Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) m →The mediation is here: - italics |
Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) →Article rewrite: + reply |
||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
:::At the RfC (Question #1) everyone (except for PHG) acknowledged that there was no alliance, that it was either "attempts" towards an alliance, or smaller ad hoc alliances. |
:::At the RfC (Question #1) everyone (except for PHG) acknowledged that there was no alliance, that it was either "attempts" towards an alliance, or smaller ad hoc alliances. |
||
::: --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC) |
::: --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::Fair enough, but I'll wait for PHG to respond to this section and for both of you to respond to the sentences under [[#The mediation is here]] and go from there. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== The mediation is here == |
== The mediation is here == |
Revision as of 20:09, 9 November 2007
Opening statements
As is customary, we shall begin the mediation with each person making an opening statement. Please state your position regarding the issues noted on the mediation page:
- 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?
- Deciding which sources are reliable secondary sources, and which are not (example: back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview, etc.
- Deciding if or how to best split this article into manageable sections, WP:SUMMARY style
Please be brief – probably just a couple of sentences for each point – and please refrain from responding to the comments of others in their sections (stick to your own sections). -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Elonka
- This is one of the core issues of the dispute, is the question of neutrality, especially as relating to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. In my opinion we have a situation here where most mainstream historians are saying "A", and a small number are saying, "maybe B, C, or D". But then our Wikipedia article currently phrases things in ways such as, "The history is 'B', though there are disputes and some historians say 'A'." In my opinion it should be the other way around, and the article should clearly list views in proportion to how they are presented by mainstream historians. Per WP:UNDUE, minority views should have less coverage, and in some cases shouldn't have any coverage at all. I can go into much more detail about the exact views I have concerns about, but that's probably best saved for later in the mediation. If it's helpful though, since this is a complex issue about a relatively obscure point of history, I have also prepared a brief (just a few paragraphs in casual language) quickref of the historical context. It can be viewed here: User:Elonka/Mongol quickref.
- Regarding the issue of reliable sources, none of the listed examples (back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview) are sources which should be used in this article. The topic of this article is one that has been extensively covered by peer-reviewed articles and books, so there is no reason to have to resort to unreliable sources, especially on controversial issues, when we have so much other material that we can draw from.
- The article is currently much too long, at ~150K. Per WP:SIZE, I'd rather see it reduced to less than half that. This could be done either by splitting it per WP:SUMMARY, and/or by condensing some of the existing sections. For example, right now the article makes heavy use of primary source quotes, many of which in my opinion should either be removed, or moved to some other location such as Wikisource or Wikiquote. There are also many sections that are getting into details about troop movements and exact correspondence between monarchs (He sent the letter on <date>, it was received on <date>, there is no record of any reply, he sent another letter on <date>, etc.) In my opinion, just because a fact is verifiable, doesn't mean we need to include it on Wikipedia. I think our readers are better served by a general summary and overview, rather than a detailed blow-by-blow of who said what to whom and when.
Ultimately, I'd like to say that I firmly believe that this can be a great, even a Featured-class article someday, but it's not there yet. I do have great respect for other work that PHG has done, but I have strong concerns both about the neutrality of this current article, and PHG's ability to work as part of a team. It's my hope that with mediation, that PHG and I can work out better methods of communicating and treating each other with mutual respect, which I think will ultimately benefit not just us and this article, but Wikipedia as a whole. One of the differences between a "group" and a "team", is the ability to work through conflict. PHG and I have not been able to successfully work through the conflict on this article, which is why we've landed here at mediation. If PHG and I can figure out ways of successfully dealing with conflict though, I think that we could make a very strong team, indeed. --Elonka 18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure of formatting here, but I'd like to reply to PHG's statement, since I have strong disagreements with some of what he said:
- I have not been insisting on "attempts only", I have been insisting that "attempts" is the primary method that historians use to describe the situation, whereas PHG is trying to insist that the majority of historians say that there was an alliance, and PHG wants to relegate "attempts" to the status of a minority opinion. I strongly disagree with this approach, as it's clear that the majority of historians say that there were attempts at an alliance. It was a hope, a project, a possibility, but not an actual alliance, and it is misleading to say that there was an alliance. See User:Elonka/Mongol historians. And even for those few historians that PHG cites as saying there "was" an alliance (Demurger, Grousset, Richard), I dispute this interpretation as well. They are generally very vague, and don't even agree with each other. For example, I dispute that Rene Grousset said that there was an alliance. In fact, I have a source (David Morgan, in the 2nd edition of The Mongols) who describes Grousset's interpretation as arguing that there should have been an alliance, not that there was one. The statements of Alain Demurger are also extremely vague, with only one sentence in the entire book where he implies that the Crusaders agreed to an alliance, and it's in very flowery emotional language, rather than a statement of historical fact. As for Jean Richard, his statements too are ambiguous. We could potentially source Richard for either side, depending on how we cherry-pick words from his book. Now, as I've said many times, I'm okay on us quoting Richard's phrasing in the Wikipedia article, but if PHG wants to use Richard's statements to try to prove that there was an alliance, it should be made clear that Richard's statements are a minority opinion, not a sweeping statement of the general consensus of modern historians. Especially when we have a modern historian such as Peter Jackson who devotes an entire chapter in his book Mongols and the West to the quest for an Ilkhan-European alliance, and engages in extensive discussion of why it failed to come about. David Morgan, too, also devotes considerable ink to the discussion of the historiography of the matter. I find these kinds of in-depth coverage of a topic much more compelling than the "sentence here, sentence there" historians, which either devote 1 or 2 sentences to the topic of an alliance, or don't cover it at all.
- Regarding the concept of using quotes from medieval historians, their works fall under the category of historical documents, which are "primary sources". See WP:PSTS. If necessary, I can go into great detail about why medieval historians such as the Templar of Tyre should be treated with great caution. He and other historians of the time were writing their own personal views on a subject, were often writing for propaganda purposes, and have multiple examples of incorrect information. Their works absolutely do not fall under the category of "peer-reviewed reliable secondary source."
- Regarding the issue of article size, I have a great deal of trouble with PHG's claim that as "creator of this article" he should be allowed the initiative on where and how to slice things. I feel this is a blatant violation of WP:OWN, and is indicative of the major issues that we've been having throughout this conflict, where he is quick to remove information that I add (even when extensively sourced), but when I remove information that he adds, he complains that I'm "removing referenced material".
- Lastly, I dispute PHG's interpretation that he is "resisting a few individuals." C'mon, PHG, you have been resisting everyone. Every single comment from another editor in the RfC disagreed with your interpretation. Multiple editors (Adam Bishop, myself, Srnec, Danny, Folantin, and even your old ally Aldux) have been expressing concerns about your actions. The AfD on the POV fork that you created was a resounding "Delete". And yet it seems that you're incapable of acknowledging that the consensus is different from your personal view. You still seem to have this attitude that you're right, and that everyone else is wrong. And this just isn't helpful. Please, can you try to acknowledge that this is a team effort here, that there are other editors here who are thoughtful and well-read, that reasonable minds can differ on the interpretation of a historian's work, and that this situation is not "PHG against the world"? I want to work with you to make this a better article, but I often feel like you see this as your personal thesis paper, that you have to "defend" from all invaders. And that's just not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. --Elonka 21:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
PHG
- Let me quote one of the opening sentences of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy:
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors".
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)
On track
- See /Archive#Off track.
I must be missing something. Yes, I know I have been MIA over the past couple days (real life calls, and I only really had time to fit trivial edits in), but in the meantime, this discussion seems to have exploded (and no I'm not reading through every bit of it). What appears quite clear though is that it is difficult to establish that one view of whether this was an "alliance" is dominant without nitpicking and speculating at semantics. There's no reason for this. PHG has already stated (s)he is willing to "present both views". Determining precisely what percent of historians hold certain views so we can present them in their appropriate proportions seems counterproductive and, ultimately, a waste of just about everyone's time here. The matter of whether this was an alliance (or whether certain historians believe there was an alliance) is, as demonstrated here, open to interpretation. What's wrong with just presenting both (or, perhaps more appropriately, all) interpretations of the status of this as an alliance? -- tariqabjotu 03:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about whether or not to present both views. Of course we should present both views. The issue is one of Undue weight. The vast majority of historians say there was not an alliance, so it is inappropriate for the article to push the POV that most historians say there was an alliance. Instead, the proper emphasis should be that there were "attempts" at an alliance, and we can state that one or two modern historians (such as Jean Richard) argue that the alliance did exist, even though the rest of the academic community disagrees. In terms of the first sentence of the article, I would be happy with something like, ""Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." This was wording that we discussed at the talkpage of the article, and that everyone was in agreement with, except for PHG. We've also discussed this via the RfC, and again, everyone agrees that the consensus of historians is that there wasn't an alliance. Except for PHG. We can of course present alternate views, but we need to keep things in proportion. It would be misleading to imply that historians are evenly split on this issue, because that is absolutely not reality. --Elonka 04:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of historians say there was not an alliance, so it is inappropriate for the article to push the POV that most historians say there was an alliance.
- I'm hardly getting that impression. The 76 kilobytes of text I removed seems proof that the truth of that statement is in the eye of the beholder. -- tariqabjotu 04:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- When the only two disputants are me and PHG, yes, it seems evenly split, but if you actually look at what historians are saying, the vast majority say that there was not an alliance. --Elonka 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly I'm not convinced (although you don't need to convince me; I'm just the mediator). I believe you have demonstrated that there are many historians who don't explicitly say there was an alliance, but I don't believe you have shown that most historians explicitly say their wasn't one. Just a lot of vague language and conjecture (including "probably a typo" -- not useful). -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think that many do say explicitly that there was no alliance. As for any others, I'm happy to discuss them individually. Which is actually the direction that I thought we were going, as a way of narrowing down the dispute. As for the typos, maybe "typographical error" isn't the proper term, but I absolutely do believe that the information in Oldenbourg's and Dailliez's books are simply errors, and I'm happy to explain again why I think that. Ultimately what it comes down to though, is that given the difference between a historian from 50 years ago, who made a passing one-sentence comment, vs. a modern historian who spends chapters discussing a topic, that if there's a conflict, the modern historian who's giving in-depth commentary, should be given more weight than someone who is out-of-date and only covered a topic in a cursory manner. --Elonka 04:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly I'm not convinced (although you don't need to convince me; I'm just the mediator). I believe you have demonstrated that there are many historians who don't explicitly say there was an alliance, but I don't believe you have shown that most historians explicitly say their wasn't one. Just a lot of vague language and conjecture (including "probably a typo" -- not useful). -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- When the only two disputants are me and PHG, yes, it seems evenly split, but if you actually look at what historians are saying, the vast majority say that there was not an alliance. --Elonka 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
References
Since Elonka kindly wrote "I contend that you do Google searches for phrases in books -- even if it's just a typo or other misleading statement -- and then you will use that as a source to push your POV. It's really appalling scholarship on your part, and I wish you'd stop this practice.", I would like to give hereafter a (partial) list of books I own on the subject, with a complimentary photograph of a part of my "Crusades" library. A (deep) apology from Elonka would be appreciated :) PHG 16:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Grousset, René (1935). Histoire des Croisades III, 1188-1291 (in French). Editions Perrin. ISBN 2-262-02569-X.
- 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. ISBN 0-312-23338-8.
- Demurger, Alain (2007). Jacques de Molay (in French). Editions Payot&Rivages. ISBN 2228902357.
- Eddé, Anne-Marie (2002). L'Orient au temps des croisades (in French). GF Flammarion. ISBN 2080711210.
- Jackson, Peter (2005). The Mongols and the West: 1221-1410. Longman. ISBN 978-0582368965.
- Lebédel, Claude (2006). Les Croisades, origines et conséquences (in French). Editions Ouest-France. ISBN 2737341361.
- Maalouf, Amin (1983). Les croisades vues par les Arabes. JC Lattes.
- Mutafian, Claude (1993, 2001). Le Royaume Armenien de Cilicie (in French). CNRS Editions. ISBN 2271051053.
- Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1996, 2005). Atlas des Croisades (in French). Autrement. ISBN 2862605530.
- Riley-Smith, Jonathan (2002). The Oxford History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192803123.
- Runciman, Steven (1987 (first published in 1952-1954)). A history of the Crusades 3. Penguin Books. ISBN 9780140137057.
- Turnbull, Stephen (1980). The Mongols. Osprey Publishing Ltd.. ISBN 9780850453720.
- Wood, Frances (2002). The Silk Road. University of California Press. ISBN 0520243404.
- I'm confident that your library has been growing, just as mine has. :) I am glad that you have been acquiring some of the books that I have been recommending to you, and hope that you enjoy reading them. Another book I would recommend you acquire, btw, is the 2004 Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. I particularly recommend reading the entry on "Western Europe and the Mongol Empire," as we could emulate their first sentence for our own encyclopedia article on the subject. Their first sentence being: "Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam." (p. 583) --Elonka 15:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but you still owe me an apology for undue and uncivil accusations. I am glad however that you manage to find what seem to be a few quotes supporting your claim. To avoid unnecessary discussions, let me remind I am totally willing to include that point of view as well. PHG 05:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, shall we just use their wording for the intro sentence then? If not, please feel free to suggest something else. --Elonka 17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- You still owe me an apology for undue and uncivil accusations. Do you have any notion of what a balanced introduction is? Srnec's current compromise intro is OK with me. PHG 17:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- For reference, the current lead sentence is: "A Franco-Mongol alliance was the object of a series of diplomatic endeavours between the courts of Western Europe and the Mongol Empire (primarily the Ilkhanate) in the 13th and 14th centuries, starting from around the time of the Seventh Crusade."
- You still owe me an apology for undue and uncivil accusations. Do you have any notion of what a balanced introduction is? Srnec's current compromise intro is OK with me. PHG 17:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, shall we just use their wording for the intro sentence then? If not, please feel free to suggest something else. --Elonka 17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but you still owe me an apology for undue and uncivil accusations. I am glad however that you manage to find what seem to be a few quotes supporting your claim. To avoid unnecessary discussions, let me remind I am totally willing to include that point of view as well. PHG 05:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would propose a different lead sentence. How about: "Many attempts were made to form a Franco-Mongol alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols in the 13th century. There were many envoys back and forth, and some historians have argued that the alliance, if successful, might have changed the balance of the power in the area. However, it was an endeavor that eventually proved fruitless." If you do not like that version, please feel free to suggest something different. --Elonka 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- You still owe me an apology for undue and uncivil accusations. Do you have any notion of what a balanced introduction is? Srnec's current compromise intro is OK with me. PHG 19:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is not okay with me. I have suggested multiple alternatives, none of which have been acceptable to you. If you don't like my suggestions, please make a suggestion of your own. That's how compromise works, PHG. I make a suggestion, you make a suggestion, we try to find middle ground. --Elonka 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- You still owe me an apology for undue and uncivil accusations. Do you have any notion of what a balanced introduction is? Srnec's current compromise intro is OK with me. PHG 19:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- You still owe me an apology for undue and uncivil accusations. "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, ...." with proper references for each. PHG 19:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Elonka, I'm going to have to agree with PHG that your suggestions for an introduction don't really incorporate the position held by PHG. All state rather unequivocally that the Franco-Mongol alliance never really happened and that the concept of an alliance can only be discussed in the context of "attempts" at such an alliance. I agree that "I make a suggestion, you make a suggestion, we try to find middle ground." is the way to go, but I have not seen too many suggestions from PHG recently (aside from the endorsement of the current intro sentence). Perhaps you should add a few (or, if this is the case, repeat them) just so Elonka knows for sure what you're okay with. PHG, I hope you have truly stopped demanding an apology from PHG; it's quite clear she's not going to give one and the fact that she has stopped making the accusations you don't like ought to be enough. -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards such an alliance, was an endeavor between the Crusaders and the Mongols in the 13th century," does incorporate PHG's view. I honestly feel like I'm having a "Flat Earth" discussion here. Just because there are Flat Earthers out there, doesn't mean that we should change the text in the "Earth" article to say "The Earth may or may not be round." In the case of this alliance discussion, the vast majority of historians say that there was no alliance -- that there were attempts at an alliance, but that they didn't come together. In fact, as I've been reviewing the current literature on the subject, it appears that historians no longer even debate whether or not there was an alliance, but instead they are debating the question, "If there would have been an alliance, would it have been a good idea or not?" See the new info that I've added at the top of User:Elonka/Mongol historians. Or, let's just go with what Atwood has as the first sentence in the Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire: Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam. It's verifiable, it's topical, it's recent, and it's about the exact subject that we're discussing. But in the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to soften it to "what most historians refer to". I think that's the best middle-ground available, but if PHG wants to suggest something different, I'm willing to take a look at it. --Elonka 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Elonka, very simply, your argument that "Most historians speak about attempts only" is clearly POV, and you have been falling well short of establishing it. The only neutral way of presenting things would only be "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." with respective references. If you cannot agree on that, let's not argue endlessly: we won't change the status quo, and we'll just keep Srnec's compromise phrasing (the current one). PHG 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- No one has accepted Srnec's phrasing except you and Srnec. Why are you so against simply suggesting something else? Throughout this process, you've been very reluctant to propose compromises. Generally I suggest option after option, to which you just keep saying, "No." That's not very sporting. --Elonka 22:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, what do you think of beginning the article with something to the effect of "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,...", as PHG suggested in the comment just prior to yours here? -- tariqabjotu 03:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it gives undue weight to the concept of there being an alliance, and I think it would make the Wikipedia article start off differently than nearly every other mainstream historical tome on the subject. Now, another possibility would be if we were to rename the article from "Franco-Mongol alliance" to "Franco-Mongol alliances" (though I'd actually prefer something even more neutral, such as "Crusader-Mongol relations"). Then we could start off with a lead sentence like perhaps: "Many diplomatic communications occurred between the Franks and the Mongols during the 13th century, as both sides sought ways that they could join forces against their common enemy, the Muslims." --Elonka 03:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, what do you think of beginning the article with something to the effect of "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,...", as PHG suggested in the comment just prior to yours here? -- tariqabjotu 03:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Elonka, ALL users have agreed against you that this article should be called "Franco-Mongol alliance" (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move), so please stop this, you are loosing everybody's time. Now I agree with our mediator that "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." with corresponding references for each appelation is the most balanced way to start the article. PHG 06:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- How about this: "An alliance, or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards an alliance"? I have added more examples at User:Elonka/Mongol historians if it helps to see that the preponderance of historians really do use the "attempts" language. --Elonka 06:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Elonka, ALL users have agreed against you that this article should be called "Franco-Mongol alliance" (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move), so please stop this, you are loosing everybody's time. Now I agree with our mediator that "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." with corresponding references for each appelation is the most balanced way to start the article. PHG 06:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I believe I have already answered to that. Your "what most historians refer to as attempts" is POV and OR. I do not trust your list either. When I checked Amin Maalouf’s “The Crusades through Arab eyes", which you claimed characterized the alliance as“being just a dream", I found out that, 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 Arghun's will and is certainly not a negation of the actual cases of alliance otherwise mentionned in the article. It is obvious that you are just cataloguing every occurence of the words "attempt", "dream" etc... whatever their context, and are dismissing all other statements regarding the actual occurence of that alliance. PHG 06:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- PHG, how many times do we have to go over this? I agree that the Armenians and the Antiochenes joined with the Mongols. I also agree that Antioch is Frankish. However, just because Antioch submitted to Mongol overlordship, does not mean that there was a grand Franco-Mongol alliance between the Mongols and Europe. It does mean that there was a Franco-Mongol agreement from 1259-1268, between the Mongols and Antioch. It was really an overlord/vassal relationship, but I could see stretching things to call it an alliance if we're careful about context. As for article title, if you're willing to strip out everything that's non-Antioch from the Franco-Mongol alliance article, I'd be willing to accept that. Or, we could rename the article as Franco-Mongol alliances (plural), and I'd accept that too. But it's not correct to say that Antioch's agreement with the Mongols was representative of a huge agreement between the Franks and Mongols, especially because right at the same time that Antioch submitted to Mongol overlordship, other Franks were rejecting the Mongols, and instead engaging in an agreement with the Egyptians.
- In any case, I believe that instead of arguing about specific sources, it would be more helpful for you to actually suggest alternate wording for an introduction sentence. I have made several suggestions, all of which you have rejected. So, how about you make some suggestions? --Elonka 07:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I believe I have already answered to that. Your "what most historians refer to as attempts" is POV and OR. I do not trust your list either. When I checked Amin Maalouf’s “The Crusades through Arab eyes", which you claimed characterized the alliance as“being just a dream", I found out that, 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 Arghun's will and is certainly not a negation of the actual cases of alliance otherwise mentionned in the article. It is obvious that you are just cataloguing every occurence of the words "attempt", "dream" etc... whatever their context, and are dismissing all other statements regarding the actual occurence of that alliance. PHG 06:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Elonka. As long as numerous authors describe the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols, and give actual examples of it with the Franks of Antioch, the Hospitallers, Edward I, the Templars, the Cypriots etc... there is absolutely no reason for you to claim on dubious grounds (above) that "most historians claim that there were only attempts". The only problem here is your claim that your point of view is numerically overwhelming, which is probably untrue, and not even relevant as pointed out by our mediator. There are sufficient sources both ways to simply balance the assertions in standard Wikipedia NPOV manner: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, ....". It does seem to me Elonka Dunin has a major problem with balancing opinions. Regards. PHG 11:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have offered an alternate version of the lead, in the section below. I have also offered an alternate version at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I you do not like the wording of either, I would be happy to work with you towards some other compromise version, if you could please be specific about your concerns. Thanks, Elonka 13:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Responded to hereunder. We just need to balance POVs in a standard Wikipedia neutral manner: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance,...". No big deal really, and I am afraid all you are doing is trying to tilt the POV in your favour. PHG 11:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Article split to History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)
PHG, can you please explain why on earth you are reverting me when I am trying to split a section out of the article?[1][2][3] I moved a section from Franco-Mongol alliance to History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages). I did not make any changes to the content, I'm just trying to get the "alliance" article down to a manageable size. We already went through this discussion when we split out Mongol raids into Palestine, and then you went ahead and re-added all the information back into the Alliance article. Currently it's at 167K, which everyone has agreed is too long. Why do you feel that this is something that is necessary to edit war about? --Elonka 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because we said we would split the article only after content issues are settled, as also pointed out by other users. I am also not happy with the way you are spliting things. Please follow proper mediation procedure. PHG 19:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, "we" never said that we would wait until content issues were settled. Instead, you have been telling everyone else that they are not allowed to remove "your" work. At Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article split, and other threads on the talkpage, we have been talking about the need for an article split, for months now. Weeks ago, here in this mediation, you said that you wanted the "initiative" to split the article: "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.". But to my knowledge, you haven't split out a single sentence, and instead just keep piling in more and more information. And here at this mediation, we haven't been able to agree on a compromise for even a single sentence. I am not interested in spending a year or more here at mediation, so I challenge you, are you here for the right reasons? Do you even believe that a compromise is possible? Or is this entire mediation just a stalling tactic on your part? I've stayed off the article for a month, but now the first thing I tried to do (splitting out a section), your first reaction is to revert me within hours. I'm trying to be patient here, but you are going to have to show that you're genuinely interested in working together with me towards a compromise version of the article. If you're not interested, then let's just close this mediation and move on to another stage of dispute resolution. --Elonka 21:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that this is still a matter of dispute. Go through mediation. PHG 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Summarizing (and splitting) the article is one of the issues in this mediation, so I don't believe it's a good idea to begin splitting content out of the article without commenting here first. Anyway, carry on... -- tariqabjotu 22:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm willing to discuss this a bit longer, but so far talkpage consensus seems pretty clear that any other editors who have bothered to take the time to read it, are liking my rewrite. No one has said that they want to stick with PHG's version. It is also my opinion that keeping PHG's excessively long (167K) version of the article around, is making it more difficult for other editors to offer comments. So what I'd like to do is to just switch out the article to my shorter version at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance, and then if there are specific sections that PHG has trouble with, we can definitely keep discussing them. But right now when I ask other editors to comment, it's sort of like I drop a massive copy of War and Peace on their desk and say, "Hey, can you read that and give me an opinion?" They're really not interested. So I think condensing the article is really a very important step at this point. And to repeat: I'm not talking about deleting information. All of the information will still be on Wikipedia. It'll just be split out to other articles. I've already gone and merged everything that needs to be merged, and so far I haven't seen anyone complain, at any of the target articles such as Mahmud Ghazan, Arghun, Abaqa, Mongol invasions of Syria, History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages), etc. Those changes all appear to be non-controversial. The issue is just whether or not all that information needs to stay in Franco-Mongol alliance in one place. PHG says that it has to remain. No one else agrees with him. So, let's condense it, and then keep talking. I'm perfectly willing to continue discussing things in good faith, but I'm not willing to let PHG use this mediation as a mechanism to hold the article "hostage" and insist that no one else can touch it. That's disrespectful to the other editors who are commenting on the talkpage, and it's a violation of WP:OWN. --Elonka 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- As I noted in the #Article rewrite section, we need to go one step at a time. It may be frustrating to you that this mediation has lasted this long, but it's really not that unusual. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Open Tasks, we're third from the top. That essentially means the third youngest mediation. However, I will be more aggressive about moving past this issue (not more aggressive toward you or PHG, but toward pushing toward something); we shouldn't be spending a month on one sentence in the intro. Also, you are correct in that this mediation should not be used as a stalling tactic, but I'm inclined to think that was not PHG's motivation for accepting this mediation. I'm not going to pursue or investigate that further; it's irrelevant right now. -- tariqabjotu 04:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm willing to discuss this a bit longer, but so far talkpage consensus seems pretty clear that any other editors who have bothered to take the time to read it, are liking my rewrite. No one has said that they want to stick with PHG's version. It is also my opinion that keeping PHG's excessively long (167K) version of the article around, is making it more difficult for other editors to offer comments. So what I'd like to do is to just switch out the article to my shorter version at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance, and then if there are specific sections that PHG has trouble with, we can definitely keep discussing them. But right now when I ask other editors to comment, it's sort of like I drop a massive copy of War and Peace on their desk and say, "Hey, can you read that and give me an opinion?" They're really not interested. So I think condensing the article is really a very important step at this point. And to repeat: I'm not talking about deleting information. All of the information will still be on Wikipedia. It'll just be split out to other articles. I've already gone and merged everything that needs to be merged, and so far I haven't seen anyone complain, at any of the target articles such as Mahmud Ghazan, Arghun, Abaqa, Mongol invasions of Syria, History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages), etc. Those changes all appear to be non-controversial. The issue is just whether or not all that information needs to stay in Franco-Mongol alliance in one place. PHG says that it has to remain. No one else agrees with him. So, let's condense it, and then keep talking. I'm perfectly willing to continue discussing things in good faith, but I'm not willing to let PHG use this mediation as a mechanism to hold the article "hostage" and insist that no one else can touch it. That's disrespectful to the other editors who are commenting on the talkpage, and it's a violation of WP:OWN. --Elonka 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Opening paragraph
How does this sound? I've made a genuine effort to include both my and PHG's views:
A form of Franco-Mongol alliance occurred from 1259-1268 between the Frankish Principality of Antioch and the Ilkhanate of the Mongol Empire against their common enemy the Egyptian Mamluks, when Bohemond VI of Antioch formally submitted to Mongol overlordship, under the influence of his father-in-law Hethoum I of Armenia, who had submitted in 1247. Antioch was then destroyed by the Mamluks in 1268, but for the rest of the century, there continued to be many other attempts to form a more wide-ranging alliance between the Mongols and the Franks of Western Europe, though with little success. The French historian Jean Richard argues that there actually was a Franco-Mongol alliance that occurred from 1263 until the early 1300s, though most other historians describe it simply as attempts which never resulted in any substantial military collaboration.
The communications went on for decades, and involved numerous exchanges of letters, gifts, and emissaries between the Mongols and the Europeans, as well as offers for varying types of cooperation. The most clear indication of both cooperation and non-cooperation occurred around 1260, when most of Muslim Syria was briefly conquered by the joint efforts of the Mongols and their Christian subjects, including the forces of Frankish Antioch. However, most of the Mongol forces had to withdraw shortly thereafter for internal reasons, after which other Franks, the Barons of Acre, entered into a passive truce with their traditional enemies the Egyptian Mamluks, allowing the Muslims to obtain a major and historic success against the Mongols later that same year, at 1260's Battle of Ain Jalut.
The Mongols again invaded Syria several times between 1281 and 1312, sometimes in alliance or attempted alliance with the Christians, though there were considerable logistical difficulties involved, which usually resulted in the forces arriving months apart, and being unable to satisfactorily combine their activities. Ultimately, the attempts at alliance bore little fruit, and ended with the victory of the Egyptian Mamluks, the total eviction of both the Franks and the Mongols from Palestine by 1303, and a treaty of peace between the Mongols and the Mamluks in 1322.
--Elonka 21:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- See comments above. PHG 12:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, have you actually read the wording here? It's completely different from what we've discussed before. Or in other words, could you please be more specific as to your exact concerns? Or, could you rewrite this section with wording that you like better? Thanks, --Elonka 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- See comments above. PHG 12:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll echo what I said in the section below: try to point to specific points, sentences, or paragraphs in this version that you find problematic. -- tariqabjotu 02:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- We said specifically we would discuss the intro sentence for a start. "A form of Franco-Mongol alliance..." is an original research statement (never seen this kind of approach to the issue), and only focuses on a single particular event (Bohemond VI) within interactions spanning half a century. I don't hink it works as an intro as it does not mirror the focus of the article at all. Only a balanced phrasing "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance,..." with an aim at describing the globality of the article could be both satisfying as an NPOV and effective introductory statement. PHG 11:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll agree to remove the words "form of", which would leave us with: A Franco-Mongol alliance occurred from 1259-1268 between the Frankish Principality of Antioch and the Ilkhanate of the Mongol Empire against their common enemy the Egyptian Mamluks, when Bohemond VI of Antioch formally submitted to Mongol overlordship, under the influence of his father-in-law Hethoum I of Armenia, who had submitted in 1247. --Elonka 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- We said specifically we would discuss the intro sentence for a start. "A form of Franco-Mongol alliance..." is an original research statement (never seen this kind of approach to the issue), and only focuses on a single particular event (Bohemond VI) within interactions spanning half a century. I don't hink it works as an intro as it does not mirror the focus of the article at all. Only a balanced phrasing "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance,..." with an aim at describing the globality of the article could be both satisfying as an NPOV and effective introductory statement. PHG 11:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your formulation only focuses on a single particular event (Bohemond VI) within interactions spanning half a century. I don't think it works as an intro as it does not mirror the focus of the article at all. It is also contrary to the accepted understanding of the Franco-Mongol alliance according to the scholars describing this alliance. As thissuch, this phrasing is POV, innacurate and original research. Only a balanced phrasing "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance,..." in proper Wikipedia NPOV style, with an aim at describing the globality of the article could be both satisfying as an NPOV and effective introductory statement. PHG 11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, then let's fall back to the talkpage consensus of Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. I realize that you don't like it, but you are the only editor that doesn't like it -- everyone else is okay on it. See Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction sentence. So, let's just agree to disagree on this point, and move on to something else. For example, can you please respond to the question in the other section, of how to split the article? --Elonka 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- PHG, please hold off on answering Elonka's question about splitting the article, especially if you aren't willing to settle with the intro sentence proposed above and on the article talk page. I would like to finish this piece first so things don't get too confusing. -- tariqabjotu 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, then let's fall back to the talkpage consensus of Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. I realize that you don't like it, but you are the only editor that doesn't like it -- everyone else is okay on it. See Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction sentence. So, let's just agree to disagree on this point, and move on to something else. For example, can you please respond to the question in the other section, of how to split the article? --Elonka 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Let's try to avoid calling things "POV" (and to a lesser extent "original research") when objecting to proposed versions of this sentence (and other parts of the article). It is sufficient, clearer, and, ultimately, less abrasive, to simply discuss precise points of contention. -- tariqabjotu 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- (sigh) If our mediator insists, I'm willing to give this another try. PHG, how about this? Please list three possible alternates that you would find acceptable for the introductory sentence. A, B, and C, which you feel adequately represent both our viewpoints. Maybe I'll find something there that I like. --Elonka 17:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Did I miss something? Why have you abandoned your statement from 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)? -- tariqabjotu 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Abandoned? Not at all. I would still be happy to use any of the following intro sentences:
- Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
- A form of Franco-Mongol alliance existed from 1258-1269 between the Frankish Principality of Antioch and the Mongol Empire.
- A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards such an alliance, was the object of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
- Other options are possible too. I'm just tired of constantly suggesting compromises and having PHG shoot them down with vague versions of "No," so I'd really like if he could offer some alternatives, instead of continually repeating the same sentence. --Elonka 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Abandoned? Not at all. I would still be happy to use any of the following intro sentences:
- Did I miss something? Why have you abandoned your statement from 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)? -- tariqabjotu 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- (sigh) If our mediator insists, I'm willing to give this another try. PHG, how about this? Please list three possible alternates that you would find acceptable for the introductory sentence. A, B, and C, which you feel adequately represent both our viewpoints. Maybe I'll find something there that I like. --Elonka 17:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your formulation only focuses on a single particular event (Bohemond VI) within interactions spanning half a century. I don't think it works as an intro as it does not mirror the focus of the article at all. It is also contrary to the accepted understanding of the Franco-Mongol alliance according to the scholars describing this alliance. As thissuch, this phrasing is POV, innacurate and original research. Only a balanced phrasing "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance,..." in proper Wikipedia NPOV style, with an aim at describing the globality of the article could be both satisfying as an NPOV and effective introductory statement. PHG 11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I am OK with
- "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance, ..." as being perfectly Wikipedia:NPOV.
- Srnec's compromise intro (currently in use in the article): "A Franco-Mongol alliance[1][2][3][4][5][6] was the object of a series of diplomatic endeavours..." PHG 12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- PHG's versions are not acceptable to me, because they are at odds with nearly every single historian's view on the subject. See User:Elonka/Mongol historians (please, actually click on the link and look at the table at the top). I have a summary of the views of dozens of historians, followed by the exact quotes from their respective books and articles. For example, the Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire starts off the section on "Western Europe and the Mongols" (which is the exact same topic as our own Wikipedia article), with this opening sentence: "Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam." That is an excellent summary of the prevailing opinion of modern historians, and that is what our Wikipedia article should emulate. To try and say otherwise, is being misleading to our readers, is flying in the face of the consensus of other Wikipedia editors, and is just PHG trying to force his own biased POV. --Elonka 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Article rewrite
- See /On hold#Article rewrite (for now).
I'm putting this on hold for right now. We can't even agree on an introductory sentence, so it's certainly not time to ask for an agreement on the change to the whole article. I have some comments about this, but I'll save them for after we get the all-important intro sentence squared away. -- tariqabjotu 04:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Tariqabjotu, with all due respect, unless you think you can pull a rabbit out of a hat, I don't think that PHG are ever going to agree on an intro sentence. Let's just go with talkpage consensus (which is unanimous except for PHG), agree to disagree, and move on to some other subject where possibly we can find a compromise? --Elonka 17:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Where are you deriving the idea of a talk page consensus? -- tariqabjotu 17:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please see:
- In a nutshell: Everyone (except for PHG) has agreed on an introduction sentence which says: "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." By "everyone" I mean: Adam Bishop, Srnec, WjbScribe, Elonka. To my knowledge no one else has been opposed to that wording, except for PHG. I would also point to:
- At the RfC (Question #1) everyone (except for PHG) acknowledged that there was no alliance, that it was either "attempts" towards an alliance, or smaller ad hoc alliances.
- --Elonka 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Where are you deriving the idea of a talk page consensus? -- tariqabjotu 17:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I'll wait for PHG to respond to this section and for both of you to respond to the sentences under #The mediation is here and go from there. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The mediation is here
I just realized today, upon reviewing the recent contributions of our two participants, that this mediation is just the tip of the iceberg in that there has been concurrent discussion on the talk page of the article. I'm not forbidden from commenting on the talk page of the article, but we have this mediation page for a reason. Instead of spreading the ongoing discussion across multiple locations, it should be centralized in one location – here. Continuing this dispute in multiple places defeats the purpose of the mediation and makes it harder for me to follow what's going on (I'm sure those side discussions exacerbated the complaint about me not commenting last week). Just to reiterate (copying from an above section), Elonka has offered three introduction sentences:
- Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
- A form of Franco-Mongol alliance existed from 1258-1269 between the Frankish Principality of Antioch and the Mongol Empire.
- A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards such an alliance, was the object of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
PHG, when you get the chance, please state your opinion on the proposals. If you disagree with one or more of them (and especially if you disagree with all of them), please address specific points of contention and propose alternatives. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
These three proposals have in common that they all seek to deny the claim of an alliance, which is supported by a host of reputable historians (User:PHG/Alliance) and as such are unacceptable and POV:
- Proposal 1 only speaks about "Attempts", and not an alliance in itself.
- Proposal 2 claims it was only "a form of alliance" (never seen this claim anywhere), and focused on a small event under Bohemond VI.
- Proposal 3, claiming ("what most historians refer to as attempts") is Elonka OR, and seeks to deny the statement about there being an alliance in the first place.
Fundamendatally, all these statements are identical in that they try to dismiss the notion of an alliance, in favour of attempts only. Again, the only solution is to adopt a Wikipedia:NPOV compromise phrasing in which both views are integrated, with attendant references: "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance, ...". Regards PHG 12:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Saying "most historians" is not Original Research, it's an accurate synopsis. See User:Elonka/Mongol historians. To my knowledge the only historians who say that there was an alliance were two who were obviously floating a new theory and making an argument for the case, but they are not mainstream theories. Jean Richard (Crusades historian) argues that an alliance began around 1263. Alain Demurger (Templar historian) argues that an alliance started in 1300. They don't even agree with each other, let alone agreeing with the majority of other historians who clearly say that there was no alliance. There were attempts at an alliance, and that is the wording that we should emulate in the Wikipedia article. We can definitely list the views of Richard and Demurger in the article, but we need to give them appropriate weight, and list them as minority theories, not the main thrust of the first sentence. --Elonka 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to seize on your objections to Proposal 2 because they seem to be the easiest to address. If you have an issue with the sentence focusing on a small event, perhaps you all could use the ending of one of Elonka's other proposals, such as "existed between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade."
- However, in your first objection, "claims it was only "a form of alliance" (never seen this claim anywhere)", you appear to be paying too much attention to a small detail. Now, I understand semantics seems to be at the crux of this issue (is it an alliance or just an attempt at an alliance?), but your position that the intro sentence can't say "a form of alliance" because no source has said verbatim "a form of alliance" is... well... difficult to agree with. It seems rather apparent that your position that an alliance developed and Elonka's position that there were only attempts at alliances both indicate that there was some sort of alliance-like relationship between the Mongols and the French. The difference appears to be in the degree to which there was such an alliance (or relationship). So, as you can see, I'm struggling to see how "a form of alliance" fails to incorporate both positions; it mentions that there was a form of alliance, with the details (presumably) to be discussed later in the article.
- On Proposal 3, I'd like to comment on Elonka's wording (I probably could have done this a bit earlier, but oh well). Elonka, you begin the sentence with "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards such an alliance,...". I know you might be dismayed to hear me say this, but the "or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards such an alliance" may not be correct. I don't mean incorrect in regards to this alliance vs. attempt at alliance debate, but rather incorrect in that it might be unintelligible. I assume the use of word "object" corresponds to the third definition here: "The purpose, aim, or goal of a specific action or effort" ("objective", by the way, is probably a better word). The purpose, aim, or goal of something is not to attempt to do X, but rather to do X. Whether that goal is attained is another story.
- To illustrate, take for example the following, parallel sentence:
An opportunity to host the 2012 Olympics in Paris, or at least what most refer to as an attempt toward such an opportunity, was the object[ive] of the city's bid.
- Even though Paris clearly did not earn the opportunity to host the 2012 Olympics, this statement does not make sense. It should say "An opportunity to host the 2012 Olympics in Paris was the objective of the city's bid."
- So, in the end, I would like to hear both of your opinions on the following:
A (form or degree) of Franco-Mongol alliance existed between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
A (form or degree) of Franco-Mongol alliance was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
A Franco-Mongol alliance was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
- -- tariqabjotu 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Mediation evasion
Elonka, I don't think you are supposed to evade mediation and go with implementing your POVs in the article Franco-Mongol alliance as you are doing right now [4]. What you are doing is not proper at all, I'm afraid. PHG 12:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)