1670:"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."
1805:, 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. --
126:-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 Knowledge (XXG) 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
2575:. 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.
2026:
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
2563:, 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.
467:
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. --
187:, 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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
341:
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? --
2009:
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. --
92:, 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:
1975:. 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.
1458:
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.
88:. 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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
1447:
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:
1228:, 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.
115:, 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: -->
1865:, 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 Knowledge (XXG) policy here is still
1666:), 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:
307:
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, Knowledge (XXG) accepts long articles in some cases ("Occasional exceptions: Two exceptions are lists, and articles summarizing certain fields", in
2701:"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
1377:"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""
2357:
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:
1439:: "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 Knowledge (XXG)."
1983:
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
1401:"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"."
854:(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. --
723:
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.
2067:, we actually shouldn't include Dailliez's claim on Knowledge (XXG) 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." --
1720:, 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
2707:
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,
1821:
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
1307:
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
1196:
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
734:
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
445:
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
306:
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
302:
Reliable sources: if
Knowledge (XXG) 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
293:"All Knowledge (XXG) 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".
1826:
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
1609:
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
370:
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
1561:
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
1463:
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
1426:
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
781:
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 Knowledge (XXG) NPOV style, with an aim at describing the globality of the
630:
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,
340:
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
153:
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
101:
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
2530:
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
2025:
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
1446:
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
297:
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
195:
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
2640:
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
1661:
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
1452:
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
722:
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
2098:
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
2030:
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 Knowledge (XXG) though, I'm not the only person who believes Dailliez is unreliable on this point. We already have talkpage consensus that
1157:
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
213:
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
2246:
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)
466:
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
2356:
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
1898:
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
1763:
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
1076:
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. --
589:, 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
254:
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
2566:
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
2008:
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
1457:
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
315:
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)
1982:
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
2614:
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
837:
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. --
599:
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
2596:
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.
1978:
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
816:
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. --
228:, 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".
2269:
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. --
1484:
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
666:
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,
1768:
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""
776:
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
608:
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
118:, etc.) In my opinion, just because a fact is verifiable, doesn't mean we need to include it on Knowledge (XXG). 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.
2479:
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).
933:
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.
166:. 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
43:
Deciding on a common understanding of Knowledge (XXG)'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
2689:"Laurent Dailliez (who has taken mischievous pleasure in muddying the waters) affirms that Jacques de Molay was one of the three generals in the Mongol army, and would have had the honour of victoriously entering the Holy City." Demurger, p. 203
371:
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
298:
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".
2230:
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.
2093:
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
2170:
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
1014:
is what our Knowledge (XXG) article should emulate. To try and say otherwise, is being misleading to our readers, is flying in the face of the consensus of other Knowledge (XXG) editors, and is just PHG trying to force his own biased POV.
2361:""One historian, Laurent Dailliez, quoting the letter from Jacques de Molay to Edward I, even claims controversally that the Templars actually signed a treaty with the Mongols, although this claim has not been repeated by other historians."
249:
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
2184:
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.
383:
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.
1464:
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?) --
2619:. 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. --
1245:
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
2115:
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.
223:
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
1511:
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. --
593:
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.
1289:
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
182:
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
2420:
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
2523:
1112:
1096:
499:
335:
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
327:
28:
1639:
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. --
998:(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
1387:"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."
1562:
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. --
1250:
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
1180:, 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? --
2310:
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
259:
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 Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to work.
246:
2578:
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? --
1410:"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"
2175:) 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.
1971:
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
1736:, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and Dailliez's claim is not meeting that standard. In order for us to state on Knowledge (XXG) that there was a signed treaty, we should have
1827:
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."
923:, 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
801:. 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? --
1801:
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 "
1489:). 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?
430:
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. --
245:
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
1873:
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 Knowledge (XXG). If we
58:
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). --
2135:, 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, "
1919:, 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.
1308:
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
1259:
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
2051:. 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
1008:
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.
39:
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:
1294:
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.
1844:
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
1558:
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.
2641:
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. --
1068:
518:
1128:, 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
205:
Regarding the concept of using quotes from medieval historians, their works fall under the category of historical documents, which are "primary sources". See
795:
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.
2290:
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
631:
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
1422:: "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
1201:
expect as they might specifically pertain to the issues listed on the main page of the mediation. Avoid discussing those interpretations for now.) --
414:
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. --
1042:. 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
692:
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. --
47:
Deciding which sources are reliable secondary sources, and which are not (example: back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview, etc.
2403:
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,
17:
1712:
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
981:
Srnec's compromise intro (currently in use in the article): "A Franco-Mongol alliance was the object of a series of diplomatic endeavours..."
146:
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:
102:
reason to have to resort to unreliable sources, especially on controversial issues, when we have so much other material that we can draw from.
2043:
criticized Dailliez for making false claims (like about Jacques de Molay being in charge of a Mongol division). We've discussed Dailliez at
1335:
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:
2247:
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:
1038:
Of course, Elonka, you are denying the numerous historians who do speak about the alliance as fact (and not "just attempts"), see again
196:"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.
1857:
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.
509:
285:
1165:
How much information to include in the article on perpipheral issues (for example, PHG's claim that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem)
2226:) "mischievous pleasure at muddying the waters." He even tried claiming that De Molay was a Mongol general. He does not meet the
1740:
sources which confirm this, not just one dubious statement from an author who has already been criticized for being unreliable. --
994:
PHG's versions are not acceptable to me, because they are at odds with nearly every single historian's view on the subject. See
1540:
Tariqabjotu, I fully respect your opinion, and I wish to discuss other topics too, but Elonka evaded discussing this matter on
2677:"L. Dailliez… cites … with no reference, as is usually the case with this author." Demurger, p. 231, footnote #46 to Chapter 3
2652:
2629:
2601:
2588:
2542:
2489:
2433:
2366:
2327:
2281:
2241:
2213:
2195:
2179:
2157:
2125:
2077:
2020:
1950:
1915:(Templar GrandMaster from 1292-1312) and the Mongols, but gave no sources, and no other historian has corroborated his claim.
1816:
1786:
1750:
1696:
1651:
1634:
1619:
1596:
1572:
1553:
1523:
1498:
1475:
1431:
1339:
1322:
1298:
1276:
1212:
1190:
1147:
1088:
1050:
1025:
985:
944:
880:
864:
849:
828:
811:
786:
747:
727:
703:
677:
661:
649:
536:
477:
457:
440:
425:
394:
352:
270:
140:
69:
2294:
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):
2003:(Templar GrandMaster from 1292-1312) and the Mongols, but gave no sources, and no other historian has corroborated his claim.
1999:(notorious for occasionally publishing false or unsourced information) stated that there was an actual signed treaty between
1911:(notorious for occasionally publishing false or unsourced information) stated that there was an actual signed treaty between
1777:, Laurent Dailliez, Note 65, p90 (quoted above). The note is attached to a paragraph describing the campaign of Autumn 1300.
1728:
say anything about a signed treaty? I still maintain that Dailliez's claim is a major one, and if there are no corroborating
158:
at an alliance. It was a hope, a project, a possibility, but not an actual alliance, and it is misleading to say that there
1869:. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and one historian (Dailliez) saying that there was a signed treaty, when
1877:
include it, it should be very carefully labeled as a fringe minority opinion that is potentially unreliable. For example:
1823:
1713:
995:
163:
1172:
If PHG would like to bring up other issues as well (for example, he is repeatedly accusing me of "corrupting" sources at
2626:
2616:
2585:
2568:
2430:
2324:
2238:
2192:
2154:
2074:
1947:
1747:
1631:
1610:
work. Our job at Knowledge (XXG) is just to present secondary sources, not to double-guess them with original research.
1569:
1319:
1273:
1187:
1022:
941:
861:
808:
744:
674:
646:
474:
437:
391:
267:
137:
1242:). PHG has argued that these are "secondary sources" and can be used to source information in the article. I disagree.
1176:), I am happy to discuss those too. I would especially enjoy a discussion about PHG's interpretation of the sources at
797:
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
130:
figure out ways of successfully dealing with conflict though, I think that we could make a very strong team, indeed. --
2572:
2044:
2036:
2032:
1486:
798:
376:
372:
242:
237:
Lastly, I dispute PHG's interpretation that he is "resisting a few individuals." C'mon, PHG, you have been resisting
93:
2222:
is a highly unreliable source. He is documented as having inserted false information in his books, with (and I quote
1224:
to "explain" that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols. This information came from a book by Dailliez,
358:
It's not about whether or not to present both views. Of course we should present both views. The issue is one of
303:
particular, Medieval historians, especially when quoted by modern secondary sources, seem to me totally acceptable.
617:, allowing the Muslims to obtain a major and historic success against the Mongols later that same year, at 1260's
1822:
treaty," but neither can I come up with a source that says, "The Templars did not land on the moon." However, at
627:
188:
2145:
to the King of England, even claims controversially that the Templars actually signed a treaty with the Mongols.
308:
590:
184:
1683:, London, Record Office, LV No22, transcripted in "Jacques de Molay, dernier maitre du Temple, p.190, Note 65
1850:
907:
563:
1585:
Well, PHG, do you have any other sources that corrobate the statement by Dailliez that Elonka disputes? --
1544:, on the justification that it should be discussed here. I am therefore waiting for her explanations here.
2553:
1845:
1423:
778:
582:
2264:, even claims that the Templars actually signed a treaty with the Mongols. However, note/mention/say...
2048:
1541:
1309:
1291:
1231:
Using the "back cover" of a book as a source. Marketing copy on a book cover, is not generally reliable
1173:
80:
This is one of the core issues of the dispute, is the question of neutrality, especially as relating to
2202:
Really Elonka, please cut out the side notes (in your proposals) about how unreliable Dailliez is. --
586:
2560:
2060:
1866:
1733:
112:
51:
2567:
agreements that we've made so far here at mediation. I've tried to present a consensus version at
2406:
Dailliez says nothing about Edward I, and does not specify any particular letter. Better would be:
618:
405:
an alliance, so it is inappropriate for the article to push the POV that most historians say there
366:
an alliance, so it is inappropriate for the article to push the POV that most historians say there
111:, I'd rather see it reduced to less than half that. This could be done either by splitting it per
869:
Did I miss something? Why have you abandoned your statement from 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)? --
85:
2064:
359:
170:
said that there was an alliance. In fact, I have a source (David Morgan, in the 2nd edition of
89:
81:
1984:
1717:
1663:
1239:
1198:
1177:
1039:
2571:, and would like to see about getting this copied over to the "live" page, as recommended at
1764:
statement, and say that it is his interpretation of the primary sources. I do not think your
1254:
Trying to use a painting from the Versailles as a source for whether or not a battle occurred
1043:
975:
206:
108:
2643:
2623:
2582:
2533:
2427:
2417:
2409:
2321:
2307:
2299:
2287:
2272:
2257:
2253:
2235:
2219:
2204:
2189:
2151:
2142:
2138:
2106:
2102:
2095:
2071:
2011:
2000:
1996:
1944:
1912:
1908:
1807:
1744:
1676:
1642:
1628:
1606:
1587:
1566:
1514:
1466:
1316:
1270:
1221:
1203:
1184:
1138:
1079:
1019:
938:
885:
Abandoned? Not at all. I would still be happy to use any of the following intro sentences:
871:
858:
840:
819:
805:
741:
694:
671:
643:
527:
471:
448:
434:
416:
388:
343:
264:
134:
60:
225:
149:
I have not been insisting on "attempts only", I have been insisting that "attempts" is the
2113:, even claims controversally that the Templars actually signed a treaty with the Mongols."
1862:
1235:
1129:
924:
894:
210:
2227:
2056:
375:, and that everyone was in agreement with, except for PHG. We've also discussed this via
123:
2223:
2040:
1916:
1904:
1858:
179:
2412:(criticized for such things as "mischievously muddying the waters"), in his 1972 book
2052:
209:. If necessary, I can go into great detail about why medieval historians such as the
2485:
2121:
1782:
1692:
1615:
1549:
1494:
911:
571:
546:
How does this sound? I've made a genuine effort to include both my and PHG's views:
167:
1010:" That is an excellent summary of the prevailing opinion of modern historians, and
585:
formally submitted to Mongol overlordship, under the influence of his father-in-law
1900:
525:
This section has been put on hold until we get around to addressing this point. --
122:
Ultimately, I'd like to say that I firmly believe that this can be a great, even a
782:
article could be both satisfying as an NPOV and effective introductory statement.
446:
of vague language and conjecture (including "probably a typo" -- not useful). --
2620:
2579:
2424:
2318:
2232:
2186:
2148:
2068:
1941:
1741:
1625:
1563:
1313:
1267:
1181:
1016:
935:
855:
802:
738:
668:
640:
468:
431:
385:
261:
131:
1855:
1732:
sources for it, then we should not include that claim on Knowledge (XXG). Per
635:
by 1303, and a treaty of peace between the Mongols and the Mamluks in 1322.
632:
567:
379:, and again, everyone agrees that the consensus of historians is that there
1987:. I'm not willing to let either of these source pages guide the discussion.
893:
between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the
613:, entered into a passive truce with their traditional enemies the Egyptian
117:, there is no record of any reply, he sent another letter on <date: -->
2598:
2481:
2476:
2363:
2261:
2176:
2117:
2110:
1778:
1688:
1680:
1611:
1545:
1490:
1428:
1336:
1295:
1158:
sources are reliable, and which are not. I would welcome discussions on:
1047:
1002:
starts off the section on "Western Europe and the Mongols" (which is the
982:
783:
724:
658:
50:
Deciding if or how to best split this article into manageable sections,
1312:, "When Dailliez is alone to assert something, he's probably wrong." --
974:"An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance, ..." as being perfectly
614:
578:
2172:
1907:
says that an alliance wasn't sealed until 1300. The French historian
732:
I'll agree to remove the words "form of", which would leave us with:
1990:
I hope you're not serious about the following part of your proposal:
1773:, Laurent Dailliez, p.307). The letter is given in full extent in
1006:
as our own Knowledge (XXG) article), with this opening sentence: "
605:
575:
2663:
Adding this section, so that references will display properly...
1848:, meetings which are chaired by Dr. Thomas Madden, who wrote the
1704:
PHG, I'm sorry, but it's not about trying to find a source which
178:
have been an alliance, not that there was one. The statements of
2302:(occasionally criticized as being unreliable), in his 1972 book
1903:
argues that an alliance began around 1263. The French historian
610:
601:
559:
555:
174:) who describes Grousset's interpretation as arguing that there
1427:
Dailliez's quote to try to make a point that he was wrong."
1120:
Concluded with agreement on the following opening sentence:
519:/On hold#Article split to History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)
793:
Alright, then let's fall back to the talkpage consensus of
2286:
Yes, of course I can include sources (and already did, at
1765:
1263:), but I think the above are a good batch to start with.
2564:
2557:
2404:
1343:
107:
The article is currently much too long, at ~150K. Per
2556:
article has been under protection for nearly a month.
2306:, stated that according to an unspecified letter from
2166:
Wow, that's quite untrue. Dailliez does say "Molay in
1708:
Dailliez. It's about finding secondary sources which
1662:
about an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols (
2218:
Tariq, did you even read the threads that I linked?
2045:
Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Concerns about Dailliez
1487:
Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Concerns about Dailliez
1162:
Which sources are appropriate to use in the article
241:. Every single comment from another editor in the
1724:quote the ltter to King Edward? Does that book,
1453:things (even those times are still "after"), but
799:Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction sentence
362:. The vast majority of historians say there was
284:Let me quote one of the opening sentences of the
2531:it. Please, let's not waste everyone's time. --
1668:
291:
2697:
2695:
2685:
2683:
2673:
2671:
1624:PHG, please answer the mediator's question. --
1000:Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire
401:The vast majority of historians say there was
8:
906:existed from 1258-1269 between the Frankish
311:), and I think the latter case applies here.
2573:Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for mediation
2031:Dailliez is not reliable. See the summary
889:Many attempts were made towards forming a
191:who devotes an entire chapter in his book
2137:One (occasionally unreliable) historian,
1363:Elonka's modifications and interpretation
1346:
1234:Using medieval primary sources (such as
1217:Specific sources I have concerns about:
735:I of Armenia, who had submitted in 1247.
2667:
1861:, the world's leading authority on the
1605:Now that it has been established that
1406:Elonka's translation of her emendation
2141:, quoting an unspecified letter from
286:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
7:
2416:, quotes an unspecified letter from
255:against the world"? I want to work
1379:Dailliez "Les Templiers, p 306-307
1303:You are correct that it absolutely
2617:User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance
2569:User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance
1542:Talk:Laurent Dailliez#Treaty claim
1383:Emendation of the French by Elonka
510:History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)
116:, it was received on <date: -->
24:
1197:interpretation of the sources at
574:against their common enemy the
154:historians say that there were
1899:details. The French historian
1348:Corruption of Dailliez's quote
1113:/Archive#The mediation is here
1:
2543:16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2524:/Archive#Expansion of dispute
2408:One controversial historian,
2298:One controversial historian,
2158:06:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
2126:06:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
2078:06:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
2021:05:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1951:17:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
1824:User:Elonka/Mongol historians
1817:15:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
1803:According to Laurent Dailliez
1787:06:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
1751:16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
1714:User:Elonka/Mongol historians
1697:05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
1652:07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
1635:06:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
1620:06:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
1597:16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
1573:00:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
1554:18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1524:17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1499:09:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1476:05:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
1432:06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1340:05:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1323:07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1299:06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1277:04:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
1213:02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
1191:00:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
1148:19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1051:11:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
996:User:Elonka/Mongol historians
537:02:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
164:User:Elonka/Mongol historians
2653:16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
2630:07:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
2602:06:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
2589:19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2490:06:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
2434:07:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
2367:06:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
2328:09:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2282:08:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2242:07:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2214:07:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2196:07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2180:06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
1360:
1355:
1353:
1089:04:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
1026:17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
986:12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
945:20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
881:19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
865:17:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
850:16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
829:16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
812:16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
787:11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
748:17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
728:11:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
704:02:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
678:13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
662:12:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
650:21:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
478:04:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
458:04:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
441:04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
426:04:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
395:04:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
353:03:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
309:Knowledge (XXG):Article size
373:the talkpage of the article
271:21:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
214:reliable secondary source."
141:18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
94:User:Elonka/Mongol quickref
70:15:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2728:
2256:, quoting the letter from
2105:, quoting the letter from
1397:Direct translation by PHG
29:/Archive#Before mediation
2035:and additional comments
1854:article on the Crusades.
1775:Dernier maitre du Temple
1716:). As for your list at
1261:The Mongols and the West
1168:How to split the article
1097:/Archive#Article rewrite
1069:/On hold#Article rewrite
2559:In my opinion, and per
1851:Encyclopedia Britannica
908:Principality of Antioch
564:Principality of Antioch
2554:Franco-Mongol alliance
2266:
2005:
1846:Saint Louis University
1686:
1424:Franco-Mongol alliance
1134:
1126:Franco-Mongol alliance
1046:is possible. Regards.
921:Franco-Mongol alliance
904:Franco-Mongol alliance
891:Franco-Mongol alliance
779:Franco-Mongol alliance
637:
604:, when most of Muslim
583:Bohemond VI of Antioch
552:Franco-Mongol alliance
411:
295:
2705:, p 306-307 (trans: "
2250:
2049:Talk:Laurent Dailliez
1995:The French historian
1993:
1310:Talk:Laurent Dailliez
1292:Talk:Laurent Dailliez
1174:Talk:Laurent Dailliez
1122:
1105:The mediation is here
562:between the Frankish
548:
399:
2516:Expansion of dispute
1044:Knowledge (XXG):NPOV
976:Knowledge (XXG):NPOV
657:See comments above.
587:Hethoum I of Armenia
193:Mongols and the West
619:Battle of Ain Jalut
500:/Archive#References
1871:no other historian
626:The Mongols again
462:I think that many
328:/Archive#Off track
162:an alliance. See
35:Opening statements
2708:"our common enemy
2028:personally talked
1985:User:PHG/Alliance
1718:User:PHG/Alliance
1664:User:PHG/Alliance
1443:
1442:
1240:Hayton of Corycus
1199:User:PHG/Alliance
1178:User:PHG/Alliance
1040:User:PHG/Alliance
542:Opening paragraph
508:Article split to
2719:
2711:
2699:
2690:
2687:
2678:
2675:
2649:
2646:
2539:
2536:
2418:Jacques de Molay
2410:Laurent Dailliez
2308:Jacques de Molay
2300:Laurent Dailliez
2288:Laurent Dailliez
2278:
2275:
2258:Jacques de Molay
2254:Laurent Dailliez
2220:Laurent Dailliez
2210:
2207:
2143:Jacques de Molay
2139:Laurent Dailliez
2107:Jacques de Molay
2103:Laurent Dailliez
2101:"One historian,
2096:Laurent Dailliez
2017:
2014:
2001:Jacques de Molay
1997:Laurent Dailliez
1913:Jacques de Molay
1909:Laurent Dailliez
1813:
1810:
1684:
1677:Jacques de Molay
1648:
1645:
1607:Laurent Dailliez
1593:
1590:
1520:
1517:
1472:
1469:
1344:
1222:Laurent Dailliez
1209:
1206:
1144:
1141:
1085:
1082:
1004:exact same topic
877:
874:
846:
843:
825:
822:
700:
697:
533:
530:
454:
451:
422:
419:
349:
346:
66:
63:
2727:
2726:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2718:
2717:
2716:
2715:
2714:
2700:
2693:
2688:
2681:
2676:
2669:
2661:
2647:
2644:
2552:Currently, the
2550:
2548:Page protection
2537:
2534:
2518:
2276:
2273:
2208:
2205:
2015:
2012:
1863:Knights Templar
1811:
1808:
1685:
1674:
1646:
1643:
1591:
1588:
1518:
1515:
1470:
1467:
1416:Interpretation
1236:Templar of Tyre
1207:
1204:
1155:
1142:
1139:
1130:Seventh Crusade
1107:
1083:
1080:
1063:
1061:Article rewrite
925:Seventh Crusade
895:Seventh Crusade
875:
872:
844:
841:
823:
820:
698:
695:
544:
531:
528:
513:
494:
452:
449:
420:
417:
347:
344:
322:
281:
211:Templar of Tyre
77:
64:
61:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2725:
2723:
2713:
2712:
2691:
2679:
2666:
2665:
2660:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2549:
2546:
2528:
2527:
2517:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2358:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2267:
2248:
2224:Alain Demurger
2200:
2199:
2198:
2161:
2160:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2041:Alain Demurger
2006:
1991:
1988:
1980:
1976:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1917:Zoe Oldenbourg
1905:Alain Demurger
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1859:Malcolm Barber
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1726:Dernier Maitre
1672:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1637:
1600:
1599:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1559:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1479:
1478:
1460:
1459:
1449:
1448:
1441:
1440:
1437:Elonka's claim
1434:
1420:PHG's response
1417:
1413:
1412:
1403:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1380:
1370:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1359:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1334:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1264:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1252:
1243:
1232:
1229:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1154:
1151:
1118:
1117:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1074:
1073:
1062:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
989:
988:
979:
970:I am OK with:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
931:
930:
929:
916:
899:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
623:
622:
596:
595:
554:occurred from
543:
540:
523:
522:
512:
506:
505:
504:
493:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
412:
333:
332:
321:
318:
313:
312:
304:
290:
289:
280:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
232:
231:
230:
229:
218:
217:
216:
215:
200:
199:
198:
197:
180:Alain Demurger
120:
119:
104:
103:
98:
97:
76:
73:
56:
55:
48:
45:
36:
33:
32:
31:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2724:
2709:
2704:
2703:Les Templiers
2698:
2696:
2692:
2686:
2684:
2680:
2674:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2658:
2654:
2651:
2650:
2639:
2638:
2631:
2628:
2625:
2622:
2618:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2603:
2600:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2587:
2584:
2581:
2576:
2574:
2570:
2565:
2562:
2558:
2555:
2547:
2545:
2544:
2541:
2540:
2526:
2525:
2520:
2519:
2515:
2491:
2487:
2483:
2478:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2435:
2432:
2429:
2426:
2422:
2419:
2414:Les Templiers
2413:
2411:
2405:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2368:
2365:
2362:
2359:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2329:
2326:
2323:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2309:
2304:Les Templiers
2303:
2301:
2296:
2295:
2293:
2289:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2280:
2279:
2268:
2265:
2263:
2259:
2255:
2249:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2240:
2237:
2234:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2212:
2211:
2201:
2197:
2194:
2191:
2188:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2178:
2174:
2169:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2159:
2156:
2153:
2150:
2146:
2144:
2140:
2134:
2133:Les Templiers
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2123:
2119:
2114:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2097:
2079:
2076:
2073:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2029:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2019:
2018:
2007:
2004:
2002:
1998:
1992:
1989:
1986:
1981:
1977:
1974:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1952:
1949:
1946:
1943:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1920:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1853:
1852:
1847:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1825:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1815:
1814:
1804:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1771:Les Templiers
1767:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1752:
1749:
1746:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1682:
1678:
1671:
1667:
1665:
1653:
1650:
1649:
1638:
1636:
1633:
1630:
1627:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1608:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1598:
1595:
1594:
1584:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1565:
1560:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1525:
1522:
1521:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1477:
1474:
1473:
1462:
1461:
1456:
1451:
1450:
1445:
1444:
1438:
1435:
1433:
1430:
1425:
1421:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1411:
1407:
1404:
1402:
1398:
1395:
1392:
1391:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1373:Original text
1371:
1368:
1367:
1364:
1358:
1357:Original text
1352:
1349:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1338:
1324:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1311:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1297:
1293:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1253:
1249:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1226:Les Templiers
1223:
1219:
1218:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1200:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1152:
1150:
1149:
1146:
1145:
1133:
1131:
1127:
1121:
1116:
1114:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1098:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1087:
1086:
1071:
1070:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1052:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1027:
1024:
1021:
1018:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
992:
991:
990:
987:
984:
980:
977:
973:
972:
971:
946:
943:
940:
937:
932:
928:
926:
922:
917:
915:
913:
912:Mongol Empire
909:
905:
900:
898:
896:
892:
887:
886:
884:
883:
882:
879:
878:
868:
867:
866:
863:
860:
857:
853:
852:
851:
848:
847:
836:
830:
827:
826:
815:
814:
813:
810:
807:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
785:
780:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
749:
746:
743:
740:
736:
731:
730:
729:
726:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
705:
702:
701:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
679:
676:
673:
670:
665:
664:
663:
660:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
648:
645:
642:
636:
634:
629:
628:invaded Syria
624:
620:
616:
612:
607:
603:
597:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
573:
572:Mongol Empire
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
547:
541:
539:
538:
535:
534:
521:
520:
515:
514:
511:
507:
503:
501:
496:
495:
491:
479:
476:
473:
470:
465:
461:
460:
459:
456:
455:
444:
443:
442:
439:
436:
433:
429:
428:
427:
424:
423:
413:
410:
408:
404:
398:
397:
396:
393:
390:
387:
382:
378:
374:
369:
365:
361:
357:
356:
355:
354:
351:
350:
339:
331:
329:
324:
323:
319:
317:
310:
305:
301:
300:
299:
294:
287:
283:
282:
278:
272:
269:
266:
263:
258:
253:
248:
244:
240:
236:
235:
234:
233:
227:
222:
221:
220:
219:
212:
208:
204:
203:
202:
201:
194:
190:
189:Peter Jackson
186:
181:
177:
173:
169:
168:Rene Grousset
165:
161:
157:
152:
148:
147:
145:
144:
143:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
125:
114:
110:
106:
105:
100:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
74:
72:
71:
68:
67:
53:
49:
46:
42:
41:
40:
34:
30:
26:
25:
19:
2706:
2702:
2662:
2642:
2577:
2551:
2532:
2529:
2521:
2415:
2407:
2360:
2305:
2297:
2291:
2271:
2251:
2203:
2167:
2136:
2132:
2100:
2092:
2027:
2010:
1994:
1972:
1901:Jean Richard
1897:
1874:
1870:
1849:
1806:
1802:
1774:
1770:
1737:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1709:
1705:
1687:
1675:Letter from
1669:
1660:
1641:
1586:
1513:
1465:
1454:
1436:
1419:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1396:
1386:
1382:
1376:
1372:
1362:
1356:
1347:
1333:
1304:
1260:
1247:
1225:
1202:
1171:
1156:
1137:
1135:
1125:
1123:
1119:
1110:
1094:
1078:
1075:
1066:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
969:
920:
918:
903:
901:
890:
888:
870:
839:
818:
794:
733:
693:
638:
625:
598:
591:Jean Richard
551:
549:
545:
526:
524:
516:
497:
463:
447:
415:
409:an alliance.
406:
402:
400:
380:
367:
363:
360:Undue weight
342:
337:
334:
325:
314:
296:
292:
256:
251:
238:
192:
185:Jean Richard
175:
171:
159:
155:
150:
127:
121:
59:
57:
38:
2099:necessary:
172:The Mongols
2659:References
2561:WP:PROTECT
2252:Historian
2061:WP:REDFLAG
1867:WP:REDFLAG
1734:WP:REDFLAG
1153:Next issue
1072:(for now).
902:A form of
550:A form of
492:References
113:WP:SUMMARY
52:WP:SUMMARY
1730:secondary
633:Palestine
568:Ilkhanate
86:WP:FRINGE
2477:Edward I
2262:Edward I
2111:Edward I
2065:WP:UNDUE
2039:. Even
1738:multiple
1681:Edward I
1393:English
910:and the
576:Egyptian
566:and the
320:On track
252:everyone
239:everyone
156:attempts
124:Featured
90:WP:UNDUE
82:WP:UNDUE
44:subject?
2047:and at
1369:French
615:Mamluks
581:, when
579:Mamluks
570:of the
377:the RfC
288:policy:
207:WP:PSTS
151:primary
109:WP:SIZE
2648:abjotu
2538:abjotu
2421:claim.
2311:claim.
2277:abjotu
2209:abjotu
2173:Ghazan
2063:, and
2016:abjotu
1979:piece?
1812:abjotu
1706:denies
1647:abjotu
1592:abjotu
1519:abjotu
1471:abjotu
1248:rumors
1220:Using
1208:abjotu
1143:abjotu
1084:abjotu
876:abjotu
845:abjotu
824:abjotu
699:abjotu
532:abjotu
453:abjotu
421:abjotu
381:wasn't
348:abjotu
226:WP:OWN
176:should
75:Elonka
65:abjotu
2645:tariq
2535:tariq
2274:tariq
2228:WP:RS
2206:tariq
2147:" --
2057:WP:RS
2013:tariq
1809:tariq
1710:agree
1644:tariq
1589:tariq
1516:tariq
1468:tariq
1455:right
1205:tariq
1140:tariq
1081:tariq
873:tariq
842:tariq
821:tariq
696:tariq
606:Syria
529:tariq
450:tariq
418:tariq
345:tariq
62:tariq
54:style
16:<
2522:See
2486:talk
2292:have
2122:talk
2053:WP:V
2037:here
2033:here
1783:talk
1722:does
1693:talk
1616:talk
1550:talk
1495:talk
1238:and
1111:See
1095:See
1067:See
1012:that
611:Acre
602:1260
560:1268
556:1259
517:See
498:See
326:See
257:with
84:and
27:See
2599:PHG
2482:PHG
2364:PHG
2260:to
2177:PHG
2168:his
2131:In
2118:PHG
2109:to
1973:did
1779:PHG
1689:PHG
1679:to
1612:PHG
1546:PHG
1491:PHG
1429:PHG
1337:PHG
1296:PHG
1251:do.
1136:--
1048:PHG
983:PHG
784:PHG
725:PHG
659:PHG
407:was
403:not
368:was
364:not
279:PHG
247:AfD
243:RfC
160:was
128:can
2694:^
2682:^
2670:^
2627:ka
2624:on
2621:El
2586:ka
2583:on
2580:El
2488:)
2431:ka
2428:on
2425:El
2423:--
2325:ka
2322:on
2319:El
2317:--
2239:ka
2236:on
2233:El
2231:--
2193:ka
2190:on
2187:El
2185:--
2155:ka
2152:on
2149:El
2124:)
2075:ka
2072:on
2069:El
2059:,
2055:,
1948:ka
1945:on
1942:El
1940:--
1875:do
1785:)
1748:ka
1745:on
1742:El
1695:)
1673:—
1632:ka
1629:on
1626:El
1618:)
1570:ka
1567:on
1564:El
1552:)
1497:)
1408::
1399::
1385::
1375::
1320:ka
1317:on
1314:El
1305:is
1274:ka
1271:on
1268:El
1266:--
1188:ka
1185:on
1182:El
1124:A
1023:ka
1020:on
1017:El
1015:--
942:ka
939:on
936:El
934:--
919:A
914:.
862:ka
859:on
856:El
809:ka
806:on
803:El
745:ka
742:on
739:El
737:--
675:ka
672:on
669:El
667:--
647:ka
644:on
641:El
639:--
475:ka
472:on
469:El
464:do
438:ka
435:on
432:El
392:ka
389:on
386:El
384:--
338:no
268:ka
265:on
262:El
260:--
138:ka
135:on
132:El
2710:"
2484:(
2120:(
1921:"
1896:"
1781:(
1769:(
1766:e
1691:(
1614:(
1548:(
1493:(
1485:(
1132:.
1115:.
1100:.
978:.
927:.
897:.
621:.
558:-
502:.
330:.
96:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.