Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance

message: *Let me quote one of the opening sentences of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy:
However Elonka has been insisting at portraying the Franco-Mongol Alliance as being "attempts only" (numerous reverts etc...). I have been insisting on taking the inclusionist view "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance" as per the above rule, both views being amply represented by reputable historians. Elonka's claim at Fringe theory does not work against such prominent scholars as Grousset, Demurger or Richard, among the leaders of their field, who all speak clearly about the Mongol Alliance as fact and are anything but "Fringe".
*Reliable sources: if Wikipedia somewhere states clearly that back-cover material, interviews of reputable historians in reputable magazines, or quotes of Medieval historians are not acceptable, I will gladly follow that, but I have doubt this is the case, especially for the two latter cases. In particular, Medieval historians, especially when quoted by modern secondary sources, seem to me totally acceptable.
*Article size. I believe we first need to settle content disputes before we start slicing the article. The creation of some sub-articles could of course be considered, but I think it is important to remain detailed as factual, with a lot of references, as we've seen how much disbelief this article can be met with, from people with little knowledge of the period. As the creator of this article and most of its content, I would prefer to keep the initiative about where and how to slice things. As far as I know, Wikipedia accepts long articles in some cases ("Occasional exceptions: Two exceptions are lists, and articles summarizing certain fields", in Wikipedia:Article size), and I think the latter case applies here.
 
My issue is not about "working with a team": it is about resisting a very few individuals who try to impose their perception of history in spite of scholarly sources. I believe remaining close to the facts, and balancing scholarly opinions is the key. Best regards 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PHG

message: :See /On hold#Article split to History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)
This section has been put on hold until we get around to addressing this point. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article split to [[History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)]]

message: :See /Archive#The mediation is here.
Concluded with agreement on the following opening sentence:
A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
-- tariqabjotu 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mediation is here 

message: :See /Archive#Expansion of dispute
The "it's his fault / it's her fault" discussions have no place in this mediation, and yet this is far from the first time I have had to archive or outright delete such pieces. Last warning; if either of you have no interest in proceeding with this mediation in good faith, I would be glad to close it. Please, let's not waste everyone's time. -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of dispute

message: Currently, the Franco-Mongol alliance article has  been under protection for nearly a month.  In my opinion, and per WP:PROTECT, this is not what protection is for. I  also have to admit that I feel that the page being protected, is causing this  mediation to drag out longer than necessary. From my point of view, many editors  have expressed valid concerns about the length of the article, as well as  concerns about the reliability of some of the sources being used on the article.  PHG has resisted talkpage consensus on multiple points, refused to mediate on  some of them, and has in general insisted on maintaining control of the page, to  the point of doing fullscale reverts of good faith edits.  Since the article is currently protected at "his" version, there's no real need  for him to participate in good faith here at mediation. What I'd like to see, if  possible, is if we could unprotect the page, and put it in the form that is  currently recommended by talkpage consensus, plus any agreements that we've made  so far here at mediation. I've tried to present a consensus version at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance, and would like to see about getting this copied over to the "live" page, as recommended at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite. We can still definitely continue discussions here at mediation, but I'm hoping that if we make the page "active" again, it'll speed things up,  rather than the dribbles of "one post every couple days" that we're currently enduring. I would also point out that when PHG reluctantly agreed to mediation a  month ago, he was very specific that he would only agree to a limited subset of issues in mediation. As for the other issues with the article, they are now in a limbo where they cannot be resolved at all if the page is in a state of  permanent protection, and they can't be resolved if we're not allowed to talk about them at  mediation, so we end up with a kind of "Catch-22" situation.
At this rate, the page could end up protected indefinitely,  and I'd like to see what we can do to avoid that fate.  So, what needs to happen in order to get the page unprotected in a timely manner? --Elonka 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka, this page has been protected because you started implementing some major changes without waiting for their resolution in this mediation. If you wish to see the mediation move faster, maybe you could try being less dogmatic (the term is not mine) in your debates. PHG 06:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PHG, please stop with the name-calling.  Just because someone else has engaged in personal attacks, doesn't give you the right to do the same thing. What would be more helpful at this point would be if you could actually articulate what problems that you have with my rewritten version at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance.  It has been my sincere effort to make that page reflect consensus.  If you don't think it reflects consensus, can you please state what exactly your concerns are? Then at least we can move forward on trying to resolve them. --Elonka 07:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As you wish, I have unprotected the page. However, as you both probably can see from your watchlists, I have also closed this mediation. The section immediately preceding this one noted a last warning regarding the persistent finger-pointing. I'm adhering to that. I have other things to say about both of your approaches to this mediation (as well as Elonka's suggestion that "dogmatic" is a personal attack), but I have no desire to say them right now. -- tariqabjotu 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection