Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)

}}

Elonka's summary

Okay, let me see if I can straighten this out. The actual truth of the matter is that there are three documents which use the text "viam agnoscere veritatis", in or around their header:

• A March 5, 1245 letter, commonly referred to by historians as "Dei patris immensa," though one German scholar refers to it as "Verbum agnoscere."
• A March 13, 1245 letter, commonly referred to by historians as "Cum non solum"
• A November 1248 letter, which has been referred to variously as "Viam agnoscere veritatis," "Viam cognoscere veritatis" and sometimes not titled at all, but just referred to as a letter sent in 1248
• All three letters were sent by Pope Innocent to the Mongols. Though years apart, the letters were part of the same "thread" of communication. Because of slow overland transportation, the lag between when a letter was sent, when it could be read, and the time required in waiting for a reply, could routinely be a year or more. Authentication was also an issue, as even when a letter was "received", there could be doubt as to whether or not it was even really sent by the reported sender (sort of the medieval equivalent of "IP spoofing")
• Each papal letter that has survived to modern historians, is an important historical artifact that is usually referred to as a source in multiple works. To distinguish between these letters (usually called Papal bulls), historians often refer to letters with a name, which is usually the first few words of the letter. Where multiple letters start with the same few words, this can cause confusion.

Now for the history of this particular article:

• PHG created the article "Viam agnoscere veritatis" (henceforth to be referred to as "VAV")
  • His version said it was about one letter, the 1248 one
  • PHG quoted several sources, only one of which actually referred to VAV
  • Other of PHG's sources referred to papal communications in general (which PHG assumed were talking about VAV, but they were not clear).
  • At least one of PHG's sources (the German one) was referring to the March 5, 1245 letter, not the 1248 letter. PHG quoted Latin from the German source, saying it was from the 1248 letter.
• When other editors (primarily myself, Shell Kinney, and Aramgar) challenged PHG's interpretation, we did searches through papal documents to figure out what was going on. The easiest way to search, was to search on the text string "Viam agnoscere veritatis". In this way, we learned that there were (at least) three documents in this grouping. The way I think of it, is that it's sort of like an email with a subject line, the header was a consistent reference through all three letters.
• I added the other two letters to the Wikipedia article, and moved the Latin to the appropriate section to straighten things out
• PHG disagreed with this, since he wanted this particular article to be about *only* the 1248 letter, so he moved the information on the 1245 letters to their own articles
• To address the confusion, I proposed that we create a disambiguation page. Other editors agreed, so I moved forward, creating the page and adding disambig notes to all three articles.
• PHG tagged the disambig page as disputed, and has been deleting the disambig notes off of all the articles.
• Further confusion has reigned, as there's this long debate here about what the documents *should* be called, and whether or not "Viam agnoscere veritatis" is even a confusing term.

My contention is:

• That "Viam agnoscere veritatis" is a confusing term
• That the three letters that we're talking about, are sometimes referred to in different ways.

My recommendation is that:

• We move this current Viam agnoscere veritatis article to Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)
• We link all possible confusing terms (Agnoscere, Verbum agnoscere, Viam cognoscere veritatis) to Viam agnoscere veritatis, which will be a disambiguation page that links to all three letters. This will be accomplished by moving the current disambig page Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) to the current location of Viam agnoscere veritatis
• That we ensure that all articles use sources, that we are sure are actually talking about that particular document. If the source is vague, let's just not use it, k?

How's that? --Elonka 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I saw that Srnec disagrees with my description of how the 1248 letter is being referred to. Srnec, do you read German? You may wish to check this pdf.[1] On pp. 175-176 is a reference to Pope Innocent's 1248 letter. Footnotes #857 and 858 even quote partial excerpts of the Latin, starting with the phrases "Sanum locum Dei" and "Sed cum, nondum fidei," respectively. But as near as I can tell, the German dissertation does not refer to the document as "Viam agnoscere veritatis" nor as any of the other names that we have discussed. --Elonka 06:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly a big deal. I was just pointing out that any letter could be referred as "the papal letter of [any year here]" without naming it. Unless it can be shown that the other letters are always named, the statement that the 1248 one is only sometimes named is meaningless. Sometimes I don't name my friends when discussing them with others, but they have names. Srnec (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true that any document could be referred to in a vague manner. I'm just citing the German source as one particular case where we are certain which document is being referred to (because of the quoted Latin), but there is still no mention of title. Getting away from that though, what do you think of my recommendation? --Elonka 06:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka’s recommendation seems sound to me. The disambiguation page should stand and the disambiguation notes at the top of all three articles should be restored. I would add, however, that the redirects cognoscere, agnoscere, Verbum agnoscere and the disambiguation note at Viam are inappropriate: these are ordinary Latin words with many other uses. Only the phrases viam agnoscere veritatis and viam cognoscere veritatis are relevant to these letters. Aramgar (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds ideal if it's true that all three letters sometimes fall under the name Viam agnoscere veritats. But are we referring to the salutation "...to the king and people of the Tartars, that they know the way of truth"? Why is the 1248 letter referred to by the last words of the address (unusual) and the 1245 letters by the incipit (typical)? What is going on here? A fluke of historiographical convention? Can we refer to a "convention" with such obscure topics? Is it even possible to avoid OR in all this? Avoiding vague sources on this touchy topic is probably best. Summing up my confusion: I agree with your proposal, since it strikes a better balance between letters that, based on their texts, are all equally Viam agnoscere veritats. I will doing a little looking into this on my own in the meantime. And Aramgar is right about the common Latin words. (And are you aware that Setton is avaiable free here?) Srnec (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved "Viam agnoscere veritatis" to Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248). I also changed Agnoscere from a redirect, to its own disambig page which links to the various university mottos and other places where the term is used on Wikipedia. Does this look good to folks? If so, all we'll need to do next, is move Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) to Viam agnoscere veritatis, fix some related tags, and we should be all straightened out.  :) --Elonka 17:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You have my thumbs up. Proceed. :) Srnec (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(followup) Okay, I think everything's set now. The pages have been moved, links updated, disputed tag removed, disambigs all pointing to the right place, etc. If anyone sees anything that got missed, let me know.  :) --Elonka 08:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, saying in the Viam agnoscere veritatis article that "The name Viam agnoscere veritatis may refer to one of the following papal communications from Pope Innocent IV to the Mongols in the 13th century: Dei patris immensa, Cum non solum, Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)" is an obvious untruth which is not supported by any source, and which has been clearly disputed by Akhilleus, Adam Bishop and myself above. I am afraid you keep inserting untruths in Wikipedia just to try to make a point that you are right, when you are not. Unless you can provide a source for your statement, this should be deleted. Academics, including Google Book sources you can check right away, all say that these three letters are clearly named differently:

• The 1248 letter is clearly identified as Viam agnoscere veritatis by scholars (Roux, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol, p.316: "Sergis et Aibeg were finally sent back on November 22, 1248, with an answer, known as Viam agnoscere veritatis" (Original French quote: "Serbeg et Aibeg furent finalement congédiés le 22 Novembre 1248 avec une réponse, la lettre connue comme Viam agnoscere veritatis"). Setton, p.522 "The Pope's reply to Baidju's letter, Viam agnoscere veritatis, dated November 22, 1248, and probably carried back by Aibeg and Sargis"[2]. This is also the case of a huge quantity of historians per Google Books [3].
• The 1245 letters are also clearly identified by their own separate names (Roux Les explorateurs au Moyen-Age ISBN 2012793398: Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum homines in 1245 (p.94), and Viam agnoscere veritatis in 1248 (p.105). Jackson The Mongols and the West: Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum in 1245 (p.88). Setton A history of the Crusades: "Two pontifical letters, Dei patris immensa dated March 5 and Cum non solum dated March 13, 1245" (p.519). It is also the case for numerous other historians per Google Books [4].

There is not a single reference to the claim that these three letters can be called Viam agnoscere veritatis, so there is no way that this should be stated as truth on Wikipedia in the Viam agnoscere veritatis article. Comments welcome. PHG (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG, accusing me of inserting "blatant untruths" is uncivil, which is a violation of your ArbCom editing restrictions. You are allowed to participate at talk, but only if you can do so in a civil way. --Elonka 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Would "obvious untruth" be better? (corrected, pardon my English) Please just find a reference to your claim that Viam agnoscere veritatis may indeed refer to Dei patris immensa, Cum non solum, Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248). If this is not referenced, this claim is indeed untrue, and has to disapear from Wikipedia. Writing untruths is the worst of incivilities to every readers of this encyclopedia, Elonka. PHG (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's still incredibly incivil; it helps if you avoid commenting on other editors and instead, comment on the content. I think you're missing the different between us declaring that these three letters are called something and making the point that those three letters start out in the same manner and may be confusing. The articles for the letters are still named what we seem to agree is the most common name. Shell ^babelfish 09:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not. "Obvious untruth" is a comment related to the content, not to the user. My point is that nobody ever wrote that Vitam agnoscere veritatis may refer to either of the three letters of Pope Innocent IV to the Mongols: this is an invention by Elonka and Aramgar, that was unduly used to attack my creation of this article. As an invention, it is "Wikiality": it is not because 2 or 3 users agree about an untrue statement that it should be stated as truth on Wikipedia. This is totaly unacceptable. If a reference to this claim cannot be found, it should just be removed from this encyclopedia. PHG (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG, take a step back and look at what you're saying. You're accusing other editors of intentionally being deceitful and claiming they are making things up just to attack you. If you have any new points to make about the content of the article, I will be happy to listen and discuss it with you. If you choose to continue restating the same argument and attacking other editors, I'm afraid I will have to decline. Shell ^babelfish 10:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy and straightforward: just provide a reference to the claim that "The name Viam agnoscere veritatis may refer to one of the following papal communications from Pope Innocent IV to the Mongols in the 13th century: Dei patris immensa, Cum non solum, Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)" (in the Viam agnoscere veritatis article). As far as I know, this claim is untrue, and as such cannot remain on Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we've discussed that before several times. If the wording of the statement concerns you, can you propose a different wording to indicate to editors that they may have been looking for one of the following letters? Shell ^babelfish 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically the claim as it stands is untrue and not supported by any evidence or reference. The only possible claim that would have some reality would be "The phrase "Viam agnoscere veritatis", or a variation of it "Viam cognoscere veritatis", is contained in the following letters to the Mongols by Pope Innocent IV:...", although what this sentence says is quite un-encyclopedic and does not in my opinion deserve a page (you could have quite a lot of article with "Bulls that contain the phrase...." :). But any claim that Viam agnoscere veritatis may actually refer to any of these letters is, in fact, untrue (Viam agnoscere veritatis is only used by scholars to designate the 1248 letter). And I think I deserve an apology from the contributors who have criticized me for creating this article on the false ground that Viam agnoscere veritatis could refer to several letters, and have made it one of their major argument at Arbcom. PHG (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

NewYorkBrad specifically addressed this and said that the Viam agnoscere veritatis was not part of the reasoning for the sanctions against you; drop it. Since your answer to my question was simply "no", I'm afraid my response will have to be the same. Shell ^babelfish 19:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it is embarassing to see this much "discussion" on what ought to be a simple question: does there exist any source referring to either 1245 letter as Viam agnoscere veritatis? The answer, I presume, is no. PHG, his "incivility" notwithstanding, has a point about Wikiality. The current solution, though it had support from many parties (me included), is original research: it is Wikipedians reading primary sources (the letters) and deciding that since the same three-word string appears in the address of each, it should refer to each equally. As I asked above, though, can this be solved without OR, considering the obvious confusion (probably resulting from the inconsistency we noticed) that has effected sources? I don't know, but it hasn't been yet. Srnec (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we have put more than enough energy into this particular debate. What we've got now, may not be a "perfect" solution, but I think it's a pretty good one. So, is it okay if we cross this one off the list for now? We still have plenty of other cleanup ahead. --Elonka 17:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the solution, if that's what you're asking. I'm just questioning whether or not PHG is right that this is OR, since I have not seen a source presented to show that the term Viam agnoscere veritatis is used for the other two letters. Feel free to cross it off the list if you're comfortable with skirting the lines of OR. I'm a natural rule-breaker, so I'm not going step in the way. :) Srnec (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) This seems like quite a case of double-standards. Some users are pursued relentlessly for their contributions (me), while other can just write original research or be content with "imperfect" solutions. The point is that already 4 users have already pointed out that the claim that "Viam Agnoscere Veritatis may refer to three letters, Cum non solum, Dei patris immensa, Viam agnoscere veritatis" (in the Viam agnoscere veritatis article) is wrong:

• User:Adam Bishop has written: "It's not really accurate to say they can all be referred to as "viam agnoscere" [5]
• User:Akhilleus has written: "I think you're right that none of these letters should be called "viam agnoscere veritatis" if the normal practice is to call letters by their incipit.", and also: "there's not much reason for a disambiguation page" [6]
• User:Srnec has written about the claim on the disambiguation page "The current solution, though it had support from many parties (me included), is original research: it is Wikipedians reading primary sources (the letters) and deciding that since the same three-word string appears in the address of each, it should refer to each equally." [7].
• User:PHG (myself) has shown (above) that there is not a single reference to support the assertion, and that historians always give a different name to the letter, which is never "Viam agnoscere veritatis" for the 1245 letters.

I think it is thus obvious that this disambiguation page (Viam agnoscere veritatis) is based on an un-referenced original research and false statement, and that, as such, it should not remain on Wikipedia. For the sake of everybody, it is important that only true and referenced statements be made here. Please let's put an end to this obviously mistaken claim, and just delete the Viam agnoscere veritatis "disambiguation" page. PHG (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Random section break

Since it is now clear that the Viam agnoscere veritatis disambiguation page is misleading and based on the untrue claim that "Viam agnoscere veritatis" may refer to three letters, could someone kindly delete it, or better, replace it by a redirect to the Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248) article? Thank you. PHG (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that horse dead yet? Oh, and no. I'm not going over my reasons a sixteenth time, please scroll up. Shell ^babelfish 20:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid on Wikipedia there cannot be a good reason to leave an unreferenced and visibly false statement to stand. For the sake of this encyclopedia, such statements have to go. PHG (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best solution would be to delete them all, and if anyone ever bothers to create them again (for some reason other than harping on and on about the Mongol alliance), then we can figure it out. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think everything is extremely clear and straightforward actually. There are three important Papal bulls, called Viam agnoscere veritatis, Dei patris immensa and Cum non solum, and it is normal to have a Wikipedia article for each of them. Then there is a false and totally unreferenced claim (as mentionned by numerous users above) that "Viam agnoscere veritatis may refer to any of these three letters" (here), which simply has to go. PHG (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you still have a bizarre sense of what is important, but I agree, obviously, that they can't all be called Viam agnoscere veritatis. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the lot might not be a bad idea, I doubt they'll ever be more that what they are currently, because they don't seem to be of much importance outside this bizarre Mongol alliance fantasy world. Shell ^babelfish 16:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if my words weren't taken out of context. I said that there's not much reason for a disambiguation page because I doubt that anyone will be looking for any of these letters. I favor Adam's suggestion of deleting all of these articles and the disambig page, because I don't think these letters are particularly important, except to people who are monomaniacally obsessed with supposed Mongol alliances. But I did not say that the disambiguation page is false or unreferenced, and I should not be quoted as saying such. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support deletion of all of them, if they were first moved to WikiSource. Which would be an excellent place for them, with the Latin text and English translations side by side. --Elonka 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooh - Wikisource - that makes a lot of sense; the articles as they stand just describe the source. I've looked during everything that's gone on, but I've not been able to find any work done on these particular bulls that would allow us to make a proper article out of them. In fact, each reference I've been able to find is using the bulls as a source and even that's not widespread outside of a particular obscure area. Shell ^babelfish 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to keep Dei patris immensa, Cum non solum, and Viam agnoscere veritatis as perpetual stubs. I believe these articles do have value beyond the obsessive world of supposed Mongol alliances. I would like the opportunity to move the Latin texts to Wikisource myself. I will need a couple of days to familiarize myself with the policies there and beg your patience. Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideally I would like to keep them too, because I think papal bulls are intrinsically notable, but this argument is going to go on and on and on and on...can't we just delete the disambiguation page? What's the point...the bulls are all linked from the List of papal bulls article anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If we delete the dab page, will we move this one back to its title (w/o a date)? I agree, though, that keeping them as articles is appropriate: papal bulls are intrinsically notable. And who's to say that an article on one or all of them won't be published in the coming years? Srnec (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as the articles exist, I believe a dab page is appropriate. If we delete the articles, then the dab page can probably go with them. But, (sigh), Is it really worth a half-dozen experienced editors, spending the time to even debate such a minor point? There is so much else we could be spending time on... --Elonka 06:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for the answer to my edit summary... [8]  :) --Elonka 07:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, your opinion is well known, but I have to agree with several of the contributors here: the most natural thing to do is indeed to keep the three Papal bulls Viam agnoscere veritatis, Dei patris immensa, Cum non solum, and delete the disambiguation page, which is not justified and based on an untrue and unreferenced claim that "Viam agnoscere veritatis" may refer to any of these three letters. Let's regularize this situation at last and move on. Could someone kindly delete the disambiguation page and move Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248) to Viam agnoscere veritatis? Regards. PHG (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, unblocked, and 1 hour later, *right* back to the same argument. I don't have a very strong opinion on what happens to these pages, and were it not for the efforts of a certain editor, I doubt this issue would be on anybody's radar screen. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Akhilleus, but I have been a dedicated contributor to this encyclopedia for 4 years now, and I know that when original research and unreferenced statements are being made, they have to go, however narrow the area of knowledge being discussed. And I am not the only one who thinks so here. Could someone kindly delete the disambiguation page and move Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248) to Viam agnoscere veritatis? Best regards. PHG (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No. The action of moving the page was not done arbitrarily, but after extensive discussion and consensus-building. It's not going to be changed back just because PHG keeps posting over and over that that's what he wants. It looked to me like we had a consensus on how this situation should be handled, and the discussion was closed. Why do we have to keep re-opening it? I see some editors here who are exhausted by the situation, where they're reacting with a kind of "Oh good god, give PHG what he wants, just to shut him up." But sorry, that's not how I operate. --Elonka 22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To take your own words: "Consensus changes", Elonka :) You now have four to five editors suggesting that this disambiguation page should be deleted. It is not even a matter of "consensus" though: putting untrue and unreferenced statements on Wikipedia is simply not allowed, so the claim you are making on Viam agnoscere veritatis simply has to go. Best regards PHG (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this from another direction

Ok, we know that papal bull naming is odd at best, but other than the initial confusion on this article and one German scholar who's confused over more than just what to call papal bulls, is there any evidence to believe that a disambiguation page is even needed? Trying to straighten out the original mistakes, we've tried several things, so how about another suggestion. Instead of trying to group this set of letters together, would it make sense to have them stand alone and make sure each one links to a list of papal bulls so that anyone who ends up at the wrong letter can find their way to others? Shell ^babelfish 23:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Such as List_of_papal_bulls?

I've probably missed something in the discussion above, but what's our evidence that this letter is actually called "Viam agnoscere veritatis"? I think we have two authors (Roux and Setton) who refer to the letter by that title, but others don't refer to it by any title, just calling it the letter sent in 1248 vel sim. Is it really justifiable to have anything at Viam agnoscere veritatis, if the title isn't commonly used? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I added this article to List of papal bulls; Cum non solum and Dei patris inmensa were already there. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahha - I was just going to go looking for that :)

I think you're right, thats definitely another thing to consider -- and I think more than one person has already questioned why any letter would be named Viam agnoscere veritatis at all since it doesn't follow the typical incipit naming scheme. Anyone have any more thoughts on this? What else do we call that particular letter? Shell ^babelfish 00:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, guys! So here are (again) a bunch of sources naming the 1248 letter Viam agnoscere veritatis:

• Setton, p.522 "The Pope's reply to Baidju's letter, Viam agnoscere veritatis, dated November 22, 1248, and probably carried back by Aibeg and Sargis"
• Roux, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol, p.316: "Sergis et Aibeg were finally sent back on November 22, 1248, with an answer, known as Viam agnoscere veritatis" (Original French quote: "Serbeg et Aibeg furent finalement congédiés le 22 Novembre 1248 avec une réponse, la lettre connue comme Viam agnoscere veritatis").
• And for a bunch of Google books authors, please just check [9]. Regards PHG (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Akhilleus already mentioned Roux and Setton; thanks for the link to others. So it appears for some reason, this particular bull doesn't follow the normal naming scheme. Oh well, not ours to guess why this one's the odd man out. Shell ^babelfish 13:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I agree with your Talk Page suggestion to remove the disambiguation page and simply put a link to the list of Papal bulls in each Papal bull page. PHG (talk)

Perhaps we should retain the "(1248)" disambiguator but redirec the dab page here? The usage of A History of the Crusades and the (astounding) Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani persuade me that the letter is referred to, uniquely, by a phrase from its address and that this usage is not so obscure as to merit another usage here. The solution reached above should be reversed, though perhaps a not regarding the usually naming of papal bulls and the exception in this case and a not relating the addresses of all there is necessary in this article. Srnec (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that, until consensus is reached, the dab page should be binned as it is currently confusing and against mos:dab guidelines - only one of the target articles claims to be called by the topic name. Oh and could I suggest that templating regular users about edit warring after one revert is quite unhelpful. Abtract (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Will you propose the move or shall I? Srnec (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest ... according to mos:dab the best move would be that this page be moved to Viam agnoscere veritatis Abtract (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have requested the move per all the arguments in the above discussions. Srnec (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - there is only one article about this topic so the (1248) is unecessary. Abtract (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many discussions took place about this (see above), because the phrase "Viam agnoscere veritatis" has been confusingly used to refer to multiple different documents. Wikipedia editors have been confused, and even scholars sometimes refer to the document by the wrong name. A Viam agnoscere veritatis disambiguation page was appropriate as a compromise in the previous dispute, and remains appropriate now. Abtract disagreed, tried to redirect the disambig page, was reverted twice by two different editors, then tried to {{prod}} the page, was reverted, then tried to tag it for {{disambig-cleanup}}, was reverted, has been asked multiple times at his talkpage to give it up, and yet now we're here in this RM discussion. This feels like Forum Shopping to me, and I wish it would stop. It is also disappointing that Abtract is taking these kinds of disruptive actions, despite multiple requests to stop, and having an active User Conduct RfC concerning his behavior. This is the kind of thing that exhausts a community's patience, and leads to bans or blocking. --Elonka 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - WOW, who got out of bed the wrong side today then? Abtract (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Abtract, this comment is a completely inappropriate attack, please consider removing it. Shell ^babelfish 21:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is not only one article about this topic, as clearly shown by the disambig page, the discussion above and the discussion on the disambig talk page. I believe that due to the confusion of the titles, the fact that this bull is not titled in the standard manner and the similar topic of the three letters, a disambiguation page is appropriate and this article should stay here. I agree with Elonka that this appears to be yet another attempt for Abtract to get his way - he didn't like the way the disambig page was worded and instead of resolving this by discussion, he's attempted several run arounds to get his change made. Shell ^babelfish 21:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To Elonka and Shell: I have no knowledge of Abtract's edit history or previous conflicts. (Or if I did, I can't remember him.) BUT, re-read the discussion above. No evidence was ever provided to substantiate the claim that any other bull is titled this way. Both A History of the Crusades and the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, both top of the line in academic reference works, refer to the 1248 bull as Viam agnoscere veritatis. Is there really any other bull of this name? Srnec (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You're correct and in fact there was some discussion over whether or not this bull was even correctly titled, however, this isn't about the proper scholarly title of the letters, but rather the confusion that exists between the three letters based on the similar openings and content as well as confusion over the proper names (as stated in above discussion, this particular letter is called by various names). Disambiguation is a way by which readers can get to the proper letter regardless of what the particular book or paper they're reading happens to call it. Shell ^babelfish 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you name a particular book or paper where another bull is called by this name? (If this was already mentioned in the discussion above, I missed it.) 02:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere: "Excellent point. If that is the case (and I have no means of knowing if it is or not) then the solution is very simple: the target articles must make mention of this alternative name, or at the very least they should mention that there is some confusion over the name. A dab page is not the place to introduced new info like this ... if the info is valid then put it in the article, preferably with a citation. Once this has been done the dab page begins to make sense ... right now it doesn't, sorry." Abtract (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Only a matter of common sense really: none of the contradictors have ever been able to provide a single reference for the claim in the Viam agnoscere veritatis disambiguation page that "Viam Agnoscere Veritatis may refer to three letters, Cum non solum, Dei patris immensa, Viam agnoscere veritatis". The basis of this disambiguation page is therefore an entirely false claim: there is not any other bull with the name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" besides the 1248 one. Academics are totally clear about how which letter is called (already described extensively above). As several letters indeed happen to have the words "Viam Agnoscere Veritatis" in them though, this is something that could be mentionned in each article as a cautionary note in order to avoid possible confusion, but not as a general and misleading statement about the way they can supposedly be called. PHG (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.