Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance: Difference between revisions

	Franco-Mongol alliance is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 29, 2007.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Military history: European / French / Medieval / Early Muslim B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force French military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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

Updated: 01:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Since things seem calmer here (minus one editor's concerns), it seems to me that the article is pretty close to a consensus version. As such, can we discuss the removal of the "Disputed" tag? Or, which things in particular do we feel that we need to address, before that can be done? --Elonka 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that, if everyone else is. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have concerns about the actual scope and concept of the article, but that's not a big one. I still feel the article title gives the wrong impression that ONE alliance existed, which my reading of the sources doesn't support. But it's not a big enough deal to leave the disputed tag on.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting 300 references and 120k of referenced material is a total shame. Also, erasing the views of numerous historians on the Franco-Mongol alliance (User:PHG/Alliance) is akin to book-burning and goes against Wikipedia:NPOV which states that all significant views should be presented. Ladies, it is obvious that you enjoy banding together and force your own version of things, but this is highly disputable and I think deserves a "disputed" tag. PHG (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note, I find the linkage of book burning with editing a wikipedia article slightly offensive. I also dislike the implication that everyone who doesn't agree with you is part of some cabal or something that is out to force issues. And I really don't enjoy conflict at all, thank you very much. I did not "band together" with anyone, and would prefer it if is you did not lump everyone together. If you read my note above, you'll see that I disagree with others about some things. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, based on the above comments, there don't seem to be any specific reasons that the article should be kept in a "disputed tag" state, except possibly for the article title. PHG, disagreeing about the length of the article is not enough to tag it as disputed -- do you have any specific "points of fact" in the current version that you think are actively wrong? If so, please bring them up.

Anyway, I've started a new thread on title below: #Article title, and unless anyone else has specific things they'd like to bring up, I think we should go ahead and remove the tag. We can still definitely continue work on the article though, towards getting it into a "peer reviewable" state.  :) --Elonka 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that PHG has re-added the disputed tag. However, he has not given any specific rationale as to which facts are disputed. Therefore, I am going to remove the tag. Does anyone else have an opinion on whether or not the tag is appropriate? --Elonka 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• RATIONALE FOR "DISPUTED TAG:
• Elonka's version is actually highly POV in that it dismisses any notion that the Franks or the Armenians could have been allies (instead treating them as "vassals" or "submitted to") the Mongols, inspite of the numerous historical sources that say they were indeed allies.
• It is also highly POV in that it stresses that there were only "attempts at an alliance", although a quantity of highly reputable editors consider the alliance as fact (User:PHG/Alliance)
• It also fails to represent factually the details of the alliance, in favour of a generally dismissive narration. This subject deserves actually mentionning the various embassies, epistolary exchanges, and military collaborations FULL VERSION)
• Generally, her version is an unprecise narration that favours a single very biased POV that there were no allies and no alliance worth mentionning, inspite of numerous academic sources to the contrary. It obviously contrevenes to Wikipedia:NPOV which states that all significant views should be mentionned.
• The introduction sentence is highly representative of this bias, only mentionning "attempts at an alliance", whereas the obvious NPOV choice would be "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance" (as agreed to by Elonka on November 14th, but later disowned by her).
• Only factual precision can make a good encyclopedia article, and deleting 120k of referenced content and 300 references as she did is certainly not the right direction to go. If the article is too long, we'll just split the material, but ending up with un-precise summaries is certainly not the solution.
  

I will hereby reinstate the "Disputed" tag, because, as a matter of fact, this article is disputed. PHG (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG, I believe that we have already discussed all of those and achieved consensus. Do you have anything new? Or, aside from the fact that you disagree with the talkpage consensus, is there anything that you feel has not yet been properly discussed? --Elonka 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything new here. The fact that PHG still disagrees with the conclusions reached doesn't warrant tagging the article. Shell ^babelfish 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka. First of all, just two users have supported your request to remove the tag, and you call this a "consensus"? I am afraid your understanding of consensus is beyond anything we have ever seen on Wikipedia. Second, I have never heard of a consensus (let alone a false one) being necessary to have a dispute tag in. Usually, if someone disagrees with the content of an article, he has the right to put a "Dispute" tag in. Third, I certainly do not think that my rationale for dispute has been addressed, let alone resolved. PHG (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to still be disagreement on what the exact title of this article should be. Various suggestions in the archives have been:

• Franco-Mongol alliance (current title)
• Franco-Mongol relations
• Franco-Mongol diplomacy
• Franco-Mongol diplomatic relations
• Crusader-Mongol relations
• Crusader-Mongol diplomacy
• Mongol-Catholic relations during the Crusading period
• Mongols and the West
• Mongols and Western Europe
• Mongol relations with Europe
• Crusader states and the Mongols
• Ilkhanate diplomatic relations with Europe
• Ilkhanate-Crusader relations (or variations)

Are there any other suggestions? Or if not, could everyone please list what their 1 or 2 or 3 favorites are, and we can try to winnow things down a bit to determine the proper consensus title? Thanks, --Elonka 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Franco-Mongol diplomacy, 2. Franco-Mongol relations Aramgar (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 1. Ilkhanate diplomatic relations with Europe 2. Ilkhanate-Crusader relations 3. Franco-Mongol relations Although I'm not going to scream if it waits until the end of the month (leaving tomorrow on a trip) (or for that matter waits a good long time. It's not a priority of mine, in other words) Ealdgyth | Talk 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am afraid this is typical of Elonka, coming back again and again and again even if the question has already been resolved several times:
  • Major "KEEP" for "Franco-Mongol alliance" in September 2007 [15]
  • No consensus again changing article name in January 2008 [16]
  • And now again challenging the name in February 2008.

Is this a normal Elonka tactic to keep agressing "oponents" as she tries to push her opinion, systematically disregarding previous poll results again and again? Should I myself challenge every month again and again the introduction sentence and ask for new polls, even though she broke her mediation promise about it? This is a complete waste of time, and a complete lack of recognition of previous opinions, personal agreements, and polls. I think this is again a huge behavioural issue by this user: she makes editing a constant battlefield of attacks and disputes, systematically disregarding previous resolutions until most editors get tired or disgusted or simply have moved to something else, and she forces her point of view to get through with just a few remaining votes claiming "consensus". PHG (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with PHG here, why are we doing this again? Whether or not there was literally an alliance, this term has been used by academic literature. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Mongol relations with Europe 2. Franco-Mongol relations 3. Crusader-Mongol relations. As for why we're discussing this again, it's been six months since the last RM, so it's worth discussing again, as Consensus can change. We tried to bring it up in January but got sidetracked, and the thread disappeared because the page was scrolling so fast. So, let's just ensure we take a good look at the title and check consensus. If consensus is to keep the current title, then we can keep it. If not, then we keep talking. --Elonka 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So should I also constantly challenge every single agreement on this article every month or so, saying that "consensus changes". I am afraid this is a highly disruptive approach. Since "consensus changes", shall I again constantly challenge the introduction sentence with polls, especially since you broke your Mediation agreement regarding it? ([17]) Let me remind that "Franco-Mongol alliance" is an expression used widely in academic literature (User:PHG/Alliance), and as such deserves its own article. The article is intended to cover just that: dipomatic relations and actual instances of strategic and tactical alliance on the field. "Mongol relations with Europe" would have to cover all the contacts in Eastern Europe as well (including the Mongol invasion of Europe), which would make the article huge and unmanageable, and altogether focused on a different subject. "Crusader-Mongol relations"/ "Franco-Mongol relations" would have to cover other subjects, such as the very important trade relations, cultural exchanges etc...: "Franco-Mongol alliance" would be a sub-article of that. PHG (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is fine. There is simply nothing wrong with having an article about an entity whose actual existence is disputed. See photon for a more obvious example. And as PHG and Adam say, the term has scholarly currency. That's more than can be said for any of the other suggestions. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm on the fence here. I think Adam Bishop and Srnec have good points here, yet I have a difficult time endorsing a title that reflects a fiction non-event (to borrow a phrase from Sylvia Schein (regarding the capture of Jerusalem, lest anyone be unclear)). Nevertheless, I suppose that my first choice would be (1) retain the current title (for which I have a certain affection at this point), and second (2) Franco-Mongol relations. The others just seem a bit awkward to my ear. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as Srnec said, there are lots of titles like that. Photon, Bigfoot, droit de seigneur, Donation of Constantine... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I do agree that the actual nature of the Franco-Mongol alliance is disputed, particularly its extent (it can be qualified variously, as "limited", "an ultimate failure" etc...), and sometimes even its existence. But generally qualifying it as a "fiction" is probably an exageration: the fact is that Mongol and European rulers did exchange letters and agreed to collaboration in writing (although often vaguely, but sometimes very concretely as when Abaqa sent an army under Samagar in a written agreement to help Edward I), itself a sufficient condition for the definition of an "alliance", and there were even multiple occurences of strategic and tactical collaboration on the field as a consequence of these agreements over a period of 50 years. These occurences (agreements and collaboration on the field) constitute facts rather than fiction and I think that's why they are qualified as actual "alliance", "collaboration", "entente", "rapprochement" by a vast number of historians (User:PHG/Alliance). Regards. PHG (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(wrapup) It appears that though we are not unanimous, the consensus is to keep the article title as "Franco-Mongol alliance". I am fine on this, unless/until we have other differing opinions come into the mix. Note that this does not mean that we are agreeing that there was an alliance, but the concept of an alliance, in that there were attempts to form one, seems well-known enough that it's worth its own article to discuss the diplomatic contacts involved. Everyone else okay on declaring consensus on this, and moving on? --Elonka 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just say there is no consensus at all for your request to change the title Elonka. And no, I don't think you should again ask for a vote everytime "other differing opinions come into the mix", as you've been doing. And, no, these were not only attempts Elonka, not only attempts :). As always, you are only pushing your point of view, leaving aside numerous historians who describe the actual occurence of the Franco-Mongol alliance (see User:PHG/Alliance). PHG (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unqualified and unclarified use of the words "Franco" and "Franks" in the intro suggests that the whole article will be written from the Muslim point of view. Europeans collectively simply don't refer to themselves as Franks, and they never did. The use of the term "Frank" for crusader by Muslims was simply a result of ignorance of the structure of Western Europe. An English crusader was no more a "Frank" than he was a Japanese. It is very remiss that the introduction to the article does not even acknowledge that it is using terminology that will be unfamiliar to the majority of English-speakers (a tiny group of academics are irrelevant, as they are not the audience for a wikipedia article - if you want them as your audience, get a paper published in one of their journals, not here). It simply assumes that its use of the term Frank is straightforward and non-controversial, which is both biased and sloppy. After such an unencyclopedic beginning, I have no confidence that the rest of the article is even worth looking at. Samdom (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose by "tiny group of academics" you mean crusade scholars, but the term "Frank" is pretty straightforward and non-controversial. Even the crusader states in Byzantine territory are called "Frankish". I don't understand why this must be ignored. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I altered the intro, providing links and clarity, because I could understand if it was a little opaque to the uninitiated. That said, there is nothing controversial or sloppy about calling European Crusaders "Franks". That's the terminology. It was used by Muslims, Greeks and, yes, "Franks": the Catalan Company in Greece called itself a company of "Franks" in "Romania". Srnec (talk)

I re-read the introduction today (to which I of course continue to object for its unfair dismissal of the concept of an alliance (see User:PHG/Alliance, in favour of "attempts at an alliance" only), and stumbled on what I think is abusive use of a reference:

"However, despite many attempts, there was never any long-term successful military collaboration.<ref>("Arghun had persisted in the quest for a Western alliance right down to his death without ever taking the field against the mutual enemy." Jackson, Mongols and the West, p. 170)</ref>"

The sentence claims in general that there were only attempts and no successful military collaboration (which is wrong, if only because of the combined campaigns of Bohemond VI with the Mongols), but the reference does not talk about the alliance in general but only about the very specific rule of Arghun. Arghun had a rather short reign (7 years) and does not represent at all the whole period of Franco-Mongol contacts (1250-1320), and he is notorious for having exchanged many embassies, without taking military actions on the field (appart for the assembly of a naval raiding force with the Genoese). There is no legitimacy to use a statement about this specific ruler to make a general statement about the Franco-Mongol alliance. Please revise or find another source for this statement. Elonka, I think you should stop making accusations about improper use of references when you yourself actually use references in such an improper way. PHG (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG you seriously need to stop turning everything in to an attack on Elonka. You have a fundamental disagreement with other editors here over what constitutes an "alliance" which you need to address first. Attempting to divert focus from yourself by finding ways to attack other editors is not going to make the underlying problems go away and simply makes it more difficult for other editors to take you at all seriously. Shell ^babelfish 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shell. I disagree. Elonka has been slandering me extensively for unfair reasons. This certainly does not make her immune from comments and criticism if her editing proves to be improper. Everybody is accountable. Elonka has been trying to mount huge accusations on minute details and general misrepresentations. But the reality is that she handles references in a very sloppy way to press her points as shown above. I think you should be less partisan, stop making false accusations against me, and just look at the facts fairly. PHG (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that needs to be pointed out - leads don't generally require references. They are supposed to be summaries of what is contained in the rest of the article, thus the references will be in the article with the full text. If you'll look back at earlier discussions, we came to the conclusion that since so much more of the article needed work, it was best to fix that first so we can write a true and proper summary for the lead. Shell ^babelfish 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making excuses again. Elonka is accountable for what she writes. She said repeatedly that she fine-tuned the article to her liking. Normally, I wouldn't even discuss this, but the point is that she has been mounting heavy accusations for many cases which are much less critical than the one above. This is a case of a false statement, with totally misleading references. PHG (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about you let me know when you can discuss things productively without skirting legal threats (like accusations of slander) and turning everything into a tirade about how you're being wronged? Its obvious that you're not going to be able to discuss things until you calm down. Shell ^babelfish 18:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, you falsely accused me of adding "50k of new material" and never ever made an apology [18], you falsely accused me of "editing other editor's evidence" [19] without retracting yourself. You do not allow me to properly respond to your accusations [20] by refusing even the addition of a link to my response at the bottom of your accusations. This is highly dishonest of you, you are acting as if you are only interested in attacking me, and I have no reason to remain cool about that. PHG (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree on things; that's been obvious for a while. You say I falsely accused you of adding material to the article, I disagree, but I accept you interpretation none the less. You say I falsely accused you of editing within (lets use the right words here) other people's evidence and yet Thatcher has had to clean up after you twice already; please note that an Arbitrator has stopped by to verify that yes, you must edit within your own sections and not within someone else's evidence, so what I'm asking is simply standard procedure. I accept the fact that you disagree with me on both counts and don't feel the need to call you names or malign your character. I understand that the Arbitration case must seem like an attack because there are many editors siding against you, but please remember that we have tried to handle this in other ways for over six months and the case was a last resort. I am sorry that you're unable to remain cool in the situation, but WP:NPA isn't an option - you need to stop attacking other people. I'm not sure if there's anything more we can do to help you at this point, but if you have any suggestions on how we can calm things down, I'd be happy to listen. Shell ^babelfish 18:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Shell. Unfortunately, you are lying again. Here is what you actually wrote: "PHG advised to stop editing others evidence", "PHG has been asked several times by Thatcher and myself to stop editing other editor's evidence" [21], not within ("within" is OK, but saying I am editing your evidence is something totally different). You wish that I refrain from feeling scandalized by your dishonest accusations? Please just correct yourself when you accuse me wrongly. I only added responses at the end of your accusations: this is NOT editing your evidence. Just correct your accusations, and give me the right to respond on the same page you are accusing me, and we're back in business :). Regards. PHG (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG, please try to adopt a more civil tone. Also, if there are concerns about how evidence is being presented at an ArbCom case, please keep those discussions on the ArbCom pages, they do little good here except to further expand the dispute. Let's try and keep this talkpage for its original purpose, which is to discuss the content of the Franco-Mongol alliance article and its related sub-articles. --Elonka 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of giving lessons, could you kindly explain yourself on your abusive use of the Jackson reference above? PHG (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, could you answer about your misleading use of the Jackson reference described at the beginning of this thread? PHG (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, could you answer about your misleading use of the Jackson reference described at the beginning of this thread? PHG (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by PHG
I believe the ruling is totally unfair and based on numerous untrue accusations. It simply shows that Wikipedia is not immune from a few users banding together (engaging in huge on-Wiki and off-Wiki lobbying) to throw false accusations against someone whose (referenced) edits they dislike. Especially, articles about cultural interraction (Indo-Greeks, Franco-Mongol alliance, Arab-Norman civilization) seem to be particularly targeted these days. So much for cultural tolerance, openness and acceptation of each other's cultural influences... Some users now seem to be engaging in a "witch hunt" by deleting all referenced information on the relations of the Mongols with European rulers during the Middle Ages [22], or others, such as Elonka, taking the opportunity to introduce non-referenced and untrue claims [23]. I am a proper user of longstanding, and I am willing to respect the ruling even if I think it is unfair. However, I do have the opportunity to edit other articles, and to react on Talk Pages, so I will do so, and try my best to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia devoted to offer "the sum of all knowledge", in a non-POV way. Regards to all. PHG (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Christian participation to the Siege of Baghdad (1258):

The Georgians and Armenians participated in the offensive,^[1][2] and possibly some Frankish troops from the Principality of Antioch.^[3]

• The joint capture of Damascus (1260)

After Baghdad, in 1260 the Mongol forces, along with their Christian allies, conquered Muslim Syria, domain of the Ayyubid dynasty. They took the city of Aleppo with the help of the Franks of Antioch,^[4] and on March 1, 1260 proceeded to capture Damascus,^[5][6] under the Christian Mongol general Kitbuqa. Numerous historians, some of them quoting Le Templier de Tyr, explain that Kitbuqa entered the city of Damascus in triumph together with Hethoum and Bohemond VI, and that great Christian celebrations were made.^{[7][8][9][10][11]} According to Peter Jackson, writing in 1980, Bohemond VI of Antioch was said to be present in some later accounts but not in contemporary sources, and it is likely a later legend.^[12] In 2005 however, Peter Jackson wrote that Bohemond is recorded to have participated to the Mongol conquest of Baalbek, not far from Damascus, and that he may have ridden into Damascus with the Mongols.^[13] The historian De Reuven Amitai-Preiss concludes that the accounts may be exagerated, but have some truth to them, and says of Bohemond VI that after his passage at Baalbek "it is most probable that he also passed through Damascus".^[14]

According to the contemporary account of Le Templier de Tyr, mass was celebrated in the Grand Mosque of the Umayyads (the former cathedral of Saint John the Baptist),^[15], and numerous mosques were profaned:

"The king of Armenia and the Prince of Antioch went to the army of the Tatars, and they all went off to take Damascus. When Damascus was taken, the Prince, to the shame of the Sarasins, established a beautiful church, which at the time of the Greeks used to belong to the Christians, and where since then the Sarasins had prayed Mahomet. The Prince had mass held for the Franks and the bells rung. In the other mosques of Mahomet, where the Sarazins were, shrubs were placed, wine was sprayed on the walls, and fresh pork grease was smeared. And if he commanded his people to do some dirt, they would do tenfold."

— Gestes des Chiprois, Le Templier de Tyr, quoted in "Histoire des Croisades III", René Grousset^[16]

• Combined operations in the Levant (1262-1265)

Meanwhile, the Mamluk leader Baibars began to threaten Antioch, which (as a vassal of the Armenians) had earlier supported the Mongols.^[17] In the summer of 1262, the king of Armenia went to the Mongols and again obtained their intervention to deliver the city.^[18][19] The city was saved through Mongol intervention.^[20]

Bohemond VI was again present at the court of Hulagu in 1264, trying to obtain as much support as possible from Mongol rulers against the Mamluk progression. His presence is described by the Armenian saint Vartan:^[21]

"In 1264, l'Il-Khan had me called, as well as the vartabeds Sarkis (Serge) and Krikor (Gregory), and Avak, priest of Tiflis. We arrived at the place of this powerful monarch at the beginning of the Tartar year, in July, period of the solemn assembly of the kuriltai. Here were all the Princes, Kings and Sultans submitted by the Tartars, with wonderful presents. Among them, I saw Hetoum I, king of Armenia, David, king of Georgia, the Prince of Antioch (Bohemond VI), and a quantity of Sultans from Persia.

— Vartan, trad. Dulaurier.^[22]

However, in response to Hetoum I and Bohemond VI's request for help, Hulagu was only capable of attacking the frontier fort of Al-Bira (1264-1265).^[23] The Mamluks were deeptly aware of the Franco-Mongol threat however. After the battle of Al-Bira, Baibars complained in a letter to a Frank prince (the Castellan of Jaffa, apparently Jean d'Ibelin) of the collaboration between the Franks of Syria and the Mongols:

"This people have committed many offenses against me, such as writing to the Mongols to attack my territories"

— Letter from Baybars to the Castellan of Jaffa. 1265.^[24]

• Cooperation during the Aragonese Crusade (1269)

The crusade initiated by James I of Aragon met with a huge storm. Most of the fleet to return, except for a small force under the King's two bastards Fernando Sanchez and Pedro Fernandez, which arrived in Acre in December 1269. At that time, Abaqa had to face an invasion in Khorasan by fellow Mongols from Turkestan, and could only commit a small force on the Syrian frontier from October 1269, only capable of brandishing the threat of an invasion.^[25] Although these actions were limited in scale, on this occasion "the Franks of the coast made common cause with the Mongols to attack Muslim territory".^[26] When Abaqa finally defeated his eastern enemies near Herat in 1270, he wrote to Louis IX offering military support as soon as the Crusaders landed in Palestine.^[25]

• Combined action by the Hospitallers with the Mongols (1281).

The current text fails to mention that the Hospitallers and the Mongols fought together. Actual description of the event:

In order to prevent new combined actions between the Franks and the Mongols, the new Muslim sultan Qalawun signed a new 10-year truce on May 3, 1281 (following the expiration of the old truce from 1271) with the Barons of Acre (a truce he would later breach)^[27] and a second 10-year truce with Bohemond VII of Tripoli, on July 16, 1281. The truce also authorized pilgrim access to Jerusalem.^[28]

The announced Mongol invasion started in September 1281. They were joined by the Armenians under Leo II, and by about 200 Hospitaliers knights of the fortress of Marqab,^[29][30] who considered they were not bound by the truce with the Mamluks.^[31] Some knights from Cyprus also probably accompanied them.^[32]

"In the year 1281 of the incarnation of Christ, the Tatars left their realm, crossed Aygues Froides with a very great army and invaded the land of Aleppo, Haman and La Chemele and did great damage to the Sarazins and killed many, and with them were the king of Armenia and some Frank knights of Syria."

— Le Chevalier de Tyre, Chap. 407^[33]

On October 30, 1281, 50,000 Mongol troops, together with 30,000 Armenians, Georgians, Greeks, and the Hospitalier Knights of Marqab fought against the Muslim leader Qalawun at the Second Battle of Homs, but they were repelled, with heavy losses on both sides.^[31]

• Assembly of a naval raiding force in Baghdad (1290)
  

The current accounts suppresses known data about the raiding force (number of men etc...)

In a concrete example of military collaboration, a maritime raiding force consisting in two war galleys was prepared in Baghdad by a corps of Genoese, in order to curtail the maritime trade of the Mamluks. A contingent of 800 Genoese carpenters and sailors was sent in 1290 to Baghdad, as well as a force of arbaletiers, but the enterprise apparently foundered when the Genoese government ultimatey disowned the project, and an internal fight erupted at the Persian Gulf port of Basra among the Geneose (between the Guelfe and the Gibelin families).^[34][35]

• Endeavour to organize actions with the Mongols (1300).

According to the French historian Alain Demurger, the Knights Templar and their leader Jacques de Molay strongly advocated, and attempted a collaboration with the Mongols under Ghazan to fight against the Mamluks.^[36] In an interview, Demurger credited the Templars and De Molay with being the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols from 1299-1303.^[37] Another French historian, Laurent Dailliez in Les Templiers explains that the Templars allied with the Mongols and that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with them against their common Muslim enemy.^[38] However, some other historians put less emphasis on Templar involvement in the matter, and some barely mention the hopes of Mongol involvement at all. Of the attempts of military action that were there, Jackson in "The Mongols and the West" gives the credit to King Henry II of Cyprus, and says that the actions were joint efforts of all of the Cypriots.^[39] He mentions however that Jacques de Molay seems to have been particularly enthousiastic about the project.^[40] In a 1300 letter to the Mamluk Sultan, Ghazan boasted that the contingents ranged under his banner now included Franks.^[41]

• Frankish interventions (Feb-July 1300)

Finally in early 1300, two Frank rulers, Guy d'Ibelin and Jean II de Giblet, had moved in with their troops from Cyprus in response to Ghazan's earlier call, and established a base in the castle of Nefin in Gibelet on the Syrian coast with the intention of joining him, but Ghazan was already gone.^[42][43] They also started to besiege the new city of Tripoli, but in vain.^[44] They soon had to reembark for Cyprus.

The Mongol leader Ghazan had sent letters in late 1299 requesting Frankish help, primarily with naval operations.^[45] Naval operations were mounted in July 1300. A fleet of sixteen galleys with some smaller vessels was equipped in Cyprus,^[46][45][47], commanded by King Henry II of Jerusalem, the king of Cyprus, accompanied by his brother, Amalric, Lord of Tyre and the heads of the military orders. The banner of the Mongol Il-Khan was hoisted on the boats, because Ghazan's ambassador was onboard.^[48][49] The ships left Famagusta on July 20, 1300, to raid the coasts of Egypt and Syria: Rosette,^[45] Alexandria, Acre, Tortosa, and Maraclea, before returning to Cyprus.^[47] According to the French historian Jean Richard, the raids along the way were directed by Admiral Baudoin de Picquigny, who was accompanied onboard by the envoy of the Mongols Isol the Pisan, and when the raids took place at Alexandria, they were able to free Christian prisoners who had been captive since the Fall of Acre in 1291.^[50] The ships then returned to Cyprus, and prepared for an attack on Tortosa in late 1300.

In a May 18th 1300 letter from Lerida, James II of Aragon also sent a congratulation letter to Ghazan "King of the Kings of all the Levant (...) elected by the Omnipotent to take revenge on his enemies and recover the Holy Land",^[51] and offered to procure him ships, troops and supplies in exchange for one fifth of the territory of the Holy Land.^[52][53]

• Canceled campaign of winter 1301-1302

Plans for combined operations were again made for the following winter offensive. A letter has been kept from Jacques de Molay to Edward I, and dated April 8, 1301, informing him of the troubles encountered by Ghazan (who had to fight against a relative in Khorasan, whom Molay names "Portefferi"), but announcing that Ghazan was supposed to come in Autumn 1301:

"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.^[54]

And in a letter to James II of Aragon on November 8, 1301:

"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.^[55]

In late 1301, Ghazan sent a letter to the Pope, asking the Pope to send troops, priests, peasants, in order to make the Holy Land a Frank state again,^[56] but this time Ghazan did not appear with his troops due to a very cold winter and terrible road conditions.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]