Misplaced Pages

Hydrae Capita: POV forks stemming from this article

As Ealdgyth has indicated above, the specious and idiosycratic POV represented in this article has extended further than those articles now being considered for deletion. Let us make a list so that these otherwise sound articles may be reviewed when conflicts are resolved. Aramgar (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's worthwhile to make a list of the articles that seem to have been the targets of biased editing. It appears that there has been an attempt to manipulate multiple articles, where biased information has been inserted in multiple locations, as a way for them all to reinforce each other. Some of these articles have now been nominated for deletion (see above threads), but others are going to require more careful review. I agree with Aramgar that we should make a list of all articles about which there may be concerns, so that we can either review them now, and/or, once we figure out how we'd like to proceed and what the consensus is, we can then work through the list to ensure that everything gets cleaned up as needed. --Elonka 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears that the problem has expanded to a large number of articles. I was going to review them myself, but I think the problem is too large for one person. So here's what I'm doing: I've provided a list of articles below, which I identified as having either definitely been targeted, or may have been edited in a questionable way. What I'd like, is help checking each article. If you have reviewed an article and see no problems with it, meaning nothing that you think is controversial as regards a biased POV or undue weight issues, then simply cross out the article with <s> and </s> tags. If you review an article and see that it definitely needs work and/or attention, please bold the article name in this list. You may also wish to include a diff of an edit or two that you think are of concern. If you're not sure, or want a second opinion, either don't modify the article name, or maybe italicize it? And of course if you find other articles, feel free to add them to the list. If an article's status changes, or you disagree with another editor's review, we can pull those articles out of the list for special attention in a separate section, since they may need separate consensus discussions. Per common courtesy guidelines, if someone has flagged your own edits as something needing review, it's probably best if you don't challenge that, but instead allow another editor to then review the article and determine if its status needs to be changed.

Does that sound doable? --Elonka 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

List of articles for review

• Articles that are in bold mean that they definitely have text which needs to be reviewed
• Articles that are crossed out have been reviewed, and been determined to have nothing controversial as regards POV or WP:UNDUE questions
• Articles in italics are ambiguous and need a second editor's opinion
• Articles in plain text have not yet been reviewed

Content organisation

Since it appears that the articles and template currently up for deletion (save, hopefully, the Mongol generals) will be deleted, I am writing this so that we are prepared to deal with some of the issues that such deletion may sidestep. First, there is no doubt that the article at its current length must be shortened somehow. But this cannot occur until the accuracy disputes are settled. Second, there are Armeno-, Byzantine-, and Mamluk-Mongol alliance articles that do not appear to be disputed (greatly, or asides from any refs to this article). The first issue could be partially ameliorated if any information redundant to both this article and one of the non-disputed ones is removed from here unless it is directly pertinent. Third, if these three articles are undisputed and this one remains under its current title (as I favour), then we will have four "x-Mongol alliance" articles without any over-arching connexion. PHG had created a template and article which are slanted for deletion (which I favour, since they disrupt the dispute-resolution process and could be easily re-created more accurately once it is resolved). Should there be any over-arching organisation if three of these Mongol alliances are undisputed and a fourth was a very real goal of certain diplomacy? Should this include a template like the one up for deletion? An article like the one up for deletion? Finally, are the other Mongol allinace articles actually undisputed asides from any Franco- refs in them? Could these issues be solved rapidly in such a way as to perhaps salvage the template & article up for deletion? Srnec (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Srnec! It is true that scholars are divided on the extent of the Franco-Mongol alliance (Although even those who write about "attempts only" still use the "Franco-Mongol alliance" expression anyway (relevant to article title). Many historians do consider the alliance as fact (User:PHG/Alliance), and many consider it was an alliance that ultimately failed (true), and a few deny there was an alliance at all. To me, this is just a Misplaced Pages:NPOV issue: we should just outline the differing opinions, and leave it at that. This is why I consider important an introduction sentence such as "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of...", because it allows to present both views. "Franco-Mongol alliance" (or variations of it) is a widely accepted academic expression for this subject however, so should stand in its own right. Best regards. PHG (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that the other articles would be just as disputed if we had the time and expertise to examine them as much as we do this one (perhaps all of PHG's articles would be). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Adam. In retrospect, my propensity for little-known multi-cultural subjects might indeed be a favourable ground for arguments and disputes, but all I write is referenced from reputable published sources, and is based on quite a lot of research. Should you wish to challenge anything, I will be glad to discuss, as always. Best regards. PHG (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

More quotes

I added in User:PHG/Alliance a quite straiforward quote by Reuven Amitai-Preiss in Mongols and Mamluks (1995) about the unequivocal alliance of the Franks and the Mongols under Bohemond VI:

"Under Bohemond VI, the northern Franks maintained their unequivocal pro-Mongol alliance after 'Ayn Jālūt"

— Reuven Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks (1995), p.54.

He goes on detailing the instances in which the Mongols further came to the rescue of the Frank Antiochians when they were attacked by the Mamluks, until the Fall of Antioch in 1268. This is but one more source. I would wish that some editors stop claiming that an alliance never existed, in the face of so many reputable and prominent historians who do say it did. PHG (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that this is an 8 year period out of approximately 100 years. 8 years of an alliance between Antioch and the Mongols does not necessarily mean that the whole of Western Europe was allied to the Mongols for the whole time period. You keep referring to "AN" alliance. I would posit that it is more correct to say "ALLIANCES" existed, each one of limited duration and scope.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Was there an overarching alliance? This is a matter of academical controversy. Many authors tend to consider the Franco-Mongol alliance as a global phenomenon encompassing various finite events (see User:PHG/Alliance). I think this is due to the encompassing goodwill and agreements for cooperation exchanged between the Popes and the Il-Khan rulers. On the field, the Franco-Mongol alliance concretized into various finite collaborative actions between 1258 to 1302. As far as I know, no authority has ever said "Franco-Mongol ALLIANCES" (plural). It would be a total neologism. Please see answer hereunder. Regards. PHG (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is, that most of these historians you're referring to are talking about short term alliances. Like the above quote, which you clearly say applies to an alliance with ran from a battle in 1260 until 1268. That's one alliance. Then we talk about an alliance when Edward I was in the Holy Land in 1271, which lasted while he was there. Another alliance. The Oldenburg quotation states that the alliance that started in 1280 against a specific person. That's another alliance. The Riley-Smith quotation discusses an alliance that started in 1285. Each of those historians is referring to an alliance, yes, but they are talking about an alliance that is bounded in a shorter time frame than what is covered by the article. Or to put it another way, how can a "global phenomenon" as you describe it, have so many starting dates? Each historian is giving a new starting date - 1260 for Reuven Amitai-Preiss, 1270 for Prestwich, 1280 for Oldenburg, 1285 for Riley-Smith. Clearly they are discussing different local/specific alliances, and to argue that they are all referring to one global phenomenon looks to me like Original Research. I could be wrong, but I'd like to hear other voices on this, from other editors, such as Srnec, Adam Bishop, John K, etc. And certainly it would be nice to hear from some other newer editors. It's a collabrative project after all. And once more... could we use edit summaries? Ealdgyth | Talk 17:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that many authors are not so coherent about the time frame. I suspect that many are aware of some events, but not necessarily of all events that occured. For example for many authors 1302 falls out of their horizon for the Crusades in the Levant (which often are thought to finish in 1291 with the Fall of Acre). To me, the clearest author on the subject is the leading French historian Jean Richard: Jean Richard in Histoire des Croisades, has the Franco-Mongol alliance start in earnest in the 1260s ("The sustained attacks of Baibars (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453.) and continue on-and-off until it was strongly revived by Ghazan, to continue to have an influence until 1322 ("In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468). Regards. PHG (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Precision

I think before we go on, we need to discuss what exactly is meant by "Franco" here. Are we talking about all of Western Europe? If so, to talk about an existing alliance, we would need to marshall facts for the whole time period and covering the major kingdoms and the papacy. If by Franco we mean the Crusader states, then it would be easier to show that alliances (note the plural) existed, because certainly there are historians who put forth that there were limited time frame and limited to the Crusader states alliances and/or working together for limited goals. Precision in terminology is important, especially with the sweeping nature of the time frame. PHG keeps referring to "an alliance", which to me (and I may be misinterpreting his intent, thus this attempt at discussion) means that there was one large overarching alliance between the Western European powers (including the Crusader states and the military orders) for the whole time period. However, the historians seem to be referring to limited time frames with their discussions of "alliance", usually limited in time frame and goals. Perhaps the article and/or discussion might be better termed "Franco-Mongol alliances"? I would really prefer "Crusader-Mongol alliances" since even when Louis IX or Edward I were in the Holy Land, they were more acting as Crusaders, not as heads of France or England. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth. This was already discussed when Elonka's proposals for article change were formally rejected by consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move):

• "Franco-Mongol alliances" would be a total neologism, which hasn't been used by any authority (just check on Google and Google books for a start).
• "Crusader-Mongol alliances" would cover all the Crusaders (including the eastern Europeans) and the European front. It could be a larger article, of which "Franco-Mongol alliance" would be but one part.
• The "Franco" in "Franco-Mongol alliance", refers to the Franks, who by convention are the European Christians who had business with the Levant (Since "Franks" was the term used by the Muslim to designate them). Between the 11th to the 15th century, the Crusaders in the Levant were usually called Franks. More broadly the term applied to any persons originating in Catholic western Europe (medieval Middle Eastern history). The term led to derived usage by other cultures, such as Farangi, Firang, Farang and Barang. "The term was used by all the populations of the eastern Mediterranean to designate the totality of the Crusaders as well as the settlers" Atlas des Croisades,1996, Jonathan Riley-Smith, ISBN 2862605530. Frank does cover both the Crusader states in the Levant and Western European countries.
• Was there an overarching alliance? This is a matter of academical controversy. Many authors tend to consider the Franco-Mongol alliance as a global phenomenon encompassing various finite events (see User:PHG/Alliance). I think this is due to the encompassing goodwill and agreements for cooperation exchanged between the Popes and the Il-Khan rulers. On the field, the Franco-Mongol alliance concretized into various collaborative actions between 1258 to 1302.
• Lastly, "Franco-Mongol alliance" is indeed a standard expression used by historians of the period. Again User:PHG/Alliance. Thank you for this discussion. Best regards. PHG (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what others say about this. Consensus can change you know. And please... edit summaries?Ealdgyth | Talk 17:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, what reputable scholars actually write should be much more important to us than any micro-consensus between a few Wikipedians on a polemical Talk Page. Let's not create "Wikiality" (Fancifull "Misplaced Pages-reality" created through user consensus): academic usages and recognized definitions have to have absolute primacy in an encyclopedia. What do you mean regarding edit summaries? Regards PHG (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries, when you are replying to someone it's nice to say "reply" .. when you are merely tweaking your spelling "spelling" or "typo" so that I can see what is an actual reply and what is you going back and tweaking your comments. Frankly, this talk page is cluttering up my watchlist with lots of little edits, and it would be nice to be able to separate when you are merely tweaking your prose, when you are rewording your comments, and when you are replying with a new comment.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course. I see what you mean now. Best regards. PHG (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I am one of the few voices that does not oppose the current title yet has misgivings about the article content and the alleged POV forks/coatracks being created, I thought I'd chime in at Ealdgyth's suggestion (in the previous thread). Let me ask this: George W. Bush was in Saudi Arabia recently. He kissed the Crown Prince and they had a jolly good time exchanging gifts and talking politics and sports. Is there an alliance between American and Saudi Arabia? It looked awfully friendly, yet I heard an analyst say on the news that Saudi Arabia is undeniably a foe of the United States. So what's going on? This is the type of difficulty we have looking back 700 years at Franco-Mongol relations. I think Edward Longshanks achieved some small level of cooperation with a small number of Mongol forces. And James the Conqueror may have been equally (un)successful. He certainly had a mutual plan of some sort with the Mongols, but his bastard sons don't appear to have had much effect in the Holy Land. Bohemond VI certainly cooperated with the Mongols, but was it compelled or was it "friendly"? Do Armeno-Mongol relations count as Franco-Mongol when the Franks had their noses so deep in Armenian business? If the "Franco-Mongol alliance" was mostly a chimera pursued sometimes relentlessly, sometimes disinterestedly by both sides against the Mamluks, can we say that in a few instances the overarching "idea" of the alliance achieved very limited expression in agreements and concerted action? And what is "an idea of an alliance in limited expression" but a limited alliance? There was not big Franco-Mongol alliance. There were only brief periods of agreement and cooperation between bit players, but this is enough, in my opinion, to justify this article (and under its current title). Instead of worrying what historians say about the "alliance" (attempts), let's worry about what happened and characterise it common-sensibly as it permits. I would like to say more, but this is long enough (and probably difficult to follow). I'd like to put the "was there/wasn't there an alliance?" dispute behind is and get on to dealing with the particular disputed claims in the article and the disputed reliability of certain sources. Srnec (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My point about the alliance vs. alliances (or whatever) thing isn't to necessarily reopen the title discussion (although I will admit I'd be more comfortable with a different title, because the title definitely influences how folks read the article) but to make sure that the discussion of the article itself is grounded on some common definitions so we aren't misunderstanding each other when we discuss things. That was my main aim. As far as discussing what actually happened, I'm fine with moving on to that, but I'd like to also add to the discussion list the use of primary sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite 2

Arkadaşlarım: Now that I've had the chance to read up more on the subject, I feel comfortable supporting the rewrite proposed by Elonka. It is substantially shorter, well-sourced, and offers, I believe, a better balanced picture of a fairly complex historical situation. It eliminates the troubling over-reliance on primary sources and provides a good summary of modern academic consensus. I checked out a number of the secondary sources summarized both by PHG in his extensive quotations and by Elonka as seen here, and believe that the latter is the more accurate scholarly view. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: By "checked out," I mean that I checked these books out of a library and examined the context of the various passages cited. Kafka Liz (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Since you and several other editors had indicated you liked the rewrite, I've started with implementation. I just finished my first pass, which has condensed the article down to about 78K, which I think is much more manageable. I also reorganized the timeline, so instead of going by year, it works through the various Mongol leaders in order, which (in my opinion) makes it easier to split information out to the individual biographies of each leader, as necessary.

There is more that I could do, such as doublechecking for duplicate references and other "polishing up", but I'm going to pause right now to doublecheck that people are happy with my changes, before I proceed further. If anyone has concerns, please let me know! --Elonka 05:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I oppose this rewrite and massive removal of sourced material. It was completely inappropriate of you to push your own version of the article into the main space when there is obviously no consensus to do this. Please revert yourself.

Having said this I withdraw from this ugly dispute. --Matt57 16:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the question of whether or not there was consensus for me to work on condensing the article (and/or replacing it with my rewritten version at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance), these conversations were at times somewhat fragmented. So, I figured I'd pull some of the quotes into one place: Srnec, Tefalstar, John Kenney, Aramgar, Adam Bishop, Kafka Liz, WJBscribe, and Shell Kinney. Not all of these diffs specifically say "I approve of the rewrite," but I think it is clear from what people are saying, that they approve of my scholarship and intentions here, and that consensus existed for my changes. If anyone feels that I have misrepresented their thoughts, please do speak up.

Now, I understand that PHG is opposed to my recent work condensing the article (which is understandable, as he was the primary editor whose work was being condensed). PHG, for what it's worth, my intent was not to "replace" what you've done, but to improve it. You have done an enormous amount of work on this topic, and, with the exception of a couple of POV issues where we disagree, I still feel that much of your scholarship is excellent. In no way am I trying to diminish the respect for the other high quality work that you have done. You are, and probably always will be, the primary editor on this topic. However, as I'm sure you know, in any reputable academic reference endeavor, the work of any one editor must be subject to peer-review and editing. I, as one of your peers, am trying to do exactly that, review and edit your work. I understand that this makes you unhappy, which is a natural response when you see some of your own words and research deleted. However, I wish that you could see that we (I and the other editors on this page) are not doing this out of any desire to diminish your work, but instead, out of a genuine desire to improve what you have done.

PHG, I know that you have done a lot of work on Asian topics, so you may be more familiar with this quote, but I heard from someone I greatly respect, that one of the ways to know when you are done improving a Japanese garden, is when you can no longer remove anything without ruining the effect. In other words, "less is more." It is my opinion, and that of most of the other editors on this talkpage, that a condensed article is a stronger article, not a weaker one. By shortening the article, it gives the remaining sections more impact, and further, makes it more likely that they'll even be read!

So, rather than trying to revert to the previous very long version, could we please move forward, examining the article as it stands, and focus our discussions on how to further strengthen and improve it? I really do think that we have an article here that could be navigated to Featured article status, if we could just figure out how to get past some of these last remaining disputes. I don't want to exclude you from editing here, I just want to figure out a way that we can work together, in harmony, towards the mutual goal of making a high-quality article which will be of benefit to our readers. Sincerely, Elonka 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop the deletions of referenced material!!

I don't think that deleting a huge amount of perfectly referenced material (from 190k to 80k of content), and adopting an alternate POV version, is the way to go on Misplaced Pages. I understand Elonka's impatience to get her version of things out, but the proper Misplaced Pages way to do it is to start from the complete text (although it's long at 190k, but editors have shown they did not want a split yet anyway), and discuss specific issues one by one. I will be glad to participate to these discussions. Doing otherwise would be a serious breach of Misplaced Pages methodology, and I will file a formal claim if this continues. I will reinstate the complete text with references, so that we can start discussions from that basis (FULL VERSION HERE) Thank you to respect Misplaced Pages rules: they should always have primacy over a few editors banding together on a Talk Page. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is how things have worked. There is ongoing discussion above about improving the article, which I'm sure you have been watching. You need to stop subverting the improvement process by insisting on starting from your preferred version. Instead, join in the ongoing discussion and talk about what further improvements you think can be made. Please stop continually edit warring on this and related articles. I know you've put a lot of work into the area, but you need to allow others to work on the articles as well. Shell 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because a few editors say "I like Elonka's version", doesn't mean that there is a right to destroy a huge amount of referenced material from highly reputable sources. I am OK to have a summary article, but then split articles with all details have to be allowed for. As split article are also being denied, the only solution is to work with the full article with all references and discuss from that. PHG (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

But you see, there's exactly the point. I understand you are attached to the text, however, many other editors are saying that your text, however well referenced, is more than needed in this instance. There may be other formats which would be more conducive to the work you're doing -- have you considered publishing?

The main problem is that you don't get to say "all this gets included or put elsewhere or you can't change the article" -- that's simply not how Misplaced Pages works at all. Consensus and collaborative article writing means that you work with others, not against them, even when consensus doesn't necessarily go your way. Its difficult to do with subjects that you care a lot about, especially when you do a great deal of writing. Shell 07:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is certainly not about writing around a single point of view, but about presenting "all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." (Misplaced Pages:NPOV). Deleting referenced material from significant authors on a given subject is therefore unacceptable. If there is divergence between contributors, the only solution is to present the various material in a balanced way (according to some historians...., according to some others...), which the (FULL VERSION) already does to a very large extent, and can continue to do with further contributions from other editors, but certainly not to erase sources and favour just one story. Editors are welcome to balance existing material by adding new material, but certainly not by erasing referenced contributions from reputable sources. Again, this non-negotiable per Misplaced Pages:NPOV. PHG (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, what is NPOV on a given article cannot be determined by one editor alone. Like anything else on Misplaced Pages it is a consensus based exercised and it is up to editors collectively to reach agreement on how to neutrally present content. You cannot limit other editors to only adding new content, sometimes the best way to improve an article will be to condense the material. Much like some of the best novels and academic texts were considerably edited down by their publishers (much to the author's chagrin), Misplaced Pages articles sometimes simply get too long and have to be reduce in size so they maintain manageable for the reader. WjBscribe 08:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not a suicide pact; it does not mean that we must include every view ever published on every subject as you seem to be implying. When dealing with historical articles, we strive to present an overview of modern, mainstream historical viewpoints -- if there is a highly significant viewpoint that is not modern, we may mention it as well. The key word in all this is "significant". The article now does a much better job of meeting this goal. If you have specific points that you believe were significant that have been left out in the rewrite, lets address those. Reverting back to a previous version whose problems have been discussed ad nauseum is not the answer; lets move forward. Shell 08:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• ISSUES WITH ELONKA'S VERSION:
• Elonka's version is actually highly POV in that it dismisses any notion that the Franks or the Armenians could have been allies (instead treating them as "vassals" or "submitted to") the Mongols, inspite of the numerous historical sources that say they were indeed allies.
• It is also highly POV in that it stresses that there were only "attempts at an alliance", although a quantity of highly reputable editors consider the alliance as fact (User:PHG/Alliance)
• It also fails to represent factually the details of the alliance, in favour of a generally dismissive narration. This subject deserves actually mentionning the various embassies, epistolary exchanges, and military collaborations (how can even the 1260 combined campaign disappear from such an article?: Franco-Mongol alliance#Participation of the Franks to the Mongol invasion of the Levant (1260) from the FULL VERSION)
• Generally, her version is an unprecise narration that favours a single very biased POV that there were no allies and no alliance worth mentionning, inspite of numerous academic sources to the contrary. It obviously contrevenes to Misplaced Pages:NPOV which states that all significant views should be mentionned.
• The introduction sentence is highly representative of this bias, only mentionning "attempts at an alliance", whereas the obvious NPOV choice would be "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance" (as agreed to by Elonka on November 14th, but later disowned by her).
• Only factual precision can make a good encyclopedia article, and deleting 100k of references and sources as she just did is certainly not the right direction to go. If the article is too long, we'll just split the material, but ending up with un-precise summaries is certainly not the solution. PHG (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, right now it appears that many scholars, current history and the majority of the editors responding to requests for comment on this article all disagree with you. The article as it stands now is not highly biased since it is giving the proper majority weight to prevailing theories; it appears that your continued assertion of an alliance is a minority historical view and should be treated as such.

It might be very helpful for everyone involved if we could try not to blame this or that on a particular editor and instead focus on the content concerns we have. You've made this a battle between you and Elonka, but that's not what I'm seeing on this talk page and in the archives -- you've been the sole advocate of the idea that a majority of historians report an alliance and many other editors (Elonka included) have tried their best to explain their view and work with you. Shell 12:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shell, I have never said that the "Alliance" view was majority (pretty hard to gauge anyway), only that it is a major and significant view held by many reputable historians (User:PHG/Alliance) and that therefore it deserves proper representation. I have never been against representing the other opinion that there were only "attempts at an alliance" either: both views should be represented, and it is unacceptable per Misplaced Pages:NPOV that only one point of view should be aired. As long as Misplaced Pages:NPOV exists, furthermore as a rule that is "non negotiable" , standing above any micro-consensus on a Talk Page, there is absolutely no reason why the opinion of a large portion of the most significant historians should be excluded.

I am not so sure about your comments regarding Elonka either. Our Mediation had to be closed (visible here) after Elonka was finally qualified as "far too dogmatic" and not being "fair" by the mediator , and he gave up any hope that the mediation would lead anywhere. She even broke the single agreement we had managed to reach on November 14th regarding the introduction sentence "A Franco-Mongol Alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance..." ("Okay, I like that version.:)--Elonka" here). The reality is that Elonka has actually failed to compromise all along (although she is very good at gathering support and at claiming consensus when there is not really one ), and unable to recognize that NPOV involves integrating the various points of view available. Regards. PHG (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The debate about whether or not there was an alliance currently has an entire section to itself which discusses the different viewpoints; perhaps some of the information you're concerned about could be included in that area. The section is an appropriate place to cover the additional viewpoints since the majority of the article should be written from the majority viewpoint. Attempting to discount consensus reached (more than once) in discussions on this talk page by calling it "micro" simply doesn't work -- the article doesn't have to agree with your view of how NPOV should be reached on the article, it has to agree with the consensus of how NPOV should be reached. Its unfortunate that you disagree with the conclusions and article direction, however you're still welcome to continue discussions on how to improve the article going forward.

I'm not quite sure why you don't believe the advice given in Misplaced Pages's civility policies is a good idea; its a suggestion often made to keep things from becoming personal as they have here. Its unfortunate that the mediation between you and Elonka was unfruitful, however, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the process. For instance, your constant repetition of things said in the mediation and your attempt to use it against another party here is certainly not what mediation is for -- please read Misplaced Pages:Mediation#The_privileged_nature_of_mediation. The reality is that there are now other editors involved in the discussions here and we're all trying to focus on content; I'm just asking if you could please do the same. The previous failed mediation has no bearing. Shell 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To the set the record straight: PHG, your comment that --

Our Mediation had to be closed (visible here) after Elonka was finally qualified as "far too dogmatic" and not being "fair" by the mediator , and he gave up any hope that the mediation would lead anywhere

-- is wrong. The reason for the closure is as stated in the closing template: "Participants' unwillingness to proceed with the mediation in good faith". That's "participants", plural, with an s. That's you, that's Elonka, that's both of you. And, going off what Shell said, I cannot see any reason to reiterate this point within this dispute. Elonka's conduct during the mediation is both inadmissible and irrelevant in advancing your position (or any position) here. -- tariqabjotu 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This removal of refrenced material is simply wrong and should be reverted. PHG has worked hard to put this all together. --Matt57 15:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt you've been formally cautioned twice about following Elonka around and stirring up trouble. Unless you can show some knowledge of the subject or some reason that the consensus here is wrong, you'd be better off stopping before trouble starts again. (edit) *Especially* given your earlier comment. Shell 15:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong in my previous comment here? --Matt57 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The previous comment was fine and in line with the other discussions here -- the fact that you've now hopped the fence in another blatant attempt to further escalate the dispute since Elonka is involved is the problem. You two disagreed on the Muhammad image question; get over it already. Your poll below is a *complete* farce and not at all representative of the ongoing discussions here. Shell 20:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• SUMMARY:
• I am afraid it is not a proper procedure on Misplaced Pages to replace a whole article by someone else's version, especially before precise discussion has been made on content: content should be discussed and defined collaboratively.
• It is also a shame to delete 100k of properly referenced material from reputable sources.
• It is also highly incorrect in terms of civility, especially as I have created this article and provided most of the material, spending months on it.
• Many people have already given high credit to this article (Barnstars from User:Eupator, User:Ghirlandajo, congratulations from Matt57, Deacon of Pndapetzim etc...). Several (Srnec ("First, there is no doubt that the article at its current length must be shortened somehow. But this cannot occur until the accuracy disputes are settled"), Ealdgyth, Matt57 etc...) have also expressed that we should settle on content before we go into split/reduce the article, so I am really not sure about the reality of the claimed "consensus to replace it".
• Overall, I am afraid Elonka's replacement of the original article is rude, against Misplaced Pages rules, inappropriate, and non-consensual. It has to be done the proper way: we start from the COMPLETE VERSION and evaluate each part to have a proper content consensus. Regards PHG (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification, I said we should settle the content disputes before we split the article. It should be noted that I've been a vigorous proponent of shortening the article greatly.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should discuss content, summarize the main article and split appropriately, so as to have a well-organized and consensual group of article, without sacrifying months of research and 120k of highly referenced material. If the main article is to be summarized, I still do believe that creating more detailed sub-articles by regnal dates is a good idea. PHG (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is an inappropriate action, to simply replace the current article with another editor's version. There are whole sourced sections of the article which are missing. Elonka, could you explain each deletion that you have done? Here's a rough tally for those who disagree and agree with this replacement.

Disagree with Elonka's replacement

• --Matt57 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC) "I agree, this is an inappropriate action, to simply replace the current article with another editor's version."
• PHG "Innaproriate, rude, against Misplaced Pages rules and non-consensual" PHG (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Srnec "This cannot occur until the accuracy disputes are settled".
• Eupator "I also strongly oppose this current "rewrite" aka removal of perfectly referenced material."

Replacement is acceptable

• Elonka

UnclearDoesn't wish to make this into a one side vs. another side dispute, so won't pick sides.

• Ealgyth "We should settle the content disputes before we split the article".

I'm not sure that a poll of this sort is the best approach. Splitting folks into "for" or "against" only serves to perpetuate that idea that it's a personal dispute, rather than what it should be, a discussion about content and the sources. My personal opinion is that the article is way too detailed and long, and uses too many primary sources, especially quotations. I've not looked to see who contributed what, because that's not important to me. I've not yet had time even begin to review the sources and see if they are correctly represented. Let's quit focusing on the people doing the edits and focus on the content of the edits, thank you.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Kafka Liz (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I'm not sure the poll carries any weight if people are being placed in various columns rather than placing themselves there. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, everyone knows you have put in lots of hard work on this article, but that does not mean you own it; WP:OWN clearly states this. Yes, it also advises trying to work with other editors in the event of large-scale removal of material or drastic rewrites, but what I see is months of you ignoring the consensus of other editors on this talk page and being absolutely inflexible on all points. I would also like to point out that we are writing an encyclopedia article, not a dissertation or monograph. The level of detail and what appears to be original research is inappropriate in this context. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Kafka Liz. That is rather inexact. Most of the contents that Elonka has wished to introduce in the article to balance the "Alliance" view have stayed (hence the "alliance/attempts towards an alliance", "ally/submitted" etc... style). I only insisted that the various views be balanced per Misplaced Pages:NPOV), and that she does not delete my own references. I once deleted what I thought was an essay, which stayed after Elonka re-inserted it, and became today's Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations), which, as other users have also pointed out, is not very encyclopedic in nature. Other than that, Elonka has provided very little in terms of new content. As always, I am absolutely open to new content and sources that could enrich the article.

• All I write is referenced from proper published material. In the case of this article I was able to glean the facts relevant to the Franco-Mongol alliance from about 40-50 books, and coalesce it into one article. I made sure to have the maximum of references and quotes to authentify this work of synthesis. This has nothing to do with original research. Maybe I should also say that an important part of my material is from French historians, who generally put great emphasis on primary sources (Old French/ Latin/ Arab/ Armenian) and seem to favour the "Alliance" view more spontaneously than many of their Anglo-Saxon counterparts. Regards. PHG (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you are ignoring my point about ownership of the article and about the overabundance of detail, particularly -- but not exclusively -- the quotations from primary sources. In addition, your eccentric and tendentious interpretations of the secondary sources do indeed qualify as original research. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kafka Liz. I actually take great care never to interpret, and that's why I am so meticulous with following exact scholarly quotes, often to the point of being accused of paraphrasing. I strongly believe we are not here to interpret anything, but just to lay out what secondary sources say, in a balanced NPOV fashion. Details? I tend to believe that historical facts have a fundamental importance: to me factual precision/details and primary sources quotes (when referenced by secondary sources) have a huge value, and I think Misplaced Pages:Quotations agrees with that. Regards PHG (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that your version of the article did exactly the opposite. You've been arguing this same point with a stream of editors who've come through here in an attempt to help out. Your version of the article needed some work, which has been started. We can either move forward or get mired down in yet another debate on the same subject that's now filling the archives. Is there any hope of moving on to actual work on the article? Shell 20:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, I agree with Shell here. Including quotations that skew the context and obscure the author's intent is hardly NPOV. I'd also like to point out that you have yet to address my concerns about WP:OWN Kafka Liz (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that instead of being polemical and systematically banding together, you should just point out specific cases where you have issues. Again, all I write is referenced from proper sources, but I will gladly discuss if there are specific. Regards PHG (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out a few concerns with sources below in the Sources section. If I wasn't clear, please tell me where I was unclear so that I can clarify. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Forgive me, PHG, but your offer to address specific cases seems disingenuous and moreover, an attempt to drown opposition in a welter of details. You have not addressed my concerns about WP:OWN; you have not addressed Ealdgyth's concerns below; you have not addressed Aramgar's evidence against an alliance here, which is only one of literally hundreds of quotations that say categorically that attempts at a formal alliance came to naught; and when I review the interactions where you actually do address specific cases, all I see is you making counteraccusations of distortion and further attempts to add undue weight to your own POV. Too many good editors have already attempted point-by-point analysis with you; my doing the same would be simply be a retread of ground already covered and a waste of both our time. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

SUMMARY: NON CONSENSUS TO CHANGE TO ELONKA'S VERSION
Just replacing a highly developed of 200k collaborative text by a watered-down pov 70k version by one User is not only rude and a shamefull deletion of referenced material, but it is also deemed unnacceptable by at least 4 users already (Matt57, Srnec, PHG, Eupator, after just 1 day of tallying above) and one who "doesn't want to pick sides" (Ealgyth) but also said ""We should settle the content disputes before we split the article", so it is obvious that there is no consensus in favour of Elonka's replacement by her own article. It is also highly disputable in term of Misplaced Pages methodology: article content should be discussed and issues discussed one by one to reach consensus. I will therefore re-instate the COMPLETE ARTICLE, and we can discuss content/ reductions/ split from that. I will gladly discuss any specific issues there might be. Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, please stop this. There are plenty of editors who have agreed with my version (see #Rewrite 2 section above for names and diffs). As for the editors you've named: Matt57 is one of my stalkers, who has been blocked for harassment in the past, and has already been cautioned on this matter and now promised to stay away from this page. Eupator is under ArbCom sanctions (see Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions). Srnec's opinion I respect, but he's already said that he liked my rewrite, and I haven't seen anywhere that he said he wanted to revert my changes, and you haven't supplied any diffs so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Now please, can you read my post above in the "Rewrite 2" section? --Elonka 06:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, PHG, are you not reading what people are writing? What about all of us currently involved in this long discussion with you who *do* like the rewrite and want to move forward from there? I know how terribly difficult it is to be objective about your own work, so please, take some time to step back before this escalates further. You are displaying some severe ownership problems and seem to be uninterested in any actual consensus in the discussions on this page. Meanwhile, everyone else is discussing how to improve the article. Shell 07:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NON-CONSENSUAL REPLACEMENT OF THE FULL VERSION
The bottom line is that there is no consensus for Elonka's un-Wikipedian and rude replacement of a fully-referenced article of 200k by a poorly documented and pov 70k one.

• "Smearing the adversary" is no solution and is unfair: nobody is guilty until proven so (for exmaple User:Eupator, whom I personnally greatly respect for his knowledge of Armenian matters).

-Eupator does oppose the replacement.

-Matt57 has been blocked in the past (even your friend WjScribe blocked me once -unduly and very shortly before it was reverted) because I had put a notice on this page that you were going for administrator. He does oppose the replacement.

-Srnec specifically said: "First, there is no doubt that the article at its current length must be shortened somehow. But this cannot occur until the accuracy disputes are settled. " Srnec (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2008 on this page.

-I strongly oppose the replacement and deletion of referenced material.

• On the other hand, most of the members on the list you are giving (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Rewrite 2) just make comments in passing on you rewrite, but do not constitute a support to replace the current article. The consensus you are claiming does not exist at all.

-Srnec as a point in case of your wishfull misrepresentations, wrote "I don't see any major drawback to your revision of the Franco-Mongol alliance article." on your Talk Page , but he further wrote on this Talk Page that he wanted to discuss content before any reduction occurs: "First, there is no doubt that the article at its current length must be shortened somehow. But this cannot occur until the accuracy disputes are settled." , so,he is actually not a supporter of replacing the full version by your own version.

-Tefalstar complements you for your rewrite on your Talk Page (nice), but certainly does not say that it should replace the full article

-John Kenney: in the diffs you are given, he just makes general comments and does not support any time your replacement of the main article.

-Aramgar: nowhere in the diffs you are giving does he support the replacement of the full version.

-Adam Bishop: in the diffs you are giving, Adam does say the article should be reduced, but he doesn't say he supports the replacement of the full version by your version.

-Kafza Liz: in the diffs given, Kafka Liz says she likes your version, but doesn't say that she supports the replacement (although I guess she would).

-WjScribe: in the diff given, WjScribe only says that the article should be reduced, but surely does not specifically support the replacement of the full version by your 70k version.

-Shell Kinney: does support replacing the full version by your own.

So all you have is smearing the 4 editors who specifically said that you should not replace the FULL VERSION, and 1 user (Shell Kinney) who specifically said she supports replacing the 200k version by your 70k version. The rest is a mishmash of contributors from various Talk Pages (not even this one) who just say "nice summary", but don't specifically support an actual replacement of the full version on the main Franco-Mongol alliance page. Also, nobody has actually voted in your favour in the tally higher in this section. In summary, your replacement action is non-consensual, and therefore goes against Misplaced Pages's most basic editorial rules. It is quite a shame that a newly-elected Administrator would resort to this kind of disputable tactics, and it is not acceptable bullying. I will therefore reinstate the full version FULL VERSION, and suggest that we now discuss the content of the full article, so that we can move to a shorter/splitted article through actual consensus. Regards PHG (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, I don't think I said I endorse Elonka's version, just a reduced version in general. I would endorse my version, if I had time to write one! Ha! Adam Bishop (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding my support, PHG, please reread the first sentence of this post. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I'm trying to read through the footnotes and having major issues finding out what some of these sources are. Who is Hindley? It's referenced a number of times in the Edward I section, but I have thus far been unable to find it listed in the References section (where it should be) or find the full citation in the footnotes. I suspect if the footnotes weren't full of long quotations I might have an easier time, but will I have to resort to copy-pasting the article into Word to use the find function to find the full citation? Also, along the line of disputed sources, the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 is outdated (and some would argue POV) and there definitely shouldn't be a reference to an unfootnoted essay at the Online Refernce Book. The Catholic Enc reference is footnote 27 in Elonka's version, 39 in the version up right now. The Hindley is referenced in footnotes 89 and 97 in Elonka's, 163 and 179 in the current live version. The ORB is footnote 36 in Elonka's, 82 in the current. And this is certainly not the best reference for footnote 60 (elonka)/95 current. Those are just the things that jumped out at me immediately, on top of the issues I've already brought up about primary sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, in the above statement, change Elonka to Current version, and current version to PHG version ... Ealdgyth | Talk 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Other sources present in the footnotes, but not resident in the References section:

• Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire
• Nicolle, David, The Mongol Warlords
• History in Dispute: The Crusades, 1095-1291
• Nersessian, "The Kingdom of Cilician Armenia" in Setton's Crusades
• Morgan, David. "The Mongols and the Eastern Mediterranean"
• Burger, Glenn A Lytell Chronicle
• The Norris 2003 and the Chase 2003 footnotes are wikilinked back to the start of the article, so I have no idea what they are

Those are the glaring questions I have at the moment. Without more information on the works being referred to, it is hard to judge the reliablity of sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't copied over all the references from my rewrite yet. I know you can find some at my subpage User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. The problem was that I didn't want to do a fullscale copy/paste from my version to the live version, because I really was trying to be sensitive to the work that PHG had done in the meantime. I see that he reverted all my changes within an hour, anyway.  :/ I'll see what I can do about improving the sources, in the meantime. --Elonka 07:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(update) Okay, I think I've got things sorted out:

• I've added expanded references for all the works you identified.
• Saudi Aramco World, it looked like it was an "extra" source, which I agree is not necessary since we have so many other reliable sources we can use instead. I removed that one.
• On the Online Reference Book, I agree that that's not a good source, and have removed it.
• Regarding the Catholic Encyclopedia, it's being used to source the accession date of the Mongol khan, Guyuk. To my knowledge that's not in dispute, but if you want, I can check to see if I can find a better source?

Let me know if you spot any others, and I'll take a look, Elonka 09:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I use the Catholic Encyclopedia for things it's clearly a interested and good source for, catholic dogma, feast days of saints, what a saint patronizes, etc. Leaving aside the issue that it was written to detail Catholic topics, it is also almost a 100 years old and is a tertiary source to boot. It's not that I object to using it as a source, but it is rather odd to be sourcing an accession date for a Mongol Khan to a Catholic Encyclopedia, you must admit. One would think that there should be a modern work (Morgan? Barber? Jackson? Saunders?) that state the date also. I don't have the current edition of Morgan's work on the Mongols, I have the first edition. Likewise, somewhere in my moves I lost the third volume of Runicman's work, and haven't been able to replace it yet. I just don't have that much on the crusades, it's never been a major interest of mine, and especially not this late. (Yeah, this is a LATE period of history to someone who studied Anglo-Norman England) I'll try to look through what I have on Saint Louis and Edward I to get some different views and/or citations for those sections. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, on Louis IX, looking at Hallam's Capetian France Second Edition (ISBN 0-582-40428-2), she discusses Louis' first crusade (including the prepartions and the events in France while the king was gone) on pages 275 through 281 and then again at 286 and 287. Nothing is mentioned of Louis' contacts with the Mongols. The only mention of Mongols comes on page 278 "By 1248 the position of the Christians in the east seemed precarious in the extreme. The pattern of power was changing rapidly and in 1244 Jerusalem was taken from the Christians by Persian and Egyptian forces, who were retreating in their turn from the advance of the Mongol hordes from Asia. The confused politics, the weknesses and divisions of the Muslims in Palestine, in fact made it a suitable time for the western Christians to invade the area." This is from 2001, and by a very reputable scholar. The work is intended to be a college level overview, designed for high level college courses. I already pulled out all of the revelant quotations from Prestwich's biography of Edward I. As a note on the weight he gives to the information, the index entry for "Mongols" lists page 75, 77-8, 83, 330-332. The whole body of the work (not counting index, bibliography, notes, etc.) is 567 pages. This is in the scholarly monograph on Edward, designed for the historian, not the everyday reader.

Earlier on this page I listed a few quotes from Payne The Dream and the Tomb. On page 374 he says in relation to Edward I in the Holy Land "He was the first Englishman to send an embassy to the Mongols: Refinald Russell, Godfrey Welles and John Parker went to the court of the Ilkhan to see aid, which was promptly forthcoming. A Mongol army sewept out of Anatolia and captured Alleppo. Baibars, with a huge army set out from Damascus to give battle to the Mongols, who withdrew wisely. But the Mongol alliance had been strengthened and there was hope that they would return at a suitable time." Later on the same page, discussing Edward after his return to England in 1272 (He never dates the return, but from Prestwich we known the time.) "He returned to England to be crowned. In England, he continued to give long-range support to the Christian alliance with the Mongols." However, there are no footnotes or indications of where Payne got this data. No footnotes at all on the page, which is normal for the book since it's very lightly footnoted, mostly for direct quotations from the primary sources. I double checked with Prestwich's Edward biography, and no where in that does Prestwich say that the alliance was strengthened after Edward left, instead he points out that the Mamelukes and the Mongols were negotiating, hardly something that leads one to believe that any alliance between the Christians and the Mongols was strenthened. Prestwich cites the sources of his information as Makirizi, Historie des Sultans Mamlouks, a primary source that was published in an edition edited by M. Quatremere and published in Paris in 1837, and Ibn al-Furat, Ayyuids, Mamlukes and Crusaders another primary source that was edited and translated by U. and M. C. Lyons at Cambridge in 1971, and "L'Estorie de Eracles Empereur" another primary source published in Receuil des Historiens des Croisades published in Paris. Prestwich on pages 330 through 332 discusses Edward's diplomacy with the Mongol envoys in 1289 and 1290, but the only mention of any sort of support would be the dispatching of Geoffrey de Langley to Arghun. Edward made verbal declarations that he was going to go on crusade, but never even began organizing forces, as he was short of funds. The crusading tithes that he was supposed to have received were never actually turned over by the Italian bankers. (See Prestwich page 332). Prestwich cites the following (among other sources):

• Chabot, J. B. "Notes sur les relations du roi Argoun avec l'occident" Revue de l'orient Latin vol. xi 1894
• Spuler, B. History of the Mongols Berkley 1972 p. 141-2
• Ryan, J. D. "Nicholas IV and the Evolution of the Eastern Missionary Effort" Archivum Historiae Pontificum xix (1981) p. 79-95
• Howarth History of the Mongols iii p. 367
• The Schein article already in the article, p. 805-819
• Lunt Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 p. 339-341
• Kaeuper Bankers to the Crown p. 211-212, p. 219-220

From Prestwich's Plantagenet England 1225-1360 part of the New Oxford History of England series ISBN 978-0-19-922687-0, p. 140 "In 1287 Edward took the cross. There were ambitious hopes of winning the support of the Mongols (thought, wrongly, to be Christian), and of launching a concerted attack to rescue the Holy Land. The fall of Acre in 1291 did not galvanize the West as it might have done. An English embassy to the Persian Il-Khan in 1292 achieved nothing. Though Edward remained determined on a crusade, the problems he faced in Scotland and, from 1294, France, made that impossible."

Given the weight of cited and referenced information on the one hand by Prestwich, against an uncited and unreferenced statement by Payne on the other hand, I have to lean with Prestwich's statements as setting forth the scholarly and mainstream view here. At least that is how I'd judge it.Ealdgyth | Talk 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose this current "rewrite" aka removal of perfectly referenced material. Such a rewrite would be acceptable until all parties are satisifed. Unilateral moves such as this are not constructive and hinder further development of the article.-- Ευπάτωρ 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)