Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence

Request for evidence, if it exists
Me and User:Rlevse are drafting a decision. However, I would like to know whether there are examples of PHG possibly misrepresenting or overstating sources outside of Mongol-related topics since closing the previous case on March 14. I appreciate Latebird's evidence, and I wonder if this is confined to this one area. Cool Hand Luke 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He hasn't done much in Hellenistic India, but what he has done indicates that he would still present the view of his choice in a manner I would find misleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, you've posted a little on this. Will consider this carefully. Cool Hand Luke 20:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what there is; but I'd rather not come back here if a problem develops. Unfortunately, this entire area could use a rewrite, largely because PHG wrote several related articles from his PoV, and Sponsianus, a numismatist, has not involved himself deeply in other topics (and is withdrawing from the numismatics as a COI). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And now a little more. My estimate remains: he holds an extreme position, but may not hold it with extreme intensity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, he seems to have done very little discussion on talk pages at all, and have been building up his own little walled garden of cannon, at least in the last few months; his edits are so copious that it will be difficult to review all of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Walled garden" is not a fortunate choice of words here. I've skimmed those - the subject is one that I've been interested in, but don't edit - and I thought they were sound. I don't think any truly comprehensive encyclopedia should omit the likes of Reffye, De Bange or De la Vallière. There's a fair lot of material on what we might unkindly call cannoncruft. I know this because I own several booksfull of it. Unsurprisingly, John A. Dahlgren had an article in 2002, and although Thomas Jackson Rodman is still a red link the rather gushing Rodman gun appeared in 2004. If you can't point to specific, recent problems, the only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn is that there aren't any. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not mean "walled garden" as an attack; I do think them isolated. My only complaint on these is that they need in spots to be translated into English; before publication, someone may also want to consolidate them; my chief reason for mentioning them is surprise that there are so many mainspace edits and so few talkpage edits in his edit history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've spent some time reviewing the original arbitration that found problems with sourcing. As I think you know, no deliberate misrepresentation was found; as to whether or not there was any serious misrepresentation, i.e., an overenthusiastic interpretation due to his general knowledge and POV, it is possible that those who reviewed the sources could have erred. PHG attempted to establish that in a prior arbitration review, and was rather roundly rebuked for trying, without his objections, which were specific, being answered. I know that he should have let it lie, but ... it's dangerous to assume that no error was made, back then. In fact, ArbComm never should have tried to investigate and resolve a content issue, but should simply have insisted that all involved editors work together to find consensus or stop trying (and abstain from editing problem articles).


 * My position has become that the difficulties were behavioral, and that PHG was not the only problem, he was merely the focus. Much of it is the old writer/editor cat-and-dog fighting, with editors demanding that writers be good editors and writers believing that editors are a bunch of ignorant Philistines. A good writer will try hard to work with his or her editors, but some do find it difficult and are still good writers; they need particularly sensitive editors who know how to make the necessary changes, to fact check and correct and remove unverifiable material, without insulting the writer!


 * PHG certainly has made mistakes; in one case he misread a Japanese word in a source, and thus made a claim that a person had been awarded the French Legion of Honor, when, in fact, it was a lesser award. He immediately corrected it when the error was discovered. (Before that, he was being accused of falsification, again. He's had to face some very uncivil editors; in spite of the original ArbComm finding that it could continue to assume good faith on his part, he was accused of fabricating sources, which ArbComm never actually found, only *possible* misinterpretation of the kind that serious scholars can fall into.) I'm really amazed that he didn't just flame out and go away. I consented to the proposal that he continue with a narrow restriction because (1) it is possible that he did misinterpret those sources, (2) whether he did or not, many believe he did, (3) if the restriction is narrow it seems that it doesn't do a great deal of harm, and (4) harm will be greatly minimized or eliminated if he is at the same time congratulated for the quality of his contributions, and other editors are reminded that supporting him is useful to the project, that correcting him should be done civilly and respectfully (even if firmly), and that harassing him harms the project. He really is one of our best writers, his articles are fascinating, well-illustrated, and so forth. If he needs some editorial support, fact-checking, polishing, etc., it's well worth it. His work, untouched, is far higher in quality and reliability than the average Wikipedia article, so it's strange to consider "cleanup" of it to be a crushing burden; I'd suggest that those who think it is, probably have taken it all too personally. The whole project needs cleanup. --Abd (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relying on his own translation of a Japanese source for membership in the Legion d'Honneur, without checking the readily available (and more primary) French and English sources  as soon as it was questioned, was itself an error of judgment and scholarship. Not a major one, but again consistent with the rest of this discussion. It is, at best, carelessness and obstinacy. I cannot trust PHG's research, and that is a great flaw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Abd, I understand what you're saying about the "the whole project needs cleanup", and it's a valid point. The problem with PHG's editing, however, is how he reacts to this cleanup.  In most cases when I perform cleanup on an article, the original authors are either long gone, or they accept my changes, or we engage in some collegial back and forth as they modify my work, I modify theirs, and so forth.  That's the wiki-way.  In PHG's case, however, he becomes very possessive of his original work, and resists attempts to change it.  When new information was added by another editor, he tended to remove it with edit summaries such as "original research" or "NPOV".  When his own information was condensed down, he would put it back with edit summaries such as "reinstating deleted material".  He wouldn't violate 3RR, but in a slow and inexorable way, he would systematically restore an article to his own preferred version. When disputes were taken to the talkpage and consensus showed preference for a non-PHG version of the text, PHG would just continue to argue, would insist that there wasn't consensus, and would just keep changing/reverting the articles to his version of the text, with his pet fringe theories.  At times, this proceeded to a ridiculous extent, as when I'd try to make changes, he would follow along behind me and revert each change within minutes.  With a long article (the FMA article grew to a size of 200K), this became incredibly exhausting to deal with.  So what I finally did was to work on a new shorter version of the article in my userspace.  Then I presented my new 70K version of the article to the editors at the FMA talkpage, built consensus, and implemented it. PHG reverted it within an hour.  Other editors reverted him, and then this went on for days, as every morning, PHG would login and revert to his preferred version.  It didn't matter what was said at the talkpage, it didn't matter what pleas were made directly to PHG, it didn't matter how many editors were reverting him, he just ignored everyone and kept reverting, and in some of his "reverts" he even added more information to make the article even longer.  So he was using false edit summaries as well. The FMA article was the clearest example, but this went on at multiple articles (ignoring consensus, reverting everyone).  When attempts were made to get an administrator into the mix, the situation was so complex that it was difficult to get action.  PHG's additions look well-sourced, he generally stays very civil, and he was very good at muddying the waters with counter-charges. See Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Combine this kind of behavior with the fact that he was pushing fringe theories, misusing sources, and extending this behavior to scores of articles, and it's clear just how dangerous this was to the project. That's why restrictions were, and are, needed. --Elonka 15:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * These comments by Elonka are essentially untrue or misleading. I reinserted material that was highly referenced, but was nonetheless being deleted by Elonka. Regarding the reverts to the longer version of the article (200k), Elonka actually forced her 70k version of the article at a time when there was clearly no consensus for her version see False claim of consensus, as of 23 January 2008, which is why I continued reinstating the 200k version (On Wikipedia "no consensus for deletion means status quo", and forcing one's own version of an article without a consensus is clearly against Wikipedia rules, especially when it involves deleting 130k of material and about 300 references). Elonka however finally managed to obtain some level of consensus Consensus poll as of February 1 2008, although I disputed the validity of this pool since several parties had not had time to comment, leading me to make two more reinstatement of the long version here and here until I gave up. Elonka is thus misrepresenting the reality above when she says "I presented my new 70K version of the article to the editors at the FMA talkpage, built consensus, and implemented it": the reality is that she first implemented her version of the 70k on January 20 2008 without any kind of consensus, and only obtained some level of consensus afterwards February 1 2008, and I battled such arbitrary massive deletions in the meantime in accordance with Wikipedia editorial rules (no 3RR etc... just regular reinstatement of the deleted material until a consensus arises). Cheers PHG (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking personally, PHG seemed to prefer discussing edits on his or my talk page, rather than the article talk page. I found him cooperatve and helpful in discussions; he did not object if I renamed articles or removed unsourced sentences. We did some common editing on Franco-Siamese War, Assassination of Inspector Grosgurin and Auguste Pavie. I found that properly steered he was productive and helpful. I can see that Elonka and he do not see eye-to-eye, possibly because they have different web personalities. Mathsci (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence deadline
This case is under discussion, and I would like to propose a decision this weekend. Please submit any evidence&mdash;especially any examples of possible misrepresentation of sources&mdash;by 11 January, 12:00. Cool Hand Luke 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you're talking about the Indo-Greek sources, anything I have would be fairly old, from last year or before. Is that what you're looking for?  If so, I'll see what I can dig up.  Also, you may wish to talk to recent arbitrator, who also had dealings with PHG, and commented in the prior case. --Elonka 14:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yellow Monkey also commented in this case, supportively, it seems.
 * I am interested in possible misrepresentation since the last ArbCom, especially if they're outside of Mongol-related topics. Cool Hand Luke 16:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have not been following PHG's edits for several months, but last I checked, there were some issues with French/Japanese edits last March/April (see multiple threads/complaints at Talk:Christian Polak and Talk:Guillaume Courtet). At least some of those were already reviewed by ArbCom, and led to the restriction that PHG use only easily available English-language sources (a restriction that should probably be extended as well). Other than that, I don't have anything else to add.  --Elonka 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the main question is whether there are still problems even with the language restriction and mandatory mentoring. We will look into the talk page discussions cited already (by you and Latebird, for example), but we're curious about whether there are any other possible recent examples. Cool Hand Luke 17:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that he has largely gone silent on these topics, which is presumably one reason he doesn't show up on talkpages. This would be acceptable conduct, but will it continue if editing restrictions are removed? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since French is PHG's first language it seems inappropriate to ask him not to use secondary French language sources when writing about French history. On the other hand he has sometimes added references as google book searches with a Japanese language option; this should probably stop, no matter what the excuse. Mathsci (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think that the English-language requirement is a reasonable one. When we were engaged in discussions with PHG over the Mongol issue, it was an often-used tactic of his to try and bolster his point by reaching for more and more obscure sources, and when he started citing things in other languages, it became that much more difficult to track what he was doing.  In some cases I simply could not access the books that he was using, even via interlibrary loan, and I had to take extraordinary measures (such as multiple visits to the Library of Congress) to even locate copies of books by such authors as Laurent Dailliez.  In one extreme example, when I finally did track down a copy, it was disturbing to note that the book was so unreliable, that it was making a claim (in French) that no other historian had made, and the book had no citations, no footnotes, no bibliography, no "recommended reading" list, and not even so much as an index. See Talk:Laurent Dailliez, to show that even when presented with this information, PHG continued to insist that Dailliez was a "mainstream French historian".


 * Now, I will agree that in the vast majority of cases on Wikipedia, when an editor cites a source, we assume good faith that it's a reliable source, and that the editor is accurately representing the information from that source. But PHG, by his own actions, has lost this privilege.  So he should continue to be restricted to working with a mentor, who will review PHG's non-English sources.  If the mentor signs off on them, then PHG can use the French-language sources without a problem.  But we should maintain the doublecheck. --Elonka 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this can vary from case to case. I think it was part of the particular problem with Franco-Mongol alliance which does not apply to general French history. For example, it's clear that using Jean Richard's article as the basis of Guy of Ibelin, bishop of Limassol is unproblematic. But I don't think a blanket ban on French is helpful at all. It would have been unreasonable to expect Paris Foreign Missions Society to have been written without French sources; or to expect books in English on French colonial explorers in the Far East. A blanket ban on French seems like needless humiliation - WP:Wikitorture - and misses the main point, the perceived obscurity of the reference. I think an alternative formulation is possible which tackles the specific problem of obscure references: if on a talk page, another editor finds that a quoted source is obscure, for language or other reasons (primary sources, out of date, etc), PHG should have to discuss this with his mentor after the objection has been raised. That seems to be a fairer way to deal with this. Certainly on Auguste Pavie, the book on French explorers, bought by PHG and then by me, seemed completely appropriate even if it might not be easy to get hold of in all parts of the USA.  Mathsci (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it the other way around. For example, imagine that you're in a dispute with someone, and then they say that they've found a reliable source in some language that you don't understand (perhaps Arabic?), and they include that citation and say it settles the matter.  Now, the "Wikitorture" is on you, to try and argue against a source that you do not have, cannot get your hands on, and even if you could, you can't read it.  This torture would extend to every single editor on the article that might be engaged in the dispute.  At least when the sources used are in the English language and easily available, it provides for a level playing field, where everyone can be working from the same source material.  And as I said, all that would be required for PHG to use a non-English source, would be to get his mentor's signoff on it.  How difficult is that?  PHG posts a 2-line message on his mentor's talkpage, "Hey, is it alright if I use this source?"  It's definitely no more difficult than formatting a single citation, which probably has to be done dozens of times on a typical article anyway. --Elonka 01:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So they include the citation and say it settles the matter? So? Does it settle the matter? If you, as an editor, are not satisfied with an edit based on an obscure source, you may challenge it on that basis and ask for an exact quotation (or scan), in the original language, and you can arrange for independent translation and review. Inclusion of text is a matter for editorial consensus, and consensus isn't forced by any claim of any individual editor. What I see in Elonka's comment above is a belief that it is necessary to win arguments. There is no torture here that is not self-imposed. Now, there is also nothing wrong with the suggestion regarding a mentor, though, in fact, it would leave Elonka, in this hypothetical dispute, in the same place, with a source that she can't read, only without the benefit of that text and independent translation. It works, sort of, if she trusts the mentor. --Abd (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the main point is obscurity. It is reasonable to expect those writing on French history to be able to read French. Arabic sources are extremely relevant to Crusader history as Angus Stewart points out, which makes certain parts of this subject very hard indeed, for almost all wikipedia editors; it seems unhelpful to raise hypothetical questions about random editors here. (Certainly the current incomplete state of Hethoum II of Armenia could be improved by using secondary sources (eg Angus Stewart) which make use of Arabic sources.) I think it would be very useful to remember what Angus McLellan has said about PHG's possible use of French language sources. We know PHG knows French, English and Japanese. Japanese presents the slightly irritating problems I've already mentioned; I don't know why we have to discuss languages other than these. The proposal is about the French language, PHG's langue natale. Mathsci (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Auguste Pavie's works were published in English in 1999. But we are not supposed to be using primary sources where secondary ones exist; it is one of the recurrent comments on PHG that he uses primary sources too readily and with too little judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, tu dis n'importe quoi !! The biography of Auguste Pavie was largely written by me, Mathsci, using secondary sources. PHG added extra detail from the French "Aventuriers du monde", published in 2003, with a preface by Dominique de Villepin. These included scanned images outside copyright. Secondary sources quote from Pavie's original texts and these are reproduced in the article. I have no idea why you make the suggestion that primary sources were used, since the article has multiple in-text citations from secondary sources. Kindly look at the editing history of the article and refactor your comment. I hope that your other analysis of articles has not been not equally superficial. In this case your statement "It is one of the recurrent comments on PHG that he uses primary sources all too readily and with too little judgement" is quite "à côté de la plaque". Mathsci (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not edited the article, and French colonization is not my field. I therefore did not intend to judge, much less condemn, its present state, merely this claim that the French text was indispensible for writing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which French text? The initial skeleton draft in French was my translation of the biography on the official website of the French diplomatic service. After that different encyclopedia articles and journal articles were used, mostly in English. Whatever point you're trying to make - presumably that the Missions Pavie texts were used as primary sources? - seems to be a misunderstanding on your part, as shown by the in-text citations and the fact that the long quotes are in English (taken from two articles by Milton Osborne and elsewhere). French colonization is not my field nor is Crusader history: very much the same is true of Elonka. I don't think it's helpful making statements about the article which are demonstrably false as you have done twice now. The editing of this particular article took place after this ArbCom case started and I found PHG cooperative. However, I have given evidence that the use of primary sources for the Siege of Bangkok remains problematic. This has nothing at all to do with a problem of language. Mathsci (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The French text of Pavie's book; as far as I can see it's the only one that's come into this discussion. The rest of this seems to be entirely a misunderstanding, and in any case irrelevant to PHG. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * None of Pavie's books (there are many of them) in French or in translation were used as sources by either PHG [or me] when writing the article. The images come from the original volumes of Missions Pavie, which are out of copyright. (I have not seen the recent single volume 1999 English translation by Walter Tips.) I don't think there's any more to be said about the article on Auguste Pavie. Your comments, however, do apply to the use of primary sources in English translation in Siamese revolution (1688) and its spin-off article Siege of Bangkok. Mathsci (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment regarding Siege of Bangkok (and connected Siamese revolution (1688)). One of the main source material is indeed the book by Michael Smithies (Smithies, Michael (2002), Three military accounts of the 1688 "Revolution" in Siam (Jean Vollant des Verquains History of the revolution in Siam in the year 1688, Desfarges Account of the revolutions which occurred in Siam in the year 1688, De la Touche Relation of what occurred in the kingdom of Siam in 1688), Itineria Asiatica, Orchid Press, Bangkok, ISBN 9745240052), which contains Smithies' own text (about 40 pages), and his English translation of three contemporary publications by French officers who participated to the events (De la Touche, General Desfarges, and Vollant des Verquains). When referencing, I have long made sure that all exact sources were identified: when it is Smithies writing I just referenced "Smithies", when it is one of the three authors who participated to the event, I referenced either "De la Touche, in Smithies", "Desfarges, in Smithies" or "Vollant des Verquains, in Smithies". I am basing myself on Wikipedia's policy that "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I guess we can say they were reliably published by Smithies (Orchid Press) and as far as I know, I have only used them as reference to "descriptive claims". According to User:Angusmclellan, my mentor, this is acceptable: "I share Mathsci's concerns over the primary-sourciness of Siege of Bangkok, but some minor tweaking to make it clearer when it's a historian saying X or Desfarges, De la Touche, De Bèze who said it 300+ years ago is really all that's needed." , which is exactly what I have done. If there are still improvements to be made I will gladly implement them. Cheers PHG (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. If it's fine with Angus, it's fine with me. I noticed that the La Fayette articles which Pmanderson is partially involved in editing have copious contemporary quotes in some of the companion articles (e.g. Adrienne de La Fayette). Mathsci (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my quotes, and I do not regard them as good articles; I have edited them chiefly as a side-effect of my opposition to the FAC on the main article on Lafayette. But I think we are now well off-topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, we were discussing using French language sources, until you diverted the conversation. :) Mathsci (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentary on the evidence by Cool Hand Luke
Previously, Sam Blacketer looked into PHG's use of sources, which was used to support certain restrictions. ArbCom does not decide content, of course, but editor's accurate reporting of cited material is essential to any collaborative encyclopedia. While WP:WEIGHT questions are largely content disputes, I was also looking for evidence that PHG made clear errors in the weight he allocated to various sources.

PHG or any of the parties should feel free to add their comments below. Cool Hand Luke 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jacques de Molay submitted by Elonka
Cited by Elonka as an example of undue weight. I was concerned that PHG might be mischaracterizing the weight Demurger gives to de Molay's interactions with the Mongols (that is, the Mongol rulers of the Ilkhanate).

In fact, Alain Demurger does devote Chapter 6 of his biography on De Molay to this material, which I've read through twice. According to Demurger, De Molay was stationed in Cyprus (evidenced by several letters). He hoped to launch a joint attack on the holy lands. Demurger says that that Ghazan promised to attack the Mumlaks in 1300, but failed to do so. (p.101) He says that the Templars on the Island of Raud were "awaiting the next Mongol invasion and hoping that this time it would really take place." (p.104) At the least, this level of treatment does not clearly seem like undue weight&mdash;it's close enough that I think it's a simple content dispute outside of ArbCom's jurisdiction.

PHG's proposed text does have some apparent shortcomings:
 * "when Ghâzân died in 1304 Jacques de Molay's dream of a rapid reconquest of the Holy Land was destroyed." &mdash; This sentence was actually retained by Elonka's edit, but Demurger doesn't say anything like this. Indeed, he says that Ghazan's successors continued to make vague promises of attacking the holy land again, although they never did. (p.109) Also, he notes that Ghazan did make an attack in 1303, but that the Franks/Templars could not have participated. Note: This sentence predates PHG's involvement in the article. Cool Hand Luke 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Location of De Molay &mdash; PHG's passage was poorly written because it doesn't explain the ambiguity about where De Molay was during these events. Demurger says that De Molay was mostly stationed in Cyprus, although he definitely visited Ruad in 1300. He says "Had the Mongol offensive expected for November 1301 taken place, he would have been at the head of his troops in combat. As it did not, the Marshal of the Order took control of the field." (p.110) This statement is ambiguous about whether De Molay was on the island, or perhaps was with the Christian fleet, but it is clear that he was not with the front-line Templars much after 1301.

On my initial reading of the passage, I assumed that De Molay was actually on the island with the other Templars in 1302. That's incorrect; Demurger says De Molay was mostly in Cyprus from 1296 to 1306 (p.111). I think it's just sloppy writing, but it created an untrue impression.

I don't think any of these points suggest intentional misrepresentation, and I also think (unlike Elonka) that this level of coverage isn't clearly undue weight. Cool Hand Luke 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I read Elonka's argument as also being that Demurger is a single author, and his view is being given undue weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the notes, Demurger's letters, visit to Ruad, and station in Cyprus are well-supported. I guess the question is whether Demurger's account gives undue weight to de Molay's hopes of a joint Mongol-Templar attack on the Mumlaks. That's a legitimate weight question, but I think it's more of a content decision than a clear misapplication of policy. In this passage I'm more concerned that it doesn't match cited source than the weight issue. Cool Hand Luke 05:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CHL, your reading of Demurger is correct. However, our discussions about Demurger on various article talkpages (such as with Adam Bishop and John Kenney) generally led to a consensus that Demurger was acceptable as a source for non-controversial history, but for controversial history, his work was a bit too speculative.  As you yourself may have noticed when reading the chapter, Demurger was occasionally writing it as an opinion piece, writing in the first person and arguing for novel interpretations of history. So those sections of the book need to be used carefully, to ensure that we're not giving undue weight to Demurger's view, and disregarding the many other historians with different views.  But for basic history, Demurger is fine, and I don't think anyone is objecting to using him as a source, for information about the Cypriots setting up a base on Ruad, their hopes that the Mongols would arrive, but the Mongols didn't arrive, etc.  This seems to be fairly well covered in Franco-Mongol alliance and Siege of Ruad. Where we need to be a bit more careful though, is in how much weight to give this information in the Jacques de Molay article.  There's no pressing need to include quotes of every primary source document that referred to communications between de Molay and the Mongols.  Nor is it necessary to go into detail about the situation at Ruad Island, since that information is covered adequately elsewhere.  There's already more than enough information about this part of De Molay's life in Jacques de Molay, and it should probably be condensed down further, but we're still working our way through the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 06:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The involvement of Jacques de Molay and the Templars with the Mongols is well documented in numerous other sources, it is not certainly just a position held by Demurger, but also by some of the most prominent historians. The aim of the occupation of Arwad by the Templars and Cypriots was to link up with the Mongol troops of Ghazan (The Trial of the Templars by Malcolm Barber, Page 22 The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410 by Peter Jackson, Page 171 The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374 by Peter W. Edbury, Page 105 The Knights Hospitaller by Helen Nicholson Page 45). The Cypriots prepared a land-based force of approximately 600 men: 300 under Amalric of Lusigan, son of Hugh III of Cyprus, and similar contingents from the Templars and Hospitallers (Barber, Page 22). These efforts were led by the Master of the Knights Templar Jacques de Molay and the brother of the king of Cyprus, Amalric of Lusigan (Barber, Page 22). This was not a small operation, but actually represented a considerable commitment by the forces from Cyprus and the Templars (Edbury, Page 105). According to historian Malcom Barber, this suggests a considerable effort on the part of the Templars, as the manpower being engaged corresponds to "close to half the size of the normal complement for the twelfth-century Kingdom of Jerusalem".(Malcom Barber, The New Knighthood, p. 294). In February 1301, the Mongols finally made and advance into Syria. General Kutlushka went to Cilicia to fetch Armenian troops and moved south through Antioch. He was also accompanied by Guy of Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, and John, lord of Giblet (Edbury, Page 105). He had a force of 60,000, but could do little else than engage in some raids around Syria. The claim that Demurger's account would be marginal is simply wrong. PHG (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No argument, and to my knowledge, most of this information is covered on Wikipedia. The only question is how much weight to give these events, in the various contexts.  For example, though you say that the aim of the Ruad force was to link up with the Mongols, I would argue that the aim of the Ruad force was to re-establish a bridgehead on the Holy Land. The communications with the Mongols were part of that effort, but they weren't the ultimate goal. And everyone was allying with everyone else around that time anyway.  As I recall, Demurger also argues that one of the reasons that the Mongols didn't show up to help the Crusaders, was because the Mongols were also in negotiation with the Mamluks about a truce, so helping the Crusaders against the Mamluks was not in their best interests at the time. --Elonka 20:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That the aim of the Templars was to link with the Mongols is not a matter of your opinion against mine. Opinions are not relevant, only reputable sources are. Malcolm Barber himself says "The aim was to link with Ghazan, the Mongol Il-Khan of Persia, who had invited the Cypriots to participate in joint operations against the Mamluks, but it does appear that it was intended as a step in a more long term project in that, in November 1301, Boniface VIII granted the island to the Templars." What we should say is that the aim of the operation was indeed to link with Ghazan, with the ultimate goal of reclaiming the Holy Land. You are trying to marginalize Alain Demurger (above) when his position is actually widely shared by some of the best historians. And you are trying to impose your own version of things against what reputable sources actually say. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by PHG
Thank you so much for looking into this matter precisely! The above sentence is actually not one of mine, and existed long before I ever edited the article: Actually, it was added by User:Cun back in November 2004, and has remained in the article ever since. My first edit to the article was in... August 2007. By the way, it is quite amazing to see how detailed the content about Jacques de Molay and the Mongols was already by 2004! 
 * "when Ghâzân died in 1304 Jacques de Molay's dream of a rapid reconquest of the Holy Land was destroyed."

So, this independent review clearly shows that my sourcing is exact, and that my contributions are not Undue, contrary to what Elonka has been claiming. Isn't that something: an Administrator making false claims at Arbcom against a powerless contributor such as me? My behaviour under restrictions has been examplary, I have made Talk page suggestions as encouraged by Arbcom (although this is now being used against me, something I should be protected from), my sourcing and weighing of subjects is proving to be quite proper, and my critics are making demonstrably false claims against me: I suggest that this should be spelled out, and that, as a consequence of these findings, a rehabilitation and a motion freeing me of restrictions as scheduled (March 2009) should be proposed for arbitrators to debate and vote on. PHG (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry&mdash;I didn't realize that it was not your sentence. Cool Hand Luke 18:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence submitted by Septentrionalis

 * See User talk:Pmanderson, which this is in reply to

PHG, I'm not sure you're fully representing the Mitchiner source here. I've finely gotten around to looking at Mitchiner's translation of The Yuga Purana (with an 'i' although the 'e' misspelling is used through most of the Indo-Greeks article). The portion you mention above is in Mitchiner's chapter about the "historicity of the account." Based on the text, on passages in Patanjali's comments to Panini's Grammar, and on the coins, he thinks that an attack probably happened, but he doesn't think it could have been an occupation&mdash;he thinks it was at most a campaign that ended badly for the Indo-Greeks. You cut off his words in mid-sentence:

He goes on to write that the Yavana incursion to Saketa and Pataliputra is probably historical under Demetrios, but that "there is little or no reason to suppose that this Yavana incursion represented an imperial campaign...the sudden departure of this Yavana force soon after it had reached Pataliputra might even be taken to suggest that the whole episode ended in a fiasco from the Indo-Greek point of view."

I don't see how this source can be used to justify the bold dashed lines of your map. Incidentally, you also say things on the talk page like "Most scholars agree that the Indo-Greeks went as far as Pataliputra." It seems they do not; that's one of the reasons Mitchiner has a section on the historicity of the account; it is disputed because, as he says, "an objective account of past events was most usually subordinated by classical Indian writers to a concern with the philosophical or religious patterns which were seen as underlying such events."

Incidentally Mitchiner has a generally low opinion of Narain's reconstruction; he calls it "fanciful" in the preface (this would have been in reference to earlier Narain works&mdash;Mitchiner seems to have drafted this text in 1979). Cool Hand Luke 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Narain's view evolved much over time; but I have not seen Narain's 2003 volume.


 * As long as you have Mitchiner in front of you, which Demetrius does he say this is? (That being one of the points of contention between the three principal authorities.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I mentioned it, because there was suggestion on the talk page that Narain's 2003 volume included a more conservative map whereas the earlier work adopted Tarn's map.
 * Please double-check; I recall the discussion being about Narain's Coin-types of the Indo-Greeks (1968), a 37-page booklet published by a fairly obscure Chicago publisher, who may well have found Tarn's map simply more accessible than Narain's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right. I was unable to check because the 2003 edition of The Indo-Greeks is checked out of my school's library, and we don't seem to have a copy of "Coin Types..." I agree with your hypothesis about the map in the latter publication, but just in case there has been a change in Narain's analysis, I noted that this piece was composed in 1979. Cool Hand Luke 07:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mitchiner says it would have happened during the reign between 200 and 180 BCE at around the demise of the Mauryan Empire, so it would be Demetrius I of Bactria. In fact, he speculates that the retreat of the Indo-Greeks from Pataliputra described in the Yuga Purana was caused by Demetrius' death. Cool Hand Luke 04:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then he is following Tarn's reconstruction reasonably closely. Interesting, and a sign that Indo-Greeks should perhaps give more weight to Tarn's whole picture than it does. The modern numismatic consensus is that Demetrius I never reigned outside modern Afghanistan, IIRC; but I don't think it had been formed by 1979.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by PHG
Thank you for looking into this matter!
 * 1) Actually, contrary to what PmAnderson has been suggesting, I am not using Mitchiner at all as a source for the depiction beyond Ujjain in the Indo-Grek map, I only used him as a source for the following sentence (in the Indo-Greek kingdom article ):

Is "conquered" too strong is respect to Michener's (military) "presence"? Possibly, that's one fo the pitfalls of trying to avoid paraphrasing. I wouldn't mind a slightly weaker term, or possible Mitchiner's wording itself if that's an issue. Cheers PHG (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) In order to create the bounderies of the attached Indo-Greek map (right), I actually used faithfully three map sources (clearly mentionned on the map itself), which have three versions of the Greco-Bactrian/Indo-Greek invasions. I used the Großer Atlas zur Weltgeschichte map, which indeed shows expansion beyond Ujjain, the Historical Atlas of the Indian Peninsula (Oxford University Press), which only shows the Greeks in the northwest, and Narain's "Coin types of the Indo-Greeks", which shows the advance to Pataliputra (as does the Großer Atlas zur Weltgeschichte). The three maps were simply compiled to show the extent of the various sources, of various opinions, on the subject.
 * 3) "Most scholars agree that the Indo-Greeks went as far as Pataliputra."... well I think it is probably a true statement, although I wouldn't mind to say something on the line of "according to some scholars..." To be precise, I think most writers on the Indo-Greek, do indeed consider campaings/ forays/ sieges as far as Pataliputra, especially due to the Indian accounts of such attacks (Yuga Purana etc...). On the contrary, very few authors consider that they would have stayed for a long time. As far as I know, only Tarn and a few others consider that they stayed for something like 7 years. Therefore, from what I've seen, and I have have about 30 books on the Indo-Greeks (see bibliography), the above sentence is true (although again, I don't mind about modifying it).
 * 4) Just a note on Mitchiner, which Pmanderson has also attacked as a source : John Edward Mitchiner is a British scholar and diplomat. He is a graduate of Bristol University and received an M.A and a Ph.D. from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University. John Mitchiner entered Britain’s diplomatic services in 1980. After positions in Istanbul, New Delhi and Berne, he was appointed British Ambassador to Armenia from 1997 to 1999. In 2000, he was appointed British Deputy High Commissioner for Eastern India, in Kolkata, India. He is the author of numerous books and articles on Indian history and religion.
 * 5) I too, following Mitchiner, believe that Narain's reconstruction is not very convincing, but he is quite a major author in respect to the Indo-Greeks.


 * I don't think there's any misrepresentation in the map itself. After you explained the sources, no one seems to have accused you of making up the boundaries. The issue is whether these are weighty sources, and you cited Mitchiner in defense of that.
 * I looked at Großer Atlas. It's a historical map book. Georg Westermann Verlag published several map books, and Hans Erich Stier was not a scholar of India in particular. The boundaries for the maps presumably came from other sources, possibly Tarn, as was suggested on the talk page. It's also claimed that "Coin Types of the Indo-Greeks" might be based on Tarn, especially because the 2003 edition on Indo-Greeks apparently has a different map. Unfortunately, my school library does not have "Coin Types" and Indo-Greeks (2003) is checked out, so I wasn't able to check that. If the 2003 edition of The Indo-Greeks does have a more conservative map, I think it would be a mistake to attribute those boundaries to Narain. Cool Hand Luke 06:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Narain "Coin Types of the Indo-Greeks" map is precisely described in my compilation above, but I certainly do not know what the source of Narai's map is (besides Narain's own work?) I do have the 2003 edition of Narain's The Indo-Greeks, but it does not have a map showing the extent of the Indo-Greek advance in India. Altogether there are three maps in Narain 2003, in which only names are positionned, showing the various kingdoms and ethnicities of India at the time. In the text, Narain mentions the attacks of the Indo-Greeks in Pataliputra, but (from memory) denies that they would have occupied the city. Cheers PHG (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (2) is precisely the same claim that PHG made on my webpage; as far as I can see, it's the same text. Repeating this list of tertiary sources is an exercise in ignoring criticism, which is the fundamental problem with PHG's edits in the first place.
 * on (1). Mitchiner appears on my talk page as a defense of this same map, which PHG presents as neutral, although it represents Tarn's theory, and his alone (some tertiary sources have adopted it, presumably on Tarn's authority, which is indeed respectable): that the conquering Indo-Greeks conducted a great, and nearly successful, two-pronged offensive, aimed simultaneously down the Gangetic plain and around through Ujjain.
 * My "attack" on Mitchiner consists of remarking that his field is religious and literary history, not ancient politics, warfare, or numismatics. I stand by that. His diplomatic service is utterly irrelevant to the questions at issue.
 * On political history, in 1979, there were two fairly extreme theories, both held by good authority; Mitchiner accepted much of one of them, and operated on that basis. There is now a third theory, which has more evidence than either, and holds a middle course.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And, in summary, this map, which is the only matter PHG has addressed in this subject area in the past ten months, is a compilation of dated tertiary sources, and Mitchiner does not support it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Tatar cloth"

 * Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance continued at User talk:Srnec, submitted by Latebird. This dispute involves citations to Rosamond E. Mack's Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art. Although the source book usually refers to "Tatar cloths," PHG rendered this as "Mongol textiles" in several places. Based on my review of the book, Mack uses the term as a shorthand for cloth originating from the Mongol Empire. She could have said "Mongol cloths" but did not because it's an over-simplification; these "Tater cloths" included the products of diverse Indian, Chinese, and other cultures from within the Mongol Empire. Cool Hand Luke 16:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Tatar cloth" was the name used in the Middle-Ages ("Panni Tartarici") for the textiles from the Mongol Empire, as "Tatar" or "Tartar" was actually the designation for the Mongols throughout the Western world at that time (the name "Mongol" was essentially not used). See also Wikipedia: "In Europe the term Tartar is generally only used in the historical context for Mongolian people who appeared in the 13th century (the Mongol invasions)." . Actually, Rosamond Mack is unambiguous in her identification of Tatar with the Mongols, as in Trade travel and diplomacy, Rosamond Mack, p.18 :


 * I wouldn't mind writing "Tatar textiles in Renaissance art" instead of "Mongol textiles in Renaissance art", except that Tatar in modern parlance is not used anymore nowadays to mean Mongol, hence the usage of the word "Mongol". And I don't deny that the Mongols managed a very multicultural realm indeed, and that "Tatar cloth" was the product of multiple cultural interactions. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * She seems to use the term "Tatar" to refer to items from the Mongol empire, not necessarily to Mongol culture. For example, she talks about Tater clothes with Chinese designs (p.37) and Arabic inscriptions (p.41). These clothes were from the Mongol empire, but I don't think they can flatly be called "Mongol" based on this source. Cool Hand Luke 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Following, she says, Medieval Latin: "Tatar cloth" is anything imported through the Mongol Empire: any East Asian or South Asian textile. Now that Oriental has been attacked, there is no good word for this, but the implication they are produced by Mongols is ungrounded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * These textiles are certainly not exactly "Mongolian" cloths, in the sense that they would have been developed by the indigeneous culture of Mongolia for example. The "Mongols" were actually a mix of tribes and cultures, going far beyond the Mongolian ethnicity, and expanding far beyond the plains around Karakorum. In that context, I feel that "Mongol textile" is quite an accurate rendering of the Medieval expression "Tatar textiles" into modern English, but if that's an issue, I would certainly not mind saying "Mongol Empire textiles" instead. Cheers PHG (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ms. Mack's book is not a Medieval source. She knows the meanings of words, and uses them intentionally. Based on my reading of her work, she's using the term to refer to items from the Mongol empire. This is not synonymous with "Mongol." Cool Hand Luke 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Cool Hand Luke. Mack makes it clear by her usage of guillemets as she introduces the word "Tatar" that it is not being introduced as a standard word at all. She then connects these "Tatar" textiles with Mongol figures and costumes as quoted above - not "Mongol Empire figures and costumes" by the way). This makes it clear that her usage of the word "Tatar" is borrowed from the Medieval expression (panni tartarici, "Tatar cloth"), and that she associates it with the Mongols. In modern, plain, common English, the word "Tatar" is indeed not what would be used: I don't think anybody uses the word "Tatars" to designate the Mongols, or "Tatar Empire" to designate the Mongol Empire nowadays. Thomas Riha in Readings in Russian Civilization p.190 makes exactly the same usage: "In the Mongol age Russian folklore was influenced by "Tatar" (Mongol and Turkish) poetic patterns and themes" : note, again the usage of guillemets and the equivalence of Tatar with Mongol/Turkish. Possibly of relevance also, David Nicolle in Kalka river 1223 uses the expression "Tatar-Mongol" to connect the two words . Again, I do think "Mongol" is quite legitimate as a modern English equivalent of "Tatar", but I sure would not mind using "Mongol Empire" either. I don't think these semantical question need much more debate, as I'm fine with your solution anyway. Cheers PHG (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't find "Tatar" = "Mongol" convincing. If she meant "Mongol cloth," those words were available to her. The article passage you wrote refers to "Mongol textiles" and "Mongol clothes" even though she did not use any of those expressions a single time in her whole book. As she notes "Various travelers...contributed to the era's transcultural exchange." More than one culture is represented in "Tatar cloth," which is why she uses the vaguer 13th century term instead of "Mongol." Cool Hand Luke 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mack does mention "Mongol figures and costumes in Italian painting" as the concrete result of the influence of Tatar textiles, and explains that "As the nomadic Mongol warriors became imperial rulers, they adopted many aspects of the sophisticated textile culture in conquered Islamic lands" . Schoeser writes about the "Sino-Mongolian pattern" of the "Tatar cloth" in a fresco of Boniface VIII . Lauren Arnold translates "panni tartarici" as "Cloth from Tartary", and includes such "panni tartarici" under "items of Mongol origin".
 * In doubt, I looked over the definitions at Dictionary.com: "Mongol" (including the closely associated Turkish) is indeed the standard English/American way to elucidate the words "Tatar/Tartar" . As far as I know, "Tatar" is an archaism, which is OK for Rosamond Mack to use in an historical work, but is hard to understand and rather questionable for a general work such as Wikipedia, where "Mongol" is more appropriate. On the contrary, Mongol Empire, covers a very wide variation of people, including Russians, Koreans or Burmese, and is therefore too wide, and certainly goes far beyond the definition of "Tatar". Here are the actual definitions:
 * Tartar:
 * 1. a member of any of the various tribes, chiefly Mongolian and Turkish, who, originally under the leadership of Genghis Khan, overran Asia and much of eastern Europe in the Middle Ages.
 * 2. a member of the descendants of this people variously intermingled with other peoples and tribes, now inhabiting parts of the European and W and central Asian Russian Federation.
 * 3. Tatar (defs. 1–3).
 * For Tatar see also
 * Again, if it helps put the matter to rest, I am OK with using "Mongol Empire textiles", rather than "Mongol textiles", although I think Mongol Empire is too vast as a definition. And why not use ""Tatar" textiles" just as Mack does to cut all polemics. And I agree that Mack describes the multicultural influences under the Mongols as the source of the creation of these textiles. I don't really mind either way, but it is quite clear that the equivalence Tatar=Mongol is the standard among sources and dictionaries. Cheers PHG (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that this author is modern, and that she knows the meaning of "Mongol" and even uses the word to refer to explicitly Mongol things is precisely why I'm confident that she means something different by "Tatar." Therefore, the substitution of "Tatar cloths" with "Mongol textiles" is not supported by this source. Cool Hand Luke 22:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The association of "Tatar" with "Mongol" is general, widespread and rather obvious. Mack also associates the two designations regularly, and clearly uses "Tatar" as an historian who favours employing the technical expression "Tatar cloth" (derived from the latin expression "Panni Tartarici"), not as someone who wishes to deny the word "Mongol". She readily describes "Italian craft (...) inspired by luxury silks recently imported from Mongol Asia and the Islamic world" . As "Tatar cloth" is a specialist term, it is legitimate to try to explicitate it in layman terms on Wikipedia. I am attaching a painting of Boniface VIII with "Tartar cloth", about which the author clearly makes the association Tartar-Mongol. Mary Schoeser writes about the painting: "In this fragment of the fresco, attributed to Giotto, Pope Boniface VIII proclaims the jubilee year of 1300. Over the balcony is a "Tartar cloth", one of the many silks presented by the Persian Mongol ruler, and distinguished by its rythmic Sino-Mongolian pattern" p.41.
 * Peter Jackson also is clear with the Tartar-Mongol connection: "The Mongol ruling class (...) assiduously promoted the diffusion of goods and techniques. Among the most striking symptoms of their newfound prosperity were luxury textile -the gold brocades known in Europe as panna tartarica, "Tartar cloth" -which were used for various purposes, notably for the robes donned by rulers and nobles on ceremonial occasions or bestowed as gifts, and to conver and line the tents of the Imperial dynasty and the grandees. Mongol regimes obtained these textiles through booty and tribute, but also through trade and officially-sponsored manufacture"
 * Hidemichi Tanaka qualifies the influences on the paintings of Giotto as Mongol and Chinese: "Giotto and the influences of the Mongols and the Chinese on his art" in Art History (Tohoku University, Japan) 1984
 * Honestly, I think the Tartar-Mongol association is obvious and acknowledged by all sources, and it is highly unnatural to deny it. Of course the word "Mongol" doesn't just mean "Mongolian", but the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Mongol culture in general under the rule of the Mongol Empire. I understand however that it can be misinterpreted, that it might be considered as an over-simplification, and that indeed it might poorly convey the multi-cultural exchanges at work, so I am quite fine with "Mongol Empire cloth" as an alternative. For your information, I corrected the proposed paragraph accordingly: Mongol Empire textiles in Renaissance art.


 * I also added more information to the proposed paragraph Mongol script in Renaissance painting (again following Arbcom's invitation to make suggestions on Talk Pages on the pages I cannot directly edit) with an image of Saint Jerome reading a pseudo-Mongol script, consisting of an imitation of blocks of 'Pags Pa, written horizontally rather than vertically, from around 1300. I hope this is of some interest! This is again from Mack, and I think it responds to the claims made by some that Mongol script influence in Italian painting are no different from pseudo-Kufic, which is clearly not the case. Cheers PHG (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cloth from Tartary" is not Mongol. I'm pretty sure that she doesn't consider the cloth to be culturally Mongol because her book is about the influence on "Italian textiles featuring Islamic and Asian motifs to ceramics and glassware that reflected Syrian techniques and ornamental concepts." The many cultures of the Mongol empire don't become "Mongol" just because they've been conquered. It's as if a source referred to Commonwealth goods, but you called them "British." Sure, the good in India might have been produced under British rule, but the mere fact of empire does not make them "British." Cool Hand Luke 18:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding of "Mongol" is that it covers Mongol Asia (to take Mack's expression), that is, Mongol Persia, Mongol Central Asia, Mongol China. That was the meaning of "Tatar" or "Tartar" in the Middle-Ages, which didn't include for example the Saracens or Slavic people (although they were politically part of the Mongol Empire). But that's fine with me. So Mongol Empire textiles in Renaissance art it is! Best regards PHG (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Other evidence

 * Talk:Guy of Ibelin (died 1304), submitted by Elonka. PHG did rely a primary source mentioning an individual in passing, which seems to be a weight problem. However, Mathsci found a secondary source, which would make the reference's place in the article debatable. Doesn't strike me as a clear problem. Cool Hand Luke 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Coatrack. What the primary source says is that Guy was with the King of Armenia when that King met a Mongol emissary. The present text of the article, and PHG's recommended text, suggest Guy negotiated on his own. (Note that PHG's suggested text is two paragraphs, including an extended quote for what the secondary source, which is about Franco-Mongol contacts, covers in a sentence.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "...and requested the visit of the king of Armenia, who came with Guy of Ibelin..." My apologies; I didn't parse the quotes well enough. Both sources indeed say that they were meeting with the King. I'm sorry, you seem to be right about that; the blockquote, at least, is a coatrack. Cool Hand Luke 05:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I deleted that section not because I'm disagreeing with the history, but because I (and others such as Adam Bishop) didn't feel it was necessary to quote such a large passage from a medieval historian about the matter. --Elonka 06:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk:Armeno-Mongol alliance, submitted by Elonka. I have not fully reviewed all the sources cited here, but it looks to be entirely faithful to sources; nobody has suggested otherwise. I believe the issue here is that much of it has little to do with Armeno-Mongol relations. For example, the "Battle of Ain Jalut (1260)" is a background event better covered at Battle of Ain Jalut. This section was condensed by Elonka into a section more focused on the topic. Similarly "Mongols and Armenians in Jerusalem in early 1300" includes a lot of material that is better suited to the articles Mongol raids into Palestine and Hethoum II, where it seems that all of this material can still be found. PHG disagrees with the cuts, but it looks like very little has been eliminated entirely from Wikipedia (a few sentences, like "According to the 13th century historian Kirakos, many Armenians and Georgians were also fighting in the ranks of Kitbuqa"), while a lot of superfluous material has been trimmed. I don't think PHG's proposal was undue weight, but it does include a lot of redundant material better included in other articles. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your research Cool Hand Luke! So, the bottom line is that my sourcing is exact, and that my contributions were not even undue weight contrary to what has been said. Thank you for that, and I think that clarifies things a lot. In addition to that, actually large amounts of information have indeed been deleted by Elonka, which do not even appear in another place. She is not just deleting "redundant" information, but also deleting important information that cannot be found elsewhere:
 * For example, with her edit all details about the role of the Armenians at the capture of Damascus with the Mongols in 1260 had disapeared . She had to recognize this, and reinstated some of the material after I complained about the destructions . So it is clear that 1) her deletion was inapropriate, and 2) I was right to complain about it.
 * In the case of the Battle of Ain Jalut, Elonka only left "at the pivotal Battle of Ain Jalut, a battle in which 500 troops from Armenia may have participated, fighting on the side of the Mongols" but eliminated all the information about the Armenians in the aftermath of the battle, especially the involvement of the king of Armenia in asking (and obtaining) the intervention of the Mongols to relieve the siege of Antioch by the Mamluks..
 * Any information about the role of the Armenians in the conquest of Jerusalem in 1299-1300 has disapeared from the Armeno-Mongol alliance article, but also from Mongol raids into Palestine (now Armenians are not even mentionned in the article!). So, as far as I know, this is not even mentionned anywhere now.
 * This is lot of referenced information being purely and simply being suppressed, and which is actually totally relevant to Armeno-Mongol relations. Elonka is simply deleting valuable referenced information, and, apparently information she dislikes, making unwarranted claims of "undue weight" or "misrepresentation" against me as she goes. Isn't this really going counter Wikipedia's objective to be the sum of all knowledge, and counter any sense of fairness? Cheers PHG (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is incredible, and it is clearly good faith; it offers no tactical advantage whatsoever. When we hit one of PHG's blind spots, he is simply unable to understand that an authority disagrees with him. (So above, that Dr. Mack is not using Tatar in the sense "produced by Mongols".) This is the fundamental problem.
 * CHL said that nobody has suggested that this material is not faithful to sources. PHG takes this as confirmation that Elonka did say so and has been found wrong.
 * CHL found much of the removed material is redundant with other articles, and almost all of it is somewhere else. PHG takes this as demonstration that Elonka has done massive unjustified deletion.
 * btw, the tradition of Armenian assistance with the conquest of Jerusalem is in Hethum II, King of Armenia) and probably elsewhere.

I request that ArbCom consider permitting an uninvolved admin to add a subject to PHG's topic ban, perhaps with the consent of his mentor. It may be that he has only two blind spots; but let's save the editor who finds a third one a world of trouble. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. In this example, Elonka argued that the material was better suited for other articles; I don't think she challenged the accuracy of the material at all. However, she was fundamentally right that the removed material was beyond the scope of the article and that it was better covered in other articles (where it is still covered). Cool Hand Luke 22:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Elonka does not justify her deletions by claims of redundancy, or only rarely. Per her own words she claims that "scores of articles require cleanup because of PHG's POV-pushing" or that "Extensive damage was caused to the project from PHG's previous biased editing in the topic area of medieval history, which resulted in strong bias being introduced into dozens of articles. After several months of work, cleanup efforts are still ongoing" . She is actually making false claims of POV-pushing and Undue weight as a justification to these deletions, whereas, as the independent verification of the evidence shows my representation of the sources is essentially proper and my contributions are not undue weight. Removing redundant material is one thing, and I don't really have an issue with that. But my issue is with Elonka making unwarranted claims of "Undue weight", "POV-editing", "Misrepresentation of sources" or claiming that an author is marginal when he is actually not etc... to attack me and delete properly referenced material from a relevant article, or even from any article on Wikipedia (details hereunder). Cheers PHG (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary by PHG

 * Hi Pmanderson. I understand your disapointment, but these are the results of Arbitrator Cool Hand Luke's independent analysis of the sources. Just please look at the facts:
 * Regarding Talk:Armeno-Mongol alliance, Cool Hand Luke clearly writes that "I have not fully reviewed all the sources cited here, but it looks to be entirely faithful to sources". I know that CHL has been endeavouring to check one of the main sources at least, Grousset, and has found that my text was indeed entirely faithfull to it. It is very important that this review is asserting that my sources are actually properly handled, as I have been accused of the contrary, I believe, wrongly. CHL also asserts: "I don't think PHG's proposal was undue weight", to the contrary of what Elonka has been claiming all along. Claims of "POV" and "Undue weight" have been the line of attack of Elonka against me and her justification to delete my material . But these claims turn out to have been false: this is a very serious matter, and I am glad that it is coming to light.
 * I agree some of my material may have been redundant in some articles, and I have nothing against removing such parts. What, on the contrary is an issue, is when Elonka deletes properly referenced and relevant material, and most of all material that is not available anywhere else (because she had also deleted it in these other places). For example, through her deletions, Elonka has entirely erased from the relevant article, and, as far as I can see, from Wikipedia altogether, such referenced information as the role of the Armenians at the capture of Damascus with the Mongols in 1260 (before I complained so that she had to restore it  ), or the information about the Armenians in the aftermath of the battle, especially the involvement of the king of Armenia in asking (and obtaining) the intervention of the Mongols to relieve the siege of Antioch by the Mamluks . After review, I agree the information about the role of the Armenians in the conquest of Jerusalem in 1299-1300 is still in Hethum II, King of Armenia, but it really deserve to be mentionned in Armeno-Mongol alliance also. This is "POV editorial cleansing" and this is unacceptable. Per Summary style, in case there is detailed information on a subject the "information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." This is even more unacceptable as she falsely accuses me of Undue weight and POV as she makes her deletions.
 * Regarding Talk:Jacques de Molay, it has been clearly shown by Cool Hand Luke that "In fact, Alain Demurger does devote Chapter 6 of his biography on De Molay to this material" and that "I also think (unlike Elonka) that this level of coverage isn't clearly undue weight.", and that the text was close enough to the sources, contrary, again to Elonka's claims of POV and Undue weight against me (see:PHG is continuing to engage in POV-pushing). She further tried to discredit the historian Alain Demurger as holding an exceptional opinion , when in reality his opinion is shared by some of the most prestigious historians such as Malcolm Barber (whom she actually knows very well about).
 * These findings clearly indiquate that my sourcing is indeed proper, that I most of the time manage to properly represent what my sources say, and that my contributions are generally not undue weight. It also shows that the claims of POV/ Undue weight/ Mispresentation of sources (as in the above cases) are unfounded and essentially false. I call for justice to be made, so that I can be properly rehabilitated for the quality of my work, and that my critics be warned against making undue deletions of my work and undue accusations against me. Best regards PHG (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)