Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive

message: PHG, if you have trouble with the issues that I have posted on the mediation page, you are welcome to change them to something more to your liking.  However, please be aware that any extra text in the "agree/disagree" section is just going to be deleted.  :/ --Elonka 05:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues to mediate

message: #As previously agreed with User:Elonka (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Mediation), I disagree to enter a mediation on these terms, as they seem to contravene to Wikipedia's most basic rules of balanced reporting and NPOV policy. Specifically, Elonka is trying to establish "one truth", when major scholars are actually divided on these subjects. We are not on Wikipedia to decide which major theory is right or wrong, but to present them in a balanced NPOV manner:
* Determining how to best define the consensus of modern reliable historians on the "Was there a Franco-Mongol alliance?" issue.  Specifically: Is the consensus that there was an allliance, wasn't an alliance, or are historians evenly split? How many opinions on the matter are mainstream, and how many are fringe? Which should be represented in the article?
::According to Wikipedia NPOV rules major authors all have the right to representation in the article. Main views should be represented in a balanced way. If Elonka has issues with this principle, I am ready to take it to mediation.
* Determining the best name for this article
::This was already voted for, overwhelmingly in Elonka's disfavour (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move). I do not think it legitimate to again discuss it.
* Determining the best wording for the lead sentence/paragraph
::A great compromise opening sentence was made by Snerc. Elonka's claimed 3:1 "consensus" disappeared, so it seems to me Snerc"s proposal is the best.
* Deciding how many and what type of primary source quotes should be used
::Wikipedia rules also already apply here. A reasonable amount of primary sources is accepted, especially when quoted by secondary sources. I don't think there is even any discussion to have here on this subject.
* Deciding how best to present the relationship of the Armenians with the Mongols:  Alliance or submission to overlordship?
::I think there's nothing to decide. Reputable scholars describe both, both should be described. If Elonka has an issue with balanced reporting in general, we could address that through mediation.
* Deciding how best to present the relationship of the Antiochenes with the Mongols: Alliance or submission to overlordship?
::Same as above.
* Discussing how to best present the information about the status of Jerusalem in 1300: Conquered, raided, or left alone?
::I think there's nothing to decide. Scholars describe all three. If Elonka has issue with balanced reporting in general, we could address that through mediation.
* Deciding if or how to best split this article into manageable sections, WP:SUMMARY style
::Why not, but I am quite reluctant with Elonka's approach of drowning a sub-subject into a larger article (such as you did unilaterally for Mongol raids into Palestine.
* Deciding which sources are reliable secondary sources, and which are not (example: back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview, etc.)
::Yes, I'd be glad to know what Wikipedia standards are in this respect (nothing for us to decide though, just a matter of following Wiki guidelines).
* Determining how to best present the impact of the Knights Templar, in relation to the Mongols (were the Templars a central organizing force, or no?)
::I think there's nothing to decide. Scholars describe the two views. If you have an issue with balanced reporting in general, we could address that through mediation.
Elonka's main issue seems to be with Wikipedia's policy of balance and NPOV presentation of various scholarly sources. This is a fundamental editing principle on Wikipedia, which I agree to discuss as a first preliminary step through this mediation. PHG 05:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from agreement section 

message: Following Daniel's request, here is a clarification of what Elonka and I have agreed to discuss:
1) Deciding on a common understanding of Wikipedia's policy of balance and NPOV presentation of various scholarly sources: should one scholarly interpretation prevail, or should we present in a balanced way the major scholarly opinions on a given subject.
2) Deciding which sources are reliable secondary sources, and which are not (example: back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview, etc.)
3) Deciding if or how to best split this article into manageable sections, WP:SUMMARY style
PHG 13:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me.  We gotta start someplace. :) --Elonka 15:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. Updated the main list :) Daniel 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Okay, this is progress.   :)  I still have problem with some of PHG's interpretations above, but for now, let's just concentrate on combining my info and PHG's info.  I'm going to list them as "Scholars who we both agree said there was an alliance," "Scholars who we both agree said there was no alliance (including those who said there were plans or hopes, but never explicitly said there was an alliance), "Scholars whose interpretations we disagree on."
===== Said there was an alliance=====
* Jean Richard (Elonka: He's ambiguous, but I'm willing to compromise on this one and list him in the "alliance" camp)
* Oldenbourg (Elonka: This was a probable typo)
* Laurent Dailliez (Elonka: Probably a typo)
===== Attempts, or no alliance =====
===== Disputed =====
: See User:Elonka/Mongol historians for exact quotes
* Rene Grousset (Elonka: Another historian defines Grousset's view as saying that there should have been an alliance, not that there was one)
* Jonathan Riley-Smith (Elonka: He said that one single group of Hospitallers fought on the Mongol side in 1260, while others had a truce with the Muslims instead.  That's not a full Franco-Mongol alliance)
* Peter Jackson (historian) (Elonka: He goes into dozens of pages about why the alliance didn't happen.  A single chapter heading "Ally against Islam" in no way should be used as confirmation that he said that an alliance existed)
* Christopher Tyerman (Elonka: He goes to great trouble to say that the alliance was a chimera,  a will of the wisp, a "false hope" that "led nowhere".  He absolutely did not confirm that an alliance existed.)
* Alain Demurger (Elonka: One sentence in the book implies that the Crusaders "emotionally" agreed to the alliance in 1300, but the rest uses "tries" and "hope" language)
* Claude Mutafian (Elonka: He was talking about the Armenian relations with the Mongols, not about the European relations)
* Malcolm Barber 
* Amin Maalouf
* Sharan Newman 
* Sylvia Schein 
* Sean Martin 
* David Nicolle 
* Angus Donal Stewart 
* Encyclopedia Britannica 
* David Morgan
* Steven Runciman
* Steven Turnbull
* Clough/Garsoian
* Claude Lebedel
* Prawdin
* Prawer
* Denis Sinor
* Glenn Burger
* Phillips, J R S 
Can we agree that the above is an accurate combination of our views? If not, feel free to move things around or add comments. --Elonka 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combined list 

message: : See User:Elonka/Mongol historians for exact quotes
* Rene Grousset (Elonka: Another historian defines Grousset's view as saying that there should have been an alliance, not that there was one)
* Jonathan Riley-Smith (Elonka: He said that one single group of Hospitallers fought on the Mongol side in 1260, while others had a truce with the Muslims instead.  That's not a full Franco-Mongol alliance)
* Peter Jackson (historian) (Elonka: He goes into dozens of pages about why the alliance didn't happen.  A single chapter heading "Ally against Islam" in no way should be used as confirmation that he said that an alliance existed)
* Christopher Tyerman (Elonka: He goes to great trouble to say that the alliance was a chimera,  a will of the wisp, a "false hope" that "led nowhere".  He absolutely did not confirm that an alliance existed.)
* Alain Demurger (Elonka: One sentence in the book implies that the Crusaders "emotionally" agreed to the alliance in 1300, but the rest uses "tries" and "hope" language)
* Claude Mutafian (Elonka: He was talking about the Armenian relations with the Mongols, not about the European relations)
* Malcolm Barber 
* Amin Maalouf
* Sharan Newman 
* Sylvia Schein 
* Sean Martin 
* David Nicolle 
* Angus Donal Stewart 
* Encyclopedia Britannica 
* David Morgan
* Steven Runciman
* Steven Turnbull
* Clough/Garsoian
* Claude Lebedel
* Prawdin
* Prawer
* Denis Sinor
* Glenn Burger
* Phillips, J R S 
Can we agree that the above is an accurate combination of our views? If not, feel free to move things around or add comments. --Elonka 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I bought Jackson, Peter (2005). The Mongols and the West: 1221-1410. A few points: he has a full chapter entitled “An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and describes all the vicissitudes and the actual results of the Mongol alliance. Although he stresses that the results of this alliance were small to nil, he nevertheless mentions the numerous instances in which coordinated military actions took place as a consequence (Edward I and the Mongols, the 800 Genoese men in Baghdad to build raiding galleys etc….), although they were essentially ineffective. Something else, guess what, Peter Jackson actually considers as ‘’’fact’’’ the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300 (“The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had prefered a pagan ruler as His instrument”, p.173). I am sure Elonka will now try to criticize this source also (who wrote categorically “this DID NOT happen”??). He also says that the Mongols raided Jerusalem in 1260 and that Hulagu repeatedly claimed to have remitted Jerusalem to the Christians at that time (although not mentioned in Arab or Frank sources)… Nice to discover (again) Elonka’s selectivity in quoting sources! PHG 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Checking sources: Peter Jackson

message: I checked Amin Maalouf’s “The Crusades through Arab eyes”, and I cannot find any reference to Elonka’s characterization of the alliance “being just a dream”. On the contrary, Amin Maalouf is extensive and specific on the alliance (page numbers refer to the French edition): “The Armenians, in the person of their king Hetoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond, his son-in-law. The Franks of Acre however adopted a position of neutrality favourable to the muslims” (p.261), “Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols” (p.265), “Hulagu (…) still had enough strength to prevent the punishment of his allies [Bohemond and Hethoum]” (p.267), “..the Hospitallers. These monk-horsemen  allied with the Mongols, going as far as fighting at their side in a new attempt at invasion in 1281.” Maalouf does say that Arghun’s dearest dream was an alliance with the Franks (p.271) but this only expresses his will and is certainly not a negation of the actual cases of alliance otherwise mentionned in the article. PHG 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Checking sources: Amin Maalouf

message: I am concerned by PHG's recent addition of alliance-related information to other articles. I have not been going through his contribs in detail, but at Ilkhanate he appears be making an end-run around mediation, by re-adding the old version of the introduction sentence, rather than the new wording that we agreed upon.  And at Pope Clement V, he has been adding very strong language about the existence of an alliance between Europe and the Mongols. Regarding the two sources that he added, one (Jean-Paul Roux) is very much a minority opinion, and as for the other one, a quote from Peter Jackson's The Mongols and the West, the quote is taken very much out of context, and completely disregards all of the surrounding text. I haven't been going through PHG's contribs in detail, but he also appears to have been adding alliance-related information to Ilkhanate, including the "old" version of the opening sentence rather than the new one that we agreed upon.
In order for this mediation to have any chance of succeeding, I would much prefer if PHG could focus his alliance-related edits to this mediation, rather than further expanding the dispute to more and more articles.
Elonka 17:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka. Nice to see you back after a 10 days absence... Just because we have a mediation going on (to which you have not even responded for two weeks) does not mean that I shouldn't contribute to Wikipedia (with properly referenced material!). I have put in a lot of new photographs and factual quotes, which will hopefully contribute further to our discussion... PHG (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Still trying to attack secondary authorities which you do not favour? I created an article for Jean-Paul Roux. PHG (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PHG, I was not avoiding mediation -- I just didn't have internet access.  If you'll check my contribs, you'll see I wasn't editing anything else on Wikipedia either, from November 14 to November 24: . My absence was not something within my control. And considering how quick you were to level accusations at me for "avoiding mediation", I am extremely disappointed that you took advantage of my absence to add biased information to several other articles. Please answer me this:  Are you even interested in continuing with mediation? --Elonka 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am certainly not blaming you for being away Elonka. But don't tell me "why haven't you put more time in mediation?" when you yourself haven't contributed anything for 14 days. I am glad to continue this mediation as long as someone is responding to me :) PHG (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of dispute