Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this can be covered, to the extent necessary, in Mongol raids into Palestine. It appears that process is already underway.--Kubigula (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol conquests and Jerusalem[edit]

Mongol conquests and Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article was created as a point of view fork and coatrack for pushing the idea that Mongols conquered Jerusalem. There are no reliable sources to support this fringe opinion. - Jehochman Talk 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: PHG has disruptively moved the article while the discussion is ongoing. It's now located at Mongol raids on Jerusalem. This should be deleted for all the same reasons. - Jehochman Talk 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've done a Google search, and cannot come up with any reliable sources that state that Jerusalem was conquered by the Mongols. I did find three reliable book sources that cover the topic, but do not make this assertion. Cleveland Prawdin Køppen One source (Cleveland) says that the Mongol Armies were stopped in a battle north of Jerusalem. This article was created by an editor who has been pushing a fringe theory that Mongols invaded Jerusalem. (adding) See the evidence. This article is duplicative, and it's a coatrack. To eliminate duplication and POV forking, any properly sourced content here can be merged into Mongol raids into Palestine or Mongol invasions of Syria. - Jehochman Talk 23:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The editor who created this article, PHG, has been making multiple POV forks, as he tries to push this idea that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem in 1299/1300. He's been attempting to insert false information into the Knights Templar article about this, and has been edit warring for weeks at Franco-Mongol alliance. He has ignored comments from an RfC, has refused mediation, and is now creating multiple articles such as Mongol conquest of Jerusalem and Mongol conquests and Jerusalem to push his POV. I've researched the matter extensively (checking dozens of books and peer-reviewed articles), and there was no such battle, no such "conquest." The most that could be said is that there were a few Mongol raids in the area in 1260 and 1300, during two periods of a few months before the Mongols got kicked out again by the Egyptian Mamluks. Some scholars say that there may have been Mongol raids on Jerusalem while the Mongols were raiding other parts of the area in 1300, but they're not even in agreement on whether or not Mongols were in the city, let alone conquering it or setting up a permanent administration (which is what's needed to distinguish between a "raid" and "conquest"). What they do agree on is that Jerusalem was still in ruins from earlier battles in the Crusades, it had no walls, and even the Mamluks didn't see it as a settlement of strategic importance (see Karen Armstrong's book Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths). In short, Wikipedia is already well-served by the articles History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) and Mongol raids into Palestine. We don't need yet another article about an event that didn't even happen. --Elonka 23:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Judging by the input at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment there seems to be little support amongst reliable sources for the idea that there was any conquest by the Mongols of Jerusalem in the period in question. This appears to be a POV fork and problematic as far as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are concerned. WjBscribe 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper User:Elonka. Maybe this would make a good What if story but not a good encyclopedia article--Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is also a related ANI thread. --Elonka 00:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a notable minority theory. Topic covered sufficiently in other articles. --Dhartung | Talk 02:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the look I gave, all the content on this topic is already in Mongol raids into Palestine, and thus there is no need for this article, as it's just a duplicate, with the title Elonka made considerably better.--Aldux 02:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Mongol raids into Palestine. Alansohn 03:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elonka. Pete.Hurd 06:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I am the creator of most of the content on this subject of the Mongols and Jerusalem, and believe its transfer two days ago to a "Mongol raids into Palestine" article by Elonka has not been adequate (too broad, unfocused, title). The conquest of Jerusalem is claimed by most contemporary historians of the 13th century (Muslims, Armenians, Europeans), considered as a possibility by a leading French historian of the period (Demurger), and considered as fact by a few other reputable modern historian: Andrew Jotischky in "The Crusaders and the Crusader States" states that "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia". Steven Runciman in "A History of the Crusades, III" stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. I believe this is ample justification to have an article exploring this subject, honestly showing both sides of the story. The article in question is already sizable at 36kb. The article content being 99% about the controversy regarding the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongol, I am also afraid the other title ("Mongol raids into Palestine") is much too broad... and would require a much larger article. PHG 08:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PHG, we've already discussed this. Demurger "considering it a possibility" is just him asking the question on one page, "Did they conquer Jerusalem?" and saying that there was a tradition that there was an Armenian royal celebrating mass in the city in January 1300. We've already established that that story is probably false, as it was based on an unreliable source which was promoting Armenian propaganda at the time. No other sources corroborate such a visit. And even if he were in Jerusalem at the time, it wouldn't mean a Mongol "conquering", since there were many Christians in Jerusalem already, especially during the holidays, because such a treaty had already been signed with the Mamluks that gave them access, especially for the holy days such as Easter. As for Jotischky, he had one line in his book, and his information was sourced from a 1979 article by Dr. Sylvia Schein, "Gesta Dei Per Mongolos", where she never said that Ghazan was in Jerusalem, she said that there were 1300 rumors that Ghazan was in Jerusalem. There are no other historians that say Ghazan was in Jerusalem, and Schein's article has been extensively criticized by other scholars, who pointed out she was using that unreliable Armenian source. As for Runciman, who I agree is a good source, he said nothing about Jerusalem being conquered, he just said that Mongols got "as far as" Jerusalem, which matches up with other "raids" reports. Yes, the Mongols got "as far as" Jerusalem in 1260, 1300 (and according to Runciman, 1308). All of which can be adequately covered in the article Mongol raids into Palestine. Not "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem", which is a title designed to push a biased POV. The Mongols never conquered Jerusalem. They may have galloped through raising hell at some point, but that's not a "conquering", that's a raid. --Elonka 08:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Elonka. You keep using secondary sources to try to discredit other secondary sources (those that don't favour your point of view). Leading scholars such as Demurger, Jotischky, Runciman all have the right to be represented, and they don't need to be second-guessed by you. If you are uncomfortable with the words "Mongol conquests", then maybe the title could be "Mongol raids and Jerusalem" or "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" (as you seem to acknowledge that many scholars do mention such raids), I really don't mind. I am just saying that "Mongol raids in Palestine" is much too broad a subject, and that, with 36kb, we already have enough material to have this specific article on the question of the Mongols and Jerusalem. The current article content being 99% about Jerusalem, I also believe it does belong much more specifically to a "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" article, than to a much more general "Mongol raids into Palestine" article. Just common sense I think. Best regards. PHG 08:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fringe theory. --Folantin 09:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OK. I've been bold, did the job myself, and added a lot of content to "Mongol raids into Palestine" (more content on the 1260's campaings, addition of the 1271 campaign). I also streamlined the "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem part" to link it properly to the sub-article. This makes for a more comprehensive 27kb article on the Mongols raids in Palestine in general, with a link to the more focused "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" (itself 36kb), a supposedly consensual title. I think it makes more sense, the contents are totally different, and this allows for a content which is more faithfull to each title. I hope everybody likes it and sees what I meant. Best regards to all. PHG 09:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it- as a student of history I am pretty insulted by this article. Either fringe theory or a hoax.JJJ999 13:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dear all, apologies for moving the article during an AfD, I didn't realize it should be a problem (I was actually acting to accomodate a complaint from Elonka that "Conquest" was POV, but that raids are recognized by nearly all historians)... I guess the article can be deleted all the same if someone wishes to. Honestly, I am surprised by the negative reactions. The article is fully referenced from proper, reputable sources, and I think does a good job of presenting the various elements on the subject. It is actually a very interesting historical subject, closely related to the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance. PHG 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, PHG. I request that the next administrator who sees this close per WP:SNOW. PHG, there are reliable sources that suggest Mongol incursions into Palestine (not as far as Jerusalem, though). We have an article for Mongols and Palestine, so I think anything here that can be reliably sourced can be merged into that article. Happy editing. - Jehochman Talk 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jehochman. There are actually numerous sources that speak about the Mongols reaching Jerusalem (the "great" Runciman and several others, extensively quoted in the article). The Mongols actually established garrissons as far as Gaza, at the frontier with Egypt, much further south than Jerusalem. If everybody wants to close this article, so be it, but I do not think it is a proper decision. The content will go into "Mongol raids into Palestine", which will reach 60-70kbs all of a sudden, and probably back into Franco-Mongol alliance for a large part (which is already 130kb or so), but that's no big deal anyway. I just think that it would have been much more efficient and encyclopedic to concentrate the information about Jerusalem in one precise spot. Regards. PHG 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think we should drop all this material into that article. No, the content here needs to be scrutinized for WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. The reason this article is being deleted is that there is a consensus that the material violates important, fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Attempting an end run around consensus and policy would be strong evidence of disruptive and tendentious editing. To avoid those problems, I recommend, PHG, that you utilize the talk page of the other articles to obtain consensus before moving any material from here to there, or that you step back and let other editors do the merge. - Jehochman Talk 15:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jehochman. All the material we are talking about here was moved two days ago by User:Elonka out of the Franco-Mongol alliance article to decrease its size (and I think, to reduce its visibility, for whatever reason). There, it had been already extensively discussed and scrutinized, and actually pretty much had reached a stable point. I will just reinstate the content where it belongs. Please do not hesitate to participate to the discussions there, we are in need of cool-headed contributors! Best regards PHG 15:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict, meant for Jehochman)I have to contradict you here, this content has been thoroughly scrutinized, only at Franco-Mongol Alliance, and the topic is certainly extremely important, because rumors are far more historically relevant than the stationing for a couple of weeks of the Mongols in Jerusalem, if accepted as true. The effects created in the west and on Armenian sources by these rumours is talken of by a large number of secondary sources, which makes it certainly a topic worthy of being treated with depth. The conquest may be discussed as fringe, even if I don't think we arrive to this point (it is talken of in reliable secondary literature), but the rumours must be given full coverage as I have difficulties understanding how they could fall under WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE.--Aldux 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I don't disagree, Mongol raids into Palestine should cover the argument good enough, and this article is really a fork. What I defended was the legitimate to discuss, even in depth, of the rumours that inflamed the west, but appear also in Armenian sources of an event read as epochal. Schein wasn't ashamed to dedicate it a full length essay, and the English Historical Review.--Aldux 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually plenty of scholars mention Mongol raids on Jerusalem. Tyerman in God's war mentions that "Mongol raids reached Ascalon, Jerusalem and the gates of Egypt" (p.806). Of course Andrew Jotischky in The Crusaders and the Crusader States states that "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia". Steven Runciman in A History of the Crusades, III stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. Furthermore the subject of the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols has been hugely reported by contemporary sources and debated by secondary sources. I am not sure if a paragraph somewhere exist with these actual words, but I do think this is sufficient ground to have a specific article focusing on this subject. PHG 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mongol_conquests_and_Jerusalem&oldid=1068851558"