Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:15, 21 January 2008

	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 Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 29, 2007.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / French / Middle East / Medieval 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: not checked 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 Middle Eastern military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives August-September 2007 September 2007 October-December 2007

Introduction sentence

There seems to be some debate and low-level edit warring regarding how the introduction sentence should be formulated. Technically, the name of the article is "Franco-Mongol alliance", and therefore it is better to start with "The Franco-Mongol alliance is...". But my main point concerns the meaning being conveyed: "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance..." expresses only one point of view ("attempts towards an alliance"), and only a part of the sources (about half of those gathered at this point). There is an obvious better choice which expresses both point of views:

"A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..."

I don't see how we could better represent a neutral point of view, and maintain a good balance between the arguments. In view of the Misplaced Pages policy to maintain balance and NPOV, and in view of the sources, I trust this is the only acceptable choice. PHG 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I and Adam Bishop like the phrasing of "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." In fact, if we can stick with that wording, then I'm willing to accept the article title as "Franco-Mongol alliance", how's that for a compromise? --Elonka 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am amazed... Isn't it quite unethical that you can consider a historical definition the subject of a bargain? Are that your standards Elonka? "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a well-known and published expression, your opinion or acceptance regarding its usage is completely irrelevant. As User:Srnec was saying, you really just act as if you owned the articles around here, but, sorry this isn't the reality. A scholarly expression can stand in its own right, and your refusal or acceptance of it (especially under a bargain!) is totally irrelevant.
• The introduction sentence you propose ("Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance...") is not acceptable. It expresses only one point of view (yours, and possibly Adam's), and only a part of the sources (about half of those gathered at this point). It is POV and doesn't take into account the other half of the sources which consider the Mongol alliance as fact. "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..." is the only NPOV choice, combining both views, and I will reinstate it until a good reason for doing otherwise will appear (and not a cheap bargain please...).
• You claim you have "a consensus" for introducing this one-sided sentence (your last revert): this is a total mis-representation (again!): two opinions against one has never been a consensus. You consistently take liberties with sources (all the references you destroyed, your mis-representation of Tyerman, God's War (above)): please follow sources faithfully and avoid bending source material to fit your point of view.
• I think the reality is that you've now lost your argument against this article: its title is legitimate, it is highly referenced, and it reflects in a balanced and detailed manner the reality of the Mongol alliance. PHG 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Elonka's proposal makes the most sense...since, as you say, half the sources say there was an alliance and half say there was not, it would be unacceptable to claim that it did in fact exist. You are doing the same thing you are accusing Elonka of doing. Adam Bishop 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current (Elonka/Bishop) version of the lead sentence is fine, however I am opposed to renaming the article. To clarify: whether or not an alliance ever existed for any period of time (and I think the definition of alliance is sufficiently broad to allow that brief alliances did in fact exist, at least I have read that there were attempts at coordinated attacks on a mutual enemy between the Crusaders and the Mongols, which is an alliance by some standards) is not relevant to the article title, since this article discusses the alliance whether it existed or not. Just like an article on the chimera would discuss the chimera, even though no chimera ever existed. (In that case "chimera" would refer to an imaginary thing, but still a thing.) This article discusses Crusader-Mongol relations as attempts to establish an alliance, so the title is fine by my standards. Srnec 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is just a matter of objectivity, NPOV and logic. If some sources speak about attempts, and some about an actual alliance, both views deserve to be reflected. There is no reason to favour one over the other. It is just a matter of respecting available sources. My proposal puts forward both scholarly interpretations, and therefore is necessarily better than a proposal that only favours one side: it is the de facto compromise solution: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..." PHG 05:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. We have three editors (myself, Adam Bishop, Srnec) that like version A, but one editor (you) who likes version B. And so therefore you are saying that the logical compromise is to use version B. Um, no. --Elonka 06:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one upholding Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy here? 3:1 is clearly way not enough to overturn this encyclopedia's policy for balanced point of view and equal representation of major sources. Neither is it enough to sustain your claim of a "consensus". Again Elonka, your approach is quite disputable for an editor of high-standing. Voting (especially such minuscule-scale voting) has never been reason enough to overturn Misplaced Pages' editorial ethics. And NPOV standards are not subject to micro-votes anyway. As both views are well published, both deserve representation. End of the story. PHG 07:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus seems pretty clear. Adam Bishop, Srnec, and myself (Elonka) like the wording of "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." PHG wants a different wording, and continues to strongly disagree with everyone else, and edit war about it. Now, we've discussed this extensively, looked at alternatives, listened respectfully to PHG's objections, filed an Request for Comment, and even offered mediation, but PHG has rejected that option. So, there seems no alternative, but to declare consensus. PHG, your objections are noted. Now, can we please stop edit-warring about this, and move on to something else? --Elonka 20:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

3 against 1 has never been called a consensus Elonka. You are not respecting even the most basic Misplaced Pages rules, just to try to make your point of view prevail. PHG 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I think the point is, that your point of view is not prevailing. Please see Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. --Elonka 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my point of view is not prevailing at this point (to judge from the microcosm of 3-4 editors), but it is highly sourced from reputable sources nonetheless. Statements from reputable sources cannot just be dismissed because of a 3 to 1 argument. And 3 to 1 has never been a consensus on Misplaced Pages. PHG 14:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above opinions, the clear consensus version (noting that PHG continues to disagree) is: Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. --Elonka 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to express a preference for the Elonka/Adam Bishop introduction. The analysis of scholarly sources on this page seems to lean strongly to that being the overwhelming view of scholarly historical sources. Decision making on Misplaced Pages is made based on agreement by its editors. Consensus is important. I think PHG must do more to recognise that his opinion on how this article should read is a minority one. Many editors disagree and that he really needs to concede some ground given the arguments made. Compromise is a good thing - not something to be looked upon as a threat. The view that such an alliance occured seems to be a minority one - definitely worthy of discussion in the article, but it shouldn't be given the same standing as the view that no such alliance materialised. If it is, then that would be giving that interpretation undue weight. A reader of the article who knows nothing about the topic, should be given the understanding that there is one prevailing view among scholars of the period, and a different opinion backed by only a few. WjBscribe 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I cannot subscribe to the view that the "Alliance" view is a minority one. It is supported by numerous mainstream scholars (User:PHG/Alliance). Elonka's list is partly right, and partly fabricated (for example, her presentation of Amin Maaloof as describing the Alliance only as "a dream" was clearly abusive when I checked the source). According to Misplaced Pages:NPOV policy, both views should be represented, and the standard intro phrase for that would be "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance...". On our mediation, the mediator, who went into the details, has clearly said also that in his view both theories should be presented and that source-counting was pointless (Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance#On track), and he favoured my "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." approach, so Elonka cannot say that she has a consensus. I will not spend my time lobbying on Misplaced Pages to try to get votes the way Elonka does to claim a 4:1 or 4:2 (2 being myself +Srnec) or a 4:3 (3 being myself +Srnec + our mediator User:Tariqabjotu) position is a "consensus". It is sufficient for me that both views are expressed by mainstream historians, and that Misplaced Pages policies therefore allows for the representation of both. Regards PHG 12:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, no, our mediator has not favoured PHG's version, and has corrected PHG on this matter at his talkpage: So the current situation is that we have all editors with an opinion (WjBscribe, Srnec, Elonka, Adam Bishop) liking "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." Except for PHG, whose objections are noted. Anyone else have an opinion? --Elonka 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(followup) Now that we've gotten through the holidays, I'd like to take another look at getting this article cleaned up, condensed/split, and polished up for another run at FA. I see that the first sentence had crept to a different version from what was agreed in the above discussion, so I went ahead and updated it. If anyone has comments or concerns, and agrees or disagrees, please feel free to post here. Thanks, Elonka 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. You seem to be forgetting the result of our mediation which was for the introduction sentence: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts to form such an alliance, was the objective of...". You specifically gave your agreement to that sentence, so let's respect what was said. Regards PHG (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you are seriously distorting things. The version of the lead sentence that was in the article was not what we had agreed to in mediation (though I see that you have since changed it). Further, anything agreed to in mediation is voluntary, not compulsory. Mediation does not override talkpage consensus to take a different action, and participants in a mediation are free to change their minds based on later review. My opinion, and that of WJBscribe, Srnec, Adam Bishop, and now Aramgar, is that there was no alliance. Aramgar hasn't commented on specific wording yet, but based on his comment below, it would seem (Aramgar, please correct me if I'm wrong) that the most appropriate lead sentence for this article is "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. --Elonka 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The revision Elonka made on January 12 (here) best represents scholarly consensus despite all the good faith efforts of the primary editor. This article would be more appropriately called Franco-Mongol diplomacy. Aramgar (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Aramgar. I went ahead and changed the article back to the consensus version of the intro sentence. PHG, can you please respect the consensus here? We have a lot of other things we need to discuss, and I don't want to get bogged down on just this one thing. I really feel that if we can just get past a few more disagreements, we can have an FA-class article here. --Elonka 01:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is to confirm that the introduction sentence agreed on at the mediation between Elonka and myself was: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts to form such an alliance, was the objective of..." (I had only forgotten the "at least" in the original wording). The mediation was made after the various user comments on the introduction phrase, and was agreed to by Elonka and myself as a compromise. I believe the results of the mediation should not be disregarded and should to be abided to in good faith. Expert Wiki-opinion on the subject would be appreciated. PHG (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, as I've said before, an earlier mediation does not trump talkpage consensus. Mediation is voluntary, and participants are free to change their minds. My opinion, and the opinion of every single other editor in this discussion (except you), is that the wording of the intro sentence should be "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. If you disagree with this, you are welcome to continue discussing it and trying to convince other editors, but you must absolutely cease edit-warring about it. --Elonka 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The mediation (November 2007) post-dates most of the discussions there had been about this phrase. A compromise sentence was found between you and me in a formal mediation, after something like 2 months of discussion, and you specifically said that you were finally happy with "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts to form such an alliance, was the objective of...". I think it is a basic rule of behaviour that you should abide by your own words and commitments. You cannot just erase what you formally agreeed to, simply because you feel you might have a new opportunity to promote your original point-of-view. Should Misplaced Pages remember that your commitments have no value? Regards PHG (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text of Elonka's agreement for the introduction sentence at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive#The mediation is here on November 14th, 2007:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. PHG 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I like that version.  :) --Elonka 07:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Concluded with agreement on the following opening sentence:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.

-- tariqabjotu 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, I don't think it's helpful for you to be copy/pasting comments that were made months ago, when the editors involved (such as, um, me) have clearly indicated different opinions since then.

In any case, this conversation seems to now be being continued in the below thread #Introduction sentence (part 2), so let's continue discussion there. --Elonka 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Further musings

I had some time to peruse Tyerman's book more fully; I see that this was already sorted out above, but he even continually talks about the lack of an alliance despite all the attempts, and how bad an alliance would have been if there had been one. I would also like, again, to caution against using Maalouf's book as a piece of historical scholarship. I'm sure Maalouf is a nice guy but he's no historian. He's a novelist and the book reflects that; he's not making stuff up but, well, would you want to use this Misplaced Pages article as a reference? No, of course not. It's the same idea. (This problem isn't specific to the Mongol articles, it's also an ongoing problem with James Reston and the Richard I article, for one example.) I've also been trying to figure out how PHG's various edits fit together. The latest argument about Bohemond is contradicted here and in Bohemond's article. I'm also not sure why this all hinges on Demurger, whose reputation perhaps rests on PHG's constant insistence that he is reputable - but more importantly, the footnote given for Bohemond's presence in Baghdad says nothing about Bohemond being in Baghdad. PHG, are you just misreading Demurger?

There are lots of other fishy statements. Aside from the bald plagiarism, authors who wrote generations apart are made to agree with each other when one is obviously just getting his info from the other. Or they are made to agree when they actually disagree. Like, Runciman is an okay source, if he's the only one and it's a little article. Otherwise, no. There is a continuum in these sorts of things - books just don't appear out of thin air, everyone builds on previous scholarship, and to use everything no matter how outdated is completely unnecessary. Or there is superfluous information which has nothing to do with the Mongols (Edward I for example).

So that's my impression after finally taking five minutes to have a look at it. Sorry for stirring up the debate again, if that is what happens. I think I'll go back to fixing the Siege of Maarat article where I am more at home with that period of history... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Adam. I have Demurger's book (Jacques de Molay) in front of me, and it says on page 55:

"The Count of Tripoli and Prince of Antioch (the two state had the same ruler), and the king of Cilician Armenia (or Little Armenia) had made their submission to the Mongols. Since 1247 already, they had paid tribute and supplied troops. King Hetoum I went to Karakorum to make his submission in 1253, and Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258."

What do you mean he doesn't say that Bohemond VI was in Baghdad? Also Alain Demurger, besides his reputation in France ("one of the most eminent specialists of the history of the Order" Jean-Philippe Camus), is praised as the author of a good general survey on the Knights Templar, in Malcolm Barber's book The New Knighthood : A History of the Order of the Temple (p.397):

"There are good general surveys, by Marie-Louise Bulst-Theile, Sacrae Domus Militiae Templi Hierosolymitani Magistri (1974), and Alain Demurger, Vie et mort de l'ordre du Temple" (Life and Death of the Order of the Temple).

For a list of statements about the factuality of the Franco-Mongol alliance please check User:PHG/Alliance. I'll be glad to discuss other statements you might have issues with. Regards. PHG (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that one, I was looking at a different footnote (it's kind of hard when there are 400 of them). Alright, well we've already gone over that bit then. I think it would be best to dismiss the whole thing with a footnote, if you're going to insist on mentioning it. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As discussed previously, I clearly circumscribed the claim to Demurger: "According to Alain Demurger, Frankish troops from the Principality of Antioch also participated, and Bohemond VI was present at Baghdad in 1258" + footnotes. Regards PHG (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you added it back in after I mentioned it, sneaky sneaky! Anyway, I also want to point out that just because an historian says something does not make it true or noteworthy. Are they not human? Are they incapable of error? Of course not. Also, if Demurger is praised as an historian of the Templars, how does this pertain to Bohemond's presence in Baghdad? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hum, it seems the quote about Bohemond VI in Baghdad in 1258 had been removed from the article by someone, so I had to reinsert it. It had been however on this Talk Page for several weeks (above), for all to see, so it was nothing new.
• I suppose historians may indeed make mistakes, but it is not for us poor Wikipedians to pass such judgements. The only acceptable approach would be to find another historian claiming that Demurger's claim is a mistake, and balance the two opinions, with references.
• Demurger is one of the first authotities on the Templars, but he is also quite an authority on the Crusades as a whole. He has published several books on the Crusades through some of the most reputable publishers in France, such as La croisade au Moyen Âge, Fernand Nathan, Croisades et croisés au Moyen Âge, Flammarion, Nouvelles histoires de la France médiévale. Tome 5 : Temps de crises. Temps d'espoirs. Points Seuil. I would agree he's probably little-known in the US, like most French historians anyway, but I don't think that's a criteria for rejection. Regards. PHG (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

John de Monte Corvino passing through Karakorum?

The article about John of Montecorvino states that he went to Khanbalyk by ship, so passing through Karakorum would be somewhat difficult. Even overland Karakorum seems a bit out of the way. Yaan (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I indeed had the same doubts when I took the segment from Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China. I suppose that "passing Karakorum" is a typo for "bypassing Karakorum". Would it make more sense? Regards. PHG (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But as said, I don't think Karakorum was on the standard route from Europe to China anyway, the silk road is further south. Regards, Yaan (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yaan. I think what is meant is that the onland route to Mongol lands in the East normally implied a passage through the capital Karakorum. Regards. PHG (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I tried to clarify the various sources about the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols (precise modern accounts, medieval accounts by Arab, Armenian and Christian sources). I also took away one phrase which seems too general in nature and over-editorialized to really belong to a detailed, factual, segment about Jerusalem in 1300: "In a general comment on Jerusalem in her 2005 posthumous book Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099-1187), Schein said nothing about Mongol conquest, but simply noted: "After 1187 and for the rest of the Middle Ages, Earthly Jerusalem, ruled by the Moslems (except for the short period of 1229-1244), was to loom large in all types of late medieval apocalypticism." PHG (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I disagree with PHG's sources and interpretation of events (as the vast consensus of modern historians is that the Mongols never "conquered" Jerusalem), I also disagree that this article is even the right location for a discussion of this. Multiple editors have stated multiple times in previous talkpage threads that this article is too long. And yet, PHG keeps pouring more and more information into it, such that the article is now 183K in length. I recommend that everything in this article related to Mongol activities in the Palestine area (except for a small paragraph, per WP:SUMMARY), be split to Mongol raids into Palestine. I have suggested a way to further rewrite/condense the article (see the "Article rewrite" section above), and everyone (except PHG) has agreed with my rewrite. It is my opinion that the consensus of editors at this talkpage, is that the article needs to be shortened. If someone else wants to do it, that's fine with me, but if not, I will proceed with this in the near future. --Elonka 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been a long time observer of the Franco-Mongol Alliance article and the many other pages now associated with it, and it is with some hesitation that I become involved. I would like to support Elonka’s statements on consensus in both the academic and Misplaced Pages communities: the academic consensus is that no alliance existed. Whatever might have happened in those months of 1300, no Mongol army conquered Jerusalem. The article is too long. Some considered part ought to be moved to Mongol raids into Palestine. Moreover, I would suggest that the articles Mulay and Kutlushah be deleted and the few details about these two commanders be moved to the same. Aramgar (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am now nearly through with article content, most events are highly documented (400 refs), and indeed the time is soon coming to split the article into smaller parts. I will see what can be done about it.
• Regarding the Mongol conquest of Jerusalem in 1300, please be objective and just look at the sources (I suggest you read that chapter again: Franco-Mongol alliance#The fate of Jerusalem in early 1300). Most contemporary sources (Arab, Armenian and Christian) do mention the conquest of Jerusalem and many, many, maybe most, modern historians do consider that Jerusalem was indeed captured, although for a short time. At least there is far enough to mention both views as per WP:NPOV.
• As for Mulay and Kutlushah, they are perfectly notable Mongol generals of the period, with numerous references. There is absolutely no reason why they shoudn't have their own article in an Encyclopedia. Best regards PHG (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• hi PHG, first I want to commend you for the superb extraordinary work you've been doing. As an outsider, I dont know whats going on in this article but I want to comment on Mulay: I was expecting to find information about him in the article, however it was information about the battle :), so, maybe some kind of merge should be done or that information moved into other relevant places. My 2 cents as an outsider on the Mulay affair. --Matt57 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Matt. Thank you for the compliment, I truely appreciate! I am currently preparing more biographical information on both Mulay and Kutlushah (I will also do Samagarh a bit later). Best regards. PHG (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Article title

Aramgar suggested above, that this article (currently at "Franco-Mongol alliance") might be better titled as "Franco-Mongol diplomacy". I've personally supported "Franco-Mongol relations", myself, but I'd be willing to go along with "Franco-Mongol diplomacy" as a title. Anyone else have an opinion? --Elonka 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Either of those is preferable to the current title. I wonder if it might be better to say "Crusader" rather than "Franco"? john k (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about that too, but "Crusader" starts really broadening the topic. As I understand it, the main thrust of this article is about the diplomatic relations between the Mongols, and the Franks of Western Europe. So another possible title is "Latin-Mongol relations"? That would help distinguish it from the Byzantines? --Elonka 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How does Crusader broaden the topic? We are talking about relations between the Mongols on the one hand, and the elements which constitute "Crusading" in western Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean on the other. This includes the nobility of Outremer and Cyprus, the Military Orders, and whatever western European leaders happen to be involved in crusading at any given time (primarily Loui IX at the time we're talking about, but also Edward I, and perhaps some others). Referring to this as the "Franks" is appropriate. But Franco-Mongol relations, or whatever, can easily be interpreted as being about relations between France and the Mongols, which is not the subject of the article. Most people don't know that the Crusaders are called "Franks." "Latins" would be okay as well, but I don't understand how "Crusader" broadens the topic. john k (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the title for the article has already been discussed extensively, and has already been the object of a consensus in favour of "Franco-Mongol alliance": see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move. Basically, "Franco-Mongol alliance" is the way these events are called in the historical litterature: a sampling here. PHG (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC

John: You are probably better qualified to define the term than I, but my impression was that "Crusader" was a term that could apply to multiple cultures, not just Western Europeans. However, I'll freely agree that it usually means Western Europeans, so I'm not totally against the title.

Although as a common noun "crusader" can be used in a variety of contexts, as a proper noun, Crusader can only refer, so far as I'm aware, to actual Christian crusaders from the Middle Ages. Am I missing something here? john k (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, the subject was discussed back in September. Consensus can change, and it is reasonable to re-examine the issue from time to time, especially when there are new voices. We only had five participants in the previous discussion, two of whom have not been actively engaged in quite awhile. It would be nice to get input from more people to ensure that the article title reflects actual consensus. If the consensus is still to keep the article title at "Franco-Mongol alliance", then fine, it'll stay. If the consensus has changed, then the article should be moved. --Elonka 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be about the relationship between the West and the Mongols with an emphasis on the overall Crusading movement's dealings with the Mongols. Something along the lines of Mongol-Catholic relations during the Crusading period would be more appropriate than the current title. It's not like there was "a West" or, after the break-up of the Mongol Empire, "a Mongol state" that could actually form something as technical as an alliance. You've got the Pope, with his relations with the Great Khan and then lesser Khans for lots of different reasons, curiosity, conversion, crusading, etc; then you've got the actual crusader states dealing with the Mongol Khanates and armies on a practical basis; then you've got the the three great kings of the west dealing with them for whatever reason. Keeping most of the current content, I'd suggest the article could be renamed Crusader states and the Mongols (which is what the article is mostly about), with all the more general stuff going into Mongols and the West or something like that. Catholic-Mongol alliance is a small article about theory and historical debate, not this one. This is a very impressive looking article btw! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Deacon of Pndapetzim for your appreciation of the article! Best regards PHG (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's helpful, I've compiled a list of several dozen quotes from various books, to see how they are referring to the issue: User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Quotes. The top two "in text" descriptions seem to be "alliance" (as in "absence of the hoped-for Mongol alliance"), and "relations". But for an actual title, the patterns are different. "Mongols and the West" is used a couple places, plus "Western Europe and the Mongol Empire". I'd personally be happy with many of the above suggestions as well. I also like the "Relations" variants since that seems to be more of a Misplaced Pages standard (see Category:Foreign relations by country, though that's obviously more for modern countries). Let's definitely keep talking and see if we can find a consensus.  :) --Elonka 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the title for the article has already been discussed extensively, and has already been the object of a consensus in favour of "Franco-Mongol alliance": see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move. Basically, "Franco-Mongol alliance" is the way these events are called in the historical litterature: a sampling here. PHG (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, that's just a copy/paste of what you already said 20 hours ago, at 10:58 on 15 January. Can you please not keep repeating the same thing? --Elonka 00:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So our current options for article title are:

• 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
• Crusader states and the Mongols

In order to try and winnow the list down, perhaps everyone could pick their 2 or 3 favorites, and then we could go from there? My own favorites are "Franco-Mongol relations" and "Crusader-Mongol relations", though I could go with others as well. The main thing I want, is to ensure that we have a consensus decision on it. So, if you like some of the above, or would like to suggest others, please feel free.  :) --Elonka 06:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance in historical litterature

For those who are new to this discussion, please see hereafter a sampling of how the expression "Franco-Mongol alliance" is used in historical litterature, and how the notion of the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols is developed. In summary, "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a highly recognized academic expression to describe these (admitedly little-known...) events. As far as I know, "Franks" is considered as the most exact term to designate Western European Crusaders dealing with the Middle-East, as this was the general name given to them by the Muslims. Other designations are too vague (Crusaders, Christians, Catholics) for this specific subject. Preference should clearly go to the recognized academic nomenclature for article title. PHG (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• René Grousset mentions especially "Louis IX and the Franco-Mongol alliance" (p521), "Only Edward I understood the value of the Mongol alliance" (p.653) "Edward I and the Mongol alliance" (p.653), "Edward I renewed the precious Mongol Alliance" (in "L'épopée des Croisades", p.301), "The Franco-Mongol coalition, of which the Hospitallers were giving the example" (p.686)
• Jean Richard in Histoire des Croisades, has the Franco-Mongol alliance start in earnest in the 1260s ("The sustained attacks of Baibars (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453.) and continue on-and-off until it was strongly revived by Ghazan, to continue to have an influence until 1322 ("In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468). He concludes on the many missed opportunities the alliance offered: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", 1996, Jean Richard, p.469
• Reuven Amitai-Preiss in Mongols and Mamluks writes that "Under Bohemond VI, the northern Franks maintained their unequivocal pro-Mongol alliance after 'Ayn Jālūt" (p.54). She also writes about the "Mongol-Frankish rapprochement" (Mamluk perceptions of the Mongol-Frankish rapprochement, MHR 7 (1992), p.50-65)
• Dr. Martin Sicker, in The Islamic World Ascendancy (p.113): "Ket-Buqa and Bohemond VI fully appreciated the mutual advantages of the Frank-Mongol alliance". He also mentions an end to the Franco-Mongol alliance after the events of Sidon: "Suitably provoked, the Mongols responded by pillaging Sidon, thereby bringing an effective end to the Frank-Mongol alliance." (p.113)
• Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", although he specifies that in the end it led nowhere,("The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" p.816) and turned out to be a "false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom." (pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, with Louis IX's early attempts at capturing "the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories, and Edward's largely unsuccessful attempts.
• Bernard de Vaulx in History of the Missions (p. 53) writes about the "Franco- Mongol alliance".
• Peter W. Edbury in The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374 (p. 92) mentions the "Franco-Mongol alliance", and gives as an example that the Mongol staged an attack to coincide with the Frank offensive during the Crusade of Edward I.
• Jean-Paul Roux, in Histoire de l'Empire Mongol ISBN 2213031649, has a chapter on the "Frank alliance" with the Mongols. He describes the continuation of this alliance until the time of Oljeitu: "The Occident was reassured that the Mongol alliance had not ceased with the conversion of the Khans to Islam. However, this alliance could not have ceased. The Mamelouks, through their repeated military actions, were becoming a strong enough danger to force Iran to maintain relations with Europe.", p.437
• Claude Mutafian in Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie describes "the Mongol alliance" entered into by the king of Armenia and the Franks of Antioch ("the King of Armenia decided to engage into the Mongol alliance, an intelligence that the Latin barons lacked, except for Antioch"), and "the Franco-Mongol collaboration" (Mutafian, p.55)
• Zoe Oldenbourg in The Crusades mentions the 1280 "Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun". (Oldenbourg, "The Crusades", p.620)
• Alain Demurger, in the 2002 Jacques de Molay biography The Last Templar, refers to it as the "Mongol alliance", which came to fruition through such events as the 1300 combined offensives between the Templars and the Mongols.(Demurger, p.147 "This expedition sealed by a concrete act the Mongol alliance"), "The strategy of the Mongol alliance in action(Demurger p.145) "De Molay led the fight for the reconquest of Jerusalem by relying on an alliance with the Mongols", back cover)
• Jonathan Riley-Smith mentions in his Atlas of the Crusades that in 1285 the Hospitallers of the north agreed to ally to the Mongols.("En 1285, Qalawun, nouveau sultan mamelouk, reprend l'offensive, qu'il dirige contre les Hospitaliers du nord, qui s'etaient montres prets a s'allier aux Mongols", Jonathan Riley-Smith, "Atlas des Croisades", p.114) He also describes Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols: "Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli became their ally", in History of the Crusades, p.136
• Laurent Dailliez, in Les Templiers, mentions that the Knights Templar allied with the Mongols, and that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with them against the Muslim "their common enemy".("The Mongols, after taking Damascus and several important cities from the Turks, after having been routed by the Sultan of Egypt at Tiberiade in 1260, allied themselves with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the king of England said that he had to sign such a treaty to fight against the Muslims, "our common enemy"" Dailliez, p.306-307)
• Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West entitles a whole chapter "An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and describes all the viscicitudes and the actual limited results of the Mongol alliance.
• Claude Lebedel in Les Croisades describes the alliance of the Franks of Antioch and Tripoli with the Mongols: (in 1260) "the Frank barons refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the Armenians and the Prince of Antioch and Tripoli".
• Amin Maalouf in The Crusades through Arab eyes is extensive and specific on the alliance (page numbers refer to the French edition): “The Armenians, in the person of their king Hetoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond, his son-in-law. The Franks of Acre however adopted a position of neutrality favourable to the muslims” (p.261), “Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols” (p.265), “Hulagu (…) still had enough strength to prevent the punishment of his allies ” (p.267), “..the Hospitallers. These monk-horsemen allied with the Mongols, going as far as fighting at their side in a new attempt at invasion in 1281."
• Sylvia Schein in Gesta Dei per Mongolos describes the Templars, Hospitallers and crusaders of Cyprus as allies of the Mongols in the campaings of 1300-1302: "They (the Templars, Hospitallers and crusaders of Cyprus) sailed to the island of Ruad, and, from that base, captured Tortosa, but retired a few days later when their allies (the Mongols) did not appear.", p.811
• Patrick Huchet in Les Templiers, une fabuleuse epopee relates that "Jacques de Molay, elected Master in 1292, associated himself with the Mongols to set up military operations on the island of Ruad (near Tortose)."
• E. L. Skip Knox, Boise State University, in The Fall of Outremer online: "Some of the Crusader States wanted to form an alliance with the Mongols, while others weren't so sure. The allure of destroying Egypt was great, but the Mongols were pretty scary allies. In the end, Armenia and Antioch joined, along with the Templars and Hospitallers." also here: "A double army marched down from the north and east, crossing the Euphrates in 1281. Qalavun marched north and they met near Homs on 30 October. Once again, Christians fought alongside the Mongols (the Hospitallers and the Armenians this time)".
• Reuven Amitai-Preiss writes about the "Mongol-Frankish rapprochement" (Mamluk perceptions of the Mongol-Frankish rapprochement, MHR 7 (1992), p.50-65)
• Emmanuel Berl in Histoire de l'Europe (p. 219) writes about the "Franco-Mongol rapprochement".
• Encyclopedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature.., p.100: "The fact that the Mongols were in ostensible alliance with Christians princes led to a renewal by the sultan of the ordinances against Jews and Christians."

PHG, isn't the above just another copy/paste of what you've already got at User:PHG/Alliance? You've already copy/pasted this to multiple talkpages, please, in the future, just give the link rather than repeatedly pushing this onto talkpages? --Elonka 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be new to the discussion but I have read every tedious word. I am concerned that many of the sources adduced to provide evidence for an alliance have been misrepresented. Yes, they use the word, but close reading will reveal that the author believes no alliance was ever effected. Yes, there was much coming and going of envoys. Yes, letters were exchanged. Yes, there were a couple of failed attempts to coordinate. Yes, an alliance was the aspiration of both the Ilkhans and parties in the West. But it did not happen.

A good summary of the current scholarly opinion on this subject is Reuven Amatai-Preiss’ book Mongols and Mamluks: the Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281 (Cambridge University Press, 1995). In the fourth chapter, in a section entitled “The Īlkhāns and the Franks” (pp. 94-105), Amatai-Preiss discusses all this coming, going, and letter writing, ill-starred coordinating and aspiring. He does not use the word alliance. And lest someone suggest that the book is limited in its scope, extending only to 1281, allow me to quote from the concluding paragraph:

…the fact is that through his reign Abagha sent at least four embassies to the West. Each visited more than one court, including that of the Pope, and carried a letter calling for a joint anti-Muslim campaign. This phenomenon, perhaps more than any other, indicates the importance which Abagha attributed to the war with the Mamluks, and the extent to which he wanted to extend his sway into Syria and perhaps beyond. Most of his successors shared these goals, and in order to realize them they attempted, like him, to interest the Christian West in a common venture. They were all equally unsuccessful in achieving this goal. (p. 105; link and emphasis my own.)

Rather than citing every use of the word “alliance” in the relevant literature, editors ought to take into account what the relevant literature actually says. See Elonka’s page on the opinions of various scholars in the field. I find it much more compelling than the references provided above.

I believe that per Amatai-Priess and PHG’s suggestion “Franco-Mongol” is right. The new title ought to be either Franco-Mongol diplomacy or Franco-Mongol relations. I prefer the former but am flexible on this point. Episcopus and Elonka ought to perform a major “coproëctomy.” I would rather go back to the Sultans of Rum. Too many good editors —and I include PHG among them—have wasted too much time here. Aramgar (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why people are tearing themselves to bits here. Leave the article's name as it is. A Franco-Mongol alliance, whilst it may have never been felt in force in the Middle East, did occur to a small extent. The Mongols and the Franks were unable to cooperate due to many reasons. That sounds like an alliance that was never used when needed most. A Franco-Mongol alliance ofcourse, had nothing to do with Byzantium, although it must be said that the Mongols of the Ilkhanate Persian regime and the Byzantine Empire did attempt to ally to stop the Ottomans, but this failed as well to achieve success. There were alliances between the Franks and the Mongols. Its just that it was not enough to beat the Mamelukes - simple as that, and the article explains this, so who cares, just leave the name as it is. Tourskin (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Article split

I started splitting the article into periods, which actually correspond to the reigns of the various Il-Khan rulers. That's going to take some more fine tuning, but the article size is already down to 140k (and it is only 80k without the copious references).PHG (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that splitting Franco-Mongol alliance into three or four separate articles which perpetuate a selective and idiosyncratic reading of the secondary literature is what the other editors had in mind. So now we have a Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265), a Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282), and a Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304). Perhaps there should be some central list of all the articles that have been affected by the primary editor’s Franco-Mongol enthusiasms. In time these will all have to be moderated. Aramgar (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As always, moderation, with due references and presentation of the various significant views as per Misplaced Pages:NPOV, is welcome. Regards PHG (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am with Aramgar that splitting the article into multiple "Franco-Mongol alliance" by date sections is not appropriate. PHG, surely you should have realized that such a change is highly provocative and disruptive, and should have been discussed first? All other discussions about splits were about moving information to existing articles, not making new ones. When you've created POV forks in the past, they have been deleted, and it seems that you're just trying to find new titles to push this POV. Your point of view is that there was an alliance between the Mongols and the Franks, and everything that you're writing is pushing this bias. You state "alliance" as the primary view, and you state "maybe there wasn't an alliance" as a minority view. But this is backwards to modern scholarship, and is giving undue weight to opinions of modern historians. In actuality, the vast consensus of modern historians is there was not an alliance, though there are a couple isolated incidents of historians (Jean Richard, Alain Demurger) who argue that an alliance technically existed. But even Demurger and Richard don't agree with each other as to the scope of it. PHG, your edits are in violation of WP:UNDUE. Please stop what you're doing, and work with other editors, instead of against them. --Elonka 17:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont have any comments on the nuetrality and other disputes (including titles of the splits) right now but I feel that dividing the article by age/era is the most suitable way because all the headings in the article are arranged after all in chronological way. Seems to makes sense to me to divide the article into the various time periods it covers. If the alliance word is not found to be suitable under consensus, then all the titles of the various splits will later have to be changed which shouldnt be a problem. --Matt57 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Matt. Let me remind that a formal consensus was already established in favour of the "Franco-Mongol alliance" title: see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move. There is therefore nothing more legitimate than to split the article according to this same nomenclature. PHG (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304) implies even more strongly than Franco-Mongol Alliance that there was an explicit treaty alliance between Franks and Mongols. john k (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article at all is a bad idea. We don't need to spread this around to a whole series of articles; more than anything, this one just needs to have a crapectomy. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I believe that until the apparent contoversy over the main article has been settled, it is unwise to split it into separate smaller article. It seems to be an attempt to confuse the issue by implying a resolution that does not currently exist. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

After all the requests to split the article, it is a little disheartening to see that now some editors are not so much into splitting after all... Basically, I have taken great care to give the most complete account possible on the various contacts and collaboration between the Mongols and the Franks. I spent 4 months and went through about 40 books to get all the pieces together. We now have a highly documented article, probably one of the best reference anywhere on the Franco-Mongol alliance. Everything is referenced, so I am quite reluctant to delete any of the available information. As the article is a roughly 200k, the only way is to split, and probably do so along chronological/regnal lines. This also gives us the opportunity to condense the main article in summary style, as I think everybody desires, myself included. I suggest we spend the next few weeks condensing the main article, but I will also expand slightly the sub-articles in the meantime, as I have a few more elements coming up (from Reuven-Amitai mainly). It is the very beauty of Misplaced Pages that we can indeed go into a lot of detail even for very arcane and obscure subjects: this is what is making it a reference worldwide. Best regards. PHG (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is just that I think that consensus should be reached and the controversy resolved before the article is split into subpages. The issues are easier to keep track of if they are all on a single page, no matter how long that page may be. Having subpages that propagate such different viewpoints makes Misplaced Pages look bad. PHG, you’ve unquestionably done a lot of work here, but I think it should remain in the main article for the time being. Regards, Kafka Liz (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kafka Liz. It's really no big deal to keep track of one article and 4 subpages, especially when content size justifies it. Best regards. PHG (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks PHG, it does look like people leaned towards retaining that title though it would be nice to have gotten input from more people on that poll. I will agree with John K though. Also, its looking like even though there's many historians that have confirmed the existence of the alliance, there's many that have talked in unsure terms about it. Sorry, I havent been following up this debate and dont mean to ask you to repeat the arguments, but in short terms what do you think of these alternate opinions Elonka archived here on her user space? From this it looks like, historians have differed on how they recorded this incident and were at times, unsure of the whole thing while others have been sure of it, like you have presented. What do you think?

I want to ask people here though: for the view that the alliance didnt happen, how does this affect the rest of the article? I have not read the article and i may be wrong but it looks like to me on first glance that the rest of the article doesnt have any meaning if the alliance didnt happen. Is that right? --Matt57 18:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Very simply, all these contacts and military cooperation between the Franks and the Mongols are amply proven to have happened. Now, some famous scholars just say this was a Franco-Mongol alliance, some say there was a Franco-Mongol alliance but the results were few, some say there was no alliance, and some say it was more of an entente etc... For a summary of modern views, please check Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations). Now it supposed to be easy to deal with on Misplaced Pages: according to Misplaced Pages:NPOV, all significant opinions should be presented (it's even said to be "non negotiable rule"), which is what we're trying to do here. Best regards. PHG (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, thanks. 1) First, regardless of whether the alliance existed or not, I also think the title "Franco-Mongol alliance" implies that the alliance existed. Do you agree on that? (although likewise, we have Flying Spaghetti Monster which does not exist). I would say though the title of this historical topic would suggest that this alliance existed. My opinion is that if historical topics are titled like this, it usually means the title is something that is a historical fact. 2) I'm seeing the article link you gave. There are many people who are denying the alliance, e.g. "The attempts of the crusaders to create an alliance with the Mongols failed", "the failure of the attempt at an alliance", "attempts were made" (the author would not say it like this if he meant, the alliance existed)- etc. What is your opinion of the writings of these reliable authors? Are you saying they got it wrong? The sources which say it existed, are also strong. I'm not decided about whether it happened or not. One group of these people is obviously wrong, either it happened or it didnt or maybe it happened halfway (i.e, they tried to make an alliance, achieved something but not much). I would like to ask: Out of these 3 options, which one has received the more authorship in terms of volume and quality of reliability? Is there a way to determine that? If we have 8 sources that said it did happen and they wrote a lot about how it happened and what happened during it, and only 3 say it didnt happen and say nothing about how or why it didnt happen, then the 8 would win. This is one way of determining who got it right. Again, I have about no knowledge of the subject so I'm looking at it from a generic point of view. 3) I should ask this question after I get your answer about #2, however I'll just ask it now: How would it effect the topic if it was renamed to what Elonka suggested, Franco-Mongol relations? This does not mean that the alliance didnt exist, although yes if it did, the word alliance looks and fits better than "relations". --Matt57 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam (and others) I have a rewritten and much-condensed version of the article at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. How does this look to folks? If everyone likes it, we could:

• Use the text from my subpage to completely rewrite the text in the main article at Franco-Mongol alliance
• Delete/redirect the other various "split" articles that have accumulated, including:
  • Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265)
  • Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282)
  • Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304)
  • Template:Franco-Mongol alliance
  • Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations)
  • (possibly) Armeno-Mongol alliance
  • (possibly) Byzantine-Mongol alliance
  • (possibly) Mulay
  • (possibly) Kutlushah

Then, we could continue discussing things in a more focused fashion, since we'd only have the one article, Franco-Mongol alliance, to worry about, and it would be a much shorter and condensed version that would be easier to discuss. We could then move on from there, to determine if more information needed to be added or removed, and also continue our discussions on whether or not it needed to have a title change.

How does that sound? --Elonka 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would much prefer a single, consolidated article to the Hydra-esque confusion this article has become. I'm not sure I feel comfortable commenting on the content at this point, in part because I haven't had the chance to read through all of the material yet. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That is like saying "I would much rather prefer a single consolidated article on Islam" (which would have all the information summarized in it rather than every subject having their own article). There's a lot of sourced content which PHG has worked hard to bring in. It wouldnt make sense at all to shrink the amount of knowledge the article has. Usually, the more the better. --Matt57 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Matt57, it is a completely different case because most modern historians -- nay, even the President of the United States -- agree that Islam exists. The problem with PHG's sourced material is that he has read it selectively with less-than-scrupulous regard for the authors' intent. More is not better when more is a fringe theory. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of whether there are fringe theories existing in the article, it is not reasonable to write one's own version of an article and want to replace it with the main article, especially if it is half in size. The correct way to deal with any fringe theories or other disputes is to deal with them directly on the article itself. If anything, such a replacement should be done with consensus and yes Elonka is trying to do that by asking us all but you can see that I would be opposed to such a replacement and I'm guessing some other people would oppose this too, so consensus is not likely to form in favour of such a replacement. There would be people who would oppose it and some who would not and I'm guessing, more people would oppose it. Although from the edits, 85% or so of the article is written by PHG so we could say that this means that both pieces have equal weight since one is an Elonka version and the other is (mostly) a PHG version. Even in that case, I would still say replacing one article with the other is not the right way. Thats not what happens on this website. People raise every issue with the article and resolve it on the talk page with the author(s), thats what everyone else does. No one here writes up their own version and replaces it with the main article (unless the main article was something like a CopyVio or total OR written by someone who refuses to discuss it - in which case no one would object to the replacement). In short a replacement like this is not possible. --Matt57 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So in summary, if there are any claims of un-scrupulous-ness, these should be brought out on the talk page and discussed individually. Writing up our own version of an article which according to us is now 'scrupulous', and then replacing it with the main version, thats not right. I could claim this for any Islam related article and I'll tell you, my trying to replace any Islam related article with my own claimed 'scrupulous' version wont be accepted by anyone. --Matt57 01:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt57, I'm not trying to pick nits with you, but I have not yet committed to the proposed rewrite as I have not yet read it. I would, however, like there to be a single version of this page, rather than numerous subpages, until the whole mess is more straightened out. This, as you can see, is what I wrote to PHG above. You seem to be putting words in my mouth. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misread you when you said "single, consolidated article". You didnt mean to say you wanted the article shortned then, only keep it in one place? If so, I apologize. --Matt57 02:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to you earlier. Yes, what I meant was that I would like to see it all in one place. I still don't feel I give an opinion at this point as to whether or how it should be shortened, although, speaking generally, I think most articles benefit from streamlining -- removal of repetitive material, sources that pertain only tangentally an article, etc. Please bear in mind that my last statement is just a generalization; I'm not referring specifically to this article (I was thinking more of stuff like this as an extreme example). Kafka Liz (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, the piece you wrote at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance is only your own according to the edit history, am I correct? I dont think a proposal to simply replace the current version of the article with the one you have written is right. Thats like me going into Islamophobia, writing up my own completely different version in my article space and then asking eveyrone to replace the one we have with mine. No one would accept that if I tried to do that. The correct way is for me to go in and contest everything that should be changed, or change the main article. I dont know much about your version and I havent read it, but your version is only 70KB, as compared to the current 190K (before the splits). Doesnt that mean you have removed sourced content, or did you summarize? In any case I think more detail is better than less (and splits would thus make sense). Dont worry about the various splits and titles. All those will be changed or left unchanged, according to any consensus. The important issue right now is to decide what the title should be. Once we decide that, we can change (or according to consensus, leave unchanged) the titles of the split articles easily. I'm not currently decided about the title yet. I'll try to read up more and think about how this can be resolved. For the title I think we are going to have to get more community input on this, specially from any other subject knowledge experts. --Matt57 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the option of providing an optional rewritten version is quite commonly used in disputes. I've used this technique multiple times at other articles, usually successfully. And you are correct, the edit history just shows my name, but that's just because I copy/pasted the version of the article at that time into my userspace, and then worked from there. In no way am I trying to claim credit for PHG's work, as I freely acknowledge that he has been the majority contributor to this article, and has easily written over half of the text. In fact, I agree with much of what PHG has written. However, I also think that there's too much of what PHG has written, and further, that the article currently reflects too much of PHG's own bias, especially as regards the two issues of "Was there an alliance" and "Did the Mongols conquer Jerusalem". PHG appears to believe that the answer to both of those questions is "Yes." Most modern scholars disagree. But in any case, by copy/pasting my rewrite into the article, it would not in any way erase any of PHG's previous edit history. We'd just have a really big diff, showing a major condensing of the article, and then discussions would continue. --Elonka 07:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Tourskin's comments on Elonka's talk page here are interesting and seem reasonable. Again, I'm still undecided about whether the alliance existed or not. --Matt57 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Appart from the fact that Elonka seems to be inviting friendly users to participate to this discussion (isn't this canvassing, or is it OK if I do the same?), I agree that Tourskin's opinion on Elonka's Talk Page seems highly worthwhile and relevant:

"Thanks for the little invite into the discussion. My opinion has been stated on the relevant talk page, but in short:

• Christians of Armenia (who were influenced by the West) participated in battle with the Mongols
• Friendly relations between Mongols and Franks were established but never capitalized upon.
• Therefore the alliance existed, but it was a rather defunct alliance and/or lacked results. Tourskin (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What is an alliance? Declaration of cooperation? Actual cooperation? Recognition of mutual goals? The Franks and the Mongols had something going on thats for sure (not necessarily the last three mentioned things). Some such as myself will call it an alliance, but only for the sake of simplicity because there was more good feeling than aminosity. Others will not. Sorry, but I had to defend my point. Tourskin (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I personnally agree that there was an effective alliance, as examples of epistolary agreements and effective cooperation abound (under Bohemond VI, during the Crusade of Edward I, with the Hospitallers, under Ghazan), BUT:
- that many unsuccesfull attempts were made until actual and limited military cooperation occured.
- that it ended with little results... and overall ended in defeat (but, hey, not all alliances end in victory, do they?).
- that it was meant to be much bigger but was hampered by communication/ logistical problems.
- that it is unknown if the intentions of the Mongols were honest (it may have been a tactical alliance, until the Christians would have been conquered by the Mongols ultimately.)

But that's not even the point. The point is that "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a standard expression used by historians to describe these events, even if the alliance was imperfect, or even tentative. It is more of a convention to call it so, and it is OK to put all the disclaimers we want about its actual extent. A title such "Franco-Mongol relations" is not bad, and such an article could also exist, but it would have to include much more material, beyond the alliance stuff (Mutual perceptions, cultural exchanges, plenty of religious interractions, the actual neutrality/opposition of some of the Franks (Acre) against the Mongols, the in-depth commercial relations of the Venetians and Genoese with the Mongols), of which the Franco-Mongol alliance (diplomacy + military cooperation) is only a small part. By the way, I am interested in creating such an article in the near future. Regards PHG (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to offer this compromise, but would "Franco-Mongol diplomatic relations" work as a title? "Alliance" carries the connotations of something more formal than just friendly relations and mutual goals. That would be what most non-specialists think of when they hear alliance. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The fact is that actual military cooperation occured repeatedly, so it goes much beyond just diplomatic relations. For example, in response to Edward I's embassy and request for help, Abaga responded ""After talking over the matter, we have on our account resolved to send to your aid Cemakar (Samaghar) at the head of a mighty force" and did send an army to support the English ruler (Franco-Mongol alliance#Cooperation during the Ninth Crusade (1269-1274). The "alliance" was actually repeatedly consummated through actual military actions on the field. Regards PHG (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Poll for renaming the article

Just to see if there's any rough consensus for the rename which is a big issue right now, I'm just listing here some people who have supported or opposed the renaming of this article. Yes I know there had been a poll before here but it had only 3 other people besides Elonka and PHG participate so lets see if we can get more people in. If you list yourself in this list, please also provide a short reason (this is not a simple yay/nay poll). If I've listed anyone wrongly, please fix it:

Keep the current title (Franco-Mongol alliance)

• PHG (main disputing party)
• Tourskin: "Leave the article's name as it is." ... (detail)
• Srnec: "however I am opposed to renaming the article" ... (detail)
• Adam Bishop: "I know I suggested some of the other titles, but if this one has been used in the literature, then we are kind of obliged to go along with it." detail

Rename to Franco-Mongol diplomatic relations or similar

• Elonka: (main disputing party)
• Ealdgyth: "would "Franco-Mongol diplomatic relations" work as a title"?
• Aramgar: "The new title ought to be either Franco-Mongol diplomacy or Franco-Mongol relations. I prefer the former" - detail
• john k: "Either of those is preferable to the current title." detail
• Deacon of Pndapetzim: "Something along the lines of Mongol-Catholic relations during the Crusading period would be more appropriate than the current title." - detail

Undecided currently:

• Matt57

Please add your opinion here if its not listed. --Matt57 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil, especially when it is already clear consensus is unlikely. Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I've asked for a reason besides signing up. RfA's, AfD's are all "votes" or polls or consensus, whatever you want to call it. RfA's are actually worse, people come and sign up as Support/Oppose, frequently without giving a reason. That process is accepted here but this 'poll' is better since I'm asking people to provide a reason. This discourages the simple nay/yay the policy page you link to mentions. You're right though, there isnt appearing any consensus on this issue as of right now. --Matt57 19:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that a straw poll at some point may be a good idea, but I don't think that we're at that point yet. Right now, a poll may have the unfortunate side effect of making it look like opinions are polarized, when I don't think that's the case. Also, the current structure of this one is making it look like people have weighed in, in a "poll" format, when these are just comments in a discussion. And lastly, some of the comments above are many months old, and not necessarily still valid. If we do want to go with a poll format, it might be better to list various alternatives, and then ask everyone to weigh in on which ones that they would support. --Elonka 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just going through past discussions and bringing in all the opinions together to see what people have said. The main point is that currently it seems there is no consensus for doing anything about the title and this is what I wanted to find out. As for people's comments being outdated, I doubt they've changed their opinions. Some have not come back for the discussion here. If there are any old opinions, we could contact those people and reconfirm their opinion. Do you feel there is a consensus for the title change? --Matt57 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, reading just the introduction of this vote I got a bit worried it migh be overinterpreted. If the only conclusion is that there is no consensus, that is fine with me. Quantifying qualitative arguments tends to create the perception of precision and 'truth'. That is why I am very hesitant about polls. Arnoutf (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've clarified it slightly to discourage plain voters. They should give some argument for their reasons. --Matt57 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion given in the original move request (and restated above by Matt57) that the current title is fine whatever you think of the "alliance". Even if it never existed, the article discusses attempts towards achieving it. And the phrase "Franco-Mongol alliance" appears in the literature sparingly; does "Franco-Mongol diplomatic relations"? The title is a side issue, the real dispute, in my opinion, is what consistutes a reliable source and who decides. Srnec (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongol alliances in the Middle-East

Template:Mongol alliances I just created the “last piece” in the puzzle of the geopolitics of the Middle East under the Mongols: the alliance between the Mamluks and the Mongols of the Golden Horde (Mamluk-Mongol alliance). This alliance actually worked as a counter-balance to the Franco-Mongol and to the Armeno-Mongol alliances. The Byzantine Empire had a more ambivalent posture and actually allied alternatively, and sometimes with both, the Il-Khanate and the Golden Horde. I also created a template that will permit navigation between these various political and military alliances. I guess this might again irk a few, but frankly this interweaving pattern of alliances, between the Ilkhanate and the Golden Horde on the one hand, and the Franks, the Mamluks and the Byzantine Empire on the other, is perfectly presented throughout historical literature. Best regards.PHG (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, this is getting ridiculous. This is obviously just another attempt on your part to push this POV of "there was an alliance." Multiple editors now have been speaking up against your actions, and yet you keep escalating. The template needs to be either deleted, or rewritten for neutrality. Please stop this disruptive behavior. --Elonka 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Perfectly presented throughout historical literature"? Would such a perfect presentation of academic consensus have generated the reams of archives on this page? I see one editor pushing a suspect POV, and several other informed editors with serious concerns. This seems to me just another Hydra's head. Please, let us resolve disputes here prior to any grand expansion. Aramgar (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This template illustrates the various alliances at play in the Middle East during the Mongol Empire in the 13th-14th century. These alliances were also highly connected. The Mamluk-Mongol alliance worked as a counter-balance to the Franco-Mongol and to the Armeno-Mongol alliances. See historian Ryley-Smith for example: "When the Golden Horde allied with the Mamluks, the Ilkhanate looked towards an alliance with the Christians" (Atlas of the Crusades, Jonathan Riley-Smith, p.112, French edition), with is the exact illustration of this template. Regards. PHG (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Template:Mongol alliances

Template:Mongol alliances has been nominated for deletion. All interested parties are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Elonka 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

More data points

More Mongol quotations for you:

From Barber, Malcolm (1992). The two cities: medieval Europe, 1050-1320. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09682-0.

p. 135 in the context of Louis IX's crusade at Damietta, and after the payment of his ransom ... "During the withdrawl the king was captured and only released on payment of a ransom of 800,000 besants and the cession of Damietta. Despite this disaster the king stayed in Outremer for another four years, rebuilding his defences and making contact with the Mongols, with whom the possibility of an alliance was being canvassed."

p. 507 "Although in the east Kubilai remained amenable to visits by westerners, including the Polos and the mendicants , any slim hope that a Mongol-Christian alliance could revive the sinking fortunes of the Crusader States had largely vanished by the 1260's, despite sporadic attempts at reviving it."

You may also wish to look at Payne, Robert (2000). The dream and the tomb: a history of the Crusades. New York: Cooper Square Press. ISBN 0-8154-1086-7., especially the last chapter, where he states that (page 390) in 1300 "Ghazan, before leaving Damascus, sent ambassadors to the pope and the sovereigns of Europe, urging them to pour men, money and armaments into Palestine, which was his gift to them. He wanted an alliance between the Mongols and the countries of Europe against the Mamelukes, and he was prepared to back up the alliance with his vast army." and later "The pope told the Mongol ambassadors that the time was not ripe for another Crusade, and the soverigns of Europe said the same." It should be noted that this is a popular history, and is not footnoted very well.

Lastly, about King Edward I of England. From Prestwich, Michael (1997). Edward I. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07157-4., which is the most modern scholarly biography of Edward.

p. 75, dealing with Edward's crusade in 1271, "Edward spent frustrating weeks in Acre before moving against the enemy. His men and horses had to be prepared, and diplomatic arrangements had to be made. An English embassy was sent to the Mongol II-Khan Abagha, to try to organize concerted action against the redoubtable Baibars." (this is footnoted to Liber de Antiquis Legibus: Cronica maiorum et vicecomitum Londoniarum ed. T. Stapleton Camden Society 1846 p. 143)

p. 78, still dealing with 1271-1272, this after Edward's attempt to take the fortress of Qaqun, while the Mongols advanced on Syria. "He may have hoped that help would be provided by the Mongols, but Baibars soon entered into negotiations with them, and it became clear that they had no intention of launching a major campaign in the Holy Land."

p. 82, an assessment of Edward's crusade "In Palestine, Edward's diplomatic efforts to obtain the co-operation of the Mongols achieved little, and in military terms his troops were too few to achieve much."

p. 331, talking about a proposed crusade after the fall of Acre in 1291, "The prospects for the crusade were undoubtedly diminished in the absence of the hoped-for Mongol alliance." and later on the same page "In that year the West rejoiced at news that a Mongol army under a new Il-Khan, Ghazan, had retaken Jerusalem, which was now thought to be safe for Christianity. The news was, of course, a considerable exaggeration of the facts, for Ghazan's control of the Holy Land only lasted a few months, and he was the first of the Il-Khans to accept the Moslem faith, a piece of information his envoys withheld from the West."

p. 332 same context, "The failure of the Mongol alliance was but one of the many obstacles in the way of Edward's crusade in the early 1290's."

I didn't see these works referenced yet in the discussion. Certainly if we're going to discuss Edward I of England we should look at Prestwich's biography. Barber's is one of the more recent overviews of medieval history, and Payne's book is a popular history of the Crusades, designed to reach the non-historian audience. Comments in brackets are mine to elucidate the context. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, that's very helpful.  :) I've gone ahead and added the information to User:Elonka/Mongol historians. If you see anything that needs changing, or would like to add other authors, please feel free. In fact, anyone who wishes to add other authors is free to do so, though of course I reserve the right to tweak as needed. --Elonka 01:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth. All sources are welcome. PHG (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

I have nominated the various dated subpages of this article for deletion. Those interested are welcome to join the discussion here. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For ease of use, I am listing below all of the currently active deletion discussions, so that anyone who is interested, can easily participate:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mulay
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kutlushah
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Template:Mongol alliances
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265) (also covers Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282) and Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304))
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mongol alliances in the Middle-East‎ (added 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC))

--Elonka 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary :) A few comments though. User:Kafka Liz, who has been creating all these AfDs is totally new to our discussions (to this subject?), and has been invited in by Elonka ( Canvassing?). This seems like some fairly objectionable methodology. Regarding the issues at hand:

• Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations) is a content collaboratively created between Elonka and myself to keep track of the modern sources on the subject. It was simply created as a split to reduce the size of the main article.
• Mulay and Kutlushah are Biographical articles on well-known Mongol generals. There is no resean whatsover to delete these articles, as already stated by several editors who are highly knowledgeable of this subject (Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine).
• Template:Mongol alliances is only an attempt at summarizing the various geopolitical alliances in the Middle East under the Mongols.
• Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265), Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282), Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304). These three articles were created after multiple requests from other users (but mainly Elonka) to split the main article Franco-Mongol alliance. The objective was to reduce the size of the main article, which was about 190k before the split. As the name "Franco-Mongol alliance" for the main page has already been accepted through a formal consensus (see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move), and as the split was specifically requested by other users, accusations of POV fork are quite unfair. PHG (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, can you show me evidence of these multiple reqests for splitting the article? I've seen Elonka mention splitting in some of her remarks, but I haven't noticed anyone else requesting it. I myself would support splitting the article, if warranted, after consensus is reached, but not before, and I suspect that these multiple editors you mention feel the same way. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kafka Liz represents my opinion: splitting the article is necessary, but only after disputes have been settled. Otherwise it is just obstructive of a settlement. Srnec (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with both of the above. Let's get the whole controversy settled before we go splitting the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since PHG has created yet another fork today, I added another AfD to the list (started by KafkaLiz): Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mongol alliances in the Middle-East‎. --Elonka 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a rather arcane subject, but please just look at the sources. This last Mongol alliances in the Middle-East article allows to explain the broad geopolitical structure of the Mongol alliances, and connects the various articles already put in place. It is not a repetition of content, as it rather puts into context the other materials and give many new sources related to the broad context of these alliances. It is perfectly legitimate and sourced. These diplomatic contacts and alliances are highly referenced in academic sources. By the way, I think I am through with creating new articles on this subject (broad picture/ each alliance/ template for navigation), so nobody has to worry about ever-spreading contibutions... and it should save unsubstanciated "POV-fork" accusations :). Regards PHG (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction sentence (part 2)

Elonka has been edit warring to force an introduction sentence to this article which only expressed one point of view ("attempts at an alliance"), claiming an earlier consensus (various comments from Talk Pages discussions over September and October). We then went to mediation, where Elonka specifically gave her agreement to a compromise sentence "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of...." on November 14th. Elonka is not repecting this agreement, which is a moral issue, but also I think an issue per Misplaced Pages. I am asking for the compromise sentence to be reintroduced, as it gives both sides of the story and presents the variety of sources per Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Here is the transcript of the agreement at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive#The mediation is here:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. PHG 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I like that version.  :) --Elonka 07:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Concluded with agreement on the following opening sentence:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.

-- tariqabjotu 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi PHG, as you must have noticed, there are now more interested parties than there were at the time you and Elonka pursued mediation. Both of you are probably going to have to adapt your views to the consensus developing with this wider involvement of editors. Concensus can change and you cannot require editors to agree to part of an unsuccessful mediation they were not party to. Also people in mediation sometimes agree to a compromise on issue X in the hope that the other person will give way on issue Y. Any agreement at mediation is hard to rely out of context - in the end the two of you could not reach agreement - and must now be adapted to take into account the views that have since been expressed. WjBscribe 05:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi WjB. The bottom line is that this is simply a case of Elonka breaking an important agreement reached through a formal mediation process. Especially as this agreement (November 14th) post-dates the earlier Talk Page discussions that she is now claiming as a justification for edit-warring. PHG (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I believe there is a consenseus on the introductory sentence that Elonka has introduced and that PHG keeps reverting. The sentence ought to read as follows: "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." Aramgar (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I find that opening sentence to summarize the secondary literature rather well, as collected by both PHG and Elonka. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. It is true that scholars are divided on the extent of the Franco-Mongol alliance (Although even those who write about "attempts only" still use the "Franco-Mongol alliance" expression anyway (relevant to article title)). Many historians do consider the alliance as fact (User:PHG/Alliance), and many consider it was an alliance that ultimately failed (true), and a few deny there was an alliance at all (obviously untrue). To me, this is just a Misplaced Pages:NPOV issue: we should just outline the differing opinions, and leave it at that. This is why I consider important an introduction sentence such as "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of...", because it allows to present both views. Let me remind that even Elonka has accepted this phrasing in our mediation on November 14th as satisfactory, until she broke the agreement recently. PHG (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My uneducated opinion

I will likely regret getting involved with this, but given this dispute has been running on for I don't know how long, and I've managed to find myself reading it again, I'd throw in my opinion on this. My opinion isn't based on historical knowledge, but an interest in both a neutral point of view and a resolution (however unlikely) to this debate. Without further ado, here's my favored introduction sentence:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.

I would remove the at least since it seems unnecessarily wordy. However, I don't want to propose yet another alternative so I left it in. My reasoning is relatively simple: Elonka had previously accepted that version in mediation, so I'm not sure why it's an issue again. Secondly, the alternative suggested by Elonka seems less neutral than the one agreed upon in arbitration. The current revision seems to imply that there was no formal alliance, which is the basis of the dispute here. But, feel free to take all of this with a grain of salt, I'm one of those "nobodies" that User:Adam Bishop was referring to :). Justin 00:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Justin, the more opinions here, the better.  :) In answer to your concerns, it is true that I accepted PHG's version of the sentence in mediation, back in November 2007. It was my hope that if I would give in on one thing, we could more easily find a compromise on something else. But as it turned out, PHG refused to compromise on anything else, and the mediation was eventually closed as unsuccessful. I thought hard about it for a couple months, and read other discussions on this talkpage, and then decided that the best opening sentence was, and is: "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. This is the version of opening sentence that everyone else on the talkpage (except for PHG) likes, it has consensus, and it is in alignment with the vast majority of modern historians' opinions on the subject. If you would like more information on the disputes here, I recommend reading User:Elonka/Mongol quickref, and if you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to speak up.  :) --Elonka 05:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Justin for your support. Some precisions on Elonka during our mediation: the introduction sentence was agreed on November 14th, and Elonka broke her agreement based on Talk Page discussions that actually far predated the mediation (except for one, by Aramgar).

Regarding the reasons why the Mediation was closed (visible here): it actually ended after Elonka was finally qualified as "far too dogmatic" and not being "fair" by the mediator , and he gave up any hope that the mediation would lead anywhere. The reality is that Elonka has actually been the one unable to compromise all along. PHG (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will just note (without taking sides in the great "Who was worse" in the mediation debate, where I have my opinion, but don't care to share it as it's really unneeded in this debate) in the interest of fair disclosure that the link that PHG gives above isn't to the "end" of the mediation nor the last statement on the matter by the mediator. The mediator did not explictly state that he was giving up because of Elonka's attitude (in fact he declined to state one party that caused the end of the mediation). Ealdgyth | Talk 14:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The mediator's did make the above comments on Elonka's attitude, and the reality is that mediation was ended when Elonka re-started "It's your fault" personal attacks inspite of the mediator's warnings. I only need to clarify the reality of this mediation as Elonka is misrepresenting it (above). PHG (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See, I knew I would have to work at it once I got involved :P. I had to seriously invest some time into reading about this debate and I have a few points. There seems to be no contention that an alliance was attempted, but whether or not it was successful. Per WP:UNDUE, fringe theories should be avoided while majority and signifigant minority opinions should be given due weight. Now that I've read the relevant information, I tend to feel that PHG's version gives undue weight to the idea of an existing alliance. I also think that Elonka's version tends to remove it altogether. I really hate to insert yet another option, but I think something similar to this to be viable:

Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. Although the majority of historians hold the attempts ultimately ended in failure, some have argued that a formal alliance eventually took place.

I know that sounds a bit weasely (and my prose probably sucks) but something to that effect, should resolve the issue. It fixes any issues with WP:UNDUE, by maintaining Elonka's introductory sentence, which appears to be the majority held opinion, while still making note that a minority-held opinion exists. Feel free to utterly ignore me, as again, I'm no historian (armchair or otherwise). :) Justin 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Having just come from cleaning up and polishing a few articles for GA (I hope), if I might suggest we worry about the content of the article, and not the lead section. I've learned as I've edited here, that it's best to leave the lead section until the article is in a polished, semi-stable state. Then, the lead and the introduction write themselves, as you're just sumarizing the content of the article. (This, by the way, also works really well when you write books, write the book, THEN the introduction.) We should, of course, have some sort of plan for the structure of the article, i.e. do we want to go with strictly chronological? Or by the regnal periods? By theme? A mixture of those approaches? Also, what should be covered in the article, and what's unneeded or might be better off split into another article. Personally, I think the sections on the cultural and technological exchanges would work better in a separate article, but that's an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 03:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinion

Elonka seems to be getting no trouble at all for solicitating outside opinion ( ). I will therefore also invite a few editors who are highly knowledgeable of these issues, although I will self-limit myself to 2 invitations for balance. I would appreciate to have some information on Misplaced Pages policy in this respect. Regards PHG (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, I have been following this conflict without comment for some time. I have been hesitant to get involved for a variety of reasons, including the vast drain on my time that involvement would seem to entail. I stepped in at this juncture because the rapidly multiplying number of POV forks you've created suggested to me that the situation was getting out of control. While I appreciate having being invited to the discussion, I want to emphasize that the decision to contribute here is my own and results from what I perceive as your own disruptive behavior. I still don't understand your reluctance to refrain from splitting the page until greater concensus has been reached. Can you explain it to me? Kafka Liz (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kafka Liz. Thanks for your explanations, although I note the sollicitation occured nonethelesss.

• First, the title "Franco-Mongol alliance" has been officially approuved through consensus already (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move), therefore my understanding is that an article with that title (or variations of it, like adding a date) is perfectly legitimate. If a new formal consensus emerges, we'll change at that time.
• Actually, I am totally fine with "refraining from splitting the page until greater concensus has been reached". It was actually my position all along to keep the article together until issues are clarified (for example: "Article size. I believe we first need to settle content disputes before we start slicing the article." here) but Elonka kept demanding an article "reduction/split" (and threatening that she would soon take the matter in her own hands if no action were taken) because the article reached an "unacceptable" 190k ("It is my opinion that the consensus of editors at this talkpage, is that the article needs to be shortened. If someone else wants to do it, that's fine with me, but if not, I will proceed with this in the near future. --Elonka 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)"). I only splitted the article because I was insistently asked to. As soon as I did it though, with a solution which I personnally think is quite nice (as some other editors have said too), I get slammed with "POV fork" accusations, huge criticism for splitting, and a host of AfDs. How fair is that? If the split is judged unnacceptable, I will gladly return to the 190k situation, so that we can discuss from that base. I actually think the split allows to expand specific time periods and develop a summary-type Main Article, but I'm OK either way. Best regards. PHG (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the relevant part of the Jan 14 quote above is "shortened". Shortened does not necessarily imply splitting. From a personal point of view, and this is my opinion on the article as a whole, there are entirely too many extraneous quotations from original sources. For instance, quoting the letter from Güyük Khan to Pope Innocent IV is really not needed, as you've summarized the substance of the letter right in the introduction to the quotation. I could list many many more examples. If I was to rework the article, I would nix all the quotations right from the start. To me, they smack of WP:OR. The idea of Misplaced Pages is that we summarize the secondary literature. In line with what Adam Bishop stated above about it being obvious you are not a historian, the usage of primary sources (as a historian would see them) extensively in the article is a great example of why it is obvious you didn't train as a historian. We should be summarizing the secondary sources, i.e. the modern historians of the subject, not regurgitating isolated snippets from the primary sources. I could see using a primary source quotation (and have) when it has direct bearing on the personality of a biography or describes an dramatic event. They should be used sparingly, not as they are here, where I count 25!!!! And this is after you split the article up, I wonder how many were stuffed in before that. I've hesitated to get involved in this whole dispute, mainly because I have some rather large projects of my own that I wanted to work on, and this period is not an area I have a lot of references on nor was/am I particularly interested in, but you've been spreading your edits into areas I AM interested in, such as Edward I of England, where the section you added does NOT agree with the main biography of Edward (Prestwich) (See above for the relavant quotations from Prestwich) and have added undue weight to the period, not to mention being tacked into a section that was on Edward's crusade. I finally involved myself here mainly because I could see your articles spreading towards my area of interest, and wanted to hopefully influence it to maintain some sense of proportion. Sorry for the ramble, but this article is no where NEAR featured article status and the quotations are only the tip of the iceberg. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In aid of testing that theory, that removing the unneeded quotations would shorten the article considerably, I offer User:Ealdgyth/Mongol testing, which has had all unnecessary quotations taken out. Dropped the article 40K. I'm sure that if I consolidated the references, it'd help some too, and the captions and/or pictures could be usefully pruned without loss to the sense of the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If a subject is contentious or disputed, referencing each argument, and if possible actually quoting authors is probably still the best way to move forward. What else is there? A bunch of opinions from unknown editors without formal credentials? I prefer by far relying heavily on reputable published material, and layout the various academic points of view per Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Regards. PHG (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Academic point of view would be referencing modern works, not direct quotes from the medieval sources. The idea of Misplaced Pages is we write in a summary style, which means we use primary source quotations sparingly. I think you'll find that the consensus of the other editors replying here is that the primary source quotations and the literally hundreds of quotations in the footnotes should be removed. I may be wrong, which is why I did my testing on a sandbox, but I'd be interested to hear other opinions from some of the other editors who've spoken up here. And please, PHG, can we start using edit summaries? It would help a bunch in keeping track of what is going on.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth. I am afraid I have not seen the consensus you are claiming against quoting modern and reputable secondary sources. Quoting reputable secondary sources is actually a good guaranty against mis-interpretations by users and improves the accuracy of an article. Misplaced Pages policy also seems to favour quotes: "Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Misplaced Pages. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight." (Misplaced Pages:Quotations). Regarding primary sources, they are only quoted when also quoted or referenced by modern secondary sources, except maybe for 2 or 3 exceptions in the whole article. Regards. PHG (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I went to Misplaced Pages:Quotations and reread the guideline. As I thought, the quotation that PHG is using above is actually "Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Misplaced Pages, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Misplaced Pages. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information." PHG is quoting from the lead section of the guideline, without taking the qualifiers into account. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you put so much faith in Misplaced Pages policies, rather than people who know what they are doing, have some semblance of credentials, and are trying to help you? Misplaced Pages policies are written by a bunch of nobodies with no credentials, so what makes you pick one random group of nobodies over another? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ealdgyth that quotations should be used sparingly, and that the current version of the article uses too many of them. I'd be hesitant to remove all of them though -- I think that a few, especially well-known quotes of correspondence from one monarch to another, may be appropriate to show the nature and style of the communications going back and forth. But I don't think it's necessary to quote entire passages from medieval historians such as Templar of Tyre. In my own rewrite, at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance, I thinned out the quotations considerably. Since no one else seems to have concerns about my rewrite (except for PHG), I'll go ahead and start implementing sections of it. --Elonka 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot agree with Adam's statement above that Misplaced Pages policies should be disregarded in favour of the opinions of a few editors banding together on a Talk Page. Misplaced Pages policy have primacy whatever happens. If you do not accept Misplaced Pages policy, either do not edit here, or go and try to change the policy itself. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What policy? There isn't even any single policy, it's just a bunch of random rules. What about WP:ENC and WP:NOT? What is the purpose of writing this article at all? You want people to read about the Franco-Mongol alliance and understand it, right? That's impossible right now. But it's equally impossible to fix it thanks to your slavish adherence to supposed "policy". If Misplaced Pages policy allows you to write bad history, then policy must be ignored. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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 16:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class French military history articles
• French military history task force articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Medieval warfare articles
• Medieval warfare task force articles
• B-Class Middle Ages articles
• Low-importance Middle Ages articles
• B-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Unassessed International relations articles
• Unknown-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles