| Revision as of 11:05, 4 September 2007 editMalleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs)145,401 editsm →[]: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:19, 24 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!--FAtop--><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #E6F2FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in ]. No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| The article was '''not promoted''' 02:18, 9 September 2007. | |||
| ---- | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| A little known but fascinating event of the 13th century. ] 08:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | A little known but fascinating event of the 13th century. ] 08:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support''' per nomination ] 05:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Lead section is too short. Many paragraphs have no references. Some sentences are POV (e.g. "In 1253, Louis, following his disastrous Crusade, desperately looked for allies." and "Overall, Edward's crusade was rather insignificant and only gave the city of Acre a reprieve of ten years.") or confusing ("offering the Franks a 10 year truce (which he would later breach), a truce they accepted" and "and furthermore Arghun died on March 10th"). Please try for GAC first. --] 11:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Oppose''' Lead section is too short. Many paragraphs have no references. Some sentences are POV (e.g. "In 1253, Louis, following his disastrous Crusade, desperately looked for allies." and "Overall, Edward's crusade was rather insignificant and only gave the city of Acre a reprieve of ten years.") or confusing ("offering the Franks a 10 year truce (which he would later breach), a truce they accepted" and "and furthermore Arghun died on March 10th"). Please try for GAC first. --] 11:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::*{{done}}, 102 references now, with no paragraphs without reference I believe. POV or confusing sentences corrected and referenced. Thank you. ] 14:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | ::*{{done}}, 102 references now, with no paragraphs without reference I believe. POV or confusing sentences corrected and referenced. Thank you. ] 14:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 6: | Line 15: | ||
| *2 books which appear foreign in nature are used as references for the article. There are no english alternatives? Foreign books make it hard to verify the article and to pursue the topic through further reading. Also ''if'' multitude of english sources are available then using foreign sources can become a comprehensiveness/reliability issue. | *2 books which appear foreign in nature are used as references for the article. There are no english alternatives? Foreign books make it hard to verify the article and to pursue the topic through further reading. Also ''if'' multitude of english sources are available then using foreign sources can become a comprehensiveness/reliability issue. | ||
| ::*The subject matter being primarily French, a few French sources (primary and secondary) are I guess quite acceptable. Of course French is also quite an accessible language for many English speaker wishing to check the material.] 16:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | ::*The subject matter being primarily French, a few French sources (primary and secondary) are I guess quite acceptable. Of course French is also quite an accessible language for many English speaker wishing to check the material.] 16:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::*{{Done}}, thanks to ], several more English-language books with associated references have been added. ] 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Continuing with the first point, an English written quote is references to one of the foreign books; citation 32 is one. Did you translate this quote yourself? I would prefer for academic sources to give translations, this quotations appear to be dated to the 13th century and probably require a linguistics expert to properly translate the quote to another language. | *Continuing with the first point, an English written quote is references to one of the foreign books; citation 32 is one. Did you translate this quote yourself? I would prefer for academic sources to give translations, this quotations appear to be dated to the 13th century and probably require a linguistics expert to properly translate the quote to another language. | ||
| ::*{{done}}. Good point. I am putting in the original French so that the translation can be verified by anyone. The 13th French is actually quite straitforward, making the translation an easy one.] 16:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | ::*{{done}}. Good point. I am putting in the original French so that the translation can be verified by anyone. The 13th French is actually quite straitforward, making the translation an easy one.] 16:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 19: | Line 29: | ||
| **The MOS issue with autoformatting dates mentioned above has not been addressed. There are many stand-alone years wikilinked, particularly in the lead, and full dates not correctly formatted, e.g., June 12th, 1221 in the Early Contacts (1209–1244). --] 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC) | **The MOS issue with autoformatting dates mentioned above has not been addressed. There are many stand-alone years wikilinked, particularly in the lead, and full dates not correctly formatted, e.g., June 12th, 1221 in the Early Contacts (1209–1244). --] 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ** | ** | ||
| ::*{{done}}, all dates cleaned up I believe. ] 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Excellent! Well-researched and referenced and beautifully illustrated article on a fascinating and poorly-known subject. It should be of interest to many readers and will undoubtedly promote a deeper understanding of the long history of East-West relations. It should also help to correct the Eurocentric world view of many English speakers. ] 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose'''. I can tell that a lot of work has gone into this article, and it appears to be well-sourced, but I'm afraid that many of the sources are not reliable ones. I cannot speak for all of the information in the article, but I am well-versed on Templar history (having been the primary editor to bring the ] article to FA status), and some of the information here about the involvement of the Templars and Jacques de Molay does not at all jibe with my sources. To my knowledge, there was no "retaking of Jerusalem by the Templars in 1299". De Molay was never "left in Jerusalem." I spent several hours last night reviewing my most reliable sources about Templar/Mongol involvement, and the actuality appears to be that De Molay was campaigning in Europe for a retaking of Jerusalem, but he could not muster sufficient support. The Templars, based in Cyprus when they received news that the Mongols took Jerusalem in 1299, were indeed hopeful that the Mongols were going to give Jerusalem back to the Christians, and rumors flew fast and furious, but that was about the extent of it. I am open to being proven wrong here, but I've been looking at the sources that this ] article provides, and they're just not good ones. Most of the Templar information appears to be sourced to personal websites, And even if the Templar section were completely removed, I would still be adamantly opposed to this article being approved for FA status, unless the rest of the sources were scrutinized as well. --]]] 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the comment. You are rightly pointing to an area of the article where more sources would be welcome (the involvement of Molay in the 1299 campaings): today we have a specialized site on the Templars , and the French Center of Development in Arts and Medieval Culture . I also found a painting in Versailles showing the conquest of Jerusalem by de Molay in 1299 ]. Also included in the article is a JSTOR article claiming that the event actually did not happen, although it was widely publicized at that time in Europe . More sources would of course be welcome, and I will be glad to discuss and enrich this part, or any part of the article. And of course all references in this article are genuine, you can check them very easily. Best regards ] 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thank you for your courtesy. I acknowledge that the references exist; however, I challenge the reliability of some of them. Especially where the Templars are concerned, it is quite routine for sources to be promoting speculative information as fact. I've checked over a dozen books now, and am quite confident in stating that there was no re-taking of Jerusalem in 1299. All of my sources agree, that when the Turks took Jerusalem in 1244, that the city was never again under Christian control, until the British took it from the Ottomans in the early 20th century. --]]] 08:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{done}}. I eliminated the questionable references (mainly online Templar sites), in favor of recognized published sources (thanks Elonka for the references). The capture of Jerusalem was modified to something like "rumors of the capture of Jerusalem" to properly reflect available sources. Thanks again. ] 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Thank you for your changes, but this article still needs considerable work before it can reach featured status, especially considering that it was just created a couple weeks ago. I greatly appreciate PHG's sincere good faith efforts to address concerns, but trying to make quick fixes in the middle of the FA process, when there are such strong concerns about content issues, is not the best way for us to be proceeding at this point. The article is promoting a point of view that I just don't think is backed up by modern reliable sources. The article states that there was a strong alliance between the French and the Mongols, and I'm sorry, but there just wasn't such a thing, despite what may be claimed in Runciman's book. I can point to multiple reliable sources which state that there was a ''desire'' for an alliance, but that it never came to fruition. The article also makes heavy use of duplicated references, and too many places where there is just a link that says "Source" that is simply a link to an unspecified webpage. I also still have many strong concerns about the Templar information in the article. I am extremely willing to work with PHG to help improve things, but I'm afraid I have to insist that this article just isn't anywhere near FA status yet. It is my strong recommendation that we slow things down here a bit. Let's withdraw the FA nom, work on improving the article, put it through a Peer Review and the GA process first, and then take another run at FA. I firmly believe that this ''will'' be an excellent article, but it's going to take some time to find out where the consensus is. --]]] 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{Done}}. Thanks for your comments. I took away all the "Source" mentions in favour of precise descriptions. For your other reasons for opposition to be valid, they have to be actionable. Many article have passed FA within 2 weeks from creation. I find that FA nomination is a great time to get the attention of many knowledgeable editors and to bring an article to top condition (lot of work within 1 or 2 weeks though!!) If improvements have to be made, let's make them now. Your comments and modifications are welcome to improve the content of the article. Regards ] 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I'm sorry, but I do not think that you have adequately addressed my stated concerns. My oppose stands. And please, don't reply to me with "Done." --]]] 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No offense intended. The "Done" answers to your actionable request about replacing "Source" mentions by more detailed descriptions. ] 06:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I'm suprised that ]'s name is not mentioned. He was one of the first to write at length about the joint French-Mongol activities in ] and the rest of the Middle East. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no knowledge of Gumilev's work, but would be glad if we could incorporate it if it is relevant to the subject-matter. ] 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' and recommend article review. I was surprised by this rather sweeping statement ''The Mongols had been proselytised by Christian Nestorians since about the 7th century and many of them were Christians'' which is certainly counterintuitive and, although referenced, lacks a page citation. According to the , modern Mongolian religious practice is 6% for Christianity and Shamanism ''combined''. The closest parallel to this topic I know in any depth is ] and the sources I studied agreed with that article: Christianity played little role (if any) in the religion of thirteenth century Mongolia, and the extent that any Christians appeared among Genghis Khan's extended family was probably due to dynastic alliances with noble houses in conquered Christian lands. As Elonka expresses, it appears to be possible to find sources that assert the contrary, a minority of which satisfy ], but I'm far from convinced that this article represents a ] treatment. To the nominating editor, although it appears you did a great deal of work bringing the article this far and I respect that effort, if your response is to add a page notation to the specific line I questioned and reply with a ''done'' template I'll revise this opinion to ''strong oppose.'' Elonka knows her area in considerable depth and consulted a variety of sources before replying. I'd like to see a wider range of sources listed as references and I'd like to see this FAC withdrawn for more serious revisions. The first try doesn't always succeed, so please keep going. Best regards from the main contributor to the featured ] article, ]<sup>'']''</sup> 05:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Durova. I am afraid it is a well documented fact that the Mongols were proselytised by Christian ] since about the 7th century, although I agree it is counter-intuitive, and may surprise a lot of people. And modern figures from the CIA World Book have little relevance here. ] is part of the broader phenomenon of the expansion of Christianity to the East before the Middle East, also examplified by the history of ]. A great modern source is Foltz, Richard (2000): "Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century". Also "The Silk Road", Francis Wood, p.118 (among others) "William of Ribruk was shocked to discover that there were, indeed, Chirstians at the Mongl court, but that they were schismatic Nestorians" etc... A great medieval source was translated in "The Monks of Kublai Khan Emperor of China", Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, . Probably what is not known so well is the actual extent of the Christian religion among the Mongol populace in the 13th century, but Christianity among the Mongol elite is well documented (most of the wives and mothers of the Khans, some of the Mongol generals such as ], as detailed and referenced in the article). Regards ] 05:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Durova. Since you made your comment on the Mongols and Christianity, I added about 10 new references with actual quotes. Please kindly check and comment, before I can consider myself actually {{done}} :) Best regards ] 10:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Weak oppose at this moment''' Mainly criterion 1a - The prose is good, but not yet brilliant. At this stage this article (IMHO) would easily makes GA criteria. The topic is very interesting, and worth to be taken out of obscurity, and I compliment the editors for taking up this task. It is well researched, well sourced (although reliance on primary sources is not always best), seems reasonably neutral and comprehensive. However, I think some work is still needed (I agree with another editor here that the longer path through GA-candidacy, and a formal review may have been more appropriate). As stated above my main problem is in ]. Although the prose in itself seems of adequate quality the overall narrative of the article feels a bit 'choppy'. There is not always a good flow between the sections, and the first section after the lead starts out abrupt. An introduction that leads the reader into the important historical events should (IMHO) be a bit more catchy. Also the article now opens with the view of the mongols on the west. It may give a more balanced view if some "view of the Franks on Mongols" section was added. I hope and think that with some moderate level of copyediting to overcome this issue the article will make FA soon. ] 12:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in ]. No further edits should be made to this page.''</div><!--FAbottom--><!--Tagged by FA bot--> | |||
Latest revision as of 23:19, 24 March 2022
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.
Franco-Mongol alliance
A little known but fascinating event of the 13th century. PHG 08:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nomination PHG 05:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lead section is too short. Many paragraphs have no references. Some sentences are POV (e.g. "In 1253, Louis, following his disastrous Crusade, desperately looked for allies." and "Overall, Edward's crusade was rather insignificant and only gave the city of Acre a reprieve of ten years.") or confusing ("offering the Franks a 10 year truce (which he would later breach), a truce they accepted" and "and furthermore Arghun died on March 10th"). Please try for GAC first. --Kaypoh 11:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Done, 102 references now, with no paragraphs without reference I believe. POV or confusing sentences corrected and referenced. Thank you. PHG 14:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment:
- 2 books which appear foreign in nature are used as references for the article. There are no english alternatives? Foreign books make it hard to verify the article and to pursue the topic through further reading. Also if multitude of english sources are available then using foreign sources can become a comprehensiveness/reliability issue.
- The subject matter being primarily French, a few French sources (primary and secondary) are I guess quite acceptable. Of course French is also quite an accessible language for many English speaker wishing to check the material.PHG 16:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done, thanks to User:Elonka, several more English-language books with associated references have been added. PHG 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Continuing with the first point, an English written quote is references to one of the foreign books; citation 32 is one. Did you translate this quote yourself? I would prefer for academic sources to give translations, this quotations appear to be dated to the 13th century and probably require a linguistics expert to properly translate the quote to another language.
- Done. Good point. I am putting in the original French so that the translation can be verified by anyone. The 13th French is actually quite straitforward, making the translation an easy one.PHG 16:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Article is crammed with images. Why have an illustration Jacques de Molay, if the reader finds the subject so important as to pursue to see a sketch of him he can just click the wikilink to his article. I only prefer images that directly illustrate events of the article topic.
- Done.Thanks, I took it away.PHG 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The lead is very poor. The leads gives practically background information instead of summarizing all the events presented in the article. Also that "what if" last sentence of the lead does not appear anywhere else in the article.
- Done. Thanks. I moved the "what if" to another part of the article. I improved the lead content so as to better reflect the content of the article.PHG 17:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- MoS issues, I would prefer you ask someone familiar with all the guidelines to review the article. Single dates are wikilinked, things are wikilinked that shouldn't: Mongol Empire is wikilinked 1/4th into the article for no reason.
- Done. Thanks. I took out the redundant links to Mongol Empire. PHG 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
74.13.91.146 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:
- The MOS issue with autoformatting dates mentioned above has not been addressed. There are many stand-alone years wikilinked, particularly in the lead, and full dates not correctly formatted, e.g., June 12th, 1221 in the Early Contacts (1209–1244). --Malleus Fatuarum 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done, all dates cleaned up I believe. PHG 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent! Well-researched and referenced and beautifully illustrated article on a fascinating and poorly-known subject. It should be of interest to many readers and will undoubtedly promote a deeper understanding of the long history of East-West relations. It should also help to correct the Eurocentric world view of many English speakers. John Hill 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. I can tell that a lot of work has gone into this article, and it appears to be well-sourced, but I'm afraid that many of the sources are not reliable ones. I cannot speak for all of the information in the article, but I am well-versed on Templar history (having been the primary editor to bring the Knights Templar article to FA status), and some of the information here about the involvement of the Templars and Jacques de Molay does not at all jibe with my sources. To my knowledge, there was no "retaking of Jerusalem by the Templars in 1299". De Molay was never "left in Jerusalem." I spent several hours last night reviewing my most reliable sources about Templar/Mongol involvement, and the actuality appears to be that De Molay was campaigning in Europe for a retaking of Jerusalem, but he could not muster sufficient support. The Templars, based in Cyprus when they received news that the Mongols took Jerusalem in 1299, were indeed hopeful that the Mongols were going to give Jerusalem back to the Christians, and rumors flew fast and furious, but that was about the extent of it. I am open to being proven wrong here, but I've been looking at the sources that this Franco-Mongol alliance article provides, and they're just not good ones. Most of the Templar information appears to be sourced to personal websites, And even if the Templar section were completely removed, I would still be adamantly opposed to this article being approved for FA status, unless the rest of the sources were scrutinized as well. --Elonka 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. You are rightly pointing to an area of the article where more sources would be welcome (the involvement of Molay in the 1299 campaings): today we have a specialized site on the Templars , and the French Center of Development in Arts and Medieval Culture . I also found a painting in Versailles showing the conquest of Jerusalem by de Molay in 1299 Image:JacquesMolayPrendJerusalem1299VersaillesMuseeNationalChateauEtTrianons.jpg. Also included in the article is a JSTOR article claiming that the event actually did not happen, although it was widely publicized at that time in Europe . More sources would of course be welcome, and I will be glad to discuss and enrich this part, or any part of the article. And of course all references in this article are genuine, you can check them very easily. Best regards PHG 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your courtesy. I acknowledge that the references exist; however, I challenge the reliability of some of them. Especially where the Templars are concerned, it is quite routine for sources to be promoting speculative information as fact. I've checked over a dozen books now, and am quite confident in stating that there was no re-taking of Jerusalem in 1299. All of my sources agree, that when the Turks took Jerusalem in 1244, that the city was never again under Christian control, until the British took it from the Ottomans in the early 20th century. --Elonka 08:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I eliminated the questionable references (mainly online Templar sites), in favor of recognized published sources (thanks Elonka for the references). The capture of Jerusalem was modified to something like "rumors of the capture of Jerusalem" to properly reflect available sources. Thanks again. PHG 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your changes, but this article still needs considerable work before it can reach featured status, especially considering that it was just created a couple weeks ago. I greatly appreciate PHG's sincere good faith efforts to address concerns, but trying to make quick fixes in the middle of the FA process, when there are such strong concerns about content issues, is not the best way for us to be proceeding at this point. The article is promoting a point of view that I just don't think is backed up by modern reliable sources. The article states that there was a strong alliance between the French and the Mongols, and I'm sorry, but there just wasn't such a thing, despite what may be claimed in Runciman's book. I can point to multiple reliable sources which state that there was a desire for an alliance, but that it never came to fruition. The article also makes heavy use of duplicated references, and too many places where there is just a link that says "Source" that is simply a link to an unspecified webpage. I also still have many strong concerns about the Templar information in the article. I am extremely willing to work with PHG to help improve things, but I'm afraid I have to insist that this article just isn't anywhere near FA status yet. It is my strong recommendation that we slow things down here a bit. Let's withdraw the FA nom, work on improving the article, put it through a Peer Review and the GA process first, and then take another run at FA. I firmly believe that this will be an excellent article, but it's going to take some time to find out where the consensus is. --Elonka 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for your comments. I took away all the "Source" mentions in favour of precise descriptions. For your other reasons for opposition to be valid, they have to be actionable. Many article have passed FA within 2 weeks from creation. I find that FA nomination is a great time to get the attention of many knowledgeable editors and to bring an article to top condition (lot of work within 1 or 2 weeks though!!) If improvements have to be made, let's make them now. Your comments and modifications are welcome to improve the content of the article. Regards PHG 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I do not think that you have adequately addressed my stated concerns. My oppose stands. And please, don't reply to me with "Done." --Elonka 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- No offense intended. The "Done" answers to your actionable request about replacing "Source" mentions by more detailed descriptions. PHG 06:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I do not think that you have adequately addressed my stated concerns. My oppose stands. And please, don't reply to me with "Done." --Elonka 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your changes, but this article still needs considerable work before it can reach featured status, especially considering that it was just created a couple weeks ago. I greatly appreciate PHG's sincere good faith efforts to address concerns, but trying to make quick fixes in the middle of the FA process, when there are such strong concerns about content issues, is not the best way for us to be proceeding at this point. The article is promoting a point of view that I just don't think is backed up by modern reliable sources. The article states that there was a strong alliance between the French and the Mongols, and I'm sorry, but there just wasn't such a thing, despite what may be claimed in Runciman's book. I can point to multiple reliable sources which state that there was a desire for an alliance, but that it never came to fruition. The article also makes heavy use of duplicated references, and too many places where there is just a link that says "Source" that is simply a link to an unspecified webpage. I also still have many strong concerns about the Templar information in the article. I am extremely willing to work with PHG to help improve things, but I'm afraid I have to insist that this article just isn't anywhere near FA status yet. It is my strong recommendation that we slow things down here a bit. Let's withdraw the FA nom, work on improving the article, put it through a Peer Review and the GA process first, and then take another run at FA. I firmly believe that this will be an excellent article, but it's going to take some time to find out where the consensus is. --Elonka 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your courtesy. I acknowledge that the references exist; however, I challenge the reliability of some of them. Especially where the Templars are concerned, it is quite routine for sources to be promoting speculative information as fact. I've checked over a dozen books now, and am quite confident in stating that there was no re-taking of Jerusalem in 1299. All of my sources agree, that when the Turks took Jerusalem in 1244, that the city was never again under Christian control, until the British took it from the Ottomans in the early 20th century. --Elonka 08:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. You are rightly pointing to an area of the article where more sources would be welcome (the involvement of Molay in the 1299 campaings): today we have a specialized site on the Templars , and the French Center of Development in Arts and Medieval Culture . I also found a painting in Versailles showing the conquest of Jerusalem by de Molay in 1299 Image:JacquesMolayPrendJerusalem1299VersaillesMuseeNationalChateauEtTrianons.jpg. Also included in the article is a JSTOR article claiming that the event actually did not happen, although it was widely publicized at that time in Europe . More sources would of course be welcome, and I will be glad to discuss and enrich this part, or any part of the article. And of course all references in this article are genuine, you can check them very easily. Best regards PHG 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm suprised that Lev Gumilev's name is not mentioned. He was one of the first to write at length about the joint French-Mongol activities in Syria and the rest of the Middle East. --Ghirla 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge of Gumilev's work, but would be glad if we could incorporate it if it is relevant to the subject-matter. PHG 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose and recommend article review. I was surprised by this rather sweeping statement The Mongols had been proselytised by Christian Nestorians since about the 7th century and many of them were Christians which is certainly counterintuitive and, although referenced, lacks a page citation. According to the CIA World Factbook, modern Mongolian religious practice is 6% for Christianity and Shamanism combined. The closest parallel to this topic I know in any depth is Mongol invasion of Rus and the sources I studied agreed with that article: Christianity played little role (if any) in the religion of thirteenth century Mongolia, and the extent that any Christians appeared among Genghis Khan's extended family was probably due to dynastic alliances with noble houses in conquered Christian lands. As Elonka expresses, it appears to be possible to find sources that assert the contrary, a minority of which satisfy WP:RS, but I'm far from convinced that this article represents a WP:NPOV treatment. To the nominating editor, although it appears you did a great deal of work bringing the article this far and I respect that effort, if your response is to add a page notation to the specific line I questioned and reply with a done template I'll revise this opinion to strong oppose. Elonka knows her area in considerable depth and consulted a variety of sources before replying. I'd like to see a wider range of sources listed as references and I'd like to see this FAC withdrawn for more serious revisions. The first try doesn't always succeed, so please keep going. Best regards from the main contributor to the featured Joan of Arc article, Durova 05:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Durova. I am afraid it is a well documented fact that the Mongols were proselytised by Christian Nestorians since about the 7th century, although I agree it is counter-intuitive, and may surprise a lot of people. And modern figures from the CIA World Book have little relevance here. Christianity among the Mongols is part of the broader phenomenon of the expansion of Christianity to the East before the Middle East, also examplified by the history of Christianity in China. A great modern source is Foltz, Richard (2000): "Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century". Also "The Silk Road", Francis Wood, p.118 (among others) "William of Ribruk was shocked to discover that there were, indeed, Chirstians at the Mongl court, but that they were schismatic Nestorians" etc... A great medieval source was translated in "The Monks of Kublai Khan Emperor of China", Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, Online. Probably what is not known so well is the actual extent of the Christian religion among the Mongol populace in the 13th century, but Christianity among the Mongol elite is well documented (most of the wives and mothers of the Khans, some of the Mongol generals such as Kitbuqa, as detailed and referenced in the article). Regards PHG 05:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Durova. Since you made your comment on the Mongols and Christianity, I added about 10 new references with actual quotes. Please kindly check and comment, before I can consider myself actually Done :) Best regards PHG 10:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose at this moment Mainly criterion 1a - The prose is good, but not yet brilliant. At this stage this article (IMHO) would easily makes GA criteria. The topic is very interesting, and worth to be taken out of obscurity, and I compliment the editors for taking up this task. It is well researched, well sourced (although reliance on primary sources is not always best), seems reasonably neutral and comprehensive. However, I think some work is still needed (I agree with another editor here that the longer path through GA-candidacy, and a formal review may have been more appropriate). As stated above my main problem is in FA criterion 1a. Although the prose in itself seems of adequate quality the overall narrative of the article feels a bit 'choppy'. There is not always a good flow between the sections, and the first section after the lead starts out abrupt. An introduction that leads the reader into the important historical events should (IMHO) be a bit more catchy. Also the article now opens with the view of the mongols on the west. It may give a more balanced view if some "view of the Franks on Mongols" section was added. I hope and think that with some moderate level of copyediting to overcome this issue the article will make FA soon. Arnoutf 12:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.