Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 5

message: Besides Christian sources, Muslim sources are actually the most specific (in fact, extremely specific, about the subject). According to the historian Sylvia Schein "Arab chroniclers, like Moufazzal Ibn Abil Fazzail, an-Nuwairi and Makrizi, report that the Mongols raided the country as far as Jerusalem and Gaza." (Schein, "Gesta dei per Mongolos 1300", p.810)
In a 1301 letter, the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir accused Ghazan of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem, "the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca" ("In a letter dated 3 October 1301, Ghazan was accused by the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem 'the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca!". Schein, 1979, p. 810.):
The Arab historian Yahia Michaud, in the 2002 book Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI, describes that there were some firsthand accounts at the time of forays of the Mongols into Palestine, and quotes two major contemporary Muslim sources (Abu al-Fida and  Ibn Taymiyyah) who state that Jerusalem was one of the cities that was invaded by the Mongols: (Michaud Yahia (Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies) (2002). Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI (in French). Chap. XI.)
The 14th century Muslim historian Al-Mufaddal also mentions the massacres of the populations of Jerusalem and the nearby city of Hebron (30 km south of Jerusalem) by the Mongols during the 1299-1300 campaign,(Referenced in Luisetto, p.205) and even mentions, together with Al-Nuwayri, that a cross was raised on the top of the Mosque of Abraham in Hebron. (Luisetto, quoting Al-Mufaddal and Al-Nuwayri, p.206). All details in User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)#Alliance to recapture the Levant (1297-1303) (deleted - see alternative link), which have been suppressed in the "short version". Best regards PHG (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim sources

message: Besides Christian sources, Muslim sources are actually the most specific (in fact, extremely specific, about the subject). According to the historian Sylvia Schein "Arab chroniclers, like Moufazzal Ibn Abil Fazzail, an-Nuwairi and Makrizi, report that the Mongols raided the country as far as Jerusalem and Gaza." (Schein, "Gesta dei per Mongolos 1300", p.810)
In a 1301 letter, the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir accused Ghazan of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem, "the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca" ("In a letter dated 3 October 1301, Ghazan was accused by the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem 'the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca!". Schein, 1979, p. 810.):
The Arab historian Yahia Michaud, in the 2002 book Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI, describes that there were some firsthand accounts at the time of forays of the Mongols into Palestine, and quotes two major contemporary Muslim sources (Abu al-Fida and  Ibn Taymiyyah) who state that Jerusalem was one of the cities that was invaded by the Mongols: (Michaud Yahia (Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies) (2002). Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI (in French). Chap. XI.)
The 14th century Muslim historian Al-Mufaddal also mentions the massacres of the populations of Jerusalem and the nearby city of Hebron (30 km south of Jerusalem) by the Mongols during the 1299-1300 campaign,(Referenced in Luisetto, p.205) and even mentions, together with Al-Nuwayri, that a cross was raised on the top of the Mosque of Abraham in Hebron. (Luisetto, quoting Al-Mufaddal and Al-Nuwayri, p.206). All details in User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)#Alliance to recapture the Levant (1297-1303) (deleted - see alternative link), which have been suppressed in the "short version". Best regards PHG (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim sources

message: From :
p. 123, from the chapter "A Chronological Outline of the Crusades"
"1299 - The Mongol Il-Khan, Ghazan approaches Henry II of Cyprus (1285-1324) and the military orders to participate in his planned invasion of Syria. The western interests took no action. Dec: Mongols defeat the Mamelukes at Homs."
"1300 - Jan: Mongols occupy Damascus. Feb. Boniface VIII announces the first jubilee year in Rome. He uses the flock of visitors to promote a crusade and to captialise on the Mongol successes. Late: Mongols undertake a further campaign in Syria but fail to consolidate their conquests."
From :
(page 9) Moreover, in the course of the 1250's the entire political situation in the Middle East was rendered more complicated, and possibly more hopeful for the Franks, by the arrival of Mongol armies. Hulegu, brother of Mongke Khan, took Baghdad in 1258 and Aleppo and Damascus in 1260. Since 1245, when Innocent IV had sent the Franciscan John of Piano del Carpine to the Great Khan's court to convert him to Christianity, some Christians had seen potential converts and allies in the Mongols. None the less, when Hulegu sent his general Kitbuqa southwards to attack Egypt the Franks decided to remain neutral, either because they feared Mongol suzerainty more than the threat of Mamluk conquest, or because they did not want to irritate the Mamluks by allying with Hulegu. Perhaps, too, they hoped that even without Franksih support, the Mongols would inflict enough losses on the Mamluks to make them less of a danger thereafter. It was a disastrous, but understandable miscalculation, for nobody could have foreseen the decisiveness of the Mamluk victory over Kitbuqa at Ain Jalut in September 1260, or the completeness with which Hulegu withdrew to Iran, leaving the Mamluks masters of Syria as well as Egypt.
(page 21-22) As for the Mongols, events in 1299-1303 showed how serious a threat they could still present. In 1299 the greatest of the Ilkhans, Ghazan, who was hostile to the Mamluks despite his own conversion to ISlam, launched an invasion of Syria. He preceded it with a suggestion to King Henry II of Cryprus and the masters of the Military Orders that they should contribute troops, a move which led nowhere but confirmed the wisdom of Mamluk strategy in expelling the Franks fromt he mainland. In December 1299 the Mongol army crushed the Mamluks at Homs, and in January 1300 it occupied Damascus. For the Christians, the next few months were full of hope. Henry II and the Military Orders undertook small-scale military operations on the Syrian and Egyptian coasts, and in response to appeals from Ghazan, who declared himself willing to return the Holy Land to the Christians, Pope Boniface VIII encouraged preparations for a crusade. But Ghazan proved unable to consoloidate his successes of 1299. An invasion in the winter of 1300-1 achieved nothing, and in April 1303 the Mamluks defeated a Mongol army near Damascus. In 1304 Ghazan died, and after an abortive invasion in 1312-13 the Mongols never again presented a danger to Mamluk Syria. The only Christian gain from Ghazan's successes was Ruad, an island off the coast opposite Tortosa, which remained in the hands of the Templars until the Mamluks captured it in 1302. And although Oljeitu, Ghazan's successor, made several overtures to Philip the Fair, Edward I, and Pope Clement V in the new century's first decade, no alliance was forthcoming. Despite the urgings of the Mongols themselves and of their Armenian allies --for whom collaboration with the Ilkhans had long been a fact of life-- the overall lesson for the West of the extraordinary events of 1299-1303 was that regaining the Holy Land through military co-operation with the Mongols was not viable. That formidable task was the burden of western Christiandom alone, and in the forty years following the disasters of 1291 it was to invest much energy and substantial resources in attempts to fulfil it.
From  :
(page 159-160) A real change in the Mongol attitude towards Europe did come about, but not until after 1260. Events around that time marked the break-up of Mongol unity, and the Ilkhans of Persia, faced with the hostility both of the Mamluk regime in Egypt and of their cousins of the Golden Horde, speedily dropped the old hauteur and began to see the Christian powers as potentially useful allies. The basic idea behind such projects for alliance was a combined operation against the Mamluks: a crusading force would be sent from Europe and its activities would be co-ordinated with an Ikhanid invasion of Syria. Should Syria be conquered by the allies, the Crusaders would again take possesion of Jerusalem; and there was always the tantilizing possibility that the Mongols would themselves become Christian converts. 
These negotiations, as we now know, were intitiated by Hulegu in 1262, when he sent his letter, recently discovered, to Louis IX. We cannot in fact be certain that Louis ever received the letter: Professor Richard's attempt to identify a Mongol embassy in Paris in 1262 with the delivery of the letter from Persia is interesting, but that particular embassy seems more likely to have been sent by Berke of the Golden Horde. But 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.
(page 161) The conversion of the Ilkhans to ISalm had made no difference to their political enmity towards the Mamluks, and only the Mamluk-Ikhanid peace treaty of 1322 cause the Mongols of Persia to lose all interes in an alliance with the Christian powers.
By this time the Christians had been deprived of their last foohold in Syria: Acre had fallen to the forces of the Mamluk sultan al-Ashraf Kalil in 1291. No really effective join action had ever been organised: in thirteenth-century conditions the problems of co0ordination appear to have been insuperable. The loss of Acre did not bring negotiations to an end. Indeed, at one point Europe was swept with rumours that the Mongols had actually taken Jerusalem from theMamluks and had returned it to Christian rule. Although this had not in fact happened, the stories did reflect the reality of Ghazan's remarkable successes in 1299-1300 when he drove the Mamluk forces completely out of Syria, on ly to withdraw again to Persia.
That's some of what I've found just in the first few look throughs. I'll note that  does not mention once any alliance (or even attempt) by the English with the Mongols. In 370 pages of text.Ealdgyth | Talk 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ealdgyth. Tyerman gives many details about the various events of the relations between the Franks and the Mongols in God's War: A New History of the Crusades (2006). He does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", although he specifies that in the end it led nowhere,("The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" p.816) and turned out to be a "false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom." (pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, with Louis IX's early attempts at capturing "the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories, and Edward's largely unsuccessful attempts. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New data

message: I think it's time to sort out the references. Yeah, I hear the groans. Right now we've got most of the sources listed in the references section, but there are a few listed in the notes that aren't listed below. NOrmally, I'd just go ahead and list them below. The problem is that the short footnotes list "Jackson p. #" and if I put another article by Jackson below, it is going to become unclear which Jackson is referred to. I suggest we go with one of two systems for the short footnotes, either "Author, Title p. #" or "Author (date) p. #". I slightly prefer using the title, as that makes it easier to trace for the reader, but a lot of folks like the date version. Since I didn't write the article, I don't wanna go in and change anything without some sort of input from folks. So .. suggestions?Ealdgyth | Talk 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would prefer sourcing things to the English-language books.  It's been difficult to keep track of books (such as Jean Richard's) that are both in English and French, especially because the page numbers aren't in synch.--Elonka 18:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No objections here.  Do what you think is best, it'll be great to have some more help on the article.  :) --Elonka 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all your work on this!  I'll go through and try to fill in any of the gaps. :) --Elonka 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that Maalouf is not the best source, and I would be happy to see all references to Maalouf either removed or upgraded. --Elonka 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask why? You added Maalouf as a source to an article that was promoted to a good article status and is linked from your userspace.. What changed your mind?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure.  :) The more I've read about the history, the more I've become aware of the deficiencies in Maalouf's book.  Don't get me wrong, Crusades Through Arab Eyes is a good general survey of the time-period, it's widely-available in general bookstores, and as such, was one of the books that I read when I was working on the Knights Templar article. Maalouf's writing definitely sparked my interest in other subjects, such as Shawar and Fustat.  There's definitely a lot of good information in Maalouf's book, and it is a valuable resource for getting an Arab perspective on things.  However, given a choice of citing Maalouf, or citing a definitive academic and peer-reviewed source, I would prefer a more academic source.  In cases where there aren't a lot of high quality academic sources, and we're talking about non-controversial information, I think Maalouf may be still be acceptable as a source.  But here on Franco-Mongol alliance where we are having disputes about which sources to use, I think that the best course is to stick with the highest-quality sources available, and I don't think Maalouf meets that standard. --Elonka 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Franceso Gabrieli's "Arab Historians of the Crusades" is much better than Maalouf, but it is out of print, apparently. How ridiculous is that? You can also find published translations of some Arab sources, although maybe not for this period...anyway, I also wanted to say that using the original language is usually preferrable, at least academically, but this is not academia so English is probably better. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the pointer, found a used copy of Gabrieli and it's on its way. Gotta love Amazon. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay, time to be a pain again

message: So Elonka doesn't  scream (note I'm teasing Elonka here, she wouldn't really scream) that we've derailed the poll, a spot for more comments
* Comment The more I dug today, the more I think a total start from scratch is not such a bad idea. I'm not quite ready to "not-vote" that way, but I can't say that the idea of an overarching article on a singular alliance is striking me as the right way to go. And certainly, some of the legacy prose is worrisome. (Not Elonka's fault, I figure she was trying to incorporate as much as possible from before to lessen feelings of having work destroyed and having to start from scratch). To be frank, this whole concept is starting to strike me as OR or a fringe theory. Yeah, I need to read more of what I've gotten in, but what I've read so far makes me think we're going to have to dig through every single sentence and source, and if we're doing that, wouldn't a fresh start be easier? I dont know, just some thoughts.Ealdgyth | Talk 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because you added those comments, not those users.  There is no case in which those will be counted.  Its also sad that you are again canvassing in an attempt to sway things your way. Shell babelfish 11:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shell, you are deleting proper statements made by proper Wikipedia users. I am just mentionning them, because they took a clear stance regarding this issue. Since you wish to disregard their opinion, I am asking them to confirm or infirm what they have written. PHG (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus can and often does change.  Comments that editors made before this entire page of discussion may not be relevant to current discussion.  There is absolutely no precedent for adding other editors prior comments to a straw poll -- it is just a tool used to gauge current consensus and encourage further discussion -- it is not a vote.  We're not disregarding anyone who's contributed to the discussion, whereas you have tried to change the polls wording, been incredibly incivil to Elonka and brought up old comments only from people who sided with your viewpoint.  Frankly PHG, we're all getting rather tired of the antics. Shell babelfish 12:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More comments

message: PHG, would you care to address my concerns from Feb. 1 above under the Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Another concern thread?Ealdgyth | Talk 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the insufficient refs you listed are not mine (I think there are quite a bunch by Elonka). I'll see what I can do though. PHG (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's the point about Amitai-Priess, third indention under "Another concern". And the insufficient refs are taken from the long version, but they are archived. There were two lists of sources that needed full information, one from the long version, one from the short version.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hum... please note that my original text was "King Louis transmitted the letter to Pope Urban IV, who answered by asking for Hulagu's conversion to Christianity.", and this was referenced to the Encyclopedia Iranica article (not Amitai-Priess) as late as January 14th:. As I edited the article I probably mistakenly removed the reference to the Encyclopedia Iranica article for this comment. I think there were also some discussions at that time (by you?) that references to an Encyclopedia were not so desirable. I will reinstate the Encyclopedia Iranica reference. Regards. PHG (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: And again being the pain

message: So, it seems that nothing new has happened on this page or the the main article for a week now? Have Elonka's supporters got tired of attacking me, or somewhat realized that the original content may not have been so bad after all? Or got stuck and discouraged with all the personal attacks?
I maintain that Elonka's deletion of 120k of content and 300 academic references is an atrocious procedure, and is not even supported by a real consensus (3 supporters/3 neutral/ 1 against). Content should be discussed, and balanced by alternative sources if necessary, not just deleted outright after 6 months of hard work. This is the only way of properly handling things in the spirit of Wikipedia.
I also have a big issue with people just deleting proper published sources just because they don't match their storyline or pre-conceptions. According to Wikipedia:NPOV, all significant views should be mentionned, and this is non-negotiable. Nobody should delete proper secondary sources because of their own interpretations, or their wish to privilege only one point of view. This is a strong disservice to Wikipedia and goes against Wikipedia editing rules.
It seems that some users such as Elonka are only interested in personal attacks, and spend a huge amount of time trying to gain whatever online and offline support. This is quite a shame, quite a waste of time and energy. I believe all users involved should stop personal attacks, focus on what published sources actually say, and just work at arranging the information in a NPOV way. No need for constant personal attacks, hopefully this is not what we are here for: Make content, not war!
I am personnally very busy in real life right now, and will not be available on a daily basis anytime soon, but I strongly recommend that we return to proper editorial procedures, and work with, not against the content that has been painstakingly developed over 6 months: Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) (deleted - see alternative link), going our way with appropriate rewriting/ split/ condense or even expansion when needed. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, things have been done. I straightened footnotes and consolidated, some other work has been done. However, it was Valentine's day here this week, so I was busy with that, and frankly, RL issues also (we just bought 5 acres of land and will start building a house shortly). I certainly don't feel like things are stalled, not sure about others. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: On a side note, may I ask what the Dalai Lama has to do with this discussion?  I am unaware of his involvement with either the Franks or the Mongols. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's untrue, you haven't "tried to work with me" on this topic. You only followed Elonka's personal vendetta in deleting a 190k article developed over 6 months, and sticked to her partisan 70k version with much less informational value. "Working together" would mean starting from the material already in place, and edit/ split/ condenses as necessary. This is also the way things are supposed to be done on Wikipedia. To me the Dalai Lama is a symbol of goodwill and generosity, something I have seen totally lacking on this page. PHG (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "we have all tried to work with you," by which statement I mean myself, Aramgar, Elonka, Ealdgyth, Srnec, Adam Bishop, Eupator, and Shell Kinney - a long list of editors who have expressed concern over your methodology and behaviour.  I personally have read both versions and read substantial portions of the sourced cited in each, and find that Elonka's shorter version provides a much clearer and more accurate view of the acadmic writings on this subject.  You come across as completely unwilling to listen to or work with any of the other editors here (not just myself, and not just Elonka), and unable to accept any changes to what you seem to view as your own article. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Content deletion, lack of consensus and editorial stuckness

message: I have a little more than two hours ahead of me, so here is an update to Ealdgyth's looooong list of requests:
**Hindley:
This undocumented reference was from Elonka. I suppose she refered to: The Crusades: Islam and Christianity in the Struggle for World Supremacy (Paperback)
by Geoffrey Hindley, Carroll & Graf (May 26, 2004) 
**Foltz:
This is one of my books (already mentionned in the reference list): Foltz, Richard (2000). "Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century". New York: St. Martin's Griffin. . 
**Pringle:
This is Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1993, Cambridge University Press, 
**Hobson:
"The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization", John M.Hobson, Cambridge University Press (July 5, 2004)  
**History In Dispute:
One of Elonka's undocumented references. Apparently: History in Dispute: The Crusades, 1095-1291, History in Dispute: The Crusades, 1095-1291 Author(s): Showalter, Dennis E.; Abate, Mark T.; Allison, Robert J.; Frankel, Benjamin, Publisher: Gale / Cengage Learning, 
**Setton's Crusades:
Already detailed in the reference list: Hazard, Harry W. (editor) (1975). Volume III: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Kenneth M. Setton, general editor, A History of the Crusades, The University of Wisconsin Press. .  
** Morgan, David. "The Mongols and the Eastern Mediterranean":
One of Elonka's undocumented references (I think): probably David Morgan "The Mongols", Wiley-Blackwell; 2 edition (May 18, 2007)  
** Glenn A Lytell Chronicle:
One of Elonka's undocumented references. I have no idea what this is, and couldn't find a reference on Google.
**Knobler (which is given a full citation in a footnote, true, but it should be in the references also):
One of Elonka's references: Adam Knobler (Fall 1996). "Pseudo-Conversions and Patchwork Pedigrees: The Christianization of Muslim Princes and the Diplomacy of Holy War". 'Journal of World History' 7 (2): 181-197.
**David Wilkinson, Studying the History of Intercivilizational Dialogues  (which has a link):
This is a conference: David Wilkinson, Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, Studying the History of Intercivilizational Dialogues, Presented to the
United Nations University, International Conference on the Dialogue of Civilizations, Tokyo and Kyoto, 31 July--3 August 2001. Link 
** Stewart, "Logic of Conquest", there is a Stewart listed below, but this is not the title:
One of Elonka's undocumented references. I don't know exactly what this is.
**You refer to Grousett a number of times, but do not say WHICH of the two Grousett works are being referenced.
Right, I will have to sort that out when I'm back home. It is "Gousset" (with one "t").
** Same for Maalouf
Right, I will have to sort that out when I'm back home.
** De Reuven Amitai-Preiss Mongols and Mamluks, :
Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281 (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization)
by Reuven Amitai-Preiss, Cambridge University Press (February 24, 1995) 
** The Islamic World in Ascendency: From the Arab conquest to the Siege of Vienna by Dr. Martin Sicker:
The Islamic World in Ascendancy: From the Arab Conquests to the Siege of Vienna, by Martin Sicker, Praeger Publishers (June 30, 2000),   
** Jean-Paul Roux, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol:
One of my books: Histoire de l'Empire mongol (Paperback)
by Jean-Paul Roux,  Fayard (October 6, 1993),   
** Encyclopedia Iranica article (which ONE?)
This article: 
** Les Croisades Thierry Delcourt:
One of my books:  : Les Croisades Thierry Delcourt, Editor: Nouveau Monde, 2007,  
** Demurger, “Croisades et Croises”:
One of my books: Alain Demurger, Croisades et croisés au Moyen Âge, Champs Flammarion, Paris 2006, 
**"Le Livre des Merveilles":
Le livre des merveilles du monde. Marco Polo,  
by Marie-Thérèse Gousset, Bibliothèque de l'Image (29 août 2002), Langue : Français,  
**Grands Documents de l'Histoire de France Archives Nationales de France:
Grands documents de l'histoire de france, by Pierre Vallaud, Reunion des Musees Nationaux (5 octobre 2007), Langue : Français,   
**Boyle in Camb. Hist. Iran V:
Boyle, in Camb. Hist. Iran V, pp. 370-71, quoted in Encyclopedia Iranica article: 
**Jotischky The Crusaders and the Crusader States:
An undocumented reference by Elonka. Probably Andrew Jotischky The Crusaders and the Crusader States Publisher: Longman (November 20, 2004) Language: English 
**The Mongols by David Morgan:
Answered above: One of Elonka's undocumented references (I think): probably David Morgan "The Mongols", Wiley-Blackwell; 2 edition (May 18, 2007) 
**Mongol Raids  - note this may be Reuven Amitai "Mongol Raids into Palestine" in JRAS, but as its in italics like a book, and the Amitai is a journal article, I can not be sure of this.
An undocumented reference by Elonka. Probably Amitai, Reuven (1987). "Mongol Raids into Palestine (AD 1260 and 1300)". JRAS: 236-255. 
**Receuil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Armeniens I....
An undocumented referenced by Elonka. This would be Recueil des Historiens des Croisades 
**Libro d'Ottramare 1346-135:
An undocumented referenced by Elonka. I don't know what it is and can't find it on Google. 
**Rancois Raynourd (1805) to a link
This is François Raynouard (1805), who wrote Précis sur les Templiers (1805).
**Malcom Barber The New Knighthood:
An undocumented referenced by Elonka. The New Knighthood : A History of the Order of the Temple (Paperback)
by Malcolm Barber, Publisher: Cambridge University Press (September 29, 1995) Language: English  
** footnote 356 .. is that quoting Ghazan's letter direct? It appears so, although the formatting on the footnote isn't clear
I am not sure what you mean here. Could you explain your question?
**A. Mostaert and F. W. Cleaves "Trois documents mongols des Archives secretes vaticanes H. J. A. J. xv 419-506 and a link to Journal of Semetic Studies.
As far as I know, this quote is by Elonka.
**I. Heath Byzantine Armies AD1118-1461 (Is this an Osprey Book?)
This reference was brought it from another Wikipedia article on Bizantium. The full reference would be: Byzantine Armies AD 1118-1461 (Men-at-Arms)  Ian Heath, Publisher: Osprey Publishing (November 13, 1995) Language: English  
**Footnotes 388 and 389 are wikilinked back to the Franco-Mongol alliance article:
I don't know where that formatting comes from (possibly from the article on gunpowder). We might as well get rid of these two references for the time being.
**"the Eastern Origins of Western Civiliation John M. Hobson:
One of my books: The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation (Paperback)by John M. Hobson, Publisher: Cambridge University Press (July 5, 2004) Language: English  
**"Istanbul" p. 16.:
This is "Istanbul", by Dominique Brotot, Publisher: Hachette 2006 Langue : Français  
* Some of the sources used are not scholarly at all. These include:
**Online Reference Book for Medieval Studies (footnote 82 in the long version) It is not a referenced work.
You're right, we could get rid of that.
**Saudi Aramco World website for the Battle of Ain Jalut (footnote 95 in the long version.) This one can be cut, as it is only referenced to an sentence that has another citation (96)
You're right, we could get rid of that.
**Citing the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, while not exactly wrong, gives the impression that you are reaching for something to cover the citation. And as the fact being sourced to the Catholic Encyclopedia is the accession date of a Mongol Khan, it looks decidely dodgy that a more modern history of the Mongols isn't being used.
I think this reference was by Elonka, but it is not in the article anymore afaik.
*Didn't Budge die in 1934? Surely there is something more recent than his 1928 work.
I don't know, but as far as I know his ""The Monks of Kublai Khan Emperor of China" is quite authoritative and gives the standard translation for the travels of Rabban Bar Sauma.
Ahhhhh.... glad I got to the end of it. You will notice that the majority of undocumented references were actually put in by Elonka. It's OK though, we'll just fill them into the article. It would nice though if she could double-check that they are correct. Good night to all. PHG (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, now you should probably make sure that all these get changed in your version... remember work is good for you! Ealdgyth | Talk 16:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, ok, just give me a few more days until I can find the time to include all this in the article. PHG (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To my knowledge all of the above issues are addressed in the current live version of the article.  I think it would be a waste of effort to implement them in the version in PHG's userspace, which is probably going to be deleted anyway, if not voluntarily, then by WP:MFD. --Elonka 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More info for Ealdgyth :)

message: Towards getting this article to FA status (and resolving this longrunning dispute), here are the steps that I recommend.  Some of these would need to be handled in order, and others could be done in parallel:
* Determine if the "Disputed" tag can be removed from this article, or identify exactly what needs to be done so that that can be accomplished
* Cleanup related articles, to ensure that they do not contain disputed information
* Ensure that any other unneeded POV forks are deleted, and/or submitted for WP:MFD
* Determine what the consensus is, on the proper title for this article (see below #Article title section)
* Submit the article for Peer review (especially at the Military History WikiProject)
* Submit this article for Good article status
* Submit this article for Featured status
Thoughts? -Elonka 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka, you replaced the original article abusively with your 70k version. We should simply return to fair editorial practices and improve the article from its January ORIGINAL 190k VERSION before you forced your short version in. Nothing good can come out of a twisted procedure. PHG (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward

message: Since PHG has been banished from this and other articles, should we now start to discuss what needs to be done to salvage these articles? john k (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He can still participate at talk, but yes, by all means, bring up anything you want towards damage control.  I see that Kafka Liz has been working through the templates and userpages, tagging for deletion as necessary. For my own part, I'm trying to work through the list at :#List of articles for review, if anyone wants to help with that. Especially anything tagged as an "active dispute", it would be helpful if folks could weigh in to ensure we have a solid consensus for whatever needs to be done. --Elonka 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting 

message: ::In the current article, this section is the first paragraph of Fall of Baghdad.
The section, as it stands in the article now, appears to be a summary of the Mongol involvement in Battle of Baghdad (1258).  While the main article discusses the composition of the army, here we seem to discuss only the Monogols -- the article may be missing statements that would clarify how this relates to Franco-Mongol relations.
It appears that the sources which discuss the involvement subservient Antiochs and Armenians are:
*Kirakos Ganjakets'i.History of the Armenians.Chapter 58 (old primary source)
*Grigor of Akner.History of the Nation of Archers.Chapter 12 (old primary source)
*Alain Demurger.Les Templiers.p.80-81
*Alain Demurger.Croisades et Croisés au Moyen-Age.p.284
*Steven Runciman.A History of the Crusades 3.p.303
Are there any concerns about those sources; do they fairly portray the involvement of "Franks" in this battle? Should the Fall of Baghdad be written more from a viewpoint of what cooperation there was?  Is the summary here better covered in a history of Mongols article?  Should we have this section at all or should the article have sections, for example, on the submission of the Antiochs which then discusses their involvement in this battle? Shell babelfish 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Franco-Mongol alliance article definitely deserves at least a mention of the Antiochene troops, as the submission of Antioch is cited in some history books as "the closest thing" to the Franks actually fighting under the Mongol banner.  I can probably dig up a cite on that, but don't have my books handy at the moment.  I wouldn't give it more than a couple sentences though.  The current version of the article looks okay, though I wouldn't be opposed to adding another sentence or two to clarify the role of the Antiochenes.  To go into exact battle tactics though, would be beyond the scope of the alliance article, and should probably go into the Battle of Baghdad (1258) article instead. --Elonka 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian participation to the Siege of Baghdad

message: ::In the current article, this section is Christian Vassals/Antioch
Except for being worded differently, it appears the article already covers this information. Shell babelfish 18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I compared PHG's version with what's currently in the article. The current version looks fine to me, I don't see a need to add further quotes from primary sources. --Elonka 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Combined operations in the Levant

message: ::In the current article, this section is the second paragraph of Abaqa
The only significant difference is PHG's use of the quote from Reuven-Amintai, "Mongols and Mamluks", p.102 which indicates that the Mongols may have joined in some of the attacks from this Crusade.  Since the current article already indicates that Abaqa sent a small force, is there any reason to include a direct quote stating the same in a more ambiguous manner?  We have to be sure that any quoting is justifiable via fair-use and conforms to the guidelines from the Manual of Style.  Is there any reason to believe this quote would add anything to the article that isn't already being said? Shell babelfish 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This actually has nothing to do with the "Aragonese Crusade", but rather was simply an Aragonese-sponsored Crusade. I recently added a section on the Crusade of 1269 to James I's article. As you can see, the connexion with the Mongols is usually presumed, but it is tenuous at best and hardly very "effective". The article addresses it sufficiently as is, unless more imformation in reliable sources comes to light. Srnec (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cooperation during the Aragonese Crusade

message: ::In the current article, this section is found in the first and last paragraphs of Invasion of Syria
There are no significant differences; these actions are already mentioned in the current article. Shell babelfish 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Combined action by the Hospitallers with the Mongols

message: ::In the current article, this section is found in the third paragraph of Arghun
A summary is given in this article. The same statement, with the missing number included, is given in the main article Arghun#Assembly_of_a_raiding_naval_force.  Should we include the number 800 in this article as well? (Sources appear to be Peter Jackson.The Mongols and the West.p.169 and Jean Richard.Histoire des Croisades.p.468)  Why is the text duplicated; do both articles need this level of detail about the incident?  Shell babelfish 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The number "800" is important as it gives a simple illustration of the level of involvement of the Genoese in this enterprise. In an article that claims there were "only attempts", it is important to remain objective and mention that there were quite sizable commitments from time to time. 800 was a big number indeed in Medieval times. The current article also forgets to precise that the Genoese actually reached the Ilkhanate realm and indeed built ships for Arghun, quite an example of effective cooperation: "Only a contingent of 800 Genoese arrived, whom he (Arghun) employed in 1290 in building shipd at Baghdad, with a view to harassing Egyptian commerce at the southern approaches to the Red Sea", p.169, Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West". In an article on the Franco-Mongol alliance, it is only normal to describe with some precision actual instances of cooperation. PHG (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assembly of a naval raiding force in Baghdad

message: In the introduction, a reference is being misused to back up the claim that "there was no long-term successful military collaboration between the Franks and the Mongols". Here the current text: 
 
:"However, despite many attempts, there was never any long-term successful military collaboration."Arghun had persisted in the quest for a Western alliance right down to his death without ever taking the field against the mutual enemy." Jackson, Mongols and the West, p. 170"
Actually, the reference only describes the reign of Arghun (a short period of 7 years which indeed does not show examples of collaboration except for the dispatch of 800 Italians to Baghdad), and therefore does not apply at all to the span of Franco-Mongol relations in general or to the claim being made here. I therefore suggest the claim and reference should be removed, or that another, appropriate reference should be found to support this claim, but as it is it cannot remain. As User:Elonka seems to be the author of this text, I would appreciate if she could give an explanation, and, if necessary, correct the text herself. Best regards, PHG (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PHG, this is now the fifth time that you have asked this question, and you continue to ask in an uncivil way.  No one shared your concerns the first four times that you asked, and indeed, Akhilleus even deleted the thread entirely.  In other words, please stop bringing this up, as this is a violation of both Remedy 4 of your ArbCom sanctions (it can be disruptive to keep repeating the same argument), and Remedy #1, which states that you can only participate on talkpages if you are able to do so in a civil fashion.  If you have something new to bring up, and you can do so in a civil way, please do so. Otherwise, please drop it. --Elonka 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am being fully civil, and I am asking you to explain the misuse of a reference, which is a perfectly legitimate request on Wikipedia. Please explain and correct as necessary. Best regards. PHG (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, this is just stupid. The sentence is undeniable, even PHG wouldn't (I hope) claim any "long-term military collaboration". The footnote, however, does not support it. I have fixed the situation. It can be disruptive to repeat the same argument over and over, but it can be disruptive not to listen. Elonka, I think you can see that PHG is correct that the footnote does not support the text it's attached to, and that was the crux of your complaint against his abuse of sources! It's easy enough to fix. I know PHG has been uncivil at times (who hasn't?) and that he has particularly collided with you, but instead of dismissing every comment he makes, try to argue it. PHG, instead of putting more of the same on this talk page, since you have of late occupied too much of Elonka's time for her to bear with good will (I can understand), maybe it is best if you have any issues like these last two (i.e. obvious tweaks for accuracy/improvement), that you just bring them directly to me at my talk page and I will look into them. Srnec (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Srnec for your help! The main sentence itself sure is quite undeniable: actual instances of collaboration have indeed always been sporadic and shortlived (even if the attempts at collaboration spanned a period of almost 50 years). Of course, it's the misuse of a reference which was the issue, as well as the systematic refusal to acknowledge an obvious mistake and correct it. Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of reference

message: Hi everyone. I'm Scorpius59 and I'm contributing on french wikipedia. I started to translate this article but I just noticed there were many conflicts based on contents and/or references. I wouldn't want to create a disputed article if it is the case. Reason why I'm asking you (current contributors) what is the current trust level we should consider for Franco-mongol alliance. In the meanwhile, I suspend my translation and will continue it as soon as I'll have a feedback. Thanks in advance for your opinions ! Sincerely 142.213.188.6 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trust request