Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive

Issues to mediate
PHG, if you have trouble with the issues that I have posted on the mediation page, you are welcome to change them to something more to your liking. However, please be aware that any extra text in the "agree/disagree" section is just going to be deleted. :/ --Elonka 05:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied from agreement section

 * 1) As previously agreed with User:Elonka (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance), I disagree to enter a mediation on these terms, as they seem to contravene to Wikipedia's most basic rules of balanced reporting and NPOV policy. Specifically, Elonka is trying to establish "one truth", when major scholars are actually divided on these subjects. We are not on Wikipedia to decide which major theory is right or wrong, but to present them in a balanced NPOV manner:


 * Determining how to best define the consensus of modern reliable historians on the "Was there a Franco-Mongol alliance?" issue. Specifically: Is the consensus that there was an allliance, wasn't an alliance, or are historians evenly split? How many opinions on the matter are mainstream, and how many are fringe? Which should be represented in the article?
 * According to Wikipedia NPOV rules major authors all have the right to representation in the article. Main views should be represented in a balanced way. If Elonka has issues with this principle, I am ready to take it to mediation.


 * Determining the best name for this article
 * This was already voted for, overwhelmingly in Elonka's disfavour (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2). I do not think it legitimate to again discuss it.


 * Determining the best wording for the lead sentence/paragraph
 * A great compromise opening sentence was made by Snerc. Elonka's claimed 3:1 "consensus" disappeared, so it seems to me Snerc"s proposal is the best.


 * Deciding how many and what type of primary source quotes should be used
 * Wikipedia rules also already apply here. A reasonable amount of primary sources is accepted, especially when quoted by secondary sources. I don't think there is even any discussion to have here on this subject.


 * Deciding how best to present the relationship of the Armenians with the Mongols: Alliance or submission to overlordship?
 * I think there's nothing to decide. Reputable scholars describe both, both should be described. If Elonka has an issue with balanced reporting in general, we could address that through mediation.


 * Deciding how best to present the relationship of the Antiochenes with the Mongols: Alliance or submission to overlordship?
 * Same as above.


 * Discussing how to best present the information about the status of Jerusalem in 1300: Conquered, raided, or left alone?
 * I think there's nothing to decide. Scholars describe all three. If Elonka has issue with balanced reporting in general, we could address that through mediation.


 * Deciding if or how to best split this article into manageable sections, WP:SUMMARY style
 * Why not, but I am quite reluctant with Elonka's approach of drowning a sub-subject into a larger article (such as you did unilaterally for Mongol raids into Palestine.


 * Deciding which sources are reliable secondary sources, and which are not (example: back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview, etc.)
 * Yes, I'd be glad to know what Wikipedia standards are in this respect (nothing for us to decide though, just a matter of following Wiki guidelines).


 * Determining how to best present the impact of the Knights Templar, in relation to the Mongols (were the Templars a central organizing force, or no?)
 * I think there's nothing to decide. Scholars describe the two views. If you have an issue with balanced reporting in general, we could address that through mediation.

Elonka's main issue seems to be with Wikipedia's policy of balance and NPOV presentation of various scholarly sources. This is a fundamental editing principle on Wikipedia, which I agree to discuss as a first preliminary step through this mediation. PHG 05:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Summary
Following Daniel's request, here is a clarification of what Elonka and I have agreed to discuss:

1) Deciding on a common understanding of Wikipedia's policy of balance and NPOV presentation of various scholarly sources: should one scholarly interpretation prevail, or should we present in a balanced way the major scholarly opinions on a given subject.

2) ''Deciding which sources are reliable secondary sources, and which are not (example: back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview, etc.)

3) Deciding if or how to best split this article into manageable sections, WP:SUMMARY style PHG 13:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. We gotta start someplace. :) --Elonka 15:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Updated the main list :)  Daniel  23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Narrowing down the dispute
I think we need to narrow down this dispute; I'm seeing that the opening statements are talking too much in generalities. I know several of the issues to be mediated where axed before this got underway, but I believe we need to pin down what needs to be accomplished with this mediation. Do you all want to attempt to settle on a name? Do you all want to come up with a suitable wording for some paragraph, sentence, or phrase? Do you all want to come to an agreement on how some historical event or alliance ought to be termed? Also, I believe each party needs to summarize his or her perspective of the relevant history. I see Elonka has done that already, at User:Elonka/Mongol quickref, but I am unsure whether that accurately reflects PHG's viewpoint of the history. --  tariq abjotu  16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My answer is "yes" to all of the above, and I'll be happy to drill down to as specific as necessary. Just let me know how to proceed. --Elonka 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. The name for the article has already been settled by vote and scholarly usage, but we could for example start with a very concrete example: Should the article start with "Attempts towards an alliance", or "A Franco-Mongol alliance...", or "A Franco-Mongol Alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance" which used to be quite a hot topic, and should be quite representative of the methodology for other subjects as well. I personally prefer the last two, the second for consistency and the third for NPOV reasons. Best regards. PHG 17:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with the article title, since, as I've said before, I don't believe that there was an alliance. Then again, the term "Franco-Mongol alliance" is used in certain sources (Jean Richard, Rene Grousset, Christopher Tyerman) as the name of the topic (even if the source says that the alliance never actually came together).  So, I am willing to accept the title, if we can have an opening sentence of "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance..." Otherwise I feel that the article is being too misleading about the topic. For a list of how historians have been describing it, please see: User:Elonka/Mongol historians. --Elonka 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a scholarly term and a well-known matter of scholarly inquiry by highly reputable sources (Richard, Grousset, Demurger, Tyerman etc...). This is sufficient a reason for this subject to deserve a Wikipedia article. Besides, all other users who aired they opinions on the subject already opposed your proposal to change the title (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2). Further, usual Wikipedia form is to have an opening sentence which starts with the name of the article, i.e. "The Franco-Mongol alliance...etc...". User:Srnec came along with a beautiful compromise proposal (the current introduction sentence), which I think incorporates this Wikipedia policy as well as your own desire to mention the efforts made towards this alliance and does not deny that the alliance existed as fact. May I suggest we now turn the page on this subject? Best regards PHG 19:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Elonka, you seem to acknowledge that "Franco-Mongol alliance" is used in multiple sources – at least the ones you mentioned. So, would you say the problem is that you do not believe the name used by those historians is not correct (or is otherwise misleading)? --  tariq abjotu  20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term has been used by some historians. However, just because they used the term, does not mean that such an alliance existed. So, as an alternative for the opening sentence, how about, "A Franco-Mongol alliance was sought after for decades during the 13th century, but with little success." --Elonka 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Elonka. Of course, many historians also explain that the alliance indeed existed (sources extensively mentionned in the article). But, coming back to the introduction sentence, what you propose essentially reflects the compromise (and probably more elegant) phrase which was crafted by User:Srnec. Why not leave Srnec's proposal as it is? PHG 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Srnec's sentence is "A Franco-Mongol alliance was the object of a series of diplomatic endeavours between the courts of Western Europe and the Mongol Empire (primarily the Ilkhanate) in the 13th and 14th centuries, starting from around the time of the Seventh Crusade." I find that meaning to be quite different, as it implies that the Alliance occurred.  My own sentence makes it clear that the alliance did not occur, or had "little success." --Elonka 20:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do not mind, numerous historians do say that this alliance occured, so why do you not respect that? I am quite ready to express both scholarly views "An Alliance, or attempts towards an alliance..." in usual Wikipedia NPOV manner, but, honestly, I'd rather stay with Srnec's third party compromise sentence, which, by the way, only speaks about the alliance being "the object of endeavours" rather then the Alliance actually happening (or only with "fleeting results", as expressed later). PHG 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PHG, if you will take a look at User:Elonka/Mongol historians, you will see that the vast majority of modern historians say the alliance did not occur. For example, here's a direct quote from David Morgan, author of The Mongols: (perhaps we could even  use this as the first sentence of our article): "From 1263 until well into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance."  Or Peter Jackson (arguably the world's #1 expert on the subject) in his book Mongols and the West: "No military collaboration against the common Mamluk enemy resulted from the Il-khans' frequent embassies.".  Or Prawer: "The attempts of the crusaders to create an alliance with the Mongols failed.". --Elonka 20:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You know your claim to "the vast majority" is untrue and unreferenced, and both views are extensively listed in the article. Both views are expressed by major reputable historians, so both views should be expressed per Wikipedia NPOV policy. Regards. PHG 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PHG, I have extensively referenced this at User:Elonka/Mongol historians. I have even provided a reference that your interpretation of Grousset is incorrect. Grousset argued that the Crusaders should have allied with the Mongols, not that they did ally with the Mongols. --Elonka 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a sampling: Jean Richard, the leading French expert on the Crusades, has the Franco-Mongol alliance start in earnest in the 1260s: "The sustained attacks of Baibars (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453. It continued on-and-off but was strongly revived by Ghazan, to continue to have an influence until 1322 "In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468. And concludes on the many missed opportunities the alliance offered: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", 1996, Jean Richard, p.469. Grousset, p521: "Louis IX et l'Alliance Franco-Mongole", p.653 "Seul Edward I comprit la valeur de l'Alliance Mongole", p.686 "la coalition Franco-Mongole dont les Hospitaliers donnaient l'exemple". Demurger, p.147 "Cette expedition avait surtout l'avantage de sceller, par un acte concret l'alliance Mongole", Demurger p.145 "La strategie de l'alliance Mongole en action", "De Molay anime la lutte pour la reconquete de Jerusalem, en s'appuyant sur une alliance avec les Mongols" (Demurger, back cover). Good night. PHG 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you're saying that the following historians say that there was an alliance:
 * Jean Richard - Richard is actually ambiguous and says both things in his book. He calls the alliance "a story of lost opportunities", and says that an alliance was offered. But he also said, "It is hardly surprising that, for nearly forty years, the Westerners remained hopeful of achieving this combination of their efforts and those of the sovereigns of Persia"  I'll point out that he said hopeful, so even he was ambiguous about the topic.
 * Rene Grousset - In my opinion Grousset used the term Franco-Mongol alliance, but he was arguing that the Crusaders should have allied with the Mongols, not that they did.
 * Alain Demurger - Completely wishy-washy on the subject. He has one (1) sentence where he implies that the Crusaders agreed to an alliance, but it's an emotional appeal, not a statement of historical fact.
 * Now, I'll agree with you that one group of Hospitallers worked together with the Mongols in one battle (while at the same time other Franks were in a passive treaty with the Muslims). And I also accept that both the Armenians and the Antiochenes were Mongol subjects, and that sometimes this was referred to by the historians as an "alliance" just as a synonym, but that does not mean that there was a grand "Franco-Mongol alliance" with Europe.  It just didn't happen. There were attempts at putting it together, but the attempts were not successful. --Elonka 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Elonka, I think fundamentally you are trying to make a case that an alliance with little results or many missed opportunities is not an alliance, which really does not stand: an alliance is "an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests" (Wikipedia definition). The fact that results were few is irrelevant. Richard is completely coherent (thanks God, he's not saying two contradictory things in the same book!), Grousset gives plenty of examples of the alliance, and Demurger is not wishy-washy (Demurger, p.147 "Cette expedition avait surtout l'avantage de sceller, par un acte concret l'alliance Mongole", Demurger p.145 "La strategie de l'alliance Mongole en action"). Zoe Oldenbourg speaks about the "Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun". Plenty more authors describe this alliance as fact, although they say it had little results (which is fine): "The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" (Tyerman, p.816)... significantly Tyerman does NOT say "The attempts at an alliance led nowehere..."
 * 2) I don't think it is legitimate for you to try to discredit or double-guess secondary sources about what they say. If they describe the Franco-Mongol alliance, talk about the time it started and ended, talk about the various instances that sealed it and put it into action, it is way enough. I do not think it is even worth to argue endlessly about it. These opinions from reputable scholars just exist, whatever your misgivings about them, and therefore deserve representation according to NPOV... it is even one of the most basic and "absolute and non-negotiable" rules of Wikipedia. PHG 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is not about how Wikipedia defines an alliance, it is about how historians define an alliance.
 * 2) Please provide proof of this "plenty more authors" claim. If you have authors which I have not listed at User:Elonka/Mongol historians, please bring them forward.  You have multiple sources who talk about an alliance, and agree when it started and ended?  I am very interested in seeing those sources.  It's not enough to say "opinions from reputable scholars exist," let's see them.  Which scholars, what did they say? --Elonka 12:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Historians usually do not "define" words, they just use them. Dictionaries do define words, and if you have a reputable alternative to Wikipedia's "an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests", you are welcome to air it. But then, even by your own reasonning, don't say that an alliance with little results is not an alliance: if writers speak about an alliance as fact, this should be enough in itself and should satisfy you by your own definition. I am just trying to help you understand that an alliance with little results is usually an alliance nonetheless, both in the litterature and in the common acceptation of these words.
 * 2) Here are more authors speaking about the alliance with the Mongols as fact: Jonathan Riley-Smith mentionned in his Atlas of the Crusades that in 1285 the Hospitallers of the north agreed to ally to the Mongols. On the Franks of Antioch: "Bohemond of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally” John Riley-Smith, The Oxford History of the Crusades, p.136. Runciman "Hethoum's attempts to build a great Christian alliance to aid the Mongols was well received by the local Christian; and Bohemond of Antioch, who was under his father-in-law's influence, gave his adhesion". Runciman, p.307, "Bohemond was excommunicated by the Pope for this alliance". "The Armenians, in the person of king Hethoum, sided with the Mongols, as did Bohemond of Antioch". Amin Maalouf, p.261 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes). Also: "Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols". Amin Maalouf, p.265 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes). Christopher Tyerman, in God's War mentions Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories. Claude Lebédel stated "the Barons of the Holy Land refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the king of Armenia and Bohemond VI, prince of Antioch and Count of Tripoli" i.e. the king of Armenia and Bohemond VI, prince of Antioch and Count of Tripoli entered in an alliance with the Mongols.
 * And shall I restate the more general views of Richard, Demurger and Grousset: Jean Richard, the leading French expert on the Crusades, has the Franco-Mongol alliance start in earnest in the 1260s: "The sustained attacks of Baibars (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453. It continued on-and-off but was strongly revived by Ghazan, to continue to have an influence until 1322 "In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468. And concludes on the many missed opportunities the alliance offered: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", 1996, Jean Richard, p.469. Grousset, p521: "Louis IX et l'Alliance Franco-Mongole", p.653 "Seul Edward I comprit la valeur de l'Alliance Mongole", p.686 "la coalition Franco-Mongole dont les Hospitaliers donnaient l'exemple". Demurger, p.147 "Cette expedition avait surtout l'avantage de sceller, par un acte concret l'alliance Mongole", Demurger p.145 "La strategie de l'alliance Mongole en action", "De Molay anime la lutte pour la reconquete de Jerusalem, en s'appuyant sur une alliance avec les Mongols" (Demurger, back cover).
 * So, what is this all about? Some authors describe the alliance with the Mongols as "just attempts", and some other describe the alliance with the Mongols as fact. I think there are actually more authors speaking about alliance with the Mongols as facts, then the contrary. Your best quote on "The chimera of an alliance" is 100 years old! (Encyclopedia Brittanica). But I don't really care though: both views are held by major and reputable historians, and therefore deserve proper representation in a Wikipedia article on the Franco-Mongol alliance. Your claim that the "alliance" view would be "Fringe" is totally inadequate. Is it so difficult to let two point of views coexist peacefully within a single article? PHG 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PHG, regarding the first paragraph of your reply, I am in agreement that Cilician Armenia and Antioch were joined with the Mongols, but this was not an alliance, this was submission to the Mongols, as I have made clear at the bottom of User:Elonka/Mongol historians. The two countries were subjects of the Mongol Empire, and as such they did what the Mongols told them to do, and sent troops where the Mongols directed. In some context, a historian might therefore speak about "the Mongols, with their Armenian, Antiochene, and Georgian allies."


 * However, just because those countries had submitted to Mongol overlordship, does not mean that there was a grand "Franco-Mongol alliance" with all Franks. In fact, we have a clear example that this was not the case, since the most Frankish of all of the Mongol vassal states was that of Antioch.  That was the closest case where a Frankish country had troops that "fought under the Mongol banner".  But even though Antioch submitted in 1259, at the same time, the Franks of Acre clearly refused to ally with the Mongols, as they instead made a passive treaty with the Muslims, which allowed the Muslim army to achieve a decisive victory against the Mongols at the 1260 Battle of Ain Jalut.  So even if we wanted to say that Antioch allied with the Mongols instead of submitting, there was still clearly no "Franco-Mongol alliance" at that point, as one group of Franks was doing one thing, and another group of Franks was doing another.


 * Regarding the views of Richard, Demurger, and Grousset, I think it would be more helpful if you split them out rather than dumping them together, as they did not all say the same thing, and you are cherry-picking different sentences from each of their books to try and make it look like they "all said that there was an alliance" when this is absolutely not the case. In fact, your paragraph is a copy/paste of one you have used many times throughout this debate, and I'm actually getting quite tired of replying to it.  See my reply elsewhere on this page where I refute individually the interpretation of Demurger, Richard, and Grousset.


 * When you say that more authors are speaking about alliance as fact, and fewer as attempts, please spell it out, as I do not believe you. I have an extensive list of historians at User:Elonka/Mongol historians, with detailed quotes from each historian, as well as a page number for each statement.  I would also point out that you have exaggerated before, such as when you said the term "Franco-Mongol alliance was used hundreds of times," and that "written agreements had been exchanged for collaboration."  I am disappointed that you took this strong stance a month ago, and that despite weeks of me providing you ample evidence to the contrary, that you are refusing to back down on this issue.  PHG, I am not going to go away, as I feel that this is an important issue here.  It's not just about this point of history, it's that you are an editor who should know better than to insist on this kind of biased information.  Further, I was horrified that you created an extremely poor-quality article and then submitted it for WP:FA even though it had many gross errors of fact.


 * PHG, I think you have done much other good work on Wikipedia. In fact I think you do an amazing job at providing extraordinarily useful images for Wikipedia.  I've also seen you do quite a bit of really good writing for Wikipedia.  But on this issue about the alliance, it's my belief that your emotions are involved, and you just don't want to back down, because you don't want to lose face.  Please, I'm not here to try to humiliate you, I just want Wikipedia articles (especially our Featured Articles!) to be of high quality.  Granted, part of me wants you to say, "I'm sorry Elonka, I was wrong, I get stubborn sometimes, but thanks for sticking to your guns on this."  But at this point I don't even really care about who's "right" or "wrong", I just want us both to be able to edit the article and make it high quality.  Can't we just acknowledge the actual history here, quietly change it and move on?  No one is going to think less of you for changing your mind on a point.  In fact, you would gain status on Wikipedia if you proved that you could reconsider your own opinion.


 * My proposal for a compromise is this:


 * We figure out some mutually-agreeable wording for the first sentence
 * We try to remove the word "alliance" from as many places as we can in the article, and try to stick to very neutral wording that does not say whether there was or wasn't an alliance.
 * If you want, we could include a section like "Disputed interpretations". We could remove most of that stuff in the article about exact quotes of which historian said what (which I think is a mess), and just say, "Most historians refer to the alliance as 'attempts' though a few occasionally wrote about it as though it was fact.  Most notably, the prestigious French historian Jean Richard argued that in, and the French historian Alain Demurger, expert on Jacques de Molay, said .  However, other historians such as Rene Grousset argued persuasively that though the alliance should have occurred as it would have been of great benefit to the Europeans, it did not in fact come together."
 * Let's split out the majority of the "Was Jerusalem captured or not?" and Rumors info to Mongol raids into Palestine.
 * Let's split out the details of the Ruad campaign to Arwad Island.
 * Except for actual correspondence between monarchs, let's move all the primary source quotes to Wikisource or Wikiquote.
 * Let's move all the details of the Mongol-European missions to the articles on each of those khans. For example, there's already a section at Arghun about "Relations with Christian powers", the details of his communications should be more extensive there than they are at the Franco-Mongol alliance article, not the other way around
 * Ditto with information about Bohemond VI, we can move the details of what he did and didn't do with the Mongols, and which lands he received in return, and the fate of Antioch, all out to his article or the one on his Principality.
 * We've probably got enough info here for separate articles on "Mongol-Cilician relations" and "Mongol-Antiochene relations". I think we're in agreement that Cilicia was not Frankish, yes?  So the information about Hetoum really doesn't need to be in a "Franco-Mongol alliance" article.
 * Split out other details about Papal communications, and information about specific battles, or details about King Louis's Seventh Crusade, to the articles about those subjects, and just reference them briefly in the "Alliance" article per WP:SUMMARY.


 * I know I'm talking about a lot of work here, but I'm willing to do the work. It's not my intent to permanently delete any of the information that you've been compiling, I just want to move it to more appropriate places.  Please, may I proceed? --Elonka 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The brakes for a moment
Let's hold up a second here, and try to get back to the original purpose of this section. What exactly are the issues? I see you all are arguing over whether there really was an alliance or whether there was merely an "attempt" at an alliance. But this shouldn't just be a discussion about history; there has to be a relationship to the article. I see Elonka, in the post date 19:34, 13 October (UTC), has established that points of contentions include (a) the wording of the first sentence and (b) the use of the word "alliance". That seems to make sense, given the discussion I have seen so far. However, I'm a bit confused about some of the other things (4-5, 7-10). These items don't appear related to the "alliance" dispute. Or do they? Also, PHG, are there any other points of contention you would like to add? --  tariq abjotu  19:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll agree that I was probably trying to do too much in one post, my apologies. Points 4-10 are in relation to splitting the article, I'm fine if you'd like to move them a different section.  :)  The core issues as I see them are:
 * Whether there was or wasn't an alliance, and how to present that information in the article so it does not violate WP:UNDUE
 * How to split the article, per WP:SUMMARY down to a manageable size
 * How to word the introductory sentence.
 * Whether the Mongols did or didn't "occupy" Jerusalem in 1300, and how to present that information, in accordance with WP:UNDUE
 * --Elonka 20:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Tariqabjotu for your moderation.
 * "Alliance" or "attempts towards an alliance": we can keep discussing for years, but all the sources have been laid out, and it is obvious that both views are held by reputable historians. I don't see any arguing to have here, and it seems sufficient to present both views as per Wikipedia:NPOV. Elonka's claim of "Undue" or "Fringe" is clearly baseless.
 * I don't think we should discuss the issue of splitting until content disputes are settled. This view has also been supported by other users.
 * The question of the introductory sentence was settled long ago with User:Srnec's compromise phrasing. Elonka has not come yet with a convincing argument as to why it is not appropriate.
 * Scholars are divided on the question of the occupation of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300. Neither view can be considered "Undue" or "Fringe". Hence both views should be represented. I don't see why there should be any issues with that.
 * I feel I keep insisting on the application of Wikipedia's NPOV policy here, in front of a user who only wants one side of the story. This is getting ridiculous. Both arguments should be listed, with corresponding references, and that's it: any argument has the right to be represented, as long as it is sourced from reputable sources... this is the Wikipedia way, and it is "absolute and non-negotiable." PHG 13:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I feel that I am offering multiple compromises, or asking another user to offer compromises, but his only reply is, "The compromise is to do it my way." --Elonka 17:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am afraid not, Elonka: this is not "my way", this is the Wikipedia way. NPOV rules are "absolute and non-negotiable". Regards PHG 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, and the article is currently in violation of the subsection of WP:NPOV called "Undue weight". Please read WP:UNDUE. Specifically: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."  It is my opinion that you are trying to give much too much weight to minority views. --Elonka 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am afraid the "Alliance" view is actually the majority one. It is certainly not "a minority view" anyway. Just check Franco-Mongol alliance. PHG 20:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read it, several times, and in my opinion you list historians as saying that there was an alliance, when they actually didn't. I have tried editing that section, and you just revert me.  So tell you what, how about we list the historians here, and hash out what we think they say, and whether or not they're reliable?  We'll see which ones we agree on, and which we disagree on, and it might give us some insight on a way to proceed. I've taken the liberty of creating a section below, with my initial placements.  Feel free to move names around to different sections, and then we'll go from there. --Elonka 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

List of historians
This section is to list historians who discuss whether or not there was an alliance, and try to analyze their various positions. See also User:Elonka/Mongol historians.

Said there was an alliance

 * Oldenbourg

Attempts, or no alliance

 * Rene Grousset
 * Malcolm Barber says there was a possibility of an alliance (p. 293-294)
 * Amin Maalouf called it a cherished dream (p. 254)
 * Sharan Newman said there was hope that the Christians could join forces with the Mongols (p. 174)
 * Sylvia Schein said there were plans for an alliance
 * Sean Martin called it simply a "combined force", but not an alliance (p. 114)
 * Christopher Tyerman clearly stated, The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere (p. 816)
 * David Nicolle called the Mongols potential allies
 * Jonathan Riley-Smith said the Hospitallers were ready to ally with the Mongols (p. 114)
 * Angus Donal Stewart said that an alliance with the Mongols was promoted
 * Encyclopedia Britannica called the alliance a chimera, a fantasy
 * David Morgan, "From 1263 until well into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance" (p. 183)
 * Steven Runciman said a messenger was sent to suggest an alliance, that Edward I hoped to unite the Christians with the help of the Mongols, but he was ultimately not much more successful and was wasting his time (pp. 335-337)
 * Steven Turnbull, Mongol Warrior 1200-1350, Arghun wrote to King Philip about a proposed alliance
 * Peter Jackson
 * Clough/Garsoian
 * Claude Lebedel
 * Prawdin
 * Prawer
 * Denis Sinor
 * Glenn Burger

Ambiguous

 * Alain Demurger
 * Jean Richard

Combined list
Okay, this is progress. :) I still have problem with some of PHG's interpretations above, but for now, let's just concentrate on combining my info and PHG's info.  I'm going to list them as "Scholars who we both agree said there was an alliance," "Scholars who we both agree said there was no alliance (including those who said there were plans or hopes, but never explicitly said there was an alliance), "Scholars whose interpretations we disagree on."

Said there was an alliance

 * Jean Richard (Elonka: He's ambiguous, but I'm willing to compromise on this one and list him in the "alliance" camp)
 * Oldenbourg (Elonka: This was a probable typo)
 * Laurent Dailliez (Elonka: Probably a typo)

Disputed

 * See User:Elonka/Mongol historians for exact quotes


 * Rene Grousset (Elonka: Another historian defines Grousset's view as saying that there should have been an alliance, not that there was one)
 * Jonathan Riley-Smith (Elonka: He said that one single group of Hospitallers fought on the Mongol side in 1260, while others had a truce with the Muslims instead. That's not a full Franco-Mongol alliance)
 * Peter Jackson (historian) (Elonka: He goes into dozens of pages about why the alliance didn't happen. A single chapter heading "Ally against Islam" in no way should be used as confirmation that he said that an alliance existed)
 * Christopher Tyerman (Elonka: He goes to great trouble to say that the alliance was a chimera, a will of the wisp, a "false hope" that "led nowhere".  He absolutely did not confirm that an alliance existed.)
 * Alain Demurger (Elonka: One sentence in the book implies that the Crusaders "emotionally" agreed to the alliance in 1300, but the rest uses "tries" and "hope" language)
 * Claude Mutafian (Elonka: He was talking about the Armenian relations with the Mongols, not about the European relations)


 * Malcolm Barber
 * Amin Maalouf
 * Sharan Newman
 * Sylvia Schein
 * Sean Martin
 * David Nicolle
 * Angus Donal Stewart
 * Encyclopedia Britannica
 * David Morgan
 * Steven Runciman
 * Steven Turnbull
 * Clough/Garsoian
 * Claude Lebedel
 * Prawdin
 * Prawer
 * Denis Sinor
 * Glenn Burger
 * Phillips, J R S

Can we agree that the above is an accurate combination of our views? If not, feel free to move things around or add comments. --Elonka 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by PHG

 * “Said there was an alliance”: my list stands. All the authors I am quoting consider the alliance as fact. What do you mean about Dailliez and Oldenbourg being “typos”? This seems such a ridiculous claim.
 * “Attempts, or no alliance”: in order for me to comment on your list, I would need to have actual quotes, and your assurance that these sources do not mention the alliance as fact (as I said it is only logical to describe the “attempts” before mentioning the actual occurrence of an alliance). I will gladly check some of them.
 * “Disputed”: I disagree with your characterization of all the sources under this heading. They clearly treat the alliance as fact. Grousset is clear about the alliance, Jonathan Riley-Smith gives several instances of alliance (I added one more quote from him), Peter Jackson does mention the alliance as fact (title) and does say how limited it was, but mentions several instances in which the alliance translated into actions (Edward I, Bohemond, the Genoese for Ghazan etc…), Christopher Tyerman does speak factually about “The Franco-Mongol alliance” although he mentions that ultimately it “led nowhere”. Alain Demurger does say the alliance was concretized by actions such as that of the Hospitallers and goes into details of the collaboration between the Templar and the Mongols circa 1300.
 * Summary: my list fully stands, and I am now asking you to bring forward actual quotes from the “attempts at an alliance” sources you are mentioning, and assure that these sources do not mention the alliance as fact. PHG 17:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When I have a name under "disputed" it means that you and I disagree how to interpret that scholar's views. Once we agree on what it is that we disagree about, then we can get more specific and discuss each one individually.
 * Also: any book that talks about a "Franco-Mongol alliance" in relation to Armenia, Antioch, Tripoli, Cilicia, or Georgia, is not relevant to our discussion. Cilician Armenia is not Frank. Antioch is Frankish, but it is not correct to say that "because Antioch allied with the Mongols, there was a Franco-Mongol alliance" because Antioch didn't ally with the Mongols, Antioch submitted to the Mongols, and at the same time, other Franks (such as in Acre) were clearly rejecting the Mongols and treating them as the enemy. Further, even if we were to describe Antioch's relationship with the Mongols as an "alliance", it would only last from 1259-1268, when Antioch was wiped off the map by the Muslims. So again, any mention of alliance with the following names has nothing to do with a Franco-Mongol alliance:
 * Little Armenia
 * King Hethoum (Het'um, Hetoum, Hayton, Haithon etc.)
 * Bohemond (Bohemund)
 * Antioch
 * Tripoli
 * --Elonka 06:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * After your claims that the Antiochians were not Franks (!!!), and that Antioch was part of Armenia (!!!) I totally disagree with your new idea that the Franks of Antioch and Tripoli and their ruler Bohemond VI should not be considered as actors of the alliance with the Mongols (!!!). That goes against common sense and against all the reputable secondary sources above mentioned.
 * On another note, please do not forget to give the actual quotes pertaining to your references for “only attempts”, or “no alliance”. For the time being I can only “Dispute” all the references you are giving for “only attempts” or “no alliance”. See the case of Amin Maalouf down the page where you clearly misrepresent was he actually says. PHG 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Article length
I was a bit disappointed today to see that information which had been split out of the article a couple weeks ago, was all re-added by PHG today. I'm afraid that I see this as a step backwards rather than forwards, especially because the article is now at over 160K in length.

I am not reverting PHG's edit, because I'm trying to abide by a request that was made at the talkpage a couple weeks ago that we take a two-week break from editing. I have abided by this request, though PHG has not. It was my hope that perhaps during this time that PHG could get the article to a "done" state, but this appears not to be the case.

The two weeks wrap up tomorrow, so the question is, how I can best resume editing the article, with a minimum of conflict. One possibility is that just as I took an extended "Leave of absence" from the article, that PHG could do the same, and give me a couple weeks to try and get the article in a state that I think is appropriate, and then we could continue from there? As it is, simply because the article is so long, each time I have tried to edit the article "from top to bottom", I can only get about halfway through, before PHG is already reverting the stuff that I did at the top of the article, and things turn into a mess. :/

Another option is that I just create another draft article, such as in my userspace, and edit it to how I think the article should look. Though if PHG is still working intensively on the "live" article, this option might be very frustrating, since my "forked" version would rapidly become out-of-date and it would just make things even more complex.

Truly, my preferred option is if PHG would go "hands off" on the article for a couple weeks, and let me take a crack at things. Since it is a wiki, nothing I do would of course be permanent, and who knows, PHG might even like some of my changes? :) --Elonka 23:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Elonka. As you know, I am the proud creator of this article and of most of its content. It is normal that I keep refining it and add more relevant material (and sure, we will split it in sub-articles in due time). Please add your own material if you wish, but I would appreciate if you did not delete or corrupt the material I put in place, as you have done so often in the past. Please respect the material I have put in, instead of rewriting everything I wrote to fit your own view. If you would like to balance something I have written, please balance it with "However, some historians (xx), consider that...." with appropriate reference. Please do not write "However most historians..." without reference as you very often do. If you respect these basic Wikipedia principles of cooperation, I am sure we can coexist very hapilly ever after :) Best regards. PHG 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PHG, I find your accusations that I have been "corrupting" information to be somewhat uncivil. I am not a vandal.  My intent on Wikipedia is (I hope) similar to yours -- a desire to provide high-quality information to our readers. --Elonka 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Elonka. Do I need to detail again all the references you deleted, and those you misused and misinterpreted? (already on the Talk Page). I do hope you have a desire for high-quality information rather than POV-pushing, but then please respect the work of others and handle sources carefully. Regards PHG 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PHG, please consider that for every action of mine that you regard as "misuse and misinterpretation", that I could make the same charge at you. If you think it would help clear the air, I would be happy to go into great detail on what I regard as your shortcomings, but I'm not sure that it would be helpful for this mediation. --Elonka 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Elonka. All my edits are sourced in properly published and reputable material, and if some of that material is deemed unreliable (as the Templar sites you pointed out), I gladly remove it. On the other hand, you repeatedly and overtly corrupted the meaning of numerous quotes (remember the Il'Khan's banner?). To me, your respect of sources remains to be proven. Regards PHG 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Goin' to bed. Goodnight. PHG 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sleep well. And please consider, that if you were to allow me uninterrupted access to the article for a week or two, it would not be the end of the world.  What's the worst that could happen?  :) --Elonka 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is the way Wikipedia works. Respect the work of others, add onto it, balance it, bring your own references. I am not interested by someone who just wants to rewrite everything to have her own version of history. If you want everything to be written according to your own viewpoint, just write a book. All major (referenced) versions of history have to be expressed in a Wikipedia article, and this is one of the most basic principles of this encyclopedia, expressed in the NPOV policy. Good night again PHG 21:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PHG, you are not respecting my work. From my point of view, you are repeatedly rewriting my text to force your own version of history.  So again, why not give me a week to change the article, rather than always reverting me within hours?  And keep in mind that it's totally against the Wikipedia way for me to even ask you for permission to edit the article.  By all rights, I should just go in and change it, but I'm trying to be respectful of your efforts, even if you are not being respectful of mine.  Again, why not just sit back and let me edit for a couple weeks?  You might even like what I come up with. :) --Elonka 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a very easy way of editing anytime without deleting what I have put in: if you would like to balance something I have written, please balance it with "However, some historians (xx), consider that...." with appropriate references. Nothing difficult really. That way multiple interpretations can co-exist, the way it is supposed to happen according to Wikipedia:NPOV. We'll have an issue as long as you want to delete the sources and scholarly interpretations I put forward, for the ones you seem to favour. Just a matter of balancing arguments. PHG 11:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PHG, you are in violation of WP:OWN, and the way that you keep adding more and more information to the article, while insisting that no one else can remove any, is resulting in an article that is now over 160K in length. Even setting the problem of bias aside, the article is getting into too much detail, and uses too many primary sources.  It needs to be split. --Elonka 12:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Elonka. Balancing scholarly views in an article, which you seem to have the most difficulty about, is a basic "non negociable" rule of Wikipedia (NPOV), it is the contrary of WP:OWN. Please stop throwing needless accusations at other users (like your failed and meaningless attempt at ANI). Regarding size, this is, of course, an issue we will deal with, but, as other editors have suggested, better to address this once content issues have been solved. PHG 12:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy to discuss content issues first, but you have to be willing to discuss things in good faith and be open to compromise. So far, it appears that you are not.  I have to admit that I am wondering if this mediation is even worth pursuing, as you do not appear to be here for the right reasons.  But let me try one more time....


 * Just because "a scholar" has espoused "a view" does not mean that that view should be given equal weight to all other views. By that logic, would you want to take the Encyclopedia article from the 1800s as a "reliable source" which should be given equal weight to modern scholarship?  I would hope not!  Historians continually analyze a situation, discuss and re-discuss, weigh new sources, and write new books which present in-depth analysis of events.  Here at Wikipedia, we want to provide a neutral summary of modern scholarship, giving appropriate weight to the various views.  If we were writing the Wikipedia article on the Earth, we wouldn't start it by saying, "Some scholars say the Earth is flat, and others say it be round."  That would be giving undue weight to the views that the world is flat.  Similarly with this alliance article, the preponderance of scholars say that there were attempts at an alliance.  Yes, I know you're going to trot out Grousset, Richard, and Demurger, but they are in an ambivalent minority, and don't even agree with each other on what they're trying to say.  I would also point out that none of them are experts on the Mongols.  Grousset is a 1930s expert on the Crusades, Demurger is a modern specialist on the Knights Templar. Richard, though he was born in the 1920s, I am willing to give more credence to, as though he is primarily a historian of the Crusades, he does devote a full chapter to the Mongols, in a book that was published in the 1990s.  He is ambivalent on whether or not there was an alliance (in some places he implies yes, in others he implies no), but we can definitely include his views in the article.  But the point is, that when we look at what the modern historians of the Mongols say, meaning David Morgan (Mongols) and Peter Jackson (Mongols and the West),  they are very clear that it was attempts at an alliance. Denis Sinor in his article "Mongols and the West" in the Journal of Asian History says "possibility" of an alliance. Or when we look at other modern historians of the Crusades who devote considerable analysis to the Mongol situation, such as Tyerman, they too say that the attempts failed and "led nowhere." We should stick with the interpretation of those modern scholars who have made in-depth studies, over the interpretation of those scholars who just mention a subject in passing, in one or two sentences of a much larger book. And the preponderance of in-depth analysis is, that there were attempts at forming an alliance. We can still of course mention that some scholars say that the alliance existed, but we should make it clear that they were a minority opinion, not the prevalent one.


 * To repeat: We can mention both views, but we should list them appropriately, that "attempts" is the prevalent view of the historians.  To do otherwise is to be misleading to our readers. --Elonka 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Elonka. Your caracterization that your view ("attempts") is the majority view is I think probably wrong (see Franco-Mongol alliance). It is anyway irrelevant: both views are largely supported by numerous scholars and they should be presented in a balanced NPOV way per Wikipedia rules. Best regards PHG 19:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PHG, it is not just my view, but the view of every editor at the RfC, and those who participated at the "Introduction sentence" thread as well. I think it's important that you acknowledge that other editors have different views of the situation than you do, and that you try to adapt to the consensus of other Wikipedia editors rather than insisting solely on your own way. --Elonka 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. You conveniently forget to mention instances when your proposals were unanimously rejected (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2), but you continued your solitary push to have it changed nonetheless. Fundamentally I am convinced that Wikepedia’s rules of balanced reporting and NPOV are not to be upturned by a few editors, whatever their beliefs: the fact that several Wikipedia editors thought that the Mongols did not occupy Jerusalem in 1300 is absolutely not a valid reason to deny the representation of reputable scholarly sources who claim this happened or may have happened. By the way, may I mention that I have already received two barnstars for my work on the Franco-Mongol alliance? I am only mentioning this because as a matter of fact I do not feel particularly isolated in my efforts at creating a great NPOV and balanced article on this subject. Best regards. PHG 19:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG, just because you get a barnstar, doesn't mean that the information is correct. I would also point out the one (1) support that you had at your the FA nom was an editor who said, "Excellent! Well-researched and referenced and beautifully illustrated article on a fascinating and poorly-known subject. It should be of interest to many readers and will undoubtedly promote a deeper understanding of the long history of East-West relations. It should also help to correct the Eurocentric world view of many English speakers." But the version of the article that they were looking at, at the time, was not well-researched and referenced. It looked clean on a quick glance, but was full of unreliable sources and demonstrably false information, like the "conquest of Jerusalem" section. Many editors on Wikipedia unfortunately look at the form of an article rather than the content. My contention is that your articles look well-sourced but are actually full of bias and unreliable sources. I contend that you do Google searches for phrases in books -- even if it's just a typo or other misleading statement -- and then you will use that as a source to push your POV. It's really appalling scholarship on your part, and I wish you'd stop this practice. What we need to do on Wikipedia is to provide a synopsis of reliable sources. Where there is genuine dispute between scholars, yes, we can and should put both views in the Wikipedia article. But that doesn't mean we should also quote every medieval source as "well maybe it really did happen that way," or quote every modern historian who printed a typo, as a "possible view." That's absurd. --Elonka 14:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Elonka, some editors making some comments in an RfC does not mean they are right either. Respecting scholarly sources is much more important. My only point is that you are claiming there is a user consensus against my positions, which is clearly not exact. Many editors do support this article (the barnstars), and I also have instances of consensus in favour of my positions against yours (such as the title, or your failure on ANI). Let’s just be balanced in our representations if you don't mind. Let me take exception do your portraying of my articles, or your imaginary statements about Google searches. I personally own most the books I am referencing, and my statements are referenced from them. Do check my sources if you wish, instead of making false assertions about them. And your claim about reputable scholars making "typos" is indeed a clear absurdity (to use your own word). Regards. PHG 17:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure I'm understanding here... You're saying that if everyone disagrees with you at an RfC, that it doesn't matter?  I'm very sorry you feel that way.  On Wikipedia, it is important to acknowledge the consensus of other editors.  Those who participated in the RfC were not random folks coming in, they were respected editors.  I find it very worrisome that you are willing to just disregard their views. --Elonka 06:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote “some editors making some comments in an RfC does not mean they are right either. Respecting scholarly sources is much more important.” just as you kindly wrote: “just because you get a barnstar, doesn't mean that the information s correct”, and I believe both statements are totally true. You are just misusing RfCs as you are misrepresenting consensus: an RfC has never been used to establishing historical truth, only reputable secondary sources should be used for that. May I also remind you that your RfC question is not really relevant to our discussion: you asked “was there a major alliance?”, actually putting the emphasis on “major” rather than on the existence of an alliance in itself. I think very few people would answer that the alliance was indeed “major”. Remember what I wrote? “Strategically, the Franco-Mongol alliance was a major alliance, but operationally the Western contribution, especially, remained small. Overall, it may not be a "major" alliance, but it was a significant alliance nonetheless.”PHG 18:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Alliance"
I'm going to start with discussing the use of the word "alliance" as this matter appears to be very important in this dispute. PHG stated:

"'Alliance' or 'attempts towards an alliance': we can keep discussing for years, but all the sources have been laid out, and it is obvious that both views are held by reputable historians. I don't see any arguing to have here, and it seems sufficient to present both views as per Wikipedia:NPOV. Elonka's claim of 'Undue' or 'Fringe' is clearly baseless."

Indeed, both of you appear to have presented sources that use alliance in some form or another. Even e indicates that. Why can't both views – that this was an alliance and that this was just a mere attempt at one – be presented? --  tariq abjotu  20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We can indeed present both views, but per WP:UNDUE, we must do so in the proper proportion. It is my opinion that historians are not evenly split on the matter, but instead overwhelmingly use the "attempts" language.  PHG seems to believe that the majority of historians say that the alliance was a fact.  It basically boils down to the first sentence, where I want the article to start off, "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance", but PHG wants it to start off, "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or what some regard as attempts to forming such an alliance."  I think it is misleading to say that the Alliance existed, when the clear consensus of modern scholarship is that it did not. --Elonka 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do see that "attempt" (or something similar) is used several places in your "Mongol historians" page, but many of the sources don't say whether the attempts were failures or successes. How does that work with your position? --  tariq abjotu  21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's my feeling that I'm actually reading the books and articles, whereas PHG is just cherry-picking sources (like he did with Oldenbourg, and today with Dailliez). For example, he cited Oldenbourg as saying that there was an alliance, but when you actually read her book, all there is, is one line in her timeline in the back of the book, where she said that an alliance existed.  There's no discussion of an alliance anywhere in her book, and indeed, her book generally only goes up through the late 1100s with only a brief synopsis of events in the Crusades after that, and she's mentioning a Mongol alliance as occurring in the 1200s.  Further, the date that she lists is not corroborated by any other historian. So, though Oldenbourg is a reliable source for some parts of the Crusades, I feel that it's misleading to quote her as an authority on diplomatic relationships with the Mongols.  Another example of a "cherry-picked" source is when PHG quotes Jotischky as saying that Ghazan made a token occupation of Jerusalem.  Yes, Jotischky said that, but it's an obvious error in the book.  Jotischky listed Schein as his source for that statement, and I've read Schein's article, and she never said that Ghazan was in Jerusalem, she said that there were false rumors about Ghazan being in Jerusalem.  Jotischky obviously either got it wrong, or it's a typo and he meant to say something like "Ghazan's forces made a brief and token occupation of Palestine".


 * When I'm including a quote in my table at User:Elonka/Mongol historians, I'm trying to include it as a representative sample of that historian's position. If there is a dispute about my representation of any particular historian, I am happy to discuss it. --Elonka 21:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am quite glad that Elonka’s bias is rather clearly revealed in the latest few posts: Personal interpretations vs factual quotes First, Elonka claims that her interpretations of secondary sources are more important than what these sources actually say (quotes). I am afraid the personal interpretations made by individual users are irrelevant on Wikipedia, where we should only present reputable sources in a neutral manner: the best approach is to reference and quote exactly in a neutral and balanced way, and leave it at that. Visibly, only few of the authors catalogued by Elonka actually state that “there were only attempts towards an alliance, and nothing more”: they only do so in her interpretations of their writings. I also have good reason to doubt the validity of Elonka’s “interpretations”, as she has displayed some terrible misinterpretations and deformation of secondary sources already (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2, Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance). I am therefore asking for exact quotes to be put forward for any claim made here. A corollary is that Elonka goes at length to try to discredit secondary sources she dislikes: she branded Demurger’s book “a summer book” before she learnt that he was a leading French expert on the Templars, and similarly attacked reputable sources such as Dailliez. Now, she's trying to discredit Jotischky or Oldenbourg through her own OR analysis (above). Let’s remain factual and tolerant of alternative sources. Confusion of concepts Second, I think some clarification of the meaning of words and concepts is required here. Elonka is making an amalgam of very different things, which actually describe different steps of the same process: It is quite possible and even logical and totally coherent for an author to mention in the same book all the ‘’’efforts’’’ made towards achieving an alliance, then write factually about this ‘’’alliance’’’ and the several instances when it was actually concretized on the field, but then conclude or lament that the ‘’’results’’’ of the alliance were few, or even nil. In such a case, the author still describes an alliance nonetheless, complete with its formative steps and its actual results. Typically, Elonka claims that an Alliance with little or no results cannot be called an alliance, and would categorize it as “attempts at an alliance”, which is a logical nonsense. When Tyerman says “After 6 embassies, the Franco-Mongol alliance led nowhere”, he just says that the Franco-Mongol had little or no results in the end, but still treats the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact nonetheless (otherwise he would say something like “After 6 embassies, attempts at a Franco-Mongol alliance led nowhere”).PHG 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Attempts towards creating an alliance. (Diplomatic efforts)
 * The existence of the alliance itself (”An agreement towards a common goal”)
 * The concrete manifestations of the alliance. (Actions on the field)
 * The outcome of the alliance (Victory or defeat)
 * PHG, just because a historian has a typo in their book, doesn't mean we should quote that typo as a reliable source. When I say "interpretation" I mean that we should look at the total of what a particular historian said, and provide an accurate synopsis of their view. Further, it is my opinion that those historians who look at a subject in-depth, should be treated as more reliable than those historians who just provide a shorthand version of one or two sentences.  Also, again, just because a historian says, "there were attempts towards an alliance," does not mean there was an  alliance.  Yes they're using the word alliance, but that doesn't mean that an alliance actually existed. If a book said "there were attempts towards a treaty", would you say that the treaty existed?  If a book said, "Jack offered a treaty to Mary," but there was no verification that Mary had ever signed the treaty, it would be irresponsible and misleading for us to say, "the treaty existed," even though it had not been formally agreed to by both sides.  --Elonka 15:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you be more explicit about quotes from reputable sources being “typos”? This seems such a ridiculous claim.
 * Again, I am afraid we are not interested in your personal interpretation of sources (especially when your interpretations are highly disputable and disputed). I suggest you remain factual and simply quote what reputable sources actually say.
 * You misread me. I totally agree that “attempts towards an alliance” doesn’t mean there was an alliance. But when an author says, “the alliance was revived”, “the alliance was concretized by this and this”, “the occidentals rallied this alliance” or even “the alliance had little result” or “the alliance led nowhere”, the author does mean there was an alliance and treats it as fact: simple grammar. Regards. PHG 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because a historian has a statement in their book, does not mean that the statement is true. It is very easy to mis-use direct quotes.  Saying simply "the alliance led nowhere", taken out of context, could indeed mean either one.  It could mean "they formed an alliance, but did not do anything with it," or it could mean, "the project of an alliance never came together."  But I maintain that if you actually read the text of Tyerman's book, the context makes it clear that Tyerman is saying that the alliance didn't happen. As for the other "typo" statements, it is standard Wikipedia procedure that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources."  For a controversial issue, we absolutely should not be using an offhand comment that is neither backed up by any other information in the book, nor by any other scholars:
 * Oldenbourg had one sentence in the back of her book: "1280: Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun"
 * There is no discussion anywhere else in Oldenbourg's book about an alliance. In fact, her book isn't even about the 13th century at all
 * I am unaware of any other scholar who says that an alliance between the Franks and Mongols against Qalawun began in 1280. If you know of one, please let me know
 * Dailliez said that the Templars signed a treaty with the Mongols around 1260, and that Jacques de Molay wrote to the English king with his reasoning
 * Jacques de Molay did not even become Grand Master until 1292 or so
 * No other scholar says that the Templars signed a treaty with the Mongols in 1260, or any other year
 * Seriously, if Jacques de Molay had signed such a treaty, don't you think that that's the kind of thing that would have been mentioned in Demurger's book? Or Barber's?
 * Now, the Templars, and other Barons of Acre, did engage in a passive treaty with the Muslims in 1260, against their common enemy the Mongols. Which was a big deal at the time, for Christians to suddenly cooperate with the Muslims.
 * I also challenge the reliability of Dailliez's book. It has no index, no bibliography, no footnotes, no sources. Zero. It does not meet the standard of "peer-reviewed reliable source".
 * --Elonka 06:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in entering into your kind of original research criticism and personal interpretations of reputable secondary sources: this is just not something we to do on Wikipedia. If the reputable historian of the Crusades Oldenbourg writes “"1280: Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun" it stands in its own right, and Elonka Dunin’s agonies about it are absolutely irrelevant. Many other authors also speak about this 1280 alliance, usually referring to the Franks of Cyprus and Antioch (Richard, "Histoire des Croisades", p.465, also ”The “Syrian knights” were probably including knights from Cyprus” Jean Richard, p.466), and especially to the Hospitallers (Runciman, p.387, p.390, Grousset, p.687 "The Franco-Mongol coalition, of which the Hospitallers were giving the example", "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes", p. 253: "These monk-knights had supported the Mongols wholeheartedly, going so far as to fight alongside them during a fresh attempted invasion in 1281."). Second point, Dailliez is a reputable French historian whose work is considered a Classic. I have absolutely no interest in your original research criticism of what he said: he just said it, it stands as such, it is quite consistent with what other historians are saying such as Demurger or Richard, and it has nothing to do with what you abusively call “typos”.PHG 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking sources: Peter Jackson
I bought Jackson, Peter (2005). The Mongols and the West: 1221-1410. A few points: he has a full chapter entitled “An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and describes all the vicissitudes and the actual results of the Mongol alliance. Although he stresses that the results of this alliance were small to nil, he nevertheless mentions the numerous instances in which coordinated military actions took place as a consequence (Edward I and the Mongols, the 800 Genoese men in Baghdad to build raiding galleys etc….), although they were essentially ineffective. Something else, guess what, Peter Jackson actually considers as ‘’’fact’’’ the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300 (“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 prefered a pagan ruler as His instrument”, p.173). I am sure Elonka will now try to criticize this source also (who wrote categorically “this DID NOT happen”??). He also says that the Mongols raided Jerusalem in 1260 and that Hulagu repeatedly claimed to have remitted Jerusalem to the Christians at that time (although not mentioned in Arab or Frank sources)… Nice to discover (again) Elonka’s selectivity in quoting sources! PHG 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking sources: Amin Maalouf
I checked Amin Maalouf’s “The Crusades through Arab eyes”, and I cannot find any reference to Elonka’s characterization of the alliance “being just a dream”. On the contrary, Amin Maalouf is extensive and specific on the alliance (page numbers refer to the French edition): “The Armenians, in the person of their king Hetoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond, his son-in-law. The Franks of Acre however adopted a position of neutrality favourable to the muslims” (p.261), “Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols” (p.265), “Hulagu (…) still had enough strength to prevent the punishment of his allies [Bohemond and Hethoum]” (p.267), “..the Hospitallers. These monk-horsemen allied with the Mongols, going as far as fighting at their side in a new attempt at invasion in 1281.” Maalouf does say that Arghun’s dearest dream was an alliance with the Franks (p.271) but this only expresses his will and is certainly not a negation of the actual cases of alliance otherwise mentionned in the article. PHG 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Article rewrite
(remainder truncated)


 * Tariqabjotu, with all due respect, unless you think you can pull a rabbit out of a hat, I don't think that PHG are ever going to agree on an intro sentence. Let's just go with talkpage consensus (which is unanimous except for PHG), agree to disagree, and move on to some other subject where possibly we can find a compromise? --Elonka 17:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Where are you deriving the idea of a talk page consensus? --  tariq abjotu  17:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see:
 * Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance
 * In a nutshell: Everyone (except for PHG) has agreed on an introduction sentence which says: "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade."  By "everyone" I mean:  Adam Bishop, Srnec, WjbScribe, Elonka.  To my knowledge no one else has been opposed to that wording, except for PHG.  I would also point to:
 * Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance
 * At the RfC (Question #1) everyone (except for PHG) acknowledged that there was no alliance, that it was either "attempts" towards an alliance, or smaller ad hoc alliances.
 * --Elonka 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but I'll wait for PHG to respond to this section and for both of you to respond to the sentences under and go from there. --  tariq abjotu  20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tariqabjotu.
 * Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance
 * Since then, User:Srnec actually changed his position to a consensus phrasing, which I gladly accepted (the one actually in the article). So Elonka's position is actually a 3:1 (her included), and 2 (me and Srnec) for the consensus phrasing, so I don't think anybody can decently say there is any kind of consensus.
 * Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance
 * This is misleading and besides the point, as Elonka's question was "Was there a major alliance?", putting the emphasis on the size of the alliance rather than its existence or not. Even I would answer that the alliance was not exactly major (I said strategically major, operationally minor).
 * Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2
 * If such small numbers should be considered as consensus, let me remind that Elonka's proposal to change the name of the article to something else was rejected by 3:1... other users have indeed supported that this article should be called "Franco-Mongol alliance", and in that context an intro sentence starting with a definition of the title ("A Franco-Mongol alliance is/occured/existed... etc...") is only appropriate. PHG 10:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * * Srnec didn't "change" his position, he offered an alternate compromise. But to my knowledge he still supports the original version too.
 * * Oh come on, quibbling over the word "Major"? That's just splitting hairs, you're making an excuse to ignore the RfC.  That's called wiki-lawyering and is a violation of WP:POINT, where you're arguing the words in order to disregard the intent.  This is dishonorable behavior, please stop it.
 * * The RM is no longer an issue.
 * In short, what appears obvious to me is that you, PHG, are going to argue forever that you doesn't have to listen to a consensus of other editors. Whenever a consensus disagrees with you, you're either going to argue that there's no consensus, or you're going to argue that you're right and everyone else is wrong, or you're going to wiki-lawyer and quibble about some minor wording, or you're going to try and change the subject.  These are all examples of bad faith, and are not helpful towards proceeding with this mediation.  PHG, if you want to participate on Wikipedia, you have to show that you're willing to work towards compromise. So far I am not seeing any example that you're capable of this. --Elonka 21:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The mediation is here
I just realized today, upon reviewing the recent contributions of our two participants, that this mediation is just the tip of the iceberg in that there has been concurrent discussion on the talk page of the article. I'm not forbidden from commenting on the talk page of the article, but we have this mediation page for a reason. Instead of spreading the ongoing discussion across multiple locations, it should be centralized in one location – here. Continuing this dispute in multiple places defeats the purpose of the mediation and makes it harder for me to follow what's going on (I'm sure those side discussions exacerbated the complaint about me not commenting last week). Just to reiterate (copying from an above section), Elonka has offered three introduction sentences:


 * Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
 * A form of Franco-Mongol alliance existed from 1258-1269 between the Frankish Principality of Antioch and the Mongol Empire. 
 * A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards such an alliance, was the object of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.

PHG, when you get the chance, please state your opinion on the proposals. If you disagree with one or more of them (and especially if you disagree with all of them), please address specific points of contention and propose alternatives. --  tariq abjotu  03:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

These three proposals have in common that they all seek to deny the claim of an alliance, which is supported by a host of reputable historians (User:PHG/Alliance) and as such are unacceptable and POV: Fundamendatally, all these statements are identical in that they try to dismiss the notion of an alliance, in favour of attempts only. Again, the only solution is to adopt a NPOV compromise phrasing in which both views are integrated, with attendant references: "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance, ...". Regards PHG 12:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1 only speaks about "Attempts", and not an alliance in itself.
 * Proposal 2 claims it was only "a form of alliance" (never seen this claim anywhere), and focused on a small event under Bohemond VI.
 * Proposal 3, claiming ("what most historians refer to as attempts") is Elonka OR, and seeks to deny the statement about there being an alliance in the first place.
 * Saying "most historians" is not Original Research, it's an accurate synopsis. See User:Elonka/Mongol historians. To my knowledge the only historians who say that there was an alliance were two who were obviously floating a new theory and making an argument for the case, but they are not mainstream theories. Jean Richard (Crusades historian) argues that an alliance began around 1263.  Alain Demurger (Templar historian) argues that an alliance started in 1300.  They don't even agree with each other, let alone agreeing with the majority of other historians who clearly say that there was no alliance. There were attempts at an alliance, and that is the wording that we should emulate in the Wikipedia article. We can definitely list the views of Richard and Demurger in the article, but we need to give them appropriate weight, and list them as minority theories, not the main thrust of the first sentence. --Elonka 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to seize on your objections to Proposal 2 because they seem to be the easiest to address. If you have an issue with the sentence focusing on a small event, perhaps you all could use the ending of one of Elonka's other proposals, such as "existed between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade."


 * However, in your first objection, "claims it was only "a form of alliance" (never seen this claim anywhere)", you appear to be paying too much attention to a small detail. Now, I understand semantics seems to be at the crux of this issue (is it an alliance or just an attempt at an alliance?), but your position that the intro sentence can't say "a form of alliance" because no source has said verbatim "a form of alliance" is... well... difficult to agree with. It seems rather apparent that your position that an alliance developed and Elonka's position that there were only attempts at alliances both indicate that there was some sort of alliance-like relationship between the Mongols and the French. The difference appears to be in the degree to which there was such an alliance (or relationship). So, as you can see, I'm struggling to see how "a form of alliance" fails to incorporate both positions; it mentions that there was a form of alliance, with the details (presumably) to be discussed later in the article.


 * On Proposal 3, I'd like to comment on Elonka's wording (I probably could have done this a bit earlier, but oh well). Elonka, you begin the sentence with "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards such an alliance,...". I know you might be dismayed to hear me say this, but the "or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards such an alliance" may not be correct. I don't mean incorrect in regards to this alliance vs. attempt at alliance debate, but rather incorrect in that it might be unintelligible. I assume the use of word "object" corresponds to the third definition here: "The purpose, aim, or goal of a specific action or effort" ("objective", by the way, is probably a better word). The purpose, aim, or goal of something is not to attempt to do X, but rather to do X. Whether that goal is attained is another story.


 * To illustrate, take for example the following, parallel sentence:
 * "An opportunity to host the 2012 Olympics in Paris, or at least what most refer to as an attempt toward such an opportunity, was the object[ive] of the city's bid."
 * Even though Paris clearly did not earn the opportunity to host the 2012 Olympics, this statement does not make sense. It should say "An opportunity to host the 2012 Olympics in Paris was the objective of the city's bid."


 * So, in the end, I would like to hear both of your opinions on the following:


 * "A (form or degree) of Franco-Mongol alliance existed between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade."
 * A (form or degree) of Franco-Mongol alliance was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
 * A Franco-Mongol alliance was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.


 * --  tariq abjotu  19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tariqabjotu. I would indeed agree to either:
 * A Franco-Mongol alliance existed to some degree between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
 * A Franco-Mongol alliance was the object of a series of diplomatic endeavours between the courts of... (=User:Srnec's standing compromise phrasing). Regards PHG 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would accept "A Franco-Mongol alliance was the objective of a series of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade, with attempts continuing from the mid-1200s through to the early 1300s, but never resulting in any mutually-signed agreements or successful military collaboration." --Elonka 19:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh... while your opinion is great to hear, we are looking for a sentence with which both you and PHG can agree. The reams of discussion regarding this matter give me the impression that PHG is not going to accept this formulation (although if (s)he does, that would be great). When I proposed the three ideas above, I used your three initial proposals as starting points in the hopes that we could find something suitable to PHG, but that had the basics of your sentences. Your counter-sentence above, however, is entirely different. I'm curious as to why the sentences to which PHG agreed are undesirable to you, given they are close to the sentences you proposed earlier. And, please, refrain from using POV or OR (or something similar) as part of your rationale; they have been used too often as substitutes for concrete objections. --  tariq abjotu  07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Option #1 was not acceptable to me because it says the alliance existed, and the vast majority of historians say that it didn't exist, so I'm not going to agree to a lead sentence that is trying to rewrite history. Option #2 is just the same sentence as is already on the article. It's not a new proposal.  He even changed your "objective" back to "object."  My proposal, however, is new. Also, I have to admit some concern here Tariq, that your main tactic here seems to be getting me to find something that PHG will agree with, rather than encouraging PHG to find something that I will agree with.  I also have to admit disappointment that you actively reverted the article back to a version of PHG's, and have protected it such that no one can now edit it.  What I'd like to see is a change of the article to my rewritten version, not just because it's "my" version, but because that's what other reviewing editors are liking, such as  Tefalstar, and Srnec.  Mediation is fine, but we should also respect talkpage consensus. --Elonka 08:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to your objection to the first sentence... your original second proposal begins with "A form of Franco-Mongol alliance existed...", so why is there a problem now? In response to your objection to the second sentence... the fact that this is the current sentence is not a valid concern.


 * One very important element needed to make this mediation work is your assumption that PHG is here to actually solve the issues at hand, instead of to create what you have called twice now a "stalling tactic". You're the one who filed this mediation, so I am perplexed as to why you think this mediation is serving PHG in some illegitimate manner. Either way, if you felt PHG was not going to handle this case to your liking, nothing was stopping you from not filing this case. But now that we're here, and that you are both still here, you all are both going to have to operate under the idea that everyone, including myself, is here for the right reasons.


 * I am rather concerned about the approach you have taken toward PHG. At times, you have been more explicit than at others, but it seems like you are always blaming him for the fact that this issue is not resolved yet. This comes out in the following sentence of your comment above:
 * "Also, I have to admit some concern here Tariq, that your main tactic here seems to be getting me to find something that PHG will agree with, rather than encouraging PHG to find something that I will agree with."
 * So, let me get this straight: you want me to stop getting you to find something the other party can agree with in favor of doing the same thing, but to the other party (getting PHG to find something you can agree with)? Elonka, I am not compelled by your claim of consensus to the point where I'm going to treat PHG as if the burden of proof is on him to show why he can suggest changes that abut your position. You have established that there are others who agree with your point, but I am not the arbiter of consensus. The views of others who have commented should not be ignored, but it is entirely reasonable for me to ask that you make an effort to work off what PHG has already agreed with and avoid proposing sentences that have little chance of being acceptable to PHG. Let me remind you once again that the three sentences I suggested above (two of which PHG agreed with) are based off your original three sentences. Your new sentence is not even close. I'm trying to go for an asymptotic approach here, but your divergent sentence does not help. In addition, you (and PHG) are making it increasingly difficult with your pedantic attention to semantics (why does it matter that he used "object" instead of "objective"?).


 * Hopefully I don't even have to explain the protection as this point, but I will proceed anyway.


 * Unfortunately, you have both taken steps that have only hindered my efforts to mediate effectively. The edit warring on Franco-Mongol alliance is just one example of that. This mediation lists the size of the article as one of the issues to be mediated, and yet you took it upon yourself to bypass discussing that issue here in favor of implementing your drastic changes. Please don't complain that my protection means no one can edit the article, as if I'm doing a great disservice to the article. The edit history makes it quite clear that it was basically you and PHG edit warring, with other editors cautiously staying at bay on the talk page. If you can't accept the tacit agreement that parties in a mediation should avoid making major changes in regards to issues to be mediated, I am left with no other option.


 * Please, both of you, take this opportunity to reassess your reasoning for taking on this mediation. If you are not willing to come here with an open mind, if you are not willing to accept minor, trivial changes in sentences for the sake of ending this dispute, if you are only going to be content with a sentence you first propose and the other party subsequently accepts, if you are going to constantly blame the other party for all the article's ills, mediation is not right for you. --  tariq abjotu  16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Tariq, I do not see that your three suggestions had anything to do with my suggestions. I said:


 * Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.


 * A form of Franco-Mongol alliance existed from 1258-1269 between the Frankish Principality of Antioch and the Mongol Empire.


 * A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards such an alliance, was the object of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.

Then you said:


 * A (form or degree) of Franco-Mongol alliance existed between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.


 * A (form or degree) of Franco-Mongol alliance was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.


 * A Franco-Mongol alliance was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.

Proposal #1 was completely different. I said "attempts" and you said "existed"

Proposal #2 was totally different, I can't even compare it.

Proposal #3, I had taken the article's existing sentence, and added the phrase "or at least what most historians" in the middle which made it palatable to me. Your version then removed my qualifying phrase and put it back into the version that's already on the article. Of course PHG was going to agree with that.

So then in response to your proposal, PHG comes back with his exact same position, that he wants to stick with the current sentence that's in the article, or he wants to say that the alliance existed. Full circle, no compromise, no movement. So I offered a completely different option as compromise, because I'm trying to keep things moving forward, instead of constantly trying to return to the same place. In other words, if you want to offer a compromise position, I'm listening, but I'm not going to accept a "compromise" which is the exact same sentence that I already disagree with! --Elonka 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't just do a side-by-side comparison of your three sentences and mine; look at the my explanation that explained why I suggested the three sentences. Your comparisons suggest, incorrectly, that my first sentence is a modification of your first, that my second sentence is a modification of your second, and that my third sentence is a modification of your third. That's not the case. If you (re-)read my comment earlier, you will see why the sets of sentences are not "completely different" and "totally different". You will also see why the addition of your phrase "or at least what most historians..." does not make sense.


 * That the third sentence is the current sentence is not a valid objection. Please provide actionable objections. --  tariq abjotu  17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, to be specific, I do not like them, because they give the misleading impression that there was an alliance, whereas the mainstream view of historians is that there was not an alliance. Therefore I feel that the proposed versions are a violation of WP:UNDUE, as they give undue weight to the concept that there was an alliance. If you can provide another version of a lead sentence which makes it clear that there were attempts at an alliance but that the attempts were not successful, I will take a look at it.  As a specific proposal, I would accept something that has your initial wording, but with a qualifier, such as:
 * A Franco-Mongol alliance was the objective of a series of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade, with attempts continuing from the mid-1200s through to the early 1300s, but never resulting in any mutually-signed agreements or successful military collaboration."
 * A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
 * --Elonka 17:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Very simply, Elonka's claim that mainstream historians do not talk about an alliance is untrue. A list of examples here User:PHG/Alliance. There's nothing fringe or marginal about these guys. The claim to Undue weight is thus irrelevant. Maybe that's what we should focus on in this discussion. I would accept a phrase that leaves that dispute aside:
 * A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. PHG 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I like that version. :) --Elonka 07:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of dispute
I am concerned by PHG's recent addition of alliance-related information to other articles. I have not been going through his contribs in detail, but at Ilkhanate he appears be making an end-run around mediation, by re-adding the old version of the introduction sentence, rather than the new wording that we agreed upon. And at Pope Clement V, he has been adding very strong language about the existence of an alliance between Europe and the Mongols. Regarding the two sources that he added, one (Jean-Paul Roux) is very much a minority opinion, and as for the other one, a quote from Peter Jackson's The Mongols and the West, the quote is taken very much out of context, and completely disregards all of the surrounding text. I haven't been going through PHG's contribs in detail, but he also appears to have been adding alliance-related information to Ilkhanate, including the "old" version of the opening sentence rather than the new one that we agreed upon.

In order for this mediation to have any chance of succeeding, I would much prefer if PHG could focus his alliance-related edits to this mediation, rather than further expanding the dispute to more and more articles. Elonka 17:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Elonka. Nice to see you back after a 10 days absence... Just because we have a mediation going on (to which you have not even responded for two weeks) does not mean that I shouldn't contribute to Wikipedia (with properly referenced material!). I have put in a lot of new photographs and factual quotes, which will hopefully contribute further to our discussion... PHG (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Still trying to attack secondary authorities which you do not favour? I created an article for Jean-Paul Roux. PHG (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PHG, I was not avoiding mediation -- I just didn't have internet access. If you'll check my contribs, you'll see I wasn't editing anything else on Wikipedia either, from November 14 to November 24: . My absence was not something within my control. And considering how quick you were to level accusations at me for "avoiding mediation", I am extremely disappointed that you took advantage of my absence to add biased information to several other articles. Please answer me this:  Are you even interested in continuing with mediation? --Elonka 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am certainly not blaming you for being away Elonka. But don't tell me "why haven't you put more time in mediation?" when you yourself haven't contributed anything for 14 days. I am glad to continue this mediation as long as someone is responding to me :) PHG (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)