Talk:Laurent Dailliez

Lack of notability

So far all we've got for this author's notability is:

• That he published books
• That some of his work has appeared in the bibliography of two other books

His work so far does not appear to be well-known. I've been checking Google Scholar, and Dailliez's work does not appear to be used as source material for other reputable works. I've also done newspaper searches and have found nothing. I'm willing to look for a bit longer, but if we can't find anything, this article should probably be deleted. --Elonka 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur, I don't see any notable impact. The two references to his work in the article (amounting to exceptionally flimsy evidence of any impact at all, yet alone notable impact) are more solid than anything I find on GS. Pete.Hurd 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, FYI, this page is a bit of an overflow of a dispute from another article, Franco-Mongol alliance, where PHG (the editor who created this Dailliez article) is trying to cite Dailliez for a very controversial historical claim, that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols. I dispute the reliability of using Dailliez as a source for that claim; since (1) Though Dailliez did say such a thing in his book Templiers: Les Inconnus, the book has no sources of any kind. No footnotes, no bibliography, not even so much as an index. (2) Dailliez does not appear to be a reliable source in general; (3) No other historian has ever repeated this claim; (4) When I had the opportunity to speak face-to-face with the world's #1 expert on the Knights Templar, Dr. Malcolm Barber, he said he'd never heard of the claim either.

However, despite my concerns, and those of multiple other editors at the talkpage, PHG is still refusing to back down. If you (or anyone else reading this) would like to participate in the thread, I'd very much appreciate other opinions to help ensure consensus: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Concerns about Dailliez. There's also been a longrunning and pretty much stalemate mediation at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance.

For a quickref on the whole dispute, you may wish to check out User:Elonka/Mongol quickref, which is just a few paragraphs that I threw together to give historical context and explain what the main issues are. Thanks, --Elonka 19:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW see [here] for some sketchy notes on poking around fr.wikipedia.org. Pete.Hurd 20:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, really. Dailliez is quite a mainstream French historian (he's in all libraries in France, several of his works are in the French Wikipedia Bibliography for the Templars [1]), he wrote 20 books published by reputable editors, he is the author of the Templars article in Encyclopedia Universalis, and you question having a Wikipedia article on him? When self-promotion articles such as Elonka Dunin are tolerated? This is nonsense. PHG 07:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Beginning of answer to Pete.Hurd --Acer11 07:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Merci Acer11! Life is hard for French historians around here... I just created his long-overdue article on the French Wikipedia as well, essentially using Acer11's material. Let's note that Dailliez is already referenced there in several articles on the Templars. PHG 07:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not an author is used as a source in other Wikipedia articles, says nothing about the reliability of those sources, and says little about the notability of the author. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles.

So far, the most positive thing that I've seen about Dailliez is that he wrote one article for a French online encyclopedia.

As for the fact that one of his books is in Sharan Newman's bibliography, I checked that out, and it's very much a trivial reference. Newman was simply citing Dailliez's republication of some medieval source documents. Specifically, where Dailliez reproduced the Templar charter, Regle et Statuts de l'Ordre de Temple. So in places where Newman is citing a specific paragraph in the Regle, Newman also occasionally cited Dailliez's book as a source. Newman also mentions (p. 55) that there are multiple such sources available, so it was kind of luck-of-the-draw as to which one Newman chose to cite, but Newman seems to have chosen Dailliez's version since it was done in both Old French and modern French. But this still doesn't make Dailliez notable enough for his own article. To prove notability, we still need to provide third-party (non-marketing) reviews of him or his work. --Elonka 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that the Encyclopedia Universalis is not just "a French online encyclopedia". It is actual the leading paper encyclopedia in France, something like the equivalent of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which also puts content online (they are owned by the same company). That Dailliez wrote the "Templiers" article for that encyclopedia is quite significant, and you do not need to belittle it. PHG 11:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources] Yes, it's OK

[one article for an online encyclopedia] Also in the paper edition, art. "Templiers", T.22 1989, p.267-270. ISBN 2852292874 -Acer11 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I've asked on fr for any secondary sources on Dailliez or his work. Acer11 has repeated the list of Dailliez's work, but I havn't seen any of the anticipated coverage of his work suggesting that his views are accepted within the mainstream, or that they represent a significant minority view of influence (per WP:FRINGE). I think that notability requires some sort of secondary sourcing, there doesn't appear to be any in english, and I remain open to the possibility that some exist in french, even if they havn't been presented yet, but the prognosis seems dimmer... As an aside, PHG, can we stick to substantive matters and leave the ad hominim Elonka-bashing elsewhere? Pete.Hurd 15:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't pay attention it was a repetition, sorry. I'd try to answer fast, I don't have a lot of time... I'm looking for secondary sourcing.

But with his professionnal studies (Doctor in History, graduated from École pratique des hautes études [which is really famous in this speciality in France]), and a real list of publications, I cann't understand your difficulties.

Something else : I apologize for my low level of english --Acer11 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Here is the problem (in simple): I understand that Dailliez wrote many books. Some of those books may be good. Some of those books may be bad. I have a question about his book Templiers: Les inconnus. It is one of his first books. He wrote the book in 1972. I do not think it is a good book. On page 306-307, the book says, 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." (trans: 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". I believe the book is wrong. The book has no sources. The book has no bibliography. Also, Jacques de Molay cannot have signed a treaty with the Muslims in 1260. Jacques de Molay was not Grand Master until 1292. I think: Dailliez made a mistake. There was no treaty. No other historian says there was a treaty. Dailliez's book is a bad source. We should not use it Templiers: Les Inconnus as a source on Wikipedia. Does that help?  :) --Elonka 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, you are (again) misquoting. Dailliez wrote: "The Mongols, after taking Damascus and several important cities from the Turks, after having been routed by the Sultan of Egypt at Tiberiade in 1260, allied themselves 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" (Dailliez, p.306-307). What he says is that the Templars allied with the Mongols after 1260 (not in 1260), which is essentially right (see Franco-Mongol alliance for details). He also doesn't give 1260 at all for De Molay's signature of a treaty, but only refers to the letter to Edward I and obviously means circa 1300 (clear from the context). As far as I know, his statement is perfectly right: you are just, again, corrupting sources to make your case. What a shame! PHG 16:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmh I see that Elonka is working faster than me. I've the same conslusions, with some nuances.

I see two questions :

1. Is Laurent Dailliez notable enough to "have" an article on en.WP ?
2. If Dailliez is notable enough, what about his dates for the "Franco-Mongol alliance" ?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 - Daillez is an historian : see [2] (against Cerrini, see later). He is well known and quoted by some good historians, almost Demurger and Cerrini, but always with prudence. As I answered to Pete.hurd, he is a good Knights Templar's connoisseur, without being a notable. He worked especially the Provence's religious history (were the Templar's presence was great). His affection to that area probably explain his use of a regional editor (Alpes Méditerranée édition, Nice).

• By Demurger, he is for example mentioned in "Les Templiers : une chevalerie chrétienne au Moyen-Age" for
  • bibliographie du Temple 1972
  • Les Templiers et les Règles de l'ordre du Temple, 1972
  • Les Templiers 1972 (rééd. 2003)
  • Les Templiers, Flandre, Hainaut, Brabant, Liège et Luxembourg 1978.

but with the strong precautions Elonka describes.

• By Cerrini, he is also mentioned for those works :
  • bibliographie du Temple 1972
  • Histoire de l'ordre du Temple : I. Les Templiers, gouvernement et institution" 1978
  • Les Templiers, ces inconnus 1972
  • Règles et statuts de l'ordre du Temple 1972 (même ouvrage que Les Templiers et les Règles de l'ordre du Temple, 1972)
  • Le plus ancien texte de la règle du Temple : le manuscrit 131 de la Bilbiothèque de Bruges
  • Le manuscrit 37 de la Bibliothèque de Nice est-il le texte de la règle du Temple donnée au Concile de Troyes ?

But she gives an evaluation of Dailliez at the end of la révolution des Templiers (summarize by another french wikipedian):

Laurent Dailliez appears as a kind of agent 007 looking for manuscripts, passing by a frontier to another, from Spain to Italy, through Belgium. however Dailliez was not an historian, but a geologist (Contrast with the link I gave above). At Paris, in the academic circles like the IRHT or the EPHE, nobody speaks readily about him. elsewhere, at Nice University, at the Vatican library,[ ... ], the reactions are more various, sometimes friendly. (witnesses about L.D. also reported by Cerrini) : He was a freehanded, but misunderstood. Others medievists : "a geologist enthusiast of medieval history", the one between the XXth century's scholars to look for all the manuscripts of the Templar's rules. His lack of pinch unfortunately decreases his results : Dailliez doesn't quote his sources, or in an incomplete/wrong way.

• By Malcolm he is quoted in the bibliography's Poland version of "The New Knighthood- A History of the Order of the Temple", (I assume the same in the original text) but never in the footnotes (Idem).

Conclusion for 1 - : It's better to have an article about this quoted person, almost to give the reasons of a necessary precaution... as did Demurger and Cerrini (PoV by someone who doesn't work on en:WP... ;-))

2 - The answer to the second point is now obvious. When Dailliez is alone to assert something, he's probably wrong. --Acer11 16:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose the appelation "Geologist" (""a geologist enthusiast of medieval history") above is only a metaphor of Dailliez'methods (a man searching through ancient stata of history, bringing "old material" to light...). His training as historian is specificied by the Encyclopedia Universalis. Regards :) PHG 10:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) It seems to me that Dailliez's notability depends on meeting a criterion in the spirit of WP:FRINGE (I think he'd flunk WP:FRINGE). Acer11's suggestion that WP:en keep an article on him, even failing WP:N, for the value of retaining caveats/debunkings of him as a reliable source is a new one on me. I can see some merit in it, but I think I'd !vote for deletion is this were up for an AfD. Pete.Hurd 22:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Demurger's comments

The Wikipedia article is currently making the case that Dailliez is reputable, because he is used as a source in Alain Demurger's book The Last Templar. However, I actually looked up the Dailliez mentions in Demurger's book today, and it's actually quite the opposite... Demurger seems to be referring to Dailliez as one of the "pseudo-history" authors who may be correct here and there, but in general needs to be challenged. For example, on page 51 of Demurger's book, he says, "As nothing positive is known, some people have naturally credited Jacques de Molay with various offices. Laurent Dailliez plausibly maintains that Molay was a marshal of the Order at the time of his election; however, he could not have been one until after the death of Pierre de Sivrey, who was decapitated by the Mamluks towards the end of the siege of Acre in May 1291. Prior to that, it is impossible because almost all the Order's dignitaries in Beaujeu's time are known, and he is not among them."

Demurger then further criticizes Dailliez in his footnotes. For example, in Demurger's book, page 231, footnote #46 to Chapter 3, he says: "L. Dailliez, Jacques de Molay..., p. 21, cites a chronicle and a large map of Cyprus ad annum 1292, with no reference, as is usually the case with this author.". In short, just because Demurger cites Dailliez, does not mean that Dailliez is a reliable source. --Elonka 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Another mention in Demurger's book, p. 203, talking about the rumors of a Mongol conquest of Jerusalem: "Laurent Dailliez (who has taken mischievious pleasure in muddying the waters) affirms that [in 1299] 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." A claim that has been thoroughly debunked by multiple modern historians. Again, it is proof that Dailliez is not always a reliable source. --Elonka 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Notability

Laurent Dailliez easily fullfills several of the sufficient condition to be recognized as notable on Wikipedia (as per Wikipedia:Notability (academics)):

"If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.
2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.
3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.
4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.
5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.
6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

An alternative standard, "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" is often cited. This criterion has the advantage of being concise though it is not universally accepted and determining the notability of an average professor is difficult in itself and usually relies on one of the six more detailed criteria above."

— Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

As a matter of fact, Dailliez essentially satisfies reasons 1 to 5:

1. He was selected to write the article on the Templars, by the Encyclopedia Universalis (the leading French paper encyclopedia, owned by the same company as Encyclopedia Britanica). He is also referenced by several reputable authors.
2. For the same reasons.
3. Dailliez has published numerous well-known books, available in most libraries, especially in France.
4. He work in indeed well known, and quoted by other authors.
5. Maybe not, he did contribute to the understanding of ancient Templar documents.

And of course ""the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor"" fully applies.

Therefore, I don't see any reason why Notability couldn't be accepted for this profilic, even if sometimes disputed, historian. PHG 10:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Treaty claim

The claim that the Templars allied with the Mongols is well known and also made by other reputable historians (see Franco-Mongol alliance). However the claim that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with them, is as far as I know unique. It could still be mentionned as a personal opinion by an individual historian ("According to Dailliez, de Molay signed a Treaty with the Mongols..." etc...). So far, this point is only criticized by Elonka (original research), and I am not aware of historians criticizing that point. I would be ready to drop that mention though if the primary source given by Dailliez does not corroborate a treaty: the letter to Edward I is well known, and referenced by Demurger at the end of "Jacques de Molay". Could someone get a transcript of that letter? PHG 10:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the Templars allied with the Mongols is not "well known", in fact it's not true at all. There was no alliance between the Mongols and the Franks. There may have been attempts at forming such an alliance (at one point or another, everyone tried to ally with everyone else), but these attempts were not successful. I can point to literally dozens of modern historians who say that there was no alliance. See User:Elonka/Mongol historians. The closest that any Franks came to fighting under the Mongol banner, was when the Principality of Antioch submitted to Mongol overlordship in 1259, until the Principality was destroyed by the Egyptian Mamluks in 1268. When Antioch sent troops to fight in Mongol battles, some Templars from Antioch went along to the battle. But at the same time, the main seat of power for the Templars, in Acre, was treating the Mongols as enemies, and in fact engaged in a passive truce with the Egyptian Mamluks in 1260, which allowed the Mamluks to defeat the Mongols at the Battle of Ain Jalut. PHG, please stop pushing this biased POV that there was an alliance between the Mongols and the Europeans. It's just not true. --Elonka 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply and facts from PHG

• I thought we were here to discuss notability of Laurent Dailliez, and as far as I'm concerned notability has been clearly established above. According to Wikipedia notability rules, it is obvious that this historian deserves his Wikipedia article. I would appreciate if you could kindly concede this point and now remove the associated tags from the article.
• Now, on the alliance or no alliance... it is an old story now, but you are still in denial that both POVs exist among historians. In proper Wikipedia:NPOV, we need to acknowledge both. Here is a sampling of the sources specifically speaking about the existence of an alliance with the Mongols (you ought to already know about it, this is more for the benefit of other editors on this page). Dailliez is clearly not isolated in his portrayal (except, maybe, for the mention of an actual "treaty", which can easily be checked by looking at primary material:

• René Grousset mentions especially "Louis IX and the Franco-Mongol alliance" (p521), "Only Edward I understood the value of the Mongol alliance" (p.653) "Edward I and the Mongol alliance" (p.653), "Edward I renewed the precious Mongol Alliance" (in "L'épopée des Croisades", p.301), "The Franco-Mongol coalition, of which the Hospitallers were giving the example" (p.686)
• Jean Richard in Histoire des Croisades, has the Franco-Mongol alliance start in earnest in the 1260s ("The sustained attacks of Baibars (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453.) and continue on-and-off until it was strongly revived by Ghazan, to continue to have an influence until 1322 ("In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468). He concludes on the many missed opportunities the alliance offered: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", 1996, Jean Richard, p.469
• Claude Mutafian in Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie describes "the Mongol alliance" entered into by the king of Armenia and the Franks of Antioch ("the King of Armenia decided to engage into the Mongol alliance, an intelligence that the Latin barons lacked, except for Antioch"), and "the Franco-Mongol collaboration" (Mutafian, p.55)
• Zoe Oldenbourg in The Crusades mentions the 1280 "Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun". (Oldenbourg, "The Crusades", p.620)
• Alain Demurger, in the 2002 Jacques de Molay biography The Last Templar, refers to it as the "Mongol alliance", which came to fruition through such events as the 1300 combined offensives between the Templars and the Mongols.(Demurger, p.147 "This expedition sealed by a concrete act the Mongol alliance"), "The strategy of the Mongol alliance in action(Demurger p.145) "De Molay led the fight for the reconquest of Jerusalem by relying on an alliance with the Mongols", back cover)
• Jonathan Riley-Smith mentions in his Atlas of the Crusades that in 1285 the Hospitallers of the north agreed to ally to the Mongols.("En 1285, Qalawun, nouveau sultan mamelouk, reprend l'offensive, qu'il dirige contre les Hospitaliers du nord, qui s'etaient montres prets a s'allier aux Mongols", Jonathan Riley-Smith, "Atlas des Croisades", p.114) He also describes Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols: "Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally", in History of the Crusades, p.136
• Laurent Dailliez, in Les Templiers, mentions that the Knights Templar allied with the Mongols, and that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with them against the Muslim "their common enemy".("The Mongols, after taking Damascus and several important cities from the Turks, after having been routed by the Sultan of Egypt at Tiberiade in 1260, allied themselves with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the king of England said that he had to sign such a treaty to fight against the Muslims, "our common enemy"" Dailliez, p.306-307)
• Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", although he specifies that in the end it led nowhere,("The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" p.816) and turned out to be a "false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom." (pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, with Louis IX's early attempts at capturing "the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories, and Edward's largely unsuccessful attempts.
• Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West entitles a whole chapter "An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and describes all the viscicitudes and the actual results of the Mongol alliance.
• Claude Lebedel in Les Croisades describes the alliance of the Franks of Antioch and Tripoli with the Mongols: (in 1260) "the Frank barons refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the Armenians and the Prince of Antioch and Tripoli".
• Amin Maalouf in The Crusades through Arab eyes is extensive and specific on the alliance (page numbers refer to the French edition): “The Armenians, in the person of their king Hetoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond, his son-in-law. The Franks of Acre however adopted a position of neutrality favourable to the muslims” (p.261), “Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols” (p.265), “Hulagu (…) still had enough strength to prevent the punishment of his allies [Bohemond and Hethoum]” (p.267), “..the Hospitallers. These monk-horsemen allied with the Mongols, going as far as fighting at their side in a new attempt at invasion in 1281.”PHG 11:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• PHG, repeatedly copy/pasting large amounts of complex text onto multiple talkpages, is not convincing anyone. You have already used this text in multiple other locations, most recently here and here. I've already responded in detail at those locations, I'm not going to respond again here.
• The bottom-line is that no other historian talks about a signed treaty between the Franks and the Mongols, in fact the vast majority of historians agree that as far as the Franks and the Mongols were concerned, that there wasn't even an alliance, that it was only casual "attempts" at an alliance, which went on for decades. Further, you keep muddling the relationships between different territories. When Antioch submitted to Mongol overlordship from 1259-1268, some historians called it an alliance, but that had nothing to do with relations between the Papacy and the Mongols. For a summary of historian views, see User:Elonka/Mongol historians. Please, can you actually click on the link and actually review the table at the top of the page?
• Further, we have a clear consensus of editors that the proper wording for the lead sentence on the Franco-Mongol alliance article is that there were attempts at an alliance. See Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction sentence.
• PHG, what you are doing is called Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. You are resisting input from other editors, and insisting that your view is the only correct view. This is not helpful towards working in the collaborative environment that is Wikipedia. Please either work harder to respect the views of other editors, or there may be further consequences such a restriction of your editing privileges in certain topic areas. I do not want to see this happen, as I think that you do a lot of good work on Wikipedia. But you really must stop this attitude of "PHG against the world", and acknowledge that community consensus can differ from your own view. --Elonka 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were here to talk about Dailliez, and you are not responding to my points about notability. Regarding the Franco-Mongol alliance, honestly, I cannot subscribe to the view that the "Alliance" view is a minority one. It is supported by numerous mainstream scholars (User:PHG/Alliance). Your own list is partly right, and partly fabricated (for example, your presentation of Amin Maaloof as describing the Alliance only as "a dream" was clearly abusive when I checked the source). According to Wikipedia:NPOV policy, both views should be represented, and the standard intro phrase for that would be "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance...". On our mediation, the mediator, who went through the details, has clearly said also that in his view both theories should be presented and that source-counting was pointless (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance#On track), and he favoured my "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." approach, so please, don't say that you have a consensus. I will not spend my time lobbying on Wikipedia to try to get votes the way Elonka Dunin does to claim a 4:1 or 4:2 (2 being myself +Srnec) or a 4:3 (3 being myself +Srnec + our mediator User:Tariqabjotu) position is a "consensus". It is sufficient for me that both views are expressed by mainstream historians, and that Wikipedia policies therefore allow for a proper representation of both. Regards PHG 12:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG, your language is becoming increasing uncivil, as you are accusing me of "fabricating" information and being "abusive" in an interpretation. Please try to be more polite. My quotes speak for themselves, anyone who wants is welcome to check the data at User:Elonka/Mongol historians. If I made a mistake somewhere (since there are obviously scores of quotes there), I am willing to review and update my data, but I strongly protest any implication that I am deliberately distorting data. As for Maalouf, he did say that the alliance was a "cherished dream", and (to try and get this discussion back on-topic) he absolutely does not say anything in his book which confirms Dailliez's claim about a signed treaty. --Elonka 17:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• You are clearly distorting what Maalouf wrote: Amin Maalouf in The Crusades through Arab eyes is extensive and specific on the alliance (page numbers refer to the French edition): “The Armenians, in the person of their king Hetoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond, his son-in-law. The Franks of Acre however adopted a position of neutrality favourable to the muslims” (p.261), “Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols” (p.265), “Hulagu (…) still had enough strength to prevent the punishment of his allies [Bohemond and Hethoum]” (p.267), “..the Hospitallers. These monk-horsemen allied with the Mongols, going as far as fighting at their side in a new attempt at invasion in 1281.. Nowhere does he say that the alliance was only a "cherished dream", he just says somewhere that a Mongol ruler cherished the dream of an alliance.
• You clearly corrupted Dailliez's quote, but never acknowledged that (above): Dailliez wrote: "The Mongols, after taking Damascus and several important cities from the Turks, after having been routed by the Sultan of Egypt at Tiberiade in 1260, allied themselves 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" (Dailliez, p.306-307). What he says is that the Templars allied with the Mongols after 1260 (not in 1260), which is essentially right (see Franco-Mongol alliance for details). He also doesn't give 1260 at all for De Molay's signature of a treaty, but only refers to the letter to Edward I and obviously means circa 1300 (clear from the context). As far as I know, his statement is perfectly right: you are just, again, corrupting sources to make your case. PHG 12:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• PHG, you're making my case for me. As you just quoted: "The Franks of Acre adopted a position of neutrality favourable to the Muslims" Right. I agree with that. The Franks of Acre were favourable to the Muslims, not the Mongols. The "Franks of Acre" is referring to the Templars, the Hospitallers, the Teutonic Knights, the Kingdom of Jerusalem. They did not ally with the Mongols, they were favourable to the Muslims against the Mongols. There was no treaty between the Templars and the Mongols, which has been my point all along. Dailliez may have said that the Mongols allied with the Templars, but Dailliez was obviously wrong. Now please, can you actually read these books that you're quoting? --Elonka 17:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite Elonka, I'm afraid you are not being precise. In the history of the period, the Franks of Acre typically means the Frank Barons of Acre, a rather small entity since the reconquests of the Muslims. The Hospitallers, Templars and the Franks of Antioch are a different matter. I have always agreed that the Franks of Acre entered into a passive alliance with the Muslims in 1260. But on the contrary, the Hospitallers, Templars and the Franks of Antioch repeatedly allied with the Mongols as per User:PHG/Alliance.PHG 11:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• You still haven't responded on your corruption and misrepresentation of Maalouf and Dailliez above. PHG 11:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have corrupted nothing, I have misrepresented nothing. And as I've repeated elsewhere to you: If you have concerns, bring them up at mediation, stop spreading this dispute all over Wikipedia. --Elonka 19:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• You clearly corrupted Dailliez's quote (above). Dailliez actually wrote: "The Mongols, after taking Damascus and several important cities from the Turks, after having been routed by the Sultan of Egypt at Tiberiade in 1260, allied themselves 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"" (Dailliez, p.306-307). What he says is that the Templars allied with the Mongols after 1260 (not in 1260 as you claim), which is essentially right (see Franco-Mongol alliance for details). He also doesn't give 1260 at all for De Molay's signature of a treaty, but only refers to the letter to Edward I in a separate phrase and obviously means circa 1300 (clear from the context, as he dates de Molay's rule as Grand Master from 1292 to 1314). You simply modified Dailliez's quote to try to make a point that he was wrong. PHG 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would be happy to get into a detailed discussion of just who exactly is misrepresenting sources here. Let's talk about it at mediation. --Elonka 00:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not evade: this is not a actually a subject of our mediation. We are here on the page of Laurent Dailliez, whom you tried to discredit on this very page by corrupting a quote from him. Please explain. PHG 07:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• PHG, in case you may have forgotten, one of our issues at mediation is about the use of dubious sources, remember? "Deciding which sources are reliable secondary sources, and which are not." The whole point we're even talking about Dailliez in the first place, is because you want to use him as a source at Franco-Mongol alliance to say that there was a signed treaty between the Templars and the Mongols, a claim which I charge is false. That's the whole reason that you created this page about Laurent Dailliez, was to try and claim that he was a major author with a "classical" study, so you could bolster your claim. When you created this stub a few weeks ago, the first book you mentioned, was the one that we're disputing.[3] Now, if you want to talk about this issue, let's please do so at mediation. --Elonka 12:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is not about selecting secondary sources, this is about you corrupting quotes. Please explain. Summary hereafter. PHG 05:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Corruption of Dailliez's quote

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

We can talk about this at mediation. --Elonka 07:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? This is not a subject of the mediation. Please explain here why you are corrupting a quote by Dailliez to try to discredit him. PHG 07:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We are already discussing Dailliez at the mediation. Let's keep the thread there. --Elonka 08:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over the notability of this person and the tag

From what I have seen, User:Elonka, User:Pete.Hurd, User:Relata refero, User:Blueboar all have problems with this person and the nature of the sources. Why is it so difficult to produce reliable sources that reference Dailliez's works? An encyclopedia that hired him is not a reliable source, and I must conquer with those who believe there is not enough here to validate him as notable.

I would advise you not remove the tag anymore until consensus is reached with sources that are legitimate, or this is decided through proper channels. Edit warring is not the way to go, and if you decide to remove it again, I'll send it up to AfD myself. We can be civil and work on this by getting it right. Monsieurdl 14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

At this point, Dailliez is actually referenced from 4 sources:

• Demurger, Alain (2007). Jacques de Molay (in French). Editions Payot&Rivages. ISBN 2228902357.
• Sharan Newman, The Real History Behind the Templars.
• Joseph F. O'Callaghan, Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain
• The Encyclopedia Universalis, article on "Les Templiers".

Regards, PHG 11:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem I have with Dailliez- if he is actually as notable as you say he is in France, then why is he not referenced but once in passing by Demurger? Where are the countless references to him in other French historians's works? I can understand if the English publications are lacking, but he'd be referenced a LOT more if he were considered to be credible and a notable academic, right? I have no bias in this matter, but that concerns me, as well as the fact that Sharan Newman is a fiction writer and is not someone who is really in a position to be critical of his work academically, and the Encyclopedia is not independent as I stated above. That's why I asked if there were more academic sources- even if they might be in French. Monsieurdl 14:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Monsieurdl, that I am not seeing strong proof of notability. We do have proof that Dailliez wrote books, that he wrote one encyclopedia article, and we have proof that some of his books have shown up in bibliographies, but that is not sufficient. If we tried to create a bio on every author who'd had one of their books show up in someone else's bibliography, I think we'd have a pretty strong WP:NOT backlash, pretty quickly. Bibliographic mentions are very clearly "trivial" mentions. The closest I've seen to confirmation of notability on Dailliez, is that Demurger mentions him a few times as being a somewhat unreliable source. But I'm not sure that that's enough upon which to build an entire Wikipedia article. --Elonka 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Some comments and a few more sources then:

• Demurger does notice a mistake by Dailliez, but in the same breath actually mentions this is not typical of Dailliez : "...this assertion, false but held as true by Dailliez, who is usually more serious" (Jacques de Molay, p.279)
• An highly reputable Encyclopedia such as Encyclopedia Universalis (the leading and most reputable French paper encyclopedia) selecting Dailliez for its article on the Templars does tell something about his standing.
• Joseph F. O'Callaghan, who wrote Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain and referenced Dailliez, is also a reputable historian.

Just looking for "Dailliez" on Amazon.com:

• Daillez is referenced by Malcom Barber in the bibliography and notes of his book "The New Knighthood- A History of the Order of the Temple" for his book on the rule of the Templars.
• Dailliez is also referenced in Ivanhoe (Penguin Classics) by Walter Scott and Graham Tulloch
• Also in "Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East" by Adrian J. Boas
• Also in "Les Chevaliers teutoniques" by Henry Bogdan for his book on the Teutonic Knights (7 times).
• Also in "Monasticon Praemonstratense: Id Est, Historia Canoniarum Atque Circariarum : 2 Parts" by Norbert Backmund for his work on the Abbaye Notre-Dame D'Huveaune.

PHG 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That someone's book is listed in a bibliography, is not proof of notability. Being listed in a bibliography is what's called a "trivial mention." To prove notability, I'd want to see actual discussions of Dailliez the man, not just a passing mention of one of his books. --Elonka 00:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest- you are producing more references to his works, which is exactly what needs to be done. I'll examine each one and then come back with a judgment before I say one way or the other. Having some sort of sources about Dailliez the man would be nice, but if he is indeed referenced in this number of works legitimately, then I'd withdraw my objection. I'll get back to you all soon. Monsieurdl 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And a few more references, looking at Google books (for "Dailliez"):

• Extensively referenced in "De tempeliers: de tempelorde tijdens de kruistochten en in de Lage landen" (German) [4]
• "The Crusades and the Military Orders" by József Laszlovszky, Zsolt Hunyadi [5], for a variety of Dailliez's work.
• "The "polytyque Churche": Religion and Early Tudor Political Culture, 1485-1516" Peter Iver Kaufman [6]
• "Europa an der Wende vom 11. Zum 12. Jahrhundert" Klaus Herbers, Werner Goez [7]
• "Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades" Norman Housley, Malcolm Barber [8]
• "Tournament" by David Crouch [9]
• "Il mezzogiorno normanno-svevo e le crociate" by Giosuè Musca, for his work "Les Templiers en Flandre"
• "Historia, clima y paisaje" by Antonio López Gómez, for his work on "The order of Montesa" [10]
• "Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East" Adrian J. Boas [11]
• "Saint Blaise: Evêque de Sébaste, Arménie mineure" Armand Tchouhadjian [12]

Thank you for your honesty in addressing this matter. Regards PHG 06:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

After doing some research, reviewing the various references and translating them accordingly, I have come to the conclusion that Dailliez is notable, and that he is not mentioned as much because his work is extremely specialized in the area of the Templars and Provence in France. He is referenced accordingly in English, French, Dutch, German, and Hungarian from what I have seen, all within the scope of his expertise on the Templars. I am completely satisfied in the area of notability, but whatever kind of dispute there is over a Mongol treaty I leave to a more experienced person in that area. I'm weak in the study of central and eastern Asia. Monsieurdl 13:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Could somebody remove the tags at the beginning of the article? (Elonka told me I am not supposed to do so myself as I am the one who created the article). Regards PHG 05:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove it if Elonka agrees with my assessment of the sources, or does not wish to send this to AfD or ArbCom. I would hope that she does as to my reasoning above- it does make sense in my mind. Monsieurdl 14:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can really go either way on the tag at this point. On the one hand, it doesn't really hurt anything, and it does make it clear that an AfD is being considered, which may encourage other editors to bring forward sources proving notability (if such sources exist). On the other, there is at least one editor (Monsieurdl) aside from the article creator who believes that the notability standard has been met. If it were up to me, I'd probably leave the tag on, but I won't fight over it. --Elonka 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dailliez and sources

It is untrue to state that Dailliez does not use sources or references in his work. I just purchased his "Jacques de Molay, dernier maitre du Temple", and it has 14 pages of notes, and 5 pages of bibliography (sample attached). As explained by User:Relata refero in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Laurent Dailliez, many of the books published by Tempus do not use notes ("Les Templiers" was published by Tempus), but this is clearly not the general case for Dailliez's work. PHG 20:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you find a source in the book for his claim that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols, I would be very interested in seeing it. --Elonka 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of article

Now that I have made the case for notability PHG, it is up to you and others to clean up this article by adding more references and properly using the ref tags to refer to your sources. It is imperative that in order to make Dailliez stronger down the road that more must be done. Good luck- I wish I could help, but alas the articles of ancient history call! Monsieurdl 14:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)