Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Franco-Mongol alliance

Franco-Mongol alliance
This article has a long and complex history, having been the subject of multiple arbitration cases, but it appears to be stable now. It has been extensively overhauled and rewritten, and each and every source scrutinized for reliability. After review by several editors, the article was recently promoted to good article status. I am now seeking wider peer review on it before trying again for an FA nom (see original 2007 nom). Any and all comments appreciated, thanks. --Elonka 18:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ed17

 * Quick comment - this has probably been addressed before, but shouldn't the title be "Franco-Mongol relations" or "European-Mongol relations"? It was never an alliance and, although Muslims referred to Europeans as "Franks," it's misleading to a reader today, who immediately thinks of France. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there have been multiple requests to change the article title, but there was never a clear consensus for a move. Some editors feel as you do that "Franco-Mongol relations" might be a better title, but others point out that the term "Franco-Mongol alliance" is definitely used in the literature, even though it's describing something that didn't happen. For other specific quotes of how historians have referred to the concept, see User:Elonka/Mongol historians.  Bottom line though, is that the current title, and lead paragraph, appears to be stable, even though there's not a clear consensus for it either way. So we've been going with "stability == consensus".  :) To see the most recent RM, check here. --Elonka 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Numerous authors are actually specific about the Franco-Mongol alliance and describe its multiple occurences. For reference:


 * The current article is highly POV in that it misleads the reader into believing that nothing such as an alliance occured and that there is a consensus for such a view. That is untrue: the article should be written in a more balanced way, describing both views about the alliance. Overall, there were multiple agreements between the Mongols and European powers (the very definition of an alliance), which led to combined operations, although on a limited scale with rather unsuccesful results.  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  20:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not well-versed enough in this subject to reply to your points, PHG, sorry. @Elonka, I see that my other point regarding the use of "Franco" was raised in the RM, too. Boy, I'm late to the party. Would either of you have an objection to me emailing one of my professors, who happens to be quite knowledgeable about the Crusades, regarding this? If not, could we get a somewhat short and central question that I can email to him so that I don't have to point him at reams of text? :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We now a have a large number of sources, pointing both ways, so the solution is really to balance the account rather than exclusively privileging only one view. I am not sure if one more professor could add much to the discussion at this point... Actually, it's almost a problem of semantics: when Elonka says there was no alliance, she means that there was no successful collaboration. But making an alliance is by definition only making an agreement to collaborate, whereas actual collaboration is the outcome of the alliance. I've offered a compromise definition such as:
 * I believe this sentence accurately portrays the situation and defuses useless polemics, but I've been so far without success... maybe this is the kind of sentence you could submit to you professor? Best regards  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (sigh) PHG, please respect your topic ban from this area, and please stop arguing this point. It's just going to make the peer review more complicated than necessary. --Elonka 04:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Elonka, what would you think of me asking him just about the article's title? Would it even make a difference? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you're welcome to talk to whoever you'd like, but as far as article title, I don't think it would make much of a difference. We already went through a month-long RM a few weeks ago, which came back the same as the RM(s) from two years ago: "no consensus".  The current article title of Franco-Mongol alliance may not be the perfect title, but at least it appears to be stable, and personally, I'm okay on keeping it for now. --Elonka 04:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * K - I'll try to give this some sort of review in the next few days. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I look forward to your comments.  :) --Elonka 05:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I look forward to your comments.  :) --Elonka 05:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Initial comments
 * "The Franks (Europeans) were open to the idea of assistance coming from the East" ... I added a hidden note in the text after this sentence, but I'll repeat it here. I think that an explanatory note about why "Franks" = "Europeans" would help a reader's understanding here. It's not exactly common knowledge in the US that Muslims called all Europeans "Franks" regardless of their actual ancestry.
 * ✅ I went ahead and linked the term to Franks, to help clarify. --Elonka 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Among Europeans, there had long been rumors and expectations that a great Christian ally would come from "the East"."
 * Who said "the East" or why is it quoted?
 * ✅. Good catch, I removed the quotes. --Elonka 12:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "This legend fed upon itself, and some individuals who came from the East were greeted with the expectations that they might be the long-awaited Christian heroes."
 * Should "heroes" be singular?
 * I'd say not. Prester John was an individual, but other Mongols were also greeted as relatives or associates of Prester John. Some of the Mongol women were also referred to as "daughters of Prester John", even if there actual relationship was somewhat more distant. --Elonka 12:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mongol raiding parties were beginning to invade the eastern Islamic world, in Transoxania and Persia in 1219–1221."
 * Is a time frame needed here with the "In 1221" in the previous sentence?
 * ✅. Fixed. --Elonka 18:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Mongol invasion of Europe subsided in 1242, in part because of the death of the Great Khan Ögedei, successor of Genghis Khan.
 * Was Ogedei the leader of the Golden Horde?
 * ✅. No, Ogedei was Great Khan of the entire Empire.  When he died, Mongols from all over the Empire returned to the capital to help decide who should be the next Great Khan.  I've rewritten that section of the article a bit, to make things more clear. --Elonka 18:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "He initiated a small crusade, but a storm descended on his fleet as they attempted their crossing, forcing most of the ships to turn back."
 * "He" means James I of Aragon here, right? Best make that clear, even though it's made obvious shortly after. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed. --Elonka 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the comments! I'm on semi-wikibreak for a few weeks, but will address these items as soon as I can. --Elonka 20:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ All comments addressed, thanks! --Elonka 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)