Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 3

message: People can consult the archive for material needed to make a decision. I reverted the edit not archiving the talk page, because it got long and unwieldy. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the page is growing so fast, I've archived more of the September threads (even though they're just a few days old).  Archives available here: /Archive 2/. --Elonka 03:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I have a challenge to this new section: "At the 1263 Council of Lyon, the terms of the alliance with the Mongols were laid down by the monk Richaldus. Specifically, following his welcoming of the Christian ambassadors to his court, Hulagu had agreed to exempt Latin Christians from taxes and charges, in exchange for their prayers for the Qaghan, prohibited that Frank establishments should be molested, and committed to return Jerusalem to the Franks.(Jean Richard, 435)."
To my knowledge, there were two Council of Lyons, the first was in 1245, and the second in 1274.  There was a large contingent of Mongols that went to the second one (arriving unannounced). It was a big deal, since one of them underwent a baptism. To my knowledge there was never a Council of Lyon in 1263. Can we please doublecheck this?  Thanks, Elonka 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jean Richard just says Council of Lyon, so he probably means the 1274 one, where the facts were recorded by Richaldus. PHG 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then the information should be moved out of its current section, which is talking about events in the 1260s.  We have another section further down the page which is currently titled "Council of Gregory X (1274)".  Let's change that to "Second Council of Lyons" and put the Richard info there. --Elonka 10:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No at all, Richard is clear that Richaldus recorded information about the 1260 period (Hulagu). He only apparently recorded it after the fact (in 1274). The paragraph therefore should remain in the 1260 section.PHG 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Richard appears to be claiming, is that he's got proof of an offer of alliance by Hulagu.  This offer was supposedly written in 1262, and delivered in 1264, but the offer itself is no longer in existence, so Richard says that he reconstructed it by analyzing the report that was made 10 years later by Rychardus at the 1274 Second Council of Lyons.  I've been checking what other historians have to say on the subject, and some seem to be saying that they think the report by Rychardus was a bit embellished in "diplomatic" language (imagine if a diplomat today were trying to summarize events that had happened in the mid-1990s, from memory), so may not have been accurate.  And another historian says that though a letter was written, there's no proof that it ever arrived or was read by King Louis. Apparently there was also a problem around then (especially with these long delays in communications) of people presenting themselves at court and saying that they were official representatives, when they actually weren't.  Now, we do come back to "published secondary source," and Richard's book definitely meets that standard.  So if Richard says that he's convinced of the reliability, yes, we can include that information in the article, but I recommend that we be extremely cautious in how we word things, since not all historians are agreeing about this. --Elonka 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Council of Lyon

message: Here are some possible suggestions for how we may be able to split up this article, per WP:SUMMARY.
* Armenian-Mongol alliance (or Armenian-Mongol relations)
* History of Jerusalem 1299-1300 (for the whole rumors thing)
* Mongol invasions of Syria
* Kingdom of Jerusalem on Cyprus
* Crusader naval raids
There are definitely a couple sections of this "alliance" article that are getting into very detailed troop movements, especially around 1300.  This would probably be better suited for a "Battle" article, but to my knowledge there's no formal name for the coastal raids and the aborted attempt to take Tortosa via Ruad Island, especially because it wasn't part of a formal "Crusade".  Maybe it would fit into one of the above topics? Or anyone else have suggestions? Some of it could be moved to History of the Knights Templar, but it's not entirely Templar-related, so that doesn't really fit either. --Elonka 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For "Kingdom of Jerusalem on Cyprus", we already have Kingdom of Cyprus, which could use some expanding. Adam Bishop 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea.  I would support moving much of the coastal raid and Ruad Island info to that article.  Then we could provide brief paragraphs here, and at Arwad, which pointed to it. --Elonka 18:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could copy stuff if you wish, but thank you to leave the material that has been put here as part of the Franco-Mongol alliance. PHG 19:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point of splitting isn't to copy info out, it's to reduce the length of the article.  It's currently at 150K, which is way past recommendations at Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article.  I'm pretty flexible on where we split it, but there's definitely too much information here for one single article. Overall, this is a good thing -- it means we've got a lot of good info here. --Elonka 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is currently 90K without the (copious) references, which is still rather reasonable, and customarily accepted for subjects deserving in-depth treatment. A lot of articles (including FAs) have more than that. Maybe we could use some slimming somewhere (how about those near original-research portions at the end? and your huge quotes as in #229, which by the way represent copyright infringement). But there is no need to dismember the article. PHG 05:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't much followed the current discussions, but I must say that I believe that 90KB is really too much. I hope you won't take this bad PHG, because I greatly admire your editorial work and the devotion you put in it, but I feel that often your articles tend to be a bit too long, and that you don't fully understand the value of concision. A friend of mine once told me as a form of advice that "anything beyond 40kb just ignores the fact that the hypothetical reader doesn't have an hour to devote to your article." 40kb or a bit more, I tend to agree with the principle: the article must be the more possible reader-friendly, and so not to long to read. In this view we shouldn't be afraid to split the article, so that in those articles one could go even deeper on the topics. Now I can say that I agree with all the proposals advanced by Elonka: but for example, a lot could be placed in Mongol invasion of Syria (1299), which could include in detail a lot of what discussed up to now, obviously reducing previous invasions to a "backgroung", and following ones to an "aftermath" section (a seperated Mongol Invasions of Syria could cover the other invasions in detail, consenting to reducing partly this articles). Another article could be, as proposed Lesser Armenian-Mongol relations. In general, I'd advice instead of creating new articles, like that on the ninth crusade, even if we may make an article devoted to Templar Ruad, ie between the fall of Tortosa and its conquest by the Mamluks.--Aldux 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Aldux. We could trim things around. But the theme being "The Franco-Mongol alliance" specifically, I think all the relevant facts have to be incorporated (we're an encyclopedia after all). This article has been met with a lot a disbelief from various editors ("Christians among the Mongols??", "What, an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols??"), and a lot has been added in the last week (the article doubled in length, and the notes are huge) just to get over that. Now I would like to make sure all the relevant facts are available, just to avoid other disputes. Best regards. PHG 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article split

message: Inspite of all the new references showing that many historians do consider the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact (last of them, and quite decisively by the leading French expert Jean Richard above), Elonka is still insisting on the starting sentence "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance...". I think this reflects an unbalanced point-of-view that only considers attempts and does not consider the alliance as fact: this is quite unfair to a large part of the historical sources. I am therefore reinstating a request to have both scholarly point-of-views represented in the introductory sentence, especially in light of the new sources we have:
Although Wikipedia does provide for NPOV and balance in general, everyone's view is important here so that some do not keep reverting to assert their own point of view only. Thank you PHG 05:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please bring it up in the original thread, rather than starting a new thread with the exact same title. This talkpage is already long enough, we don't need even more confusion.  :) --Elonka 10:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original thread was not a request for vote, but just a discussion. Now please let other editors give their opinion in light of the new sources. PHG 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... What about "Starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade, many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance, but it is disputed among scholars if the said attempts were or not successful, and if successful, to which extent."?--Aldux 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction sentence 2

message: I'm here from WP:FTN too to discuss the Armenian questions. I have a good source: Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times Volume One (Macmillan, 1997). First, the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (Little Armenia) was not a Frankish kingdom. The royal family at this time (the Hetumids) were Armenian. The relationship between the kingdom and the Western crusaders was always ambivalent and the goals of Cilicia and the Frankish states often varied. The Armenian nobility adopted many Western customs, including feudalism, chivalry and Western dress and many French words entered the Armenian language (the word for "Mr." in Armenian today is still baron, or paron). But there were many differences, most importantly concerning the matter of religion, since the majority of Armenians were neither Catholic nor Greek Orthodox, but followed their own rite. The aim of the Cilician alliance with the Mongols was to defend the kingdom against the Seljuks and the Mamluks. In 1247, Hetum I sent his brother Smbat to the Mongol court at Kara Korum. A few years later he travelled himself and sealed an alliance with the Great Khan Möngke. The alliance initially benefitted both the Armenians and the Mongols when they fought together (along with the Antiochenes) to defeat the Mamluks at Aleppo and Damascus. But the Crusader states became wary of growing Mongol power in the region and in 1260 they allowed the Mamluk army through their land to attack and defeat the Mongols at Ayn Jalut. The Mongols were now pushed back to Iran which made them too distant to help Cilicia against the Seljuks and Mamluks. Baybars punished Hetum's attempt to renew the alliance by devastating the kingdom for 20 days. The destruction was so bad that Hetum abdicated and retired to a monastery (1269). Any hope for a possible new alliance was ended when the Mongols converted to Islam. Hetum (now a Franciscan friar) and his nephew King Levon III travelled to the court of the Mongol emir of Anazarba, where they were treacherously put to death (1307). --Folantin 09:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Folantin, that's helpful.  Also, do your sources say anything about Antioch?  I've seen it variously described as allying with the Mongols, being a vassal state of the Mongols, or being a vassal of Armenia?  And what's your opinion on whether Antioch was a Frankish kingdom?  Thanks, 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing it really says is that Cilicia fought alongside the Mongols and the Antiochenes to defeat the Mamluks at Aleppo and Damascus. Nothing about whether Antioch was similarly formally allied with the Mongols. the only other source I have to hand is Runciman, but you've probably already consulted him. --Folantin 09:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs to do a better job of identifying the principals. All were empires that varied in territory over time and consisted of diverse peoples with varying degres of attachment. WAS 4.250 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read what I wrote above. In what way was Cilicia a Frankish kingdom? I'm taking my information from a book by specialists in Armenian history which has an entire chapter devoted to the Kingdom of Cilicia. You've given a single sentence with no explanation as to why Cilicia should be considered "Frankish". --Folantin 10:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PHG, the sentence needs to expanded in order to convey anything useful to the reader. In what sense are they being called "Frank states"? They had a treaty? Their ruler has Frank blood? The population were Frank in blood, language, culture, religion? The reader needs detail here in order to not be mislead. Is Pakistan an American state because it has a treaty with the US and has joint military exersizes with the US? Is Brazil a European state due to its culture, language, and population genetic heritage especially in its leadership and upper class?  WAS 4.250 12:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cilicia wasn't a Frankish state, it was an Armenian one. In fact, when the kings tried to make it more "Frankish" in the early decades of the 14th century (e.g. by trying to make the kingdom Roman Catholic), they faced revolt. "There rose to the surface an intense anti-Roman sentiment which soon became a general anti-Western reaction. King Oshin was poisoned in 1320. When his son and successor Levon IV (1320-1341) had both his own wife and stepfather killed and married the widowed queen of Cyprus, the Cilician nobility saw it as evidence of Levon's pro-European policy and rose up and murdered him in 1341". (op. cit. page 288). --Folantin 12:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite OK not to say that Little Armenia was a Frankish state (inspite of the scholarly quote to the contrary: "There are five Frank states(...): the Kingdom of Jerusalem, (...) the County of Edessa, the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, but also the Kingdom of Little Armenia" in Les Croisades, Origines et consequences, p.77-78), as it was probably quite a borderline case anyway. On the other hand, I insist that Antioch and Tripoli were Frank states, contrary to previous posts by Elonka. I don't think there should be any issues with these two. Best regards. PHG 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence is hardly convincing given the weight of opposing evidence. I imagine your source lumped Cilicia in with the Frankish states simply as a matter of convenience. Whatever the case, the Kingdom of Cilicia shouldn't be described as Frankish. This article is enormously long (150k), so I'd suggest the Armenian material should be moved to Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (assuming it's not there already) or maybe to its own article. --Folantin 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Folantin. The book I have (Les Croisades, Origines et consequences) states that the Kingdom of Armenia was a (theorical at least) vassal of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as the other kingdoms quoted in the sentence above. Would you know if that's a fact? Thanks PHG 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Can't find anything saying that for the period under discussion (unless it was very theoretical indeed). It's obvious from the information in the first comment I posted here that the Armenian kingdom was independent and it and the Crusader states often had widely differing aims ("But the Crusader states became wary of growing Mongol power in the region and in 1260 they allowed the Mamluk army through their land to attack and defeat the Mongols at Ayn Jalut"). That Mongol defeat was a disaster for Cilicia. The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia ceased to exist in 1375 although the title of "King of Armenia" survived. In 1393 it "passed to Levon V's relative John I, King of Cyprus, who had also inherited the equally meaningless title 'King of Jerusalem'" (op. cit. p.290). So the two kingdoms were united in the end in a way. --Folantin 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Identifying the principals

message: This whole article might be better off under a different title, e.g. "Relations between the Mongols and the Christian states of the Middle East" or "The Mongols in the time of the Crusades". "Franco-Mongol Alliance" suggests an alliance between the Mongols and the French. I understand it means the "Franks" here (i.e. Western European Roman Catholic crusaders), but this term is being stretched to include almost all Christians in the region (there's quite a bit about the Georgians, not to mention the Armenians). --Folantin 08:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussed and voted on before in this Talk Page (top of this page actually). The overwhelming vote was in favor of keeping "Franco-Mongol alliance", a recognized scholarly expression for this subject.PHG 08:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly "overwhelming" consensus. But if you choose to stick with this title then you'll have to narrow your focus because you can't describe all the Christians in the Middle East at the time as "Franks". In other words, the Armenians and Georgians should go. --Folantin 09:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Elonka would indeed call it a consensus (although I wouldn't, it is just a clear-cut vote...). But your point is fair enough. We could adjust that part (still mentionning they were key major players as allies to the Franks and participated to most of the actions of the Franco-Mongol alliance), but we could have a more detailed and specific article at Armenian-Mongol alliance. PHG 09:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I support the idea of creating a separate article for the Armenian-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That makes sense.  We can move information from here to those two articles, and then leave a summary paragraph with a "See also", per WP:SUMMARY.  I say proceed. :) --Elonka 10:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: By now, this should be really quite obvious, but as described again in Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Mischaracterization, numerous scholars treat the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact, and some others as just "attempts towards an alliance". Wikipedia balance and NPOV policy requires that both point of views be represented.
Elonka has been insisting however that the introduction sentence should describe "Attempts towards an alliance..." only, and has been reverting repeatedly to that version. This is clearly POV, and favours only one scholarly position. She claims that an earlier 3:1 discussion justifies her in her reverts (she calls it a "consensus"). 
Let it be reminded that votes in general, and especially such micro-discussions, have absolutely no value in negating Wikipedia's ethics of balance and NPOV. Only an inclusive phrase such as "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attemps towards such an alliance,...", clearly presenting both views with relevant references, could maintain NPOV and balance between these two major theses. Not doing so would just be NPOV violation. PHG 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, we've already discussed the introduction sentence in the above section #Introduction sentence, and PHG's view is obviously not prevailing.  I would also point out that PHG is ignoring the comments in the above #Request for comment, and that PHG has also refused mediation.  That aside, I stand by my claim that no scholars have said that a formal alliance existed between the Mongols and the Europeans. As I see it, PHG has been consistently trying to insert his own bias into this article.  Among the false claims that he has been repeatedly making: That there was an alliance (when there wasn't), that there was a battle for Jerusalem in 1299 (when there wasn't), that the Mongols ruled Jerusalem in 1300 (when they didn't), that the Knights Templar were the "artisans" of a Franco-Mongol alliance (when they didn't).  I've been trying to assume good faith here, and give PHG the benefit of the doubt that one or two modern historians may have said these things, in which case we should reflect their views along with those of the rest of the reputable historians.  But as I dig into the sources and actually look at what PHG's historians were saying, I see that he has been making gross misinterpretations of the actual data.  I would also point out that PHG has shown a history of providing unreliable sources, ranging from hobbyist pseudohistory websites, to sourcing statements to the marketing blurb on the back cover of a book, to sourcing an offhand comment from an author while he was promoting his work.  And even where PHG claims that he is just providing information from reputable historians, I dispute PHG's claims.  For example, most recently he's been saying that Jean Richard said that there was a formal alliance.  But again, when I actually went and looked at the source, this is not the case.  See section below. --Elonka 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka, you are distorting the meaning of what Richard says (hereafter), as you have been repeatedly doing in this article (deleting references or corrupting them... anyone could go into the archives to see that). As a matter of fact, numerous scholars consider the Mongol alliance as fact (just look at the quotes), various scholars consider that Jerusalem was raided and possibly conquered by the Mongols in 1300 (Demurger, Arab historians etc...), and the leading French specialist of the Templars (sorry you did not know him and at one point thought that his was "a summer book"!) considers that the Templars were the artisans of the Franco-Mongol alliance in 1298-1303 (Demurger). I am not claiming these things, sources are: it's all fully referenced. Please accept that various historians can have various opinions on a given subject, and do not accuse editors who are simply introducing their work on Wikipedia. PHG 05:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Back to the matter of NPOV violation: yes, you are denying that numerous scholars describe the Mongol alliance as fact, and that is not acceptable per Wikipedia balance and NPOV policy. Both views ("Attempts at an alliance", and "Alliance") should be represented. PHG 05:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree that we should present both views.  However, per WP:UNDUE, that doesn't mean that we need to give them both equal weight.  The clear majority position among historians is that there were attempts made at an alliance.  I do agree that we should list Richard and Demurger too, but they should be clearly listed as minority viewpoints, per WP:UNDUE (please please read it?). --Elonka 16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you recognize these sources, but you have shifted your line of battle to saying that they should not have "undue weight". I suspect that from a US-centric perspective you may be right (looking at your sources), but Grousset, Demurger and Richard are huge authorities in France and in the rest of the world. They fully deserve represention of their analysis, and I see no reason why your own favourite sources should have a privileged treatment. PHG 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To accuse me of being US-centric is absurd.  I have been using a variety of sources from multiple continents.  Please do not resort to that kind of nationalistic accusation. The issue here is that the vast majority of historians (of all nationalities) say that there were attempts at an alliance, but not an actual alliance.  We can definitely state that a couple historians are wishy-washy on the subject, but let's make sure that we put their statements in context, and don't give them undue weight. --Elonka 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely do not agree with your personal point of view that the "vast majority of historians speak about attempts". As far as I can see the vast majority actually present the alliance as fact. But that's irrelevant anyway, what is important is that these two important views should be equally and fairly represented. PHG 20:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PHG, it is incorrect to characterize this as my "personal point of view."  This is the point of view of most historians, and has been backed up by other editors in the #Request for comment, and the discussion in #Introduction sentence. But yes, I'm in agreement with you that we should list different views in the article, as long as we give the appropriate amount of weight to major v. minor views, per WP:UNDUE. --Elonka 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka, a few Wikipedia Talk Page discussions cannot validate a major claim such as the "vast majority of historians speak about attempts". By the references you have given, only a few actually speak about attempts. Please just give references to your claim, and accept other views in a NPOV and balanced manner. Regards. PHG 13:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV violations

message: I replaced the scrolling reference list per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Scrolling_reference_lists Arnoutf 12:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scrolling reflists not to be used

message: This whole article is too long now. Even if just for copyediting purposes and consistency, it must be broken down and split off into sub-articles. Srnec 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I recommend that we move sections to History of Jerusalem, History of Cyprus, and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. It might also be worth making an article like History of Jerusalem (Crusades). --Elonka 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As already said by other contributors, we should first solve the factual disputes in this article, before we even start thinking about slicing it up. PHG 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've pretty much come to agreement on the Jerusalem rumors, so I have created an article, History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) that incorporates that info.  We should reduce the info here in the alliance article to a single paragraph, and then link to the new History article.  If PHG wants to do it, that's fine, otherwise I'll try to get to it later today. --Elonka 20:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I've merged the information out, and shrunk it down to one paragraph.  I removed multiple pages of information, but we're still running at 135K (and the History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) article is now seriously overweighted with information about the 1299/1300 raids).  But at least it's a start!  Any recommendations on which part to do next? --Elonka 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Division

message: ===Issues===
I am afraid the part on the alliance between Bohemond VI and the Mongols has been quite distorted and watered down, following Elonka’s general effort to deny that there was an effective alliance between the Franks and the Mongols. An argument was made that the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli (above in this Talk Page) were not Frank. This is historically untrue, and I am glad nobody has been following this claim. She also wrote that Antioch was a part of Armenia, this time a geographic untruth. Also, the designation  of  “The Franks of the Principality of Antioch” was changed to “Antiochians” in several paragraphs, in an apparent effort to diminish their “Frankish color”. Lastly, the mentions of  “alliance” were changed to simply “relations”.
===Facts===
First of all, I think it should be made clear that the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli were Frankish realms. Regarding the issue of the alliance, I would like to remind that Bohemond VI went to the Mongols (he was never invaded) and willingly accepted their suzerainty, rather than fight them or remain neutral (as the Franks of Acre did). As a matter of fact, most historians speak about an alliance, although a few mention that he submitted to the Mongols and became their vassals. A few quotes:
*"Bohemond of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally” John Riley-Smith, The Oxford History of the Crusades, p.136
*"Hethoum's attempts to build a great Christian alliance to aid the Mongols was well received by the local Christian; and Bohemond of Antioch, who was under his father-in-law's influence, gave his adhesion. But the Franks of Asia held aloof.", Runciman, p.299 
*"The Armenians, in the person of king Hethoum, sided with the Mongols, as did Bohemond of Antioch". Amin Maalouf, p.261 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes)
*"Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols". Amin Maalouf, p.265 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes)
I believe this is sufficient ground to have a title mentioning “alliance” rather than just “relations”, as “relations” could be anything (from alliance to conflict), and to explain in the body of the paragraph that some scholars regard this as vassalship and submission to the Mongols.
I think what is important is that over a period of more than 10 years, Bohemond VI chose to join the Mongols rather than fight them or remain neutral, participated to many conquests with them, and repeatedly called them when he was in need of help against the Mamluks. Numerous sources further testify to the good relationship Bohemond VI and his Armenian father-in-law Hethoum I had with the Mongols. There are ample facts, confirmed by numerous modern historians, in favour of a clear description of the alliance between Bohemond and the Mongols. PHG 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bohemond of Antioch did not ally with the Mongols, he submitted to the Mongols.  Even Jean Richard said that. "customary marks of submission to which Bohemond VI ... had had to conform." (Richard, p. 422) And Bohemond submitted because of pressure from his father-in-law Hethoum I.  "The principality of Antioch was dominated by its Armenian neighbour -- it was through the will of the Armenian king that the Antiochenes came to aid Hulegu in 1259-60." ("The Logic of Conquest" Al-Masaq, v. 14, No.1, March 2002, p. 8)  "Bohemond of Antioch, who was under his father-in-law's influence, gave his adhesion. But the Franks of Acre held aloof." (Runciman, p. 299)  --Elonka 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go again... using some scholarly sources to deny other scholarly sources? Do you often do that? I could go on, quote my sources, and say "No, Elonka, your sources are wrong, because my sources say they were allies", and we'll be in a stupid un-Wikipedian stalemate again. Again, can't you see scholars are just divided on the question? The smart answer is: "He was an ally of the Mongols (according to some scholars), and a vassal of the Mongols (according to other scholars)". Sounds like this introduction sentence again: "some scholars say it was an alliance, some say it was just an attempt towards an alliance". There is absolutely no reason why the sources you favour should prevail over the others, don't you think? And it is an unasailable Wikipedia principle that major views should be presented equally in a NPOV spirit. PHG 19:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PHG, this is your source, the "leading world authority" French historian Jean Richard who says that Bohemond submitted to the Mongols. --Elonka 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not my source, sources do not belong to me, they just are. I will never reject a scholar because another scholar says something different. If both views are expressed by reputable scholars, both deserve to be mentionned. It is not one against the other, can't you see? Scholars are together on this, and the both of us are together on this: we just need to express fairly what the different opinions are, matter-of-factly, without being partisan, and that's it, and that's the way Wikipedia is being built. PHG 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The alliance of Bohemond VI with the Mongols

message: First of all, I think it should be made clear that the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli were Frankish realms. Regarding the issue of the alliance, I would like to remind that Bohemond VI went to the Mongols (he was never invaded) and willingly accepted their suzerainty, rather than fight them or remain neutral (as the Franks of Acre did). As a matter of fact, most historians speak about an alliance, although a few mention that he submitted to the Mongols and became their vassals. A few quotes:
*"Bohemond of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally” John Riley-Smith, The Oxford History of the Crusades, p.136
*"Hethoum's attempts to build a great Christian alliance to aid the Mongols was well received by the local Christian; and Bohemond of Antioch, who was under his father-in-law's influence, gave his adhesion. But the Franks of Asia held aloof.", Runciman, p.299 
*"The Armenians, in the person of king Hethoum, sided with the Mongols, as did Bohemond of Antioch". Amin Maalouf, p.261 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes)
*"Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols". Amin Maalouf, p.265 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes)
I believe this is sufficient ground to have a title mentioning “alliance” rather than just “relations”, as “relations” could be anything (from alliance to conflict), and to explain in the body of the paragraph that some scholars regard this as vassalship and submission to the Mongols.
I think what is important is that over a period of more than 10 years, Bohemond VI chose to join the Mongols rather than fight them or remain neutral, participated to many conquests with them, and repeatedly called them when he was in need of help against the Mamluks. Numerous sources further testify to the good relationship Bohemond VI and his Armenian father-in-law Hethoum I had with the Mongols. There are ample facts, confirmed by numerous modern historians, in favour of a clear description of the alliance between Bohemond and the Mongols. PHG 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bohemond of Antioch did not ally with the Mongols, he submitted to the Mongols.  Even Jean Richard said that. "customary marks of submission to which Bohemond VI ... had had to conform." (Richard, p. 422) And Bohemond submitted because of pressure from his father-in-law Hethoum I.  "The principality of Antioch was dominated by its Armenian neighbour -- it was through the will of the Armenian king that the Antiochenes came to aid Hulegu in 1259-60." ("The Logic of Conquest" Al-Masaq, v. 14, No.1, March 2002, p. 8)  "Bohemond of Antioch, who was under his father-in-law's influence, gave his adhesion. But the Franks of Acre held aloof." (Runciman, p. 299)  --Elonka 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go again... using some scholarly sources to deny other scholarly sources? Do you often do that? I could go on, quote my sources, and say "No, Elonka, your sources are wrong, because my sources say they were allies", and we'll be in a stupid un-Wikipedian stalemate again. Again, can't you see scholars are just divided on the question? The smart answer is: "He was an ally of the Mongols (according to some scholars), and a vassal of the Mongols (according to other scholars)". Sounds like this introduction sentence again: "some scholars say it was an alliance, some say it was just an attempt towards an alliance". There is absolutely no reason why the sources you favour should prevail over the others, don't you think? And it is an unasailable Wikipedia principle that major views should be presented equally in a NPOV spirit. PHG 19:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PHG, this is your source, the "leading world authority" French historian Jean Richard who says that Bohemond submitted to the Mongols. --Elonka 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not my source, sources do not belong to me, they just are. I will never reject a scholar because another scholar says something different. If both views are expressed by reputable scholars, both deserve to be mentionned. It is not one against the other, can't you see? Scholars are together on this, and the both of us are together on this: we just need to express fairly what the different opinions are, matter-of-factly, without being partisan, and that's it, and that's the way Wikipedia is being built. PHG 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts

message: Dear Elonka. I am afraid the above “however, most historians think that…” is becoming a leitmotiv, which is appearing in uncountable instances in the article. Let me remind (again) that such statements are highly subjective, and should better be replaced by specific references. Unreferenced “however, most historians think that…” (especially coming after properly referenced material that state otherwise) are quite characteristic of POV editing and should be avoided, in favour of a proper balanced presentation of the opinions of the various authors on a given subject.PHG 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced ''"however, most historians think that…"''

message: Various attempts have been made at denying the words of some major historians, by using differing statements by some other major historians. This clearly goes against Wikipedia’s fundamental rule of balanced presentation of major sources and NPOV editing.
*For example, scholars are divided in their evaluation of the Franco-Mongol alliance, some treating it as fact, some saying it was “just attempts towards an alliance”. However numerous edits and reverts have been made to try to impose the latter view only, even claiming a 3 editors vs 1 editor (me) discussion as a “consensus” capable of going against this most basic Wikipedia rule of balance and NPOV editing (Let it be reminded that Wikipedia editing principles can never be overruled by small local discussions or micro-votes).
*Another example is the qualification of Bohemond VI alliance with the Mongols. Many historians do describe this as an alliance indeed, while some others explain that Bohemond (willingly) submitted to the Mongols and was their vassal. Some historians even claim both at the same time. I am not saying either view is right or wrong, just that both exist, both are coming from highly reputable sources, and both therefore have the right to be represented per Wikipedia Balance and NPOV rule. There is no reason to favour one view over the other.
I am asking everyone here to uphold Wikipedia NPOV policy and accept that various views be presented, whatever their personal opinions on the subject (as far as I know, the opinions of editors are irrelevant on Wikipedia: we just lay out the opinions of reputable sources and references). 
*Specifically, only speaking about “attempts at an alliance” in the introduction is POV editing, favouring only one side of the story, and suggests that the alliance never actually happened. This opinion is contradicted by many reputable sources, and therefore ‘’’both’’’ views should be represented, such as in “A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, ….”, with attached references. 
*Bohemond’s alliance with the Mongols should clearly be presented as such, with attending moderations that he accepted Mongol overlordship and voluntarily became their vassal.PHG 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Elonka. Your position is contravening to Wikipedia's rules of NPOV and balanced reporting. Major sources deserve representation and equal treatment. There is no reason we should leave this matter to rest. Best regards. PHG 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balancing sources and NPOV editing

message: Appart from the few issues mentionned above, and the need to equally represent major sources ("alliance" and "attempts towards an alliance", or Bohemond's "alliance" and "subordination") in an NPOV manner, I think the article is pretty much there in terms of content. I would think this article is probably now the best available comprehensive source on the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance! Thank you all for your efforts on this arcane subject! PHG 18:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PHG, this tactic of yours of claiming that things are "done", when there are obviously still major disputes, is not helpful.  As can be easily seen by the above threads on this talkpage, most editors are not agreeing with the bias that you're trying to insert.  I also take strong exception to the article that you just created to promote your biased POV: Mongol conquest of Jerusalem.  Please, you need to stop this kind of Tendentious editing.  I realize that you're convinced that you're right, and everyone else is wrong, but please, try to show more respect for the opinions of other editors.  If you can't get other editors to agree with your position, please accept that your position may not be as strong as you think it is. --Elonka 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Elonka, could you kindly be more specific with your accusations? I will be delighted to respond to them one by one, and to retract myself anytime if something was claimed wrongly. By the way, I think I have found a good NPOV title for the new sub-article: "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem". Do you like it? PHG 19:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the article to Mongol raids into Palestine. --Elonka 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka. The sub-article content being 99% about the controversy regarding the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongol, I am afraid your new title ("Mongol raids into Palestine") is much too broad... and would require a much larger article. This tittle is basically inadequate in respect to actual article content, and contravenes to your first intent (outsourcing the info on Jerusalem and the Mongols), don't you think? Can I ask you why didn't you like the much more focused and highly NPOV "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem"? PHG 06:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This discussion has evidently been continued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, where the community consensus appears fairly clear that "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem" is not an appropriate concept for an article. --Elonka 23:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nearly there

message: *Thank you Srnec for your new great intro! Following proper Wikipedia form, it allows the opening sentence to use the wording of the title "A Franco-Mongol alliance was...". I also think it nicely balances the will of all parts (Mongols and Franks) to achieve this alliance, and the reality of its limited results. To me, it is near perfect. Thanks again!
*I also take note that Elonka's 3:1 claimed "consensus" in favour of the "attempts only" approach (justification to her reverts) is thus disappearing, as it would be now a 2:2 at best. It would further evolve should some other users, or Adam, also decide to give their approval to your phrasing. I will not remind here again that micro-polling is no ground to overturn Wikipedia's rules of balanced and NPOV anyway.
Best regards, and thank you for your support and contributions. PHG 06:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Srnec, I've been giving it some thought for a couple weeks (per the "cooling off" request), but I still feel that the majority of historians refer to the topic with "attempts" language (see User:Elonka/Mongol historians).  For example, David Morgan, author of The Mongols puts it clearly, "From 1263 until well into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance."  I really want to make sure that the word "attempts" gets into the lead.  So, how about this as an alternative wording?  "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what many historians refer to as attempts towards forming such an alliance, was the object of a series of diplomatic endeavors between the courts of Western Europe and the Mongol Empire (primarily the Ilkhanate) in the 13th and 14th centuries, starting from around the time of the Seventh Crusade."  --Elonka 22:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Srnec's intro

message: Because of the recent POV fork articles that PHG has been creating (such as Mongol conquest of Jerusalem and Mongol conquests and Jerusalem), and the failure of all other attempts at dispute resolution (as seen by the above threads, including the multiple archives over the last few weeks), I have taken the matter to ANI, the Administrators' Noticeboard. FYI, Elonka 22:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So nice of you Elonka. You are so completely loosing the argument on this page (and loosing the support of other contributors), that the only thing you can find now is slander me on various notice boards? Why don't you stick to the facts, stop corrupting sources to fit your storyline, and respect a balanced presentation of sources in a NPOV manner? Best regards PHG 07:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering that everyone who has weighed in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem has said to delete the article (except for you), I have to again question your judgment here in terms of your ability to correctly determine consensus. Please stop with this attitude of "PHG is right and everyone else is wrong," and try to work with other contributors, instead of continually insisting on your own way? --Elonka 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Elonka. Please recognize you lost your vote here to change the article name, and that your 3:1 supposed "consensus" was never one, and it actually disappeared when Srnec offered his compromise. If everybody wants to delete the title "Mongols raids on Jerusalem", I'm fine with it, it is a minute detail. Best regards. PHG 05:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ANI thread

message: Alright, I've started the page at: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance.  Anyone else that would like to join, either list your name here, and I'll add your name to the page, or you can just add your name directly to the page.  PHG, you're already listed, so I'd appreciate if you could signify your agreement to mediate, by posting "Agree" at the bottom of the page. You are also welcome to list "additional issues to mediate" in the appropriate section.  If anyone has questions, let me know!  :) --Elonka 00:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation request filed

message: Just picked up a copy of David Morgan's new book today.  He updated it quite a bit since the 1985 version, and goes into some detail on the research that's been done on the Mongols over the last decades.  He's extremely clear that the alliance never took place, and further, he lists this as the prevailing view among other historians as well (especially Grousset):
 "This has long been seen as a 'missed opportunity' for the Crusaders. According to that opinion, most eloquently expressed by Grousset and frequently repeated by other scholars, the Crusaders ought to have allied themselves with the pro-Christian, anti-Muslim Mongols against the Mamluks. They might thus have prevented their own destruction by the Mamluks in the succeeding decades, and possibly even have secured the return of Jerusalem by favour of the Mongols." (p. 136)""From 1263 until well into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance, and these appear to have been entered into in perfectly good faith by both sides. We possess the texts of numerous letters sent in both directions. The Popes were always enthusiastic, as much for evangelistic as for specifically crusading reasons, and several western monarchs also treated the idea of an alliance seriously." (p. 160)
FYI, Elonka 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more opinion isn't it? I guess we're getting quite good at cataloguing the various scholarly views on the subject...PHG 06:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For a summary of what modern historians are saying, see: User:Elonka/Mongol historians. --Elonka 05:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mongols (2nd ed)

message: The consensus is that Laurent Dailliez is not a reliable source. Dailliez has a reputation for making claims without providing any proof. To be specific, we are referring to the claim from Dailliez's book Templiers: Les Inconnus where he claims that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols. This book has no references, no footnotes, no bibliography of any kind.  Further, the claim is not corroborated by any other historian.
The consensus is clear (minus PHG's objections) that Dailliez is not a reliable source. This has been discussed at:
* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Laurent Dailliez
* Talk:Laurent Dailliez
* Here at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Concerns about Dailliez
Editors who believe Dailliez is acceptable as a source:
* PHG: "If they are reputable scholars their point of view deserves to be mentionned, even if historians are divided on a given subject."
Editors who believe Dailliez is not acceptable as a source:
* Elonka: "Dailliez's book is a bad source.  We should not use it on Wikipedia."
* EdJohnston, "I agree with Elonka that a book with no footnotes or bibliography should be treated with great caution."
* Blueboar. "The claim is definitely not in accordance with the views of mainstream historians."
* Acer11. "When Dailliez is alone to assert something, he's probably wrong."
* Pete.Hurd: "I havn't seen any of the anticipated coverage of his work suggesting that his views are accepted within the mainstream"
Historian Cerrini (according to Acer11) says, "At Paris, in the academic circles like the IRHT or the EPHE, nobody speaks readily about him...Dailliez doesn't quote his sources, or in an incomplete/wrong way."
Historian Alain Demurger says of Dailliez:
* That he makes claims "with no reference, as is usually the case with this author." (Last Templar, p. 231, footnote #46)
* That Dailliez "has taken mischievious pleasure in muddying the waters" in trying to claim that Jacques de Molay was one of the three generals in the Mongol army. (Last Templar, p. 203)
Bottom line: The consensus is that Dailliez is not a reliable source.  Everyone agrees on this except for PHG.  We should remove Dailliez as a source from the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns about Dailliez (wrapup)

message: Per my talk page: I propose we resolve these factual disputes one at a time, using the method of each side presenting their preferred version of a specific paragraph (or as close to that as makes sense) with references, each side agreeing or disagreeing with the sources and interpretations (I must trust you two to agree on acceptable sources, I am not qualified; but if you can't agree maybe you can agree on the facts you rely on to make that decision and others like myself can help weigh those facts in a judgement of which sources are acceptable for what claims) and we'll see if all of us together can agree on a wording that fairly represents reliable relevant published sources. WAS 4.250 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine.  My current versions are at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance.  I'm fine on choosing anything there and starting discussion.  We've been discussing the introductory section for months, but without success.  Perhaps we should pick something further down? --Elonka 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you two could agree on a paragraph or claim or word in the article this page is a talk page of (that has a corresponding paragraph, claim or word in Elonka's alternate version) such that it has whatever qualities would be useful in unraveling this mess. Sometimes that means finding a keystone. Sometimes that means minding a loose end that can unravel a knot. WAS 4.250 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, I'd say let's use the introductory paragraph.  If we can agree on a lead section, then the rest of the article will fall into place.  I've proposed two new lead sections: Elonka's Version 1, Elonka's Version 2.  I'm happy to discuss either one, towards finding a compromise version. In terms of sources, I've compiled an extensive list at User:Elonka/Mongol historians, and I'm happy to discuss the reliability or suitability of anything there, as well. --Elonka 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I clicked the first one and found a lack of referencing. What I have in mind is a claim written from a reliable published source and a quote from that source that substantiates the claim. Any reader should be able to read the referencing footnote and see that the claim is true. I expect us to deal with issues of out of context, meanings of words that have changed, sources that are out of date, and experts that are biased. But we have to start with a claim that on its face is justified with an actual quote from an actual reliable published source. We then compare the two versions you two suggest go in the article and evaluate which best represents the sources that we are actually going to use in wikipedia to source the claim. WAS 4.250 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have collected dozens of sources as User:Elonka/Mongol historians.  I think it would be a bit of over-kill to source all of them, but we can definitely use a few. Which ones do you think are most compelling? --Elonka 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Write it as it will appear in the article. Then ask yourself, can the average reader see that this quote from this source supports this claim. Lets start with claims that can be sourced to one quote from one source. Once we get enough of those, then we can evaluate: what introductory summation best represents these claims. WAS 4.250 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you're getting at.  Could you please provide an example?  For example, here's a quote from Christoper P. Atwood in Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, in the entry on "Western Europe and the Mongols": Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam."  Are you saying that I should quote Atwood directly in the lead?  Or use him as a ref? --Elonka 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  (followup) I've added several sources to the lead at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance which I think are what you're getting at.  If not, please let me know? --Elonka 20:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about that, fixed.  I'm assuming you're using something like Lupin's popups?  It should be working now. --Elonka 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that it is accurate and relevant, and should go in the lead. In terms of a counter-balancing claim, to my knowledge, the majority of other historians agree with him, but there is one, the French historian Jean Richard, who believes that an alliance was achieved, starting in 1263.  I know of no other historians who agree with Richard's assessment, but since Richard is a reputable historian, I'd say his view is worth including, as long as it is clearly labeled as a minority opinion.  I think I've done that at my version, in User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 21:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal (again)

message: Christoper P. Atwood states "Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam.'" Christoper P. Atwood in Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, in the entry on "Western Europe and the Mongols" (2004) p. 583
====Comments on claim====
Do both sides agree this is accurate? relevant? Which section should it go in? Does it need a counter-balancing claim? Is there a nuance that should be conveyed to the reader in the ref note or in a followup sentence? Add "noted historian[ref]"? WAS 4.250 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is accurate and relevant, and should go in the lead. In terms of a counter-balancing claim, to my knowledge, the majority of other historians agree with him, but there is one, the French historian Jean Richard, who believes that an alliance was achieved, starting in 1263.  I know of no other historians who agree with Richard's assessment, but since Richard is a reputable historian, I'd say his view is worth including, as long as it is clearly labeled as a minority opinion.  I think I've done that at my version, in User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 21:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim 1

message: Do both sides agree this is accurate? relevant? Which section should it go in? Does it need a counter-balancing claim? Is there a nuance that should be conveyed to the reader in the ref note or in a followup sentence? Add "noted historian[ref]"? WAS 4.250 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is accurate and relevant, and should go in the lead. In terms of a counter-balancing claim, to my knowledge, the majority of other historians agree with him, but there is one, the French historian Jean Richard, who believes that an alliance was achieved, starting in 1263.  I know of no other historians who agree with Richard's assessment, but since Richard is a reputable historian, I'd say his view is worth including, as long as it is clearly labeled as a minority opinion.  I think I've done that at my version, in User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 21:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on claim

message: There is a Mediation going on between Elonka and myself, just to have even the introduction phrase settled. Elonka, we're supposed to start by that if you don't mind. PHG 12:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PHG, in order for mediation to be successful, you need to show a willingness to negotiate in good faith, and you need to show a genuine willingness to compromise.  So far I'm afraid that it is starting to look that you are not participating in mediation in good faith.  We have been in there a month: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance and all you have done is continually reject all compromises, continually insist on your own version, and continue to generate personal attacks towards me.  It appears that you are simply using mediation as an attempt to stall, and keep changes away from "your" article.  --Elonka 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka, my position is already a position of compromise, allowing for the representation of both POVs: "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." with relevant references. On the other hand, your position only favours one POV ("Attempts only"). I believe you are actually the one blocking the process by denying both academic views to be represented fairly. Regards. PHG 12:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've said elsewhere, please stop starting all these extra threads.  I've answered you at mediation, I have nothing new to say here. --Elonka 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: *I reverted Elonka's edits to this article. 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 Wikipedia: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 (Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies therefore allows for the representation of both. Trying to establish historical truth through a few editor's comments is called Wikiality, and it is not what we are supposed to do: we are only supposed to lay out in a neutral manner major scholarly views on a given subject, and according to Jimmy Wales, this is "absolute and non-negotiable.". Regards PHG 12:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Elonka, I am afraid you are the one doing vote counting and abusively claiming consensus, when all you have is a clear lack of consensus. All this discussion is clearly ridiculous as you insist on having only your point of view prevail ("Attempts only"), whether I only wish to have both scholarly point-of-views represented (An alliance, ot attempts towards an alliance,...") in Wikipedia:NPOV fashion. Your claim to undue weight is irrelevant as the "Alliance" view is supported by numerous mainstream scholars (User:PHG/Alliance). You really have no case here, and if you don't know how to balance opinions, I am really not interested in continuing this discussion. PHG 11:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * PHG, you keep asking the same question in multiple places.  As for the mediator, they've clearly told you on your talkpage that you shouldn't use their statements as proof of anything.  Now please, stop starting all these extra threads. --Elonka 18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is no reason why you should try to deny a major scholarly point of view, as abundantly described in User:PHG/Alliance. And I am not starting other threads at all, please explain. PHG 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is a straw man argument - Elonka is not trying to deny that some historians believe there was an alliance, merely to put that claim in context and to make sure the article gives it due weight. WjBscribe 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree, she is trying to have her POV prevail "Only attempts at an alliance", whether I am only asking for balanced representation "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." with attendant references in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV. It is illegitimate to claim that the "alliance" point of view is marginal. Just look at the sources: User:PHG/Alliance. PHG 18:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elonka POV and illegitimate claim of a consensus

message: This debate is spiraling down into a sewer of speculation and accusation. I am puzzled as to why more effort is not being given at discussing one issue at a time per WAS 4.250. For 2 people debating about scholarship, this is pathetic, hence this section title. If you two wish to reply to this message please save and keep it to yourself the accusation of who began this conflict/attitude. The way I see it you two seem to not care about engaging in discussion but rather provide a quick note on your view of an issue and than waste time on accusation and recently the accusation part is dominating the discussion more and more. So my recommendation is to shut up about what you think the other person's agenda/downfalls are and just concentrate on discussion. Discussion of not 2-3 replies but a discussion of child like (I'll explain in a minute) proportions where one person defends his position/view under a barrage of "Why do you think so?"/"How do you know that?" questions until there is nothing possibly left unclear. I would urge you two to at least attempt it unless you plan to spend couple weeks vacationing at arbcom. Good Luck, you two need it. 70.51.118.198 18:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathetic 

message: This now has its own article, please link it. Lampman 14:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Siege of Ruad

message: I read elsewhere that the King of France was so upset at the Mongol incursions into Russia, due to the Kievan side, that he boasted to make his way east and destroy them once and for all.  No mention of it here, huh?  Sad.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be up to you to provide reliable sources for that. --Latebird (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a hoax? 

message: See User:John Kenney/Mongols.  As I go along I see that PHG has apparently already read this article, but I thought that more extensive quotations would be more useful than hand-picked out of context quotations. I've only gone partway through, I hope to continue tomorrow. john k (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some salient quotes from the Jackson article 

message: For information, Alain Demurger, one of the leading French historians of the Knights Templar and the Crusades, is very specific in his last book Les Templiers (2007) that the Mongol ruler Ghazan captured Jerusalem after he had taken Damascus in 1299/1300: "In December 1299, he (Ghazan) vanquishes the Mamluks in the Second Battle of Homs, and captures Damascus and even Jerusalem" (Alain Demurger, Les Templiers, p.84) and that his general Mulay was in Jerusalem in 1299/1300: "Mûlay, a Mongol general who was effectively present at Jerusalem in 1299/1300." (Alain Demurger, Les Templiers, p.84). Although the Mongols captured Jerusalem, he also explains that the Frank Christians did not manage to take possession of it from the Mongols because of their unreadiness. (see also Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)). PHG (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not another POV fork?  PHG, we've already had an AfD on this, and the resounding consensus was that we didn't need the article Mongol raids on Jerusalem, so it was deleted. So you went ahead and created Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300) instead?  Sorry, but no.  The new article should be deleted.  Please merge any relevant information from it, into Mongol raids into Palestine instead. Seriously, PHG, this is highly disruptive, you need to stop this behavior. When there is a clear consensus of other editors who want a certain course of action, you need to respect that.  If you do not respect that, then you risk being blocked entirely from Wikipedia. --Elonka 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Becoming an Administrator did not change your intimidation methods apparently! The AfD was on "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem", which was indeed voted down. The new title is  "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)", which is not at all POV. Many authors to describe Mongol raids on Jerusalem. The article as such is totally justified (subject, size, content), and is useful to deflate the size of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. PHG (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PHG, I think Elonka's point is that, as per the AFD, the subject can be covered in the Mongol raids into Palestine article, as it is currently.  Using "Palestine" instead of "Jerusalem" in the title is more historically accurate, as the raids were not only directed at Jerusalem, and more neutral in their point of view.  If you would like to try to gain community consensus to have a "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)" article, please do so on the Mongol raids into Palestine talk page.  If not, please continue this conversation at User talk:Elonka or at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine rather than on here, as this article does not specifically pertain to this subject we are addressing.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ioeth. The size of Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300) at 36k fully justifies an independent article. The AfD was more about the word "Conquest" in the original article being too POV (hence the "POV-fork" claim). Now "Raids" is much more neutral (actually about as neutral as the other article "Mongol raids in Palestine"), and the expression "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" is shared by numerous historians. PHG (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PHG, I have replied on your talkpage.  But I would point out now that every single editor who is commenting on this (recently this means me, Ioeth, Adam Bishop, John k, and Srnec) is opposed to your actions.  Please stop with your disruptive behavior, and work with editors instead of in opposition to them. --Elonka 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite the contrary. I have been bringing more references forward to make Demurger's case clearer, and I think the dispute has settled down now... before you start bringing undue accusations. You just attacked me on my Talk Page for creating the Armeno-Mongol alliance article. Elonka, you are the one who actually proposed creating "Ameno-Mongol alliance"... and now you say you are against it and criticize me for starting the article? (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article split). You even wrote "I support the idea of creating a separate article for the Armenian-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriouly. This does look like bullying. Elonka should reconsider her involvement in this article. If what she claims regarding a consensus is true, surely someone else will come forward to carry her torch?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No Eupator, this is not bullying, this is trying to keep false and biased information out of Wikipedia.  And it's not a case of "me against PHG".  I invite you to read the "Hans Eberhard Mayer" thread above, where you will see that multiple editors, including myself, Adam Bishop, Srnec, Ioeth, and John K, are speaking up.  But PHG is disagreeing with all of us. I also invite you to read the results at the above #Request for comment thread, where again, every editor is disagreeing with PHG's course of action. --Elonka 06:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 or 5 comments by some editors has never constituted a consensus, and all editors do not agree with you Elonka. A consensus is not even sufficient to overturn Wikipedia:NPOV "non-negotiable" rules that all "significant opinions" should be represented. I decided to file an harassment claim against you here. PHG (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's used quite commonly actually, like Greco or Russo. ,[Armeno Russian].-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols (update)