→Lack of notability: - Reformatting Acer's post so it's not in the middle of mine (feel free to fix if this is confusing) |
→Lack of notability: - reply (in simple English for Acer) |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
:But with his professionnal studies (Doctor in History, graduated from École pratique des hautes études [which is really famous in this speciality in France]), and a real list of publications, I cann't understand your difficulties. |
:But with his professionnal studies (Doctor in History, graduated from École pratique des hautes études [which is really famous in this speciality in France]), and a real list of publications, I cann't understand your difficulties. |
||
:Something else : I apologize for my low level of english --[[User:Acer11|Acer11]] 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC) |
:Something else : I apologize for my low level of english --[[User:Acer11|Acer11]] 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
:: Thank you for your help. Here is the problem (in simple): I understand that Dailliez wrote many books. Some of those books may be good. Some of those books may be bad. I have a question about his book ''Templiers: Les inconnus.'' It is one of his first books. He wrote the book in 1972. I do not think it is a good book. On page 306-307, the book says, '''Les Tartares...en 1260, s'allierent aux Templiers. Jacques de Molay, dans sa lettre au roi d'Angleterre, dit qu'il a ete oblige de signer un traite sembable pour lutter contre les musulmans, "notre ennemi commun.'''" (trans: ''The Mongols, in 1260, allied with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the King of England, said that he had been obliged to sign a treaty to fight against the Muslims, 'our common enemy''". I believe the book is wrong. The book has no sources. The book has no bibliography. Also, Jacques de Molay cannot have signed a treaty with the Muslims in 1260. [[Jacques de Molay]] was not Grand Master until 1292. I think: Dailliez made a mistake. There was no treaty. No other historian says there was a treaty. Dailliez's book is a bad source. We should not use it ''Templiers: Les Inconnus'' as a source on Wikipedia. Does that help? :) --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:48, 3 November 2007
Biography Stub‑class | |||||||
|
Lack of notability
So far all we've got for this author's notability is:
- That he published books
- That some of his work has appeared in the bibliography of two other books
His work so far does not appear to be well-known. I've been checking Google Scholar, and Dailliez's work does not appear to be used as source material for other reputable works. I've also done newspaper searches and have found nothing. I'm willing to look for a bit longer, but if we can't find anything, this article should probably be deleted. --Elonka 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Concur, I don't see any notable impact. The two references to his work in the article (amounting to exceptionally flimsy evidence of any impact at all, yet alone notable impact) are more solid than anything I find on GS. Pete.Hurd 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also, FYI, this page is a bit of an overflow of a dispute from another article, Franco-Mongol alliance, where PHG (the editor who created this Dailliez article) is trying to cite Dailliez for a very controversial historical claim, that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols. I dispute the reliability of using Dailliez as a source for that claim; since (1) Though Dailliez did say such a thing in his book Templiers: Les Inconnus, the book has no sources of any kind. No footnotes, no bibliography, not even so much as an index. (2) Dailliez does not appear to be a reliable source in general; (3) No other historian has ever repeated this claim; (4) When I had the opportunity to speak face-to-face with the world's #1 expert on the Knights Templar, Dr. Malcolm Barber, he said he'd never heard of the claim either.
- However, despite my concerns, and those of multiple other editors at the talkpage, PHG is still refusing to back down. If you (or anyone else reading this) would like to participate in the thread, I'd very much appreciate other opinions to help ensure consensus: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Concerns about Dailliez. There's also been a longrunning and pretty much stalemate mediation at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance.
- For a quickref on the whole dispute, you may wish to check out User:Elonka/Mongol quickref, which is just a few paragraphs that I threw together to give historical context and explain what the main issues are. Thanks, --Elonka 19:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Elonka, really. Dailliez is quite a mainstream French historian (he's in all libraries in France, several of his works are in the French Wikipedia Bibliography for the Templars [1]), he wrote 20 books published by reputable editors, he is the author of the Templars article in Encyclopedia Universalis, and you question having a Wikipedia article on him? When self-promotion articles such as Elonka Dunin are tolerated? This is nonsense. PHG 07:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merci Acer11! Life is hard for French historians around here... I just created his long-overdue article on the French Wikipedia as well, essentially using Acer11's material. Let's note that Dailliez is already referenced there in several articles on the Templars. PHG 07:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whether or not an author is used as a source in other Wikipedia articles, says nothing about the reliability of those sources, and says little about the notability of the author. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles.
- So far, the most positive thing that I've seen about Dailliez is that he wrote one article for a French online encyclopedia.
- As for the fact that one of his books is in Sharan Newman's bibliography, I checked that out, and it's very much a trivial reference. Newman was simply citing Dailliez's republication of some medieval source documents. Specifically, where Dailliez reproduced the Templar charter, Regle et Statuts de l'Ordre de Temple. So in places where Newman is citing a specific paragraph in the Regle, Newman also occasionally cited Dailliez's book as a source. Newman also mentions (p. 55) that there are multiple such sources available, so it was kind of luck-of-the-draw as to which one Newman chose to cite, but Newman seems to have chosen Dailliez's version since it was done in both Old French and modern French. But this still doesn't make Dailliez notable enough for his own article. To prove notability, we still need to provide third-party (non-marketing) reviews of him or his work. --Elonka 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- [Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources] Yes, it's OK
- [one article for an online encyclopedia] Also in the paper edition, art. "Templiers", T.22 1989, p.267-270. ISBN 2852292874 -Acer11 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- As for the fact that one of his books is in Sharan Newman's bibliography, I checked that out, and it's very much a trivial reference. Newman was simply citing Dailliez's republication of some medieval source documents. Specifically, where Dailliez reproduced the Templar charter, Regle et Statuts de l'Ordre de Temple. So in places where Newman is citing a specific paragraph in the Regle, Newman also occasionally cited Dailliez's book as a source. Newman also mentions (p. 55) that there are multiple such sources available, so it was kind of luck-of-the-draw as to which one Newman chose to cite, but Newman seems to have chosen Dailliez's version since it was done in both Old French and modern French. But this still doesn't make Dailliez notable enough for his own article. To prove notability, we still need to provide third-party (non-marketing) reviews of him or his work. --Elonka 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I've asked on fr for any secondary sources on Dailliez or his work. Acer11 has repeated the list of Dailliez's work, but I havn't seen any of the anticipated coverage of his work suggesting that his views are accepted within the mainstream, or that they represent a significant minority view of influence (per WP:FRINGE). I think that notability requires some sort of secondary sourcing, there doesn't appear to be any in english, and I remain open to the possibility that some exist in french, even if they havn't been presented yet, but the prognosis seems dimmer... As an aside, PHG, can we stick to substantive matters and leave the ad hominim Elonka-bashing elsewhere? Pete.Hurd 15:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't pay attention it was a repetition, sorry. I'd try to answer fast, I don't have a lot of time... I'm looking for secondary sourcing.
- But with his professionnal studies (Doctor in History, graduated from École pratique des hautes études [which is really famous in this speciality in France]), and a real list of publications, I cann't understand your difficulties.
- Something else : I apologize for my low level of english --Acer11 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help. Here is the problem (in simple): I understand that Dailliez wrote many books. Some of those books may be good. Some of those books may be bad. I have a question about his book Templiers: Les inconnus. It is one of his first books. He wrote the book in 1972. I do not think it is a good book. On page 306-307, the book says, Les Tartares...en 1260, s'allierent aux Templiers. Jacques de Molay, dans sa lettre au roi d'Angleterre, dit qu'il a ete oblige de signer un traite sembable pour lutter contre les musulmans, "notre ennemi commun." (trans: The Mongols, in 1260, allied with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the King of England, said that he had been obliged to sign a treaty to fight against the Muslims, 'our common enemy". I believe the book is wrong. The book has no sources. The book has no bibliography. Also, Jacques de Molay cannot have signed a treaty with the Muslims in 1260. Jacques de Molay was not Grand Master until 1292. I think: Dailliez made a mistake. There was no treaty. No other historian says there was a treaty. Dailliez's book is a bad source. We should not use it Templiers: Les Inconnus as a source on Wikipedia. Does that help? :) --Elonka 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)