Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Request for comment

Requesting comment on the following questions:

  1. Was there a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols?
  2. How should the Wikipedia article be titled? "Franco-Mongol alliance"? Or "Crusader-Mongol relations" or something else?
  3. Did the Mongols conquer Jerusalem in 1300?
  4. How many and what types of primary source quotes are appropriate to use for this subject?
  5. Were the Knights Templar major proponents of an alliance with the Mongols?
  6. Was Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, present at a combined Christian-Mongol capture of Jerusalem in 1299/1300?
09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


  • 1. No.
  • 2. Something like "Papal missions to the Mongol Khan" could cover it - only Piano Carpini, Benedict of Poland, Lawrence of Portugal and Ascelin were involved in the initial diplomatic missions and the focus of the diplomacy was Mongol incursions into Europe.
  • 3. No. It's a myth.
  • 4. Numerous peer-reviewed secondary sources would be needed for a series of major historical events.
  • 5. No.
  • 6. No. It didn't happen. After Saladin's reconquest in 1187 the next "Christian" invader of Jerusalem was Allenby in December 1917. --Ian Pitchford 19:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


  • 1. 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.
  • 2. "Franco-Mongol alliance", a recognized expression for the event in question.
  • 3. Jerusalem was quite possibly taken by the Mongols in early 1300, in light of the overwhelming agreement of ancient sources (whether European, Arab or Armenian), confirmed by multiple modern secondary sources.
  • 4. Primary sources: as necessary, but presented and referenced by modern secondary sources. By the way, 13th century historians cannot really be considered primary sources, they are just ancient secondary sources.
  • 5. Actually yes, the Knights Templar were major proponents of an alliance with the Mongols, between 1298-1303. Just look at Molay's own writings, quoted by a leading historian such as Demurger.
  • 6. Molay was probably not at Jerusalem, although he is known to have been present in the Holy Land shortly before and after the event (in Cilician Armenia in 1299, possibly Alexandria, Acre, Tortosa in July 1300, and surely Ruad in November 1300).
PHG (Original creator of the article Franco-Mongol alliance) 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


  • 1. Probably not major, some case for ad-hoc alliances has been made
  • 2. Follow history literature, seems to call it Franco-Mongol alliance, hence that seems fair.
  • 3. No evidence; there is only the myth.
  • 4. As few primary sources as possible; as interpretation is very tricky and should be left to expert scientists (hence use modern secondary lit). Primary sources preferably only to be used for uncontested facts and illustration.
  • 5. I have seen no evidence for this, although the ad-hoc alliance may relate to this.
  • 6. Very unlikely (the more so as it is not even clear the capture even happened).Arnoutf 19:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


  • 1. No. There were many attempts at an alliance, but it never came together.
  • 2. Crusader-Mongol relations
  • 3. No. There were plenty of rumors at the time about such an attack, but they turned out to be false.
  • 4. Very few, and only if they're used as major quotes (not just footnotes) in peer-reviewed secondary sources. Any other quotes, move to Wikiquote or Wikisource.
  • 5. No (and I'm saying this as the main editor who got the Knights Templar article to Featured status). The Templars were definitely involved with some of the discussions, as were many other parties, but the Templars were not a primary force in the matter.
  • 6. No. There was no attack, and De Molay was nowhwere near the area at the time. --Elonka 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am only going to answer question 3, based on my personal background. There was NO conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300. Period. I am speaking as a former Jerusalemite (20 years) who worked as a tour guide and wrote extensively about the city. It is nowhere mentioned in Zeev Vilnai's magnum opus, probably the most comprehensive history of Jerusalem, entitled Yerushalayim (four volumes). I would add that with starting with the arrival of Nachmanides in the city in 1267, we have extensive correspondence about the state of the city throughout the Mamluk period. The last major Mongol threat to Jerusalem was repulsed in Syria in 1281. I can source all of this too. That said, there was a Mongol invasion in 1299, supported by Armenian troops. There is an Armenia legend, unverified, that the king of Armenia ruled for 13 days in Jerusalem at that time as a vassal of the Mongols. I will translate the source and place it here. Danny 23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text from from the Carta's Atlas of Palestine from Bethther to Tel Hai (Military History), 1974, (very roughly translated by me). The author was Lt. Colonel Mordechai Gichon, PhD, Lecturer in Military History, Tel AViv University.

… But in 1299, the Mongols, supported by an Armenian army (Armenia was the last Christian state in the region apart from Syria), invaded along the ancient route, from the Euphrates through Aleppo, to Homs. After defeating Sultan Lajin there, they continued on to Damascus and conquered it. From there they moved south, into Palestine, and, under the command of Khan Ghazzan, they split into four and followed the major north-south land bridges through the country: the "King's Highway," the Jordan Valley, the "Central Waterline" (rough translation of a Hebrew geographic term describing the central mountain ridge that determines rainfall and the flow of water throughout the country), and Via Maris.
Along the way they were aided by the Druze, members of the sect, founded c. 1020, who had a firmly nationalist orientation. Considered heretics by orthodox Islam, they tended to forge alliances with foreign forces that invaded the country.
According to Armenian sources, the king of Armenia reigned in Jerusalem for 13 days on behalf of Ghazzan. In fact, the events of that period have not been studied fully. In 1303 the Mongols were defeated by Marj as-Sufar, near Damascus, by Sultan Nasser. Ghazzan invaded the Holy Land again in 1308, but was soon forced to retreat because of difficulties on his homefront.

Hope this helps. Danny 00:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Danny, that's really interesting. My sources agree with Ghazan's troop movements very closely: in concert with Armenians, crossing the Euphrates, taking Aleppo, then having a victory at Homs, and going on to Damascus. All that matches. After that my sources get a big vague, merely saying that there were "raids as far south as Gaza and Jerusalem" but without much detail, so I'm very interested to hear about the details of the King's Highway, the Jordan Valley, the Central Waterline, and Via Maris. I wonder if we can find a modern equivalent term for the Waterline? Also, do you have the citations that Dr. Gichon was using? --Elonka 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Another relevant source worth checking is to reread the Vatican Council minutes of Pope Eugene IV in the period 1435-1440, when he takes the surrender of all the Orthodox Churches in a last-gasp attempt to save themselves from the Turks: the Venetians evidently knew of earlier agreements, which might touch on this, so it might be worth going digging in their archives.
Also check the relations between the Holy Roman Emperor Frederic II and the Mongols - I always thought it peculiar they just gave up just when they got to the HRE boundaries. Frederic's court was said to be more than 50% practicing muslim.Jel 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

People can consult the archive for material needed to make a decision. I reverted the edit not archiving the talk page, because it got long and unwieldy. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the page is growing so fast, I've archived more of the September threads (even though they're just a few days old). Archives available here: Archive 2. --Elonka 03:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Council of Lyon

I have a challenge to this new section:

"At the 1263 Council of Lyon, the terms of the alliance with the Mongols were laid down by the monk Richaldus. Specifically, following his welcoming of the Christian ambassadors to his court, Hulagu had agreed to exempt Latin Christians from taxes and charges, in exchange for their prayers for the Qaghan, prohibited that Frank establishments should be molested, and committed to return Jerusalem to the Franks.(Jean Richard, 435)."

To my knowledge, there were two Council of Lyons, the first was in 1245, and the second in 1274. There was a large contingent of Mongols that went to the second one (arriving unannounced). It was a big deal, since one of them underwent a baptism. To my knowledge there was never a Council of Lyon in 1263. Can we please doublecheck this? Thanks, Elonka 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jean Richard just says Council of Lyon, so he probably means the 1274 one, where the facts were recorded by Richaldus. PHG 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Then the information should be moved out of its current section, which is talking about events in the 1260s. We have another section further down the page which is currently titled "Council of Gregory X (1274)". Let's change that to "Second Council of Lyons" and put the Richard info there. --Elonka 10:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No at all, Richard is clear that Richaldus recorded information about the 1260 period (Hulagu). He only apparently recorded it after the fact (in 1274). The paragraph therefore should remain in the 1260 section.PHG 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
What Richard appears to be claiming, is that he's got proof of an offer of alliance by Hulagu. This offer was supposedly written in 1262, and delivered in 1264, but the offer itself is no longer in existence, so Richard says that he reconstructed it by analyzing the report that was made 10 years later by Rychardus at the 1274 Second Council of Lyons. I've been checking what other historians have to say on the subject, and some seem to be saying that they think the report by Rychardus was a bit embellished in "diplomatic" language (imagine if a diplomat today were trying to summarize events that had happened in the mid-1990s, from memory), so may not have been accurate. And another historian says that though a letter was written, there's no proof that it ever arrived or was read by King Louis. Apparently there was also a problem around then (especially with these long delays in communications) of people presenting themselves at court and saying that they were official representatives, when they actually weren't. Now, we do come back to "published secondary source," and Richard's book definitely meets that standard. So if Richard says that he's convinced of the reliability, yes, we can include that information in the article, but I recommend that we be extremely cautious in how we word things, since not all historians are agreeing about this. --Elonka 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Article split

Here are some possible suggestions for how we may be able to split up this article, per WP:SUMMARY.

There are definitely a couple sections of this "alliance" article that are getting into very detailed troop movements, especially around 1300. This would probably be better suited for a "Battle" article, but to my knowledge there's no formal name for the coastal raids and the aborted attempt to take Tortosa via Ruad Island, especially because it wasn't part of a formal "Crusade". Maybe it would fit into one of the above topics? Or anyone else have suggestions? Some of it could be moved to History of the Knights Templar, but it's not entirely Templar-related, so that doesn't really fit either. --Elonka 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For "Kingdom of Jerusalem on Cyprus", we already have Kingdom of Cyprus, which could use some expanding. Adam Bishop 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. I would support moving much of the coastal raid and Ruad Island info to that article. Then we could provide brief paragraphs here, and at Arwad, which pointed to it. --Elonka 18:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You could copy stuff if you wish, but thank you to leave the material that has been put here as part of the Franco-Mongol alliance. PHG 19:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The point of splitting isn't to copy info out, it's to reduce the length of the article. It's currently at 150K, which is way past recommendations at Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article. I'm pretty flexible on where we split it, but there's definitely too much information here for one single article. Overall, this is a good thing -- it means we've got a lot of good info here. --Elonka 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is currently 90K without the (copious) references, which is still rather reasonable, and customarily accepted for subjects deserving in-depth treatment. A lot of articles (including FAs) have more than that. Maybe we could use some slimming somewhere (how about those near original-research portions at the end? and your huge quotes as in #229, which by the way represent copyright infringement). But there is no need to dismember the article. PHG 05:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't much followed the current discussions, but I must say that I believe that 90KB is really too much. I hope you won't take this bad PHG, because I greatly admire your editorial work and the devotion you put in it, but I feel that often your articles tend to be a bit too long, and that you don't fully understand the value of concision. A friend of mine once told me as a form of advice that "anything beyond 40kb just ignores the fact that the hypothetical reader doesn't have an hour to devote to your article." 40kb or a bit more, I tend to agree with the principle: the article must be the more possible reader-friendly, and so not to long to read. In this view we shouldn't be afraid to split the article, so that in those articles one could go even deeper on the topics. Now I can say that I agree with all the proposals advanced by Elonka: but for example, a lot could be placed in Mongol invasion of Syria (1299), which could include in detail a lot of what discussed up to now, obviously reducing previous invasions to a "backgroung", and following ones to an "aftermath" section (a seperated Mongol Invasions of Syria could cover the other invasions in detail, consenting to reducing partly this articles). Another article could be, as proposed Lesser Armenian-Mongol relations. In general, I'd advice instead of creating new articles, like that on the ninth crusade, even if we may make an article devoted to Templar Ruad, ie between the fall of Tortosa and its conquest by the Mamluks.--Aldux 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Aldux. We could trim things around. But the theme being "The Franco-Mongol alliance" specifically, I think all the relevant facts have to be incorporated (we're an encyclopedia after all). This article has been met with a lot a disbelief from various editors ("Christians among the Mongols??", "What, an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols??"), and a lot has been added in the last week (the article doubled in length, and the notes are huge) just to get over that. Now I would like to make sure all the relevant facts are available, just to avoid other disputes. Best regards. PHG 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction sentence 2

Inspite of all the new references showing that many historians do consider the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact (last of them, and quite decisively by the leading French expert Jean Richard above), Elonka is still insisting on the starting sentence "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance...". I think this reflects an unbalanced point-of-view that only considers attempts and does not consider the alliance as fact: this is quite unfair to a large part of the historical sources. I am therefore reinstating a request to have both scholarly point-of-views represented in the introductory sentence, especially in light of the new sources we have:

"A Franco-Mongol alliance,[1][2][3][4] or attempts towards such an alliance,[5][6] occurred between....

Although Wikipedia does provide for NPOV and balance in general, everyone's view is important here so that some do not keep reverting to assert their own point of view only. Thank you PHG 05:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support per nomination PHG 07:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • PHG, we've already discussed this, in the above section on #Introduction sentence. All editors except you liked a different wording. Now please, stop edit-warring about this. --Elonka 08:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)~
      • Elonka, a lot more material has been provided since then, showing that major modern historians to consider the alliance as fact. So I think it is legitimate to re-ask the question (although I think it is only a matter of balancing sources and respecting NPOV). PHG 09:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Then please bring it up in the original thread, rather than starting a new thread with the exact same title. This talkpage is already long enough, we don't need even more confusion.  :) --Elonka 10:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The original thread was not a request for vote, but just a discussion. Now please let other editors give their opinion in light of the new sources. PHG 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... What about "Starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade, many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance, but it is disputed among scholars if the said attempts were or not successful, and if successful, to which extent."?--Aldux 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Identifying the principals

I'm here from WP:FTN too to discuss the Armenian questions. I have a good source: Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times Volume One (Macmillan, 1997). First, the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (Little Armenia) was not a Frankish kingdom. The royal family at this time (the Hetumids) were Armenian. The relationship between the kingdom and the Western crusaders was always ambivalent and the goals of Cilicia and the Frankish states often varied. The Armenian nobility adopted many Western customs, including feudalism, chivalry and Western dress and many French words entered the Armenian language (the word for "Mr." in Armenian today is still baron, or paron). But there were many differences, most importantly concerning the matter of religion, since the majority of Armenians were neither Catholic nor Greek Orthodox, but followed their own rite. The aim of the Cilician alliance with the Mongols was to defend the kingdom against the Seljuks and the Mamluks. In 1247, Hetum I sent his brother Smbat to the Mongol court at Kara Korum. A few years later he travelled himself and sealed an alliance with the Great Khan Möngke. The alliance initially benefitted both the Armenians and the Mongols when they fought together (along with the Antiochenes) to defeat the Mamluks at Aleppo and Damascus. But the Crusader states became wary of growing Mongol power in the region and in 1260 they allowed the Mamluk army through their land to attack and defeat the Mongols at Ayn Jalut. The Mongols were now pushed back to Iran which made them too distant to help Cilicia against the Seljuks and Mamluks. Baybars punished Hetum's attempt to renew the alliance by devastating the kingdom for 20 days. The destruction was so bad that Hetum abdicated and retired to a monastery (1269). Any hope for a possible new alliance was ended when the Mongols converted to Islam. Hetum (now a Franciscan friar) and his nephew King Levon III travelled to the court of the Mongol emir of Anazarba, where they were treacherously put to death (1307). --Folantin 09:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Folantin, that's helpful. Also, do your sources say anything about Antioch? I've seen it variously described as allying with the Mongols, being a vassal state of the Mongols, or being a vassal of Armenia? And what's your opinion on whether Antioch was a Frankish kingdom? Thanks, 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The only thing it really says is that Cilicia fought alongside the Mongols and the Antiochenes to defeat the Mamluks at Aleppo and Damascus. Nothing about whether Antioch was similarly formally allied with the Mongols. the only other source I have to hand is Runciman, but you've probably already consulted him. --Folantin 09:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to do a better job of identifying the principals. All were empires that varied in territory over time and consisted of diverse peoples with varying degres of attachment. WAS 4.250 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, why are you deleting referenced material, such as this:

"There are five Frank states(...): the Kingdom of Jerusalem, (...) the County of Edessa, the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, but also the Kingdom of Little Armenia"

– Les Croisades, Origines et consequences, p.77-78

I believe it deserves representation as much as your own sources. PHG 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above. In what way was Cilicia a Frankish kingdom? I'm taking my information from a book by specialists in Armenian history which has an entire chapter devoted to the Kingdom of Cilicia. You've given a single sentence with no explanation as to why Cilicia should be considered "Frankish". --Folantin 10:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
PHG, the sentence needs to expanded in order to convey anything useful to the reader. In what sense are they being called "Frank states"? They had a treaty? Their ruler has Frank blood? The population were Frank in blood, language, culture, religion? The reader needs detail here in order to not be mislead. Is Pakistan an American state because it has a treaty with the US and has joint military exersizes with the US? Is Brazil a European state due to its culture, language, and population genetic heritage especially in its leadership and upper class? WAS 4.250 12:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Cilicia wasn't a Frankish state, it was an Armenian one. In fact, when the kings tried to make it more "Frankish" in the early decades of the 14th century (e.g. by trying to make the kingdom Roman Catholic), they faced revolt. "There rose to the surface an intense anti-Roman sentiment which soon became a general anti-Western reaction. King Oshin was poisoned in 1320. When his son and successor Levon IV (1320-1341) had both his own wife and stepfather killed and married the widowed queen of Cyprus, the Cilician nobility saw it as evidence of Levon's pro-European policy and rose up and murdered him in 1341". (op. cit. page 288). --Folantin 12:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite OK not to say that Little Armenia was a Frankish state (inspite of the scholarly quote to the contrary: "There are five Frank states(...): the Kingdom of Jerusalem, (...) the County of Edessa, the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, but also the Kingdom of Little Armenia" in Les Croisades, Origines et consequences, p.77-78), as it was probably quite a borderline case anyway. On the other hand, I insist that Antioch and Tripoli were Frank states, contrary to previous posts by Elonka. I don't think there should be any issues with these two. Best regards. PHG 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That sentence is hardly convincing given the weight of opposing evidence. I imagine your source lumped Cilicia in with the Frankish states simply as a matter of convenience. Whatever the case, the Kingdom of Cilicia shouldn't be described as Frankish. This article is enormously long (150k), so I'd suggest the Armenian material should be moved to Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (assuming it's not there already) or maybe to its own article. --Folantin 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Folantin. The book I have (Les Croisades, Origines et consequences) states that the Kingdom of Armenia was a (theorical at least) vassal of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as the other kingdoms quoted in the sentence above. Would you know if that's a fact? Thanks PHG 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't find anything saying that for the period under discussion (unless it was very theoretical indeed). It's obvious from the information in the first comment I posted here that the Armenian kingdom was independent and it and the Crusader states often had widely differing aims ("But the Crusader states became wary of growing Mongol power in the region and in 1260 they allowed the Mamluk army through their land to attack and defeat the Mongols at Ayn Jalut"). That Mongol defeat was a disaster for Cilicia. The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia ceased to exist in 1375 although the title of "King of Armenia" survived. In 1393 it "passed to Levon V's relative John I, King of Cyprus, who had also inherited the equally meaningless title 'King of Jerusalem'" (op. cit. p.290). So the two kingdoms were united in the end in a way. --Folantin 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual dispute tag

Why is there a need for a factual dispute tag? WAS 4.250 09:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, looks like there was a thread, but it got archived. To reiterate/expand:
  • There are multiple disputes on the nature of whether an "alliance" existed, resulting in back and forth edit-warring on various sections of the article.
  • There's a new section in the article about actions at the "1263 Council of Lyon", but there was no 1263 Council of Lyon
  • There are disputes about the status of Jerusalem in 1299/1300 (PHG says the Mongols captured and "ruled" it, I say no)
  • There are disputes about how much the Templars played a central role in Mongol communications (PHG says central, I say no)
  • There is a dispute about the lead sentence of the article (see #Introduction sentence above)
  • There is a dispute about the meaning of the word "Frank", and how much that an "Armenian-Mongol alliance" or an "Antiochan-Mongol alliance" can be used to justify the term "Franco-Mongol alliance" (see above threads for more)
I think those are the main ones, and the rest of the disputes are just copyediting issues. --Elonka 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
(followup) Oh, one more, which is about the use of primary source quotes. PHG has been adding several direct quotes from medieval historians, claiming that they are secondary sources. I dispute that those quotes should be used as reliable sources. See also the #Request for comment section above. --Elonka 09:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
These are mainly mis-representations. Personal disputes are irrelevant: the issue is only to properly give representation to what major scholarly sources actually say:
  • Scholarly sources either say there was an alliance, or attempts towards in alliance. It is not even a point of contention, just a matter of representing both views.
  • "1263 Council of Lyon": clarification pending. It is minor factoid I al currently checking. I think the Pope died just before the Council took place.
  • I am not personnally claiming that the Mongols ruled Jerusalem in 1299/1300, just that some scholarly sources say or suggest so (Demurger etc... quoted in the article).
  • I have no dispute about the extent of Templar involvement: I have just been presenting very reputable sources (Demurger) that say they were central.
  • By definition "an attempt" is an effort, a trial. And actually these efforts led to an actual alliance, according to numerous scholars. This shouldn't be a matter of personal dispute, but just a matter of making a balance representation of sources, with a NPOV.
  • Not just the Armenians. Elonka is conveniently forgetting the Frank realms of the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli, who were also long-time allies of the Mongols under Bohemond VI. These are the primary actors of the Franco-Mongol alliance (besides Cypriots and West European powers).
  • Primary sources are given only if quoted by reputable secondary sources. PHG 09:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mischaracterizations

Our friend Elonka repeatedly tries to marginalize and mischaracterize some scholars by highlighting their opinion as a unique one ("The French historian Jean Richard considers that ..."), but describing the alternative opinion she favours as "However most historians think ...." (still giving only one reference, such Jackson, in Mongols and the West). See for example the Papal alliance (1263) paragraph (before I corrected).
A statement such as "most historians think..." is highly subjective, and shouldn't be employed unless there is very strong reference to it.
Jean Richard is actually not marginal at all (he is the leading French historian of the Crusades), and as far as I known it is untrue that "most historians" have contrary opinions.
If we feel the need to highlight specific authors (which is usually not necessary, and should only be included in the notes), we should also highlight the contrary opinion as the opinion of specific historian (the one referenced).
This also is about NPOV editing. PHG 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as "Most historians think", we have a complete section in the article on this, at Franco-Mongol alliance#Modern interpretations, we can easily do a "see below section". As for Richard, I'm fine on saying that Richard thinks that there was an alliance, but to avoid putting undue weight on his opinion, we should be clear that his statements are different from those of most other historians, who describe it as attempts at an alliance. For example, David Morgan in his well-respected book The Mongols says clearly, "From 1263 until well into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance." (p. 183) "No really effective joint action had ever been organized: in thirteenth-century conditions the problems of co-ordination appear to have been insuperable." (p. 185) "Contacts were maintained under Oljeitu... But after Oljeitu's reign attempts at alliance at last ceased." (p. 186) The idea of an alliance was treated seriously, there were many good faith communications from both sides, but it remained in the realm of attempts, not an actual alliance. --Elonka 10:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, just look at the facts please. Do you remember the definition of an alliance? An alliance is "an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests".
Among the scholars being quoted in the article ("Franco-Mongol alliance#Modern interpretations"), the number who treat this alliance as fact is actually largely superior to the number who treat it as just an attempt. Richard: "In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks." (p.468) "The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere"(p.453) Grousset speaks about "Louis IX et l'Alliance Franco-Mongole" (p521), "The Franco-Mongol coalition, of which the Hospitallers were giving an example" (p.686). Demurger: "This expedition sealed, by a a concrete act, the Mongol alliance"(p.147) "The Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols in 1299-1303" (Le Point). Jonathan Riley-Smith says of the Mongols that "Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli (1252-1275) became their ally." (p.136). Angus Stewart calls it the "Franco-Mongol entente".
Of course, the alliance had many failures and ended in defeat for the Franks and Mongols, but it was an alliance nonetheless: Richard: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" (p.469). Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", but specifies that in the end it led nowhere.
You are insisting on only representing one side of the story ("just attempts") in clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. We should represent both opinions ("alliance" and "attempts towards an alliance"), including in the introduction sentence. PHG 18:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
PHG, you are trying to state that certain historians say that a Franco-Mongol alliance existed as a "fact". In all cases, you are mistaken.
  • Jean Richard. He said that there were attempts, and a hope, and offers, but not that it occurred. See #Jean Richard below.
  • Alain Demurger. See #Demurger above. Further, you are sourcing things to the back cover of Demurger's book, or to an offhand comment that he made during an interview while he was promoting his book. Those are not reliable sources.
  • Jonathan Riley-Smith. No one is disputing that Antioch submitted to the Mongols, but let's be clear that it wasn't a spontaneous alliance, it was a subject vassal relationship, which they did because they were pressured into it by the King of Little Armenia.
  • Angus Stewart: You are quoting out of context. Yes he used the word "entente," but let's see the full sentence: "for the Armenian alignment with the Mongols, they were prominent in their promotion of a Mongol alliance, and a Franco-Mongol entente". Promoting an alliance/entente, does not mean that there was one.
Now, will you please stop mis-quoting things? --Elonka 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Your denial of what sources actually say is just amazing...
  • Just look at Richards' quotes. He cannot be clearer about the alliance "The Occidentals were rallied to the alliance", "The Franco-Mongol alliance had thus survived" etc...
  • There are plenty of relevant quote from Demurger that do not rely on his backcover (just one quote), or on his interview (which was just the interview of an historian, not your interpretation that it was "just promotion talk"). I am not going to repear them all here, pease look at the article.
  • Jonathan Riley-Smith: Antiochians were a major Frankish realm, and they were fully part of the Franco-Mongol alliance. Most scholars do name them as effective and long-term "allies" of the Mongols actually (and some say vassals): just respect what they say instead of trying to impose your own interpretations.PHG 05:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Title

This whole article might be better off under a different title, e.g. "Relations between the Mongols and the Christian states of the Middle East" or "The Mongols in the time of the Crusades". "Franco-Mongol Alliance" suggests an alliance between the Mongols and the French. I understand it means the "Franks" here (i.e. Western European Roman Catholic crusaders), but this term is being stretched to include almost all Christians in the region (there's quite a bit about the Georgians, not to mention the Armenians). --Folantin 08:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussed and voted on before in this Talk Page (top of this page actually). The overwhelming vote was in favor of keeping "Franco-Mongol alliance", a recognized scholarly expression for this subject.PHG 08:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's hardly "overwhelming" consensus. But if you choose to stick with this title then you'll have to narrow your focus because you can't describe all the Christians in the Middle East at the time as "Franks". In other words, the Armenians and Georgians should go. --Folantin 09:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well Elonka would indeed call it a consensus (although I wouldn't, it is just a clear-cut vote...). But your point is fair enough. We could adjust that part (still mentionning they were key major players as allies to the Franks and participated to most of the actions of the Franco-Mongol alliance), but we could have a more detailed and specific article at Armenian-Mongol alliance. PHG 09:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I support the idea of creating a separate article for the Armenian-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to create a new article for this. We need to be clear that the alliance was between the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and the Mongols. The bulk of the Armenians, who had remained in their traditional home lands in eastern Asia Minor, had simply been conquered by the Mongols. This is dealt with by Mongol invasions of Georgia and Armenia. The material about the alliance between Cilicia and the Mongols should be added to the article on the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, which needs expanding. --Folantin 10:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. We can move information from here to those two articles, and then leave a summary paragraph with a "See also", per WP:SUMMARY. I say proceed. :) --Elonka 10:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A large part of the information we have here is highly relevant to the Franco-Mongol alliance. I would be against just moving stuff away from this article, although we may trim a bit. Instead, please just copy usefull information to other articles. PHG 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violations

By now, this should be really quite obvious, but as described again in Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Mischaracterization, numerous scholars treat the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact, and some others as just "attempts towards an alliance". Wikipedia balance and NPOV policy requires that both point of views be represented.
Elonka has been insisting however that the introduction sentence should describe "Attempts towards an alliance..." only, and has been reverting repeatedly to that version. This is clearly POV, and favours only one scholarly position. She claims that an earlier 3:1 discussion justifies her in her reverts (she calls it a "consensus"). Let it be reminded that votes in general, and especially such micro-discussions, have absolutely no value in negating Wikipedia's ethics of balance and NPOV. Only an inclusive phrase such as "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attemps towards such an alliance,...", clearly presenting both views with relevant references, could maintain NPOV and balance between these two major theses. Not doing so would just be NPOV violation. PHG 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First, we've already discussed the introduction sentence in the above section #Introduction sentence, and PHG's view is obviously not prevailing. I would also point out that PHG is ignoring the comments in the above #Request for comment, and that PHG has also refused mediation. That aside, I stand by my claim that no scholars have said that a formal alliance existed between the Mongols and the Europeans. As I see it, PHG has been consistently trying to insert his own bias into this article. Among the false claims that he has been repeatedly making: That there was an alliance (when there wasn't), that there was a battle for Jerusalem in 1299 (when there wasn't), that the Mongols ruled Jerusalem in 1300 (when they didn't), that the Knights Templar were the "artisans" of a Franco-Mongol alliance (when they didn't). I've been trying to assume good faith here, and give PHG the benefit of the doubt that one or two modern historians may have said these things, in which case we should reflect their views along with those of the rest of the reputable historians. But as I dig into the sources and actually look at what PHG's historians were saying, I see that he has been making gross misinterpretations of the actual data. I would also point out that PHG has shown a history of providing unreliable sources, ranging from hobbyist pseudohistory websites, to sourcing statements to the marketing blurb on the back cover of a book, to sourcing an offhand comment from an author while he was promoting his work. And even where PHG claims that he is just providing information from reputable historians, I dispute PHG's claims. For example, most recently he's been saying that Jean Richard said that there was a formal alliance. But again, when I actually went and looked at the source, this is not the case. See section below. --Elonka 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, you are distorting the meaning of what Richard says (hereafter), as you have been repeatedly doing in this article (deleting references or corrupting them... anyone could go into the archives to see that). As a matter of fact, numerous scholars consider the Mongol alliance as fact (just look at the quotes), various scholars consider that Jerusalem was raided and possibly conquered by the Mongols in 1300 (Demurger, Arab historians etc...), and the leading French specialist of the Templars (sorry you did not know him and at one point thought that his was "a summer book"!) considers that the Templars were the artisans of the Franco-Mongol alliance in 1298-1303 (Demurger). I am not claiming these things, sources are: it's all fully referenced. Please accept that various historians can have various opinions on a given subject, and do not accuse editors who are simply introducing their work on Wikipedia. PHG 05:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Back to the matter of NPOV violation: yes, you are denying that numerous scholars describe the Mongol alliance as fact, and that is not acceptable per Wikipedia balance and NPOV policy. Both views ("Attempts at an alliance", and "Alliance") should be represented. PHG 05:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we should present both views. However, per WP:UNDUE, that doesn't mean that we need to give them both equal weight. The clear majority position among historians is that there were attempts made at an alliance. I do agree that we should list Richard and Demurger too, but they should be clearly listed as minority viewpoints, per WP:UNDUE (please please read it?). --Elonka 16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
So now you recognize these sources, but you have shifted your line of battle to saying that they should not have "undue weight". I suspect that from a US-centric perspective you may be right (looking at your sources), but Grousset, Demurger and Richard are huge authorities in France and in the rest of the world. They fully deserve represention of their analysis, and I see no reason why your own favourite sources should have a privileged treatment. PHG 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
To accuse me of being US-centric is absurd. I have been using a variety of sources from multiple continents. Please do not resort to that kind of nationalistic accusation. The issue here is that the vast majority of historians (of all nationalities) say that there were attempts at an alliance, but not an actual alliance. We can definitely state that a couple historians are wishy-washy on the subject, but let's make sure that we put their statements in context, and don't give them undue weight. --Elonka 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely do not agree with your personal point of view that the "vast majority of historians speak about attempts". As far as I can see the vast majority actually present the alliance as fact. But that's irrelevant anyway, what is important is that these two important views should be equally and fairly represented. PHG 20:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
PHG, it is incorrect to characterize this as my "personal point of view." This is the point of view of most historians, and has been backed up by other editors in the #Request for comment, and the discussion in #Introduction sentence. But yes, I'm in agreement with you that we should list different views in the article, as long as we give the appropriate amount of weight to major v. minor views, per WP:UNDUE. --Elonka 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, a few Wikipedia Talk Page discussions cannot validate a major claim such as the "vast majority of historians speak about attempts". By the references you have given, only a few actually speak about attempts. Please just give references to your claim, and accept other views in a NPOV and balanced manner. Regards. PHG 13:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Jean Richard

PHG has claimed that the French historian Jean Richard (historian) said unequivocally that there was an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols. I dispute this interpretation. When I was reviewing the English translation of Richard's book, Richard seems to say the same thing that all the other historians do, which is that there were attempts at an alliance: "The Mongol alliance could mean the intervention of a large army and other forms of assistance which could be helpful to a crusade. 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." (p. 424)[1] "The Franco-Mongol alliance... foundered in the face of the vastness of the distances, and the impossibility of predicting events that make joint operations not feasible or of seizing chances offered. It is a story of lost opportunities." (p. 456)[2] Further if you look at the timeline on p. 487, Richard lists 1264 as the date that Hulegu offered an alliance to King Louis,[3] but there's nothing about an alliance being accepted. It's very different language from other years where Richard says, "1252: Alliance between Louis IX and the Mamluks", "1254: Truce with the Muslims". "1272: Truce with the Mamluks. In other words, Richard indicates that alliances were offered and promulgated (promoted), but not that they actually happened. So we go back to my original concern, which is that not a single historian has an unequivocal statement that a Franco-Mongol alliance existed. They use the term, sure, but only to describe the attempts. --Elonka 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the phrase "formal alliance" is perhaps revealing. Do you believe there was an informal alliance? And if so, what is the problem with the title then? Either way, what, remembering that this is the Middle Ages, would constitute a formal alliance? I think it is safe to say that there was cooperative action on the part of the Franks (Bohemond VI was a Frank in this sense) and Mongols and cooperative military action can always be described as an alliance. Furthermore, even without military action, I would regard any agreement concerning a common enemy and the need to deal with him as an alliance. So I iterate: the word "alliance" is broad enough to encompass the Franco-Mongol relationship in certain times and places and certainly describes the Franco-Mongol ideal, however far from full realisation it ever was. And a final question, why does Richard say "The Mongol alliance..." and not "A Mongol alliance..."? I see many copyediting issues concerning consistency, orthography, reference style, etc. as well as issues concerning balance in this article, but the title and the use of the term "alliance" to describe the relationship is not really problematic in my opinion. Srnec 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
What constitutes a formal alliance, isn't up to us decide, it's up to the historians to decide. When a historian says, "In 1264, an alliance was offered," I don't believe it's proper for us to say, "In 1264, an alliance started," because there's a big difference between "offered" and "started". We should stick with the wording that the historians use, rather than trying to infer something else. --Elonka 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If Sinor speaks of Abagha strengthening an alliance with England, as he does, it only follows that an alliance with England (whatever that could mean) existed. Srnec 23:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, you're talking about this work, yes? The chapter in Hazard/Setton's "History of the Crusades"?[4] If that's the one, I'd point to page 516, where it says, "It is important to note that attempts to seek an alliance with the Mongols were made by princes of France or England..." (p. 516) Again, the "attempts" language. See also p. 519: "The possibility of an alliance with the Mongols." Or p. 523, despite positive overtures, the "policy of rapprochement was destined to fail." See also p. 524: "Perhaps in the darkest moments of affliction Louis had the hopeful thought that the Mongols might wish to join forces with him against the common enemy." I can give more examples if you want. The general course is, many attempts were made, but they were not successful. If, however, you're talking about a different work, please let me know? And I'll be happy to take a look at it. --Elonka 23:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you've got the right source and I have read the whole thing. I am just pointing out the discrepancy in Sinor, which I think is engendered by that fact that it is not historians who define what an alliance is, formal or otherwise. There is ample evidence of alliances between Westerners/Franks/Crusaders and Mongols, but this is not to characterise all or even a significant minority of their relations in the 13th and 14th centuries as alliances. This article ought to describe the alliance like the historians do: call it an alliance and then call individual events associated with it acts of cooperation or offers of cooperation. Srnec 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, actually it is the historians who define what an alliance is. We're dealing here with the core policies of Wikipedia, Verifiability, and no original research. We're not here to make up our own minds about what an alliance is or isn't, we're here to summarize the information that's published in reliable sources. Where there's a dispute between sources, then we should follow the Wikipedia policy of neutrality, and simply describe the different points of view, each in proportion to how widespread it is (see undue weight) so that readers can make up their own minds. We shouldn't editorialize. And the more controversial that a subject is, the more important it is that we stick very closely to what the sources say. --Elonka 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Historians do not define the word "alliance", which is what I meant. The fact that the Franco-Mongol alliance is called such, even inconsistently, by historians is justification enough for using such terminology (even inconsistently) here. I think the main problem you have with this article—and in this I am in full agreement—is undue weight. The article spends too much time giving air to minority or out-dated opinions. Hence my recent modification of the "capture of Jerusalem" section. Srnec 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, would you kindly be more precise with what sources actually say, instead of distorting them to fit your point? As usual you are advancing that they was a lot of hope, and that the alliance ended in defeat for the Franks and the Mongols, to claim that there was no alliance: this is a total corruption of what sources actually say:

  • ""The Mongol alliance could mean the intervention of a large army and other forms of assistance which could be helpful to a crusade. It is hardly surprising that, for nearly forty years, the Westerners remained hopeful of achieving this combination of their efforts ": of course, Westerners hoped for a major combination of their efforts. The reality is that the alliance ended with rather minor cases of implementation.
  • "The Franco-Mongol alliance... foundered in the face of the vastness of the distances, and the impossibility of predicting events that make joint operations not feasible or of seizing chances offered. It is a story of lost opportunities.": of course we all agree that it foundered in the end, but to founder, you need to exist first, which is Richard's point. I guess we all agree that the Alliance ended in defeat for the Franks and the Mongols, but it was an alliance nonetheless.
  • And of course you conveniently disreguard the other quotes from Richard which clearly prove he considered the alliance as fact:
"The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453.: all the narrative here explains that the alliance started in the early 1260's.
"In 1297 Ghazan resumed 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.
  • "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" (p.469)... rich in missed opportunities maybe, but an alliance nonetheless... Richard is certainly not just talking about "attempts". It coulnd't be clearer... PHG 05:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it could be clearer, if Richard would have actually listed "alliance formed on such and such a date" in his extensive timeline.(p. 487[5]) But he didn't. He simply says in the timeline that Hulegu offered an alliance to Louis in 1264. But that doesn't mean that it was accepted. The interpretation that there was an alliance as of 1264 is not matched by any other historian. Even your next closest historian to saying that an alliance existed, Demurger, with his one sentence "put the seal on the alliance in 1300" comment, is saying something completely different from Richard, at a point in time that takes place generations later. And again, other historians are not agreeing with his interpretation either, as the vast majority describe the situation as attempts at an alliance. A chimera, a will-of-the-wisp, a hope, but attempts that ultimately "led nowhere"(Tyerman). So if we want to quote Demurger and Richard in the article, fine, we should do that, but they should be clearly labeled, per WP:UNDUE, as minority opinions (and please, can you actually read WP:UNDUE?). Summary: We definitely should not use Richard's and Demurger's ambivalent comments as "proof of an alliance," when (1) they're ambiguous and ambivalent in their own works; and (2) they're not even agreeing with each other on this. --Elonka 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Grousset, Demurger or Richard are quite clear about the Franco-Mongol Alliance, and you are the only one claiming an ambivalence. This is your own original research (as looking into the timeline, and concluding: "Look! they do not mention the alliance here, only the proposals"). Just stick with what they actual say please: there were huge hopes behind the alliance, it was implemented in many ways, and it ended in defeat.
Your claim that the opinions of these three leading scholars should not receive undue weight is, I believe, not legitimate: they represent a major viewpoint, not just small research by marginal scholars. The least we can do is give them proper representation. PHG 05:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sources

Elonka is deleting sources which she apparently finds disagreable, as the interview with Demurger. After having once branded Demurger's book an unreliable "summer book" (before learning he was one of the leading French experts on the Templars), she is now trying to erase the mention of a recent interview with the French mainstream magazine "Le Point", branding it an "offhand comment that he made during an interview while he was promoting his book" (total OR comment really). As a matter of fact, this was just an interview about the end of the Templars, not any promotional piece. Here the apparently unpleasant quote:

"The order of the Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols against the Mameluks in 1299-1303, in order to regain a foothold in the Holy Land" ("L’ordre du Temple et son dernier grand maître, Jacques de Molay, ont été les artisans de l’alliance avec les Mongols de Perse contre les Mamelouks en 1299-1303, afin de reprendre pied en Terre sainte.")

– Alain Demurger, Master of Conference at Université Paris-I, in an interview with Le Point, "La Chute du Temple", May 27th 2008

I will reinstate it, unless someone shows me that this is not acceptable to quote a leading historian on Wikipedia. PHG 05:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A real-time interview, by definition, is not a "published peer-reviewed secondary source." The only thing that that quote could be used for, would be to say, "In an interview, Demurger said...." It could probably be used in his bio, but it's not an acceptable source to state something as fact here in the "alliance" article, especially when we have dozens of other reliable sources that we can use instead. --Elonka 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious that you are trying to use a technically to disqualify a source that is offending your point of view. Isn't it bothering you that the leading French authority on the Templars, says "The order of the Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols", when you keep claiming that was no alliance at all and that the Templars had no special role in it?
I far as I know, this quote, from a reputable historian, published in a reputable source, has the right to stay. And please read more of Demurger, because there are many more quotes from him of the type you seem to dislike, acutally describing the alliance in action:

"The multiple offensive of Ghazan in the years 1299-1302, in collaboration with the Christian forces of Cyprus, were very close to succeed"

– "Demurger, "Les Croises", p.287

"During these years, there was no Crusade from the West. Only did the Frank forces concentrated in Cyprus and little Armenia, did cooperate with the Mongols"

– "Demurger, "Les Croises", p.287

PHG 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, what bothers me that is that you're trying to insist that an offhand comment during an interview, about a controversial subject, is acceptable as a reliable source. We have dozens of peer-reviewed papers on the subject. If the only thing you can find to bolster your case is an interview comment and a blurb from a book's marketing copy, that's pretty sad. Any statements sourced to those kind of unreliable sources, should be removed from the article. I tried doing that already, but you just reverted me. But the information has to go. --Elonka 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No Elonka, you are mistaken. This is just one nice quote, among tens of others which also describe the Franco-Mongol as fact. There's no reason to delete it at all. It exists, it was said by an amazingly reputable source, so, let it live. Regards. PHG 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cooling down period suggested

Elonka and PHG. You are both interested in this topic, perhaps too much. I think your differences in opinion are relatively minor; but by your fierce editting, reverting, etc. you may have both been winding yourselves up to an unnecessary level. I would suggest that both of you stay away from this article and its talk page for 14 days starting 23.59 September 28 Wiki time; per step 2 of WP:DR. After two weeks I am pretty sure tempers may have cooled a bit. Of course it is your voluntary decision to agree with this, but as far as I can see, the current discussion is going nowhere. Arnoutf 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Arnoutf, I'm not angry.  :) And I think that if you look at my contribs: Elonka (talk · contribs) you can easily see that I'm working on multiple articles, not just this one. In fact, I just got Fustat to GA status  :). But I'm afraid I have to disagree on the "minor differences of opinion" issue. As I see it, PHG has been deliberately adding false information to Wikipedia, and engaging in POV-pushing. He's also been working on practically nothing else, for about a month now. Just look at his contribs: PHG (talk · contribs). I realize that since we're dealing with some obscure bits of history here, it's difficult for others who don't understand the subject matter to follow exactly what's going on, especially the way that PHG keeps twisting things, but this is definitely not a case of "two editors with a minor disagreement," this is something that's resulting in flat out false information being promoted on Wikipedia. I realize that this article is quite long, but if it's helpful, I can provide exact diffs to show where PHG has been adding false information. For example here[6] where he tried to claim that the Knights Templar and the Mongols had collaborated to launch a "surprise attack" on Jerusalem in 1299, and further that the Mongols then left Jacques Molay alone in Jerusalem to rebuild fortifications. PHG routinely adds references that look like valid sources, but when I'm actually checking into them, I'm finding that the sources are either extremely unreliable, or if they're from reliable historians, he's completely twisting whatever the historian actually said, to something entirely different. When I've been challenging PHG about these practices, he has continued to argue heatedly to promote his own POV, he has generated multiple personal attacks (such as calling me vain and incompetent and a liar), and he has engaged in edit-warring in violation of talkpage consensus, as well as issuing multiple false counter charges, where he's been accusing me of misrepresenting sources. Then when I provide exact quotes, he accuses me of copyright violations! Now, having said that, I'm perfectly willing to go "hands off" on this article for a couple weeks, provided that it's in a state which reflects talkpage consensus at the time. But, is PHG willing to do the same? --Elonka 21:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, I created this article, and provided most of its content, so it is normal I have been spending a lot of time on it, as would any dedicated user. You seem to have a quasi-obsession in denying there was an actual alliance between the Franks and the Mongols, which is actually contradicted by numerous sources. Just accept sources and what they have to say, actually read Demurger and Richard before you make you make conclusions about what they have to say. They are two of the leading French historians on the Crusades and the Templars, one of your pet subjects.
I am not even trying to promote my own point of view, I am just asking that both points-of-view ("Alliance" and "just attempts") be respected. This is an inclusionist approach, whether you are endlessly arguing that only you own point-of-view is right ("Attempts only").
All my references are properly sourced, and if someone has been twisting them, you have been the one (see history above).
I have warned you about copyright, not to annoy you, but because quoting more than 4-5 lines of copyrighted text is indeed copyright violation.
Just accept that you are not the only one here, that some views alternative to yours exist and that they have the right to be represented. PHG 05:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arnoutf. As far as I am concerned, I will not argue endlessly with Elonka. Plenty of proper sources have already been provided which show the alliance as fact (rather than just "attempts only"), especially from the leading French specialists of the field (Grousset, Demurger, Richard). Now that Elonka seems to acknowledge their existence, she is claiming that no undue weight should be given to them. Well, I am not even asking that their view should be the main one, just that they should be represented equally with sources which only present the alliance as attempts. I believe the Wikipedia rule of NPOV and balance is on my side, and I will keep editing so that both views are properly represented. Best regards PHG 05:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just received a very interesting message on my talkpage, from a previous editor who has dealt with PHG.[7] From what they tell me, the tactics that PHG has been using here, are not new,[8] and that he routinely:
  • Uses unreliable sources
  • Reads up just enough on a subject to be able to confuse third-party observers as to his competency
  • Uses large amounts of text, which make it difficult for third-party observers to see what's going on
  • Generates attacks on those who disagree with him
  • When his opinion is challenged with reliable sources, he will either quote primary sources to back up his point of view, or misinterpret the secondary sources
  • Refuses to negotiate in good faith
  • Pushes articles through to FA even though they are biased
  • Then points at his history of featured articles to try and bolster his credibility
In short, we may have a larger problem here than just Franco-Mongol alliance, we may have a case of an editor who is pushing multiple articles to FA (and I would point out that PHG nominated this alliance article for FA only two weeks after he created it, and despite the fact that it had gross errors in it at the time).
It is my recommendation that every article that PHG has pushed to FA, be carefully re-examined for accuracy. It may also be time for a User Conduct RfC. --Elonka 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Elonka. I know Devanampriya quite well. He has a long history of vandalism, and deletions of sources in favour of a very India-centric/nationalistic approach to history. He has been totally marginalized on Hellenistic pages, and I don't think anybody supports his actions on Wikipedia except a very few very marginal people (a few of them apparently sock-puppets). Be his friend, up to you. And do check my FAs, be my guest. Best regards. PHG 18:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a strong word, vandalism, and I see nothing to back it up. I see no blocks or warnings in Devanampriya's record: Devanampriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). I do see a history of you disputing with Devanampriya in pretty much the same way that you've been disputing with me, with one exception: Devanampriya lost his temper. So when he resorted to incivility, that weakened his arguments. Looks like you were fairly uncivil too. But that doesn't mean Devanampriya was wrong. And I find it very uncivil to be accusing a good faith editor of a "history of vandalism." Content disputes are not vandalism. Please try to avoid making these kinds of unfounded personal attacks. --Elonka 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You'll see for yourself Elonka. Go ahead. Have fun :) PHG 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not contributed to this article, but I have participated in some small way in the ensuing dispute. Perhaps a cooling off period is a good idea, but that should not be followed by a further escalation of dispute. I believe it would be better for all the participants to use the time fruitfully to gather their sources and find a way to come up with some acceptable account of what really happened. That said, I think it would be a good time to find the common points so that the actual dispute can be better clarified. For instance, I think everyone agrees that there was talk among the Franks and perhaps some effort to reach an agreement with the Mongols to oppose the Muslims. The question is the degree to which this was carried to fruition. I think we should also be clear about the sources chosen. For instance, no historian today will work solely from primary sources. While they are interesting indicators of mood, they can hardly be accepted as accurate, especially of this period, where they tend to be colored by the bias of the authors. To quote the opening line of the introduction to my copy of Joinville, "Few events in history have been more coloured by romantic imagination than that series of expeditions to the Holy Land known as the Crusades" (Margarret Shaw). That would seem to include nationalist bias today. So, let's take this time to clarify the dispute, collect the sources, and come up with an acceptable version that cannot be challenged. Danny 18:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(followup) I would just like to point out that I have adhered to Arnoutf's suggestion for a "cooling off" period, and have not edited the article for the last two weeks.[9] I am a bit disappointed that PHG did not abide by the request as well, and further, that he has continued to load even more information into the article (which is now over 160K in length). PHG, would you by any chance be willing to reverse places for a bit, and allow me to have a couple weeks of uninterrupted access to the article, to see what I do with it? --Elonka 22:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
164K is simply too excessive for a single article, it would be beneficial to split it. Matthew 11:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling reflists not to be used

I replaced the scrolling reference list per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Scrolling_reference_lists Arnoutf 12:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Division

This whole article is too long now. Even if just for copyediting purposes and consistency, it must be broken down and split off into sub-articles. Srnec 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I recommend that we move sections to History of Jerusalem, History of Cyprus, and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. It might also be worth making an article like History of Jerusalem (Crusades). --Elonka 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
As already said by other contributors, we should first solve the factual disputes in this article, before we even start thinking about slicing it up. PHG 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
We've pretty much come to agreement on the Jerusalem rumors, so I have created an article, History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) that incorporates that info. We should reduce the info here in the alliance article to a single paragraph, and then link to the new History article. If PHG wants to do it, that's fine, otherwise I'll try to get to it later today. --Elonka 20:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've merged the information out, and shrunk it down to one paragraph. I removed multiple pages of information, but we're still running at 135K (and the History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) article is now seriously overweighted with information about the 1299/1300 raids). But at least it's a start! Any recommendations on which part to do next? --Elonka 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The alliance of Bohemond VI with the Mongols

Issues

I am afraid the part on the alliance between Bohemond VI and the Mongols has been quite distorted and watered down, following Elonka’s general effort to deny that there was an effective alliance between the Franks and the Mongols. An argument was made that the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli (above in this Talk Page) were not Frank. This is historically untrue, and I am glad nobody has been following this claim. She also wrote that Antioch was a part of Armenia, this time a geographic untruth. Also, the designation of “The Franks of the Principality of Antioch” was changed to “Antiochians” in several paragraphs, in an apparent effort to diminish their “Frankish color”. Lastly, the mentions of “alliance” were changed to simply “relations”.

Facts

First of all, I think it should be made clear that the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli were Frankish realms. Regarding the issue of the alliance, I would like to remind that Bohemond VI went to the Mongols (he was never invaded) and willingly accepted their suzerainty, rather than fight them or remain neutral (as the Franks of Acre did). As a matter of fact, most historians speak about an alliance, although a few mention that he submitted to the Mongols and became their vassals. A few quotes:

  • "Bohemond of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally” John Riley-Smith, The Oxford History of the Crusades, p.136
  • "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. But the Franks of Asia held aloof.", Runciman, p.299
  • "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)
  • "Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols". Amin Maalouf, p.265 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes)

I believe this is sufficient ground to have a title mentioning “alliance” rather than just “relations”, as “relations” could be anything (from alliance to conflict), and to explain in the body of the paragraph that some scholars regard this as vassalship and submission to the Mongols. I think what is important is that over a period of more than 10 years, Bohemond VI chose to join the Mongols rather than fight them or remain neutral, participated to many conquests with them, and repeatedly called them when he was in need of help against the Mamluks. Numerous sources further testify to the good relationship Bohemond VI and his Armenian father-in-law Hethoum I had with the Mongols. There are ample facts, confirmed by numerous modern historians, in favour of a clear description of the alliance between Bohemond and the Mongols. PHG 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Bohemond of Antioch did not ally with the Mongols, he submitted to the Mongols. Even Jean Richard said that. "customary marks of submission to which Bohemond VI ... had had to conform." (Richard, p. 422) And Bohemond submitted because of pressure from his father-in-law Hethoum I. "The principality of Antioch was dominated by its Armenian neighbour -- it was through the will of the Armenian king that the Antiochenes came to aid Hulegu in 1259-60." ("The Logic of Conquest" Al-Masaq, v. 14, No.1, March 2002, p. 8) "Bohemond of Antioch, who was under his father-in-law's influence, gave his adhesion. But the Franks of Acre held aloof." (Runciman, p. 299) --Elonka 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
There you go again... using some scholarly sources to deny other scholarly sources? Do you often do that? I could go on, quote my sources, and say "No, Elonka, your sources are wrong, because my sources say they were allies", and we'll be in a stupid un-Wikipedian stalemate again. Again, can't you see scholars are just divided on the question? The smart answer is: "He was an ally of the Mongols (according to some scholars), and a vassal of the Mongols (according to other scholars)". Sounds like this introduction sentence again: "some scholars say it was an alliance, some say it was just an attempt towards an alliance". There is absolutely no reason why the sources you favour should prevail over the others, don't you think? And it is an unasailable Wikipedia principle that major views should be presented equally in a NPOV spirit. PHG 19:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
PHG, this is your source, the "leading world authority" French historian Jean Richard who says that Bohemond submitted to the Mongols. --Elonka 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
He is not my source, sources do not belong to me, they just are. I will never reject a scholar because another scholar says something different. If both views are expressed by reputable scholars, both deserve to be mentionned. It is not one against the other, can't you see? Scholars are together on this, and the both of us are together on this: we just need to express fairly what the different opinions are, matter-of-factly, without being partisan, and that's it, and that's the way Wikipedia is being built. PHG 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Date of Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols

Elonka is claiming that Bohemond allied with the Mongols in 1259 only. Would it be possible to have references for that Elonka, before editing and reverting? Demurger states that Bohemond was present at the Siege of Baghdad in 1258:

"Bohemond was present at Baghdad in 1258" ("Bohemond VI etait present a Baghdad en 1258")

– “Jacques de Molay”, Demurger, p.55

also:

”The Franks of Tripoli and Antioch, as well as the Armenians of Cilicia who, as soon as the submission of Asia Minor in 1243 had to recognize the suzerainty of the Mongols and pay tribute, participated to the capture of Baghdad.

– Demurger, “Croisades et Croises”, p.284

PHG 19:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The timeline was thus:
  • 1258, the Mongols, with their Armenian and Georgian subjects, successfully conquered Baghdad. Bohemond of Antioch appears to have been present at the siege, but it's unclear with how large a force, or whether they participated in the fighting.
  • 1259, Bohemond of Antioch formally submits to the Mongols
  • 1260, The Mongols, now with Armenian, Georgian, and Antiochene subjects, successfully conquer Aleppo.
In more casual (and somewhat flippant) terms, think of it like this. The King of Armenia, Hethoum, already a Mongol subject since the 1240s, is bringing his forces to join the Mongol army in their attack on the prize city of the Islamic world, Baghdad. As he's prepping in 1258, he calls over his son-in-law Bohemond, and says, "Hey there son, how're you treating my daughter? BTW, we're going to go attack Baghdad with the Mongols, want to join?" Bohemond replies, "Sure dad, sounds like fun!" Then along the way, Hethoum steadily pressures Bohemond to join the Mongols too. After Baghdad falls, Bohemond agrees to join the winning side, the Mongols, in 1259. So then he brings a force, along with those of his dad, to the Mongol party at Aleppo, which they all capture together in 1260. Three Christian leaders, Bohemond, Hethoum, and the Mongol general Kitbuqa, ride into Damascus in triumph. And the Mongols generously share the spoils, giving back to Bohemond all the cities that he'd previously lost to the Muslims. Bohemond then enlists the help of local Templars and Hospitallers, and they go clean house in those cities, reclaiming them from local Muslim garrisons. That make more sense? --Elonka 19:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting. Sounds like you are fully accepting the alliance with the Mongols now. By the way, would you have references (and quotes) to support your nice point on the dates, against Demurger? PHG 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Elonka's story and its dates corresponds to what I know from volume 2 of A History of the Crusades ([10]). Srnec 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice ref, thank you. Do you have anything specific on Bohemond's participation to the siege of Baghdad? PHG 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, you still haven’t provided a reference to your claim that Bohemond only allied with the Mongols in 1259. Srnec’s quote is nice and informative, but does not give a clear answer on the date question. On my side, I have given Demurger’s reference that Bohemond already fully involved himself with the Mongols at the siege of Baghdad in 1258, indicating that his alliance with the Mongols started earlier. Could you kindly back up your claim with some solid reference? Regards.PHG 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, you are the one trying to twist sources here. If Demurger said that Bohemond was at the siege of Baghdad in 1258, then that's all we should infer from that, which is that Bohemond was present. It is not appropriate to try and take that as some sort of confirmation from Demurger that there was an alliance, when Demurger said no such thing. --Elonka 18:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Actually Demurger says that Bohemond participated with his troops to the 1258 Mongol capture of Baghdad: ”The Franks of Tripoli and Antioch, as well as the Armenians of Cilicia who, as soon as the submission of Asia Minor in 1243 had to recognize the suzerainty of the Mongols and pay tribute, participated to the capture of Baghdad." p.284. Now, I am OK to leave it at that, but don't claim he only allied with the Mongols in 1259, unless you have sources to prove your point, because available sources (Demurger) strongly suggest your claim is wrong. If you have sources to prove your point, I am fine with that, and we will try to accomodate that with Demurger's claim. I am only challenging your claim because you have not provided any reference for it. Best regards PHG 19:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
All of my sources say that Bohemond submitted Antioch to the Mongols in 1259, or at least after the conquest of Baghdad, and that he then joined for the attacks on Aleppo and Damascus. --Elonka 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The banner of the Il-Khan

Dear Elonka. It seems you have been repeatedly reverting a sentence mentioning the presence of "the banner of the Il-Khan" on the Frank fleet raiding the coasts of the Holy Land in 1300. Instead, you systematically replace it with a sentence of a slightly different meaning: “Ghazan's envoys had raised their banner on the galleys”. Although a minor factual detail, I am afraid it does not reflect what the sources say. Actually both quoted sources (Demurger, and The Templar of Tyre quoted by Demurger) specifically say, respectively, "The banner of the Il-Khan" and "Ghazan's banner", not just the ambassador’s banner. It is somewhat important as the Il-Khan’s ambassador was the Italian Isol le Pisan, so your phrasing could suggest for example that an Italian banner was raised instead of Ghazan’s banner. So let’s please be faithful to our sources and just say exactly “The Banner of the Il-Khan” if you don't mind. Best regards.PHG 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, the problem with the information that you're trying to insert, is that you're trying to make a case that the fleet "sailed under the flag of the Mongols." This is absolutely not what the sources said. Your wording also seems designed to try and enforce some sort of viewpoint about modern ships and flags, onto medieval sailing ships. What the source said, is that the envoys of the Mongol, raised their banner on the ship. There's no indication of whether or not this was the only banner, or whether it was in any kind of official capacity. And the context in which it was brought up, was when the Templar of Tyre mentioned that some Mongol prisoners on shore in Rosetta, saw the Mongol's banner on the galleys, and broke free of their captors to go towards the ships. It is wrong to try and infer from that, that the ships were somehow owned by or registered to the Mongols. We need to stay neutral in how we report this. --Elonka 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, I am just following the source:

"The banner of the Mongol Il-Khan was hoisted on the boats, because he [Ghazan's ambassador] was onboard" ("La banniere de l'Ilkhan fut hissee sur les bateaux parce qu'il etait a bord")

– Demurger, "Jacques de Molay", p.147

Please do not misquote or misinterpret scholarly quotes. Let's just follow what they say. It is just a matter of integrity. Best regards. PHG 18:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced "however, most historians think that…"

Dear Elonka. I am afraid the above “however, most historians think that…” is becoming a leitmotiv, which is appearing in uncountable instances in the article. Let me remind (again) that such statements are highly subjective, and should better be replaced by specific references. Unreferenced “however, most historians think that…” (especially coming after properly referenced material that state otherwise) are quite characteristic of POV editing and should be avoided, in favour of a proper balanced presentation of the opinions of the various authors on a given subject.PHG 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Balancing sources and NPOV editing

Various attempts have been made at denying the words of some major historians, by using differing statements by some other major historians. This clearly goes against Wikipedia’s fundamental rule of balanced presentation of major sources and NPOV editing.

  • For example, scholars are divided in their evaluation of the Franco-Mongol alliance, some treating it as fact, some saying it was “just attempts towards an alliance”. However numerous edits and reverts have been made to try to impose the latter view only, even claiming a 3 editors vs 1 editor (me) discussion as a “consensus” capable of going against this most basic Wikipedia rule of balance and NPOV editing (Let it be reminded that Wikipedia editing principles can never be overruled by small local discussions or micro-votes).
  • Another example is the qualification of Bohemond VI alliance with the Mongols. Many historians do describe this as an alliance indeed, while some others explain that Bohemond (willingly) submitted to the Mongols and was their vassal. Some historians even claim both at the same time. I am not saying either view is right or wrong, just that both exist, both are coming from highly reputable sources, and both therefore have the right to be represented per Wikipedia Balance and NPOV rule. There is no reason to favour one view over the other.

I am asking everyone here to uphold Wikipedia NPOV policy and accept that various views be presented, whatever their personal opinions on the subject (as far as I know, the opinions of editors are irrelevant on Wikipedia: we just lay out the opinions of reputable sources and references).

  • Specifically, only speaking about “attempts at an alliance” in the introduction is POV editing, favouring only one side of the story, and suggests that the alliance never actually happened. This opinion is contradicted by many reputable sources, and therefore ‘’’both’’’ views should be represented, such as in “A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, ….”, with attached references.
  • Bohemond’s alliance with the Mongols should clearly be presented as such, with attending moderations that he accepted Mongol overlordship and voluntarily became their vassal.PHG 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • We have already discussed the "attempts at an alliance" phrasing, in the above thread #Introduction sentence. We also already have a thread about Bohemond. PHG, please stop making multiple threads about topics that have already been discussed. --Elonka 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Elonka. Your position is contravening to Wikipedia's rules of NPOV and balanced reporting. Major sources deserve representation and equal treatment. There is no reason we should leave this matter to rest. Best regards. PHG 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Misquotes

Elonka, please be carefull in your editing to avoid misquotes. You wrote:

  • "Most say that it was just one more in a series of failed attempts at communication between the Franks and the Mongols.<ref>(Richard, p. 434 (french), p. 422 (english). "What Hulegu was offering was an alliance. And, contrary to what has long been written by the best authorities, this offer was not in response to appeals from the Franks.")</ref>"

Your sentence doesn't reflect what Richard says in the reference. He just says that Helegu's proposal of an alliance was spontaneous, and was not in response to Western sollicitation.PHG 17:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, it does reflect what Richard said. To the best of my knowledge, I transcribed an exact quote from the English translation of Richard's book, page 422.[11] --Elonka 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


I am afaid no, Elonka. Here's the French original:

"L'offre de Hulegu etait celle d'une alliance. Et, contrairement a ce qu'ont longtemps ecrit les meilleurs auteurs, cette offre n'etait pas une reponse a des sollicitations venant des Francs"

This is totally different from what you imply ("Most say that it was just one more in a series of failed attempts at communication between the Franks and the Mongols"). Would you like to give me the English translation? (It doesn't seem I can access it from your link).PHG 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have double-checked, and I have transcribed the English translation exactly, from the top of page 422. Feel free to check it yourself. --Elonka 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Again Elonka, could you kindly give the actual quote you are referring to, please, because the quote you wrote originally (beginning of this paragraph) has nothing to do with your claim. PHG 16:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nearly there

Appart from the few issues mentionned above, and the need to equally represent major sources ("alliance" and "attempts towards an alliance", or Bohemond's "alliance" and "subordination") in an NPOV manner, I think the article is pretty much there in terms of content. I would think this article is probably now the best available comprehensive source on the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance! Thank you all for your efforts on this arcane subject! PHG 18:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, this tactic of yours of claiming that things are "done", when there are obviously still major disputes, is not helpful. As can be easily seen by the above threads on this talkpage, most editors are not agreeing with the bias that you're trying to insert. I also take strong exception to the article that you just created to promote your biased POV: Mongol conquest of Jerusalem. Please, you need to stop this kind of Tendentious editing. I realize that you're convinced that you're right, and everyone else is wrong, but please, try to show more respect for the opinions of other editors. If you can't get other editors to agree with your position, please accept that your position may not be as strong as you think it is. --Elonka 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Elonka, could you kindly be more specific with your accusations? I will be delighted to respond to them one by one, and to retract myself anytime if something was claimed wrongly. By the way, I think I have found a good NPOV title for the new sub-article: "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem". Do you like it? PHG 19:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the article to Mongol raids into Palestine. --Elonka 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Elonka. The sub-article content being 99% about the controversy regarding the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongol, I am afraid your new title ("Mongol raids into Palestine") is much too broad... and would require a much larger article. This tittle is basically inadequate in respect to actual article content, and contravenes to your first intent (outsourcing the info on Jerusalem and the Mongols), don't you think? Can I ask you why didn't you like the much more focused and highly NPOV "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem"? PHG 06:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has evidently been continued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, where the community consensus appears fairly clear that "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem" is not an appropriate concept for an article. --Elonka 23:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Srnec's intro

  • Thank you Srnec for your new great intro! Following proper Wikipedia form, it allows the opening sentence to use the wording of the title "A Franco-Mongol alliance was...". I also think it nicely balances the will of all parts (Mongols and Franks) to achieve this alliance, and the reality of its limited results. To me, it is near perfect. Thanks again!
  • I also take note that Elonka's 3:1 claimed "consensus" in favour of the "attempts only" approach (justification to her reverts) is thus disappearing, as it would be now a 2:2 at best. It would further evolve should some other users, or Adam, also decide to give their approval to your phrasing. I will not remind here again that micro-polling is no ground to overturn Wikipedia's rules of balanced and NPOV anyway.

Best regards, and thank you for your support and contributions. PHG 06:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Srnec, I've been giving it some thought for a couple weeks (per the "cooling off" request), but I still feel that the majority of historians refer to the topic with "attempts" language (see User:Elonka/Mongol historians). For example, David Morgan, author of The Mongols puts it clearly, "From 1263 until well into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance." I really want to make sure that the word "attempts" gets into the lead. So, how about this as an alternative wording? "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what many historians refer to as attempts towards forming such an alliance, was the object of a series of diplomatic endeavors 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." --Elonka 22:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread

Because of the recent POV fork articles that PHG has been creating (such as Mongol conquest of Jerusalem and Mongol conquests and Jerusalem), and the failure of all other attempts at dispute resolution (as seen by the above threads, including the multiple archives over the last few weeks), I have taken the matter to ANI, the Administrators' Noticeboard. FYI, Elonka 22:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So nice of you Elonka. You are so completely loosing the argument on this page (and loosing the support of other contributors), that the only thing you can find now is slander me on various notice boards? Why don't you stick to the facts, stop corrupting sources to fit your storyline, and respect a balanced presentation of sources in a NPOV manner? Best regards PHG 07:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Considering that everyone who has weighed in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem has said to delete the article (except for you), I have to again question your judgment here in terms of your ability to correctly determine consensus. Please stop with this attitude of "PHG is right and everyone else is wrong," and try to work with other contributors, instead of continually insisting on your own way? --Elonka 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Elonka. Please recognize you lost your vote here to change the article name, and that your 3:1 supposed "consensus" was never one, and it actually disappeared when Srnec offered his compromise. If everybody wants to delete the title "Mongols raids on Jerusalem", I'm fine with it, it is a minute detail. Best regards. PHG 05:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Are we ready to take another try at mediation? This is a voluntary process, and non-binding. However, with an experienced mediator to assist us with communication, I am hopeful that we may be able to find ways through some of the current deadlocks.

Issues to mediate

Issues that I recommend mediating (this is just a startpoint, and we can always add others later):

  • 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?
  • Determining the best name for this article
  • Determining the best wording for the lead sentence/paragraph
  • Deciding how many and what type of primary source quotes should be used
  • Deciding how best to present the relationship of the Armenians with the Mongols: Alliance or submission to overlordship?
  • Deciding how best to present the relationship of the Antiochenes with the Mongols: Alliance or submission to overlordship?
  • Discussing how to best present the information about the status of Jerusalem in 1300: Conquered, raided, or left alone?
  • Deciding if or how to best split this article into manageable sections, WP:SUMMARY style
  • Deciding which sources are reliable secondary sources, and which are not (example: back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview, etc.)
  • 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?)

Participants

If you are interested in being a party to this mediation, please add your name below. After a couple days, if the primary participants are onboard, I'll go ahead and file the paperwork to get things started. You are also welcome to suggest additional issues for mediation if you would like. Thanks, Elonka 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The following users are interested in participating in mediation:

  • Elonka 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • PHG. I will be glad to go to mediation is you wish so, but not on your terms. Most of these subjects have already been dwelt with, or are covered by Wikipedia regulations. The ideal title has already been decided to "Franco-Mongol alliance" by a large vote in your disfavour. Why come back to the charge? You are loosing a libelous case against me at ANI, where it is clear you are actually the one corrupting sources to fit your story. Regarding the usage of various sources, Wikipedia is clear that we should maintain a NPOV and balance the various major sources. We are not here to decide how best to qualify the various events you mention: we are not historians. You are visibly pushing for giving only one interpretation of history (the one you favour, as usual), but the only way is to let the true historians speak, lay out their opinions in a balanced manner, and leave it at that. Best regards. PHG 05:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Erm, so, which issues are you willing to take to mediation? --Elonka 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your points:

  • 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 you have 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 your disfavour. 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. Your claimed "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'm not sure there is even any discussion to have here.
  • 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. If you have 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?
I think there's nothing to decide. Scholars describe both. If you have an issue with balanced reporting in general, we could address that through mediation.
  • 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 you have an 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 your 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.

It seems your main issue is with Wikipedia's policy of balance and NPOV presentation of various scholarly sources. You seem to imply that a specific view can be imposed, whether Wikipedia generally states that the various views should be described. This is a fundamental editing principle on Wikipedia. If you have a fundamental problem with that principle, I'll be glad to discuss it through mediation. PHG 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a start! Let's proceed to mediation.  :) Anyone else want in? --Elonka 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request filed

Alright, I've started the page at: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance. Anyone else that would like to join, either list your name here, and I'll add your name to the page, or you can just add your name directly to the page. PHG, you're already listed, so I'd appreciate if you could signify your agreement to mediate, by posting "Agree" at the bottom of the page. You are also welcome to list "additional issues to mediate" in the appropriate section. If anyone has questions, let me know!  :) --Elonka 00:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mongols (2nd ed)

Just picked up a copy of David Morgan's new book today. He updated it quite a bit since the 1985 version, and goes into some detail on the research that's been done on the Mongols over the last decades. He's extremely clear that the alliance never took place, and further, he lists this as the prevailing view among other historians as well (especially Grousset):

"This has long been seen as a 'missed opportunity' for the Crusaders. According to that opinion, most eloquently expressed by Grousset and frequently repeated by other scholars, the Crusaders ought to have allied themselves with the pro-Christian, anti-Muslim Mongols against the Mamluks. They might thus have prevented their own destruction by the Mamluks in the succeeding decades, and possibly even have secured the return of Jerusalem by favour of the Mongols." (p. 136)

""From 1263 until well into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance, and these appear to have been entered into in perfectly good faith by both sides. We possess the texts of numerous letters sent in both directions. The Popes were always enthusiastic, as much for evangelistic as for specifically crusading reasons, and several western monarchs also treated the idea of an alliance seriously." (p. 160)

FYI, Elonka 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

One more opinion isn't it? I guess we're getting quite good at cataloguing the various scholarly views on the subject...PHG 06:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
For a summary of what modern historians are saying, see: User:Elonka/Mongol historians. --Elonka 05:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about Dailliez

I am concerned that PHG is adding information from Dailliez's book into the Wikipedia article as a source. For example, today,[12] the text that PHG added is, "Another French historian, Laurent Dailliez in Les Templiers explains that the Templars allied with the Mongols and that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with them against their common Muslim enemy." And PHG added as a ref: ""The Mongols, after taking Damascus and several important cities from the Turks, after having been routed by the Sultan of Egypt at Tiberiade in 1260, allied themselves with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the king of England said that he had to sign such a treaty to fight against the Muslims, "our common enemy" Dailliez, p.306-307". (to read the book for yourself, check Amazon[13])

Please be aware that there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Templars, and just because someone writes a book about them, doesn't mean that the information is accurate. I looked at Dailliez's book, and it does not appear to be a work of serious scholarship. There are no footnotes, and there are multiple errors. For example, this claim that the Templars "signed a treaty with the Mongols" is not backed up by any other historian, and I would also point out that Jacques de Molay cannot have signed a treaty with them in 1260, because he wasn't Grand Master until 1292! Can we please stick to reliable modern peer-reviewed sources? --Elonka 19:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:LesTempliersDailliez.JPG

Hi Elonka. Again trying to discredit modern reputable sources which do not share your views? As far as I know, Laurent Dailliez is considered as a "Classic" of Templar history, standing above other authors ("Parmi les multiples ouvrages consacrés aux Templiers, celui de Laurent Dailliez émerge. Il est devenu un « classique »" [14]). You are also misreading the quote: it says that the Templars allied with the Mongols after 1260 (not in 1260), and Dailliez certainly does not mistake the dates of Jacques de Molay, whose letters to Edward date to 1299-1300. This is almost getting comical. PHG 19:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
PHG, I've looked at the book, and challenge its reliability:
  • It has no sources, no footnotes, no bibliography, no index
  • The context of the statement about De Molay is in the section about 1260, but Jacques de Molay was not Grand Master until the 1290s
  • There are no other historians that agree with the claim that De Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols, in any year.
  • The information is probably an error. A correct statement in the context of that page of the book would have been something like, "The Templars and other Barons of Acre engaged in a passive truce with their traditional enemies the Muslims in 1260, against their common enemies the Mongols." Most historians agree that there was an unusual agreement around 1260, but it wasn't the Templars with the Mongols against the Muslims, it was the Templars (and other Crusaders) with the Muslims in a passive agreement against the Mongols.
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If something so major as the signing of a treaty had occurred, don't you think it would be mentioned in other Templar books such as those by Malcolm Barber, or the De Molay biography by Alain Demurger?
For such a controversial claim, from such a dubious source, we absolutely should not be relying on a single sentence in a book like that. If you can find other reliable sources that verify this claim, I am interested in seeing them, but otherwise the information should be removed from the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 05:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to this article, though I did see a comment on WP:RS/N by Elonka asking for assistance. My only comments from a quick look are:
  1. User:PHG's quotation to show that Dailliez is a 'classic' is simply taken from the publisher's blurb for the book
  2. The cautionary notes (including the notability tag) on our Laurent Dailliez article appear to be well-deserved, and I am not sure that the article would survive AfD unless more sources are found.
  3. I agree with Elonka that a book with no footnotes or bibliography should be treated with great caution. Is it possible that Dailliez has also written more serious books and this one is a popularization? The back cover of the French version of Les Templiers says: Laurent Dailliez a examiné et confronté quelque 14 500 documents d'origine ... . If he is a real historian he has probably published some technical articles with a million references and many acknowledgments to other historians for their help and advice. So where are those articles? EdJohnston 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A question would be is this a reasonable claim or an exceptional one. The best thing would be to provide multiple sources. The next best would be to verify the following elements by other sources:

  • Did the Templars and Mongols consider Muslims their enemy?
  • Was Jacques de Molay the leader of the templars at that time (i.e. was he in position of signing such a treaty)?
  • Were the Templars and Mongols in contact at this time?
  • Are there any documented consequences of this treaty (e.g. coordination of attacks, sharing intelligence)?

Bless sins 14:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka and Ed here... the source seems boarderline at best. At worst it might be dubbed pseudohistory (although I would not go quite that far). The claim is definitely not in accordance with the views of mainstreem historians. Blueboar 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Laurent Dailliez is a rather prolific French History Doctor who graduated from Ecole pratique des hautes études. He is a Researcher in Medieval studies at the CNRS, a historian of the Crusades and a specialist of the Knights Templar. Among other books, he wrote "Les Templiers", considered as a classical study of the Knights Templar.[1] Dailliez is mentionned in the bibliography of the French specialist of the Knight Templars Jacques de Molay, and referenced repeatedly from his book Jacques de Molay, dernier grand maitre du Temple (1974).(Demurger, Jacques de Molay, p. 380) He is also extensively referenced in The Real History Behind the Templars by Sharan Newman (References in Sharan Newman), or in Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain by Joseph F. O'Callaghan,(References in Joseph F. O'Callaghan).
He wrote "Les templiers ces inconnus", "Sur les chemins de la bretagne des calvaires", "Règle et statuts de l'ordre du temple", "Jacques de molay, dernier maitre du temple", "La France des templiers", "Les Templiers", "Guide de la France templière", "Les chevaliers Teutoniques", all referenced on Amazon: [15].
I am afraid Elonka just has a long history of trying to discredit secondary sources which are not to her liking (she once wrote that the prominent French scholar of the Knight Templar Alain Demurger just wrote "summer books", before she learnt about his actual standing). Quite a shame really. PHG 19:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The case for Dailliez being a serious historian is now stronger, but if we need to solve a disputed factual problem where sources disagree, it is hard to write a good summary without having all the sources at hand. In this case, it means that one or more editors who are writing the article should have access to the real books and see what they say. We know that somewhere some real scholarly books by Dailliez exist. Does anyone have access to them? Otherwise all the questions raised above by Bless sins can hardly be answered. EdJohnston 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have actually been putting quite a bit of effort into compiling the information by various historians on the questions of "was there a Franco-Mongol alliance?" This is why I am so sure that no other historian states that De Molay signed a treaty. I invite anyone else interested, to review the information that I have gathered at User:Elonka/Mongol historians. --Elonka 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


To answer Bless Sins' questions exactly:

  • Did the Templars and Mongols consider Muslims their enemy? YES
  • Was Jacques de Molay the leader of the templars at that time (i.e. was he in position of signing such a treaty)? YES
  • Were the Templars and Mongols in contact at this time? YES
  • Are there any documented consequences of this treaty (e.g. coordination of attacks, sharing intelligence)? YES

Dailliez seems to rely for his interpretation on a letter of de Molay to Edward I. I personnaly only known a few letter excerpts by de Molay, where he specifically wrote:

"And our convent, with all our galleys and ships, transported itself to the island of Tortosa, in order to wait for the army of Ghazan and his Tatars."

—Jacques de Molay, letter to Edward I, April 8th, 1301.(Quoted in Demurger, p.154)

"The king of Armenia sent his messengers to the king of Cyprus to tell him (...) that Ghazan was now close to arriving on the lands of the Sultan with a multitude of Tatars. And we, learning this, have the intention to go on the island of Tortosa where our convent has been stationed with weapons and horses during the present year, causing great devastation on the littoral, and capturing many Sarassins. We have the intention to get there and settle there, to wait for the Tatars."

—Jacques de Molay, letter to the king of Aragon, 1301.(Demurger, p.154-155)

Quite interesting stuff... I woudn't be surprised if de Molay wrote more precisely about the agreement/ treaty with the Mongols (many authors speak about this period as an occurence of the Franco-Mongol alliance, such as Richard or Demurger), but I have not seen the letter, I am just rellying of Dailliez's analysis here. PHG 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Transcripts of primary source letters aside, Demurger does not say anywhere in his book that De Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols. In fact, nowhere in his book does he even say that there was a formal alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols. He has one sentence where he implies that by actually sending troops in 1300, that the Europeans were emotionally "putting a seal" on their hoped-for alliance with the Mongols, but I would also point out that the Mongols did not keep up their end of the bargain for that battle, in that they didn't show up. And aside from Jean Richard, who talks about an alliance potentially happening in a completely different decade, no other historian agrees that there was an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols. All other historians describe it as "attempts", a "hope", a "fantasy", a "chimera", a "dream", but not an actual alliance. See User:Elonka/Mongol historians. --Elonka 20:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about Dailliez - section break
I'm amazed at the thoroughness of Elonka's survey, above! You *could* if you wish carry it a step further, and try to figure out which sources each historian had read. You would take points off if you found one of them merely repeating the views of another secondary source; you would add points if he had read all the important documents of the actual period. EdJohnston 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If there are questions about any particular source, I'm happy to provide the footnotes, yes. I would actually welcome discussions about the reliability of any particular source. But getting back to Dailliez, I maintain that the contradictory sentence from his book about De Molay signing a treaty with the Mongols should not be used in our Wikipedia article, precisely because Dailliez has no sources in his book or indications where the information came from, and because the information does not match up with what has been said by any other historian. It's my honest opinion that Dailliez just got confused and made a mistake. Historians make errors in their books all the time -- but that doesn't mean we should quote these errors as "possible opinions" on Wikipedia. We should acknowledge that it's a mistake, or at least doesn't match up with any other historian's views, skip it and move on. Especially in the case of the Crusades, which are extensively documented by dozens of historians, there's no reason we should have to spend time debating a questionable source, when we have so many other reliable ones available. --Elonka 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
To me Elonka's last comment is the key... we have one source making what is a rather unique claim (almost to the point of it being an extraordinary claim), and then we have the bulk of mainstream Historical sources. Undue Weight should not be given to the one unique claim. Blueboar 17:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree mostly with that, but I'd take it a step further. When we have something that is so clearly at odds with the rest of the mainstream sources, we shouldn't just give it less weight, we shouldn't mention it at all, per Wikipedia's policy on undue weight. In other words, when we have mainstream historians agreeing on theory "A", and then we have a few other sources saying, "B, C, and D", but B, C, and D don't even agree with each other, it's my opinion that we shouldn't even bother mentioning B, C, and D in the Wikipedia article, unless either (1) There are multiple reliable sources promoting one of the minority theories; or (2) the minority theory is promoted by a historian who is recognized by multiple sources as a reliable historian. For example, if there is a minority theory promoted by Malcolm Barber, the respected scholar who has written the classic work about the Knights Templar, then even though his theory/argument may not have been picked up by any other historian, it still may be worth including in the Wikipedia article because Barber is a widely-recognized authority with a superb reputation. However, I've found no such indication that Dailliez has that kind of reputation, which is why I think we shouldn't bother mentioning his minority opinions at all. There's a lot of "bad" info about the Templars out there -- we need to be careful on Wikipedia that we're sticking with the reliable stuff, rather than spending too much time on the "what ifs" or "maybes". --Elonka 19:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As always, Elonka is extremely partial and partisan in her interpretation of the sources. Here is a list hereafter of sources who actually speak in detail about the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols. Dailliez is highly consistent with these authors. His claim that de Molay spoke about a Treaty with the Mongols only goes one step further, and seems to be based on his analysis of the documents. After trying to discredit Laurent Dailliez himself, Elonka is now simply trying to discredit his argument. To go back to the first issue: Dailliez is clearly a notable historian, and for this reason deserves his article, much more so I would say than someone like Elonka Dunin really :) PHG 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Historians on the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols:

  • René Grousset mentions especially "Louis IX and the Franco-Mongol alliance" (p521), "Only Edward I understood the value of the Mongol alliance" (p.653) "Edward I and the Mongol alliance" (p.653), "Edward I renewed the precious Mongol Alliance" (in "L'épopée des Croisades", p.301), "The Franco-Mongol coalition, of which the Hospitallers were giving the example" (p.686)
  • Jean Richard in Histoire des Croisades, 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.) and continue on-and-off until it 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). He 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
  • Claude Mutafian in Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie describes "the Mongol alliance" entered into by the king of Armenia and the Franks of Antioch ("the King of Armenia decided to engage into the Mongol alliance, an intelligence that the Latin barons lacked, except for Antioch"), and "the Franco-Mongol collaboration" (Mutafian, p.55)
  • Zoe Oldenbourg in The Crusades mentions the 1280 "Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun". (Oldenbourg, "The Crusades", p.620)
  • Alain Demurger, in the 2002 Jacques de Molay biography The Last Templar, refers to it as the "Mongol alliance", which came to fruition through such events as the 1300 combined offensives between the Templars and the Mongols.(Demurger, p.147 "This expedition sealed by a concrete act the Mongol alliance"), "The strategy of the Mongol alliance in action(Demurger p.145) "De Molay led the fight for the reconquest of Jerusalem by relying on an alliance with the Mongols", back cover)
  • Jonathan Riley-Smith mentions in his Atlas of the Crusades that in 1285 the Hospitallers of the north agreed to ally to the Mongols.("En 1285, Qalawun, nouveau sultan mamelouk, reprend l'offensive, qu'il dirige contre les Hospitaliers du nord, qui s'etaient montres prets a s'allier aux Mongols", Jonathan Riley-Smith, "Atlas des Croisades", p.114) He also describes Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols: "Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally", in History of the Crusades, p.136
  • Laurent Dailliez, in Les Templiers, mentions that the Knights Templar allied with the Mongols, and that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with them against the Muslim "their common enemy".("The Mongols, after taking Damascus and several important cities from the Turks, after having been routed by the Sultan of Egypt at Tiberiade in 1260, allied themselves with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the king of England said that he had to sign such a treaty to fight against the Muslims, "our common enemy"" Dailliez, p.306-307)
  • Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", although he specifies that in the end it led nowhere,("The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" p.816) and turned out to be a "false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom." (pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, with Louis IX's early attempts at capturing "the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories, and Edward's largely unsuccessful attempts.
  • Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West entitles a whole chapter "An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and describes all the viscicitudes and the actual results of the Mongol alliance.
  • Claude Lebedel in Les Croisades describes the alliance of the Franks of Antioch and Tripoli with the Mongols: (in 1260) "the Frank barons refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the Armenians and the Prince of Antioch and Tripoli".
  • Amin Maalouf in The Crusades through Arab eyes 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." PHG 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
PHG, we've been over this, and you keep bringing out the same arguments and mis-representing the data. Mostly you keep claiming that since there was an alliance between Antioch and the Mongols, that that meant that there was an alliance between Europe and the Mongols, and that's just not true. Antioch was Frankish, but they didn't speak for Europe. Further, Antioch didn't ally with the Mongols, they submitted to the Mongols. See the bottom section of User:Elonka/Mongol historians. Or to go into detail on your list:
  • Grousset. No. He did not say there was an alliance, he was arguing that there should have been an alliance.
  • Jean Richard. Yes. He actually says both that there was an alliance and that there wasn't an alliance, but I agree that he's reputable and his opinions should be included, as long as they're clearly labeled as minority opinions
  • Claude Mutafian. No. He isn't talking about an alliance with the Europeans, he's talking about an alliance with the Armenians and Antioch. Which wasn't even an alliance, it was an overlord/vassal relationship, as Antioch and Armenica submitted to the Mongols
  • Jonathan Riley-Smith. No. Again, he is not talking about an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols, he just mentions one (1) group of Hospitaller knights that fought on the Mongol side in 1260. While in that same year, most other Crusaders were completely refusing to have anything to do with the Mongols, and even helped the Muslims against the Mongols.
  • Laurent Dailliez. No. He's not a reliable source, has no footnotes, no bibliography, no sources, and no indication that he's a reputable scholar.
  • Christopher Tyerman. No. He goes to great length to say that there wasn't an alliance, that it was a "false hope", and that the efforts "led nowhere." He absolutely does not say anything about a signed treaty
  • Peter Jackson. No. He's one of the most vocal opponents of the alliance idea, and goes into dozens of pages about why the alliance didn't happen.
  • Claude Lebedel. No. Again, he's not talking about an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols, he's talking about the overlord/vassal relationship between Antioch and the Mongols.
  • Amin Maalouf. No. Again, he's not talking about an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols, he's talking about the overlord/vassal relationship between Antioch & Armenia, and the Mongols.
None of the above historians, except for Dailliez, say anything about De Molay signing a treaty with the Mongols. And even though Richard argues that there was an alliance, his dates don't match up with Dailliez's dates at all. Dailliez obviously made an error, and we should not be using his completely unsourced book as a reference in a Wikipedia article. --Elonka 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You denial is just amazing Elonka. Are Antiochians still not Franks in your mind? All these disucussions to be continued in our mediation I guess...PHG 06:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Does everyone in this discussion read French? If so, take a look at [16] which is the recommended reading list on the Templars by a project on the French Wikipedia called fr:Projet:Ordre du Temple. Perhaps you could ask one of the participants in that project what their view is of Dailliez and his apparently unique assertions. EdJohnston 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about Dailliez (section break 2)

Even better, I am meeting Malcolm Barber tomorrow (he's giving a talk here in St. Louis). I'll be asking him directly. But I could get Barber himself into this discussion saying that Dailliez was wrong, and I still don't think PHG would accept it. --Elonka 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
(Followup) I met with both Dr. Malcolm Barber, and Dr. Thomas Madden, author of the new Encyclopedia Britannica article about the Crusades. Barber was clear that: (1) He'd never heard of a signed treaty between the Templars and the Mongols; and (2) That as regards an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols, there were many attempts at putting such a thing together, but they were never successful. When I brought up to him the case of Laurent Dailliez writing in his book that Jacques de Molay had signed a treaty with the Mongols, Barber's response was that if there's such a claim, it needs proof, as in, "Show us the source. Where's the document?" Without any source, the claim isn't credible. --Elonka 16:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't you get a statement from Barber that Laurent Dailliez is not a reputable scholar as well?? (your claim that his book "does not appear to be a work of serious scholarship"). That's unfortunate... As far as I am concerned, I have no interest in Elonka Dunin using secondary sources against other secondary sources. If they are reputable scholars their point of view deserves to be mentionned, even if historians are divided on a given subject. I'll try to get more of Dailliez's books to see where he is coming from on this and if he gives some primary sources as well, although I don't think it's our job to check historian's sources on Wikipedia. PHG 06:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's not our job to check primary sources, but it is our job to provide a neutral and accurate synopsis of modern scholarship. Further, we go back to the tenet: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." It is my belief that saying that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols, is an exceptional claim that is not backed up by sources. Further, Dailliez's book was written early in his career, and had no sources of any kind in the book. I've compiled a list of his other works at Laurent Dailliez. He appears to have been quite a writing factory, churning out several new books per year. If you can find a source for the "De Molay signed a treaty" in any of Dailliez's other works, I am interested in seeing it. But until then, can't we just agree that Dailliez probably made a mistake, and move on? I'm really disappointed that we are having to spend so much time debating something that is obviously so unreliable. PHG, you're a good researcher and a good writer, but why do we have to spend so much time fighting over these minor issues? Let's just create an article that has a good summary of modern scholarship, and move on to other things? We're wasting far too much time on this one obscure topic, and it's getting in the way of building the encyclopedia. --Elonka 17:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns over whether a given work is 'serious scholarship' or not - in other words, reliability - may be directed to WP:RSN.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's already been done: WP:RS/N#Laurent Dailliez. The current problem seems to be that everyone is in agreement that the source is unreliable, except for PHG. So, do we just say "Consensus - 1" and move forward with what will probably turn into an edit war, or do we continue arguing with PHG who refuses to be convinced, or do we proceed with some other type of dispute resolution? We've tried an RfC (see #Request for comment above), we're tried WP:ANI, and I've been in mediation with PHG for weeks, but there's been absolutely no movement -- he refuses to concede on any point, refuses all offers of compromises, and refuses to offer any compromise of his own. So, where do we go from here? --Elonka 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Elonka. If you refrained from pushing unfair POVs and from misportrayals, we might move a bit more efficiently. PHG is not the only one using Dailliez as a reference :) but also Alain Demurger, Sharan Newman or Joseph F. O'Callaghan. Your whole point at trying to discredit him is, sorry to say, doomed. Laurent Dailliez is a rather prolific French History Doctor who graduated from Ecole pratique des hautes études. He is a Researcher in Medieval studies at the CNRS, a historian of the Crusades and a specialist of the Knights Templar. Among other books, he wrote "Les Templiers", considered as a classical study of the Knights Templar.[2] Dailliez is mentionned in the bibliography of the French specialist of the Knight Templars Jacques de Molay, and referenced repeatedly from his book Jacques de Molay, dernier grand maitre du Temple (1974).(Demurger, Jacques de Molay, p. 380) He is also extensively referenced in The Real History Behind the Templars by Sharan Newman (References in Sharan Newman), or in Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain by Joseph F. O'Callaghan,(References in Joseph F. O'Callaghan). Dailliez wrote "Les templiers ces inconnus", "Sur les chemins de la bretagne des calvaires", "Règle et statuts de l'ordre du temple", "Jacques de molay, dernier maitre du temple", "La France des templiers", "Les Templiers", "Guide de la France templière", "Les chevaliers Teutoniques", all referenced on Amazon: [17].
I am afraid Elonka Dunin just has a long history of trying to discredit secondary sources which are not to her liking (she once wrote that the prominent French scholar of the Knight Templar Alain Demurger just wrote "summer books", before she learnt about his actual standing). Quite a shame really. PHG 13:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
PHG, one thing that you're right about, is that yes, I will absolutely continue to discredit secondary sources that I find unreliable. For example, if someone wanted to quote controversial history from a book such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, I would argue that as well. Just because something has been written by a secondary source, does not make it true. Just because something has been written in a secondary source, does not mean that we should repeat that information on Wikipedia. Instead, when dealing with controversial points of history, our best option is to stick with reliable sources. This means solid scholarship from respected historians, preferably from articles in peer-reviewed journals. Scholars such as Malcolm Barber have articles in peer-reviewed journals, and they also have books that are published by reputable academic publishing houses. Further, these books are then reviewed in peer-reviewed journals, where other scholars give their opinions on the work. In Dailliez's case, he seems to have been an author who pumped out dozens of books, sure, but I haven't seen any work of his that was peer-reviewed. And at the Laurent Dailliez article, the only "sources" that you've found for him have been marketing sites. If his book is listed in a bibliography somewhere, that doesn't mean anything. A reputable scholar could list Holy Blood Holy Grail in their bibliography, in a section where they're talking about "urban legends" or "false history." Just because a book is listed as a source, doesn't mean that a scholar is saying that everything in that book is accurate. Bottom line: I have not seen anything which confirms that Laurent Dailliez is a reliable source, and when he makes a claim in his book that (a) has no sources; and (b) is not repeated by any other reputable scholar, it is simply not something which we should be using at Wikipedia. It's not reliable. --Elonka 18:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Laurent Dailliez is a mainstream French historian, he is in every library in France, he wrote 20 books published by reputable editors, he is the author of the Templars article in Encyclopedia Universalis, and you question having a Wikipedia article on him? When your self-promotion article Elonka Dunin is tolerated? This is nonsense. PHG 07:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • PHG, if you wish to source something from the Encyclopedia Universalis, that's fine. But the Dailliez claim in Templiers: Les Inconnus is still an extraordinary claim in a book that has no sources, does not appear to have been peer-reviewed, and is not validated by any other source, anywhere. C'mon PHG, think of what you're saying here. You've come up with one highly controversial sentence from a questionable book, that is not backed up by anything else. You have multiple editors here questioning the validity of the source. What you should do at this point is back down, acknowledge that there are good-faith questions about this particular sentence, and remove it from the article. If better sources are found later which do confirm this information, it can obviously be easily re-inserted. But for you to repeatedly defy all other editors, and insist on the inclusion of such questionable information, is not speaking well of your scholarship and judgment. Your adversarial stance is also not helpful towards our goal of building a collaborative encyclopedia. Please reconsider what you are doing. --Elonka 13:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
(followup) There's been some extensive discussion about the reliability of Dailliez at Talk:Laurent Dailliez, and the clear consensus (except of course for PHG) is that Dailliez is not a reliable source. --Elonka 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about Dailliez (wrapup)

The consensus is that Laurent Dailliez is not a reliable source. Dailliez has a reputation for making claims without providing any proof. To be specific, we are referring to the claim from Dailliez's book Templiers: Les Inconnus where he claims that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols. This book has no references, no footnotes, no bibliography of any kind. Further, the claim is not corroborated by any other historian.

The consensus is clear (minus PHG's objections) that Dailliez is not a reliable source. This has been discussed at:

Editors who believe Dailliez is acceptable as a source:

  • PHG: "If they are reputable scholars their point of view deserves to be mentionned, even if historians are divided on a given subject."[18]

Editors who believe Dailliez is not acceptable as a source:

  • Elonka: "Dailliez's book is a bad source. We should not use it on Wikipedia."[19]
  • EdJohnston, "I agree with Elonka that a book with no footnotes or bibliography should be treated with great caution."[20]
  • Blueboar. "The claim is definitely not in accordance with the views of mainstream historians."[21][22]
  • Acer11. "When Dailliez is alone to assert something, he's probably wrong."[23]
  • Pete.Hurd: "I havn't seen any of the anticipated coverage of his work suggesting that his views are accepted within the mainstream"[24]

Historian Cerrini (according to Acer11) says, "At Paris, in the academic circles like the IRHT or the EPHE, nobody speaks readily about him...Dailliez doesn't quote his sources, or in an incomplete/wrong way."[25]

Historian Alain Demurger says of Dailliez:

  • That he makes claims "with no reference, as is usually the case with this author." (Last Templar, p. 231, footnote #46)
  • That Dailliez "has taken mischievious pleasure in muddying the waters" in trying to claim that Jacques de Molay was one of the three generals in the Mongol army. (Last Templar, p. 203)

Bottom line: The consensus is that Dailliez is not a reliable source. Everyone agrees on this except for PHG. We should remove Dailliez as a source from the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

Elonka, appart from you, nobody is saying that "Dailliez is an unreliable source" (not even on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Laurent Dailliez). Your claimed consensus for this statement does not exist. Laurent Dailliez is a notable French historian, he is in every library in France, he wrote 20 books published by reputable editors, he is the author of the Templars article in Encyclopedia Universalis, the leading French paper encyclopedia. Dailliez maybe be disputed on some counts (as all historians are), but it is no reason to say he is an unreliable source indeed. Demurger says that appart from the Mulay claim Dailliez is usually a serious writer ("Dailliez, d'habitude plus sérieux,...". ie "Dailliez, usually more serious, ..."), Simotta Cerrini is too little-known and too-little published to place any overriding faith in her comments, and the leading French paper encyclopedia Encyclopedia Universalis clearly thinks Dailliez is reliable when they entrust him with their article on the Templars. So, what's the status on Dailliez?

  • First, you claimed that he was not notable, and argued that his article should be deleted, but I think it has been made clear that he fully complies to the Wikipedia notability guidelines (see Talk:Laurent Dailliez).
  • Second, Dailliez is clearly not alone regarding his statements about the alliance with the Mongols (see Franco-Mongol alliance).
  • Third, you have been extensively corrupting Dailliez's quotes to try to discredit him (Talk:Laurent Dailliez), which really disqualifies your analysis of his work, and questions your fairness in treating with this question.
  • Fourth, the only statement which makes Dailliez unique would be, in my view, his claim that there was an actual "Treaty" with the Mongols (from, according to Dailliez, his letter to Edward I). It is easy to check: transcript of this letter are available, and we can verify his claim. I am ready to remove this claim from Dailliez if he is proven wrong on this.
  • Fifth. In the meantime, as a notable historian, I believe his view deserves to be mentionned, as his own, within the article (which has always been the case). Regards. PHG 13:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal (again)

Per my talk page: I propose we resolve these factual disputes one at a time, using the method of each side presenting their preferred version of a specific paragraph (or as close to that as makes sense) with references, each side agreeing or disagreeing with the sources and interpretations (I must trust you two to agree on acceptable sources, I am not qualified; but if you can't agree maybe you can agree on the facts you rely on to make that decision and others like myself can help weigh those facts in a judgement of which sources are acceptable for what claims) and we'll see if all of us together can agree on a wording that fairly represents reliable relevant published sources. WAS 4.250 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine. My current versions are at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I'm fine on choosing anything there and starting discussion. We've been discussing the introductory section for months, but without success. Perhaps we should pick something further down? --Elonka 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you two could agree on a paragraph or claim or word in the article this page is a talk page of (that has a corresponding paragraph, claim or word in Elonka's alternate version) such that it has whatever qualities would be useful in unraveling this mess. Sometimes that means finding a keystone. Sometimes that means minding a loose end that can unravel a knot. WAS 4.250 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I'd say let's use the introductory paragraph. If we can agree on a lead section, then the rest of the article will fall into place. I've proposed two new lead sections: Elonka's Version 1, Elonka's Version 2. I'm happy to discuss either one, towards finding a compromise version. In terms of sources, I've compiled an extensive list at User:Elonka/Mongol historians, and I'm happy to discuss the reliability or suitability of anything there, as well. --Elonka 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I clicked the first one and found a lack of referencing. What I have in mind is a claim written from a reliable published source and a quote from that source that substantiates the claim. Any reader should be able to read the referencing footnote and see that the claim is true. I expect us to deal with issues of out of context, meanings of words that have changed, sources that are out of date, and experts that are biased. But we have to start with a claim that on its face is justified with an actual quote from an actual reliable published source. We then compare the two versions you two suggest go in the article and evaluate which best represents the sources that we are actually going to use in wikipedia to source the claim. WAS 4.250 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have collected dozens of sources as User:Elonka/Mongol historians. I think it would be a bit of over-kill to source all of them, but we can definitely use a few. Which ones do you think are most compelling? --Elonka 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Write it as it will appear in the article. Then ask yourself, can the average reader see that this quote from this source supports this claim. Lets start with claims that can be sourced to one quote from one source. Once we get enough of those, then we can evaluate: what introductory summation best represents these claims. WAS 4.250 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you're getting at. Could you please provide an example? For example, here's a quote from Christoper P. Atwood in Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, in the entry on "Western Europe and the Mongols": Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam." Are you saying that I should quote Atwood directly in the lead? Or use him as a ref? --Elonka 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(followup) I've added several sources to the lead at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance which I think are what you're getting at. If not, please let me know? --Elonka 20:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

<<<<< (After I submit this, I'm turning off my computer for today.) The reference section at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance is currently unreadable so I can't reply to the second question.

Sorry about that, fixed. I'm assuming you're using something like Lupin's popups? It should be working now. --Elonka 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Claim 1

Christoper P. Atwood states "Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam.'"[3]

Comments on claim

Do both sides agree this is accurate? relevant? Which section should it go in? Does it need a counter-balancing claim? Is there a nuance that should be conveyed to the reader in the ref note or in a followup sentence? Add "noted historian[ref]"? WAS 4.250 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is accurate and relevant, and should go in the lead. In terms of a counter-balancing claim, to my knowledge, the majority of other historians agree with him, but there is one, the French historian Jean Richard, who believes that an alliance was achieved, starting in 1263. I know of no other historians who agree with Richard's assessment, but since Richard is a reputable historian, I'd say his view is worth including, as long as it is clearly labeled as a minority opinion. I think I've done that at my version, in User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 21:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources and notes

  1. ^ Commentary on "Les Templiers" at La Fnac bookstore.
  2. ^ Commentary on "Les Templiers" at La Fnac bookstore.
  3. ^ Christoper P. Atwood in Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, in the entry on "Western Europe and the Mongols" (2004) p. 583

Mediation

There is a Mediation going on between Elonka and myself, just to have even the introduction phrase settled. Elonka, we're supposed to start by that if you don't mind. PHG 12:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG, in order for mediation to be successful, you need to show a willingness to negotiate in good faith, and you need to show a genuine willingness to compromise. So far I'm afraid that it is starting to look that you are not participating in mediation in good faith. We have been in there a month: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance and all you have done is continually reject all compromises, continually insist on your own version, and continue to generate personal attacks towards me. It appears that you are simply using mediation as an attempt to stall, and keep changes away from "your" article. --Elonka 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, my position is already a position of compromise, allowing for the representation of both POVs: "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." with relevant references. On the other hand, your position only favours one POV ("Attempts only"). I believe you are actually the one blocking the process by denying both academic views to be represented fairly. Regards. PHG 12:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere, please stop starting all these extra threads. I've answered you at mediation, I have nothing new to say here. --Elonka 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Elonka POV and illegitimate claim of a consensus

  • I reverted Elonka's edits to this article. I cannot subscribe to the view that the "Alliance" view is a minority one. It is supported by numerous mainstream scholars (User:PHG/Alliance). Elonka's list is partly right, and partly fabricated (for example, her presentation of Amin Maaloof as describing the Alliance only as "a dream" was clearly abusive when I checked the source). According to Wikipedia:NPOV policy, both views should be represented, and the standard intro phrase for that would be "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance...". On our mediation, the mediator, who went into the details, has clearly said also that in his view both theories should be presented and that source-counting was pointless (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance#On track), and he favoured my "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." approach, so Elonka cannot say that she has a consensus.
  • I will not spend my time lobbying on Wikipedia to try to get votes the way Elonka does to claim a 4:1 or 4:2 (2 being myself +Srnec) or a 4:3 (3 being myself +Srnec + our mediator User:Tariqabjotu) position is a "consensus". It is sufficient for me that both views are expressed by mainstream historians, and that Wikipedia policies therefore allows for the representation of both. Trying to establish historical truth through a few editor's comments is called Wikiality, and it is not what we are supposed to do: we are only supposed to lay out in a neutral manner major scholarly views on a given subject, and according to Jimmy Wales, this is "absolute and non-negotiable."[26]. Regards PHG 12:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • PHG, mediators are neutral, they're not there to support one side or the other, so please don't try to use Tariq's comments as proof of anything. Also, please stop with this "vote counting". Wikipedia doesn't run on votes, it runs on consensus. As for WP:NPOV, I fully support that policy, especially the section on undue weight. Despite your protestations, what we still have here is a case where your opinions are not being agreed to by other editors on this page. We've listened patiently, we've weighed your options, we've examined alternatives, we've offered compromises, but it seems that no matter what is said, that you still are insisting that you are right, and everyone else is wrong. I'm sorry PHG, but this just isn't helpful to the encyclopedia. Please review Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, please acknowledge that there is a clear consensus, please acknowledge that no one else is agreeing with you, and please can we move on to something else? --Elonka 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Elonka, I am afraid you are the one doing vote counting and abusively claiming consensus, when all you have is a clear lack of consensus. All this discussion is clearly ridiculous as you insist on having only your point of view prevail ("Attempts only"), whether I only wish to have both scholarly point-of-views represented (An alliance, ot attempts towards an alliance,...") in Wikipedia:NPOV fashion. Your claim to undue weight is irrelevant as the "Alliance" view is supported by numerous mainstream scholars (User:PHG/Alliance). You really have no case here, and if you don't know how to balance opinions, I am really not interested in continuing this discussion. PHG 11:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • PHG, you keep asking the same question in multiple places. As for the mediator, they've clearly told you on your talkpage that you shouldn't use their statements as proof of anything. Now please, stop starting all these extra threads. --Elonka 18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no reason why you should try to deny a major scholarly point of view, as abundantly described in User:PHG/Alliance. And I am not starting other threads at all, please explain. PHG 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That is a straw man argument - Elonka is not trying to deny that some historians believe there was an alliance, merely to put that claim in context and to make sure the article gives it due weight. WjBscribe 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree, she is trying to have her POV prevail "Only attempts at an alliance", whether I am only asking for balanced representation "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." with attendant references in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV. It is illegitimate to claim that the "alliance" point of view is marginal. Just look at the sources: User:PHG/Alliance. PHG 18:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jacques de Molay signed a treaty?

Elonka has discussed some of the issues with this article with me privately and asked my opinion. I don't feel qualified to make general comments but I'll say a few words about Laurent Dailliez. First, I think that Elonka has not shown a consensus that Dailliez's oeuvre as a whole is unreliable and should not be used for sourcing purposes.

However, I do think that she has shown a consensus that if Dailliez's 1972 book on the Templars is the only putatively reliable source for the idea that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols then that is a fringe claim which should not be given undue weight. It probably shouldn't be in the article at all. It certainly shouldn't be presented the way it is now: "Another French historian ... explains ... that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with them". The verb 'explains' strongly implies that the veracity of the claim is not in doubt. The reader will come away with the impression that the existence of a signed treaty is an historical fact.

PHG has taken a picture showing his impressive stack of books bearing on the subject of Franco-Mongol relations. If Dailliez's book is the only one to refer to this treaty as fact then that's not good enough a source. I suppose it doesn't help that Dailliez doesn't give footnotes so that his source for the claim can't be tracked down. Haukur 17:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Haukur, I appreciate your taking the time to offer an outside opinion. I agree with you that just because one claim is Dailliez's book in questionable, does not mean that we should throw out the entire book as a potential source. Where Dailliez says things that are non-controversial, or are backed up by other historians, I agree that Dailliez can be used. But in terms of this "Jacques de Molay signed a treaty" claim, no other historians agree with this, and in fact, many go to great lengths to say that there was never any kind of alliance between the Franks and Mongols. So I agree, and consensus appears to be clear, that we should not use Dailliez's book as a source for that claim. --Elonka 19:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Canvassing: Let me just note how Elonka is lobbying other users behind the scenes (canvassing?) to obtain their comments on these pages ("Elonka has discussed some of the issues with this article with me privately and asked my opinion"). From now on, I will not accept claims that "Look, all the others users are saying so and so..." because this is clearly set up: in all tallying or voting, or claim to a numerical advantage, a neutral request for comments on a thematic page is acceptable, but fetching friendly opinions one by one is not. Incidentally, User:Haukurth already has a history of supporting Elonka, especially for Adminship (User talk:Haukurth#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2).
Firstly, however, I agree with Faukur that "Elonka has not shown a consensus that Dailliez's oeuvre as a whole is unreliable and should not be used for sourcing purposes." I suggest we move on with at least accepting the notability of Laurent Dailliez for an article (instead of the constant oposition seen on the Talk page of that article).
Secondly, I agree with the "Treaty" claim as being marginal, although the alliance claim (User:PHG/Alliance) is abundant (I, myself, have not seen the "Treaty" claim somewhere else). I am ready to see it removed provided is it proven to be false (and not just vague and unjustified "this author is unreliable"). I am sure someone can easily get a transcript of the letter from de Molay to Edward I, so that we can check exactly what he said. I will try to get the transcript myself, but it may take some time. PHG 12:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not correct until "proven to be false" - we should remove it until it is proven to be based on something real. Haukur 09:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
PHG, repeat after me: "Relations between the Mongols and Armenia, have nothing to do with the relations between the Mongols and Europe." Just because Armenia submitted to Mongol overlordship, does not mean that there was an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols. Just because the word "alliance" appears in a book, especially in relation to Armenia and Antioch, does not mean that there was an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols. Antioch did not ally with the Mongols, Antioch submitted to the Mongols. They surrendered, and joined their forces with the Mongols. So yes, some historians can then use the word "alliance" as a synonym, like to say, "The Mongols with their Christian allies," but they're not referring to an alliance between the Mongols and Europe, they're referring to "The Mongols with their Christian subjects". The countries of Georgia, Armenia, and Antioch, submitted to the Mongols. They surrendered to the Mongols. See User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Antioch. But relations between the Mongols and Armenia, have nothing to with the relations between the Mongols and Europe. Just because you find the word "alliance" in relation to the Mongols, does not mean that there was an alliance between the Mongols and Europe. Please, can you actually read these books that you're quoting? --Elonka 18:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, you are entitled to your point of view: it is indeed supported by numerous historians, and I totally respect it. There is however also another point of view, also supported by numerous historians, which describes an actual alliance between the Franks and the Mongols (and, no, they don't mistake the Franks for Armenians, and no, the Franks are not just Europe, but also the Franks in the Holy Land), documented in User:PHG/Alliance. You have no right to claim that your POV is the only one that deserves representation, this is against Wikipedia:NPOV, and there is no way you can go against this most fundamental of Wikipedia rules. Both views deserve to be represented in a balanced way. PHG 17:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
PHG, I have repeatedly said that both views can be represented, and it is a violation of WP:POINT for you to repeatedly insist otherwise. My argument is not that your view shouldn't be represented, my argument is that we need to give appropriate weight to the different views. Your view, that there was an actual alliance, is a minority view. It is supported only by a few sources that don't even agree with each other on the details. My view, for which I have supplied literally over a hundred citations from dozens of different historians, is that the mainstream view is "attempts towards an alliance, that were ultimately unsuccessful." See also the lead section of my rewrite at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance, where I have been carefully referencing each and every claim.
What this dispute boils down to, is that I want to first present the mainstream view, and then present the minority view. Whereas you want to list the minority view first, and aren't even willing to admit that it is a minority view. You're trying to claim that historians are equally split on the matter, and that's just plain not true. Now, instead of arguing here, could you please focus your attention at mediation? Our mediator has requested your input.[27] --Elonka 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, you are the one who has been trying to get out of mediation, and has started to implement changes in the article that were still under discussion there. I am not claiming for one point of view to prevail on the other, just to have balanced presentation in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV, such as a standard "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." with attendant references. You claim that one point of view ("alliance") is marginal, is totally illegitimate (User:PHG/Alliance). I'll be glad to continue discussion on mediation, and please don't say I am neglecting it: I have been away for 24 hours only (I happen to have a life besides Wikipedia). PHG 18:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
PHG, at no point have I been trying to "get out" of mediation, please stop with the straw man arguments. If you think I have a view that is illegitimate, I'm happy to discuss it, because I am very confident of my citations. Bring it up on mediation. --Elonka 18:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I would hope that you might start engaging on the question of what that weight should be and how to express it, rather than rigidly sticking to the one phrasing you like best. I am particularly interested in seeing your response to Tariqabjotu's three proposals at the bottom Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Franco-Mongol_alliance#The_mediation_is_here, where attention would probably be more productively directed. WjBscribe
Perhaps both parties of this issue would be better served by taking a temporary break, and agreeing to come back to Wikipedia in, say, 48 hours? Mediation might not be necessary at all. Mindraker 03:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, but we actually already tried that, without success. I stayed away from the article for two weeks. PHG didn't. And then when I tried editing the article again, he just reverted everything. Doesn't matter if I'm making a controversial change or a non-controversial change, or even if somebody else is coming in to just disambiguate a link, PHG is reverting everyone en masse. --Elonka 05:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, the Franco-Mongol alliance already incorporates a huge amount of your views and information, and I am delighted about that. What I reverted were your changes to the article while the matters are still under discussion at the mediation (intro phrase, article split etc...). Please have the decency to wait for mediation results before trying to implement your changes. PHG 11:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I see. Now that the article is locked, article reverting isn't really an issue. Both parties can now focus exclusively on smoothing out the issues of the article. Perhaps both parties could do that here on their own, and not resorting to mediation. What kind of constructive suggestions does either party have for the article? Mindraker 12:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Re all this mess. I have given up on this article. PHG and Elonka have been fighting over it for months. Perhaps you should just leave it for a while (both) and see what happens if other editors work on it. Until this mess is solved you won't see me here. Arnoutf 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify; as there was some misunderstanding, I am not a topic expert, so I have made no (or at least hardly any) edits, but I am interested in medieval history. The neverending dispute however stopped me from checking back on this article for some time now. Arnoutf 20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pathetic

This debate is spiraling down into a sewer of speculation and accusation. I am puzzled as to why more effort is not being given at discussing one issue at a time per WAS 4.250. For 2 people debating about scholarship, this is pathetic, hence this section title. If you two wish to reply to this message please save and keep it to yourself the accusation of who began this conflict/attitude. The way I see it you two seem to not care about engaging in discussion but rather provide a quick note on your view of an issue and than waste time on accusation and recently the accusation part is dominating the discussion more and more. So my recommendation is to shut up about what you think the other person's agenda/downfalls are and just concentrate on discussion. Discussion of not 2-3 replies but a discussion of child like (I'll explain in a minute) proportions where one person defends his position/view under a barrage of "Why do you think so?"/"How do you know that?" questions until there is nothing possibly left unclear. I would urge you two to at least attempt it unless you plan to spend couple weeks vacationing at arbcom. Good Luck, you two need it. 70.51.118.198 18:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Siege of Ruad

This now has its own article, please link it. Lampman 14:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Is this a hoax?

I read elsewhere that the King of France was so upset at the Mongol incursions into Russia, due to the Kievan side, that he boasted to make his way east and destroy them once and for all. No mention of it here, huh? Sad. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be up to you to provide reliable sources for that. --Latebird (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Joint Conquests"?

Really? Are we really calling the Mongol sack of Baghdad a "joint conquest" with the Franks? Is there any evidence that any Franks (as opposed to Georgians or Armenians) participated in said sack? For Syria, does the participation of troops from the by-that-point minuscule principality of Antioch really make it a "joint conquest"? PHG seems to be pushing a pretty dubious POV here. john k (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No argument here. :) BTW John, if you have time, I'd love an outside opinion in the above threads on "article rewrite", "request for comment", and "introduction sentence". --Elonka 01:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The whole discussion is such a mess I'm having a hard time following it. I did think that your proposed version, from what I read, is superior to the current version. john k (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We could soften the titles, like "Frank involvement in the conquest of Baghdad" or "Participation to the conquest of Syria", but secondary sources are plentiful that describe these two events (references given in the text). Bohemond VI's territories were not minuscule: he ruled both the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli, making up about half of Christian lands in the Levant throughout the period (Johnathan Riley-Smith, "Atlas of the Crusades"). PHG (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone other than Demurger say Bohemond was present at Baghdad in 1258? Runciman certainly implies that he was not. Does Demurger actually discuss this issue in detail, and explain what evidence he has for why he believes Bohemond to have been present then? I've never seen such a a claim anywhere else. Beyond that, softened titles are a good start. john k (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, there's rather a lot of conflicting information about Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols (both here and at Bohemond VI of Antioch, which I assume you were heavily involved with as well. On the one hand, there are these claims that Bohemond's father had already been a Mongol subject for years. On the other hand, it is due to the influence of his father-in-law Hethoum, who only became his father in law in 1254, that Bohemond becomes a Mongol subject. At any rate, we seem to be stating things far too definitely, given the sources currently at hand. john k (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This all seems to be from Demurger, who in turns seems to be making it up as he goes along, Runciman-style (although not even Runciman goes that far). Tyerman certainly doesn't say anything of the sort, despite the references. I doubt it would have been to Bohemond's advantage to travel all the way to Baghdad when the Mamluks are still active at home. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Runciman, in fact, seems to say that Bohemond was clearly elsewhere at the time of the sack of Baghdad. "In February 1258, Plaisance made an attempt to assert her authority. She crossed from Cyprus with her five-year-old son, King Hugh, to Tripoli to her brother Bohemond, who escorted her to Acre." If Bohemond was in Tripoli and Acre in February 1258, he can hardly have been in Baghdad at the same time. Runciman cites the Assises, the Estoire d'Eracles, the MS. of Rothelin, and the Gestes des Chiprois as sources for this paragraph. How unreliable is Runciman, BTW? I've definitely noticed some rather clear errors, as when he says Ghazzan, who died in 1304, invaded Syria in 1308 and captured Jerusalem. But he's sadly the only source I actually own on the Crusades. john k (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Not too bad, since he is clear and honest with his sources and gives lots of footnotes. He just gets carried away with his prose sometimes...he likes to fill in the gaps with his own imagined stories, and if the crusaders do anything distasteful to his own religious beliefs, he definitely lets you know. Sometimes he may just be out of date, and better sources may have since come to light for Ghazzan, in that case. I trust him for Bohemond's whereabouts in 1258, that's a great catch. Bohemond probably sent a contingent of troops to Baghdad, but probably not very many, and certainly was not present himself. This happens a lot in Antioch - there were Antiochene troops at Manzikert and Didgori and many others, but never the whole army led by the Prince himself. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. I think my only reference for Bohemond in Baghdad is Demurger (in 2 different books). He's a highly reputable historian, but the 2 books don't give a specific reference for the statement. Would it be possible to have more details on the Runciman references? I guess we could end up with something like "According to Alain Demurger (with ref)... however Runciman states that Bohemond was in the Levant at that time (with ref)". PHG (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No, PHG; this the biggest problem you have on every article, you are apparently unable to distinguish a bad source from a good one. Demurger is clearly wrong and should not be referenced at all. This has been going on for months and I don't know how else to say it anymore. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Who are we to say that Runciman is better than Demurger in this case? Demurger is a highly reputable source, much more recent than Runciman, and one of the foremost French historians on the subject of the Crusades. I'am OK to highlight his interpretation as his own only (until other sources can be found), and to present contrary interpretations in typical Wikipedia NPOV style, but trying to deny the very existence of his interpretation is plain wrong: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." (Wikipedia:NPOV). PHG (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Runciman cites specific sources for Bohemond in Tripoli. You yourself say that Demurger provides no sources for his claim that Bohemond was in Baghdad. john k (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Bohemond's article also said (before I attempted to fix it just now) that he did not ally with the Mongols until after they took Baghdad. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) I don't think giving refs for a specific claim is an absolute condition for a reputable historian to be quoted on Wikipedia (although I agree a claim with refs would be better). Demurger is a highly reputable historian: it is enough for his interpretations to be mentionned, even if he didn't give a ref for it.
  • 2) I know of 2 references (Demurger and Jackson) that describe an alliance of the Antiochians with the Mongols as soon 1246-1247: in 1247 the Dominicans under Carpini placed the limit of Mongol dominions 2 days' journey south of Antioch, and Matthew Paris included Bohemond V among those who in 1246 became tributary to the Mongols (in Jackson, p.103). According to Alain Demurger, Cilician Armenia as well as Antioch and Tripoli were paying tribute and supplying troops to the Mongols since 1247 (Demurger, "Jacques de Molay", p.55.). PHG (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
On Carpini, doesn't that imply that Antioch was a vassal, but that Tripoli was not? That seems a strange and unlikely situation. Beyond that, we have fairly clear and credible evidence saying that Bohemond was in Tripoli and Acre at the time of the sack of Baghdad. On the other side, we have bald assertion, not backed by any citation of primary sources, that he was in Baghdad. As to when Antioch became a vassal of the Mongols, this seems to be somewhat disputed. And is Matthew Paris a worthwhile source on the history of the crusader states? His chronicle, so far as I can gather, was about English history from 1235 to 1259. john k (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We are only here on Wikipedia to present reputable secondary sources: Jackson simply interprets Medieval sources as meaning that the Antiochians had allied with the Mongols by 1247. I have no wish to argue with Jackson's theory personally.... Second point: the date of the alliance between Bohemond and the Mongols is generally thought to be 1254 (1247 is a minority, but not uninteresting, opinion). PHG (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 3) Also, most historians date the alliance between Bohemond and the Mongols to 1254, as the time of Bohemond's wedding to a daughter of Hethoum, that is well before Baghdad. After around 1254, Bohemond VI, Frank ruler of the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli and one of the Outremer's most important power-brokers, ("Bohemond VI, briefly one of Outremer's most important power broker", Tyerman, p.806) became a long-time ally of the Mongols.("Bohemond of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally” John Riley-Smith, The Oxford History of the Crusades, p.136)("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. But the Franks of Asia held aloof.", Runciman, p.299)("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)) PHG (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are we calling him "one of Outremer's most important power brokers"? That Tyerman calls him this does not mean that we should call him this in this particular sentence. The actual date of said alliance, at any rate, is not at all clear from the miniature quotes you are providing. Can you give a source which actually says directly that Bohemond became a Mongol vassal in 1254? As to what we are here on wikipedia to do, we of course have to make some effort to judge the reliability of statements in secondary sources. If one secondary source makes a statement "Bohemond VI was at the sack of Baghdad in February 1258," and there is no mention of a primary source which states this, no other secondary sources can be provided which make the same assertion, and another major secondary sources provides fairly specific information that the first secondary source is impossible, we shouldn't include it. As to the date of Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols, it certainly doesn't seem that there's any agreement about when it was. john k (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • John, Runciman doesn't say specifically that Bohemond wasn't in Baghdad. Although the dates seem to be close, nobody can rule out that Bohemond may have been in the Levant at one time, and in Baghdad a few weeks earlier or later. I profoundly disagree that the interpretation of an historian such as Demurger should be discarded just because some Wikipedian is making an OR analysis based on a supposed schedule conflict. Both are reputable published views, and therefore both have the right to be represented.
  • One precision on the dates of the alliance: two authors consider 1246-1247 as the date of the alliance between Antioch and the Mongols (Jackson and Demurger above). Other historians connect it to the wedding of the Armenian princess Sibylla of Armenia with Bohemond VI in 1254 (Runciman, p. 278). Runciman doesn't give a exact date, but mentions the alliance of Bohemond with the Mongols after the wedding (1254) and before 1256 (p.298-299): it is the reason why I wrote "After 1254" in the article. I don't have an exact quote :"Bohemond allied with the Mongols in 1254", but historians I've read all connect the alliance to the Mongols to the marital alliance between the Armenians and the Antiochians" (for those who wouldn't know Hetoum I , the king of Armenia and father-in-law of Bohemond, had already allied with the Mongols in 1247, and went himself to Karakorum in 1254). So from the sources I have, it either 1246-1247, or 1254 or slightly after. PHG (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It is extraordinarily hard to see how Bohemond could have been in Baghdad in mid-February if he was back in Tripoli, waiting for his sister, only a few weeks later. However respected Demurger might be, he is fully capable of making a mistake. Find another historian who says Bohemond was at Antioch, or a citation to a primary source that indicates this. john k (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as the date of the alliance, I agree this is murkier. However, I think you are misinterpreting Runciman. He does talk about Bohemond joining his father-in-law's efforts to cooperate with the Mongols right before he talks about Hulagu's advance into Persia in January 1256. But he gives no clear date as to when this happened. His footnote on this says to "see below". Aforesaid below is a discussion of Bohemond paying tribute to the Khan in 1260, after the fall of Aleppo. There is no indication in Runciman of Antiochene troops participating in any Mongol campaigns prior to that point. As such, there is no clear indication in Runciman of Bohemond actually submitting to the Mongols before 1260. The earlier discussion is vague and without context - we can easily interpret Runciman (especially given his footnote!) of simply foreshadowing Bohemond's later submission to the Mongols in his discussion on p. 298. Runciman is vague enough on this that I think the only things clear from his narrative are that Bohemond submitted after the fall of Aleppo in 1260, and that he was with Kitbogha at Damascus later that year. Everything before that is ambiguous. john k (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I spent considerable time looking through dozens of sources about Bohemond VI, and most of them are pretty vague about when exactly he submitted. The general sense that most of them convey, is that it happened sometime after the fall of Baghdad (1258) and before the taking of Aleppo (January 1260). Keep in mind that Aleppo is just east of Antioch, so Bohemond didn't have much of a choice at that point. He could submit, or he could be overrun. As for timing, I think I saw one source that specifically said 1259, but I don't have it handy to verify the footnotes.
If it's helpful, I've included relevant Antioch quotes from a half-dozen books here: User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Antioch. Some other potentially helpful online sources (Amazon has a good "search inside this book" feature):
  • One of Runciman's articles, "The Crusader States, 1243-1291".[28]
  • Jean Richard's "The Crusades, c. 1071- c. 1291"[29]
--Elonka 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I note that Nicholle suggests that Bohemond was not even present at the one place Runciman puts him - the capture of Damascus - calling that a mere legend. john k (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not saying that all sources agree on these events. Quite the contrary, I am just laying out the different interpretations various sources have:

  • According to some historians the Antiochian Franks allied with the Mongols in 1246-1247 (Demurger, Jackson)
  • According to most historians, the Antiochian Franks allied (or submitted) to the Mongols sometime after the wedding of Bohemond to Sibylla of Armenia in 1254, due to the influence of his father-in-law Hetoum I, a long-time and very active ally of the Mongols (since 1247).
  • According to one author (Demurger) Bohemond was in at the Fall of Baghdad in 1258.
  • According to most historians, Bohemond campaigned with Hetoum I and Hulegu to take Aleppo and Damascus in 1260.
  • According to several historians (Tyerman etc...) a Mongol resident with Mongol troops stationned at Antioch until the Fall of Antioch in 1268.

Personnally, I don't care who is right or wrong: I am not an historian, and I don't think any of us should act as apprentice-historians challenging the interpretations of real, published ones. This is just about laying out historical work by reputable sources per Wikipedia:NPOV. PHG (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, our job is to try to assess the scholarly literature and try to determine what is a consensus position, what is a majority position, what is a minority position, and what is a fringe position. I notice that you don't note that according to at least one author (Runciman), Bohemond could not possibly have been at the fall of Baghdad in 1258, and that according to at least one other author (Nicholle) Bohemond was probably not present at the fall of Damascus. BTW, I've just discovered on JSTOR an article by Peter Jackson in the BHR specifically about the Mongol campaigns in Syria in 1260. I'll read and try to report on its relevance. john k (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's be precise with the sources please. Runciman does not say that "Bohemond could not possibly have been at the fall of Baghdad in 1258", he only says that he met with his sister in the Levant in February 1258. And I'm totally OK to add Nicholle as an alternative opinion. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If I may say this without sounding too pompous, PHG, it is extremely obvious that you are not an historian. If you were, you would know what you are doing and we wouldn't have been having these arguments for all these months. Perhaps that is a clue that you should stop? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect Adam, I am only making sure that Wikipedia's editorial principles are respected here: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." (Wikipedia:NPOV). PHG (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some salient quotes from the Jackson article

See User:John Kenney/Mongols. As I go along I see that PHG has apparently already read this article, but I thought that more extensive quotations would be more useful than hand-picked out of context quotations. I've only gone partway through, I hope to continue tomorrow. john k (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hans Eberhard Mayer on Bohemond's whereabouts in 1258.

Mayer wrote an article on the struggles in the Kingdom of Jerusalem between 1253 and 1258, published in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society in 1978. Here's what he says. "Hugh, Plaisance, and Bohemund arrived in Acre on 1 February, 1258, claiming the regency and thus doing what the country had been expecting since June, 1253." The Estoire d'Eracles and some other sources are cited for the date. Now, look, if Bohemund was in Acre on 1 February, and then was spending the next several weeks, at least, dealing with the complicated issue of the regency, there is absolutely no way he could have been in Baghdad a week later. Nor is there any real chance he could have broken off being in Baghdad to head back to Tripoli to meet his sister. On the one hand, we have a very well documented event - that Bohemund was in Acre in February 1258 aiding his sister to acquire the regency of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This is attested in multiple sources, and makes it logistically impossible for Bohemund to have been present at the sack of Baghdad. On the other side, we have two statements by one historian, who provides no sourcing whatever for this claim. The only logical conclusion to draw from this is that Demurger has made a mistake. Perhaps he has confused "Bohemund in Baghdad" for the better attested (but still quite possibly false) claim that Bohemund was at the fall of Damascus, I don't know. But he seems pretty damned clearly not to have been in Baghdad. This should be removed from the article. john k (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on Hans Eberhard Mayer. However the argument that "since Bohemond was in Acre on February 1, 1258, he cannot have been at the fall of Baghdad", is your very own, is not sourced itself from a published source, and therefore amounts to original research which has no right of place on Wikipedia ("Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research" in Wikipedia:OR). What we could do is to lay the two claims side by side though: "Demurger claims that Bohemond was at the Fall of Baghdad. However he is also documented to have been in Acre on February 1st (Runciman, Mayer)." PHG (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No PHG, that's ridiculous, and is further evidence of my point that you have no idea what you are doing. You have completely failed to understand NPOV, original research, Wikipedia, and the idea of history in general. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, this is absurd. Just because Demurger is a reputable historian does not mean that we have to take every statement he makes at equal value. Even the best historians make mistakes, and we shouldn't uncritically repeat what we know to be mistakes. Find another source to substantiate Demurger, or drop it. john k (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Adam Bishop and John K. Sometimes historians make mistakes, and just because a reputable historian says something, doesn't mean that we have to repeat it on Wikipedia. Our job is to provide a neutral synopsis of history based on reliable sources. Where there are differing views among historians, we are to give appropriate weight to majority and minority views. But, if a historian makes a mistake or says something bizarre, that doesn't count as a "minority view", it counts as an uncorroborated statement. Now, if multiple reliable historians repeat this same view, then we might have a case that it's a significant enough view to include. Bottom line: If Demurger is the only one to say something controversial, and no one else is agreeing with him, then the information probably shouldn't be included in the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It is definitely obvious that Demurger, perhaps led on by the fact that Antiochene troops were probably present, has made an error. I caught myself once making this type of error on Wikipedia, in fact. I read one thing, then typed another which I thought to be perfectly in line with what I had read, only to find out reading something else later that I had, without even thinking, inserted a small detail which connected with the facts very well in my head but had no basis in the sources. You can trace this error of mine at a query I made on Talk:Waldalenus and then edits I made shortly thereafter upon checking my sources at Adalrich, Duke of Alsace. I think it very probable that Demurger did the same sort of thing and that puts four editors in the same camp against you, PHG. The claim that Bohemond was at the Siege of Baghdad is clearly not significant (or more than one historian would mention it), nor reliably sourced (since it is unfootnoted in one author and seemingly contradicted by others), and not unbiased (since only a strong bias in favour of Demurger could get over the insignificance/unreliability). For this claim, at least, PHG, you should back down. Srnec (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've done that plenty of times too. The great thing about Wikipedia is that we can correct that sort of thing...except when the original poster bends over backwards to prove he is right anyway... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for your comments. The fact remains that Demurger does mention (two times) that Bohemond was present with his troops at Baghdad, and publishes the info in two very reputable books. In a subject where we precisely speak about relations between Franks and Mongols, it is worth mentionning. If you wish we could even isolate Demurger further "Demurger makes a unique and unreferenced claim that Bohemond and his troops were in Baghdad", but I'm very reluctant to condone "book-burning" ("he's wrong, it never happened, don't even allow it to be mentionned"). Demurger being an extremely serious historian, I'm sure he actually has some info to back up such a claim. Furthermore, all the rationale against his claim is actually original research based on the analysis of a possible schedule conflict: I'd like to see at least a published source saying that Bohemond was not in Baghdad, or that Demurger is wrong on this count.
  • By the way, several of the editors here have stated that Antiochian troops were probably at Baghdad (even if Bohemond himself weren't)... is there any reference for that? PHG (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no particular signs that Antiochene troops were at Baghdad - this seems to be an assumption, rather than something based on clear sourcing. As to Demurger, only one of your two quotations actually says that Bohemond was personally present at Baghdad. The other merely indicates the participation of Antiochene forces there. john k (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

More info

Today, I bought Alain Demurger's latest book Les Templiers (Editions Jean-Paul Gisserot, 2007), and he is once again unambiguous about the presence of Antiochian Franks at the Siege of Baghdad in 1254 (although, again he doesn't give a source). So let me review what he says exactly in these three books:

  • 1) In Les Templiers (p.80-81): "The main adversary of the Mongols in the Middle-East was the Mamluk Sultanate and the Califate of Baghdad; in 1258 they take the city, sack it, massacre the population and exterminate the Abassid familly who ruled the Califate since 750; the king of Little Armenia (of Cilicia) and the troops of Antioch participated to the fight and the looting together with the Mongols."
That is not a statement that Bohemund was present. john k (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 2) In Croisades et Croisés au Moyen-Age (p.284): "The Franks of Tripoli and Antioch, just as the Armenians of Cilicia who since the submission of Asia Minor in 1243 had to recognize Mongol overlordship and pay tribute, participated to the capture of Baghdad."
  • 3) In Jacques de Molay, p.55 "The Count of Tripoli and Prince of Antioch (the two state had the same ruler), and the king of Cilician Armenia (or Little Armenia) had made their submission to the Mongols. Since 1247 already, they had paid tribute and supplied troops. King Hetoum I went to Karakorum to make his submission in 1253, and Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258."

Regarding point 3), Demurger does not exactly say that Bohemond was in Baghdad in February 1258 (although his troops were). Therefore I am afraid John's reasonning that Demurger's claim is impossible because he was in Acre on February 1st 1258 doesn't work out: there are plently of other moment in 1258 (before or after) when Bohemond could have been in Baghdad. Baghdad is just a few day's horseride from Acre anyway. PHG (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever Demurger says, you were saying that he was present at the fall of Baghdad. Which is clearly impossible. If he was in Baghdad at some other time that year, we still ought to have a primary source citation for that. And what is the context of Demurger's statement about Bohemund in Baghdad? All you've given us is a bare sentence. Could you give us a bit more? BTW, Baghdad is rather more than "a few days' ride" away from acre. Assuming you go up and around the Fertile Crescent, rather than directly across the Arabian Desert, it's about 800 miles, at least. A person riding a horse, as I understand it, goes about 30 miles a day. So that's about a month's journey. Even as the crow flies, going straight across the desert, it's almost 550 miles, which is almost three weeks journey, assuming my "about thirty miles a day on horseback" is accurate. john k (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The context of Demurger putting Bohemond in Baghdad in 1258 is clearly (as already visible in the quote above) as an indication of Bohemond's submission to the Mongols: "King Hetoum I went to Karakorum to make his submission in 1253, and Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258."
Yes, sorry, I didn't see that until after I replied. I'd still
  • As you will see from the Mongol Empire article (Mail system), the Mongol riders could travel about 125 miles a day with a system a relays (a gallop is about 25 to 30 miles per hour, so it would still be equivalent to a 4-5 hours gallop a day). With a relay system in place between Acre/Antioch and troops forward in Baghdad, Bohemond may have been able to travel the distance in about 5 days. At least that was a very feasible speed at that time, and probably more so for a young and fit monarch (21 years old) wishing to get somewhere as fast as possible.PHG (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? That's ridiculous. Bohemund didn't have a system of relay riders. Is he supposed to pick up a new horse in Aleppo and Edessa? Is he riding by himself? A walk is four miles per hour, and any long journey where one doesn't have replacement horses (as Bohemund obviously would not have) couldn't go much faster than that. The idea that he'd be galloping five hours a day is absurd. Basically, for your "5 days" you are a) assuming that Bohemund could and would travel as quickly as a Mongol post rider who has frequent replacement horses - i.e., the fastest longest distance riding ever done anywhere ever; and b) that he would ride directly across the Arabian desert, since the route around the crescent is probably over 800 miles. This is all ridiculous, especially since you have not a single source saying that Bohemund was in Baghdad at the time of the siege or sack. john k(talk) 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the method employed (he could also in average have galloped 2 hours and trotted 4-6 hours a day or something approaching), 125 miles a day was a feasible daily speed average for horsemen of the period such as the Mongols. As Bohemond was an ally of the Mongols, and most of his return trip was through Mongol territory, there is no reason why he couldn't have used their relay system (nothing easier). Again, he was a young and fit horseman (21 years old). I understand your doubts, but you cannot say that Baghdad-Antioch/Tripoli in a week is an impossible accomplishment under the period and circumstances, and use such disputable original research as the basis of an argument.PHG (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing easier? You are doing as much original research here as anyone, in that you have presented absolutely zero evidence that Bohemund was present at the fall of Baghdad. The only evidence he was in Baghdad at all is a stray, unsupported statement by Demurger. john k (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Please be fair John. You are making OR estimates to imply that Bohemond VI could not have been both in Baghdad and Antioch in February 1258. I'm just responding to you in kind that, in term of OR estimate, it is actually quite feasible. But it's not the point. The point is that Alain Demurger, one of the leading French historians of the Crusades, states clearly that Bohemond was in Baghdad in 1258. He is a very significant scholar, and therefore his opinion is also quite significant. It is only normal that his comment could at least be mentionned. Per Wikipedia:NPOV, "All significant opinions should be mentionned. This is non-negotiable". Regards. PHG (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
And no one in 1258 would be able to ride directly across the Crescent or the desert, thanks to all those Mongols wandering around. It took a week to get from Cairo to Ascalon in 1099, with no one in the way, and they are much closer together. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
See above. The distance could be covered in about 5 days for a few organized, rushing riders at the time of Bohemond. PHG (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I also went beyond my usual personal library (photograph available on my User page) and looked up a few things on Google Books. Overall, I agree that Demurger's claim seems quite isolated, but neither my personal library nor Google Book can have a claim to comprehensiveness, far from it. I learnt a few interesting things though, especially that the forces attacking Baghdad were very composite and included many Christians:

  • In The Fire, the Star and the Cross. by Aptin Khanbaghi (p.60): During the siege of Baghdad "the Mongol army included a large Christian contingent, mainly Georgians. The Mongols did not have to beg for their assistance, as the Georgians had suffered tremendously from the cruelty of the Muslims during the invasion of Jalal al-Din Khwarazmshah a few decades earlier. Their churches had been razed and the population of Tiflis massacred. During the sack of Baghdad, the Mongols gave the Georgians a chance to take their revenge on the Muslims."
  • In National Geographic, University of Michigan original issue, v.191 1997: "In 1253, the Persian writer Ala-ad-Din Ata-Malik Juvaini recorded Hulagu's preparations for his Baghdad expedition. With the cavalry were a thousand expert artillerymen from China. The army swelled with troops from vassal states: Armenians, Georgians, Persians, Turks. By one estimate, the force grew to 150,000 men."
  • In Baghdad, the City of Peace by Richard Coke (p.161) "In the Baghdad troubles two hundred "Franks" are said to have taken part"

Also, it seems that after 1254 Antioch was in the orbit of Armenia, with Bohemond VI's consent, and therefore supplied troops for Armenia's military commitments to the Mongols:

  • In The Islamic World in Ascendency: From the Arab conquest to the Siege of Vienna by Dr. Martin Sicker (p.111): "Bohemond, however, resided exclusively in Tripoli and, as a practical matter, Hetoum, whose realm was contiguous with it, ruled Antioch. Accordingly, Antioch was drawn into the Mongolian-Armenian alliance".

So overall Demurger's claim doesn't actually conflict with the few available sources on the subject. It does seem that Frank Antiochian troops indeed participated to the Siege of Baghdad in 1258 as auxiliaries to the Armenians. Regarding Bohemond's personal involvement in the conflict in 1258, it would indeed be natural that he went to Baghdad to accompany his troops, although not around February 1st 1258. I therefore do not see a reason to classify Demurger's claim as wrong, although I agree it is better to attribute it to him cautiously. PHG (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to accept a statement that some Antiochene troops were likely at Baghdad. Your assumption about it being "natural" for him to go to Baghdad is essentially OR. It is just as natural that, as at this time it would appear that Antioch was in the Mongol orbit but Tripoli was not, and Hethoum was essentially ruling Antioch himself, while Bohemund stayed at Tripoli, Bohemund had nothing to do with the capture of Baghdad. As far as Bohemund being at Baghdad, the campaign against Baghdad was going on in January and February 1258. This is exactly the time when Bohemund could not possibly have been there. The siege began on 29 January. The sack finished up on 20 February. If Bohemund was in Acre on February 1, there is no possible way he could have been involved in any of this. Beyond that, do we even know that Hulagu stuck around Baghdad after that? john k (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the sources, I think it's reasonable for us to say in the Wikipedia article that during the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258, that within the Mongol army of 150,000 were some Christian components from vassal states, primarily Georgians, along with some Armenians and about 200 Franks, at least some of whom were from Frankish Antioch. I don't think we should say anything about Bohemond himself in the context of the "Fall of Baghdad", though if we want to say that he visited the city at some other time in 1258, that might be a factoid worthwhile to put into the Bohemond VI of Antioch article. But it doesn't seem worthwhile to include it here at the alliance article, as I can't see as it's particularly relevant to the topic. --Elonka 20:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Why? For Demurger it is a perfectly valid point to discuss within the context of the alliance. Actually he gives it as an example of the alliance in action: "King Hetoum I went to Karakorum to make his submission in 1253, and Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258." Also please refrain from major deletions of referenced material [30]. PHG (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely no corroboration for Demurger's claims. Find someone else who says Bohemund was in Baghdad. Or better yet, find a primary source. john k (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is any rule against quoting a reputable historian. And your "schedule conflict theory" doesn't actually contradict Demurger's statement. As his opinion seems rather isolated we'll just attribute it to him "According to Alain Demurger...". I hope one day I will be able to add additional sources on this subject. No big deal really. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the sentence to say that there were "possibly" Antiochene troops at Baghdad, and I removed the bit about Bohemond. The section is about the actual Sack of Baghdad, and though we have one source that Bohemond may have been in the city sometime during that year, we've got nothing that says that he was actually involved in the battle. So I think it's best to leave off his name from that section. --Elonka 21:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols (update)

For information, Alain Demurger, one of the leading French historians of the Knights Templar and the Crusades, is very specific in his last book Les Templiers (2007) that the Mongol ruler Ghazan captured Jerusalem after he had taken Damascus in 1299/1300: "In December 1299, he (Ghazan) vanquishes the Mamluks in the Second Battle of Homs, and captures Damascus and even Jerusalem" (Alain Demurger, Les Templiers, p.84) and that his general Mulay was in Jerusalem in 1299/1300: "Mûlay, a Mongol general who was effectively present at Jerusalem in 1299/1300." (Alain Demurger, Les Templiers, p.84). Although the Mongols captured Jerusalem, he also explains that the Frank Christians did not manage to take possession of it from the Mongols because of their unreadiness. (see also Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)). PHG (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not another POV fork? PHG, we've already had an AfD on this, and the resounding consensus was that we didn't need the article Mongol raids on Jerusalem, so it was deleted.[31][32] So you went ahead and created Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300) instead? Sorry, but no. The new article should be deleted. Please merge any relevant information from it, into Mongol raids into Palestine instead. Seriously, PHG, this is highly disruptive, you need to stop this behavior. When there is a clear consensus of other editors who want a certain course of action, you need to respect that. If you do not respect that, then you risk being blocked entirely from Wikipedia. --Elonka 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good one, Elonka, I'm glad you're abusing your administrative powers already. Love, Mindraker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.208.13 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Becoming an Administrator did not change your intimidation methods apparently! The AfD was on "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem", which was indeed voted down. The new title is "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)", which is not at all POV. Many authors to describe Mongol raids on Jerusalem. The article as such is totally justified (subject, size, content), and is useful to deflate the size of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. PHG (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
PHG, I think Elonka's point is that, as per the AFD, the subject can be covered in the Mongol raids into Palestine article, as it is currently. Using "Palestine" instead of "Jerusalem" in the title is more historically accurate, as the raids were not only directed at Jerusalem, and more neutral in their point of view. If you would like to try to gain community consensus to have a "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)" article, please do so on the Mongol raids into Palestine talk page. If not, please continue this conversation at User talk:Elonka or at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine rather than on here, as this article does not specifically pertain to this subject we are addressing. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ioeth. The size of Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300) at 36k fully justifies an independent article. The AfD was more about the word "Conquest" in the original article being too POV (hence the "POV-fork" claim). Now "Raids" is much more neutral (actually about as neutral as the other article "Mongol raids in Palestine"), and the expression "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" is shared by numerous historians. PHG (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
PHG, I have replied on your talkpage. But I would point out now that every single editor who is commenting on this (recently this means me, Ioeth, Adam Bishop, John k, and Srnec) is opposed to your actions. Please stop with your disruptive behavior, and work with editors instead of in opposition to them. --Elonka 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Quite the contrary. I have been bringing more references forward to make Demurger's case clearer, and I think the dispute has settled down now... before you start bringing undue accusations. You just attacked me on my Talk Page for creating the Armeno-Mongol alliance article. Elonka, you are the one who actually proposed creating "Ameno-Mongol alliance"... and now you say you are against it and criticize me for starting the article? (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article split). You even wrote "I support the idea of creating a separate article for the Armenian-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)" (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Title) That's pure nonsense. I am asking you to apologize for your bullying. PHG (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Seriouly. This does look like bullying. Elonka should reconsider her involvement in this article. If what she claims regarding a consensus is true, surely someone else will come forward to carry her torch?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No Eupator, this is not bullying, this is trying to keep false and biased information out of Wikipedia. And it's not a case of "me against PHG". I invite you to read the "Hans Eberhard Mayer" thread above, where you will see that multiple editors, including myself, Adam Bishop, Srnec, Ioeth, and John K, are speaking up. But PHG is disagreeing with all of us. I also invite you to read the results at the above #Request for comment thread, where again, every editor is disagreeing with PHG's course of action. --Elonka 06:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
4 or 5 comments by some editors has never constituted a consensus, and all editors do not agree with you Elonka. A consensus is not even sufficient to overturn Wikipedia:NPOV "non-negotiable" rules that all "significant opinions" should be represented. I decided to file an harassment claim against you here. PHG (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Armeno"? john k (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's used quite commonly actually, like Greco or Russo. [33],[Armeno Russian].-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Article rewrite

To show what I'm talking about, I have created a completely rewritten version of the article in a subpage of my user space:

  • User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance

It's a great deal shorter (70K instead of 167K). I didn't delete very much -- mostly I just split stuff out to other more specifically-focused articles. I did remove a few sources that I found questionable, and I reorganized the timeline so that it goes in order through various monarchs. I tried very hard to give appropriate weight to different historians' viewpoints (especially those of Jean Richard), with an eye towards making the article a readable and neutral synopsis of modern historians' views on the topic.

Let me know what you think, Elonka 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see real efforts at rewriting taking place. I haven't studied your new work in detail, but I wonder why you still have the 'disputed' tag at the top. What is the remaining dispute, as you see it? Is it just the Dailliez issue? EdJohnston 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, forgot it, sorry, I'll go ahead and remove it. I have no dispute with any of the information in the new version of the article.  :) --Elonka 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought Elonka was being gracious by leaving the dispute tag in. Forget about it... This is just Elonka's very own rework of the article I created, with her very own point-of-view. It is, of course, disputed, and doesn't attempt to incorporate alternative points of view. PHG 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you take the time to actually read it, I think that you will find that I put quite a bit of work into incorporating different points of view, per WP:UNDUE, giving appropriate weight to each. If anyone has any specific concerns though, I am interested in hearing them. --Elonka 13:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
(followup) Just checking, if anyone has any specific concerns about my rewrite? If not, I'll go ahead and implement it. --Elonka 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not evade mediation, which is undergoing. I am afraid your rewrite is just a compilation of your POV. Even the introduction sentence is blattantly POV as seen through mediation ("Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance..."), describing attempts only. Only a balanced, NPOV intro can be acceptable "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, ..." with attending references. The rest of your rewrite is also POV, and denies the balancing of source. Please discuss issues through mediation as promissed. PHG 12:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • PHG, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are not participating in mediation in good faith. See #Mediation below. As for my rewrite, the introduction sentence is not "blatant POV", it is the consensus version as agreed upon by multiple editors (except you) at the above thread #Introduction sentence. As for me removing unreliable sources, we currently have a clear consensus that you are using bad sources (see Talk:Laurent Dailliez). PHG, Wikipedia is a cooperative project, where we have multiple people working together. If you are completely unwilling to listen to the good-faith concerns of other editors, perhaps you should find some other project to work on. --Elonka 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Elonka, my position is already a position of compromise, allowing for the representation of both POVs: "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." with relevant references. On the other hand, your position only favours one POV ("Attempts only"). I believe you are actually the one blocking the process by denying both academic views to be represented fairly. Regards. PHG 12:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • PHG, this has been discussed extensively at #Introduction sentence. No one agrees with you. Please see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. You are continually resisting input from other editors, and if you proceed with this course, there may be further consequences which restrict your editing privileges. To be able to get along on Wikipedia, a massively collaborative project, it is necessary that in the case of dispute, that editors are willing to negotiate in good faith towards a mutually-agreeable compromise. When you continue to insist on your own way as the only "compromise", this is getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. Please reconsider your stance. --Elonka 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

POV is being seized on here, and exargerated in my opinion. As for dispute over how concrete successes were, an alliance doesn't need to reach fruition, it just needs an understanding. The re-write is moving this thing in the right direction. regards --Tefalstar 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, just nudging things along here, since the page has been protected for nearly a month, and I'd like to see what we can do about getting things active again. It appears to me that we have a consensus to switch to my proposed rewrite of the article, at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I've updated it to incorporate the changes that have been agreed upon at mediation so far, and of course mediation can continue on any remaining issues, but I think it would be easier if we had the updated version of the article in place, instead of the old version. Does anyone disagree that there is a consensus? --Elonka 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary

This is basically only Elonka here asking for a replacement of the current article by her own rewrite, with only another editor saying "I haven't studied your new work in detail" and another "The re-write is moving this thing in the right direction". I don't think this would qualify as a consensus to replace the current article by any standard. Elonka's rewrite is really only an attempt at implementing a piece favouring her very own point of view to the exclusion of others. The main article has always been open to alternative interpretations and already does a fairly good job of putting forward various views on the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance. PHG (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that that is a fair interpretation of my rewrite. I did my best to present all points of view, per WP:UNDUE and per consensus here at talk. Also, perhaps most importantly, I split the article per WP:SUMMARY so that it is back down to about 73K, rather than the 173K (and growing!) version of the current article. Every single editor who has commented on this, has said that the current version is too long. But rather than splitting it, it seems that more and more information just keeps getting added to it.
Now as for my rewrite, I am happy to adapt it or look into reworking certain sections, but I need more detailed comments to do so. If anyone would care to give specifics, I'd be happy to review them. Otherwise, we should replace the current version with my rewrite, and then continue discussions from there. --Elonka 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's the way things work. Normally you make comments on the main article and we try to find a consensus for modifications through discussions on the Talk Page. The main article is always the basis for discussions and edits, and for collaborative effort in general, especially when you have been denying other users modifications to your alternative version claiming User Space ownership. PHG (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary, people routinely use the method of making a separate version of an article in userspace, as a point of discussion. Especially when the "live" page is protected, the subject of edit wars, or being sat on by someone in violation of WP:OWN. Usually it works quite well, as it gives an opportunity to review a new version of the article, without there having to be a "fight" to create that version. As for User Space ownership, I have no idea what you're talking about. The only time you've tried to change that page was to add a "Totally disputed" tag to it.[34] But you've never said exactly what it is that you're disputing. So again I am asking, can you please be specific about what it is that you don't like about it? I am very open to making changes to it (or even shrinking it down further), but to do so, someone has to articulate what they want changed. --Elonka 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you did complain that I "also added a {{totallydisputed}} tag to a draft version of an article that was still in my userspace" [35] which does mean you do not expect your user space to be edited. I've already said all I had to say about you version: really only an attempt at implementing a piece favouring your very own point of view to the exclusion of others. I am not interested in spending hours commenting and arguing about Userspace stuff that cannot be edited by others. We should focus on what you see as issues with the main page, not the other way around. The main page is unprotected now, and you have always been able to edit it and you did contribute to it in large ways already. PHG (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I also take note again that your claim to a consensus (above) to "switch to your own version", being based on your proposal, two vaguely encouraging editors, and my opposition, is illegitimate by any standards of what a consensus is. It is surprising that someone aspiring to Adminship could rely on such methods. PHG (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)