Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol alliances in the Middle-East
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 11:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mongol alliances in the Middle-East
This page is yet another POV fork by PHG and represents a further attempt to avoid consensus discussion at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Multiple editors have asked him to stop this behavior, and yet he keeps creating more POV forks. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265) (which last also covers Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282) and Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304). Kafka Liz (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Though the article appears well-sourced, it is just more copy/paste information attempting to push a bias that the Mongols had a series of alliances. The article includes a long list of sources pasted from Franco-Mongol alliance, some of which have little or no information related to the new topic. It is disappointing that after several articles were AfDed yesterday, that PHG (talk · contribs) went and created another fork today, as this is very disruptive. We are requesting that all such POV forks be deleted, so that we can centralize discussions at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance and figure out what to do. --Elonka 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Could we just do a mass-delete of all these Franco-Mongol alliance forks? This topic is at most a footnote in history, and quite possibly a misreading of the sources, or even a hoax. Why are there so many Wikipedia articles when there are virtually zero verifiable references? Jehochman Talk 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Only created 2 hours ago? This is ridiculous, I would have hoped PHG would have seen that there was a strong consensus that these forks were not acceptable. There is no need to have exactly the same information information under multiple titles. This is an especially a bad idea where the accuracy and neutrality of that information has been challenged. WjBscribe 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This hardly needs explanation now. This one is I am unhesitant to call a POV fork. Until controvery is settled, information need not be duplicated under various titles. Srnec (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is getting absurd. john k (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Before this angry bunch obviously pissed off by the user inquestion gets theirs, I would ask them to clearly explain fork of exactly what this page is. To me it seems a valid overview page and not near the mentioned Franco-Mongol alliance beyond summary section, which may be edited (er.... I guess...). `'Míkka>t 22:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. "push a bias that the Mongols had a series of alliances." WTH? Are you saying that a series of wikipedia articles are all false? Also "This is getting absurd" is hardly a valid reason for deletion. `'Míkka>t 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- No. The problem stems from a wide range of Mongol-alliance articles that one user has created. The reason for deletion is that the articles misrepresent sources and push original research. The user has been evading the consensus by creating multiple new articles whenever one gets deleted, or when his original research is removed. This looks like a big problem. Jehochman Talk 23:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mikka, sorry about the lack of information, it's mainly because this problem has grown so large, that it's taking too much time to re-explain the case at each new AfD. It seems like each time we deal with one article, PHG creates a couple more. :/ And we're not disputing all articles related to the Mongol Empire, we're simply disputing the "Mongol alliance" issue. For more info though, you may wish to review the thread at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Articles for deletion to see some of the other discussions that we are dealing with. You are welcome to join into discussions there, to help determine consensus. You may also find this useful to come up to speed on the POV dispute: User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. Best, --Elonka 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - lets see if there is a need for an article split AFTER the issue is resolved on the orignal page Franco-Mongol alliance. Let's try pruning the original article of unneeded information/quotes/etc to get it to a more manageable size first. Plus, keeping the dispute to one page makes it easier for others to follow the discussion, and have input. When the article is split into too many POV forks, some can slip through the cracks. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. AFD is not for content disputes; please use dispute resolution to discuss mergers and splitting of articles.Biophys (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I notice you left this vote and comment at the other AfD's as well. Please note that for the others the content is duplicated and so the AfD is not about content per se. This AfD is really about stopping the repetition of material whose accuracy and truthfulness is disputed. If I create an article with disptued content, I should not be allowed—before the disptue is finished—to repeat the disputed portion on many articles old or new. The content would be deleted in old articles. In this case we the community merely ask that it be deleted from a new article. If the whole purpose behind the article under consideration were not the spreading of a certain POV then I would merely vote to "Keep and delete duplicated disputed content", but it is the very idea of this article that spreads the disptued POV. The article, in a useful way, could be re-created later if the dispute settlement eventually reached allows for it. Srnec (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep I know this is a rather arcane subject, but please just look at the sources. This article allows to explain the broad geopolitical structure of the Mongol alliances in the Middle East, and connects the various articles already put in place. It is not a repetition of content, as it rather puts into context the other materials and give many new sources related to the broad context of these alliances. It is perfectly legitimate and sourced. These diplomatic contacts and alliances are highly referenced in academic sources. By the way, I think I am through with creating new articles on this subject (broad picture/ each alliance/ template for navigation), so nobody has to worry about ever-spreading contibutions... and it should save unsubstanciated "POV-fork" accusations :). Regards PHG (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, merge back into main article until disputes are resolved. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Close as No consensus and Rewrite the entire series of articles This is not the way to handle editing disputes. There is apparently the simultaneous strategy of various people involved of trying to modify the articles, of trying to write additional ones, and simultaneous put them up for deletion. This is a confusing way to proceed. I would support anyone who wants to close this entire series of AfDs with a no-consensus, and a request to the parties to find a mediator. The question of whether the relationship was one of vassalage or alliance or occasional cooperation is not going to be settled by debating it at AfD--especially since the various parties at the time undoubtedly saw it very differently. Nor is the question of how to divide this extremely large subject with broad implications and a n enormous literature likely to find a consistent resolution from multiple AfDs. Closing them all with no consensus at this point is usually considered premature, but I think it would be justified as the only way likely to find a solution. If there could be a moratorium on the need to defend video, RPG, and other popular culture articles, and if we could agree on any sort of compromise solution at WP:FICTION and WP:EPISODE, I'd have time to give it a try as an informal mediator. I'd much rather work on history than on television series. DGG (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete POV fork on decidedly dodgy historical grounds •CHILLDOUBT• 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete merge back into main article, it does appear to be a pov fork.Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I did not receive reasonable explanations how a general article of "Mongol alliances in the Middle-East" can be a POV fork of an individual item of "Franco-Mongol alliances". If there is a disputed piece, I don't see the problem to make it exist in one article by making wikilinks in other articles. There is a basic rule that a summary section in a general article (the discussed one) cannot have any text not included in the "Franco-Mongol" page defined as {{main}} for this section. This rule closes a possible loophole for a perceived fork. `'Míkka>t 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The problem with the article is that it's largely speculation. Material is being placed here from deleted articles or that was removed from other articles by consensus. Unfortunately, the impressive list of references is window dressing. The references frequently do not say what the article says. Jehochman Talk 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mikka, though at some point it might be worth having an article on Mongol relations in the Middle-East, this article isn't it. The primary purpose of this article, as written, is as a WP:COATRACK to push the concept that the Mongols had multiple alliances, including with entities that, in actuality, they didn't have alliances with. For example, their relationship with the Franks was never an alliance, their relationship with Antioch wasn't an alliance, and their relationship with Armenia wasn't an alliance. Especially with Antioch and Armenia, the relationship was that of overlord-subject, meaning the target countries had surrendered, not allied. But this article is trying to push the POV that they were equal-party alliances, even though they weren't. The article is also being used to push an original research concept of a "North-South axis" and an "East-West axis", which to my knowledge are not discussed in any other work of history -- this "axis" angle is something that PHG came up with on his own, and is a clear violation of WP:NOR, the "novel interpretation" clause. PHG has been seeking to rewrite history in multiple articles on Wikipedia (at last count, he's been pushing false information into about 50 different articles, see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review), and when he couldn't get the information pushed into existing articles, he was going around and creating entirely new articles to push his POV. Two have been deleted so far, and a half-dozen more are under AfD with a clear consensus to delete (though they haven't been closed yet). We've been discussing this at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, and the consensus was, and is, that we need to get rid of all these POV forks, and concentrate discussion in one place to figure out how to proceed with cleanup. So again, this "Mongol alliances in the Middle East" article is biased, it's a duplication of biased information elsewhere, it is not needed at this time, it just adds to existing confusion, and it should be deleted. --Elonka 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka, I quite understand the possibility you are talking about. However I don't see nomination for deletion of articles Byzantine-Mongol alliance, Armeno-Mongol alliance, etc. As long as these article exist, the discussed one is a valid summary, regardless the quality/quantity of references (which, quite frankly I am not even taking into the consideration now). If you are saying that the terminology "North-South axis" is OR, remove it from the texts in question (the term "axis" means operating multi-sided treaties, not just a bunch of geographically sorted treaties; that I may see). `'Míkka>t 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Check the references please. Reliable sources don't say what the article says. Jehochman Talk 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mikka, thanks for keeping an open mind. :) And you're right, the Byzantine-Mongol alliance is probably salvageable. Armeno-Mongol alliance is probably going to get deleted/merged eventually, but since it's in more of a grey area, it's being left alone for now, as we decided to go with the low-hanging fruit of articles that needed immediate deletion. Remember, we're fighting a multi-front war here, with biased information in about 50 articles, so we're having to prioritize cleanup efforts. My guess (and this is just a guess) is that the way things will go after we get a handle on things, is that the Franco-Mongol alliance article will be renamed as "Crusader-Mongol relations" and will then incorporate any necessary information about Middle East diplomacy, including Armenian relations, and a link to the Byzantine article. But that still leaves us with this "Mongol alliances in the Middle-East" article, which is still inappropriate, and should go away. It's biased, it's OR, and it's disruptive to even have it around. If consensus exists in the future to re-create it (which I highly doubt), it can be re-created easily enough, but right now it's just adding to confusion. Nobody wants it, except for PHG. And the really irritating thing is that after we'd expressed concerns, after we'd told him to stop with POV forks, after we'd submitted multiple AfDs on the other articles, what did he do? He went and made this "Mongol alliances in the Middle East" article, within hours. That's why there are so many angry voices at the top of this AfD, and why people came tumbling in rapidly, is because the creation of this article was clearly disruptive. It wasn't created as thoughtful scholarship, it was mainly just a copy/paste of POV information. Just take a look at the long list of sources on the article -- most of them have nothing to do with it, they're just copy/pasted from the Franco-Mongol alliance article.[1] So as soon as PHG created it, we got it tagged as disputed within a half-hour, and sent it to AfD within an hour or two after that. If PHG makes any other POV forks, we're going to tag and nom those too, because he has to start working with consensus, instead of against it. --Elonka 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- DGG wrote: "I think I am through with creating new articles on this subject" so I think y'all may calm down a bit and figure out whether we are talking about POV of a wikipedian or POV of some historians. Unfortunately I have no resources to look into the matter seriously, but on the first glance the article is substantiated thoroughly not only by references, but by quotations (some of them do use the word "axis" in kinda informal sense). I am aware that there still may be WP:SYNTH issues, but I would suggest to consider salvaging this article. It is a widespread image of Mongols as ruthless conquerers, but they were also cunning politicians as well, so I see nothing unusual that they made various alliances/treaties (btw, may be the latter word may be better to describe their political relations), especially when their drive westwards halted. `'Míkka>t 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mikka, thanks for keeping an open mind. :) And you're right, the Byzantine-Mongol alliance is probably salvageable. Armeno-Mongol alliance is probably going to get deleted/merged eventually, but since it's in more of a grey area, it's being left alone for now, as we decided to go with the low-hanging fruit of articles that needed immediate deletion. Remember, we're fighting a multi-front war here, with biased information in about 50 articles, so we're having to prioritize cleanup efforts. My guess (and this is just a guess) is that the way things will go after we get a handle on things, is that the Franco-Mongol alliance article will be renamed as "Crusader-Mongol relations" and will then incorporate any necessary information about Middle East diplomacy, including Armenian relations, and a link to the Byzantine article. But that still leaves us with this "Mongol alliances in the Middle-East" article, which is still inappropriate, and should go away. It's biased, it's OR, and it's disruptive to even have it around. If consensus exists in the future to re-create it (which I highly doubt), it can be re-created easily enough, but right now it's just adding to confusion. Nobody wants it, except for PHG. And the really irritating thing is that after we'd expressed concerns, after we'd told him to stop with POV forks, after we'd submitted multiple AfDs on the other articles, what did he do? He went and made this "Mongol alliances in the Middle East" article, within hours. That's why there are so many angry voices at the top of this AfD, and why people came tumbling in rapidly, is because the creation of this article was clearly disruptive. It wasn't created as thoughtful scholarship, it was mainly just a copy/paste of POV information. Just take a look at the long list of sources on the article -- most of them have nothing to do with it, they're just copy/pasted from the Franco-Mongol alliance article.[1] So as soon as PHG created it, we got it tagged as disputed within a half-hour, and sent it to AfD within an hour or two after that. If PHG makes any other POV forks, we're going to tag and nom those too, because he has to start working with consensus, instead of against it. --Elonka 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Check the references please. Reliable sources don't say what the article says. Jehochman Talk 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka, I quite understand the possibility you are talking about. However I don't see nomination for deletion of articles Byzantine-Mongol alliance, Armeno-Mongol alliance, etc. As long as these article exist, the discussed one is a valid summary, regardless the quality/quantity of references (which, quite frankly I am not even taking into the consideration now). If you are saying that the terminology "North-South axis" is OR, remove it from the texts in question (the term "axis" means operating multi-sided treaties, not just a bunch of geographically sorted treaties; that I may see). `'Míkka>t 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mikka, though at some point it might be worth having an article on Mongol relations in the Middle-East, this article isn't it. The primary purpose of this article, as written, is as a WP:COATRACK to push the concept that the Mongols had multiple alliances, including with entities that, in actuality, they didn't have alliances with. For example, their relationship with the Franks was never an alliance, their relationship with Antioch wasn't an alliance, and their relationship with Armenia wasn't an alliance. Especially with Antioch and Armenia, the relationship was that of overlord-subject, meaning the target countries had surrendered, not allied. But this article is trying to push the POV that they were equal-party alliances, even though they weren't. The article is also being used to push an original research concept of a "North-South axis" and an "East-West axis", which to my knowledge are not discussed in any other work of history -- this "axis" angle is something that PHG came up with on his own, and is a clear violation of WP:NOR, the "novel interpretation" clause. PHG has been seeking to rewrite history in multiple articles on Wikipedia (at last count, he's been pushing false information into about 50 different articles, see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review), and when he couldn't get the information pushed into existing articles, he was going around and creating entirely new articles to push his POV. Two have been deleted so far, and a half-dozen more are under AfD with a clear consensus to delete (though they haven't been closed yet). We've been discussing this at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, and the consensus was, and is, that we need to get rid of all these POV forks, and concentrate discussion in one place to figure out how to proceed with cleanup. So again, this "Mongol alliances in the Middle East" article is biased, it's a duplication of biased information elsewhere, it is not needed at this time, it just adds to existing confusion, and it should be deleted. --Elonka 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with the article is that it's largely speculation. Material is being placed here from deleted articles or that was removed from other articles by consensus. Unfortunately, the impressive list of references is window dressing. The references frequently do not say what the article says. Jehochman Talk 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article is well sourced and well deserving of further expansion. Given the abundance of scholalry material regarding the subject I also don't think it's an arcane subject just not one that has been given proper attention in Wikipedia until recently. Many articles have cross refrenced material, I fail to see how that's a cause for deletion.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: FYI, the above user is under ArbCom sanctions for disruptive behavior in this topic area. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. --Elonka 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- a)This "notice" is plain and simply harassment. I don't see how Elonka's ad hominem attack has any baring on my vote. b)That is a lie and irrelevant as i'm merely under revert limitation along with a dozen or so other users on certain topics which this one barely touches and arguably is not within its scope. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: FYI, the above user is under ArbCom sanctions for disruptive behavior in this topic area. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. --Elonka 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
