Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)

Concerns

I have strong concerns about the sources on this article. Right now it lists:

• Runciman, p. 259
• Wilkinson (Intercivilizational Dialogues lecture)
• Grousset, p. 523
• Roux, p. 316

Well, I've checked Runciman, and there's no mention of this "Viam agnoscere veritatis" on that page. I've also checked Wilkinson, and ditto, no mention. Both do discuss papal communications, but the popes sent multiple communications, and I see nothing to confirm just which letter exactly was being discussed.

PHG, can you please explain? --Elonka 23:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple: 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." PHG (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So the only source which actually mentions this answer is Roux? Shell ^babelfish 11:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Coatrack?

PHG: I have electronic access to the entire letter via the Brepolis database and am wondering what you hope to accomplish by quoting this tiny fragment, as it mentions neither the killings of Christians nor the hope of an alliance. In addition, ought this not be included at Wikisource rather than as a Wikipedia article? I suspect that this is yet another Coatrack for your pet theory. Aramgar (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you have such access, do you think you could give the content of the letter here in its integrity? I am interested of course. Do you also have a translation of the letter? All the interpretations of the letter are not "mine", but those of Runciman, Grousset and Roux. Regards. PHG (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I'd love to know what's wrong with creating an article on a Papal bull. There is even a category "Papal bulls" for that. The letter "Viam agnoscere veritatis" is mentionned in 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.". The content of the bull is given in Sandra Brand-Pierach, Ungläubige im Kirchenrecht, Text of the letter p.174 ([1]). Runciman (p.259) is quoted for the fact that Aibeg and Sarkis returned to the Mongol realm in November 1248, with "complaints that nothing more was happening about the alliance". Grousset is quoted for the "message" (the here described bull) in which "he deplored "the delays to the general agreement between Mongols and Christiandom" ("Innocent IV congedia Aibag and Sargis en leur remettant pour Baiju une reponse dans laquelle il deplorait les retards apportes a une entente generale des Mongols et de la Chretiente."). Bottomline: Aibeg and Sargis were sent back with one message, known as Viam agnoscere veritatis (Roux). I am afraid you guys are starting to behave as stalkers. PHG (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with creating an article about a papal bull. However, the sources in the article should stick strictly to those that are about the document itself, without trying to read more into other sources. There were lots of letters flying around, and sometimes even multiple papal bulls within the same month, some even being carried by the same envoys. So let's please be sure that we're getting the sources right. For example, when you quote Runciman, it's true that Runciman says that the envoys were sent back with complaints, but nowhere does Runciman say that the complaints were in this particular document.

PHG, I have seen you do this with other documents as well, trying to read more into the sources than what is there, as though it's some kind of a logic puzzle. For example, Laurent Dailliez (in a very unreliable source) mentioned "a letter to the English king," and you read all kinds of other details into it, such as guesswork about when the letter was sent, and what the letter said, and you even quoted Latin from some other book as though you'd found the actual letter, but you still had no source which definitively linked them, and further, it turned out that you were quoting Latin that did not say anything close to what Dailliez was claiming.

For quality scholarship on this Viam agnoscere veritatis article, please, just stick to the sources. If you have something that specifically talks about this document, by name, then okay, but please don't try to triangulate it from other books that may or may not be talking about the same letter.

Also, when you're quoting from a French source, please do not provide your own translation, unless you are also providing the original French. Thanks, --Elonka 08:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All authors who mention a letter talk about just one letter being remitted from the Pope to Aibeg and Serkis, so there is no "triangulation" at work here: it is just straightforward that it is one and the same letter, identified as Viam agnoscere veritatis by Roux. If you wish to contradict that, please just find just one source stating that the Pope gave several letters to Aibeg and Serkis. If you can't, you are making a gratuitous assertion that is not coroborated by academic sources. PHG (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that you're only aware of this particular letter and have determined that it must be the same? That's treading far into the field of original research. Shell ^babelfish 12:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All the sources I know say there is just one letter. Further, Roux says that the letter is Viam agnoscere veritatis. If you have a source stating otherwise, go ahead, otherwise you are the one doing original research here. PHG (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry no, that's not how things work here. In scholarly research it is sometimes appropriate to draw your own conclusions based on your knowledge, however, this is never appropriate on Wikipedia. We know that one source names the letter and discusses it; you hypothesize that the other sources must mean the same letter. Please note that the original research policy specifically counsels us against speculation or synthesis of sources to advance a position. Elonka already clearly stated above that she reviewed the sources, using the references you gave and only Roux discusses Viam agnoscere veritatis. Shell ^babelfish 12:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. All authors speak about the letter given by the Pope to the Mongol envoys. This article is about the letter in question, which Roux specifically names as Viam agnoscere veritatis ("Sergis et Aibeg were finally sent back on November 22, 1248, with an answer, known as Viam agnoscere veritatis"). We are just using the name of the letter to name the article, but nobody disputes there is one single letter in question. Regards. PHG (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)