Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance

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

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)[1]
• Aïbeg and Serkis (active dispute)
• Alain Demurger
• Amalric, Prince of Tyre[2]
• André de Longjumeau
• Arab-Norman culture (active dispute)
• 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 (active dispute)
• Christianity in China [3]
• David and Marc
• David of Ashby
• Doquz Khatun
• Edward I of England
• Fall of Tripoli
• Guillaume de Villaret[4]
• Guiscard Bustari
• Guy of Ibelin (1276-1304)

• Hayton of Corycus
• Hethum I, King of Armenia
• Hethum II, King of Armenia
• History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)
• History of gunpowder
• Hulagu Khan
• Ilkhanate
• Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe (disputed)
• Isol the Pisan[5]
• Jacques de Molay[6]
• 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[7]
• Kublai Khan
• Kutlushah
• Latin Patriarch of Antioch
• Laurent Dailliez
• Louis IX of France
• Leo II, King of Armenia[8]
• Mahmud Ghazan
• Mamluk-Mongol alliance
• Marco Polo
• Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China
• Michael VIII Palaiologos

• Mongol Empire
• 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
• Prester John[9]
• Principality of Antioch
• Rabban Bar Sauma
• Roman Catholicism in Asia[10]
  • (appears to be a duplicate of Christianity in Asia)
• Rychaldus
• Samagar
• Sempad the Constable
• Siege of Acre (1291)
• Siege of Ruad
• Siege of Tripoli (1271)
• Silk Road[11]
• Simeon Rabban Ata (active dispute)
• Sempad, King of Armenia
• Sorghaghtani Beki[12] (active dispute)
• Templar of Tyre
• Tommaso Ugi di Siena
• Viam agnoscere veritatis (active dispute at talk)
• Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) (active dispute)
• Wang Khan[13]

Updated: 15:52, 21 March 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)

(update) The Arbitration case has been accepted, and opened.

• To post a statement, please add it to: the arbitration talk page
• To add assertions/evidence, please create a section at: the evidence page
• To suggest remedies, please post at: the workshop page
• To monitor the arbitrators' discussion of their proposed decision, watch the proposed decision page

I recommend that all interested parties set the above pages on your watchlist.

Another useful link to read is this one: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case.

If anyone has any questions, let me know, --Elonka 22:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(update) The Arbitration has moved to a "Voting" phase. This means that a Proposed Decision has been written, and can be viewed here. This is not final, as there will still be discussion among the arbitrators over the next few days. They will vote, amend, add, and/or debate the various principles and findings, and then eventually "move to close". If a majority of arbitrators agree that it's time to close, then those principles/findings with sufficient support, will be moved to the "final decision" section. Anyone with questions or comments, is welcome to post here or at the Decision talkpage. FYI, Elonka 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom decision

(followup) The arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be seen at that link. As a summary:

• PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year.
• He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.
• He is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole.
• PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.
• PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

FYI, Elonka 01:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting

Since PHG has been banished from this and other articles, should we now start to discuss what needs to be done to salvage these articles? john k (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He can still participate at talk, but yes, by all means, bring up anything you want towards damage control. I see that Kafka Liz has been working through the templates and userpages, tagging for deletion as necessary. For my own part, I'm trying to work through the list at #List of articles for review, if anyone wants to help with that. Especially anything tagged as an "active dispute", it would be helpful if folks could weigh in to ensure we have a solid consensus for whatever needs to be done. --Elonka 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of most instances of Franco-Mongol collaboration

Although this article is supposed to be about the Franco-Mongol alliance, most instances of Franco-Mongol collaborations have simply been strongly minimized or even erased. I believe that at the very least these examples of collaboration on the field should be given the credit they deserve:

<large chucks of text copied from POV fork redacted, to review see here>

These are but a few examples of the major cases of cooperation between the Franks and the Mongols. These have been essentially eliminated from this article, although they are central to the subject matter. These should be reinstated in the main article, if it is supposed to have any encyclopedic value at all regarding the Franco-Mongol alliance. Full text available at User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version). PHG (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For PHG's original post, see here. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed PHG's post because it included huge chunks of his preferred version of the article, currently hosted in his userspace. Spamming the talk page with huge chunks of material that almost everyone agrees is inappropriate is not a productive way to enourage discussion. Furthermore, the ongoing MfD indicates that PHG's "full version" of this article will almost certainly be deleted; if the material is inappropriate in his userspace, it's not any more appropriate on the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you removed the post and I sympathize, but I'm not certain that we've ever specifically responded to each point. Earlier conversations tended to be "restore everything", which got a simple "no" for many reasons. Lets look over the list with a keen eye and make sure we're intending to exclude each one and give an explanation why. This is a step in the right direction and I think its worth fairly assessing each point to ensure we haven't over looked any usable parts. Shell ^babelfish 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that things are getting split up below with reference to sources and discussion I have removed the large dump of quotes from PHG's POV fork and left the link should anyone wish to see his wording. PHG, please put any further discussion of these points in the appropriate section so that we can discuss the different areas individually. Shell ^babelfish 19:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian participation to the Siege of Baghdad

In the current article, this section is the first paragraph of Fall of Baghdad.

The section, as it stands in the article now, appears to be a summary of the Mongol involvement in Battle of Baghdad (1258). While the main article discusses the composition of the army, here we seem to discuss only the Monogols -- the article may be missing statements that would clarify how this relates to Franco-Mongol relations.

It appears that the sources which discuss the involvement subservient Antiochs and Armenians are:

• Kirakos Ganjakets'i.History of the Armenians.Chapter 58 (old primary source)
• Grigor of Akner.History of the Nation of Archers.Chapter 12 (old primary source)
• Alain Demurger.Les Templiers.p.80-81
• Alain Demurger.Croisades et Croisés au Moyen-Age.p.284
• Steven Runciman.A History of the Crusades 3.p.303

Are there any concerns about those sources; do they fairly portray the involvement of "Franks" in this battle? Should the Fall of Baghdad be written more from a viewpoint of what cooperation there was? Is the summary here better covered in a history of Mongols article? Should we have this section at all or should the article have sections, for example, on the submission of the Antiochs which then discusses their involvement in this battle? Shell ^babelfish 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Franco-Mongol alliance article definitely deserves at least a mention of the Antiochene troops, as the submission of Antioch is cited in some history books as "the closest thing" to the Franks actually fighting under the Mongol banner. I can probably dig up a cite on that, but don't have my books handy at the moment. I wouldn't give it more than a couple sentences though. The current version of the article[14] looks okay, though I wouldn't be opposed to adding another sentence or two to clarify the role of the Antiochenes. To go into exact battle tactics though, would be beyond the scope of the alliance article, and should probably go into the Battle of Baghdad (1258) article instead. --Elonka 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Joint capture of Damascus

In the current article, this section is the second paragraph in Fall of Baghdad.

The article already discusses the capture of Aleppo and Damascus and the Franks involvement, so I believe the contention PHG is making here is that we've excluded the mention of Bohemond's presence.

Detailed discussions have already been held on this subject at Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_3#"Joint Conquests"? and Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_3#Hans Eberhard Mayer on Bohemond's whereabouts in 1258. where the consensus (sans PHG) was that the sources claimed to support Bohemond's involvement were either being misquoted or quoting old inaccurate sources. Evidence was given that modern scholars consider Bohemond's involvement to be a manufactured history to make for a better story. Unless there are new arguments or sources in this area, I think we can consider this issue closed. Shell ^babelfish 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, we've already discussed this one and the consensus is clear. No further discussion is necessary. --Elonka 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Combined operations in the Levant

In the current article, this section is Christian Vassals/Antioch

Except for being worded differently, it appears the article already covers this information. Shell ^babelfish 18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I compared PHG's version[15] with what's currently in the article.[16] The current version looks fine to me, I don't see a need to add further quotes from primary sources. --Elonka 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Cooperation during the Aragonese Crusade

In the current article, this section is the second paragraph of Abaqa

The only significant difference is PHG's use of the quote from Reuven-Amintai, "Mongols and Mamluks", p.102 which indicates that the Mongols may have joined in some of the attacks from this Crusade. Since the current article already indicates that Abaqa sent a small force, is there any reason to include a direct quote stating the same in a more ambiguous manner? We have to be sure that any quoting is justifiable via fair-use and conforms to the guidelines from the Manual of Style. Is there any reason to believe this quote would add anything to the article that isn't already being said? Shell ^babelfish 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This actually has nothing to do with the "Aragonese Crusade", but rather was simply an Aragonese-sponsored Crusade. I recently added a section on the Crusade of 1269 to James I's article. As you can see, the connexion with the Mongols is usually presumed, but it is tenuous at best and hardly very "effective". The article addresses it sufficiently as is, unless more imformation in reliable sources comes to light. Srnec (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Combined action by the Hospitallers with the Mongols

In the current article, this section is found in the first and last paragraphs of Invasion of Syria

There are no significant differences; these actions are already mentioned in the current article. Shell ^babelfish 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Assembly of a naval raiding force in Baghdad

In the current article, this section is found in the third paragraph of Arghun

A summary is given in this article. The same statement, with the missing number included, is given in the main article Arghun#Assembly_of_a_raiding_naval_force. Should we include the number 800 in this article as well? (Sources appear to be Peter Jackson.The Mongols and the West.p.169 and Jean Richard.Histoire des Croisades.p.468) Why is the text duplicated; do both articles need this level of detail about the incident? Shell ^babelfish 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Endeavour to organize actions with the Mongols (Templars)

Text about the Templars or Jacques de Molay's involvement in signing an alliance does not appear in the current version.

This text was discussed in detail at:

• Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_1#Unreliable_sources
• Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_2#Demurger
• Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_2#More_Demurger_quotes
• Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_3#Deletion_of_sources
• Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_3#Concerns_about_Dailliez
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Laurent_Dailliez
• Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_3#Jacques_de_Molay_signed_a_treaty.3F

The consensus (sans PHG) was that Demurger was being misused since he specifically called the Templar involvement a fantasy , Dailliez is an unreliable source for controversial claims and Dailliez's novel theory should not be mentioned as it would give undue weight to what appears to be a fringe theory on the Templars. Unless there is any new information on the subject, it looks like this has been discussed to death. Shell ^babelfish 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shell. I agree Dailliez could be left aside, but I am not aware of Alain Demurger "calling the Templar involvement a fantasy". Would you have a reference for that claim? Demurger actually writes in "Jacques de Molay" (French edition) p.139 "During four years, Jacques de Molay and his order were totally committed, with other Christian forces of Cyprus and Armenia, to an enterprise of reconquest of the Holy Land, in liaison with the offensives of Ghazan, the Mongol Khan of Persia". Also p.283: "But especially, from 1299 to 1303, he [Molay] plays the Mongol card to the utmost. With his Order, and the other Christian forces of the kingdoms of Cyprus and Little Armenia, he tries to coordinate some operations with the Ilkha Khanate.". Also: "The order of the Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols against the Mameluks in 1299-1303, in order to regain a foothold in the Holy Land" Alain Demurger in an interview with Le Point, "La Chute du Temple", May 27th 2008. Also: Online article. Jacques de Molay is also known for his letter to Europe saying he waited for Ghazan. Since this article is about the Franco-Mongol alliance, I think this is very relevant to mention these events and the involvement of Jacques de Molay in particular [17]. PHG (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This one is a no-brainer for me, as we've spent way more electrons on this one than needed. Laurent Dailliez is not a reliable source, and I am deadset against using him for any kind of controversial claim, especially this "Templar treaty" thing. If PHG brings this up again, I would see it as another violation of his sanctions, specifically the one about, "If something has already been discussed, accept the consensus and move along, don't keep repeating the same argument." Since PHG has been blocked again right at the moment (another 48 hours),[18] it may all be moot, but I wanted to get this on the record. As for the other things brought up, I've weighed in on a few of them, and I'll get to the others as I can. But I absolutely don't want to be spending the majority of my wiki-time "responding to PHG", especially when he just keeps repeating himself. My understanding of PHG being allowed to participate at talk, is that he needs to be able to do so in a civil and good faith way, where he's participating at talk, and suggesting plausible new additions -- not browbeating other editors and repeatedly copy/pasting the same information. --Elonka 05:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(reply to PHG) We already cover the attempts at joint operations, here: Franco-Mongol alliance#Ghazan (1295–1304). I don't think it's necessary to go into more details about the Templars or De Molay in particular, as Ghazan was in communication with other military orders, not just the Templars. Yes, Demurger's book talks about the Templars in particular, but Demurger's book is a biography of Jacques de Molay, so of course it's going to be Templar-focused. But that doesn't mean we should give undue weight to the Templar connection. --Elonka 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not what Demurger actually says. He writes very clearly that "The order of the Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols against the Mameluks in 1299-1303", meaning they took the central role in the alliance. This is a highly significant fact which fully deserves to be included in an article on the Franco-Mongol alliance. This is also corroborated by the letter of de Molay explaining that he was waiting for the Tatars:

"And our convent, with all our galleys and ships, transported itself to the island of Tortosa, in order to wait for the army of Ghazan and his Tatars." Jacques de Molay, letter to Edward I, April 8th, 1301. Quoted in Demurger, p.154.

"The king of Armenia sent his messengers to the king of Cyprus to tell him (...) that Ghazan was now close to arriving on the lands of the Sultan with a multitude of Tatars. And we, learning this, have the intention to go on the island of Tortosa where our convent has been stationed with weapons and horses during the present year, causing great devastation on the littoral, and capturing many Sarassins. We have the intention to get there and settle there, to wait for the Tatars." Jacques de Molay, letter to the king of Aragon, 1301. In Demurger, p.154-155

All this ended with the Siege of Ruad, which therefore would also deserve a link in the article. The role of the Templars and Jacques de Molay is also highlighted by other historians, such as Jackson: "The Templar Master, Jacques de Molay, seems to have been particularly enthusiastic about the campaign" (Jackson, "The Mongols and the West", p.171). These are highly significant facts, which deserve to be mentionned. Why try to hide them? PHG (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)