Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance

• See /Archive#Before mediation

Opening statements

As is customary, we shall begin the mediation with each person making an opening statement. Please state your position regarding the issues noted on the mediation page:

• Deciding on a common understanding of Wikipedia's policy of balance and NPOV presentation of various scholarly sources: should one scholarly interpretation prevail, or should we present in a balanced way the major scholarly opinions on a given subject?
• Deciding which sources are reliable secondary sources, and which are not (example: back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview, etc.
• Deciding if or how to best split this article into manageable sections, WP:SUMMARY style

Please be brief – probably just a couple of sentences for each point – and please refrain from responding to the comments of others in their sections (stick to your own sections). -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Elonka

• This is one of the core issues of the dispute, is the question of neutrality, especially as relating to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. In my opinion we have a situation here where most mainstream historians are saying "A", and a small number are saying, "maybe B, C, or D". But then our Wikipedia article currently phrases things in ways such as, "The history is 'B', though there are disputes and some historians say 'A'." In my opinion it should be the other way around, and the article should clearly list views in proportion to how they are presented by mainstream historians. Per WP:UNDUE, minority views should have less coverage, and in some cases shouldn't have any coverage at all. I can go into much more detail about the exact views I have concerns about, but that's probably best saved for later in the mediation. If it's helpful though, since this is a complex issue about a relatively obscure point of history, I have also prepared a brief (just a few paragraphs in casual language) quickref of the historical context. It can be viewed here: User:Elonka/Mongol quickref.

• Regarding the issue of reliable sources, none of the listed examples (back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview) are sources which should be used in this article. The topic of this article is one that has been extensively covered by peer-reviewed articles and books, so there is no reason to have to resort to unreliable sources, especially on controversial issues, when we have so much other material that we can draw from.

• The article is currently much too long, at ~150K. Per WP:SIZE, I'd rather see it reduced to less than half that. This could be done either by splitting it per WP:SUMMARY, and/or by condensing some of the existing sections. For example, right now the article makes heavy use of primary source quotes, many of which in my opinion should either be removed, or moved to some other location such as Wikisource or Wikiquote. There are also many sections that are getting into details about troop movements and exact correspondence between monarchs (He sent the letter on <date>, it was received on <date>, there is no record of any reply, he sent another letter on <date>, etc.) In my opinion, just because a fact is verifiable, doesn't mean we need to include it on Wikipedia. I think our readers are better served by a general summary and overview, rather than a detailed blow-by-blow of who said what to whom and when.

Ultimately, I'd like to say that I firmly believe that this can be a great, even a Featured-class article someday, but it's not there yet. I do have great respect for other work that PHG has done, but I have strong concerns both about the neutrality of this current article, and PHG's ability to work as part of a team. It's my hope that with mediation, that PHG and I can work out better methods of communicating and treating each other with mutual respect, which I think will ultimately benefit not just us and this article, but Wikipedia as a whole. One of the differences between a "group" and a "team", is the ability to work through conflict. PHG and I have not been able to successfully work through the conflict on this article, which is why we've landed here at mediation. If PHG and I can figure out ways of successfully dealing with conflict though, I think that we could make a very strong team, indeed. --Elonka 18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of formatting here, but I'd like to reply to PHG's statement, since I have strong disagreements with some of what he said:

• I have not been insisting on "attempts only", I have been insisting that "attempts" is the primary method that historians use to describe the situation, whereas PHG is trying to insist that the majority of historians say that there was an alliance, and PHG wants to relegate "attempts" to the status of a minority opinion. I strongly disagree with this approach, as it's clear that the majority of historians say that there were attempts at an alliance. It was a hope, a project, a possibility, but not an actual alliance, and it is misleading to say that there was an alliance. See User:Elonka/Mongol historians. And even for those few historians that PHG cites as saying there "was" an alliance (Demurger, Grousset, Richard), I dispute this interpretation as well. They are generally very vague, and don't even agree with each other. For example, I dispute that Rene Grousset said that there was an alliance. In fact, I have a source (David Morgan, in the 2nd edition of The Mongols) who describes Grousset's interpretation as arguing that there should have been an alliance, not that there was one. The statements of Alain Demurger are also extremely vague, with only one sentence in the entire book where he implies that the Crusaders agreed to an alliance, and it's in very flowery emotional language, rather than a statement of historical fact. As for Jean Richard, his statements too are ambiguous. We could potentially source Richard for either side, depending on how we cherry-pick words from his book. Now, as I've said many times, I'm okay on us quoting Richard's phrasing in the Wikipedia article, but if PHG wants to use Richard's statements to try to prove that there was an alliance, it should be made clear that Richard's statements are a minority opinion, not a sweeping statement of the general consensus of modern historians. Especially when we have a modern historian such as Peter Jackson who devotes an entire chapter in his book Mongols and the West to the quest for an Ilkhan-European alliance, and engages in extensive discussion of why it failed to come about. David Morgan, too, also devotes considerable ink to the discussion of the historiography of the matter. I find these kinds of in-depth coverage of a topic much more compelling than the "sentence here, sentence there" historians, which either devote 1 or 2 sentences to the topic of an alliance, or don't cover it at all.

• Regarding the concept of using quotes from medieval historians, their works fall under the category of historical documents, which are "primary sources". See WP:PSTS. If necessary, I can go into great detail about why medieval historians such as the Templar of Tyre should be treated with great caution. He and other historians of the time were writing their own personal views on a subject, were often writing for propaganda purposes, and have multiple examples of incorrect information. Their works absolutely do not fall under the category of "peer-reviewed reliable secondary source."

• Regarding the issue of article size, I have a great deal of trouble with PHG's claim that as "creator of this article" he should be allowed the initiative on where and how to slice things. I feel this is a blatant violation of WP:OWN, and is indicative of the major issues that we've been having throughout this conflict, where he is quick to remove information that I add (even when extensively sourced), but when I remove information that he adds, he complains that I'm "removing referenced material".

• Lastly, I dispute PHG's interpretation that he is "resisting a few individuals." C'mon, PHG, you have been resisting everyone. Every single comment from another editor in the RfC disagreed with your interpretation. Multiple editors (Adam Bishop, myself, Srnec, Danny, Folantin, and even your old ally Aldux) have been expressing concerns about your actions. The AfD on the POV fork that you created was a resounding "Delete". And yet it seems that you're incapable of acknowledging that the consensus is different from your personal view. You still seem to have this attitude that you're right, and that everyone else is wrong. And this just isn't helpful. Please, can you try to acknowledge that this is a team effort here, that there are other editors here who are thoughtful and well-read, that reasonable minds can differ on the interpretation of a historian's work, and that this situation is not "PHG against the world"? I want to work with you to make this a better article, but I often feel like you see this as your personal thesis paper, that you have to "defend" from all invaders. And that's just not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. --Elonka 21:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG

• Let me quote one of the opening sentences of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy:

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors".

However Elonka has been insisting at portraying the Franco-Mongol Alliance as being "attempts only" (numerous reverts etc...). I have been insisting on taking the inclusionist view "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance" as per the above rule, both views being amply represented by reputable historians. Elonka's claim at Fringe theory does not work against such prominent scholars as Grousset, Demurger or Richard, among the leaders of their field, who all speak clearly about the Mongol Alliance as fact and are anything but "Fringe".

• Reliable sources: if Wikipedia somewhere states clearly that back-cover material, interviews of reputable historians in reputable magazines, or quotes of Medieval historians are not acceptable, I will gladly follow that, but I have doubt this is the case, especially for the two latter cases. In particular, Medieval historians, especially when quoted by modern secondary sources, seem to me totally acceptable.
• Article size. I believe we first need to settle content disputes before we start slicing the article. The creation of some sub-articles could of course be considered, but I think it is important to remain detailed as factual, with a lot of references, as we've seen how much disbelief this article can be met with, from people with little knowledge of the period. As the creator of this article and most of its content, I would prefer to keep the initiative about where and how to slice things. As far as I know, Wikipedia accepts long articles in some cases ("Occasional exceptions: Two exceptions are lists, and articles summarizing certain fields", in Wikipedia:Article size), and I think the latter case applies here.

My issue is not about "working with a team": it is about resisting a very few individuals who try to impose their perception of history in spite of scholarly sources. I believe remaining close to the facts, and balancing scholarly opinions is the key. Best regards 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

On track

See /Archive#Off track.

I must be missing something. Yes, I know I have been MIA over the past couple days (real life calls, and I only really had time to fit trivial edits in), but in the meantime, this discussion seems to have exploded (and no I'm not reading through every bit of it). What appears quite clear though is that it is difficult to establish that one view of whether this was an "alliance" is dominant without nitpicking and speculating at semantics. There's no reason for this. PHG has already stated (s)he is willing to "present both views". Determining precisely what percent of historians hold certain views so we can present them in their appropriate proportions seems counterproductive and, ultimately, a waste of just about everyone's time here. The matter of whether this was an alliance (or whether certain historians believe there was an alliance) is, as demonstrated here, open to interpretation. What's wrong with just presenting both (or, perhaps more appropriately, all) interpretations of the status of this as an alliance? -- tariqabjotu 03:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not about whether or not to present both views. Of course we should present both views. The issue is one of Undue weight. The vast majority of historians say there was not an alliance, so it is inappropriate for the article to push the POV that most historians say there was an alliance. Instead, the proper emphasis should be that there were "attempts" at an alliance, and we can state that one or two modern historians (such as Jean Richard) argue that the alliance did exist, even though the rest of the academic community disagrees. In terms of the first sentence of the article, I would be happy with something like, ""Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." This was wording that we discussed at the talkpage of the article, and that everyone was in agreement with, except for PHG. We've also discussed this via the RfC, and again, everyone agrees that the consensus of historians is that there wasn't an alliance. Except for PHG. We can of course present alternate views, but we need to keep things in proportion. It would be misleading to imply that historians are evenly split on this issue, because that is absolutely not reality. --Elonka 04:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of historians say there was not an alliance, so it is inappropriate for the article to push the POV that most historians say there was an alliance.

I'm hardly getting that impression. The 76 kilobytes of text I removed seems proof that the truth of that statement is in the eye of the beholder. -- tariqabjotu 04:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

When the only two disputants are me and PHG, yes, it seems evenly split, but if you actually look at what historians are saying, the vast majority say that there was not an alliance. --Elonka 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not convinced (although you don't need to convince me; I'm just the mediator). I believe you have demonstrated that there are many historians who don't explicitly say there was an alliance, but I don't believe you have shown that most historians explicitly say their wasn't one. Just a lot of vague language and conjecture (including "probably a typo" -- not useful). -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that many do say explicitly that there was no alliance. As for any others, I'm happy to discuss them individually. Which is actually the direction that I thought we were going, as a way of narrowing down the dispute. As for the typos, maybe "typographical error" isn't the proper term, but I absolutely do believe that the information in Oldenbourg's and Dailliez's books are simply errors, and I'm happy to explain again why I think that. Ultimately what it comes down to though, is that given the difference between a historian from 50 years ago, who made a passing one-sentence comment, vs. a modern historian who spends chapters discussing a topic, that if there's a conflict, the modern historian who's giving in-depth commentary, should be given more weight than someone who is out-of-date and only covered a topic in a cursory manner. --Elonka 04:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

References

See /Archive#References.

Article split to History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)

See /On hold#Article split to History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)

This section has been put on hold until we get around to addressing this point. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

How does this sound? I've made a genuine effort to include both my and PHG's views:

A form of Franco-Mongol alliance occurred from 1259-1268 between the Frankish Principality of Antioch and the Ilkhanate of the Mongol Empire against their common enemy the Egyptian Mamluks, when Bohemond VI of Antioch formally submitted to Mongol overlordship, under the influence of his father-in-law Hethoum I of Armenia, who had submitted in 1247. Antioch was then destroyed by the Mamluks in 1268, but for the rest of the century, there continued to be many other attempts to form a more wide-ranging alliance between the Mongols and the Franks of Western Europe, though with little success. The French historian Jean Richard argues that there actually was a Franco-Mongol alliance that occurred from 1263 until the early 1300s, though most other historians describe it simply as attempts which never resulted in any substantial military collaboration.

The communications went on for decades, and involved numerous exchanges of letters, gifts, and emissaries between the Mongols and the Europeans, as well as offers for varying types of cooperation. The most clear indication of both cooperation and non-cooperation occurred around 1260, when most of Muslim Syria was briefly conquered by the joint efforts of the Mongols and their Christian subjects, including the forces of Frankish Antioch. However, most of the Mongol forces had to withdraw shortly thereafter for internal reasons, after which other Franks, the Barons of Acre, entered into a passive truce with their traditional enemies the Egyptian Mamluks, allowing the Muslims to obtain a major and historic success against the Mongols later that same year, at 1260's Battle of Ain Jalut.

The Mongols again invaded Syria several times between 1281 and 1312, sometimes in alliance or attempted alliance with the Christians, though there were considerable logistical difficulties involved, which usually resulted in the forces arriving months apart, and being unable to satisfactorily combine their activities. Ultimately, the attempts at alliance bore little fruit, and ended with the victory of the Egyptian Mamluks, the total eviction of both the Franks and the Mongols from Palestine by 1303, and a treaty of peace between the Mongols and the Mamluks in 1322.

--Elonka 21:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See comments above. PHG 12:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, have you actually read the wording here? It's completely different from what we've discussed before. Or in other words, could you please be more specific as to your exact concerns? Or, could you rewrite this section with wording that you like better? Thanks, --Elonka 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo what I said in the section below: try to point to specific points, sentences, or paragraphs in this version that you find problematic. -- tariqabjotu 02:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We said specifically we would discuss the intro sentence for a start. "A form of Franco-Mongol alliance..." is an original research statement (never seen this kind of approach to the issue), and only focuses on a single particular event (Bohemond VI) within interactions spanning half a century. I don't hink it works as an intro as it does not mirror the focus of the article at all. Only a balanced phrasing "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance,..." with an aim at describing the globality of the article could be both satisfying as an NPOV and effective introductory statement. PHG 11:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree to remove the words "form of", which would leave us with: A Franco-Mongol alliance occurred from 1259-1268 between the Frankish Principality of Antioch and the Ilkhanate of the Mongol Empire against their common enemy the Egyptian Mamluks, when Bohemond VI of Antioch formally submitted to Mongol overlordship, under the influence of his father-in-law Hethoum I of Armenia, who had submitted in 1247. --Elonka 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your formulation only focuses on a single particular event (Bohemond VI) within interactions spanning half a century. I don't think it works as an intro as it does not mirror the focus of the article at all. It is also contrary to the accepted understanding of the Franco-Mongol alliance according to the scholars describing this alliance. As thissuch, this phrasing is POV, innacurate and original research. Only a balanced phrasing "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance,..." in proper Wikipedia NPOV style, with an aim at describing the globality of the article could be both satisfying as an NPOV and effective introductory statement. PHG 11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then let's fall back to the talkpage consensus of Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. I realize that you don't like it, but you are the only editor that doesn't like it -- everyone else is okay on it. See Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction sentence. So, let's just agree to disagree on this point, and move on to something else. For example, can you please respond to the question in the other section, of how to split the article? --Elonka 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG, please hold off on answering Elonka's question about splitting the article, especially if you aren't willing to settle with the intro sentence proposed above and on the article talk page. I would like to finish this piece first so things don't get too confusing. -- tariqabjotu 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid calling things "POV" (and to a lesser extent "original research") when objecting to proposed versions of this sentence (and other parts of the article). It is sufficient, clearer, and, ultimately, less abrasive, to simply discuss precise points of contention. -- tariqabjotu 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) If our mediator insists, I'm willing to give this another try. PHG, how about this? Please list three possible alternates that you would find acceptable for the introductory sentence. A, B, and C, which you feel adequately represent both our viewpoints. Maybe I'll find something there that I like. --Elonka 17:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Why have you abandoned your statement from 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)? -- tariqabjotu 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Abandoned? Not at all. I would still be happy to use any of the following intro sentences:

• Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.
• A form of Franco-Mongol alliance existed from 1258-1269 between the Frankish Principality of Antioch and the Mongol Empire.
• A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what most historians refer to as attempts towards such an alliance, was the object of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.

Other options are possible too. I'm just tired of constantly suggesting compromises and having PHG shoot them down with vague versions of "No," so I'd really like if he could offer some alternatives, instead of continually repeating the same sentence. --Elonka 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with:

• "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance, ..." as being perfectly Wikipedia:NPOV.
• Srnec's compromise intro (currently in use in the article): "A Franco-Mongol alliance[1][2][3][4][5][6] was the object of a series of diplomatic endeavours..." PHG 12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• • PHG's versions are not acceptable to me, because they are at odds with nearly every single historian's view on the subject. See User:Elonka/Mongol historians (please, actually click on the link and look at the table at the top). I have a summary of the views of dozens of historians, followed by the exact quotes from their respective books and articles. For example, the Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire starts off the section on "Western Europe and the Mongols" (which is the exact same topic as our own Wikipedia article), with this opening sentence: "Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam." That is an excellent summary of the prevailing opinion of modern historians, and that is what our Wikipedia article should emulate. To try and say otherwise, is being misleading to our readers, is flying in the face of the consensus of other Wikipedia editors, and is just PHG trying to force his own biased POV. --Elonka 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, Elonka, you are denying the numerous historians who do speak about the alliance as fact (and not "just attempts"), see again User:PHG/Alliance. Your denial of a major scholarly view in favour of your POV is cannot be an acceptable position. Only a balanced presentation of both views as per Wikipedia:NPOV is possible. Regards. PHG 11:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Article rewrite

See /On hold#Article rewrite (for now).

I'm putting this on hold for right now. We can't even agree on an introductory sentence, so it's certainly not time to ask for an agreement on the change to the whole article. I have some comments about this, but I'll save them for after we get the all-important intro sentence squared away. -- tariqabjotu 04:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

See /Archive#Article rewrite.

The mediation is here

See /Archive#The mediation is here.

Concluded with agreement on the following opening sentence:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.

-- tariqabjotu 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Next issue

I am of course still open to the possibility of compromise on the introductory sentence, but since we seem to be going around in circles, could we perhaps move on (or at the same time) discuss one of the other actual "issues to be mediated"? For example, there's a continuing dispute about which sources are reliable, and which are not. I would welcome discussions on:

• Which sources are appropriate to use in the article
• How much information to include in the article on perpipheral issues (for example, PHG's claim that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem)
• How to split the article

If PHG would like to bring up other issues as well (for example, he is repeatedly accusing me of "corrupting" sources at Talk:Laurent Dailliez), I am happy to discuss those too. I would especially enjoy a discussion about PHG's interpretation of the sources at User:PHG/Alliance, as in my opinion there are some gross misinterpretations on that page. Perhaps it might be worth making a list of historians that we both agree are reliable, and that we both agree on their interpretations? --Elonka 00:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to keep the opening sentence discussion no less open than it was before, but want to concurrently begin working on "Which sources are appropriate to use in the article?" In your opening statement you contest the use of a few sources. Which ones are they? (Also, we're not going to discuss PHG's interpretation of the sources at User:PHG/Alliance expect as they might specifically pertain to the issues listed on the main page of the mediation. Avoid discussing those interpretations for now.) -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Specific sources I have concerns about:

• Using Laurent Dailliez to "explain" that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols. This information came from a book by Dailliez, Les Templiers, that has no sources, no bibliography, and no footnotes. Dailliez has been criticized as someone who likes to "muddy the waters" and state things without sources. Further, the claim from Dailliez's book (about a signed treaty) is not corroborated by any other historian. I think we should remove this claim from the article, and we appear to have a consensus on this at the talkpage. However, PHG has continued to edit war to re-insert the information.
• Using the "back cover" of a book as a source. Marketing copy on a book cover, is not generally reliable
• Using medieval primary sources (such as Templar of Tyre and Hayton of Corycus). PHG has argued that these are "secondary sources" and can be used to source information in the article. I disagree.
• Using the wide variety of primary sources from 1300, to claim that there was a possibility that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem. These sources have been analyzed by modern scholars, and the prevailing opinion is that there were rumors in 1300 that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem, but that the rumors were false. We should stick with the view of modern historians, instead of trying to give more credence to the 1300 documents than the historians do.
• Trying to use a painting from the Versailles as a source for whether or not a battle occurred

I have other concerns too, for example that PHG seems more inclined to source a historian's chapter title, than the actual content within that chapter (example: Peter Jackson's The Mongols and the West), but I think the above are a good batch to start with.

--Elonka 04:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, please stop moving the discussion to other topics. We first have to find an opening phrase, and you have shown no real compromise spirit there. You also have been exposed for extensively corrupting a Dailliez quote on Talk:Laurent Dailliez to try to discredit him, please answer why you do things like that. That's already two big subjects on your plate, and I think we should resolve them before moving on. PHG 06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that it absolutely is my intent to discredit Laurent Dailliez's claim that De Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols. No other historian corroborates this claim, Dailliez's book has no sources, and Dailliez has been known to make false statements. My guess is that he probably just got confused or made a mistake, as it's in one of his early books. To my knowledge, he never repeated the claim in any of his later books (which generally were much better at listing sources). Or as Acer11 put it at Talk:Laurent Dailliez, "When Dailliez is alone to assert something, he's probably wrong." --Elonka 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you confirm that you readily go as far as corrupting an auhor's quote to try to discredit him? I have a big issue with your methods here:PHG 05:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Corruption of Dailliez's quote
	Original text	Elonka's modifications and interpretation
French	Original text: "Les Tatares, après avoir enlevé Damas et plusieurs places importantes aux Turcs, après avoir été mis en déroute à Tibériade par le sultan d'Egypte en 1260, s'allièrent aux Templiers. Jacques de Molay, dans sa lettre au roi d'Angleterre, dit qu'il a été obligé de signer un traité semblable pour lutter contre les musulmans, "notre énemi commun"" Dailliez "Les Templiers, p 306-307	Emendation of the French by Elonka: "Les Tartares...en 1260, s'allierent aux Templiers. Jacques de Molay, dans sa lettre au roi d'Angleterre, dit qu'il a ete oblige de signer un traite sembable pour lutter contre les musulmans, "notre ennemi commun."
English	Direct translation by PHG: "The Mongols, after having taken Damas and other places important to the Turcs, after having been routed at Tiberiad by the sultan of Egypt in 1260, allied with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the king of England, said that he had to sign a similar treaty to fight against the muslims, "our common enemy"."	Elonka's translation of her emendation: "The Mongols, in 1260, allied with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the King of England, said that he had been obliged to sign a treaty to fight against the Muslims, 'our common enemy"
Interpretation	PHG's response: "What Dailliez actually says is that the Templars allied with the Mongols after 1260 (not in 1260 as Elonka claims), which is essentially right (see Franco-Mongol alliance for details). He also doesn't give 1260 at all for De Molay's signature of a treaty, but only refers to the letter to Edward I in a separate phrase and obviously means circa 1300 (clear from the context, as he dates de Molay's rule as Grand Master from 1292 to 1314). Elonka simply emended/corrupted Dailliez's quote to try to make a point that he was wrong." PHG 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)	Elonka's claim: "Jacques de Molay cannot have signed a treaty with the Muslims in 1260. Jacques de Molay was not Grand Master until 1292. I think: Dailliez made a mistake. There was no treaty. No other historian says there was a treaty. Dailliez's book is a bad source. We should not use it Templiers: Les Inconnus as a source on Wikipedia."

I must have missed the above post appearing on my watchlist yesterday. Anyway... I don't want to get too far off topic here, but I'd like to reaffirm the idea of assuming good faith. You, PHG, are suggesting that Elonka's wording of the piece from the book was malicious. You used insinuating words such as "corrupting" and "methods" and were even more direct when saying "Elonka simply emended/corrupted Dailliez's quote to try to make a point that he was wrong." That kind of rhetoric does not contribute to an amiable environment, and those are especially unwelcome in cases (such as this one) where there is room for a good-faith explanation. An example of a good-faith explanation (and what I really believe is at the root of the discrepancy) follows:

Often times when people say "after X occurred, Y occurred", they mean that Y occurred very soon after X. For instance, if I were to say "after I got home, I took a nap", many (most?) would assume that I took a nap almost as soon as I got home. Not hours later or days later, after doing many other things (even those times are still "after"), but right after. I'm guessing this was the way Elonka saw the piece, "after having been routed at Tiberiad by the sultan of Egypt in 1260, allied with the Templars." From that, one might infer that the alliance occurred very soon after 1260 – certainly not 32 years after. However, as in my example, the sentence does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the author was referring to some time after 1292. This difference in interpretation is, at best, just that – a difference of interpretation. At worst, it's a misinterpretation on Elonka's part; she's obviously not trying to hide the fact that she omitted what she thought was an important part of the quote (given the fact that the periods of ellipses were there), but she may just have misunderstood.

Back to the source, though. Elonka does not use her explanation from above as her sole reason for considering the Dailliez source unworthy. In particular, I would like to focus on the claim that Dailliez's statement that there was a treaty signed is not corroborated by other historians. Can you all speak to that point specifically? (PHG, do you have evidence that suggests that there are other historians that agree or that there is some other reason not to doubt Dailliez? Elonka, would you like to elaborate on your point?) -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would love to have Elonka's take on why she emended Dailliez's quote in that way. It is not a language issue, as she speaks French fairly well (notes on my Talk Page). She was also aware for some time that there was an issue with her emendations, as I pointed out in (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Concerns about Dailliez). It is puzzling that she would again knowingly use the same misinterpretation of that author, to (to use her own words) "discredit Laurent Dailliez". Could Elonka herself explain why? PHG (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, PHG, we are not talking about that anymore. I asked you and Elonka a couple questions and I would request that you (and Elonka) respond to them. Your indignation over Elonka's wording of the quote is not important here. -- tariqabjotu 17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, I fully respect your opinion, and I wish to discuss other topics too, but Elonka evaded discussing this matter on Talk:Laurent Dailliez#Treaty claim, on the justification that it should be discussed here. I am therefore waiting for her explanations here. PHG (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence, I was in Brazil over the last week. I'd thought I would have internet access, but as it turned out, I was wrong. Please accept my apologies.

As for the translation, I am quite willing to accept PHG's translation as being more accurate than mine. But I will still continue to dispute Dailliez's claim that Jacques de Molay (or anyone) ever signed a treaty with the Mongols. This isn't an issue of translation, it's an issue of a major claim being made without any indication of sources, and without any other reliable historians agreeing with the claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and Dailliez simply does not meet that standard. --Elonka 00:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, PHG, do you have any other sources that corrobate the statement by Dailliez that Elonka disputes? -- tariqabjotu 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that it has been established that Laurent Dailliez is a notable historian, whose work is referenced by many reputable authorities, I do not see why we shouldn't attribute that interpretation to him in the text: "According to Laurent Dailliez, de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols" (as it is done today already). It is just a fact about Dailliez's work. Our job at Wikipedia is just to present secondary sources, not to double-guess them with original research. PHG (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG, please answer the mediator's question. --Elonka 06:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I do have something (else) to say in response to your comment, PHG, but I would still like you to answer my question. I asked it eleven days ago and have yet to receive a response. If the answer is no, just say so. -- tariqabjotu 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the answer is no, that's why I have always attributed this interpretation to Dailliez specifically, but there are only very few historians who even discuss this very specific point of the relations between the Mongols and the Templars circa 1300. There are of course plenty of sources speaking about an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols (User:PHG/Alliance), even if not specifically a treaty, but I also don't know about a source specifically denying Dailliez on this point. For his interpretation, Dailliez references the letter from de Molay to Edward I, which is quoted in "Jacques de Molay, dernier maitre du Temple", and which is otherwise refered to by several authorities (Demurger, London, Record Office, LV No22). It is in Medieval Latin though:

"Excellentissimo et potentissimo Domino, domino Eabardo (sic) Dei gratia serenissimo regi Anglie et domino Hibernie et duci Aquitanie et (... Jacobus de Mol)lay Dei gratia humilis magister pauperis milicie Templi salutem et separatum mandatus regis( tota)liter obediri. Quia de (...) edimus quos dominatio regia cup(it or iat) informari ideo eaque ad presens novimus regie majestati per presentes (...) Hanc est quod Casanus Tartarorum rex pungnavit cum domino Portefferi qui esse dicitur suus germanus et Casanus (...) suo exercitu (...) bellavit et extitit deinde de hostibus triumphator. Intelliximus etiam quod in mense septembris pro servicio venturo (...) et trahit in insula Turtesie. Casani et surrum tartarorum adventum attendendo; et per Dei gratiam noster conventus taliter (...)ndo dampna Saracenis et Fragendo casalia eorumdem quod per actum ipsorum casum (...) et votis precipere (...) intendere si altissimus noster (...)tetur his diebus. Nos igitur (...)nam potentiam flexis genibus (...) quod sua pietate ita dignetur dirigere et flaci approbare quod certa negotia Terre Sancte Comoda vel (...) dominationem regiam humiliter deprecamur ut nos nostroque et nostra bona sub protectione regia (...) et noster conventus parati sumus dominationis vestre mandatis totaliter obedire. Data Nomocie IX aprilis."

— Letter from Jacques de Molay to Edward I, London, Record Office, LV No22, transcripted in "Jacques de Molay, dernier maitre du Temple, p.190, Note 65

PHG (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I'm sorry, but it's not about trying to find a source which denies Dailliez. It's about finding secondary sources which agree with Dailliez, and so far there aren't any. Instead, we have many historians who go to great lengths to say that there wasn't an alliance. (see User:Elonka/Mongol historians). As for your list at User:PHG/Alliance, aside from the fact that I strongly dispute your interpretation of some of them, the simple fact remains that none of them talk about a signed treaty either. Also, since you're citing Latin from one book to try and confirm a claim in another book, can you please give more context from the book that does quote the ltter to King Edward? Does that book, Dernier Maitre say anything about a signed treaty? I still maintain that Dailliez's claim is a major one, and if there are no corroborating secondary sources for it, then we should not include that claim on Wikipedia. Per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and Dailliez's claim is not meeting that standard. In order for us to state on Wikipedia that there was a signed treaty, we should have multiple sources which confirm this, not just one dubious statement from an author who has already been criticized for being unreliable. --Elonka 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In the context of numerous authors describing an alliance, with numerous contemporary rulers actually exchanging letters agreeing to an alliance, I do not think that one historian, a specialist of the period, expressing that there was a treaty is anything exceptional. We can just attribute his statement, and say that it is his interpretation of the primary sources. I do not think your e applies here: we are only in the realm of the analysis made by historians of the period. The context is "Jacques de Molay, dans sa lettre au roi d'Angleterre, dit qu'il a été obligé de signer un traité semblable pour lutter contre les musulmans, "Notre enemi commun"" (Les Templiers, Laurent Dailliez, p.307). The letter is given in full extent in Dernier maitre du Temple, Laurent Dailliez, Note 65, p90 (quoted above). The note is attached to a paragraph describing the campaign of Autumn 1300. PHG (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be one thing if PHG were advocating that the article state simply "de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols". However, he is apparently supporting the inclusion of the phrase "According to Laurent Dailliez, de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols", which clearly states which person is advocating this position. I understand, Elonka, that you have produced many sources that, in your opinion, say there was no alliance. However, isn't it conceivable that many of these historians could have known about the treaty and decided that, despite the treaty, there was no alliance? (This is not to say the historians you referenced believe there was a treaty; I'm simply saying that because those historians don't explicitly say there was no treaty, we honestly can't tell whether they believe there was one). So, how about you go with "According to Laurent Dailliez, de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols." and let the remainder of the article speak for the fact that Dailliez is just about the only historian that has explicitly said there was a treaty? If you have a historian who specifically says there was no treaty, you can also place that contrasting viewpoint adjacent to that displayed by Dailliez. -- tariqabjotu 15:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, with all due respect, we're not talking about a minor detail of history here, we're talking about a major fundamental issue. If there was a signed treaty, there was an alliance. It's near impossible to prove a negative. I can't come up with a source that specifically says, "There was no signed treaty," but neither can I come up with a source that says, "The Templars did not land on the moon." However, at User:Elonka/Mongol historians I have over a hundred quotes from reliable historians, who say that there was no alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols. If those historians would have been aware of a signed treaty, they would have said so, they wouldn't have phrased it as "attempts" at an alliance. I simply do not think it is conceivable that if there were a signed treaty between Jacques de Molay and the Mongols, that every single Crusades historian except for Laurent Dailliez simply "neglected to mention it."

I would also point out that one of the centers of Crusades research in the United States is here in St. Louis. I attend regular meetings of Crusades historians at Saint Louis University, meetings which are chaired by Dr. Thomas Madden, who wrote the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Crusades.[1] I have spoken with Dr. Madden about Dailliez, and Madden has never heard of a treaty. I also had the opportunity to recently meet Dr. Malcolm Barber, the world's leading authority on the Knights Templar, and he said he's never heard of a treaty either. It was also pointed out to me that Jacques de Molay wouldn't even be in the position to sign a treaty, as he was simply the head of a military order -- he wasn't a head of state. Him signing a treaty would be like a general signing a treaty instead of the King. But getting away from off-wiki conversation, the overriding Wikipedia policy here is still WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and one historian (Dailliez) saying that there was a signed treaty, when no other historian repeats that claim, and especially when Dailliez already has a reputation for publishing falsehoods, means that we should not be including Dailliez's claim on Wikipedia. If we do include it, it should be very carefully labeled as a fringe minority opinion that is potentially unreliable. For example:

"There is dispute among historians as to the existence or extent of an alliance. The mainstream view is that there was no alliance, and that it is best described as a series of attempts. A few historians have argued there was an actual alliance, but even among those, there is dispute as to the details. The French historian Jean Richard argues that an alliance began around 1263. The French historian Alain Demurger says that an alliance wasn't sealed until 1300. The French historian Laurent Dailliez (notorious for occasionally publishing false or unsourced information) stated that there was an actual signed treaty between Jacques de Molay (Templar GrandMaster from 1292-1312) and the Mongols, but gave no sources, and no other historian has corroborated his claim. Zoe Oldenbourg, in her book about the Crusades in the 1100s, has one line in the back of her book where she says that there was an alliance in 1280, but makes no other mention of it elsewhere."

--Elonka 17:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being far too firm in your position. I understand that you also don't have a source that says "The Templars did not land on the moon", but I doubt anyone has found one that says they did. PHG has presented a source that says there was a treaty, but you have not presented any source that says there wasn't one. Granted, no one has provided a source that corroborates the statement made by Dailliez, but (correct me if I'm wrong, PHG) PHG wants the piece of information to be specifically attributed to Dailliez. Also, I don't know off what you are basing the idea that if there was a treaty, historians would definitively say there was an alliance.

Your conversation with various scholars in your hometown is hardly admissible as it's essentially original research (and I kind of got the impression you knew that). I haven't heard much about the falsehoods for which you say Dailliez is known. Can you elaborate on that piece?

I'm very dismayed by your statement, "If there was a signed treaty, there was an alliance. It's near impossible to prove a negative.", as well as by your proposal in the last paragraph. I thought we had gotten over this hump earlier and decided to table this "is it or is it not an alliance discussion". However, you still are saying – essentially with no reservation – that there was no alliance and that stating there was the contrary (with the treaty) is simply not possible. As was brought up earlier – when we were actually discussing whether there was or was not an alliance – while you have your sources, PHG has User:PHG/Alliance. I'm not willing to let either of these source pages guide the discussion.

I hope you're not serious about the following part of your proposal:

The French historian Laurent Dailliez (notorious for occasionally publishing false or unsourced information) stated that there was an actual signed treaty between Jacques de Molay (Templar GrandMaster from 1292-1312) and the Mongols, but gave no sources, and no other historian has corroborated his claim.

Again, if PHG accepts that sentence, that would be great. However, the sentence essentially reduces Dailliez's credit to less than zero. I understand that may have been your intention, but you are, as I said earlier, being far too dogmatic in your position. The kind of stance espoused in that proposal and the rest of your comment worries me that a the quest toward a compromise on this matter (and, in the long run, this entire issue) will be very frustrating (as if it isn't already). I feel you are not adequately listening to PHG's position: you seem to have decided that Dailliez's statement about the treaty is just plain wrong and so any reference to it must be accompanied with several reasons why he's wrong. Seriously, Elonka, that doesn't seem fair. -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a lot of pseudo-history about the Templars, including claims that they were involved in communications with space aliens, so don't be so sure about that "Templars on the Moon" claim, Tariq. ;) Anyway, regarding Dailliez being unreliable, you are correct that I *do* believe that Dailliez's claim about the treaty is "just plain wrong." I think it's a simple mistake in one of his early books. It's a claim that, to my knowledge, he never repeated in any of his many other books. And there are scholars such as Jean Richard and Alain Demurger and Malcolm Barber and Peter Jackson who put enormous effort into researching exact communications between the Europeans and the Mongols. To say that they would have "left out" something as major as a signed treaty, when they went into enormous detail on other events around that time period, just isn't credible. And, like I said, I've personally talked with some of these authors, and they affirm that they didn't just "leave out" mention of a treaty -- they've never heard of a signed treaty. Getting back to Wikipedia though, I'm not the only person who believes Dailliez is unreliable on this point. We already have talkpage consensus that Dailliez is not reliable. See the summary here and additional comments here. Even Alain Demurger criticized Dailliez for making false claims (like about Jacques de Molay being in charge of a Mongol division). We've discussed Dailliez at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Concerns about Dailliez and at Talk:Laurent Dailliez. If you review the discussions, I think that you'll see that every editor (except for PHG) regards Dailliez as an unreliable source on the claim about a signed treaty. Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:UNDUE, we actually shouldn't include Dailliez's claim on Wikipedia at all, but I'm willing to offer a compromise where we include his claim, as long as it's carefully labeled as potentially unreliable. I think that's very generous on my part, so I'd appreciate if you didn't refer to me as "dogmatic." --Elonka 06:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tariqabjotu for your comments. Frankly, I am very worried to see a sort of Crusade against an historian, who, if sometimes criticized, is also very often referenced by highly reputable historians (which was made clear in the article Laurent Dailliez after many worries were aired: the case of Dailliez is now closed, he was deemed highly referenced and notable, so let's get over that). We are not here to play pseudo-historians and double-guess secondary sources. I would however agree for a sentence which further isolates Dailliez's opinion if necessary: "One historian, Laurent Dailliez, quoting the letter from Jacques de Molay to Edward I,[1] even claims controversally that the Templars actually signed a treaty with the Mongols.[2]" This would warn the reader about possible issues, give the actual epistolary source for reference for future generations, and avoid untasty personal attacks and dirt-throwing ("Unreliable" etc...) on an important French author. PHG (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In Les Templiers, Dailliez doesn't specify which letter it was, nor when it was sent, nor to whom exactly it was sent, so let's not go reading more into the source than what's there. How about, "One (occasionally unreliable) historian, Laurent Dailliez, quoting an unspecified letter from Jacques de Molay to the King of England, even claims controversially that the Templars actually signed a treaty with the Mongols." --Elonka 06:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite untrue. Dailliez does say "Molay in his letter to the King of England" ("Molay, dans sa letter au roi d'Angleterre"), so we know by whom and to whom it was sent. This letter is well known, quoted by numerous authors, and it is also well documented that only one such letter (about Ghazan) was sent by de Molay to Edward (see the list of de Molay's letters in Demurger). Secondly such wording as "unreliable" is unacceptable as this amounts to a personal attack on a notable historian. PHG 06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Which letter is well-known? We have no letter that talks about De Molay signing a treaty. We have documentation of De Molay writing to King Edward, saying that Ghazan was engaging in military actions, but nothing about a signed treaty. --Elonka 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Really Elonka, please cut out the side notes (in your proposals) about how unreliable Dailliez is. -- tariqabjotu 07:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, did you even read the threads that I linked? Laurent Dailliez is a highly unreliable source. He is documented as having inserted false information in his books, with (and I quote Alain Demurger) "mischievous pleasure at muddying the waters." He even tried claiming that De Molay was a Mongol general. He does not meet the WP:RS standard, and we have a clear talkpage consensus, on two different pages now, that Dailliez is not a reliable source for this "signed treaty" claim. It would be irresponsible for us to simply list him as a reputable historian, when he's not. --Elonka 07:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't address this criticism by interjecting with vague descriptors (e.g. "one (occasionally unreliable) historian...", "notorious for occasionally publishing false or unsourced information") that say nothing concrete and sound more like someone (more specifically, some Wikipedian) inserting his or her opinion into the piece. Perhaps a more appropriate way to note the criticism is by saying something to the effect of:

Historian Laurent Dailliez, quoting the letter from Jacques de Molay to Edward I, even claims that the Templars actually signed a treaty with the Mongols. However, [other scholars] note/mention/say... [opposing opinion or statements]

That way you are attributing the statements of unreliability or disagreement to more reputable persons – historians and others knowledgeable in the field – rather than matter-of-factly stating that Dailliez is "occasionally unreliable" even before you say his name. -- tariqabjotu 08:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I can include sources (and already did, at Laurent Dailliez and related talkpages), but I have just been leaving them off in this mediation discussion, in the interest of brevity. To be more specific though, if we have to include Dailliez (and I'm still maintaining that we shouldn't list him at all, but I'm trying to find a compromise here):

One controversial historian, Laurent Dailliez (occasionally criticized as being unreliable), in his 1972 book Les Templiers, stated that according to an unspecified letter from Jacques de Molay to the "King of England", the Templars had actually signed a treaty with the Mongols. However, this claim has not been corroborated by any other historian, and no specific letter has been associated with this claim.

--Elonka 09:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I agree with Tariqabjotu that you should cut the "unreliable" stuff. I don't think you have any source that actual says that Dailliez is "unreliable" or even "controversial": these terms are inventions of yours and therefore constitute original research. You do have some examples of Dailliez's interpretations being disputed, but it is in the nature of historians to dispute each other's opinions anyway. Even Demurger recognizes that Dailliez is "usually serious". The letter in question is also perfectly known and identified. In summary, your proposed sentenced is highly POV and inexact. The best I could offer is:

""One historian, Laurent Dailliez, quoting the letter from Jacques de Molay to Edward I,[1] even claims controversally that the Templars actually signed a treaty with the Mongols,[2] although this claim has not been repeated by other historians."PHG 06:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on PHG, don't go inserting information that isn't even in the original source. By your own translation of Dailliez's page in your table above,[2] Dailliez says nothing about Edward I, and does not specify any particular letter. Better would be: One controversial historian, Laurent Dailliez (criticized for such things as "mischievously muddying the waters"), in his 1972 book Les Templiers, quotes an unspecified letter from Jacques de Molay to the King of England, and claims that the Templars actually signed a treaty with the Mongols. However, this claim has not been repeated by any other historian, and no specific letter has ever been associated with this claim. --Elonka 07:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Edward I was king of England for all this period, so there cannot be any ambiguity. De Molay's letter in Latin is also adressed to "Edward, king of England". There is also only one known letter from de Molay to Edward where he write abouts the Mongols (Demurger). PHG (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of dispute

See /Archive#Expansion of dispute

The "it's his fault / it's her fault" discussions have no place in this mediation, and yet this is far from the first time I have had to archive or outright delete such pieces. Last warning; if either of you have no interest in proceeding with this mediation in good faith, I would be glad to close it. Please, let's not waste everyone's time. -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Currently, the Franco-Mongol alliance article has been under protection for nearly a month.[3] In my opinion, and per WP:PROTECT, this is not what protection is for. I also have to admit that I feel that the page being protected, is causing this mediation to drag out longer than necessary. From my point of view, many editors have expressed valid concerns about the length of the article, as well as concerns about the reliability of some of the sources being used on the article. PHG has resisted talkpage consensus on multiple points, refused to mediate on some of them, and has in general insisted on maintaining control of the page, to the point of doing fullscale reverts of good faith edits.[4] Since the article is currently protected at "his" version, there's no real need for him to participate in good faith here at mediation. What I'd like to see, if possible, is if we could unprotect the page, and put it in the form that is currently recommended by talkpage consensus, plus any agreements that we've made so far here at mediation. I've tried to present a consensus version at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance, and would like to see about getting this copied over to the "live" page, as recommended at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite. We can still definitely continue discussions here at mediation, but I'm hoping that if we make the page "active" again, it'll speed things up, rather than the dribbles of "one post every couple days" that we're currently enduring. I would also point out that when PHG reluctantly agreed to mediation a month ago, he was very specific that he would only agree to a limited subset of issues in mediation. As for the other issues with the article, they are now in a limbo where they cannot be resolved at all if the page is in a state of permanent protection, and they can't be resolved if we're not allowed to talk about them at mediation, so we end up with a kind of "Catch-22" situation.

At this rate, the page could end up protected indefinitely, and I'd like to see what we can do to avoid that fate. So, what needs to happen in order to get the page unprotected in a timely manner? --Elonka 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, this page has been protected because you started implementing some major changes without waiting for their resolution in this mediation. If you wish to see the mediation move faster, maybe you could try being less dogmatic (the term is not mine) in your debates. PHG 06:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

PHG, please stop with the name-calling. Just because someone else has engaged in personal attacks, doesn't give you the right to do the same thing. What would be more helpful at this point would be if you could actually articulate what problems that you have with my rewritten version at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. It has been my sincere effort to make that page reflect consensus. If you don't think it reflects consensus, can you please state what exactly your concerns are? Then at least we can move forward on trying to resolve them. --Elonka 07:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As you wish, I have unprotected the page. However, as you both probably can see from your watchlists, I have also closed this mediation. The section immediately preceding this one noted a last warning regarding the persistent finger-pointing. I'm adhering to that. I have other things to say about both of your approaches to this mediation (as well as Elonka's suggestion that "dogmatic" is a personal attack), but I have no desire to say them right now. -- tariqabjotu 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Adding this section, so that references will display properly...