Wed 20th February 2008, 5:04pm
I agree with you, the problem is what I already discribed elsewhere in this forum, the footnoting process. There are two sort of people who engage in OR, those who do it unintentionally and those who do it intentionally. PHG has probably passed several hours to gether the sources and he is just too stubborn to let it go. 2/3 of the material from that article should probably be deleted, it's long, there is no way to write that much about some obscure not well recorded moment of history without doing OR. On the other hand Elonka version isen't satisfactorry either, so I don't see how she can claim concensus when most of those who voted didn't like both versions.
To fix the problem they should rely on the concept of Reference rather than Footnoting, every real encyclopedia do this. The footnoting system is overused and abused, with such a system you can say almost anything you want.
About the alliance, there was an alliance, it is recorded, but it never was really official, both had common goals, the problem is the way PHG puts it. Sometimes when you write articles you don't see the problem yourself, it's always easier to see the problem with other editors articles.
Elonka behavior is even more problematic, she discredited one of those who criticized her position claiming that that person was placed on restriction so that persons word should be taken with a grant of salt. I haven't seen that being presented in the evidences, but refusing to address arguments by such a cheap way are the sort of things which kill discussion.
I can make Elonka eat her words there by showing her how arguments weren't addressed by claiming that the person who brought it is banned, when obviously the banned user was right.
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 20th February 2008, 10:58am)
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 19th February 2008, 10:20pm)
This seems to be boiling down to one thing: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
is still on the books.
It seems that some people think that this Franco-Mongol alliance existed, others don't. There are, however, sources which support the information that PHG is trying to add to the so-called encyclopedia....
If these things are sourced, then what does it change that this information is included? And, more interestingly, why does Elonka want this information to be suppressed???
I'll venture a guess: it's simply that she wants to be the site expert on this period, so she's going to try to make this editor commit Wiki-harikari
Why not just let the guy have his pages, since they are indeed sourced? What does this change? Why is this such an issue?
Well, see this Featured Article Review
and this statement
by Blnguyen (who has recused from the case). Frank-Mongol is not the first time PHG has done this, and apparently actual checks of his citations in the previous case also found they were misleading. Xidaf may be right that this is original research by accident rather than design, but PHG appears to have problems weighing sources of different reliability, synthesis, and definite problems with stubborness and article ownership (putting the disputed references back into Indo-Greek_Kingdom after the FAR closed, for example). If you're cherry-picking quotes from ancient sources and using them out of context to support a view that modern historians think is bunk, and you are not willing to reference the modern historians, there is a problem there.
PHG has created POV forks
3) PHG has created POV forks including: Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, Mongol alliances in the Middle-East, Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations), Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304) and Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300). These articles were deleted through the Articles for Deletion process.
That's a serious issue, apprently he's being disruptive.