User:Per Honor et Gloria/FMA

Requesting an appeal of the Franco-Mongol alliance case.


 * Continued contributions
 * Since February 2008, when my editorial restrictions started (on the Mongols and the Indo-Greeks...) I have been contributing as many as 800 new articles on a variety of subjects (see Created articles), through about 20,000 additional edits, for a total of 50,000 edits to date, without major issues. I have received 6 Barnstars and Awards in the meantime (see here). I have also completed about 100 DYKs in the same period.


 * Existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance
 * Since all started with a dispute about the way the Franco-Mongol alliance is described in the historical literature, I have reviewed about 70 authors, and found that many authors, probably most, do talk about the actual occurence of an alliance, which was based on written epistolary agreements, with military cooperation, lasting years at a time, although authors generally differ about its precise nature and timing. I found however that it is inexact to describe it generally as "only attempts at an alliance". For a precise analysis of the sources wih online references, see Historians on the Franco-Mongol alliance.


 * I believe a balanced presentation of the variety of views on the subject would be best. Clearly, it cannot be said that there was a full-scale, overarching alliance with a major, continuous military commitments. It was much more however than just "failed attempts at an alliance". What occured was something in between, a series of epistolary and diplomatic agreements resulting in a fleeting Franco-Mongol alliance, leading to attempts at large military combinations, but ending with rather small scale, ineffective, military operations. I would have no issue with the usage of qualifiers such as "A fleeting Franco-Mongol alliance", as often used in the literature. Overall, I wish to be cleared of the accusations that I would have made up the existence of an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols: "alliance" is indeed the way it is described by most historians, the question is more the degree and the limited results of this alliance (Historians on the Franco-Mongol alliance).


 * Mongol occupation of Jerusalem
 * A major point of contention was also whether the Mongols occupied or not Jerusalem in 1299-1300. It was claimed that this did not happen, that I had made it up, that it was a hoax etc... (see Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem). I was copiously attacked for describing this event. I again researched the sources, and it is clear that this event indeed happened and that the historical concensus confirms it. See sandbox article with online sources for the details: Mongol occupation of Jerusalem. In the meantime, an independent contributor of high standing User:Srnec has also researched the subject, and explained that basically all historians agree that Jerusalem was occupied by the Mongols in 1299-1300, explaining that "the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem": see Mongol conquest of Jerusalem. To quote Srnec's own words, I am requesting that we stop "inventing a dispute where there isn't one" . For my sake, and for the sake of historical truth on Wikipedia, I wish to be cleared of the accusations that I would have made up the story of the Mongols occupying Jerusalem in 1299-1300.


 * Sources
 * Since it was claimed I misrepresented sources, I made a detailed analysis and response to a quite faulty and partial "Report on the use of sources": see Response to report on the use of sources. I believe that my usage of sources, although it may not be perfect, is generally correct. It is my intention at least to be as exact as possible.

Hopefully things are being clarified with time. I am requesting that my reputation be cleared, and that my normal editorial status be returned.