Per Honor et Gloria (talk | contribs) |
→Lack of notability: French PoV |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
: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) |
:: 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) |
||
:Mmmmh I see that Elonka is working faster than me. I've the same conslusions, with some nuances. |
|||
:I see two questions : |
|||
::#Is Laurent Dailliez notable enough to "have" an article on en.WP ? |
|||
::#If Dailliez is notable enough, what about his dates for the "Franco-Mongol alliance" ? |
|||
- - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|||
::'''<u>1 -</u>''' Daillez is an historian : see [http://www.universalis.fr/corpus_auteur-encyclopedie/121/4270/encyclopedie/Laurent_DAILLIEZ.htm] <small>(against Cerrini, see later)</small>. He is well known and citated by some good historians, almost Demurger and Cerrini, <u>but always with prudence</u>. As [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Projet:Ordre_du_Temple#Laurent_Dailliez I answered] to Pete.hurd, he is a good Knights Templar's connoisseur, without being a notable. He worked especially the Provence's religious history (were the Templar's presence was great). His affection to that area probably explain his use of a régional editor (Alpes Méditerranée édition, Nice). |
|||
:::*By Demurger, he is for example mentioned in "''Les Templiers : une chevalerie chrétienne au Moyen-Age''" for |
|||
:::** ''bibliographie du Temple'' 1972 |
|||
:::** ''Les Templiers et les Règles de l'ordre du Temple'', 1972 |
|||
:::** ''Les Templiers'' 1972 (rééd. 2003) |
|||
:::** ''Les Templiers, Flandre, Hainaut, Brabant, Liège et Luxembourg'' 1978. |
|||
::::but with the strong precautions Elonka describes. |
|||
:::*By Cerrini, he is also mentioned for those works : |
|||
:::** ''bibliographie du Temple'' 1972 |
|||
:::** ''Histoire de l'ordre du Temple : I. Les Templiers, gouvernement et institution" 1978 |
|||
:::** ''Les Templiers, ces inconnus'' 1972 |
|||
:::** ''Règles et statuts de l'ordre du Temple'' 1972 (même ouvrage que ''Les Templiers et les Règles de l'ordre du Temple'', 1972) |
|||
:::** ''Le plus ancien texte de la règle du Temple : le manuscrit 131 de la Bilbiothèque de Bruges'' |
|||
:::** ''Le manuscrit 37 de la Bibliothèque de Nice est-il le texte de la règle du Temple donnée au Concile de Troyes ?'' |
|||
::::But she gives an evaluation of Dailliez at the end of ''la révolution des Templiers'' <small>(summarize by another french wikipedian)</small>: |
|||
::::''Laurent Dailliez appears as a kind of agent 007 looking for manuscripts, passing by a frontier to another, from Spain to Italy, through Belgium. however Dailliez was not an historian, but a geologist ''<small>(Contrast with [http://www.universalis.fr/corpus_auteur-encyclopedie/121/4270/encyclopedie/Laurent_DAILLIEZ.htm the link] I gave above)</small>''. At Paris, in the academic circles like the IRHT or the EPHE, nobody speaks readily about him. elsewhere, at Nice University, at the Vatican library,[ ... ], the reactions are more various, sometimes friendly. ''<small>(witnesses about L.D. also reported by Cerrini)</small>'' : He was a freehanded, but misunderstood. Others medievists : "a geologist enthusiast of medieval history", the one between the XXth century's scholars to look for all the manuscripts of the Templar's rules. His lack of pinch unfortunately decreases his results : Dailliez doesn't quote his sources, or in an incomplete/wrong way. '' |
|||
:::*By Malcolm he is quoted in the bibliography's Poland version of "The New Knighthood- A History of the Order of the Temple", (I assume the same in the original text) but never in the footnotes (Idem). |
|||
::::Conclusion : It's better to have en article about this quoted person, almost to give the reasons of a necessary precaution... (PoV by someone who doesn't work on en:WP... ;-)) |
|||
::'''<u>2 -</u>''' The answer to the second point is now obvious. When Dailliez is alone to assert something, he's probably wrong. --[[User:Acer11|Acer11]] 16:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Elonka, you are (again) misquoting. Dailliez wrote: ''"The Mongols, '''after''' taking Damascus and several important cities from the Turks, after having been routed by the Sultan of Egypt at Tiberiade in 1260, allied themselves with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the king of England said that he had to sign a similar treaty to fight against the Muslims, "our common enemy"'' (Dailliez, p.306-307). What he says is that the Templars allied with the Mongols '''after''' 1260 (not '''in''' 1260), which is right. He also doesn't give 1260 at all for De Molay's signature of a treaty, but only refers to the letter to Edward I and obviously means circa 1300 (clear from the context). As far as I know, his statement is perfectly right: you are just, again, corrupting sources to make your case. What a shame! [[User:PHG|PHG]] 16:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC) |
:::Elonka, you are (again) misquoting. Dailliez wrote: ''"The Mongols, '''after''' taking Damascus and several important cities from the Turks, after having been routed by the Sultan of Egypt at Tiberiade in 1260, allied themselves with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the king of England said that he had to sign a similar treaty to fight against the Muslims, "our common enemy"'' (Dailliez, p.306-307). What he says is that the Templars allied with the Mongols '''after''' 1260 (not '''in''' 1260), which is right. He also doesn't give 1260 at all for De Molay's signature of a treaty, but only refers to the letter to Edward I and obviously means circa 1300 (clear from the context). As far as I know, his statement is perfectly right: you are just, again, corrupting sources to make your case. What a shame! [[User:PHG|PHG]] 16:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:51, 5 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)
- Mmmmh I see that Elonka is working faster than me. I've the same conslusions, with some nuances.
- I see two questions :
- Is Laurent Dailliez notable enough to "have" an article on en.WP ?
- If Dailliez is notable enough, what about his dates for the "Franco-Mongol alliance" ?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- 1 - Daillez is an historian : see [2] (against Cerrini, see later). He is well known and citated by some good historians, almost Demurger and Cerrini, but always with prudence. As I answered to Pete.hurd, he is a good Knights Templar's connoisseur, without being a notable. He worked especially the Provence's religious history (were the Templar's presence was great). His affection to that area probably explain his use of a régional editor (Alpes Méditerranée édition, Nice).
- By Demurger, he is for example mentioned in "Les Templiers : une chevalerie chrétienne au Moyen-Age" for
- bibliographie du Temple 1972
- Les Templiers et les Règles de l'ordre du Temple, 1972
- Les Templiers 1972 (rééd. 2003)
- Les Templiers, Flandre, Hainaut, Brabant, Liège et Luxembourg 1978.
- but with the strong precautions Elonka describes.
- By Cerrini, he is also mentioned for those works :
- bibliographie du Temple 1972
- Histoire de l'ordre du Temple : I. Les Templiers, gouvernement et institution" 1978
- Les Templiers, ces inconnus 1972
- Règles et statuts de l'ordre du Temple 1972 (même ouvrage que Les Templiers et les Règles de l'ordre du Temple, 1972)
- Le plus ancien texte de la règle du Temple : le manuscrit 131 de la Bilbiothèque de Bruges
- Le manuscrit 37 de la Bibliothèque de Nice est-il le texte de la règle du Temple donnée au Concile de Troyes ?
- But she gives an evaluation of Dailliez at the end of la révolution des Templiers (summarize by another french wikipedian):
- Laurent Dailliez appears as a kind of agent 007 looking for manuscripts, passing by a frontier to another, from Spain to Italy, through Belgium. however Dailliez was not an historian, but a geologist (Contrast with the link I gave above). At Paris, in the academic circles like the IRHT or the EPHE, nobody speaks readily about him. elsewhere, at Nice University, at the Vatican library,[ ... ], the reactions are more various, sometimes friendly. (witnesses about L.D. also reported by Cerrini) : He was a freehanded, but misunderstood. Others medievists : "a geologist enthusiast of medieval history", the one between the XXth century's scholars to look for all the manuscripts of the Templar's rules. His lack of pinch unfortunately decreases his results : Dailliez doesn't quote his sources, or in an incomplete/wrong way.
- By Malcolm he is quoted in the bibliography's Poland version of "The New Knighthood- A History of the Order of the Temple", (I assume the same in the original text) but never in the footnotes (Idem).
- Conclusion : It's better to have en article about this quoted person, almost to give the reasons of a necessary precaution... (PoV by someone who doesn't work on en:WP... ;-))
- By Demurger, he is for example mentioned in "Les Templiers : une chevalerie chrétienne au Moyen-Age" for
- 2 - The answer to the second point is now obvious. When Dailliez is alone to assert something, he's probably wrong. --Acer11 16:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- 1 - Daillez is an historian : see [2] (against Cerrini, see later). He is well known and citated by some good historians, almost Demurger and Cerrini, but always with prudence. As I answered to Pete.hurd, he is a good Knights Templar's connoisseur, without being a notable. He worked especially the Provence's religious history (were the Templar's presence was great). His affection to that area probably explain his use of a régional editor (Alpes Méditerranée édition, Nice).
- Elonka, you are (again) misquoting. Dailliez wrote: "The Mongols, after taking Damascus and several important cities from the Turks, after having been routed by the Sultan of Egypt at Tiberiade in 1260, allied themselves with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the king of England said that he had to sign a similar treaty to fight against the Muslims, "our common enemy" (Dailliez, p.306-307). What he says is that the Templars allied with the Mongols after 1260 (not in 1260), which is right. He also doesn't give 1260 at all for De Molay's signature of a treaty, but only refers to the letter to Edward I and obviously means circa 1300 (clear from the context). As far as I know, his statement is perfectly right: you are just, again, corrupting sources to make your case. What a shame! PHG 16:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Demurger's comments
The Wikipedia article is currently making the case that Dailliez is reputable, because he is used as a source in Alain Demurger's book The Last Templar. However, I actually looked up the Dailliez mentions in Demurger's book today, and it's actually quite the opposite... Demurger seems to be referring to Dailliez as one of the "pseudo-history" authors who may be correct here and there, but in general needs to be challenged. For example, on page 51 of Demurger's book, he says, "As nothing positive is known, some people have naturally credited Jacques de Molay with various offices. Laurent Dailliez plausibly maintains that Molay was a marshal of the Order at the time of his election; however, he could not have been one until after the death of Pierre de Sivrey, who was decapitated by the Mamluks towards the end of the siege of Acre in May 1291. Prior to that, it is impossible because almost all the Order's dignitaries in Beaujeu's time are known, and he is not among them."
Demurger then further criticizes Dailliez in his footnotes. For example, in Demurger's book, page 231, footnote #46 to Chapter 3, he says: "L. Dailliez, Jacques de Molay..., p. 21, cites a chronicle and a large map of Cyprus ad annum 1292, with no reference, as is usually the case with this author.". In short, just because Demurger cites Dailliez, does not mean that Dailliez is a reliable source. --Elonka 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Another mention in Demurger's book, p. 203, talking about the rumors of a Mongol conquest of Jerusalem: "Laurent Dailliez (who has taken mischievious pleasure in muddying the waters) affirms that [in 1299] Jacques de Molay was one of the three generals in the Mongol army, and would have had the honour of victoriously entering the Holy City." A claim that has been thoroughly debunked by multiple modern historians. Again, it is proof that Dailliez is not always a reliable source. --Elonka 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)