Talk:Simeon Rabban Ata

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Oriental OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyOriental Orthodoxy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Dispute

This seems to be one more in a long series of articles, created to push a POV about Mongol-Christian contacts. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance.

As originally written, the article presented Simeon Rabban Ata as a Mongol official in charge of "Christians in the Middle East". However, I do not think that this is a correct portrayal. Until things can be straightened out, I have tagged the article as disputed. --El on ka 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking again Elonka? Roux (1993) confirms that Simeon was high commissioner for Christian affairs in Iran. PHG (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on a problem editor's contributions, is not stalking. And as I, and several other editors have commented, could you please work in some other topic area for awhile, at least while the ArbCom case is active? It seems like it's taking a half-dozen editors to clean up after you, and we have a backlog of dozens of articles into which you have placed biased information. It would be nice if we could get the existing articles squared away, without you creating even more new ones in the meantime. --El on ka 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information is not biaised, you are. Everything is fully referenced. I am taking out the Disputed tag as you rationale for it has been solved. PHG (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like its a good time to ask for calm again. There's no need to start attacking people again PHG; Elonka has a concern about the portrayal here, which, at first glance, I tend to agree with. Lets give everyone some time to look through sources and make arguments for their concerns with the topic. Nothings going to be hurt by having a disputed tag for a bit and hopefully that tag will attract more editors to help in resolving the issues on way or the other. Shell ^babelfish 21:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Shell, you need a specific rationale to have a "Disputed" tag in, and Elonka's question has been solved. PHG (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No PHG, it has not been resolved. You now have both Elonka and myself concerned with the text and the fact that you are relying on a single source doesn't resolve the issue at all. Every discussion you have does not need to turn into you against everyone else. Lets try working together on this to produce a better article. Shell ^babelfish 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three authors (including Jackson) are being used Shell. I would appreciate that you don't put "Disputed" on any article I create, even before you have actually even studied the matter. All I write is from proper published sources, as you know. PHG (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG, the problem is that multiple of your articles have been, and are being, disputed. Several have also been nominated (successfully) for deletion. But despite numerous requests from multiple editors, and even an active ArbCom case, you keep right on making POV forks and Coatrack articles, faster than the reviewers can keep up. I think it's perfectly reasonable in such a situation, to tag articles as disputed, and give them a few days to sort themselves out. The information in this article may turn out to be perfectly fine, in which case the tag can be removed after review. But since you are the one that created the article, I don't think you're really in any place to be deciding whether or not the tag is appropriate. --El on ka 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(followup) I went ahead and rewrote the article a bit, condensing it to the high points and trying to balance it out. What do folks think? There's definitely still more work to be done, but is it now in a state where we can at least get the "Disputed" tag off of it? --El on ka 15:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can remove the disputed tag. I will add to the article soon. Aramgar (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

I have an interest in Simeon Rabban-ata and access to a few secondary sources not cited here. I considered creating this article myself several months ago but decided against it: in the present climate of Franco-Mongol wishful thinking, an article on any minor figure associated with the Mongols tends to attract a specious POV. I also was not sure such an individual so poorly treated in the academic literature warranted his own article.

This article as it stands seems to me an uncritical selection of incidental historical references. I believe, however, that it can and ought to be salvaged. Simeon Rabban-ata is an interesting figure whose role in the history of the period is worthy of examination. Very little of substance has been written about him in any Western language with the result that information presented in this article approaches original research or at the very least inappropriate synthesis. Editors ought to resist the urge to assemble every single offhand mention of him in French and English language histories (aka "properly published sources") and present them as established academic consensus.

Points to emphasize:

Rabban-ata is a title.
Simeon was physician to Ögedei Khan: his position of influence stems directly from the Khan's favor.
Simeon's relationship to the Mongol regime is difficult to define.
Simeon's reputation as a builder is unsupported.
Simeon met both Andrew of Longjumeau and Ascelinus at different times and with very different receptions.
Simeon may have been hiding from Mongol authorities in 1247.
There are probably editors with a background in Eastern Christianity who might add to the discussion.

I would very much like to help with this article but would prefer to see the Arbcom case resolved before I begin. I have little inclination to argue every single offhand "properly published source" with a hostile and obsessive editor in the time I give to Wikipedia. Aramgar (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aramgar. Thank you for your kind words. You seem to be forgetting that I am the one being agressively attacked by you guys, so if anybody would have to be qualified as "hostile and obsessive" you and a few others would actually better qualify. I am only defending myself against these false accusations, and unless you take your inspiration from McCarthyism or Guantanamo you cannot criticize me for making my own defense.

Now, I totally dispute your claim that this article would be original research or even synthesis. "Synthesis" would mean that I take A and B, and make an original C deduction from it, which I don't think you can find any case of in this article. Further, my As and Bs are taken from three books I have which address the subject of Simeon Rabban Ata, and they happen to be by some of the most respectable and modern authors on the subject of the Mongols (Jackson, Roux, Richard). I am afraid it would be hard to make a better rendering of these three sources on this subject.

Further, you are totally welcome to add more material on this subject, if possible without deleting the very proper sources I have already referenced here. For once, please try to be constructive rather than destructive in your edits. Regards. PHG (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG, you are way out of line. I have not seen any indication that any of Aramgar's edits have been destructive, quite the contrary, he's one of the more valuable editors that we have in this topic area. Please stop attacking everyone who disagrees with you, and please review WP:NPA --El on ka 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give one example, multiple deletes of referenced authors such as Grousset and Runciman from the Aibeg and Serkis article is exactly destructive behaviour. Referenced opinions should be balanced, not just erased in favour of just one view. It is rather funny that you, of all editors, would make this comments as you are one of the most destructive of all [1]. Regards PHG (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG, do you realize that with this kind of language, all that you're doing is giving us more diffs to use at the ArbCom case? To be clear though: Removing inappropriate references, is not destructive behavior. Aramgar's actions are backed up by talkpage consensus. Yours (PHG's) however, are often done in defiance of comments by other editors. See Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --El on ka 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]