Jump to content

Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 07:23, 25 January 2008 (→Why is the "longer version" get even longer?: - PHG is continuing to be deceptive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateFranco-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
DateProcessResult
September 9, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 29, 2007.

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


Relationship with Cilician Armenia

In several locations it is implied that Cilician Armenia and Georgia had an identical relationship with the Mongols. This cofusion rises primarily from the fact that Armenia proper under Georgian rule was conquered by the Mongols while Cilician Armenia was not. Georgians (and Armenians from Armenia proper) didn't have much of a choice when it came to fighting Mamelukes even though Mamelukes never posed a threat to Georgia. See Zakarid Armenia and Mongol invasions of Georgia and Armenia. Armenia proper and Georgia were under direct Mongol rule. Cilician Armenia's goals matched those of the Mongols, so even though they were not equal partners they were certainly not under Mongol lordship either as there was no Mongol rule there unlike in Georgia and Armenia proper. George Bournoutian (Bournotian, p. 109) talks about the Armenians from Armenia proper, not Cilician Armenia.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I agree with this distinction. This is why Cilician Armenia is usually portrayed as an "Ally" (it was never invaded by the Mongols), and Georgia as a vassal, or even a simple region of the Il-Khanate. Best regards. PHG (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my research, Cilician Armenia is usually depicted as a vassal state, not as an equal party "ally". I have collated multiple refs that say that King Hetoum submitted to the Mongols, and then persuaded his son-in-law Bohemond of Antioch to also submit. See User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Antioch. --Elonka 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Elonka, my research actually points to the exact opposite. While I acknowledge your sources, most of them seem to be from amateur authors with the exception of Rene Grousset who supports the majority view. I have dozens of secondary, modern and up to date sources that only speak of an alliance. Some of the auhors who support the majority view include: Michael Angold, Richard G. Hovannisian, Elizabeth Redgate, Jaroslav Folda, Edmund Herzig, Jacob Ghazarian, Hans Eberhard Mayer/John Gillingham, Daniel H. Weiss/Lisa Mahoney and many more. I even have Steven Runciman stating this. I'll make a table like the one PHG and you have. To my surprise, during my research I encountered many of these authors also speaking of a Mongol-Western alliance, Franco-Mongol alliance etc.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to review your sources, Eupator, but I think we may be comparing apples and oranges. And in terms of "amateur authors", well, you're just plain wrong. Peter Jackson, Reuven Amitai-Preiss, David Morgan, they're all very respected academics who are the most commonly-cited sources on this subject. Whereas among those authors that you listed, I've never even heard of them writing on this topic, so my guess is that your own sources are more about the Armenian angle? Or are you referring to a Byzantine-Mongol alliance, whereas this article is talking about the Franco-Mongol relations? Byzantine does not mean Europe, or at least not the Western Europeans/Latins. For example, here's a university reading list for the course "Mongols and Europe", and it doesn't mention a single one of those names you listed.[1] If you can give me something specific though, I'll definitely take a look. --Elonka 01:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking only about the Armenian angle as you put it. I mentioned above that while I was looking for sources regarding the Mongol-Armenian alliance I spotted some of the same authors also talking about a Mongol alliance with the West (sans Byzantium or Armenia). I'll separate the two. I'll prepare the table tomorrow and provide you with the link.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's this for starters: User:Eupator/Mongol historians. Comments would be much appreciated.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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]

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 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

Rewrite 2

Arkadaşlarım: Now that I've had the chance to read up more on the subject, I feel comfortable supporting the rewrite proposed by Elonka. 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. I checked out a number of the secondary sources summarized both by PHG in his extensive quotations and by Elonka as seen here, and believe that the latter is the more accurate scholarly view. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: By "checked out," I mean that I checked these books out of a library and examined the context of the various passages cited. Kafka Liz (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Since you and several other editors had indicated you liked the rewrite, I've started with implementation. I just finished my first pass, which has condensed the article down to about 78K, which I think is much more manageable. I also reorganized the timeline, so instead of going by year, it works through the various Mongol leaders in order, which (in my opinion) makes it easier to split information out to the individual biographies of each leader, as necessary.
There is more that I could do, such as doublechecking for duplicate references and other "polishing up", but I'm going to pause right now to doublecheck that people are happy with my changes, before I proceed further. If anyone has concerns, please let me know! --Elonka 05:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, I oppose this rewrite and massive removal of sourced material. It was completely inappropriate of you to push your own version of the article into the main space when there is obviously no consensus to do this. Please revert yourself.
Having said this I withdraw from this ugly dispute. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question of whether or not there was consensus for me to work on condensing the article (and/or replacing it with my rewritten version at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance), these conversations were at times somewhat fragmented. So, I figured I'd pull some of the quotes into one place: Srnec, Tefalstar, John Kenney[6][7], Aramgar[8], Adam Bishop[9], Kafka Liz, WJBscribe, and Shell Kinney. Not all of these diffs specifically say "I approve of the rewrite," but I think it is clear from what people are saying, that they approve of my scholarship and intentions here, and that consensus existed for my changes. If anyone feels that I have misrepresented their thoughts, please do speak up.

Now, I understand that PHG is opposed to my recent work condensing the article (which is understandable, as he was the primary editor whose work was being condensed). PHG, for what it's worth, my intent was not to "replace" what you've done, but to improve it. You have done an enormous amount of work on this topic, and, with the exception of a couple of POV issues where we disagree, I still feel that much of your scholarship is excellent. In no way am I trying to diminish the respect for the other high quality work that you have done. You are, and probably always will be, the primary editor on this topic. However, as I'm sure you know, in any reputable academic reference endeavor, the work of any one editor must be subject to peer-review and editing. I, as one of your peers, am trying to do exactly that, review and edit your work. I understand that this makes you unhappy, which is a natural response when you see some of your own words and research deleted. However, I wish that you could see that we (I and the other editors on this page) are not doing this out of any desire to diminish your work, but instead, out of a genuine desire to improve what you have done.

PHG, I know that you have done a lot of work on Asian topics, so you may be more familiar with this quote, but I heard from someone I greatly respect, that one of the ways to know when you are done improving a Japanese garden, is when you can no longer remove anything without ruining the effect. In other words, "less is more." It is my opinion, and that of most of the other editors on this talkpage, that a condensed article is a stronger article, not a weaker one. By shortening the article, it gives the remaining sections more impact, and further, makes it more likely that they'll even be read!

So, rather than trying to revert to the previous very long version, could we please move forward, examining the article as it stands, and focus our discussions on how to further strengthen and improve it? I really do think that we have an article here that could be navigated to Featured article status, if we could just figure out how to get past some of these last remaining disputes. I don't want to exclude you from editing here, I just want to figure out a way that we can work together, in harmony, towards the mutual goal of making a high-quality article which will be of benefit to our readers. Sincerely, Elonka 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [10] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Specific concerns

Concerns with the article:

  1. Organization:
  • I'm unclear why the Section "Christianity among the Mongols" is here. To me, it does nothing to add to the understanding of any alliances, nor does it seem to tie into the next section at all.
  • The concepts in the Early Contacts section seem a much better introduction to the article
  • Numerous footnotes are in shortened form such as "Foltz p. 111" but there is no corresponding entry in the References. According to WP:CITE, "With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes contain explanatory text. A References section, which lists citations in alphabetical order, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used." A small list is:
    • Hindley
    • Foltz
    • Pringle
    • Hobson
    • History In Dispute
    • Setton's Crusades
    • Morgan, David. "The Mongols and the Eastern Mediterranean"
    • Glenn A Lytell Chronicle
    • Knobler (which is given a full citation in a footnote, true, but it should be in the references also)
    • David Wilkinson, Studying the History of Intercivilizational Dialogues (which has a link)
    • Stewart, "Logic of Conquest", there is a Stewart listed below, but this is not the title
    • You refer to Grousett a number of times, but do not say WHICH of the two Grousett works are being referenced.
    • Same for Maalouf
    • De Reuven Amitai-Preiss Mongols and Mamluks,
    • The Islamic World in Ascendency: From the Arab conquest to the Siege of Vienna by Dr. Martin Sicker
    • Jean-Paul Roux, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol
    • Encyclopedia Iranica article (which ONE?)
    • Les Croisades Thierry Delcourt
    • Demurger, “Croisades et Croises”
    • "Le Livre des Merveilles"
    • Grandes Documents de l'Histoire de France Archives Nationales de France
    • Boyle in Camb. Hist. Iran V
    • Jotischky The Crusaders and the Crusader States
    • The Mongols by David Morgan
    • Mongol Raids - note this may be Reuven Amitai "Mongol Raids into Palestine" in JRAS, but as its in italics like a book, and the Amitai is a journal article, I can not be sure of this.
    • Receuil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Armeniens I....
    • Libro d'Ottramare 1346-135
    • Rancois Raynourd (1805) to a link
    • Malcom Barber The New Knighthood
    • footnote 356 .. is that quoting Ghazan's letter direct? It appears so, although the formatting on the footnote isn't clear
    • A. Mostaert and F. W. Cleaves "Trois documents mongols des Archives secretes vaticanes H. J. A. J. xv 419-506 and a link to Journal of Semetic Studies
    • I. Heath Byzantine Armies AD1118-1461 (Is this an Osprey Book?)
    • Footnotes 388 and 389 are wikilinked back to the Franco-Mongol alliance article
    • "the Eastern Origins of Western Civiliation John M. Hobson
    • "Istanbul" p. 16.
  • The Technology exchanges section is, like the Christianity section at the beginning, an odd fit. I believe it would be better off in a stand-alone article.
  • Too much quoting in the footnotes. This isn't a university monograph, it's an encyclopedia entry. Your citation covers the item, it doesn't need to be a full quote from the source.
  1. Sources:
  • Too much reliance on primary, medieval sources.
  • Some of the sources used are not scholarly at all. These include:
    • Online Reference Book for Medieval Studies (footnote 82 in the long version) It is not a referenced work.
    • Saudi Aramco World website for the Battle of Ain Jalut (footnote 95 in the long version.) This one can be cut, as it is only referenced to an sentence that has another citation (96)
    • Citing a PAINTING that is hanging in Versailles? And it was painted in 1846? It's a SOURCE? Footnote 337 in the long version.
    • Citing the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, while not exactly wrong, gives the impression that you are reaching for something to cover the citation. And as the fact being sourced to the Catholic Encyclopedia is the accession date of a Mongol Khan, it looks decidely dodgy that a more modern history of the Mongols isn't being used.
  • Didn't Budge die in 1934? Surely there is something more recent than his 1928 work.

I think that's enough for now. Are these specific enough discussions of the long version of the article? I tried to discuss specific points, but if I haven't been clear enough, please feel free to ask for clarification. Ealdgyth | Talk 07:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eep, I'm sorry for any wasted effort Ealdgyth, but you do realize that you just reviewed the old version of the article? I'm sorry that PHG is edit-warring over this when we have such a clear consensus at #Rewrite 2 for the updated version. I'll revert back to the new version, and then if you could comment on that, it would be very helpful? Many of the above concerns that you brought up, are already addressed in the newer version. Thanks, Elonka 09:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, the reality is that you actually have no consensus to replace the ful 200k version by your 70k summary (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus). Please stop being so polemic on this, and allow us to spend time to discuss content from the full version. PHG (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equal opportunity time

I am nothing if not an equal opportunity carper... For the shorter version Organization:

  • Christianity section seems tacked on the front. Doesn't tie into the next section in any meaningful way.
  • Same complaint about the Technology exchanges section, doesn't tie into the concept of the article well at all.

Sources:

  • Still a few sources that are not in the References:
    • Mongol Raids (footnote 19) I'm assuming this is the Amitai "Mongol Raids" but it's listed as a book in the footnotes, and an article in the References. Without an author in the footnote it's hard to be sure it's the same reference
    • Mantran Robert "A Turkish or Mongolian Islam" in the Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages
    • "The Eastern Origins of Wester Civilization" John M. Hobson
  • I'm uncomfortable referencing the "France" article in an encyclopia about Iran for French History. Surely the information could come from a scholarly work on France.
  • Same for the Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages. These aren't quite scholarly works, they are more designed for the general audience.
  • Some of the sources are quite old. Grousset is from 1935. Runicman is from 1954. With Tyerman, Richard, Nicholle surely some of this can be cited from more modern works.

I'll try to take a peek at some of the sources through Amazon and Google Scholar at some point and see if I can see anything about them. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Ealdgyth, and great job reviewing this stuff! You've got a good eye for detail. :) Here are some replies:
  • Regarding the Christianity section, I think it's reasonable to keep a brief mention of it, because many reference works about the topic do make a point of how there was some religious affinity. Especially as regards some Mongol attacks on cities, where the inhabitants were slaughtered but the Christians were spared, by intervention of the Khan's wife
  • Regarding the Technology section, I'd be okay on removing that, since I don't think it's relevant to the topic of an alliance. However, if we change the scope of the article to "Relations" as opposed to alliance, then it might make sense to keep it ...
  • "Mongol Raids". Fixed. And yes, they were both referring to Reuven-Amitai's article (which is a really nice piece of scholarship and well-worth reading) :)
  • Hobson's book. Yeah, that got missed because that paragraph was copy/pasted from History of gunpowder. I have since added his book to our refs
  • Mantran's article in Cambridge Illustrated History, it was in the refs, under Mantran. It's one of those situations where the book is sometimes listed under the editor, but different articles within the book were produced by different authors. It was used to source the statement "Europe no longer as interested in the Crusades." It seems reasonable to include it since it's a general statement, but I'm also okay on removing it. BTW, Google Books seems to have trouble pulling it up (maybe because it's an English translation of a French work), but here's the link at worldcat.[12]
  • Grousset & Runciman. Yes, the complaint that these are older and somewhat outdated scholars has been used from the very beginning.[13] I (and I hope PHG?) will continue to work to find more modern refs.
  • Regarding the "France" article at the Encyclopedia Iranica,[14] that seems to me to be pretty well-sourced. Could you please explain a bit more about your concerns there?
  • Also, what are your thoughts about the Wilkinson ref? I'm ambivalent about that one.
Thanks again, Elonka 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I'm uncomfortable with using Encyclopedia type works. I use them, understand, but they need to be understood in terms of how historians think of sources. (Begin History Sources 101 lecture) Generally, a historian thinks of works/books/articles/etc as falling into one of three groups. Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary. Primary is contemporary records, or things like tax registers, birth certificates, etc. Secondary are based on primary, and are what most people think of as "scholarly". They will also be based on other secondary sources, but a really GOOD historian will not just rely on the secondary source for something, but will go to the primary source cited in the secondary source to confirm that the citation is correct. Thus, a true secondary source cites where it is arguing from. It gives the underlying source, usually as a footnote/endnote, but sometimes as a direct quote. More modern works tend to be less filled with large blocks of quotes, and if you're using say a Victorian-era history, it'll be filled with more blocks of quotes. That style of writing has gone out of favor in historical circles, although you still see it. Tertiary sources are built from secondary sources. They may or may not be footnoted, but they don't usually rest directly on primary source reading, but rather on scholarly secondary works. Good encyclopedia's are tertiary. Something like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is actually secondary, since they (in theory) use specialists in the time frame to compose the biographies. (By the way, I highly recommend subscribing to them if you can't get access through your library card. It's been the best $200 I ever spent, to be able to access that from home.) Of course, the above stuff is based on the medievalist point of view. A medievalist takes "contemporary" in reference to a primary source with a bit of leeway. Ancient historians often have to give their primary sources a LOT of leeway. Modern historians give very little leeway.(End History 101 lecture)
Ideally, Wikipedia is at best, a tertiary source. Because we don't allow Original Research, that's the best we can ever be. All secondary source writing requires that you make interpretations of the source material. To give an example from more my field of expertise: King Richard I of England. Everyone uses the same primary sources, which in this case are a number of chronicles, a big pile of writs and charters, and some tax rolls. And some other sources, but those are the main ones. From those same exact sources, you can find many scholarly works that judge Richard either as a repressed homosexual, an asexual military fanatic, a man with a mother complex, etc. etc. Those historians are doing what they are supposed to be doing, interpreting the sources to make an argument about what they believed happened and more importantly, WHY it happened that way. But because Wikipedia is supposed to use NPOV to put forth the scholarly views, it can't possibly be secondary, and instead is tertiary. Thus we cite everything, and we say WHO had WHAT opinion. And try to give due weight to the arguments, and try to (most importantly) not cherry pick the argument to present OUR opinion. So if I wrote on Richard, I would need to present ALL the views that are held by mainstream scholars (Luckily, I don't have to present some view that might say that Richard was really a space alien from Mars, since that would be a fringe view). I can't give undue weight to whatever might be MY opinion, I have to present it neutrally. And I have to take due care that when I go through a secondary work to summarize it for the article, I get the WHOLE picture the author is talking about. And I can't let ANY of my opinion creep into the article. So if I wrote about Richard, I would have to be careful to make sure I didn't give undue weight to my own opinion. (which, btw, is that Richard was probably more asexual than homosexual, but that's my opinion. Note that the late Angevin time frame isn't my area of study so I'm not totally familiar primary sources.) This, btw, is why I haven't and probably won't write articles about Anselm of Canterbury and Lanfranc, because personally, I don't like the subjects and I've studied them too much, and it would be too hard to write neutrally about them.
The problem with encyclopedia's is it's hard to tell sometimes how well they are composed. Some don't give bylines. Some don't give the secondary sources they used. Some do both of those things. Any that are specialized in a subject (such as Iran or Armenia or Mongolia or Anglo-Norman England) are going to be better references for the subject they are covering than they are for subjects that are peripheral to their subject, like "France" for a encyclopedia focused on Iran. If we were quoting somehting about IRAN, I'd be less concerned about using it as a source, but for something about France, it makes me more concerned. To be frank (oooh, bad pun) it makes it look like any scholarly works on France did NOT say whatever it was that you are sourcing and you had to go outside the subject area to find a source to back up whatever you wanted to say. In other words it looks like reaching. At the very least, you should use something like Morgan or Parker or Tyerman for that. (Btw, if you want a good basic textbook level French History book, if you have NONE, I can recommend a good overview book that would be great to have on your shelves for citing for basic French history facts. Hallam's Capetian France is what I used and abused in college. It was what my upper level college classes used as a textbook for that sort of thing, and she's updated it to a second edition.)
The single best way to find NEW books is to look in the bibliographies of your current books. That's the first thing I do when I've acquired (or am thinking about acquiring) a new book. Look at the bibliography. See who is cited in the back. See the level of detail cited. Do they just list a few books? Or does it stretch for pages. And investigate the citations. Are they to a bunch of non-scholarly presses and Time Magazine? Or are they to University Presses and Scholarly Journals? The reason I have a good eye for detail in bibliographies is that is what I was taught in college. That's the big evil secret of historians... look at the sources. THEN read the book. That's what you learn in history classes at the higher levels, how to evauluate sources and how to stay current in things.
Does that explain things a little better? It boils down to ... using an encyclopedia (which I admit looks scholarly and well done) on Iran for Iran is good. Using it for stuff on France is... less good and makes the historian in me go "Hm... what is trying to be hidden here?" Ealdgyth | Talk 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another dirty little secret. Most good scholarly secondary works are reviewed in scholarly journals. I say reviewed here with a grain of salt. Picked to pieces by jealous rivals works just as well. Find those reviews if you want to know about a book/paper. If there isn't one, that tells you something also. JSTOR here is your friend.
The first thing that popped into my head when I pulled up the Wilkinson link was "He's a political scientist". And then I slapped myself for being a historian-elitist. (I have a strong tendency towards that.) After glancing through it .. it's a 'compare and contrast' paper. I think I wrote fifty million of them in college. They are given all the time at conferences. Did this one manage to get published in a peer reviewed journal? I see it was given to a UN Diversity Conference, so it might not have gone through a peer review at all. Journal articles are peer reviewed before publication. Conference talks are peer reviewed in person (Ohh.. THAT's a fun experience... NOT.) Scholarly books are peer reviewed AFTER publication when your jealous riv... err. friendly fellow historians read it over and write to a journal (or five) and explain every single error they found with your reasoning and reading of the primary sources. Thus, if this talk didn't get done at a historian's conference, and it didn't get published in a historical journal, but instead was published on the web, it hasn't gone through a historian's peer review for accuracy. It may have gone through a political science peer review, but that's not quite the same as a historian peer review. (Historians and Political Scientists don't get along that well. I think the historians are jealous that Poli Sci folks can become talking heads on TV. When was the last time you saw a historian (especially an ancient or medieval historian) on the evening news?)
Anyway... back to Wilkinson. Okay first twinge is that he's covering Mongols (1200's), Amarna Letters (1300ish BC), Japan and the Sui (700AD), the Conquest of Mexico and Peru (1500's), and Akbar (late 1500's). That's quite the time range. He can't possibly be a specialist in all of those time frames, so somewhere in there he's treading in areas he's not as familiar with. Which one is it though? No clue. So that's a concern for me. But to get to the specific topic that deals with the Mongols, he basically lists all the gifts and exchanges. Says they wanted to work together, but things didn't work out. And that in the end, nothing came of it. If we're citing it for dates of when things went back and forth, it's not the greatest source. Morgan, Jackson, Grousset, Richard, etc. will be better because they are specialists in the area. If we didnt' have access to them, then this would work, but we do, so citing Wilkinson for basic facts is getting our facts from a tertiary source (since he's citing secondary sources) rather than from a secondary source. If it's being used for his conclusion, I guess it's good, but wouldn't a historian be better? Wilkinson seems more concerned with the concept of a "globalization potential" (whatever THAT means... silly poli sci folks!) than with determining what the short term effects of the diplomatic efforts were. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we're on the same page as regards the definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I'm also in agreement with you about the jealous rivalpeer-reviewed secondary sources.  :) I'm not sure I'm following you though on the idea of excluding tertiary sources, since that would mean that we wouldn't even be allowed to use Encyclopedia Britannica as a ref? In the case of the Encyclopedia Iranica, though yes, it's the article about France, it still ties in to this subject, since the center of Mongol power in the area was in Iran for quite awhile, so it would make sense that an Iranian source would be used for discussing that subject. As for Wilkinson, I agree that even though it's a good lecture, it's not wise to use a lecture as a source, so we should pull that one.
Lastly, on "medieval historians" on TV, yes, I can think of a couple.  :) In fact, we've got one right here in St. Louis, Dr. Thomas Madden, who was quite the "historian poster-child" right after 9/11. He's also been on History Channel documentaries and whatnot.  :) But yeah, I agree that he's the exception rather than the rule.  :)
I'll get to work on the other stuff... Elonka 03:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying don't use encyclopedias, I'm just saying that there are better sources. Britannica is a generalist encyclopedia. Encyclopedia Iranica is a specialist encyclopedia. A better souce for events in France would be a French specialist encyclopedia or a secondary source on French History. The one now works, it could be improved, that's all. I looked at where it's used. The first one is to reference a reply from Mongke to Saint Louis. The second is sending David Ashby to the court of Hulagu. (I'm unclear on where Ashby was sent FROM. Acre? If that's the case, is that really in the France article? The word "Franks" covers a lot of places as used in this article) The third is about Louis asking for Hulagu's conversion to Christianity. The fourth one is for a letter to Edward I of England (is this REALLY in the France article?) from Ghazan. I've got that one covered somewhere above with the Prestwich book. The fifth one is for letters from Oljeitu to Philip the Fair. (It also seems to cover the first sentence of that section, about Oljeitu's conversion, once again, I ask, is that REALLY in the France article?) The sixth is for the signing of the Treaty of Aleppo between the Mongols and the Mamelukes. (And again.. is that REALLY in the France article?) The last is for exchanges of letters between Tamerlane and the West. I think that explains some of my concerns with the usage of the source. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and double checked the France article against those citations, they all are actually in the France article, and the France article is remarkably enough sourced inline. However, it's sourced to Jackson and Richard mainly, so wouldn't it be better to use them direct rather than through a middle part? Ealdgyth | Talk 14:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doublechecking, and if you want to tweak those refs, I've got no trouble with you sourcing things to Richard and Jackson directly, no. Ditto with the other sources, if you'd like to update them to something more modern, that's up to you. But I don't think it's really necessary to scan every single statement in the article that's sourced to Grousset or Runciman, and spending the time to find a modern reference "just because they're old." My own feeling is that if there's a fact in Grousset or Runciman, and it's non-controversial, that they are perfectly fine as sources for a project such as Wikipedia, and indeed, that they are in the top tier of sources, considering a lot of the other stuff that gets used here.  ;) Though, if we're sourcing something to Grousset/Runciman, and there's a conflict between what they said and what more modern historians are saying, then in that case we should definitely go with the modern sources, as "the consensus of modern scholarship." --Elonka 17:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own Jackson or Richard, so I can't ethically go in and source the items. And I certainly don't plan to go through all the Grousset or Runciman refs, especially the ones for facts, and double check them. I'd more suggest that as the article is revised and rechecked, if you run across something sourced to an older source and you happen to find it in a more modern source, you change it out as you find them. Does that make sense? If nothing else, it cuts down on the rather large number of sources being cited, helping to cut down bloat in the article, always a good thing!Ealdgyth | Talk 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

(starting new subthread)

Fair enough. What I recommend is that we make a list of sources by category, so that we know what to prune and what to keep:

I haven't listed every source here, just some of the ones that we're either using extensively, or are being used to source controversial information. It's my recommendation that we concentrate on looking for information sourced to "B" and "C" categories, and either updating the information to better sources, or removing the information entirely.

Does that sound reasonable? And if anyone else wishes to question a source, please bring it up here. For example, which category would Richard Foltz's Religions of the Silk Road[15] fall into? --Elonka 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually seen the Oldenburg book that is in the long version, but she's usually a mass market writer. I have her Massacre at Montsegur, and is not "scholarly". I'd put Payne in that category also. Tuchman, if we used her, or Seward or Weir are others of that category. Great reading, not so great to use as a citation in a scholarly work. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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[21][22], Aramgar[23], Adam Bishop[24], Kafka Liz, WJBscribe, and Shell Kinney.

Of these:

  • User:Srnec actually does not support summarizing the article before content discussion has properly occured [25],
  • User:Adam Bishop actually concurs with working from the full article and does not endorse Elonka's version [26]
  • 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. [27]
  • User:Kafka Liz was canvassed (invited through User:Aramgar, a relative): [28]. Also, Armagar and Kakza Liz usually only count for one person due to their proximity [29].
  • 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 [30][31][32].
  • User:Aramgar nowhere supports in the diffs given the replacement of the full version [33][34], and anyway doubles with User:Kafka Liz due to proximity [35].
  • 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.[36].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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:
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.[37][38][39]
If you keep on down this path, you may risk further consequences. Please, stop this. --Elonka 09:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello Justin, that was a very fair analysis.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Every time someone calls an improvement unilateral, I want to point them at WP:IAR. Shell babelfish 19:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Clutter than can be dealt with easily.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [40]), 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: [41]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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? [42], [43] How about the fact that when the article was updated to "removed" the Christianty section "per the talkpage" [44] it was replaced in the next edit further down the article? [45] The earlier 141k version that desperately needed shortening is now 197k! Shell babelfish 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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.[46] 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.[47] 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[48] to over 200K![49]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fine, take your time. I'll examine them once you're finished.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article size: the answer is obvious and there is no need for inflamatory statements. Following Elonka's insistent request for split/reduction [50] [51], 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 [52], 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 [53] to replace it by a 4 line condensate [54] in "Preliminary contacts". Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.[55] 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.[56] 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance&oldid=186770058"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy