Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance

Archives August-September 2007 September 2007 October-December 2007 January 2008

False claim of consensus

I am afraid Elonka's claim of a "consensus" for replacing the 200k full article by her 70k rewrite is totally illegitimate. 6 to 7 users have specifically disagreed with Elonka's replacement of the main article:

• myself User:PHG,
• User:Matt57 [1],
• User:Srnec [2],
• User:Eupator [3],
• User:Adam Bishop concurs with working from the full article, and does not endorse Elonka's version [4].
• User:Justin "A lack of consensus = status quo", [5]

• User:Ealdgyth, although he said he did not want to take sides, has in effect started to work extensively from the full 200k version (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Specific concerns).

On the other hand, here are the supports that Elonka is claiming (in Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Rewrite 2) to justify her replacement of the main article: Srnec, Tefalstar, John Kenney[6][7], Aramgar[8], Adam Bishop[9], Kafka Liz, WJBscribe, and Shell Kinney.

Of these:

• User:Srnec actually does not support summarizing the article before content discussion has properly occured [10],
• User:Adam Bishop actually concurs with working from the full article and does not endorse Elonka's version [11]
• User:Tefalstar was actually canvassed to put a friendly comment "you did a nice summary" without specifically supporting the replacement of the 200k article by the 70k one. It is also only on Elonka's Talk Page, which makes it invalid. [12]
• User:Kafka Liz was canvassed (invited through User:Aramgar, a relative): [13]. Also, Armagar and Kakza Liz usually only count for one person due to their proximity [14].
• User:John Kenney just makes general comments and does not support any time the replacement of the main article, and this is also on Elonka's Talk Page only [15][16][17].
• User:Aramgar nowhere supports in the diffs given the replacement of the full version [18][19], and anyway doubles with User:Kafka Liz due to proximity [20].
• User:WJBscribe: in the diff given, WjScribe only says that the article should be reduced, but surely does not specifically support the replacement of the full version by your 70k version.[21].

That leaves Elonka with 2 users (User:Shell Kinney and User:Kafka Liz above) who actually agreed to the replacement (of which one user was canvassed...).

These numbers and these diffs are totally unacceptable to claim a consensus for replacing the 200k main article by a 70k summary.

Also, Elonka's interpretation amounts to a total breach of what a consensus really is, misrepresentation of what participants do say (a few do say they like Elonka's summary, but do not specifically support replacement) and a breach of trust by resorting to canvassing to obtain friendly support.

I will therefore reinstate the ORIGINAL 200k ARTICLE, and, as already ongoing, we will discuss how to improve. Such disregard for Wikipedia's rules and ethical standards has to stop. PHG (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish me to clarify my opinion, reading through them I find the version that existed shortly before your last revert more satisfying. It is more concise and from what I have followed of discussions, seem to be better at assigning different scholarly opinions due weight. It reads to me much more how a Wikipedia article on the topic should be, as opposed to an academic paper on the subject. In terms of NPOV and reader accessibility it seems to me preferable. Perhaps you could try addressing where you feel it is lacking rather than focusing on the one version vs. another issue? I'm not sure your breakdown of consensus above is very accurate - it takes a very literal view of what people have said rather than taking in the nuances. For example, I would have thought my comment was broadly supportive of the change although I did not explicitly use those words. If you want direct answers to which version these people prefer, you will need to ask the direct question, though I think that is a bad approach to take. You cannot require a lot of people cheering wildly a change to say there is consensus for it. I also don't understand why youn invalidate the comment by Tefalstar for not being on this page - that seems rather bureaucratic an approach. Finally, I think Matt57's involvement here given his past history of harassing Elonka (and a lengthy block for this) is best overlooked - I wouldn't assume anyone who agrees with you is helpful. In any event, I have reverted your revert. WjBscribe 08:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, isn't this wiki-lawyering getting kind of silly? You come in every day, at about 6 a.m. GMT, and revert to your old version. This has been going on for days now:

• January 23, 06:00
• January 22, 06:07
• January 21, 05:33
• January 20, 06:17

Please stop, and work with other editors, instead of against them? There's obviously consensus for the rewrite, and multiple editors have either reverted you, or moved on with editing the new version of the article, which makes it pretty clear that they're in support of the rewrite. Further, when you're reverting, you're not just choosing a different version, you're also wiping out many edits that have been put in place after talkpage discussions here. It should be obvious that no one here is going to say, "Oh, I guess PHG is right, let's just go back to his version and let him control the article." Your reverts have now been reverted by three different editors.[22][23][24]

If you keep on down this path, you may risk further consequences. Please, stop this. --Elonka 09:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ealdgyth has concerns with both versions, and has started work on BOTH versions. SHE is still waiting on answers on that section. Do not take the fact that I am trying to check on sources in BOTH versions as meaning I favor one version or the other. What I am doing is trying to evaluate both versions, which starts from looking at the sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Is a slow-motion edit war really what we need here? I think both User:PHG and User:Elonka need to relax a little bit. Reverting each others work is not going to fix anything. This is clearly a controversial article, and reverting back and forth makes both of you look poorly, as well as Wikipedia in general.

That being said, I don't think there is a clear consensus on either version (long or short). That being said, making such a massive change to an article in dispute needs a clear consensus. I haven't had the time just yet to read through them both (it's hard to keep track when reverts are going crazy). So, until the content issues are worked out I think a few things need to be done here: first, I think User:WJBscribe (whom I have a great deal of respect for) needs to self-revert. While I think it's great he has an opinion on the issue, another revert wasn't a good idea.

Once we have it back to it's original form, I think everyone involved here needs to stop editing the article. Talk pages are here to form a consensus. There is currently no consensus to keep either User:Elonka's version OR User:PHG's preferred version. A lack of consensus = status quo. THEN take the preferred changes to this talk page and form a consensus. It's clear a lot of people support a smaller article, but only a few have stated support for Elonka's version.

I have to say, this is starting to border on disruptive behavior by both of the editors involved. And while I know WJBScribe is simply trying to help resolve the dispute, reverting again added to the problem. Everyone needs to relax and have a cup of tea :). Justin ^chat 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Justin. It's my overall impression that the majority of editors who have commented here (and yes, I understand that is not necessarily the same as a consensus) are more comfortable working with the shortened version as it cuts out substantial portions of text that rely too heavily on primary sources (a practice discouraged per WP:PSTS)and contains far too much in the way of original research. Content issues aside, the longer version contains too much that shouldn't be here in the first place. The shorter version, while not perfect, provides a cleaner article from which to begin work. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Justin, that was a very fair analysis.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that while I suspect Elonka's version to be an overall improvement, I can hardly take the time to sift through both articles in full and determine that. Therefore, and because even the 70k version has an accuracy tag at top, I think we should stick with PHG's longer version and try to work through all the accuracy issues one at a time per talk. I'd leave the issue of the wording of the lead and the titling of the article for later. Why not go section by section through PHG's version at the talk page? Each section can then be criticised in full by all involved and interested editors to achieve consensus versions (or consensus deletions). This would be a long process, but this whole things has already taken five months, so it hardly seems like that could be an objection. If Elonka's version is really no more than an improved version of PHG's with community support, something very much like it should emerge from following the above process on PHG's version. Finally, in order for such a process to work, there would have to be consensus not to edit the article while the section-by-section critique is ongoing. Only when consensus has been reached should the article be edited accordingly. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that system. Not sure it'll work well, but we can give it a try. Anything is better than the current "system" (which more closely resembles watching a tennis match... back.. forth.. back.. forth) For this to work, people have to discuss though. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems a strange idea to me - I don't see how the tags are relevant. At least one person is disputing the accuracy of both so either could be tagged until a consensus is reached. I don't understand why Srnec would say he doesn't have time to sift through all the material of the two versions yet thinks we should work on the longer one. Surely the shorter one makes a better base? A lot of progress seems to have been made in recent days, seems like a shame to move backwards. If you suspect this version is an improvement, that seems a good reason to stick with it. WjBscribe 00:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that 'PHG doesn't like the rewrite,' can anyone identify anything specific that needs to be improved in the condensed version? Is there some section that people are really missing? As one of the primary editors here, I feel I'm being pretty responsive to good-faith concerns, but is there something that really needs to be fixed right away in the condensed version that I'm not understanding? If not, then sure, let's keep discussing things in the condensed version, section by section, and if there's something that needs expanding, then by all means we can definitely expand it. I recommend that we start with the "Christian vassals" section, since that seems to be the most controversial. How are we going to describe the relationship of Antioch, Tripoli, and Cilicia with the Mongols? Alliance or vassalage? --Elonka 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I wanted to start with PHG's version b/c there seems not to be a consensus for a complete rewrite and I would rather sift through more information and trim than less and expand. The process, however, could work either way. When I said I don't have time to sift through both, I meant that I cannot simply open up both versions and compare and make a final decision on which is better. I know which is probably better, but the accuracy tag is still an issue either way, so we need to address it regardless. It seems obvious to me that we must work through the issues section by section (with either article as a starting point) and that we must have a consensus to only edit (majorly) in accord with consensus reached on each section. A long, slow, laborious, possibly inefficient, and perhaps ineffective process, but an improvement on the current (non-)process whereby the article just lives with an accuracy tag at top. Just to get started, I'd be happy to begin communal critiquing of the "Christian vassals" section of this version, as Elonka suggested. Srnec (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Thank you all for your contributions! I think we've all spent too much time on this, and it's time to work on content. I personnally have been already forced to spend almost one hour everyday just to have to fight off Elonka's attacks and illegitimate claim at consensus for her emended 70k version (described above). What a waste of time and what acrimonity! As there is absolutely no consensus for Elonka's change, I am relieved that according to Wikipedia rules the full 200k version has to stay. It has a lot of material in it and therefore will be a rich basis to work from. Elonka, please stop trying to impose your versions to others inspite of Wikipedia rules, and let's work together on working on the original article. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Note to Elonka: upon examining the contents of both versions briefly, I cannot identify one way in which the longer is an improvement except that it may contain valuable information which the shorter does not, but that would require section-by-section examination.) PHG, would you abide by my suggested dispute-resolution process whereby whatever version is established by consensus to be the starting point is critiqued section-by-section on the talk page until a consensus version is reached and that major (content) editing of the article will be suspended meanwhile? For this process it doesn't matter whether the 200 or 70k version is the starting point, all that matters is consensus not to edit during the discussion/criticism at talk and to implement the finalised version. Srnec (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Srnec. Thank you for your message. Per Wikipedia rules, the original article is the de facto consensus (it's been worked on by numerous editors over a period of 6 months now). Replacing that article with a short/abridged version developed by one single author is not acceptable per Wikipedia policy, and at the very least would require a very large consensus to be adopted. As Justin said above: "A lack of consensus = status quo". It has been shown extensively that there is not, far from it, a consensus to install Elonka's version. Therefore the original article stays, and we work from it. Now I agree, let's discuss content one part at a time so that we can improve the article. Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is one of the more ridiculous fights I've seen in quite some time. Anyone interested in some of the four month history of this silly dispute is welcome to take a look at a summary on my talk page (not indented, about 3/4 down that section). Essentially, what this boils down to is we have the original article, which PHG has been remarkably unwilling to allow changes to and we have the condensed version who's idea was supported even if people have not specifically supported *this* condensed version. The maddening part of this whole affair is that many of the editors who supported condensing and correcting the article haven't stuck around to help with the work and yet want to jump back in now and say they aren't sure about Elonka's version.
• I really couldn't care less which version we start from. Elonka's condensed version looks like a more welcome starting point because it is not riddled with problems like: dubious sources, old sources, a painting title for a source, 401 notes with the majority being lifted quotes from sources, excruciating detail like listing the precise viewpoint of each of the sources used in an attempt to prove a discounted minority viewpoint -- and the list goes on. But if the consensus is to start with more problems so this absurd wikilawyering and reverting can end, that would be preferable. In the end, it may be worth pointing out that 3 editors have replaced "Elonka's" version while only PGH reverts to his. Shell ^babelfish 11:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Shell on each of the points above. I agree with her comments regarding the problems with the longer version; I have made similar statements myself regarding reliability, interpretation, original research and clutter. The shorter version, as I stated above, eliminates the bulk of this questionable material.

Given the nature of discussions so far, I don’t see that reverting to the longer version will be of any help whatsoever to cleaning up the article. I have yet to see PHG address specific issues when they are raised; he seems to have a very poor track record when it comes to working with other editors. Discussion of the opening sentence alone resulted in four solid months of debate: does anyone seriously expect that greater flexibility will be shown when it comes to the rest of the article? I’m also unclear why such a blatant violation of WP:OWN is being endorsed. It seems that no other editor’s opinions or assistance are welcome in working on this article. I think editors are hesitant to help with the article because they don't want to have their every edit turned into a protracted battle with its "owner," PHG. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Very simply the longer version had more content. The only problem with the long version was the overabundance of quotes. It would be better to revert back to the old version, crop the quotes and then start working section by section. The article was chopped entirely. The section by section solution is deductive and more logical.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the only argument for using the long version, its a poor one indeed. The "more content" is simply wrong in many cases -- how is this helpful to writing the article? We can either start from something with hundreds of problems and an "owner" who refuses to allow them to be fixed or we can start with something with a handful of problems which we can work on collaboratively and add back in properly sourced, historically accurate, relevant information. I'd prefer the latter version as I image the prior will involve more beating my head on a wall. Shell ^babelfish 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More is not always better, Eupator. Numerous editors here have pointed out specific problems with the material that was removed; your comment shows little appreciation for the subtleties of this argument. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is in this case. I appreciate the subtleties that's why I propose to deal with the article section by section from the previous versio; however I don't appreciate unilateral actions without REAL consenus.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Every time someone calls an improvement unilateral, I want to point them at WP:IAR. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you know that I did not consider that an improvement. Seems like a desultory remark.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotes from books along with references shouldn't be provided at all. The reference is there. If someone wants to check it out they can do so. It is really not necessary and creates clutter.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're arguing for using the longer version but admitting that it has an absurd amount of unnecessary clutter? I'm confused, because to me, that sounds like an excellent reason to go with the condensed version. Shell ^babelfish 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Clutter than can be dealt with easily.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since a long dispute-resolution process is necessary, in this editor's opinion, it hardly matters what version we begin with, since both are disputed and both need community work to be top notch. The process ought to be designed to yield the best article from either start point, hence my suggested process above, which seems to have some support (Elonka, Ealdgyth, Eupator). If the 70k version is that much the greater, the ideal process will lead to it and will have indisputable consensus to back it up. (Remember that both versions have accuracy tags and so dispute-resolution is required either way, or see below about PHG.) In order to begin such a process, however, agreement must be reached on which version to start from and not to edit the article contrary to the conclusions of the community determined via the process or to engage in major edits during the process. I would be happy to just while away at the article section-by-section, but when I decided to start doing so, I found my first edit swiftly nullified by the 70/200k revert war.

To those who think article ownership is a serious issue here, may I suggest that you use whatever process Wikipedia has invented in order to get PHG blocked? If it is true that he will not accept compromise, then I think his behaviour warrants an extended block. Or he must be barred from editing this and related topics. If you are not willing to do that (and I care neither way), please just drop the topic (of his behaviour) and work to develop a dispute-resolution process that PHG will voluntarily agree to. In that case, if he did not, his behaviour would be indisputably in violation of the spirit of WP. Srnec (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the article you will see that he is quite prone to compromising. That being said, no editor that spends so much time and effort on gathering sources and writing an article will be happy with deletion of referenced material because someone else is not happy with the soucres or their applicability. Wikipedia rules prohibit doing so. In cases such as that BOTH sources must be presented, if one is more reputable then that fact needs to be cited as well. We can use our judegment to determine that but if we want it implemented in the article it must be sourced otherwise it's original research. This is the first time in the history of this article that there are a wide variety of voices regarding this matter, the atmosphere is less polarized so I suggest we simply get to work asap with the aforementioned section by section approach.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, I am well versed in the history of the article, and the statement that PHG is "prone to compromising" is absolutely not true. Instead, his pattern is to continue adding in more and controversial information, usually with deceptive edit summaries, as a way of getting the article back to whatever his WP:OWN version is. When he's removing things, he's usually removing something that someone else wrote, and saying that this is his way of "condensing" the article. And then he'll say he's "reverting" someone else's edit, when in actuality he's adding in even more biased information. See my post below for more details. --Elonka 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He has compromised on numerous occasions, given equal weight (wrongly so as proven and displayed by me) for example to claims that Cilcia was a vassal state. He compromised regarding the title. He compromised regarding the invasion of Jerusalem by agreeing to essentially include everything you demanded so long as you didn't delete everything else. That's compromising. Also, adding more information is not a crime, he's doing what he's supposed to do. That's how you expand articles.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SUMMARY

• After one more day, it is still obvious that there is no consensus at all for Elonka's campaign to have the main article (195k) replaced by her own 75k summary version. The attempt at replacement, besides being rude and contrary to Wikipedia normal editorial practices, has nowhere been the object of an actual consensus, inspite of the efforts to canvass and misrepresent user opinions by Elonka (detail at the beginning of this paragraph). I do not see why 2 or 3 users continue to band with Elonka trying to impose an emended and pov version which is not the object of a consensus, when 6-7 users actually reject the replacement and prefer to start from the full version (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus). As other users have rightly said "No consensus to change=Statu quo", and it is our responsibility to implement this most fundamental of Wikipedia rules.
• The only sane solution is to work from the full version, in order to improve/split/condense through a consensusual and collaborative effort. As also said by several others, including Eupator above, I am actually highly intent on compromise (for example, my Mediation with Elonka, or my readiness to incorporate User:Ealdgyth's comments [25]), and it is rather the other party who has been dubbed "too firm", "far to dogmatic" and not "fair" by neutral Administrators such as User:tariqabjotu: [26]. I will therefore reinstate the full article, and please Elonka, Shell or Kafka Liz, stop edit-warring, and instead start to work on content from the full-content version. PHG (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you've addressed one issue of a rather long set of questions. I hate to be a bother, but addressing one doesn't mean that the rest of them weren't asked or that they also don't need to be addressed. Might you spare some time to address the rest of my concerns? Everytime you reinstert the long version, you reintroduce the various errors, such as footnotes 383 and 385 being linked to the article, all the references that are in the footnotes but not in the References section, etc. Nor have the concerns with some specific sources, including the use of a 19th century painting as a source for a medieval battle been addressed Ealdgyth | Talk 05:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, I'll be glad to follow you regarding the references as soon as we can get some stability to work on the full version. The 19th century painting is not really used as a source, but rather as an amazing illustration of the fact that 19th Europe greatly ellaborated and exagerated the role played by Jacques de Molay in the Levant (capture of Jerusalem). Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you have once again used my statements on the RfM out of context to advance your position, despite the fact that I have corrected you and talked to you about this on multiple occasions. Because you have refused to stop, I have deleted the talk page of the mediation. And, I will repeat again, Elonka's conduct on the mediation is inadmissible and irrelevant in advancing your position here. -- tariqabjotu 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• PHG, perhaps you'd care to look at the three contibutions I have made to the main article ([27], [28], [29]) and tell me which of these is "edit warring"? Kafka Liz (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hydrae Capita: POV forks stemming from this article

As Ealdgyth has indicated above, the specious and idiosycratic POV represented in this article has extended further than those articles now being considered for deletion. Let us make a list so that these otherwise sound articles may be reviewed when conflicts are resolved. Aramgar (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's worthwhile to make a list of the articles that seem to have been the targets of biased editing. It appears that there has been an attempt to manipulate multiple articles, where biased information has been inserted in multiple locations, as a way for them all to reinforce each other. Some of these articles have now been nominated for deletion (see above threads), but others are going to require more careful review. I agree with Aramgar that we should make a list of all articles about which there may be concerns, so that we can either review them now, and/or, once we figure out how we'd like to proceed and what the consensus is, we can then work through the list to ensure that everything gets cleaned up as needed. --Elonka 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears that the problem has expanded to a large number of articles. I was going to review them myself, but I think the problem is too large for one person. So here's what I'm doing: I've provided a list of articles below, which I identified as having either definitely been targeted, or may have been edited in a questionable way. What I'd like, is help checking each article. If you have reviewed an article and see no problems with it, meaning nothing that you think is controversial as regards a biased POV or undue weight issues, then simply cross out the article with <s> and </s> tags. If you review an article and see that it definitely needs work and/or attention, please bold the article name in this list. You may also wish to include a diff of an edit or two that you think are of concern. If you're not sure, or want a second opinion, either don't modify the article name, or maybe italicize it? And of course if you find other articles, feel free to add them to the list. If an article's status changes, or you disagree with another editor's review, we can pull those articles out of the list for special attention in a separate section, since they may need separate consensus discussions. Per common courtesy guidelines, if someone has flagged your own edits as something needing review, it's probably best if you don't challenge that, but instead allow another editor to then review the article and determine if its status needs to be changed.

Does that sound doable? --Elonka 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

List of articles for review

• Articles that are in bold mean that they definitely have text which needs to be reviewed
• Articles that are crossed out have been reviewed and/or fixed, and been determined to have nothing controversial as regards POV or WP:UNDUE questions
• Articles in italics are ambiguous and need a second editor's opinion
• Articles in plain text have not yet been reviewed

• Abaqa Khan
• Abu Sa'id (Ilkhanid dynasty)[30]
• Alain Demurger
• Amalric, Prince of Tyre
• Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia
• Armeno-Mongol alliance
• Arghun
• Ascelin of Lombardia
• Battle of Ain Jalut
• Battle of Baghdad (1258)
• Bohemond VI of Antioch
• Buscarello de Ghizolfi
• Byzantine-Mongol alliance
• Christianity among the Mongols
• Christianity in Asia
• Christianity in China
• David of Ashby
• Edward I of England
• Fall of Tripoli
• Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265)
• Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282)
• Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304)
• Guillaume de Villaret[31]
• Guiscard Bustari
• Guy of Ibelin (1276-1304)

• Hayton of Corycus
• Hetoum I of Armenia
• Hetoum II of Armenia
• History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)
• History of gunpowder
• Hulagu Khan
• Ilkhanate
• Isol the Pisan (has a long quote in it, otherwise looks okay)
• Jacques de Molay[32]
• Jayme Alaric de Perpignan
• Jean II de Giblet
• Jean-Paul Roux
• Jean Richard (historian)
• John of Montecorvino
• Kitbuqa (has a long quote in it, otherwise looks okay)
• Knights Templar[33]
• Kublai Khan
• Kutlushah
• Latin Patriarch of Antioch
• Laurent Dailliez
• Louis IX of France
• Levon II of Armenia (King)
• Mahmud Ghazan
• Mamluk-Mongol alliance
• Marco Polo
• Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China
• Michael VIII Palaiologos

• Mongol Empire
• Mongol alliances in the Middle-East
• Mongol invasion of Europe
• Mongol raids into Palestine
• Nerses Balients
• Mulay
• Ninth Crusade
• Öljaitü
• Philip IV of France
• Pope Clement IV
• Pope Clement V
• Pope Honorius IV (has a long quote, otherwise looks okay)
• Pope John XXII
• Principality of Antioch
• Rabban Bar Sauma
• Rychaldus
• Sempad (Constable)
• Siege of Acre (1291)
• Siege of Ruad
• Siege of Tripoli (1271)
• Silk Road[34]
• Smpad of Armenia[35]
• Templar of Tyre
• Template:Mongol alliances
• Tommaso Ugi di Siena

Updated: 09:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I'm trying to read through the footnotes and having major issues finding out what some of these sources are. Who is Hindley? It's referenced a number of times in the Edward I section, but I have thus far been unable to find it listed in the References section (where it should be) or find the full citation in the footnotes. I suspect if the footnotes weren't full of long quotations I might have an easier time, but will I have to resort to copy-pasting the article into Word to use the find function to find the full citation? Also, along the line of disputed sources, the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 is outdated (and some would argue POV) and there definitely shouldn't be a reference to an unfootnoted essay at the Online Refernce Book. The Catholic Enc reference is footnote 27 in Elonka's version, 39 in the version up right now. The Hindley is referenced in footnotes 89 and 97 in Elonka's, 163 and 179 in the current live version. The ORB is footnote 36 in Elonka's, 82 in the current. And this is certainly not the best reference [36] for footnote 60 (elonka)/95 current. Those are just the things that jumped out at me immediately, on top of the issues I've already brought up about primary sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, in the above statement, change Elonka to Current version, and current version to PHG version ... Ealdgyth | Talk 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Other sources present in the footnotes, but not resident in the References section:

• Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire
• Nicolle, David, The Mongol Warlords
• History in Dispute: The Crusades, 1095-1291
• Nersessian, "The Kingdom of Cilician Armenia" in Setton's Crusades
• Morgan, David. "The Mongols and the Eastern Mediterranean"
• Burger, Glenn A Lytell Chronicle
• The Norris 2003 and the Chase 2003 footnotes are wikilinked back to the start of the article, so I have no idea what they are

Those are the glaring questions I have at the moment. Without more information on the works being referred to, it is hard to judge the reliablity of sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't copied over all the references from my rewrite yet. I know you can find some at my subpage User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. The problem was that I didn't want to do a fullscale copy/paste from my version to the live version, because I really was trying to be sensitive to the work that PHG had done in the meantime. I see that he reverted all my changes within an hour, anyway.  :/ I'll see what I can do about improving the sources, in the meantime. --Elonka 07:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(update) Okay, I think I've got things sorted out:

• I've added expanded references for all the works you identified.
• Saudi Aramco World, it looked like it was an "extra" source, which I agree is not necessary since we have so many other reliable sources we can use instead. I removed that one.
• On the Online Reference Book, I agree that that's not a good source, and have removed it.
• Regarding the Catholic Encyclopedia, it's being used to source the accession date of the Mongol khan, Guyuk. To my knowledge that's not in dispute, but if you want, I can check to see if I can find a better source?

Let me know if you spot any others, and I'll take a look, Elonka 09:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I use the Catholic Encyclopedia for things it's clearly a interested and good source for, catholic dogma, feast days of saints, what a saint patronizes, etc. Leaving aside the issue that it was written to detail Catholic topics, it is also almost a 100 years old and is a tertiary source to boot. It's not that I object to using it as a source, but it is rather odd to be sourcing an accession date for a Mongol Khan to a Catholic Encyclopedia, you must admit. One would think that there should be a modern work (Morgan? Barber? Jackson? Saunders?) that state the date also. I don't have the current edition of Morgan's work on the Mongols, I have the first edition. Likewise, somewhere in my moves I lost the third volume of Runicman's work, and haven't been able to replace it yet. I just don't have that much on the crusades, it's never been a major interest of mine, and especially not this late. (Yeah, this is a LATE period of history to someone who studied Anglo-Norman England) I'll try to look through what I have on Saint Louis and Edward I to get some different views and/or citations for those sections. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, on Louis IX, looking at Hallam's Capetian France Second Edition (ISBN 0-582-40428-2), she discusses Louis' first crusade (including the prepartions and the events in France while the king was gone) on pages 275 through 281 and then again at 286 and 287. Nothing is mentioned of Louis' contacts with the Mongols. The only mention of Mongols comes on page 278 "By 1248 the position of the Christians in the east seemed precarious in the extreme. The pattern of power was changing rapidly and in 1244 Jerusalem was taken from the Christians by Persian and Egyptian forces, who were retreating in their turn from the advance of the Mongol hordes from Asia. The confused politics, the weknesses and divisions of the Muslims in Palestine, in fact made it a suitable time for the western Christians to invade the area." This is from 2001, and by a very reputable scholar. The work is intended to be a college level overview, designed for high level college courses. I already pulled out all of the revelant quotations from Prestwich's biography of Edward I. As a note on the weight he gives to the information, the index entry for "Mongols" lists page 75, 77-8, 83, 330-332. The whole body of the work (not counting index, bibliography, notes, etc.) is 567 pages. This is in the scholarly monograph on Edward, designed for the historian, not the everyday reader.

Earlier on this page I listed a few quotes from Payne The Dream and the Tomb. On page 374 he says in relation to Edward I in the Holy Land "He was the first Englishman to send an embassy to the Mongols: Refinald Russell, Godfrey Welles and John Parker went to the court of the Ilkhan to see aid, which was promptly forthcoming. A Mongol army sewept out of Anatolia and captured Alleppo. Baibars, with a huge army set out from Damascus to give battle to the Mongols, who withdrew wisely. But the Mongol alliance had been strengthened and there was hope that they would return at a suitable time." Later on the same page, discussing Edward after his return to England in 1272 (He never dates the return, but from Prestwich we known the time.) "He returned to England to be crowned. In England, he continued to give long-range support to the Christian alliance with the Mongols." However, there are no footnotes or indications of where Payne got this data. No footnotes at all on the page, which is normal for the book since it's very lightly footnoted, mostly for direct quotations from the primary sources. I double checked with Prestwich's Edward biography, and no where in that does Prestwich say that the alliance was strengthened after Edward left, instead he points out that the Mamelukes and the Mongols were negotiating, hardly something that leads one to believe that any alliance between the Christians and the Mongols was strenthened. Prestwich cites the sources of his information as Makirizi, Historie des Sultans Mamlouks, a primary source that was published in an edition edited by M. Quatremere and published in Paris in 1837, and Ibn al-Furat, Ayyuids, Mamlukes and Crusaders another primary source that was edited and translated by U. and M. C. Lyons at Cambridge in 1971, and "L'Estorie de Eracles Empereur" another primary source published in Receuil des Historiens des Croisades published in Paris. Prestwich on pages 330 through 332 discusses Edward's diplomacy with the Mongol envoys in 1289 and 1290, but the only mention of any sort of support would be the dispatching of Geoffrey de Langley to Arghun. Edward made verbal declarations that he was going to go on crusade, but never even began organizing forces, as he was short of funds. The crusading tithes that he was supposed to have received were never actually turned over by the Italian bankers. (See Prestwich page 332). Prestwich cites the following (among other sources):

• Chabot, J. B. "Notes sur les relations du roi Argoun avec l'occident" Revue de l'orient Latin vol. xi 1894
• Spuler, B. History of the Mongols Berkley 1972 p. 141-2
• Ryan, J. D. "Nicholas IV and the Evolution of the Eastern Missionary Effort" Archivum Historiae Pontificum xix (1981) p. 79-95
• Howarth History of the Mongols iii p. 367
• The Schein article already in the article, p. 805-819
• Lunt Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 p. 339-341
• Kaeuper Bankers to the Crown p. 211-212, p. 219-220

From Prestwich's Plantagenet England 1225-1360 part of the New Oxford History of England series ISBN 978-0-19-922687-0, p. 140 "In 1287 Edward [Edward I] took the cross. There were ambitious hopes of winning the support of the Mongols (thought, wrongly, to be Christian), and of launching a concerted attack to rescue the Holy Land. The fall of Acre in 1291 did not galvanize the West as it might have done. An English embassy to the Persian Il-Khan in 1292 achieved nothing. Though Edward remained determined on a crusade, the problems he faced in Scotland and, from 1294, France, made that impossible."

Given the weight of cited and referenced information on the one hand by Prestwich, against an uncited and unreferenced statement by Payne on the other hand, I have to lean with Prestwich's statements as setting forth the scholarly and mainstream view here. At least that is how I'd judge it.Ealdgyth | Talk 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose this current "rewrite" aka removal of perfectly referenced material. Such a rewrite would be acceptable until all parties are satisifed. Unilateral moves such as this are not constructive and hinder further development of the article.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of transparency, I think it's worth pointing out that Eupator (Ευπάτωρ) is under ArbCom editing restrictions on Armenia-related topics. This includes a restriction on "assumptions of bad faith." --Elonka 23:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people go so crazy about "referenced material". If 10 sources say the same thing, it's no use referencing all 10. I'm sure I've said this before, but historiography is a continuum, everyone builds upon someone else. There might be 3 really up-to-date sources and a dozen out-of-date ones, and certain people don't seem to appreciate this; if you quote absolutely everything, it's a huge mess and it looks embarrassingly amateur. It's perfectly fine to remove referenced material, referenced material is not the absolute end-goal of all existence. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. By the way, in case folks are thinking I'd expect all those references to go into the article, I don't. One or two references per point is quite enough, and they need to be current. I'm just trying to show folks that the weight of modern scholarship has to be taken into account, preferably scholarly works when possible. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points, Adam and Ealdgyth. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I agree it is not necessary to have 10 references saying the same thing. I believe it is only usefull to have a few sources on the same subject if a specific point is challengeable. For example, since a few users staunchingly dispute that there was an alliance, I think it is necessary to say that at least 30 reputable historians say there was (from the little I have been able to read), although it could be mentionned in passing if the matter finally rests. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, FYI, I replaced the Catholic Encyclopedia ref with one from David Morgan's 2007 The Mongols, which both improves the ref, and gave me a good excuse to include Morgan's book, since I felt bad that we weren't including it, it's such a standard text on the topic.  :) --Elonka 06:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question, Grousset's 1935 book Histoire des Croisades III, 1188-1291, is that the one that was translated into English as The Epic of the Crusades? I picked it up used just recently, and couldn't find a blurb on the original title in French, just that it had been translated. It's the 1970 editon by Orion Press. I have his Empire of the Steppes also, somewhere.Ealdgyth | Talk 07:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Grousset's Empire of the Steppes is an amazing work of scholarship.  :) I've checked it out from the library a couple times, because of the wealth of information in that book. As for Epic, my impression is that that's a translation of L'Epopee des Croisades,[37] which is a condensed single-volume, perhaps more "mass market" version of his multi-volume Histoire des Croisades. So some information from Histoire is in Epic, but not all. Also, thanks for the tip on Dream and the Tomb. I'll swing by a local library tomorrow and pick up a copy. --Elonka 08:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dream and the Tomb is not the best source...it's like Maalouf, or that book about Richard I by James Reston. I don't think it's a good idea to use it for an article like this. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose citing it for anything in the main body of the article, but unfortunately, it's a popular book. Kinda like Holy Blood, Holy Grail. (or gods forbid The DaVinci Code) You're going to get people who have only read it that believe it, and it's a view held by some. If there is going to be a "controversy" section or whatever, it would fit in there, I would think. Of course, nothing I write on HAS controversies, since who here can name a medieval bishop of rochester off the top of their head? (You don't count Adam, you'd skew the average) I'm not the best judge of how to handle a controversy section. Speaking of popular historians, didn't Barbara Tuchman write on the Crusades? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha! I don't know if Tuchman wrote about the crusades but she wrote about the 14th century or something. For Payne etc, perhaps a "popular understanding" section? Or "in popular culture" (come on, surely the alliance is a pivotal point in some video game?!) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You must have seen the newest additions to Edward III of England, huh? Ealdgyth | Talk 08:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the great information regarding the various historical accounts of Edward I (especially by Ealdgyth). It may be a good idea to differentiate between documented facts and the various modern accounts about the period or specific rulers of the period. What are the facts?:

• 1) Edward I is indeed documented to have sent an embassy to the Mongols as soon as he arrived in the Holy Land, even the names of the ambassadors are known,
• 2) The Mongol ruler is indeed documented to have replied by promissing he would send help under the Mongol general Samagar (the letter is known, excerpt quoted in the full version)
• 3) Samagar indeed invaded northern Syria and fought against the Mamluks.

All this is documented as fact. Now maybe some historians chose to write about it and some not: this does not substract from the fact that these actions occured nonetheless. As far as I know, a history article is supposed to be first and foremost factual (the facts brought forward and corroborated by secondary sources). Now, some modern accounts may mention these facts and some not, by they are known facts nonetheless. And regarding the various modern accounts, per Wikipedia rules, I don't think we are supposed to editorialize and draw conclusions based on what historians don't say, but only what they do actually write. Regards. PHG (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The actual section on Edward is not too bad, although it's long and wordy (and the whole bit about inspired by his uncle is just.. ugh, unencylopedic sounding to me.) I would be more comfortable if the article used say.. Prestwich's biography of Edward, which is current (or at least more current than Runciman) and applicable to the subject. However you asked for specific concerns, and I have listed them below. Ealdgyth | Talk 07:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I got my hands on the Payne book Dream and the Tomb today, and I strongly concur that it's a bad source and should not be used to source anything controversial, except possibly an "in popular culture" section. It looks like Payne read a lot of books, and read a lot of primary sources, and then wrote his own book from memory, without any discrimination as to which sources were good, and which were false. And where he couldn't remember things, he just filled stuff in with guesswork. :/ --Elonka 23:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is the "longer version" get even longer?

Can someone explain why, in the middle of all this discussion the "reverting" to the longer version is adding large chunks of POV claims that have been adamantly under dispute for four months? For instance, the "reinstatement" and "restoration" of Jan 20th added 49 new paragraphs? [38], [39] How about the fact that when the article was updated to "removed" the Christianty section "per the talkpage" [40] it was replaced in the next edit further down the article? [41] The earlier 141k version that desperately needed shortening is now 197k! Shell ^babelfish 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's how it works with PHG. I guess no one said anything because it wasn't surprising. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi PHG, it would be best to leave the article as is for now and discontinue editing. Here's why, this is the version that includes all that you think should be included if i'm correct. Right? As such it is time to start working for a solution by dealing with one problem at a time and not the entire article like it was done before. This might take more time but the solution will be final. Also, the section by section approach will invite more participation as some users simply cannot get into this when so many issues are being discussed at the same time.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG's edit summaries have been enormously deceptive. For example his summary will say that he is "reverting to longer version", but in actuality he is adding more POV information. Look here at the edit he did a few days ago, as I compare it to what the article was like before I started working on it.[42] His edit summary said he was "reinstating" an old version, but he was actually adding a new and very biased sentence to the lead: "According to various historians, these attempts evolved into a regular alliance, complete with military cooperation., which is just another attempt by PHG to dodge consensus from the "Introduction sentence" threads that we already discussed (see archives). Also, take a look at his new ref #1, which is pages long. Neither that ref, nor his new sentence in the lead, were ever in the article before, so it was completely bad faith for PHG to be inserting them with an edit summary of "reinstating". Then on his next "revert" he used the edit summary of "complete version restored," but in actuality he was adding another section, this time about his alleged conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols.[43] As Shell pointed out above, and anyone can see for themselves by looking at the article history, PHG's "reverts" were expanding the article from 141K[44] to over 200K![45]

I am getting really tired of these actions by PHG. He needs to disengage from the article and let other people work on it. I would also point out that over the months that this dispute has dragged on, that there have been occasional requests for the parties to disengage, which I have always honored, but PHG never has. It doesn't matter if I leave the article alone for two weeks or six weeks, PHG keeps camping on it, in violation of WP:OWN, and when I try editing the article again, he's immediately reverting me again. It's obvious that PHG is not going to release his hold on this article voluntarily, and that he is going to have to be pried off by force. If no administrator is willing to help, I guess we'll have to take this to ArbCom, though I was hoping we'd be able to find some way to avoid that. From my point of view, this is a really obvious case: PHG's actions have been deceptive, bad faith, tendentious, and highly disruptive, and it's a shame that so many other good editors are having to waste time trying to talk to him in good faith, when it's obvious that he is not listening to anyone and is just going to keep on edit-warring and adding more biased information. --Elonka 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the latest short version of the article and agree that the present "owner" ought to take a break from editing this article. Perhaps he ought to consider publishing his original research in peer reviewed journals. Aramgar (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You reverted to a version that contains original research unrelated to PHG. For example the first two sentences of the secton "Dispute about the existence of the Franco-Mongol alliance" are unsourced, deceptive and constitute original research. Deceptive lines (deceptive because the cited references do not say what is claimed) are a major problem with this version among other reasons. Here's one random line: "However, despite many attempts, there was never any long-term successful military collaboration.". This line clealry refers to ALL events in the span of that century yet the reference talks about one single event (disputed by other sources btw).-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, please stop assuming bad faith. Just because there are no refs on the first two sentences, doesn't make them original research. If you think they need cites, we can definitely add them. See anything you like at User:Elonka/Mongol historians? Or if you think the sentences need rewording, we can do that too. What do you suggest? But let's not go justifying a revert from an 80K article to a 200K article, simply because you disagree with two sentences. --Elonka 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I assuming bad faith? Please stop labelling other editors contributions with colorful words like above. This is assuming bad faith: "PHG's actions have been deceptive, bad faith, tendentious, and highly disruptive". I don't disagree with two lines, I think those two lines and pretty much half of this version is misleading and contains original research not to mention that it's incorrectly cited for the most part. The current version did not simply reduce the size of the article, it also added original research supporting one version with undue weight.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, your most recent refrence once again talks about a different period (end of 13th/start of 14th). That is the period of time when the alliances were either failing or not even coming to fruition unlike the mid 1200's. This current version makes no chronological distinction whatsoever. The people were different, the circumstances were different etc.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, I added that ref three minutes ago, with more refs on the way. Please take a breath, I'm working on the article as I can.  :) Perhaps it would be helpful if you disengaged and worked on something else for awhile? --Elonka 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, take your time. I'll examine them once you're finished.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear all, it's a glorious day today in Paris! I wish you were all here for a chat about the Mongols... This discussion is really a no-brainer: we should all work together from the data already compiled over 6 months (195k!) so as to make the best possible, highly documented article. Let's start to work! Best regards. PHG (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Article size: the answer is obvious and there is no need for inflamatory statements. Following Elonka's insistent request for split/reduction [46] [47], I went to split the 195k article into sub-articles by dates, in order to move it down to about 140k. Now, the creation of the sub-articles was then opposed by Elonka and a few others, claiming "POV-forks", so that these sub-articles, with their content have been deleted (Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265), Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282), Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304)), which is fine (I don't mind either way). As the split did not work out, I simply returned the main article to its before-split status with its normal 195k content [48], so that no information be lost.
Regarding content, the only other thing I did is, following comments by User:Ealdgyth that the "Christianity among the Mongols" chapter was not really needed, that I reordered 2 or 3 sources into alphabetical order, and suppressed the "Christianity among the Mongol" intro paragraph [49] to replace it by a 4 line condensate [50] in "Preliminary contacts". Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to put this diplomatically, so I'm just going to come out with it. PHG is lying. Why he's lying, I don't know, but he's lying. He lied in edit summaries, and he is lying in the above post. He obviously used the opportunity of a "revert" to insert new biased information into the article.[51] He didn't just restore old information, he put in information that had never been in the article in the first place. This is glaringly obvious, just by looking at ref #1, which is about two pages long, and appears to be little more than a copy/paste of his entire page from User:PHG/Alliance. In his series of "reverts," he didn't just add a few bits and pieces, he added entire sections.[52] In total, about 50K of new information, but used only deceptive edit summaries such as "reinstating" and "restoring." This is very disruptive. --Elonka 07:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What you are refering to is not even material addition per se: it is only a re-balancing of the introduction to integrate your now-preferred introduction sentence. I did not want to reinstate the full article with my preferred introduction sentence and again go into disputes, and instead introduced your sentence "Many attempts...", and added after it that some historians consider that the "attempts" led to an actual alliance, and some don't, with attending references (isn’t that compromise by the way?). You are the only one actually lying here: I never ever added 50k of new content as I reinstated the original content (detailed hereunder “Again, misrepresentation”). You are lying by mis-representing and making false accusations, as you lied when you claimed that you had a consensus to impose your own pov 70k version (Talk:franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus). If it can help, I am ready not to edit anything on Franco-Mongol alliance for a while, if you agree, Elonka, in line with Wikipedia's policy to maintain the status quo when there is no consensus to change, to reinstate the full article and to start working together on improving the content. Best regards. PHG (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, Elonka may have no consensus, but she has more support than you. I now support the shorter version as a startpoint, since it matters little either way: a well-designed process will straighten it all out. Besides, the info from the longer version is still available in the edit history during the resolution process. Srnec (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AGAIN, MISREPRESENTATION
Elonka and Shell Kinney have been claiming that I added a huge amount of new material to the original article as I reinstated it (49 paragraphs? 50k?), but this is highly untrue. During these 2 weeks, the original article only increased by 6k, due to more references, and a new referenced segment on the removal Golden Gate of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Mongols. The article was initially 191,965 bytes, and only ended at 197,697 bytes. Here is the documented reconstruction of the steps I took:

• 191,965 bytes: initial January 14th size of the article (which had been built up to this size over a period of 6 months) [53], before I started to split/condense it upon Elonka’s requests: [54], [55].
• 155,549 bytes: reduced size as I started to split main content to reduce article size on January 15th [56]
• 141,914 bytes: reduced size once I had finished splitting content on January 15th [57]
• Then the various splits came under attack as “POV-Fork”, from Elonka and a few others.
• 80,887 bytes: Elonka started to impose her 80k version without an actual consensus [58]. No consensus: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus
• 198,591 bytes: as the split articles were being deleted, I reinstated the original version of the article on January 20th, to its state before the splitting [59]. I also made two modifications to facilitate discussions: I replaced in the same edit the list of references to the “Franco-Mongol alliance” claim with a more complete one, and rather than reinstating my “minority” introduction sentence (“An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance”) , I rewrote the introduction to better balance it and accommodate Elonka’s preferred introduction sentence, so that it could become a proper basis for discussion. Edit summary: “Reinstated complete version as basis for discussion”
• 199,985 bytes: I added a new paragraph about the “Removal of the Golden Gate of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Mongols (1300)” [60]; edit summary: “Removal of the Golden Gate of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Mongols (1300))”
• 197,517 bytes: On January 24th, I suppressed the “Christianity among the Mongols” introduction chapter, following User:Ealdgyth’s suggestions [61]; edit summary: “Removed "Christianity among the Mongols" as per Talk Page”. I then replaced it with a 7-lines summary [62]; edit summary: “Short section on Christianity ».
• 197,766 bytes: I removed details of a quote to the William of Rubruck article [63]; edit summary “Moved detail and quote to William of Rubruck article”.
• 197,697 bytes: Last reinstalment of the full version on January 25th [64]

So, all these claims about adding a huge amount of new content (50k, 49 paragraphs) as I reinstated the original version is therefore totally fabricated. Between the time I started to split-out content to reduce article size (the article was originally 191,965 bytes) and the time I finally reinstalled the full content after the splits were deleted for alleged POV-forks, the article only increased by less than 6k (to 197,697 bytes), mainly due to the addition of references to the Franco-Mongol alliance claim, and the addition of a segment on the Golden Gate of Jerusalem. I also eliminated some content following Talk Page suggestions by other users. My edit summaries are also generally highly descriptive of the actions taken. Elonka and Shell, please stop mis-representing and distorting reality to smear those who don’t agree with you, this is really quite a shame. You don’t have a consensus for forcing Elonka’s 70k emended version (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus), so you have to accept the rules and acknowledge working from the original, full, highly documented version (195k, 400 academic references). Regards. PHG (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing piece by piece

I've looked at the lead a couple of times and it seems like we need to settle the other sections, before we can rewrite the lead properly. Given that we can't really start at the top that way, does anyone have any suggestions about which section to tackle first? Shell ^babelfish 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think! (And think I said...) Elonka suggested "Christian vassals", which is fine with me, I think it's where the major disputes begin. Srnec (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I let Elonka know last night, but I have a large pile of Crusades books headed my way (thank you Amazon!) so hopefully I'll be able to actually do some editing soon, rather than just pester from the talk page. Should be here next week early.

And might as well start with the first section past the lead section. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave the lead untouched until disputes have been resolved. We can start with the first section (Early contacts), I personally don't dispute anything in that section. The lead can be modified as we go along, or left alone until we're done.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I too am fine with the "Early contacts" section, and the "Papal overtures" section. In fact, I'm fine with all sections as they are at the moment, though am definitely willing to keep talking with anyone who feels otherwise. I think that the "Christian vassals" section is probably the first one (working down from the top) where we're going to run into some disagreement. For example, could someone list a particular sentence that they're unhappy with, and/or how they think it should be changed? Or, we could try a bold, revert, discuss cycle, meaning that if someone's unhappy with the section, that they just go in and change it, and we try to do some back and forth with text modifications (note I said modifications, not reverts), to see if we could find a consensus version. --Elonka 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't mean that there was any reason to change the lead at this point, just that looking things over, I wasn't quite sure where the real disputes started so I was asking other opinions. Sounds like Christian vassals is a good starting point... Shell ^babelfish 00:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably Christian vassals is our first spot of issue, from just a quick glance at things. Oh, I just dropped a few more spun-off articles onto our list. Some of them I was unsure about, so I didn't annotate them. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Early contact and Papal overtures sections

Just a few quick questions, nothing contentious, more stylistic/prose tweaking:

• Papal overtures section. Did Innocent IV issue more than one bull? Or just one?
• Same section, "Innocent sent another mission, through another route, led by..." is the "through another route vital? Otherwise it just seems like fluff in the article.
• I removed the bit about the "Nestorian Christian princesses"... changed it to "had Nestorian Christians among them"

Also, should we be doing ." or ". with our punctuation? It seems rather inconsistent to me so far. Nothing I saw in those two sections screamed "wrong" to me. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

According to List of papal bulls, Innocent IV issued multiple documents. On punctuation, I normally use ." with sentence quotes, and ". when just putting quotes around a single word or term, as described in the MoS at WP:PUNC. The other suggestions look fine to me, and/or I can go either way, so do what you think is best.  :) --Elonka 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm.. but did he issue multiple bulls on the subject of the embassy? My experience with papal bulls has been they issue one per subject. Of course that's for a time frame over a 100 years before this, so I could be wrong. And that list shows bulls in 1247, 1252 and 1254, but none in 1245. The 1252 one is for the Inquisition, authorizing torture. Hm.. wonder what the others listed there are for. Anyway, the source there is Richard, and I note that this sentence is in both the long version and the short version of the article. Maybe we'd better double check the reference. The list of bulls could be off, but it'd be nice to be able to update it if Richard gives a name for the 1245 bull. I'll go dig on the shelves. The books I ordered shipped (except the God's War, it's backordered, drat it!) so hopefully we'll all be on the same source page soon. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okies. Is the text of the 1247 bull, it has to with the rule of Mount Carmel (not sure where it's located, but it's clear it's not Mongol related). JSTOR Article which I'll get tomorrow, you can count on it. Translation of 1252 Bull which is the one about torture, Bit about Papal bulls on the treatment of Jews that briefly mentions Innocent and some bulls. (Very intersting article, btw) List of some bulls relating to Scotland has two bulls of Innocent, Information on the Council of Lyons which gives the decrees of the council (handy!), Papal Encyclicals and Councils more listings, including council decrees, and Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Innocent IV. Heh, I got a bit long winded. (Big surprise). Some of those sites are pretty nice, well worth bookmarking for later.Ealdgyth | Talk 04:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The JSTOR article lists six bulls for 1245 and another either 1244 or 1245. Only two were issued post-Lyon (July and August). Only the 17 July bull Ad apostolicae dignitatis, which excommunicated Frederick II looks like it may have even the slightest bearing on Mongol relations, but none of my online searches reveal one. Srnec (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're going with this. Yes, multiple Mongol-related bulls were issued, including two in March 1245 by Pope Innocent, Dei patris immensa (waxing on Christianity, and urging Mongols to accept baptism), and Cum non solum, an appeal to the Mongols to stop attacking Christians. Pope Innocent expressed a desire for peace in the second one, but according to Peter Jackson, Innocent may have been unaware that the Mongols didn't really have a word for "peace". Their word for "peace" was the same as the word for "submission"! I've added both bulls (and a few others that I'm finding in Jackson's book) to List of papal bulls. If you need more info, let me know.  :) --Elonka 06:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Beware historians getting lost in the details! Yeah, looks good. I like the tidbit about the Mongols not having a word for peace, that should probably go in the article somewhere. I'll see what else I pull from JSTOR tomorrow, I've finally gotten a real librarian to speak with me, and have permission to acquire all the articles I want, so tomorrow while all the college kids are off drinking and sleeping, I'll be buried in the library. Any subjects that I should plug in besides the obvious "Mongol" "Crusaders" "Diplomatic relations" "Innocent IV" etc.? Ealdgyth | Talk 06:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, confirm for yourself if or how much Mongol presence (if any) was in Jerusalem in the latter half of the 13th century, as that has been an important issue to PHG. Also, check anything you can find on Cicilian Armenia (under Hetoum I, also spelled Hethoum, Haithon, Hayton, Het'um, etc.) to get a sense for yourself whether he "allied" with the Mongols or submitted. And, since you're really good at researching sources and determining which ones are most reliable, it would be a good idea to get a sense of the authors such as Alain Demurger and Laurent Dailliez, since we have had disagreement on how much those two can be used for controversial claims that are not backed up by other historians. So if you can track down a copy of Dailliez's Les Templiers (1970s editions) to see them for yourself, that could be helpful.  :) Check out the discussions at Talk:Laurent_Dailliez for more. And good luck!  :) --Elonka 09:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Going to have to go to the University of Illinois' library for some of this. The dinky little local university chose to be cheap and didn't do the full JSTOR sub, just some of the journals. They missed Speculum, Journal of Medieval History and Journal of Ecclesiastical History, so you can bet they didn't subscribe to Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society and the others. I did get the Schein, and a couple of intersting looking things that turned up while I was poking around. Dang I miss having Rice University and the University of Houston right around the corner! Ealdgyth | Talk 23:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In your libraries defense: JSTOR is not cheap at all (multi thousand $ a year), and not many people go to local libraries for old scholarly papers; good luck finding the relevant ones. Arnoutf (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't my local public library. This is a well known regional university library. Liberal arts in fact. I would HATE to be a history professor there, trying to publish or perish (grins). But they do have some so I gathered a couple of articles (65 in fact, but most aren't on the Mongols). Now to get them processed from the .gifs to something readable... ugh. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Even university libraries can't afford everything (my University has subscriptions with Elsevier for about 1 million Euro a year which obviously covers only Elsevier journal; and that is only one of the publishers they have subscriptions from...... For the academic staff member the trick is to lobby for the journals you really need and buy the single papers (about 20$ in general) when needed. Sounds expensive; and I agree it is, but often cheaper then having the whole bunch. But I think this is getting a bit off-topic;I have no access to all these sources either so dropped out of this article long ago. Good luck. Arnoutf (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need anything from Speculum I have JSTOR access for 1926-2002; for JMH I have the whole thing (1975-2007). For JEH I can apparently access only 1999-2007; I'm sure I've used older volumes online in the past but maybe it changed. (Also, if you need anything from the past 7 volumes of Speculum they are handily on my shelf, although I don't think there is anything in them about the Montols.) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus means status quo

Dear all. I have been blocked for 24 hours for highly disputable, and highly disputed (thank you!), reasons (User talk:PHG# Blocked for 24 hours). I have now formally posted a complaint about Elonka’s hijacking of this page at ANI. As she is an Admistrator open to recall, I have also asked her to step down from her position of Administrator due to unethical conduct (especially for False claim of consensus and misrepresentation). I think she is supposed to step down after receiving such requests from a total of 6 users.

Now, regarding this article. I am glad that several editors are intent to discuss content, and I will happily work with them on that. However, the basis of this work is currently a 70k emended POV version which has been forced by Elonka without consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus), and is therefore illegitimate per Wikipedia rules. For Wikipedia’s legitimacy and everybody’s motivation, it is important that rules be respected, even by a few very enterprising editors who are bent on smearing and misrepresenting others. In the absence of a consensus, Wikipedia rules dictate us to maintain the status quo, i.e. the full, highly documented, original version of the article (195k, 400 academic references) which has been developed over a period of 6 months, and discuss collaboratively from that basis. So let’s do it please, it is only the right thing to do. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, Elonka's admin status is not relevant unless admin tools are used. I also would not call this a "hijacking". As for the block, I will say that regardless of the merits of ones position, if one acts disruptive when advocating that opinion they can be blocked. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the 400 academic references. See above, Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Specific concerns, where I asked some questions 4 days ago about some of the sources. I'm not saying that most of the sources aren't academic (they probably are), but until I can actually find them, I don't know. Neither I nor the other readers of this article are mind readers, we can't know for sure what a footnote of "Instanbul" p. 16 means. PHG, Im more than happy to work with anyone, however continuing to call the long version full of academic references when I have concerns about some of them and my concerns have gone unanswered, doesn't help my feelings of cooperation. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I have full protected this article for 2 weeks and encourage the interested parties to work this out on the talk page in a cooperative and civil manner. I do not see that Elonka used he admin tools here (point it out if she did) so this appears to be a content dispute, not misuse of her tools and she has not hijacked the page. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you at least to have blocked this article, as what was going on was totally against Wikipedia's most basic editorial rules. User:Elonka and a few supporters were trying to impose their own version instead of the main article, inspite of the abscence of a consensus to do so. In the meantime, the original FULL ARTICLE will be available on my userspace for everyone to review, edit and improve, until we can reinstate it properly on the main page. Best regards. PHG (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of everyone but you and someone you canvassed isn't a consensus? Have you noticed the discussions going on here? We're all working on the current article version to improve it. Is there anything we can do to convince you that there is no need to revert our work? Shell ^babelfish 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shell, why don't you want to acknowledge that there is no consensus for implementing Elonka's 70k version?: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 4#False claim of consensus. I would also appreciate that you correct your other false claim that I "created" 46 paragraphs of new content as I reinstated the full article: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Why is the "longer version" get even longer?. Regards. PHG (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While the main article is under protection, I have installed a copy of it at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. Since I know that we're in the middle of some detailed sourcing questions, and many of the changes that we want to implement are non-controversial, I find it helpful to have a subpage available where the small tweaks can continue. Therefore, anyone who would like to edit my subpage is welcome to do so, and then (assuming that there are no disputes) we can easily copy in changes to the main article later, after protection is lifted. --Elonka 12:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, please note that you hereby keep trying to impose your 70k "summary" inspite of the fact that you have no consensus for it (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 4#False claim of consensus). According to Wikipedia rules, in the absence of consensus, the original "full version" (195k, 400 references) should be reinstated, so that everybody can collaboratively edit from it. Your behaviour is highly unethical, and extremely disruptive.

May I also remind that you falsely claimed that I added "50k of new content" to the full article as I reinstated it (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Why is the "longer version" get even longer?), so I would appreciate that you retract yourself and properly apologize for the personal attacks. Regards. PHG (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough PHG. I am finding your rhetoric beyond tiresome now. Are you just going to keep throwing accusations at Elonka or are you actually willing to work collaboratively on this article? It is becoming apparent to me (and to a number of other users it seems) that you don't have the slightest intention of allowing anything other than your prefered version in this article. Have you read the comments from people on the request for Arbitration in relation to this article? Do you acknowledge that editors find your version far too long? That they question the accuracy of your writing and your presentation of sources? Or that your ownership of this article is perceived as a major issue? Elonka is asking for suggestions to improve the presently protected article. She is listening to the comments that people are making and working towards agreeing changes for when the article is unprotected. Do you have any intention of joining in that process? I'm sorry but Elonka's behaviour is not unethical, it represents a sensible approach to group editing. Your constant refusal to have any content removed from your over long article is exactly what prompted the need for her to propose and implement an alernative version - something I supported and encouraged. Your ridiculous splitting of disputed content over multiple aritcles (resulting in a waste of the community's time on deletion discussions) and your failure to engage in productive dialogue with the now many editors calling your editing pratices here into question is what disruptive here. WjBscribe 13:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian vassals

First I would like to state that I prefer the shorter version and believe that it ought be the basis for future discussion. This version, the one now locked, is closer to the prevailing view of scholarship in this area and is free from the egregious eccentricities of longer version.

I am pleased with the tenor of the section entitled Christian vassals. I believe that the emphasis on vassalage is correct. A few editors' insistence that the Principality of Antioch and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia were not vassals but allies has been the source of much conflict. On this point I would suggest that editors examine Reuven Amitai-Preiss' Mongols and Mamluks: the Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281 (Cambridge 1995). The book is a recent, scholarly work by a noted academic. It deals precisely with the issues at stake in our article. On pages 24 and 25, Amitai-Preiss addresses these Christian vassals. He uses the words "tributary" and "submission" with respect to these, and while acknowledging that the Armenians hoped for some kind of benefit from their allegiance to the Mongols, states that their relationship was that of subordinates. These pages may be seen here. There is even an assessment of the history of Hayton of Corycus (Het'um).

In the past when I have tried to introduce this book into the discussion (here), I received a response from PHG where he seems to suggest that Amitai-Preiss supports his side in this discussion (here). This is a misreading of the book: a clear case of noticing trees but ignoring the forest.

Furthermore I would suggest that the view that the Armenians of Cilicia were not vassals but equal partners allied with the Mongols is tied up with a specifically Armenian and nationalist point of view. I would caution that Armenian sources, both primary and secondary, ought to be carefully examined for such biases. Aramgar (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The fortress of al-Bira is located on the Euphrates; the link to al-Bireh is not correct. I visited the place in 1995. Maybe it ought to have it's own article. I'll see if I can't find my photographs. Aramgar (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Birecik / al-Bira has a page already. Aramgar (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Aramagar, you're making a lot of baseless statements there. a) The source that you provided merely regurgitates Peter Jackson (see footnote 97). A minority if not a fringe view. b) Your totally absurd and outrageous unfounded claim that Cilcia was allied to Mongols is an Armenian nationalist pov seriously hampers your participation in this dispute. c) Take a look at: User:Eupator/Mongol historians.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aramgar. Your support of Elonka's short version is well known as you have been reverting to it [65] inspite of the absence of a consensus to do so, an act which in itself goes against Wikipedia's most basic editorial rules.

Regarding "Allies" and "Vassals", the issue is not about choosing one expression over the other: both are used extensively in the literature. For some of the literature using the terminology "allies" see here. The point is that both views should be mentionned, as per Wikipedia:NPOV "All significant views should be presented. This is non negotiable". The full version already does that extensively, listing both views, and often using expressions such as "allies/vassals". As far as I know, the historical ground for this "allies" wording is that neither Cilician Armenia nor the Principality of Antioch were ever invaded by the Mongols, and chose to side with them voluntarily (of course they could have chosen to stand and fight, but instead chose to go along). Relations were usually cordial, and even marital alliances occured (see Sempad the Constable). To me, it's not one wording against the other, but only a matter of using both to properly reflect sources and avoid a pov presentation of facts. Best regards. PHG (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, but so far I have only seen two sources (Jackson and Stewart) contest the alliance. This still makes it a minority view. Their thesis also doesn't make much sense, Stewart at least says that Cilician forces were used in the Mongol offensives against the Ayyubid emirs of Syria so they must have been Mongol vassals.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator and PHG: That the Mongols invaded neither the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia nor the Principality of Antioch has no relevance. The threat of such an invasion in the 1240s was sufficient and both states submitted to the Mongols. This is the view of Amitai-Preiss and majority of scholars in this field. I have seen your list, Eupator, and I have seen PHG's uncritical assemblage of quotes; neither of you seem willing to discuss the list of sources that Elonka has collected here, merely dismissing them as "amateur authors" or as representing only one POV side of a dispute. Perhaps you should stop claiming "absence of consensus" or impeaching my credibility and actually address these claims.

As for the Armenian sources, nationalistic bias is a well know problem in historiography and hardly limited to Armenians. Perhaps you, Eupator, have noticed such biases in Turkish sources; I myself come across them almost every day. Aramgar (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you or Elonka discussing those lists? Mine is far larger and less ambiguous btw, ergo my assertion of a MAJORITY view. I directly criticized the main thesis of the main source that Elonka presented for example. As such your above claim of blind disregard is false. I already explained to you that it is not the view of Amitai-Preiss. It is the view of Peter Jackson, see footnote 97. Neither you or Elonka has provided any shred of evidence that it is the view of the majority of scholars in this field but I have. So I don't understand on what basis are you continuing to make that claim.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. What's the purpose of you even bringing that up? No secondary "Armenian source" has been used by anyone. Please answer.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing sources from Elonka's list, specifically Amatai-Priess. I see the footnote and fail to see how it pertains to the discussion at hand. Reuven Amatai-Priess and Peter Jackson are different people. Both are noted scholars in precisely this field. That they agree is significant. Aramgar (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While ignoring everything else, specifically the majority view. Amatai-Priess' bases his claim on Jackson's opinion not on his individual research. I don't know how notable he is within the field given how he's using modern secondary sources much like we are.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reuven Amitai-Preiss is a notable scholar in the field. The pages of his book are dense with footnotes to primary sources in Arabic and Persian. Page 24-25 are in the first chapter "The Historical Background"; it is a general overview were the established understanding of the subject is set forth. But do not take my word for it; read what you can of it here. I would also suggest that the Cambridge University Press does not typically publish the non-notable. Aramgar (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still citing another scholar who is already used here. This discussion is pointless.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the book, Eupator. That Amitai-Preiss and Jackson agree is significant testimony of academic consensus; that's how scholarship works. And as I said above, the first chapter in which this section appears is a general overview of the established understanding. Or did you miss that point? Aramgar (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe establishing academic consensus requires a lot more than you choosing an author who cites another that supports your view in what i'm supposed to believe was meant to display a general overview.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) I agree with Aramgar that the mainstream view of historians is that Cilician Armenia submitted to the Mongols. Any historian who discusses the situation in depth makes it clear that it was a submission. A voluntary submission, but a submission nonetheless. Jean Richard, Angus Donal Stewart, Reuven Amitai-Preiss, and Peter Jackson are all clear on this. I am collating a list of pertinent quotes, which can be seen at User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Cilician Armenia. They are quite unambiguous. --Elonka 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, are you sure you want to be the one to pose a thesis that aggrandizes Armenia? Think about it. El_C 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

El_C, the only thing i'm doing here is supporting the mainstream scholarly view. I have collected quotes from ten authors regarding this matter in a short time which includes Anne Elizabeth Redgate, Richard Hovannisian, Michael Angold, Edmund Herzig, Steven Runciman etc. as well as Cambridge published books. Until now, these sources have been dismissed or not even addressed. There doesn't seem to be any spirit of cooperation in this regard.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole argument is meaningless, and I think, very un-Wikipedian and needlessly rude. The only interesting point is that some historians describe the relationship as alliance and some as vassality. There is no need to pitch one against the other. Both views are significant, and therefore both should be expressed according to Wikipedia:NPOV. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, point taken. I will look into it. Thanks for taking the time to compile that material. El_C 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no sources or books that even begin to address this subject, so just wanted to say that I'm not addressing issues because I have nothing to add. It's not dismissing anyone's concerns, it's just plain ignorance. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The view that the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia was a vassal of the Mongols is supported by a wide degree of scholarly consensus. As an illustration I would like to cite a tertiary source: the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium in its entry on "Cilicia, Armenian" (vol. 1, p. 463) says, "The recognition of Mongol suzerainty by the Het'umids in 1253 bolstered Armenian Cilicia for a time, but its political situation between the Seljuks of Rum, the Mamluks of Egypt, and the Mongols remained precarious..." The authors of individual entries in the ODB, like those in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, appear under the article. The author of "Cilicia, Armenia" is Nina G. Garsoian, Centennial Professor of Armenian History and Civilization at Columbia University. Aramgar (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I appreciate that Eupator took the time to compile sources, I am concerned that some of them appear to be biased, unreliable, or cherry-picked. If we want, we can go source by source through the list. I've already pointed out how practically none of the authors at Eupator's page are authors that are commonly used in academia for the "Mongols and Europe" studies.[66] I would also point out that Eupator is listing Steven Runciman as a proponent of the "alliance" theory, but I don't feel that that is accurate. Just because Runciman (who, though he did fine work at the time, is now considered somewhat outdated) used the word "alliance", doesn't mean that that was the only way he referred to the relationship. In his chapter "The Crusader States, 1243-1291" for Setton's 1969 Crusades, Runciman was clear that the relationship was a vassalage.[67] I would also not lean too heavily on Maalouf's Crusades through Arab Eyes, since an offhand comment in a general-audience (and non-peer-reviewed) book should not be used to argue against detailed analysis by modern scholars. Perhaps it's time that we made a "rated" list of sources, where we sort by the A–D classes that I recommended down in #Reliable sources? Eupator, which of your sources would you regard as "A" sources, meaning modern works of scholarship that argue that the relationship was an alliance and not a vassalage? Then we can take a look at those for ourselves. --Elonka 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best for neutrality's sake that someone other than Elonka or a user canvassed here by her decides which sources are acceptable or not. I'll continue to populate the list. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do that...I've been doing it all along, on occasion. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy with that regardless of the outcome :).-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, I too would be happy to assess the sources on your list. I was canvassed by no one and have access to an excellent library. Aramgar (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

This article, or rather, the conduct of the editors involved with it, is now being considered as the subject of a case by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It has not yet been decided whether or not the case will be accepted, but anyone who wishes to post a statement, is welcome to do so, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance. The decision will probably be made within the next couple days. If accepted, the case will probably take a couple months, and will go through evidence, workshop, and decision phases, but for now, preliminary statements are recommended. --Elonka 11:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the Mongoliberations (of the Holy City!)

One of the most interesting passages quoting Jackson in these articles, I found, was his sentence from page 173 (a sentence which PHG has added to scores of related articles), about the "Mongol liberation of the Holy City"^[68] I'm interested in an elaboration (i.e. beyond PHG's ubiquitous "according to Jackson" in the articles) on what Jackson actually meant by this "Mongol liberation of the Holy City." (i.e. exact dates, under what conditions, responses from the historiography, etc.). Start with quoting the entire pertinent passage, please. Thanks in advance! El_C 20:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if no one answers you by Tuesday, I should have my copy of that book then. Hopefully someone else with a copy actually in their hands can answer before then. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can answer it. PHG is (again) misquoting and misinterpreting sources. Peter Jackson's book absolutely does not say that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem, but Jackson does discuss the rumors of the time, as did Dr. Sylvia Schein in her article "Gesta Dei Per Mongolos", the first page of which can be seen here.[69] Here is Jackson's statement in actual context:

In many respects, the Mongol occupation of Syria in 1299-1300 represents the high water-mark of Mongol-Latin relations. However ephemeral, it caused a great stir in Western Europe. There was nothing particularly novel about this. Rumour had already made the 'king of the Tartars' in person attend the Second Council of Lyons, where he was allegedly baptized and received a crown at the pope's hands.(54) Over-optimistic reports had likewise circulated in connection with Baybars' invasion of Anatolia and his death in 1277 (supposedly at the hands of the Mongols, who had then reconquered the Holy Land),(55) and with Mongke Temur's campaign in 1281, when a cluster of chroniclers registered the sultan's defeat and recapture and the Mongol reoccupation of Antioch ad annum 1282.(56) A story had surfaced in c.1280 about the birth to the Ilkhan's wife, a daughter of the Armenian king, of a monstrous child, which at baptism became completely normal, whereupon the Ilkhan converted to Christianity and went on to wrest Jerusalem from the Mamluks; in 1299-1300 this tale would be repeated in connection with both Ghazan and his brother.(57) In 1288 and 1293 even more fantastic reports are found in the Hagnaby chronicle regarding Mongol victories over Muslims: on the latter occasion (when rumour may have grossly distorted an Egyptian retreat following the capture of Qal'at al-Rum in 1292) the Sultan's brother was allegedly captured and Muslim prisoners forwarded as gifts to various Western monarchs, including Edward I.(58)

Ghazan's operations in 1300, however, achieved the greatest prominence of all, in part because, as Dr. Sylvia Schein has indicated, they coincided with the Jubilee Year proclaimed in Rome by Pope Boniface VIII.(59) The Mongol campaign rapidly acquired the flavour of an epoch-making Christian triumph in which the Ilkhan appeared to fulfil the role that had long awaited Prester John. Word spread that the kings of 'Greece', Armenia and Cyprus had recovered the Holy Sepulchre with Tartar assistance.(60) The false rumour retailed by the doge of Venice,(61) that the Egyptian Sultan had been taken prisoner, seems swiftly to have turned into a report of his death. The Ilkhan had also signalled his capture of Jerusalem by being baptised.(62) It was even reported that following the occupation of Damascus and the return of the entire Holy Land to the Christians he had gone on to conquer Egypt.(63) Some of these tales may have been spread by Frankish prisoners who had escaped from Mamluk captivity. The Armenian king was supposed to have sent a message to Henry of Cyprus with a knight who had been liberated at the fall of Damascus; and the alleged release by the Sultan of a knight who had been a prisoner in Cairo for several years was turned into the work of the victorious Ilkhan.(64) Other stories may have originated with Latin merchants who had been in Alexandria and Damietta and who declared that Ghazan was certain to conquer Egypt.(65) The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument.(66)

— Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West, pp. 172-173

--Elonka 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the next paragraph (may as well have that) continues to deal with Jerusalem? On multiple articles I looked at (mostly deleted revisions), PHG added the "According to Peter Jackson, the Mongols liberated the Holy City," without further qualifications. Could I get PHG to responsd as to what he feels Peter Jackson is claiming in this passage? Thx again. El_C 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no next paragraph, as that is the end of the section. The next section header is "The mechanics of Ilkhanid diplomacy" which starts off, "In their successive attempts to secure assistance from the Latin world, the Ilkhans took care to select personnel who would elicit the confidence of Western rulers and to impart a Christian complexion to their overtures." It then goes on to discuss envoys such as Rabban Sawma, Richardus, and others. --Elonka 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait for PHG to respond, but I note that adding to many articles that "According to Peter Jackson, the Mongols liberated the Holy City" per se., yet failing to note Jackson is referring to "tales," "stories," "rumour[s]," etc., is serious. El_C 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Jackson says here that the capture of Jerusalem is a false story, just that the account of the capture of the city circulated in the West and was exploited by the Pope in castigating other rulers: "The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument" . He just gives it as an example of how events in the Levant came to be circulated, amplified and sometimes deformed by Western observers. His paragraph is actually a mix of true events (the campaign of Ghazan, the capture of Damascus) and fabulous one, and since he does not say "the alleged capture of Jerusalem" or "the false story of the capture of Jerusalem" as he does with other doubtfull events, then it is normal in this context to consider that for him the capture of the city is just a fact. If Jackson is otherwise known to deny the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols, then, fine, I agree we could take the quote out, but such positive evidence would be needed: we cannot extrapolate or editorialize from what an author does not say.

Besides Jackson, numerous historians also unambiguously refer to the capture of Jerusalem as fact, so it's really nothing extraordinary:

• In Les Templiers, Alain Demurger states that "in December 1299, he (Ghazan) vanquished the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs and captured Damascus, and even Jerusalem". (Demurger, Les Templiers, 2007, p.84) and that the Mongol general Mulay occupied the Holy City in 1299-1300 ("Mulay, a Mongol general who was effectively present in Jerusalem in 1299-1300", Demurger, Les Templiers, 2007, p.84)
• According to Frederic Luisetto, in 1299-1300 Mongol troops penetrated into Jerusalem and Hebron, and are recorded to have committed numerous massacres there. (Frédéric Luisetto, p.205-206 "Troops penetrated in Jerusalem and Hebron where they committed many massacres (...) In Hebron, a cross was even raised on top of the Mosque of Abraham", also p.208 "We have knowledge of the violences perpetrated in Jerusalem and Damas")
• In The Crusaders and the Crusader States, Andrew Jotischky used Schein's 1979 article and later 1991 book to state, "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia" (Jotischky, The Crusaders and the Crusader States, p. 249).
• Steven Runciman in "A History of the Crusades, III" stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. (Runciman, p.439. "Five years later, in 1308, Ghazzan again entered Syria and now penetrated as far as Jerusalem itself. It was rumoured that he would have willingly handed over the Holy City to the Christians had any Christian state offered him its alliance.")
• Claude Mutafian, in Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie mentions the writings and the 14th century Armenian Dominican which claim that the Armenian king visited Jerusalem as it was temporarily removed from Muslim rule.(Claude Mutafian, p.73)
• Schein, in her 1979 article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos", stated "The alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened," (Schein, 1979, p. 805) but in her 1991 book mentioned in a footnote that the Mongol capture of Jerusalem was confirmed because they had removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock, and transferred it to Damascus ("The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350, ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163).

Now, I am not trying here to prove that the capture of Jerusalem occured (although it is indeed very likely given the extent of the Mongol invasion as far as Gaza, the fact that they occupied the Levant in its entirety for 4 months, and the numerous contemporary accounts of the capture of the Holy City by Arabs, Armenians and Christians alike), but just that both views exist among historians: some consider it as fact, while other doubt it. Both views are significant and should therefore be expressed according to Wikipedia:NPOV (this principle is even said to be "non negotiable"). Detailed account regarding the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols at User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)#Alliance to recapture the Levant (1297-1303) Regards to all. PHG (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to not actually "vote" one way or the other until I get the book in my hands, but right now I'd have to say that the passage is uncertain in the meaning. Clearly he's talking about rumors, so at best we'd be guessing at what he means. I'll note though, that most of what he's talking about are clearly rumors. Even the reference to the capture of Damascus is this sentence "It was even reported that following the occupation of Damascus and the return of the entire Holy Land to the Christians he had gone on to conquer Egypt." which is clearly false in the last part, so I'm guessing he's referring to the rumor in it's entirety. Clearly it is NOT clear that Jackson is stating that Ghazan captured Jerusalem. Elonka, do you have the full context for that footnote from the 1991 Schein? I'm afraid I didn't order it, it was a bit pricier than I wanted to spend, given everything else I splurged on. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing quite a few mentions of it in Hebrew online sources, actually. Arachim Seminar — "In 1244, Jerusalem was conquered by the Mongolians."; Da'at Jewish Encyclopedia — "In 1244, Jerusalem is conquered by Mongolian tribe until 1850 (in 1860 they again conquered it for a short while"; Britannica (Hebrew version) — "The city was conquered again by Christians and even by Mongolian tribes."; Hebrew Wikipedia (History of Jerusalem) — Exact same sentence (who borrowed what from whom?) The Mongolian Empire one, however, states — "two important cities that were not conquered were Jerusalem and Vienna"). There certainly appears to be mixed views on this. Is this really all that Peter Jackson has to say about this in this book which seems to be hailed as so seminal? El_C 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Hebrew, but I can tell you what those sources are confused about. In 1244, Jerusalem was conquered by the Khwarezm Turks, who had just been displaced by the Mongols. The Mongols didn't even get raiding parties into the area of Palestine until 1260. So if anything is saying 1244, it's obviously referring to the Turks, which is well-accepted and mainstream history. Then, once Jerusalem was under Turkish (Muslim) control, it stayed under Muslim control (Turks to Mamluks to Ottomans) until 1917, when the British took it from the Ottomans. --Elonka 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the texts are somewhat confused. I do not accept the Daat text--it is essentially a religious text, which happens to insert a timetable. The Daat text is questionable in that it says that the Khwarizmim were the Mongol tribe. The Britannica text is the least committal, just mentioning the Mongol conquest in passing. Danny (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Mordecai Naor and Baruch Gian's Jerusalem: A City Embracing Light (Ministry of Defence Publishing House, 2007), which I have in my possession (and highly recommend), the Khwarizmim in 1244 were actually tribes who were repelled by rather than being part of the Mongolian invasion (i.e. יחידות של לוחמים ח'ואריזמים שנסוגו מאימת פשיטות המונגולים). As for the 1260 event, a quarter Century ago in his "The Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260" (The English Historical Review, 1980), Jackson notes only "a single armed clash that occurred." El_C 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the statement that the Khwarizmim in 1244 were arriving because they had been repelled by the Mongols rather than because they were part of the Mongol invasion. The Mongols had been advancing westward in 1220, and attacked and conquered the Khwarizmim Empire. However, though they had taken the land, they were not able to decimate the people. The forces of the Khwarizmim fled westward, away from the Mongols, and survived by serving as mercenaries in northern Iraq. They were also later offered an alliance with the Egyptian Mamluks, and along the way to Egypt, the Khwarizmims conquered Jerusalem, taking it from the Christians, and triggering the call for the Seventh Crusade. I'm not sure why any Hebrew sources would say that Khwarizmim were Mongols. All I can guess is that since the Mongols at that point had conquered the Khwarizmim territory, that that area was absorbed into the Mongol Empire, which made that area "Mongol," even though the mercenary forces most definitely were not. --Elonka 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslim sources

Besides Christian sources, Muslim sources are actually the most specific (in fact, extremely specific, about the subject). According to the historian Sylvia Schein "Arab chroniclers, like Moufazzal Ibn Abil Fazzail, an-Nuwairi and Makrizi, report that the Mongols raided the country as far as Jerusalem and Gaza." (Schein, "Gesta dei per Mongolos 1300", p.810)

In a 1301 letter, the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir accused Ghazan of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem, "the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca" ("In a letter dated 3 October 1301, Ghazan was accused by the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem 'the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca!". Schein, 1979, p. 810.):

"You should not have marched on a Muslim country with an army composed of a multitude of people from diverse religions; neither should you have let the Cross enter sacred territory; nor should you have violated the sanctity of the Temple of Jerusalem."

— Letter from Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir to Ghazan, October 3rd, 1301. (Quoted in Luisetto, p.167)

The Arab historian Yahia Michaud, in the 2002 book Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI, describes that there were some firsthand accounts at the time of forays of the Mongols into Palestine, and quotes two major contemporary Muslim sources (Abu al-Fida and Ibn Taymiyyah) who state that Jerusalem was one of the cities that was invaded by the Mongols: (Michaud Yahia (Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies) (2002). Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI (in French). Chap. XI.)

"The Tatars then made a raid against Jerusalem and against the city of Khalil. They massacred the inhabitants of these two cities (...) it is impossible to describe the amount of atrocities, destructions, plundering they did, the number of prisonners, children and women, they took as slaves".

— Abu al-Fida, Histoire.(Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI)

"The Mongols first marched against Syria in 699 (1299-1300)... In Jerusalem, in Jabal al-Salihiyya, in Naplouse, in Daraya and other places, they killed a number of people, and made a number a number of captives only known to God."

— Ibn Taymiyyah, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI.(Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI)(Also quoted in "L'Orient au Temps des Croisades", p.125)

The 14th century Muslim historian Al-Mufaddal also mentions the massacres of the populations of Jerusalem and the nearby city of Hebron (30 km south of Jerusalem) by the Mongols during the 1299-1300 campaign,(Referenced in Luisetto, p.205) and even mentions, together with Al-Nuwayri, that a cross was raised on the top of the Mosque of Abraham in Hebron. (Luisetto, quoting Al-Mufaddal and Al-Nuwayri, p.206). All details in User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)#Alliance to recapture the Levant (1297-1303), which have been suppressed in the "short version". Best regards PHG (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Source concerns

Once more, I direct PHG's attention to the section above Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Specific concerns. I'll just note that that was posted on 07:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC), and except for the removal of the Christianity among the Mongols, nothing I've listed has been addressed. I'm sorry, the painting issue has been addressed also. I'm afraid I can't agree with "original, highly documented" until I can actually find some of the documents. WP:CITE says "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used." Please address these issues, which I'll note are still present in the long version you're linking to above. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Roux, Jean-Paul, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol, Fayard, ISBN 2213031649
• Foltz, Richard (2000). "Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century". New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-23338-8.

... To be completed soon. Best regards PHG (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Setton, Kenneth M., History of the Crusades (Later Crusades, 1189 to 1311) Univ of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 0299048411
• Morgan, David, The Mongols, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007, ISBN 1405135395
• Demurger, Alain, Croisades et croisés au Moyen Âge, Champs Flammarion, Paris 2006, ISBN 9782080801371
• Delcourt, Thierry, Les Croisades : La plus grande aventure du Moyen Âge, Nouveau Monde (20 septembre 2007) (Français), ISBN 2847362592
• Reuven Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281, Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization, ISBN 0521522900
• Sicker, Martin, The Islamic World in Ascendancy: From the Arab Conquests to the Siege of Vienna Praeger Publishers (2000) ISBN 0275968928

...more coming soon. PHG (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus poll

To help clarify opinions on the question of, "Is there consensus for condensing the article," could everyone please weigh in below? Specifically:

When page protection is lifted, should we continue with the condensed 73K version of the Franco-Mongol alliance article as it exists now,[70] or switch back to the 193K version which is currently in PHG's userspace:[71]?

Please provide one comment per editor, thanks:

• Keep condensed version. It better reflects the consensus of talkpage discussions, is easier to read, uses better sources, and avoids a multitude of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE issues that are in the longer version. --Elonka 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Shorter version less primary source quotations, the source issues are addressed, and it doesn't bring my browser to its knees everytime I load the page. If PHG can come up with a short version before page protection is lifted here, I reserve the right to reconsider. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Ealdgyth. I did write a shorter 140k version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franco-Mongol_alliance&oldid=184477134) which could have still be shortened further, with more detailed split-out content in the articles by dates, but the splits were deleted for "POV-fork", so we're back with just one article having to hold the 195k content. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain I don't like either. Elonka's version is problematic (disputed issues aside) because it's missing quite a lot of information contained in PHG's version. Both versions are poorly referenced in terms of formatting. Long quotes should be eliminated entirely. I can understand one, but so many? Each reference should be used as one note and multiple citations lettered automaticaly with a, b, c, d etc. Perhaps as we go along with the section by section editing PHG can tell us which parts he wants to re-add to the current section. I also recommend reducing the number of primary sources in inline citations and just moving them to the References section. I would like to see what PHG has to say before I change my vote. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Condensed/Short version As I said earlier, it is substantially shorter, well-sourced, and offers, I believe, a better balanced picture of a fairly complex historical situation. It eliminates the troubling over-reliance on primary sources and provides a good summary of modern academic consensus. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain, due to an off-wiki relationship with Kafka Liz, though my opinion is well-know and my interest in the Middle East during the 13th and 14th century well-attested. Aramgar (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain because I am sick of taking sides. I propose we delete everything and start from scratch. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• A consensus poll does sound like a bit of an oxymoron. El_C 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep condensed version. We're all working on it anyways, it is less problematic than the longer version and is a considerably more sound starting point for further work. Shell ^babelfish 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: this article is just plain weird. PHG's original article from back in August was (relatively) tightly-written and looked good. It was structured and made sense. But it turns out it was poorly-supported by sources on several key points. This downside has only gotten worse in PHG's later versions, to the point where it cannot be accepted in articlespace for the sake of the reader, who already takes WP with a large grain of salt... and probably trusts an article with 200+ citations! But, I'm not sure if the current article is "about" much. Adam is onto something when he says "start from scratch", but who in hell would be willing to do that after 6 months of haggling? Maybe we can start creating subpages from scratch and use them as a basis for reforming this article. (And, frankly, that sounds much less daunting to individual editors, I think.) The section-by-section critique/review I suggested above and which seems to have been met with approval may still work, though PHG's behaviour in creating and continuing to edit the "full version" in his userspace is scary. Can I nominate a user subpage for deletion? Srnec (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the full version, and split/condense from that. By the way, the wording of the question is misleading: the shift to Elonka's short version doesn't have a consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 4#False claim of consensus), which means per Wikipedia rules that the original full version (the one before Elonka tried to impose her "summary") is the default and should stay, and should be the basis to work from. The full version is simply richer in content and much more documented (400 references). PHG (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The current article is the ~73 KB, so it seems perfectly accurate to say "continue with the condensed 73K version ... as it exists now". -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • To be exact (and fair), we should say "Switch back to the 193K version"... I added it in the poll question. PHG (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • PHG, there is plenty of documentation for the most ridiculous things. "There is nothing so absurd that one philosopher or other has not said it," says Descartes. Documentation, references, citations are not enough on their own. The quality of the sources is more important and that is what is being challenged about much of your work on this article. Furthermore, Wikipedia doesn't have rules per se, so you cannot claim a "default" status for anything. If the community does not revert Elonka or tell her to self-revert, then she is on strong ground. In fact, other editors have sided with her, though none seem bold enough to revert her version for yours. The accuracy issues lie primarily with that one. For now, PHG, you should work on finding unobjectionable content in the long version which has been removed from the short one but which may in fact be interesting or helpful and bring it up on the talk page here for discussion so that it can be added when the page is unprotected. But I stress unobjectionable. As is, though, this whole project may begin again from (near-)scratch if Adam, Ealdgyth, and I have our way. Srnec (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

More comments

So Elonka doesn't scream (note I'm teasing Elonka here, she wouldn't really scream) that we've derailed the poll, a spot for more comments

• Comment The more I dug today, the more I think a total start from scratch is not such a bad idea. I'm not quite ready to "not-vote" that way, but I can't say that the idea of an overarching article on a singular alliance is striking me as the right way to go. And certainly, some of the legacy prose is worrisome. (Not Elonka's fault, I figure she was trying to incorporate as much as possible from before to lessen feelings of having work destroyed and having to start from scratch). To be frank, this whole concept is starting to strike me as OR or a fringe theory. Yeah, I need to read more of what I've gotten in, but what I've read so far makes me think we're going to have to dig through every single sentence and source, and if we're doing that, wouldn't a fresh start be easier? I dont know, just some thoughts.Ealdgyth | Talk 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What of the idea of combining a secton-by-section approach with starting from scratch and building up sub-articles which can form the basis of revamped main article? Srnec (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I honestly don't know yet. I just have this niggling feeling at the back of my mind that something is just off with the whole thing. It's the feeling I get when I read say Holy Blood, Holy Grail or Gold of the Gods. (Yes, I read that tripe. I find it vastly amusing, I have two whole shelves of 'pseudo-history' to amuse myself with when I want that sort of thing). What I need to do is take both versions, sit down and read the citations and compare them to the actual works. But gah...Ealdgyth | Talk 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • To me the first choice would be to start from the article with the most material (195k, 400 refs), but I would be quite OK to start from scratch as well, as there are now many editors involved and we could build up a good, neutral, content together. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New data

From Lock, Peter (2006). Routledge Companion to the Crusades. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-39312-4.:

p. 123, from the chapter "A Chronological Outline of the Crusades"

"1299 - The Mongol Il-Khan, Ghazan approaches Henry II of Cyprus (1285-1324) and the military orders to participate in his planned invasion of Syria. The western interests took no action. Dec: Mongols defeat the Mamelukes at Homs."

"1300 - Jan: Mongols occupy Damascus. Feb. Boniface VIII announces the first jubilee year in Rome. He uses the flock of visitors to promote a crusade and to captialise on the Mongol successes. Late: Mongols undertake a further campaign in Syria but fail to consolidate their conquests."

From Housley, Norman (1992). The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-822136-3.:

(page 9) Moreover, in the course of the 1250's the entire political situation in the Middle East was rendered more complicated, and possibly more hopeful for the Franks, by the arrival of Mongol armies. Hulegu, brother of Mongke Khan, took Baghdad in 1258 and Aleppo and Damascus in 1260. Since 1245, when Innocent IV had sent the Franciscan John of Piano del Carpine to the Great Khan's court to convert him to Christianity, some Christians had seen potential converts and allies in the Mongols. None the less, when Hulegu sent his general Kitbuqa southwards to attack Egypt the Franks decided to remain neutral, either because they feared Mongol suzerainty more than the threat of Mamluk conquest, or because they did not want to irritate the Mamluks by allying with Hulegu. Perhaps, too, they hoped that even without Franksih support, the Mongols would inflict enough losses on the Mamluks to make them less of a danger thereafter. It was a disastrous, but understandable miscalculation, for nobody could have foreseen the decisiveness of the Mamluk victory over Kitbuqa at Ain Jalut in September 1260, or the completeness with which Hulegu withdrew to Iran, leaving the Mamluks masters of Syria as well as Egypt.

(page 21-22) As for the Mongols, events in 1299-1303 showed how serious a threat they could still present. In 1299 the greatest of the Ilkhans, Ghazan, who was hostile to the Mamluks despite his own conversion to ISlam, launched an invasion of Syria. He preceded it with a suggestion to King Henry II of Cryprus and the masters of the Military Orders that they should contribute troops, a move which led nowhere but confirmed the wisdom of Mamluk strategy in expelling the Franks fromt he mainland. In December 1299 the Mongol army crushed the Mamluks at Homs, and in January 1300 it occupied Damascus. For the Christians, the next few months were full of hope. Henry II and the Military Orders undertook small-scale military operations on the Syrian and Egyptian coasts, and in response to appeals from Ghazan, who declared himself willing to return the Holy Land to the Christians, Pope Boniface VIII encouraged preparations for a crusade. But Ghazan proved unable to consoloidate his successes of 1299. An invasion in the winter of 1300-1 achieved nothing, and in April 1303 the Mamluks defeated a Mongol army near Damascus. In 1304 Ghazan died, and after an abortive invasion in 1312-13 the Mongols never again presented a danger to Mamluk Syria. The only Christian gain from Ghazan's successes was Ruad, an island off the coast opposite Tortosa, which remained in the hands of the Templars until the Mamluks captured it in 1302. And although Oljeitu, Ghazan's successor, made several overtures to Philip the Fair, Edward I, and Pope Clement V in the new century's first decade, no alliance was forthcoming. Despite the urgings of the Mongols themselves and of their Armenian allies --for whom collaboration with the Ilkhans had long been a fact of life-- the overall lesson for the West of the extraordinary events of 1299-1303 was that regaining the Holy Land through military co-operation with the Mongols was not viable. That formidable task was the burden of western Christiandom alone, and in the forty years following the disasters of 1291 it was to invest much energy and substantial resources in attempts to fulfil it.

From Morgan, David (2007). The Mongols (Second Edition ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-3539-9. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help):

(page 159-160) A real change in the Mongol attitude towards Europe did come about, but not until after 1260. Events around that time marked the break-up of Mongol unity, and the Ilkhans of Persia, faced with the hostility both of the Mamluk regime in Egypt and of their cousins of the Golden Horde, speedily dropped the old hauteur and began to see the Christian powers as potentially useful allies. The basic idea behind such projects for alliance was a combined operation against the Mamluks: a crusading force would be sent from Europe and its activities would be co-ordinated with an Ikhanid invasion of Syria. Should Syria be conquered by the allies, the Crusaders would again take possesion of Jerusalem; and there was always the tantilizing possibility that the Mongols would themselves become Christian converts. These negotiations, as we now know, were intitiated by Hulegu in 1262, when he sent his letter, recently discovered, to Louis IX. We cannot in fact be certain that Louis ever received the letter: Professor Richard's attempt to identify a Mongol embassy in Paris in 1262 with the delivery of the letter from Persia is interesting, but that particular embassy seems more likely to have been sent by Berke of the Golden Horde. But 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.

(page 161) The conversion of the Ilkhans to ISalm had made no difference to their political enmity towards the Mamluks, and only the Mamluk-Ikhanid peace treaty of 1322 cause the Mongols of Persia to lose all interes in an alliance with the Christian powers. By this time the Christians had been deprived of their last foohold in Syria: Acre had fallen to the forces of the Mamluk sultan al-Ashraf Kalil in 1291. No really effective join action had ever been organised: in thirteenth-century conditions the problems of co0ordination appear to have been insuperable. The loss of Acre did not bring negotiations to an end. Indeed, at one point Europe was swept with rumours that the Mongols had actually taken Jerusalem from theMamluks and had returned it to Christian rule. Although this had not in fact happened, the stories did reflect the reality of Ghazan's remarkable successes in 1299-1300 when he drove the Mamluk forces completely out of Syria, on ly to withdraw again to Persia.

That's some of what I've found just in the first few look throughs. I'll note that Tyerman, Christopher (1988). England and the Crusades, 1095-1588. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-82013-0. does not mention once any alliance (or even attempt) by the English with the Mongols. In 370 pages of text.Ealdgyth | Talk 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)