Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Comments by Adam Bishop

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?

• Papal overtures - We have an article on the Siege of Jerusalem (1244)

• 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 Grousset and Runciman are very old and out of date.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.

Reviewer: Adam Bishop (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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? --Elonka 08:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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.) Kanguole 00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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? --Elonka 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good comment User:Kanguole. The Franco-Mongol alliance [1], or Frank-Mongol alliance [2], 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" [3]]) 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, [4] or when the Cypriots and Templars went to the Island of Ruad to join with the forces of Ghazan in 1299-1300 [5], 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)

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. Kanguole 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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!  :) --Elonka 15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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. Kanguole 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Well only the third of those is a definition, but is this definition supported by the scholarly consensus? Kanguole 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

 Done. I've reworked the lead (which is definitely supported by scholarly consensus, see User:Elonka/Mongol historians and the various discussions at the talkpage). If you'd like any other changes, let me know? --Elonka 20:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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"" [6] 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...

Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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.[7][8] 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. --Elonka 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You indented from my paragraph, and you asked me "If you'd like any other changes, let me know?"... that's the way we make replies on Wikipedia. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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. Kanguole 17:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

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? --Elonka 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

There has been a lot of discussion here but nothing has been marked on the GAN page. What is the status? --Mcorazao (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like just comments but no formal review. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Opening

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)}

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". --Elonka 05:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Still reviewing but here is the review so far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   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). -Elonka 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are some paragraphs that lack citations (also be aware that citations must appear after the text they are supporting).

    Done. All requested citations have been added. --Elonka 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Hulagu Baghdad 1258.jpg needs the details on the source specified. File:LittleArmeniaPrincipality_of_AntiochTripoli.jpg says it is a modified version of another image but has few details on that image.

 Done I added the original Commons source of the map File:LittleArmeniaPrincipality_of_AntiochTripoli.jpg. Thanks for your work on the GA! Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Examples of prose that needs improvement:

• 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.
  •  Done --Elonka 04:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done changed "something" to "a concept". --Elonka 04:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done. --Elonka 04:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done. --Elonka 04:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done. --Elonka 04:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• 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."
  •  Done. I completely reworked the beginning of the #Hulagu section in the article. --Elonka 04:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• 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)

•  Done, as part of the above-mentioned re-work of the Hulagu section. --Elonka 04:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• 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.
  •  Done. --Elonka 04:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Some referencing issues:

• A few cases like refs 117 and 118 where quote is placed before the author/page info. Should always start with the source info first, then the quote.
  •  Done. --Elonka 05:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• 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?
  •  Done. Fixed. --Elonka 04:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done. Sorry, had already done this, but forgot to tag it as completed. --Elonka 16:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional notes (not necessary for GA):

• 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.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

I'll leave this open for a little while longer. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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, --Elonka 00:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Lead.

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?

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, especially with the improvements already made as a result of comments here, I support the nomination. Shell ^babelfish 22:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. I think the article easily meets GA standards at this point. --Elonka 22:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Final review

I want to read over once more to be thorough but I think it is GA ready. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: