Talk:Bohemond VI of Antioch

Concerns

I see PHG has been at work here, as well. What evidence is there that Bohemond was present at the fall of Baghdad? I've never heard anything of the kind. john k (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the page for general readability, and to sort out the mess of notes and references. I hope I have improved it. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely looking better, and I agree that the article needed some condensing. Though I'm not sure I'm understanding why you deleted some of the sources? It was my impression that we wanted to get away from just sourcing older historians such as Runciman, and try to get more modern scholars in the mix, such as Richard, Morgan, Jackson, etc. Or do you have a problem with those? --Elonka 10:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that was sort of arbitrary, if there were five references (or whatever) for the same thing I just kept the one that seemed to make the most sense. (Which is very difficult because the way PHG references things is quite maddening.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've added in a couple more, so hopefully things are good now.  :) --Elonka 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag removed

FYI, someone added a "disputed" tag to one section of the article, but without saying what exactly they were disputing. Especially since a couple of us just reviewed the article for accuracy (see above thread), I see no reason for such a tag, so I have removed it. Per the instructions for the template, it should only be added if there is a detailed rationale at the talkpage as to what exactly the problems are. If someone wants to re-add the tag, please first either just try editing the article to what you think it should say, towards the goal of a Consensus version, or else please discuss here at talk why you think the tag is needed. --Elonka 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's needed because the information added there by you is disputed. It's part of a larger dispute initiated by you which is currently being discussed here: Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance#Christian_vassals. Until that is resolved and this article changed accordigly the tag must remain.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which information? For example, if you don't like the information that's in the article right now, why not just try editing it to whatever you think is appropriate? Who knows, I might even like your change? --Elonka 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm primarily concerned with the factual accuracy and some undue weight issues regarding the first two paragraphs of the section. I can edit the article now, but it would be better to reach a consensus first where we are currently discussing the dispute before we begin implementing changes in order to satisfy all involved parties. I think that's more reasonable. In addition, the tag might actually invite more editors to comment on the issue who haven't done so yet. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've re-read the Bohemond VI article from top to bottom, and I'm not seeing what your concerns are. The information there looks very neutral, even taking into account any concerns on other matters that are being raised at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Please, could you at least try to edit the article to what you think it should be? I think it would help focus things, and clarify your concerns. --Elonka 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here it is. I changed submitted to conquered for Georgia. Removed submitted and alliance in regards to Hetum. Seems better than saying submitted or some say joined the alliance. The citations provide both points of view anyhow.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we're getting closer. I'll take another pass at tweaking the wording. If you don't like it, please try editing it again? --Elonka 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you know very well that I can't do that. I dispute your current "edit" as it's essentially a revert of my changes with slightly different wording but still a revert. Now you're asking me to revert?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not asking you to revert.  :) I am asking if you can think of any way to change the text so that you like it better. Have you seen the flowchart at Wikipedia:Consensus? That's what I'm trying to follow here. You make a tweak, I make a tweak, we both try, not to revert, but to improve the text, and we see if we can circle in on wording that we're both happy with? On the flowchart, I'm thinking of the box that says, "Think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with theirs." See also WP:BRD. --Elonka 23:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That would still constitute as a partial revert.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that we leave the article as Elonka has revised it for the moment. I am in the process of looking into Eupator's list of sources (here) and am finding what might be characterized as "cherry-picking". More on that soon. Aramgar (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are hardly a neutral party so I don't see how your evaluation of sources is of any consequence. It's like PHG recommending to keep my version.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, okay, if you don't want to edit the article, I guess I can understand. How about if you post a reworded paragraph here at talk, and we'll try to work on it that way? --Elonka 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I don't want to, I'm under a 1rr limitation until April. I can't make another edit to this article until next week and you reverted my additon of a disputed tag twice. Then you asked me to make a change to the article, which I did using very conciliatory language without removing any references (not even objectig to Aramgar's "prudently" inserted afterwards), you reverted that as well pretty much with a false edit summary. I don't see what's the point of continuing this.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(?) Which of my edits do you think used a "false edit summary"? --Elonka 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The last one obviously [copyediting, added refs], where the edit that I had made was reverted in addition to other changes. Isn't this what you accuse PHG of doing? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 05:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, no? Assuming that you're talking about the threads at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, I pointed out that PHG did a revert, saying he was "reinstating" an older version, when in actuality he was adding information that had never been in the article in the first place. However, what we're doing here at the Bohemond article, is trying to come up with entirely new wording, which we both agree with. To my knowledge, the text that I added was not a "revert" to some older version, it was something entirely new. So, what edit summary would have you have liked to see, rather than "copyediting"? --Elonka 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for lifting of ArbCom restrictions

Per the thread above, I would like to engage in some back-and-forth editing of this article with Eupator. However, since Eupator is under ArbCom editing restrictions in this topic area, he has expressed a reasonable concern that this might be perceived as a violation of the sanctions, specifically that he is forbidden from making more than one revert-style edit to an article per week. I have therefore contacted the Arbitration Clerk who seems most involved with this matter,[1] Thatcher, to request that the 1RR restrictions on this one article be lifted, so that Eupator and I can make a good faith effort at finding consensus wording.[2] Thatcher has agreed to suspend the 1RR requirement on this one article.[3]

I would like to make clear that the only sanction that we are suspending is 1RR, and only on this one article. Other sanctions such as those on civility and good faith are still in effect.

Eupator, I have made this request in all good faith, because I sincerely want to see if you and I can try to find consensus wording that we are both happy with. I don't want to get into a revert war where we just yank the article back and forth to each other's preferred wording, so I would ask that whenever either of us makes a change, that we make a genuine effort to try and come up with new wording that is something different from what was previously tried, and that we both make a genuine effort to try and find wording which is acceptable to both of us. Does this sound reasonable to you? --Elonka 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone's mistaken

List of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch says that Simeon II of Antioch was patriarch until 1268 (i.e., the fall of the city) at which point he was replaced by Euthymius II of Antioch, who served for about a year. Given all of the other errors on this page (see above), I'm inclined to think this article is incorrect for naming Euthymius the bishop in 1263... but was Simeon II the Greek bishop replaced in 1263 or was Euthymius replaced in '68 or '69 or is the entire story mistaken? — LlywelynII 06:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)