. Why do you place your trust in him and completely ignore all the historians?  You must be pulling our legs.  Has this been a big joke the entire time?  Are you trying to waste everyone's time because it amuses you? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please Adam, don't call yourself a "historian". As far as I know you're still in school right now. Sponsianus, him, is a professor, and I have great respect for his knowledge and ethical conduct in general. On Wikipedia, you don't have to be a historian to write about history. Various history enthusiasts, from different walks of life (yes, Chemistry teachers like Sponsianus, Business managers like me) can make great contributions as well. It is perfectly legitimate for Sponsianus to contribute on history, he is great at it, and I strongly dispute your dismissal of his contributions. This is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is completely uncalled for. Shell babelfish 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He claimed to be scornful of all credentials when it came to our education in history, yet when someone with a completely unrelated professorship supports him he goes out of his way to tout the credential. This is consistent with his approach to article sourcing and policy interpretation: he selectively invokes NPOV in order to emphasize authors he wishes to cite, (ignoring WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE).  Yet when it comes to historians who disagree with his thesis, he disregards NPOV and downplays them even if they represent the mainstream.  This isn't logic: it's politics.  Durova  Charge! 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Durova, why do you say that I "claimed to be scornful of all credentials when it came to our education in history"? This is totally untrue. The point is that there are no formal credentials on Wikipedia, and that we are basically all amateurs whose job is to present published sources in an NPOV manner. I have no reason to accept your virulent assertions just because you claim to have a training in history. Wikipedia is not about a few individuals vindicatively claiming authority on a subject (you might try Knol if you wish to do so), but about a multitude of generous individuals who simply try to report in an organized way the "sum of all knowledge" on each given subject. PHG (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: