[[File:Lampas textile silk and gold Italy second half of 14th century.jpg|thumb|[[Lampas]] textile, silk and gold, [[Italy]], second half of 14th century.]]
[[File:Lampas textile silk and gold Italy second half of 14th century.jpg|thumb|[[Lampas]] textile, silk and gold, [[Italy]], second half of 14th century.]]
Transmission of textile designs: [[Iran]]/ [[Irak]] textiles of the 14th century with [[phoenix]] design and silk and gold thread (left), and Italian adaptation of the second half of the 14th century (right), also with phoenix design and silk and gold thread. These designs are of Chinese origin, and transited through the Mongol realm into Europe ([http://books.google.com/books?id=09sA4SNG2dYC&pg=PA35 Rosamond E.Mack, ISBN 0520221311 p.27-49]) [[User:Per Honor et Gloria|''<b><Font color="#FF0000">Per </Font><Font color="#FF8000">Honor </Font><Font color="Orange">et </Font><Font color="#FFC000">Gloria</Font></b>'']] [[User talk:Per Honor et Gloria|<big>✍</big>]] 16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Transmission of textile designs: [[Iran]]/ [[Irak]] textiles of the 14th century with [[phoenix]] design and silk and gold thread (left), and Italian adaptation of the second half of the 14th century (right), also with phoenix design and silk and gold thread. These designs are of Chinese origin, and transited through the Mongol realm into Europe ([http://books.google.com/books?id=09sA4SNG2dYC&pg=PA35 Rosamond E.Mack, ISBN 0520221311 p.27-49]) [[User:Per Honor et Gloria|''<b><Font color="#FF0000">Per </Font><Font color="#FF8000">Honor </Font><Font color="Orange">et </Font><Font color="#FFC000">Gloria</Font></b>'']] [[User talk:Per Honor et Gloria|<big>✍</big>]] 16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
== Possible article name compromise ==
From the most recent discussion, there seemed to be two main themes:
#Concern that Franco-Mongol alliance suggests a broad alliance between the two cultures.
#Concern that alliance is the proper word for the various agreements and other words aren't as appropriate.
Would it be possible to change the article name to "Franco-Mongol alliances"? I believe this clarifies that the article discusses the various attempts at cooperation, rather than some single grand plan yet retains the appropriate terminology. This might also assist with the lead since we can then describe the various details properly instead of wasting time explaining that there was no general alliance. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 23:56, 24 March 2010
Franco-Mongol alliance is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Elonka at 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
Franco-Mongol alliance is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
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)[reply]
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. --Elonka23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
(followup) Per the recent ArbCom request, this list will also be used for other PHG-edited articles which may have been the subject of biased editing or original research, even if they are in other topic areas. So any editor who identifies such an article, is encouraged to add it to the list. All editors are also encouraged to review items on the list, and if the articles have been fixed or are no longer considered to be problematic, please cross them off the list! Thanks, Elonka16:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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/or fixed, 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
The case is closely entwined with this article. And as for a central location, I fail to see how moving this list to a page that isn't on people's watchlists would be of any use. Better would be to focus efforts on getting the last remaining articles cleaned up. Once they're crossed off the list, we can move this whole section to archive, and move on to other tasks such as getting this article up to GA/FA standard. --Elonka04:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just made some changes to Philip IV of France, cutting down the text of the mongol subtopic, and moving it to the bottom of the page. Could someone look it over for me, as I'm not very up on wiki markings for sources, etc. Want to make sure I didn't bork things. Thanks! 131.107.0.73 (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks for the help! :) I would like to get a double-check on the story of the elephant, since the current source for that one is a bit weak, but other than that all seems fine. --Elonka16:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that reference out, it looks rather sketchy to me. There's no specific references given for any of the information in there, just a general bibliography (including only one biography on Philip) and most notably, has a gross factual error saying he succeeded his grandfather Louis IX of France to the throne.mistake on my part, misread. I'll check further, but it doesn't look like that reliable of a refrence to me (and is merely a synopsis of other works which should be used as sources, rather than a webpage). Gnarlyhotep (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! I'd support removing the elephant story until/unless we can find a better source. I'd personally never heard that story, and I've done quite a bit of reading on Rabban bar Sauma. Then again, it may just be a detail that was missed in the sources I've read so far. Bar Sauma did bring many gifts ("enough for 30 riding animals") for the European monarchs, and I guess it's possible he may have brought a baby elephant with him. However, it's also possible that he brought a small statue of an elephant, and the story grew from "a statue" to a real elephant. --Elonka19:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration
This article, or rather, the conduct of the editors involved with it, is now being considered as the subject of a case by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It has not yet been decided whether or not the case will be accepted, but anyone who wishes to post a statement, is welcome to do so, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance. The decision will probably be made within the next couple days. If accepted, the case will probably take a couple months, and will go through evidence, workshop, and decision phases, but for now, preliminary statements are recommended. --Elonka11:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(update) The Arbitration case has been accepted, and opened.
(update) The Arbitration has moved to a "Voting" phase. This means that a Proposed Decision has been written, and can be viewed here. This is not final, as there will still be discussion among the arbitrators over the next few days. They will vote, amend, add, and/or debate the various principles and findings, and then eventually "move to close". If a majority of arbitrators agree that it's time to close, then those principles/findings with sufficient support, will be moved to the "final decision" section. Anyone with questions or comments, is welcome to post here or at the Decision talkpage. FYI, Elonka00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom decision
(followup) The arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be seen at that link. As a summary:
PHG (talk·contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year.
He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.
He is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole.
PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.
PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.
Matyrdom of the Franciscans on their way to China.
A nice painting by Ambrogio Lorenzetti (1285-1348) showing the matyrdom of Franciscan friars on their way to China in 1321 Source. The painting contains depictions of Tartars wearing conical hats and viewing the martyrdom Source. These Fransciscans, on their way to China through India ([15]), were executed in 1321 in Thana on the island of Salsette near Bombay for allegedly insulting Islam ([16]). According to Rosamond E.Mack in Bazaar to Piazza, Islamic Trade and Italian Art 1300-1600 ISBN 0520221311 p.151 "The Mongol physiognomies of the ruler and two warriors wearing tall pointed hats, however, were probably observed among emissaries whom the Il-Khanids sent to Italy during the first decades of the fourteeth century. This hat with a neck-covered flap and feather on top accurately depicts the headgear of commanders of one thousand men in the Mongol army. Such headgear might even have been seen in Siena:perhaps Tommaso Ugi, a Sienese who had taken the name Tumen, had visited Siena when he accompanied the Il-Khanid emissaries in 1301"... This could be a nice addition to the article! Cheers PHG (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are interesting examples of the adoption of Mongol script in Renaissance paintings during the time of the Franco-Mongol alliance. Please feel free to include this paragraph into the article. Portions of the book by Mack (which I own) are visible here. Cheers PHG (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mongol script in Renaissance painting
Saint Jerome reading a pseudo-Mongol script, consisting of an imitation of blocks of 'Pags Pa, written horizontally rather than vertically. 1296-1300, Church of San Francesco Assisi.[s 1]
During the period of interaction between the Mongols and the West, from the late 13th century to early 14th century, some Italian painters incorporated Mongol script (particularly the 'Pags Pa) into their religious painting.[s 2] Examples can be seen especially in the frescos of the Upper Chruch of San Francesco at Assisi, or in the paintings of Giotto and related painters.[s 3]
The hem band on Giotto's Madonna and Child (1320-1330) is a mix of Arabic and Mongol script characteristic of Giotto.[s 4]
These inscriptions often imitated the Mongol 'Pags Pa, probably discovered by the artists through Mongol paper money or Paizu travel passes such as those Marco Polo was issued during his travels.[s 5] Frescos of Saint Jerome, Augustine and Pope Gregory I in the Church of San Francesco in Assisi (1296-1300) are known where they study books written in pseudo-Mongol.[s 6] The famous Renaissance painter Giotto and his pupils often combined Arabic and 'Pag Pa script in their paintings.[s 7] In Giotto's The Crucifixion (1304-1312/1313), soldiers wears dresses inscribed with pseudo-Mongol bands.[s 8] In Giotto's Madonna and Child (1320-1330), the Virgin Mary's robe is decorated with a hem in a mix of Arabic and Mongol script.[s 9]
Besides the influence of exchanges between the Western and Mongol realms during the period, the exact reason for the incorporation of Mongol script in early Renaissance painting is unclear. It seems that Westerners associated 13-14th century Middle-Eastern scripts (such as Mongol and Arabic) as being identical with the scripts current during Jesus's time, and thus found natural to represent early Chrsitians in association with them.[s 10] Another reason might be that artist wished to express a cultural universality for the Christian faith, by blending together various written languages, at a time when the church had strong international ambitions.[s 11]
Notes
^"Texts of Jerome (Fig.43; destroyed in the 1997 earthquake), Augustine, and Pope gregory I are written in squared units of vertical, horizontal, and curved strokes that can be called pseudo-Mongol. Though the artist has aligned the units horizontally on the page in Western style, the script itself imitates 'Pags Pa, which is written vertically", Mack, p.52
^"During the Pax Mongolica a few Italian painters imitated a Mongol script called 'Pag Pa", Mack p.51
^"The Assisi painters, and Giotto as is shown below, were imitating a Mongol script before 1307, when reports of Friar John of Montecorvino's success in Beijing arrived in the West, precipitating major missionary efforts in central Asia and China" Mack, p.51
^"The texts of Jerome (Fig.43, destroyed in teh 1997 earthquake), Augustine and Pope Gregory I are written in squared units of vertical, horizontal, and curved strokes that can be called pseudo-Mongol. Though the artist has aligned the units horizontally on the page in Western style, the script itself imitates 'Pags Pa, which is written vertically" in Mack, p.52
^"Because the Arabic and 'Pag Pa were associated with the Holy Land and the Early Christian Era, the frames could emphasize the origin and age of the images they surround. Perhaps they marked the imagery of a universal faith, an artistic intention consistent with the Church's contemporary international program." Mack, p.69
References
Mack, Rosamond E. Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art, 1300-1600, University of California Press, 2001 ISBN 0520221311
The use of eastern scripts in Byzantine art, usually referred to as pseudo-Kufic, is quite common. Examples dating from at least the ninth century appear in specifically Christian contexts. This sort of borrowing is hardly limited to 13th and 14th century Italy. These Mongol-inspired examples are certainly interesting but making much of them in the context of a supposed Franco-Mongol alliance is a clear case of WP:UNDUE and skirts the edge of WP:SYN. And I have to ask how does this section fit into the scope of the article. Are we striving to document every Mongol-Eropean connection no matter how obscure. Aramgar (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that Wikipedia has no article no article on Pseudo-Kufic. 'Pag Pa is not a Semetic script, but its use in the Italian paintings described by Rosamond Mack is squarely in that tradition. The Mongol-inspired pseudo-script is certainly an interesting and notable variation. User:Kafka Liz has expressed an interest in creating this article. She would be happy to use PHG's material. Aramgar (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you like the material, and I would be delighted if we could use it somewhere else! The tradition described here is not really related to Byzantine art, but rather to Renaissance art however. And as Aramgar pointed out, Mongol scripts such as 'Pags Pa are not Kufic at all, so I am not sure it would be wise to incorporate them in a Pseudo-Kufic article (which would be amazingly interesting in its own right!). How about an article on "Oriental scripts in Renaissance painting", which could be a nice succession to the Pseudo-Kufic article? I will gladly write such an article when I have the time and opportunity! Cheers PHG (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Early Renaissance painters, or rather Italian painters working in the 13th and 14th centuries, were using an iconography developed in Byzantium. The fact that 'Pags Pa and Kufic are unrelated was of no concern to the painters who employed them. "Oriental scripts in Renaissance painting" would not be an appropriate title as the tradition begins in 9th century Byzantium and arguably extends well into the Northern Renaissance. Early examples of eastern scripts used in Christian contexts include the well known churches of Hosios Loukas and the 11th century church in Athens dedicated to the Metamorphosis. The Italian painters discussed by Mack were only continuing the Byzantine tradition but with more recent exotic scripts. Aramgar (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The connection between Byzantine iconography and the religious art of the early Italian Renaissance is quite real and basic to understanding this particular issue. If you refuse to acknowledge this, we have nothing more to discuss. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do not deny the importance of the connections between Byzantine and Renaissance (have I ever said such a thing? quite the contrary, just see my previous post). The issue is that a "Pseudo-Kufic" title certainly does not cover the variety of scripts that have been used (not only Kufic, but also Mongol), hence the proposal to have two articles that refer to different times, spaces, and content. But frankly, do as you wish, I don't really mind. Cheers PHG (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mongol textiles in Renaissance art
The diplomatic contacts between the West and the Mongols during the period of the Franco-Mongol alliance (or "attempts towards an alliance") directly led to the arrival of Mongol Empire textiles in the West, which were to prove vastly influential in Italian art in the 14th century. Feel free to include this material in the article, or anywhere else :) The references from Mack Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art, 1300-1600 are available on Google Books: p.16p.17p.18p.35p.37p.39. Cheers PHG (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Around 1300, an influx of Mongol Empire textiles found their way to Italy, and were to prove quite influential in Italian art,[t 2]. These textiles even revolutionized Italian textile designs.[t 3] Between 1265 to 1308, communications between Western and Il-Khanid rulers led to numerous exchanges of people and presents, as when about 100 Mongols in Mongol dress visited Rome for the Papal Jubilee in 1300.[t 4] Large quantities of panni tartarici (Tatar cloth) were repertoried in the Papal inventory of 1295, and must have been diplomatic gifts from the Il-Khanate.[t 5] Later on Western merchants were also able to purchase such textiles from Tabriz, and the Mongol capital of Sultaniya, established by Öljaitü between 1305 and 1313, and until the capture of the Cilician Armenia harbour of Ayas by the Mamluks in 1347.[t 6] The Tatar cloths were a produce of transcultural exchange under Mongol rule.[t 7]
Pope Boniface VIII at the 1300 jubilee with a "Tartar cloth" in front of him, with a "rythmic Sino-Mongolian pattern".[t 8]Fig. 28: Chinese types of floral design are visible in the mantles of Christ and Mary in Coronation of the Virgin by Paolo Veneziano (circa 1350).[t 9]Fig. 160: Ambrogio Lorenzetti's (1285–1348) depiction of the martyrdom of some Franciscans on their way to China accurately portrays the garb of a Mongol commander of a thousand (conical hat with the feather).[t 10] Mack notes the "Mongol figures and costumes" in the painting.[t 11]
The Mongol Empire textiles started to have a strong impact on Italian textile design from around 1330.[t 12] A type of Tartar cloth that was adopted in the West consisted in small-pattern designs in dense composition. This sort of textile is represented in the clothing of the angel Gabriel in The Annunciation by Simone Martini (1333).[t 13]
Other designs involved naturally flowing compositions of flowers and vines with fantastic animals.[t 14] Such a textile is depicted as the background curtain in Giotto's Coronation of the Virgin (circa 1330), the earliest such depiction of a Tartar cloth.[t 15] Chinese types of floral designs were also adopted, as visible in the mantles of Christ and Mary in Coronation of the Virgin by Paolo Veneziano (circa 1350).[t 16]
References
Mack, Rosamond E. Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art, 1300-1600, University of California Press, 2001 ISBN 0520221311
Notes
^Mack, p.35-36. "A well-documented example of a delayed but creative Italian response to the new Tatar cloths is that of the tiny-pattern design, in which small leaves or plants and animals rythmically organized in dense, allower composition. (...) During the early fouteenth century, the Angevins of Naples donated numerous Tatar cloths, including velvets, to San Franceso at Assisi. Since Simone excecuted the painting in Naples, the Tatar cloths, as well as Oriental carpets -also the earliest in Italian painting- and a particular crozier in Figure 65 probably represent prized artifacts at king Robert's court. Later Simone brillantly captured the vibrant shimmering effect of the tiny pattern on a white ground in the archangel Gabriel's robe in the Annunciation painted for the cathedral of Sienna in 1333 (Fig. 23)" – Mack, p.35
^"The Pax Mongolica brought an influx of influential "Tatar" textiles into Italy about 1300 (see for example Fig. 22, 25, 32) and left its mark on fourteenth-century Italian art in Mongol figures, costumes (see Fig. 160), and script (see Fig. 43, 49) in paintings and in references to monuments along the caravan routes on the facades of the Doge's Palace in Venice (see Fig. 10)" in Mack, p.18
^"The fabrics that revolutionized Italian textile design beginning about the 1330s were the Tatar cloths arriving from Central Asia and Syria during the Pax Mongolica. Though they were foremost among imports in the Papal collections, probably thanks to diplomatic gifts from the Il-Khanids of Persia, the new imports attracted no attention from Italian painters for two more decades and from local designers for three.", in Mack, p.35
^Mack p.35: "Tatars cloths were themselves products of transcultural exchange. As the nomadic Mongol warriors became imperial rulers, they adopted many aspects of the sophisticated textile cultures in conquered Islamic lands and developed a preference for silk lavishly ornamented with gold threads. Customarily, the Mongols spared skilled weavers -both Muslim and Chinese- from the sword, distributed them as booty, and transported them to new workshops scattered accross the empire. Captive artisans served royal courts, the military and government officials, who were often recruited from the conquered. For example, it is known that Herati and Chinese craftsmen worked together, and some Herati were sent back to their homes in eastern Persia (now Afghanistan). The cultural mix among the imperial elite and the craftmen working for them resulted in a rich and distinctive blend of Islamic and Chinese techniques and patterns."
^"In this fragment of the fresco, attributed to Giotto, Pope Boniface VIII proclaims the jubilee year of 1300. Over the balcony is a "Tartar cloth", one of the many silks presented by the Persian Mongol ruler, and distinguished by its rythmic Sino-Mongolian pattern" "Silk" p.41 [1].
^Rosamond E. Mack, Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art 1300–1600 (ISBN 0520221311), p. 151: "The Mongol physiognomies of the ruler and two warriors wearing tall pointed hats, however, were probably observed among emissaries whom the Il-Khanids sent to Italy during the first decades of the fourteeth century. This hat with a neck-covered flap and feather on top accurately depicts the headgear of commanders of one thousand men in the Mongol army. Such headgear might even have been seen in Siena: perhaps Tommaso Ugi, a Sienese who had taken the name Tumen, had visited Siena when he accompanied the Il-Khanid emissaries in 1301."
^"Mongol figures, costumes (see Fig. 160)", Mack, p.18
Will you never learn what undue weight means? This is at best material for an extra sentence or two in International Gothic#Peak of the movement (not Renaissance), which already mentions exotic influences in artistic works of the period (neither limited to Italy, nor to Mongol/Chinese influences). And you seem to keep misrepresenting sources. Just one example of several: How on earth do you arrive from "an influx" (in the citation) to "large quantities" (in your text)? --Latebird (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to the dictionary influx means "A mass arrival or incoming / an arrival of something in great quantities or numbers" [17], so I am afraid that "Large quantities" is quite exact. Sorry if that seems to upset you. Regards PHG (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Latebird. I'm afraid "influx" clearly has the nuance of a massive flow of something [18]. See also [19]: "1. arrival in large numbers: a sudden arrival of a large number of people or things 2. inflow: a flowing in, especially of a stream or river"... so we are clearly not talking about anything like a trickle :) Also, Mack clearly writes that "The fabrics that revolutionized Italian textile design beginning about the 1330s were the Tatar cloths arriving from Central Asia and Syria during the Pax Mongolica", p.35. She therefore clearly means that this was a momentous phenomenon. This is what the source says. If it can please you, I'd be fine with writing "quantities" rather than "large quantities": no problem with that :) Bye for now. PHG (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently says "Traditionally, the Mongols tended to see outside parties as either subjects, or enemies, with little room in the middle for something such as an ally." without citation. My reading in Mongol history suggests that they did have a place for allies, and that not all allies ended up as subjects. I don't have specific citations at hand, but at this time, c.1260, wasn't the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia allied with the Mongols? ---Bejnar (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citation for that particular comment is from Peter Jackson's Mongols and the West. I don't have the book in front of me, but can dig up an exact page number if you'd like one, probably from the chapter "An Ally Against Islam". It is true that the exact designator of Armeno-Mongol relations gets described in different ways. Some historians refer to it as an alliance, but (as I read it) this is usually as a shorthand term when they're giving it a passing mention, and then if you dig in deeper and see how they describe it when they're being more detailed, they're careful to describe it as a vassal or "submitted" relationship, rather than a true alliance. For specific quotes on how the relationship has been described by various historians, see User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Cilician Armenia. --Elonka16:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that the above "Some historians refer to it as an alliance, but (as I read it) this is usually as a shorthand term when they're giving it a passing mention, and then if you dig in deeper and see how they describe it when they're being more detailed, they're careful to describe it as a vassal or "submitted" relationship, rather than a true alliance." is a personal interpretation. To impose such a view would require establishing that this is a view is widely held by specialists, and until then, should probably not justify painting the Armenia-Mongol relationship as a "submitted" relationship" only. PHG (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Automated peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), organize (A) (British: organise), realize (A) (British: realise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), gray (A) (British: grey), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
Sorry I've been avoiding this article - I probably could have helped out a lot earlier. But it definitely has improved since the last time I looked at it a couple of years ago. The length, details, layout, prose, all that looks fine now. I have a few comments but no major issues. I'll list them by section or subsection:
Early contacts - The phrase "natural human desire" for a Christian hero sounds odd the way it is written. I'm sure there is a natural desire for a hero, but not necessarily a Christian one, except by other Christians, right?
Antioch - The Principality of Antioch had existed for well over 100 years at this point, more like 170. Also, we could link Allah Akbar, and Tripoli needs to be disambiguated (either to Tripoli, Lebanon, or, better, County of Tripoli.
Fall of Baghdad - I think this is a remnant of PHG's system of referencing. Why not just quote "never again to dominate civilization" directly? It is not immediately obvious in the text that this is Runciman's opinion, and it is quite a bold statement.
Incidents - Bekaa should be linked to Beqaa Valley
Abaqa - I don't know if this incident is normally referred to as an "Aragonese Crusade", but the one we have an article for is something else entirely, a political crusade in Spain later in the thirteenth century.
Ghazan - More remnants of PHG using French names - Beyrouth is Beirut, Damas is Damascus.
I am still somewhat concerned with the use of Grousset, Runciman, and Maalouf as sources. Grousset and Runciman are very old and out of date. They are often reprinted because they wrote well and are easy for non-specialists to read, but as much as they wrote great literature, they did not write good history that stands up to modern scrutiny. But in cases where their personal opinions are quoted, they are alright, as long as they are indentified as such (like the "never to dominate civilization" quote above). Maalouf is kind of useful, in the sense that some of things he translates may not be available anywhere else. but in general he is certainly no historian and I think we would be wise to use another source. Lastly, Riley-Smith's Atlas of the Crusades is originally an English publication, and since this is the English Wikipedia it would make more sense to use that.
Otherwise, it looks good, and I am sorry I was reluctant to re-read this article for so long and to participate in the FA discussion. If this were for FA, I would suggest more background about where the Mongols, Mamluks, Ayyubids, and Crusaders came from, but that is not so important at the moment.
Thanks very much for the review! It's a pleasure to deal with a reviewer who really knows about the subject matter. I've gone ahead and fixed all of the bullet points that you mentioned above. As for the sourcing, I got rid of the French Riley-Smith, and have started to replace the Grousset/Runciman refs, but it's going to take some time to find replacements for each one. Are there any in particular which you feel are most egregious, as GA-blockers? --Elonka08:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a closer look at them. Sometimes I'm sure they're fine...Runciman has an active imagination sometimes, but he's not automatically a problem. The problem is not really that Runciman or Grousset are inherently unreliable on this subject, it's just that pointing a reader to those sources might also introduce them to errors elsewhere in those works. Anything in Runciman or Grousset should also be found in a more up-to-date work like Tyerman or Jean Richard, and then a reader will have the added benefit of reading a modern work with up-to-date research. But in some contexts they are fine - what is currently note 122, for example, is okay because that section lists various opinions on the alliance, Runciman's included. One that does stick out is note 16, "The Real History Behind the Templars", because it is a general statement that doesn't really have anything to do with the Templars, anything that claims to be a "real history" (especially of the Templars) makes me suspicious, and there are more reputable academic sources (like Malcolm Barber who is referenced later on). Also the four refs in note 13, from Wilkinson - who is that guy? It's just a report, just like this article, a tertiary source at best. What are that guy's sources? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Good points. I've gone through the remaining citations in detail, pulling out anything that looked questionable, and upgrading all the other citations I could, to modern reputable sources. There's always the possibility I missed something (it's a complex article!), so if you see anything else you'd like changed, let me know? --Elonka20:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead
I found this article on GAN, and have no expertise in the subject matter, but it seems to this lay reader that it does not conform to WP:LEAD. Instead of beginning with a definition of the article title, the opening paragraph launches into a lengthy discussion of how such an alliance might have been a possibility, before finally telling us that it never got off the ground. I don't think the lead adequately summarizes the article, an account of complex and varied relations between the Christian kingdoms and the Ilkhanate. The article seems to be mis-titled, skewing the lead. (Yes, I know the article has a troubled history.) Kanguole00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping! That's a good point about the lead, and I went ahead and reworked it. Please take another look if you have an opportunity? --Elonka04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good comment User:Kanguole. The Franco-Mongol alliance[20], or Frank-Mongol alliance [21], is a subject of academic inquiry, with a huge quantity of works commenting on it. The Mongols and the Franks made numerous agreements between each other over a period of 40 years to fight the Mamluks (what defines an alliance: "an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests" [22]]) with actual combined operations taking place despite the difficulties and distances, as when Samagar under Abaqa Khan moved to the support of Edward I at his own request, [23] or when the Cypriots and Templars went to the Island of Ruad to join with the forces of Ghazan in 1299-1300 [24], all quite amazing rapprochements in themselves. Granted, the alliance was not perfect, it was fledgling, sporadic, difficult, sometimes half-hearted etc... and ultimately the Mamluks won, so it is clear that the difficult alliance ended in military defeat. Now, this article has been the subject of lots of polemics, and therefore sometimes sounds editorial and argumentative rather than factual, trying to deny the alliance rather than explain its modalities. I do think we could be more matter-of-factly in just reporting the instances of interactions and agreements, as well as the tactical and strategic movements that actually occurred to cooperate militarily. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria✍05:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the gracious welcome. I think the opening paragraph still approaches its subject obliquely. WP:LEAD suggests that an article like this begin with a sentence like "The Franco-Mongol alliance was ...", which would briefly say who, when and to what purpose. Is there a scholarly consensus for such a definition? PHG gives a possible definition above: "numerous agreements between [the Mongols and Franks] over a period of 40 years to fight the Mamluks", but that implies that "alliance" in the singular is inappropriate, especially as these agreements involved different Christian kingdoms at different times. Kanguole14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the consensus of modern historians is that there really wasn't an alliance... It was best described as a series of attempts, that never came to fruition. To see exactly who said what, you may wish to check here: User:Elonka/Mongol historians. If you have any ideas on how best to word the opening sentence, we're listening! :) --Elonka15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the area, but I think it would be easier to complete the sentence "X was ..." if X were something that modern historians agree existed. Kanguole18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that it is better to start by describing what the Franco-Mongol alliance is, rather than what it is not. I also fully agree that starting with "The Franco-Mongol alliance is...." is the proper way to comply with WP:LEAD. Let me try a few attempts: :-)
A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, took place between the mid-13th and early 14th centuries, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
A Franco-Mongol alliance was attempted, and only achieved to a limited extent, between the mid-13th and early 14th centuries, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
The Franco-Mongol alliance consisted in a diplomatic and military rapprochement between the Crusader Franks and the Mongols, against the Muslim Mamluks, between the mid-13th and early 14th centuries, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
I kind of like solution 3) as hopefully nobody is going to dispute the existence of the diplomatic and military rapprochement between the Franks and the Mongols at the very least. We can then describe the authors who say the alliance was full-fledged, and those who say it was minimal to non-existent. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria✍17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to play on the ambiguity of the word "alliance", and to mix-up the existence of an alliance with the nature of its outcome, but fundamentally I think all historians agree that there was "an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests" (Definition of "alliance"), that is, that the Crusaders and the Mongols passed agreements and moved troops to coordinate their actions for the fight against the Mamluks: this belongs to undisputable historical facts, proved by letters, embassies and historical military records. But I also think that all historians agree that this amazing adventure ended in failure, defeat, was fruitless etc... Saying that an alliance was "fruitless" or "failed" certainly does not mean that there was no alliance, just that the alliance ended in failure, just as the German-Japanese Pact existed, but ended in failure. To me, this is most sensibly explained by historian Andrew Jotischky who describes "an uneasy series of temporary alliances with the Mongols [which] followed in the second half of the thirteenth century, but it was always an unequal relationship, and nothing substancial came of any of them."Crusading and the crusader states p.239. Now, a few historians use the word rapprochement, so it might be fair to explicit the term "alliance" by saying it was rapprochement between the Mongols and the Crusaders (hence proposal 3), but that, clearly, it ended in failure. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria✍18:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation to comment. That's much better! I DID think that your threat to pursue me if I contributed was unreasonnable (if not unethical). By the way, your " Done" reminds me of our first encounter three years ago when you slapped me with a "Please don't reply to me with "Done""[25] Double standards ? :-)
I think User:Kanguole's question about the intro phrase is not addressed: the intro should be "The Franco-Mongol alliance was..." per WP:LEAD. I made a few proposals above, which I think are reasonnable.
I think the intro (and the article) focuses too much on what the alliance was not, rather than what it was: so many specifics of the alliance, actual instances of collaboration have been wiped out, such as the Demurger quote about the Templars and Hospitallers collaborating to Ghazan's offensive, which you erased today. Rather than just keep saying that the alliance bore little fruit, we should highlight what these little fruits actually were, rather than delete them.
There are some quite meaningless rethoretical phrases ("weasel phrases"?) in the intro such as The most successful points of both collaboration and non-collaboration between the Mongols and the Christians: I don't know what a successful point of non-collaboration is...
PHG, I was not replying to you. It was my understanding that you and your mentor Angusmclellan had discussed this, and you were going to avoid participation here, due to past problems with POV pushing and misuse of sources.[26][27] Instead, I was replying to the other GA reviewers here. Please stop trying to use this GA nom as a way to get your "There was an alliance" POV back into the article. The clear consensus of modern historians is that the best description of the situation is that it was a series of unsuccessful attempts. Please respect the academic consensus, and the consensus of Wikipedia editors who have been working on the article. --Elonka16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I think the opening paragraph still does not conform to WP:MOSBEGIN, because it does not clearly define the topic or indicate its context. Being more explicit early on about who, where and what would help, but that leaves the fundamental difficulty of trying to define something that the article says did not exist. Kanguole17:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've re-worked the lead several times... If you don't think it's sufficient, that's fine, but could you please offer a suggestion of what you think might be better? --Elonka18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As proposed above "The Franco-Mongol alliance consisted in a diplomatic and military rapprochement between the Crusader Franks and the Mongols, against the Muslim Mamluks, between the mid-13th and early 14th centuries, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." sounds to me like a very good option, being quite precise regarding the actual nature and extent of the alliance. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria✍21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the introduction to the Article. The opening statements seems to make conclusions without giving specifics. Such at the Mongols and Christians established a relationship. What kind, specifically, and where? Then the assumption that Mongols and Christians would naturally want an alliance, in my opinion, is an interpretation rather then a historical examination. {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
I'm not entirely clear on what you think needs to be changed? The relationship between the Mongols and Christians was definitely ambiguous. They spent decades trying to form an alliance, but the attempts were unsuccessful. Then the Franco-Mongol alliance article itself goes into the detail about the various attempts, and the reasons for failure. As for naturally wanting an alliance, this is the way that historians tend to word the relationship, such as the Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire which says, "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". --Elonka05:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review by mcorazao
I'll go ahead and take this one. At a glance the article looks to be GA quality but I have not gone through it in detail yet. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a quick glance it looks like there may be some problems with images. For example, File:Hulagu Baghdad 1258.jpg has a link to the source but the details of the source are not provided. A couple of the self-created images are a bit terse on the ownership and creation (e.g. mentioning that the image was modified from another image but not specifying that other image or its licensing). --Mcorazao (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are some areas where the prose could be improved (see below for examples). Also the citations should be at the end of the sentences, not in the middle.
Done. Citations moved, and I fixed any awkward sentences that I could find (though it helps to have other eyes review it, too). -Elonka00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Mongols, once they understood the European motivations, capitalized on this, promising that if the Europeans cooperated with the Mongols, then if Jerusalem was reconquered, the Mongols would return it to the Christians. - Too many clauses stuck together in one sentence.
Traditionally, the Mongols tended to see outside parties as either subjects or enemies, with little room in the middle for something such as an ally. - "Something" is an odd choice of word here.
The southwestern section, known as the Ilkhanate, was under the leadership of Genghis Khan's grandson Hulagu, who continued to support his brother the Great Khan, and was therefore at war with the Golden Horde, while simultaneously continuing an advance towards Persia and the Holy Land. - Too many clauses stuck together.
The loss of Jerusalem also revived hope in the Europeans that the Mongols, who had Nestorian Christians among them and had brought so much destruction to Islam, could be converted to Western Christianity and become allies of Christendom. - "in the Europeans" should perhaps be "among the Europeans". "brought so much destruction to Islam" is a melodramatic statement and is not particularly NPOV.
However, the mainstream view of historians is that though there were many attempts at forming an alliance, that the attempts proved unsuccessful. - The last "that" appears to be extraneous.
After Jerusalem had been lost to Saladin in 1187, and the Crusaders fought an ever more desperate battle against the advancing forces from Egypt, it became harder and harder to drum up enthusiasm for the Crusades back in Europe. - Writing is a little loose and informal. Maybe something more like "After the loss of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187 and an increasingly bleak situation for the Crusaders in Egypt, enthusiasm for the Crusades waned in Europe."
A certain amount of military collaboration between the Christians and the Mongols did not really take place until 1258-1260, when the forces of Bohemond VI of Antioch, Hethum I of Armenia and the Christian Georgians combined forces with the Mongols under the leader of the Mongol Ilkhanate, Hulagu, a grandson of Genghis Khan. - Strangely phrased. "A certain amount ... did not really take place"? Also the redundant use of "forces" is odd.
I agree that the formulation is odd. A more straightforward sentence would be, I guess, A certain amount of military collaboration between the Christians and the Mongols too place in 1258-1260, when the forces of Bohemond VI of Antioch, Hethum I of Armenia and the Christian Georgians combined with the Mongols under the leader of the Mongol Ilkhanate, Hulagu, a grandson of Genghis Khan...Per Honor et Gloria✍06:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Reasons for failure section starts most of the paragraphs with sentences containing "also" or "another". I'd get rid of that wording and just introduce the ideas independently.
See Abate History in Dispute: The Crusades, 1095-1291 where the question that is debated is, "Would a Latin-Ilkhan Mongol alliance have strengthened and preserved the Crusader States?'" - page numbers?
Some cases of books details being presented in the Notes section instead of the References section, e.g. Inner Asia: Uralic and Altaic series, Culture and customs of Iran. If the two sections are going to be separate (which is best) then book details should be kept in the References.
Images should be staggered (left-right-left-right).
Also some of the images are layed out a little funny crossing section boundaries at odd places and forcing text to separate. The layout could be cleaned up a little.
The book references should include the location of publication (i.e. the city).
My personal opinion is that having level 4 headers (====header====) or deeper is generally a bad idea. It makes the organization harder to follow.
I think I have given enough to work on. I'm going to stop further reviewing at this point. The article looks good in general. Obviously lots of research has gone into it. The writing is mostly good but some proof-reading to address things like the above would be good.
Thank you very much for the thorough review. I believe that all major issues have been addressed, plus I've done some work on moving images around, and work is ongoing about adding location of publication for all of the many many references. We'll make sure to get that done before submitting for FA. But for GA status, I think the article well meets the standard at this point. If you have any other questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask, --Elonka00:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, a GA review is not the place for these sorts of debates. A short discussion on the question was reasonable here but the detailed debate is not. I'd recommend moving this discussion to the talk page.
To the commentators here, is anybody actually opposing the GA nomination?
I have undone the most recent expansion of the article,[28] because it seems to be an attempt to restore undue weight to the concept of an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols. I am also concerned by the recent attempts to further expand the article, which seem to just be a way to restore the information which was removed two years ago. Looking at the history of the article, it's clear that PHG (now Per Honor et Gloria) is just coming in once a day and pumping another 1-2K of information back in every 24 hours or so, but this is probably not wise. As is shown by the comments of the GA reviewer above, the length of the article is fine. PHG, I understand that your ArbCom-imposed topic ban has expired, but it would probably be best if you avoided re-inserting previously deleted information to this article. Let's concentrate on getting what's there now up to a better standard, such as to improve the citations, and replace the Runciman/Grousset sources with more modern works. --Elonka21:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elonka. Here is the sentence you just removed, which I took pains to document (according to your own formating recommendation) with online references. It describes in a concise manner the Mongol invasion of the Holy Land after the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar, which is currently missing from the article, and is quite important, and mentionned in most books on the subject. I believe it deserves being mentionned in this article if it is to be informative on the subject in any way. I also believe it is fairly balanced in presenting the various positions on the subject, and incorporating many of your views. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria✍21:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Mongols then overran Palestine as far as Gaza and occupied the Holy Land for a few months,.[1][2][3] temporarily occupying Jerusalem,[4][5] or not,[6][7] before departing in May 1300.[1] These events led to greatly exaggerated accounts of a permanent reconquest of the Holy Land by the Mongols, and the myth that Jerusalem was ready to be, or had already been,[8] remitted to the Christians.[2][9][10]"
^"En Décembre 1299, il [Ghazan] vainc les Mamelouks lors de la deuxième bataille d'Homs et s'empare de Damas, et même de Jérusalem" in Les Templiers Alain Demurger 2007 Editions Gisserot ISBN 2877479552 p.84 (English: "In December 1299, he [Ghazan] vanquished the Mamluks in the second battle of Homs et captured Damascus, and even Jerusalem")
No. We already went through this, we had RfCs, a mediation, we went through an entire ArbCom case which resulted in your being completely banned from the entire topic area of medieval history for over a year. It is extremely concerning that now that your topic ban is up, you are returning to the same POV-pushing about a Mongol occupation of Jerusalem. Please, stop. You are welcome to help with article cleanup, especially improving citations. And images. You're great at finding images. But when it comes to rewriting the definition of the alliance, or the alleged occupation of Jerusalem, please let other editors handle those parts. --Elonka21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to help with article cleanup, especially improving citations. And images. You're great at finding images. Many attempts were made towards forming an Elonka-PHG alliance... Haukur (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Elonka, it is hard to understand why you have such a prejudice about the notion of the Mongols raiding Jerusalem. Granted, it is an issue that is debated by historians, but nothing prohibits us from presenting both views. Have you seen the words of Reuven Amitai on the subject in The Mongols in the Islamic lands: studies in the history of the Ilkhanate, p.216 (Ashgate/Variorum, 2007, ISBN 0754659143):
""...They entered Jerusalem and enslaved and looted" There is little doubt, then, that the Mongols included Jerusalem in the itinerary of this raid into Palestine".
Reuven Amitai in The Mongols in the Islamic lands: studies in the history of the Ilkhanate, p.216
Or the description of the raids on Jerusalem made by Eric H. Cline in Jerusalem besieged: from ancient Canaan to modern Israel, p.216 (University of Michigan Press, 2004, ISBN 0472113135):
"Although the Mongols were never again a threat to Palestine or Egypt, they did stage one more raid that reached Jerusalem. This occurred nearly fourty years later in 1300CE, just after the last of the Crusaders had finally been evicted from the Holy Land in 1291CE. Kutubi, a writer nearly contemporaneous with the events he describes, says that a Mongol officer named Bulay (or Mulay) came raiding with 10,000 horsemen.
"They looted property, and [took] booty and prisonners, in such amounts that only God could count it. With his army he fell upon the region of Gaza, the Jordan River Valley and Jerusalem (bayt al-maqdis)… Bulay came [to Damascus] and with his army, from the Jordan River Valley, Gaza, Ramla and Jerusalem (al-quds). With him was an extremely large number of prisonners."
Baybars al-Mansuri, a Mamluk emir who had been dispatched with 200 horsemen to guard against just such a Mongol raid, corroborated Kutubi’s account. He says that there were not 10,000 but 20,000 Mongols involved, and that "they fell upon the Jordan River Valley and Baisan" His report continues: "They wreaked havoc and raided that country. They looted what they found of livestock, supplies and equipment, and they killed whoever fell into they hands. Their raids reached Jerusalem and Hebron, and they went as far as Gaza."
Another chronicler - Ibn Abi’l Fada’il, an Egyptian Christian author- later noted that when the Mongols reached Jerusalem in 1300CE they "killed both Moslems and Christians, drank wine on [the] Haram el-Sharif, and took young women and children [as captives]. They did despicable deeds, destroyed, killed, looted, and captured children and women."
[…] Following the Mongol raid on Jerusalem in 1300, the Mamlukes ruled Jerusalem until the coming of the Ottomans under Sultan Selim I in 1516CE."
— Eric H. Cline in Jerusalem besieged: from ancient Canaan to modern Israel, p.216
We just have to accept that there are several views on the subject, and describe them, in a summary manner if necessary but shutting that out is not a solution. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria✍21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you use ten references to "document" 4 lines of text, which essentially just say "there were rumours, and because of that there were more rumours". And none of those rumours have any relevance to a purported alliance. So what exactly is "missing" here? --Latebird (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same problem we had two years ago or whenever it was. PHG, who cares if you have 10 sources? Without even looking at them I can tell that some are inappropriate, and some will have used the others as their own references. I don't really have a problem with sticking these four lines into the end of the article, but you only need one or maybe two references. I notice also that the sentence says nothing about Jerusalem, so what is the big fuss about? Isn't this what you were banned for in the first place? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Adam! The proposed sentence above does mention Jerusalem, as many historians do. I am completely OK with much fewer references for this sentence. Now, if some people need more references, I'll be happy to comply. Here is a streamlined proposal:
"The Mongols then overran Palestine as far as Gaza and occupied the Holy Land for a few months, temporarily occupying Jerusalem,[1] or not,[2] before departing in May 1300.[3][4] These events led to greatly exaggerated accounts of a permanent reconquest of the Holy Land by the Mongols, and the myth that Jerusalem was ready to be, or had already been, remitted to the Christians.[5][6]"
No, because it's already covered in Mongol raids into Palestine, and has little or nothing to do with a Franco-Mongol alliance. We already have a sentence mentioning Ghazan's troops in Palestine for a few months in 1300, and we have a "see also" to the Mongol raids article. That is sufficient. --Elonka06:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was a question to Adam :-) The whole Franco-Mongol alliance was about recovering Jerusalem (at least from the perspective of the Franks), so I think it is only legitimate to mention that Jerusalem was probably indeed reached by the Mongols (and they even went beyond to Gaza), but without results ultimately. It is absolutely inexact to say that it has "nothing to do with the Franco-Mongol alliance". This is precisely why all Christianity made such a fuss about this event (however exaggerated) in 1300.... Cheers Per Honor et Gloria✍06:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Also, since the Mongols didn't particularly care what the Franks thought, Jerusalem wasn't significant to them, and there were no Franks there in 1300, why does it matter in this article? I do understand why you want it here, I think - it's an interesting footnote. But since it may not have even happened, it does fit better in the article about the raids. (And no, you still don't need five references for something like this.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and re-worked the Ghazan section, and added, "The Mongols' success in Syria led to some wild rumors in Europe that the Mongols had successfully re-captured the Holy Land, and had even conquered the Mamluks in Egypt and were on a mission to conquer Tunisia in northern Africa. But in reality, all that was managed were some Mongol raids into Palestine in early 1300, which may or may not have even passed through Jerusalem itself. When the Egyptians again advanced from Cairo in May, the Mongols retreated without resistance." That should be sufficient, though if more detail is desired, it is better for the Mongol raids into Palestine article. --Elonka08:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, this is wonderful! I am delighted and relieved to see that constructive dialogue is possible, and that we can improve these articles through exchange and understanding! My very best regards Per Honor et Gloria✍17:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
French historians/ English-speaking historians
I reverted this edit by Per Honor for a couple of reasons. First, it reads like just quote-dropping into the middle of the text; it doesn't add anything not said elsewhere in the article. Second, the caveat "Among English-speaking historians..." is misplaced; it suggests there is a significant contention between English-speaking and non-English speaking historians (in which the English-speaking historians are implied to be wrong), though this is nowhere else mentioned in the article. If there is such contention, it needs to be addressed in a superior fashion. Third, the format was mangling. I'd have rewritten if I could tell why the quotes were being used, but as a reader, it looked like it was either using quotes to prove some point not directly deliniated in the text, which would be OR, or just dropping in quotes without context or indication why they're important.--Cúchullaint/c19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cuchullain. It's just that the only two authors who are already being quoted in the paragraph as describing "an actual alliance" are presented, for whatever reason, as "French historian, Alain Demurger" and "French historian Jean Richard", hence my desire to balance with non-French historians. You might notice that the paragraph in question is about the various views of various authors, hence the legitimacy of presenting a few of them and their take on the subject. I'll try to think of a better way to write this down, but I think it is import to reassure the reader that the authors describing "an actual alliance" are not only French. Actually, I'd be more confortable with dropping mentions of nationality altogether, as it's not quite relevant and might be interpreted wrongly. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria✍19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "English-speaking historians" implies that there's some big contention between English- and non-English-speaking camps that we're trying to play down. If there's no real contention, the solution is not to pile on quotes, it would be just to not play it up in the first place. But to me it doesn't read like describing Demurger et al as French is doing anything more than kind of describing them a little, like saying "Irish actor Daniel Day Lewis turned 53 today" or "American astronaut Buzz Aldrin has published a new article in the New Yorker". But we can certainly work it out.--Cúchullaint/c20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, since it appears that the AE thread was not the proper venue, the request for the extension of the topic ban on PHG has instead been filed here. --Elonka07:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More articles for review
It would appear that PHG is resuming his tactic of making coatrack articles. Since when he's on a roll, he does this faster than other editors can keep up, I'm maintaining a list here, so things don't get lost in the shuffle.
If anyone else spots any new articles, or anything that's being edited in a POV fashion, please add it here, thanks. --Elonka15:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done my best to avoid this article due to the unfortunate conflicts that have involved it, but I've been thinking that maybe it could be a good idea to move the article from its current name to Franco-Mongol relations, as it would be more comprehensive and, more importantly, avoid stating in the title as fact what is a historiographic hypothesis on which there is not a full consensus. This may be have already proposed and discarded before; in this case please excuse me, but I must confess I haven't had the courage necessary to pass through all the talk. So, again, what do you think of moving the article? Opinions? Aldux (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aldux! Franco-Mongol relations would actually have a much wider scope (cultural relations, trade relations, conflicts as well as alliances would have to be covered... quite daunting). Instead, the Franco-Mongol alliance article is supposed to focus on the only instances of diplomatic and military rapprochement between the Franks and the Mongols. These rapprochements were rather few and sparse but are regularly described in the academic literature as "Franco-Mongol alliance" indeed [29][30]. It is therefore an established expression and a subject of scholarly inquiry (also sometimes "Franco-Mongol rapprochement"). With someone courageous enough to build the content, I think we could clearly have a Franco-Mongol relations article, from which we could link to the more specific "Franco-Mongol Alliance" article. My very best regards Per Honor et Gloria✍22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Elonka, I would never have thought of moving this article on my own when it is clear there is not unanimity. But I must admit that after having seen the previous discussions, while, as you correctly observe, consensus can change, there didn't seem to be great enthusiasm, so maybe it's better to let it be, even if I do think that Franco-Mongol relations would be better.--Aldux (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from PHG, no one else seems to be objecting... Couldn't hurt to file an RM. If you'd like, I'll handle the paperwork? --Elonka23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe consensus has changed... I think a try wouldn't be of hurt to anybody, PHG, after all, it only takes a week to get an answer. To make this the most open possible, I'd advise to inform those that have previously voiced their opinion.--Aldux (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have neither participated in nor read the older discussions I think that the "relations" term is too general and misleading when applied to military matters. I have to also note that even if a general article existed on the wider "relations" there still would be a need for a fork on the "alliance" so we would have to recreate an "alliance" article anyway. Anyway when a wider discussion starts I will try to participate. Dr.K.λogosπraxis01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose May I remind that this subject has been delt with and resolved 3 times already: 1: Request for move, 2: Poll for renaming the article, 3: Article titleeverytime in favour of maintaining the Franco-Mongol alliance title? Is it really wise and productive to again lose the time of the community on this subject, and again create a dispute on something which has already been so clearly settled? Fundamentally, Franco-Mongol relations would actually have a much wider scope (cultural relations, trade relations, conflicts as well as alliances would have to be covered... quite daunting). Instead, the Franco-Mongol alliance article is supposed to focus on the only instances of diplomatic and military rapprochement between the Franks and the Mongols. These rapprochements were rather few and sparse but are regularly described in the academic literature as "Franco-Mongol alliance" indeed ([31]Jotischky p.249[32]). It is therefore an established expression and a subject of scholarly inquiry (also sometimes "Franco-Mongol rapprochement"). With someone courageous enough to build the content, I think we could clearly have a Franco-Mongol relations article, from which we could link to the more specific "Franco-Mongol Alliance" article. Best regards to all. Per Honor et Gloria✍01:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful Elonka, fine with me, but then let's apply the same rules for everyone: please do not attack me anymore for challenging an old "consensus" between editors, especially as I bring more information to the table [33]: it would be quite unfair if you could challenge a former consensus, but I couldn't. Consensus can change indeed, and I will be more than happy to uphold this principle. I still think that since we've already had 3 formal resolutions on the subject, doing it a 4th time is quite over the top: are we going to make polls on disputed subjects every year from now on? This would be a clear invitation for Wikipedia to drown in incessant and repetitive litigation, away from actual content creation :-) Best regards Per Honor et Gloria✍02:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support consensus can change. I feel that "alliance" gives too much weight to the idea that there was a formal military alliance, when nothing in any of the article backs this idea up. If "relations" doesn't work, then maybe something else would. Maybe "rapprochment" would be best, as that pretty much captures the essence of what in the end was a ephemeral chase for something that never came about. By the way, PHG, we really don't need to link the title of the article twice in your statement... seems kinda silly. Ealdgyth - Talk01:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think I participated in the previous discussions about the article name, so that's one reason why it's worthwhile raising this issue again--editors who haven't participated before can add their opinion. I agree that the "alliance" title implies that there was a successful alliance, whereas "relations" or similar doesn't carry the same implication. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The awkward contortions in the opening paragraph illustrate the difficulty of a title that asserts as fact something that does not have scholarly consensus. I had a look through the Google Books searches offered by PHG: some of them use the term in a negative context ("mirage", "no interest at all", etc), some refer to a brief alliance between Kitbuqa and Bohemond VI, and Jean Richard refers to a broad (if unsuccessful) alliance. The article presents this as a minority view. The current title amounts to taking a side in a scholarly dispute, and apparently the minority position at that. It doesn't have to be "relations", though. Kanguole02:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since this a phrase used by scholars, even if it is to say that there wasn't one. (We can certainly have articles about things that never happened...we have a "peace in our time" article for example.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an ideal example, as that article is about Chamberlain's utterance, which all agree did happen (though he apparently said "for"). Kanguole11:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support we don't even have to really establish if their is a consensus that this alliance never took place, as the nominator says; it's sufficient, and hardly disputable, that no consensus has never been reached, and to say more nobody I think will really doubt that a real alliance was never reached. Also, changing the title will avoid, as noted by Srnec, the contortions that are now at the opening of the article: with the title change the opening of the article at least could be more straightforward.--Aldux (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my vocabulary anyway, saying that an alliance was not successful does not equate with "there was no alliance", just as saying that an enterprise was not successful does not equate with "there was no enterprise". As far as I know "not successful" only means that the result was not a success. However the fact that there was agreement, or multiple agreements, between parties (the Franks and the Mongols) towards a common goal (and that's the definition of an alliance) remains nonetheless. The substance of an alliance existed, some military moves were made in agreement but the whole enterprise ended in military failure, which is why the "Franco-Mongol alliance" wording is the one used in the academic literature, and why it is nonetheless often mitigated with expressions such as "attempted", "sporadic", "failure", "unsuccessful" etc... Per Honor et Gloria✍02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the article does not support the current title, so support(see below) a move from the current title. However, except for isolated sections, the article is not about merely Franco-Mongol relations but Western European-Mongol relations. I won't judge the coherence of the article but, based on its current content, something along the lines of Western European-Mongol relations might be a better fit. — AjaxSmack 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:" The adjective "Franco-" is generally used by scholars in this case because it stands here for "Franks", which is the way the Crusaders were designated by the Islamic world. It is a bit different from "French", although a large part or arguably most of the Crusaders were actually French themselves. Per Honor et Gloria✍02:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would posit that "Franco-" is rather ambiguous. Why not just use "Crusader" rather than a third party designation that is also used as an adjective of France? — AjaxSmack 02:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a standard academic phrase to describe the Franks-Mongol relations in the period (Adam Bishop's point). It is a slight ambiguity which academics seem to be content with, so it's probably not the role of Wikipedia to negate that. It is true that it becomes less ambiguous from the 15-16th century, as for example with the Franco-Ottoman alliance. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria✍03:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have since noticed some of the literature referenced in this discussion uses the term. I still think the article is a bit of a catchall and is more about relations in general but I'll strike my opinion and let others decide. Carry on. — AjaxSmack 04:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As others have pointed out, the lead paragraph is a torturous attempt to clarify the title of the article. Relations might encompass more than the article current covers, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Shellbabelfish15:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the move to "relations." Relations is broader than an alliance, and this article includes content that pertains to relations but not an alliance. It also avoids the issue of pretending to decide whether or not there was such an alliance as an alliance is a type of relations. Also, reading the substance of the article, it seems clear that the two sides never reached any substantial agreement, engaged in successful coordinated action, or even engaged in any behavior they would not have done have they never communicated. Although I agree that the historical consensus is that "alliance" is not the appropriate term, I do not believe we need to decide this issue to understand that the move is appropriate. I don't know how much trade and cultural contact there was, but I suspect that this can be dealt with in two short sections. As for "conflicts", I would think it would be better to cover military cooperation and conflict side-by-side rather than cherry picking one to give the allusion of greater rapprochement. Savidan23:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that I'm defining "failed" as in "failed to achieve any kind of consensus" rather than "failed to resolve the issue". Since this has come up several times and we've obviously seen the same old names here, wouldn't it be nice to get some outside input and see if we can find an actual consensus one way or the other? Regardless of which way it goes, a strong consensus would be helpful to keep this same issue from cropping up repeatedly. Shellbabelfish05:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's rules are clear for such naming cases: when there is a failure to achieve consensus in a Request for Move, then the result is simply a "keep". When it is one same person filing the same proposal every 4 times and it gets nowhere, I think it's time to let it go, otherwise I'm afraid it turns into diruption, and it just loses the time of the community. As far as know this kind of repetitive filing is not encouraged by Wikipedia. Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria✍06:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So rather than address the issue which clearly hasn't achieved consensus despite repeated discussion among the same editors, you'd rather call a victory since the default is to not move? That's generally what one calls "wikilawyering". Wanting to get additional input to resolve this issue once and for all is a productive response. Shellbabelfish06:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sighhhh... a Request for Move was filed, so I would just like the results of this RM to be respected, please. This is called fairness to the participants, and respect of due Wikipedia processes. Why file an RM in the first place, if you don't intend to abide by its results if they dissatisfy you? Cheers Per Honor et Gloria✍06:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be confused; I didn't file a request for move, I commented. Since we're seeing the same stalemate as in the last several discussions you keep mentioning, I'm suggesting a way forward that would resolve the issue. No one "wins" or "loses" these discussions and we don't even have a worthwhile "result" here. I'm not sure why you feel getting additional input in the hopes of reaching a consensus is unfair or disrespectful and I don't particularly appreciate being accused of such. I'm certain someone who's been at Wikipedia as long as you is familiar with the various steps of dispute resolution and are aware that it strongly encourages outside opinions for issues that don't achieve consensus among regular topic participants. Shellbabelfish06:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The lead
At the Good article review for this article, it has been brought up by one of the reviewers that the lead of the Franco-Mongol alliance article is not accurately summarizing the article, per WP:MOSBEGIN.[34] I've gone through the lead several times myself, but perhaps some other opinions would be helpful here. Would someone who hasn't been working on the article be interested in trying to re-write the lead? Or, do other editors feel that the lead is okay as-is? --Elonka19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A diplomatic and military rapprochement"
The problem is that the current lead seems to blanket-deny everything, whereas the fact that there was agreement, or multiple agreements, between parties (the Franks and the Mongols) towards a common goal (and that's the definition of an alliance) remains unassailable and is proved by the letters, the exchange of embassies and the historically recorded attempts at combined military operations. The substance of an alliance thus existed, but the whole enterprise ended in military failure, which is why the "Franco-Mongol alliance" wording is the one used in the academic literature, and why it is nonetheless often mitigated with expressions such as "attempted", "sporadic", "failure", "unsuccessful" etc: it is necessary that the intro reflects this ambivalence. Following User:Kanguole's very legitimate comment indeed on the structure of the lead, which should be per WP:LEAD built as a definition on the lines of "The Franco-Mongol alliance is ....", I stumbled upon a sentence which I think precisely reflects what the alliance was, and at the same time nicely avoids past pitfalls and disputes:
"The Franco-Mongol alliance consisted in a diplomatic and military rapprochement between the Crusader Franks and the Mongols, against the Muslim Mamluks, between the mid-13th and early 14th centuries, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade...."
The point is, the lead should first and foremost express what this alliance was, with its limitations, rather than what it wasn't. Wouldn't this sentence be pretty perfect? Per Honor et Gloria✍21:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it's not backed up by how the sources describe the situation. The sources instead say that an alliance was perceived as "possible", and that there were "attempts" towards it. Not that it existed. --Elonka14:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all authors agree that there was a rapprochement between the Mongols and the Franks: this is historically proven by the letters of agreement, the plans and movements for combined operation etc... The only variation (not even "dispute", the only dispute on the subject is really here on Wikipedia) is related to the ways of qualifying the extent of the alliance: to some it was full-fledged, to other intermittent, sporadic, fledgling, and yet to others again (admitedly numerous) just an attempt, a dream, a chimera. It's a bit like historians differing about the magnitude of a military victory: was it Pyrrhic, "crushing", "marginal" or even "strategically insignificant"??? Qualifiers will remain for ever at variance, but the very fact that there was a battle, and that one side won, remains generally anchored in facts and remains rather undisputed. To me, the safe way is to describe the Franco-Mongol rapprochement, and then to give an account of the various ways historians have qualified it. It shouldn't even be a dispute, just a matter of reporting what the various sources say on the subject. Per Honor et Gloria✍23:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern with the lead is that it spends the bulk of its time debunking the idea of a formal alliance. While I understand how the lead grew out of past disputes on the article, it currently doesn't do much to give an overview of the article at all. Instead the lead should describe the different contacts from the religious to the secular to the military. Shellbabelfish16:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. The debate about "alliance", "no alliance" "attempts at alliance" is artificial and rather pointless: what's important in this article is to document the various instances of rapprochement between the Franks and the Mongols. Per Honor et Gloria✍21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at creating a new draft of the lead, at User:Elonka/FMA lead. I'd appreciate if folks could look at it and provide constructive criticism? It's probably a bit long and could be winnowed down further, but I'm not sure what to cut. --Elonka21:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first sentence does the job of defining the scope of the topic (even if repeating "Franco-Mongol" is a bit awkward). The second and third sentences go off on a bit of a tangent, I think. Are the key trends the waning of Crusader power and the Mamluks' success? And I agree that the lead as a whole is a bit long, and the second paragraph in particular ought to be condensed. Kanguole00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the comments. I went ahead and ported my draft over to the main article, and rewrote it a bit to try and address the concerns. Regarding the second and third sentences, are you referring to the Prester John section? Or a different paragraph? --Elonka02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hummm, per WP:LEAD, when an article is entitled "Franco-Mongol alliance", then it is supposed to start simply with "The Franco-Mongol alliance was..." or something equivalent in order to define the subject matter, as earlier pointed out by User:Kanguole. I am afraid the newly proposed intro (already boldly implemented in the article apparently [35]) is rather inadequate, strangely constructed and most of all against Wikipedia editorial rules (in case anyone is interested, I think I made a nice proposal a few lines up)... Let me try another one, which hopefully leaves open the academic evaluations of how much the alliance was actually implemented:
"The Franco-Mongol alliance was the objective of a diplomatic and militaryrapprochement between the Crusader Franks and the Mongols, against the Muslim Mamluks, between the mid-13th and early 14th centuries, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade...."
I meant that the emphasis on Nestorians and Prester John in the opening paragraph doesn't seem to match the article, which seems much more concerned with Mongol and Mamluk expansion. Kanguole09:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidents section
As a lay reader, there are many things I don't understand about this section. Isn't this an instance of the hostility of the non-Antioch Franks described in the following section, rather that some sort of border friction? Was Sidon "raided" or "destroyed" (as per the Sidon article)? Why was Baibars angered by Crusaders and Mongols attacking each other? How do the events of the last paragraph fit with the truce between Crusaders and Mamluks, which is presented as happening at the same time? Kanguole09:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transmission of textile designs
Lampas with phoenix, silk and gold, Iran or Irak, 14th century.Lampas textile, silk and gold, Italy, second half of 14th century.
Transmission of textile designs: Iran/ Irak textiles of the 14th century with phoenix design and silk and gold thread (left), and Italian adaptation of the second half of the 14th century (right), also with phoenix design and silk and gold thread. These designs are of Chinese origin, and transited through the Mongol realm into Europe (Rosamond E.Mack, ISBN 0520221311 p.27-49) Per Honor et Gloria✍16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible article name compromise
From the most recent discussion, there seemed to be two main themes:
Concern that Franco-Mongol alliance suggests a broad alliance between the two cultures.
Concern that alliance is the proper word for the various agreements and other words aren't as appropriate.
Would it be possible to change the article name to "Franco-Mongol alliances"? I believe this clarifies that the article discusses the various attempts at cooperation, rather than some single grand plan yet retains the appropriate terminology. This might also assist with the lead since we can then describe the various details properly instead of wasting time explaining that there was no general alliance. Shellbabelfish23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Good points. I've gone through the remaining citations in detail, pulling out anything that looked questionable, and upgrading all the other citations I could, to modern reputable sources. There's always the possibility I missed something (it's a complex article!), so if you see anything else you'd like changed, let me know? --Elonka 20:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
b (MoS):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
