Talk:Aïbeg and Serkis

Disputed

The quotes by Setton and Runciman do not fit with the Latin of the texts referred to, and it is not at all clear that these two historians are referring to the same letter. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

??Setton explicitly mentions and comments Viam agnoscere veritatis. Runciman doesn't, but is not being mentionned in the paragraph about Viam agnoscere veritatis. I do not see what your problem is. PHG (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG, we have already talked about this at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis, please stop spreading misinformation to other articles. Your best bet right now is to participate at the Arbitration case, not to continue making POV forks. --Elonka 18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations are ridiculous. This has nothing to do with a POV-fork. This is just a well documented article on Mongol envoys to the Pope Nicholas IV, just face it. PHG (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it seems that the article has been rewritten a bit, and has now been stable for several days, would anyone object to my removing the "disputed" tag? Or are there still issues remaining to be resolved? --Elonka 10:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is badly written. At the moment, however, there are no serious factual inaccuracies. Aramgar (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack

This article is yet another coatrack for PHG's Franco-Mongol enthusiasms. Aïbeg and Serkis are historical figures associated with Franco-Mongol diplomacy, certainly. The problem rests in the repetition of these problematic statements:

In his communications to the envoys, the Pope...in the response he remitted to them deplored the delays in establishing a general alliance between the Christians and the Mongols. Runciman also states that Aibeg and Sarkis returned to the Mongol realm in November 1248, "with complaints that nothing further was happening about the alliance".

Similar statements have been removed from Franco-Mongol alliance and Viam agnoscere veritatis, and the secondary sources to whom PHG refers have been questioned by other users (Talk:Viam_agnoscere_veritatis#1248_letter). Furthermore, the Latin of the letter in question says nothing at all about an alliance (Talk:Viam_agnoscere_veritatis#22_November_1248:_Viam_cognoscere_veritatis). If what Grousset and Runciman have to say about the letter is demonstrably untrue, we should cease to invoke them on this issue. Aramgar (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither Runciman nor Grousset do specifically mention Viam_agnoscere_veritatis, and they just mention communications and responses to the envoys. Therefore your argument does not stand Aramgar. You can't have it both ways, since you already insisted that Grousset and Runciman's statements should not be connected to Viam_agnoscere_veritatis. Runciman and Grousset's statements stand in their own right. I am getting tired of your partisan accusations. PHG (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

On what if not the letter are the statements of Grousset and Runciman based. Come on, PHG, are you not a little curious? In addition, I do not see how an interest in the subject matter, a regard for factual accuracy, and respect for Wikipedia consensus can be construed as partisan. Please refrain from ad hominem attacts. Aramgar (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on. Don't talk about ad hominem attacks, you have proven a master at them. These quotes from Grousset and Runciman were specifically deleted by you and your friends from the Viam agnoscere veritatis article because they were not formally connected to Viam_agnoscere_veritatis. They are, however formally connected to Aibeg and Serkis, that's why they fully deserve to be in this article. PHG (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Moon Prince

There is a paragraph of information in this article about the envoys and their background, such as that Aibeg means "Moon Prince" and that he was probably a Christian... The information is sourced to Runciman, p. 259, but I checked that page and it doesn't say anything of the kind, other than that Aibeg was an envoy, and that Serkis was probably a Nestorian. Where is the other information coming from? --Elonka 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that specific part is from Roux. I'll quote him directly. See how you push someone to reference any single comment, and then criticize him for having "too many references" (400 refs in the Franco-Mongol alliance article), just to have it deleted later? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What a shame. You're not a fair editor Elonka. PHG (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ay is Turkish for "moon"; there is no problem here. Aramgar (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for changes

I have removed the problematic statements noted above (Coatrack) and attributed to the otherwise reputable historians Grousset and Runciman. The phrase "in the response he remitted to them" suggest the response that Innocent gave to Aïbeg and Serkis was written. As we have seen, the written response (here) contains no mention of an alliance. In addition, history does not record the conversations the two envoys had with their Mongol masters, and as a consequence we do no know what "complaints" Aïbeg and Serkis may have made or conveyed upon their return. The two statements by Grousset and Runciman constitute historical speculation or are based on a faulty knowledge of the primary source. In either case it would be better to go with what is actually known. Igor de Rachewiltz in his Papal Envoys to the Great Khans addresses Innocent's response to Baiju. He does not engage in speculation but bases his statements on what is actually written in the primary source document, the letter that Aïbeg and Serkis carried and the only evidence we possess for what the two envoys communicated to Baiju. It is not original research to discriminate between secondary sources. Aramgar (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:NPOV, all significant views should be mentionned, and this is non-negotiable. You cannot delete proper secondary sources because of your own interpretations, or your wish to privilege only one point of view. This is a strong disservice to Wikipedia and goes against Wikipedia editing rules.PHG (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG: the two lines referenced to Grousset and Runciman do not constitute "a significant view". There is no evidence for their speculative statements (see below). Runciman published his work over fifty years ago, Grousset over seventy (for another opinion on Grousset[1]). No one since has followed their take on Aybeg and Serkis, despite occasional mention of these minor players in subsequent academic literature. it is a strong disservice to insist that the unsupported speculations of scholars, however reputable, must be included in this article. Once again, it is not original research to discriminate between secondary sources. On the contrary, the application of thought is encouraged at Wikipedia. Aramgar (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Grousset and Runciman are extensively used and referenced in multiple Wikipedia historical articles. I personally have no interest in an editor making original research to claim that Grousset and Runciman's views should not be mentionned. They wrote about this embassy and their publications are well-known, well-published and still in extensive use today. If you wish, you can balance the reference to their work by a comment that recent historians are not making this claim (preferably referenced), but just deleting their works is unethical. Regards PHG (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Grousset's statement, particularly "in the response he remitted to them the Pope", is demonstrably false. We possess the actual letter and it says nothing at all about "delays in establishing a general alliance between the Christians and the Mongols." You have not addressed this point. Aramgar (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are again doing original research. Grousset may be refering to an oral response, or a second written response as well, or whatever. The point is that Grousset is entitled to his interpretations, and we are not here to decide which historian is right or wrong. PHG (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually we do make that decision. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data -- if an older scholar has since been shown to be incorrect, it would be completely irresponsible for us to pretend it was not so and hide our heads claiming it was writing from NPOV. I think you seriously misunderstand the concept -- NPOV doesn't mean that we repeat everything that has been said on the subject, simply that we don't exclude any prevailing points of view. A comment made by a historian more than 50 years ago does not a prevailing view make. Shell ^babelfish 08:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aïbeg and Serkis in primary sources

The slender evidence on which the mission of Aybeg and Sargis has been reconstructed may be easily listed:

• The only source for their names is Simon de Saint-Quentin, Historia Tartarorum, xxxii.51 where the author quotes in full the letter Baiju sent to Pope Innocent IV in 1247. The last line reads: Istud preceptum per manus Aybeg et Sargis misimus, mense julii, .xx. lunacionis. Some manuscripts say "Aibeg".
• A letter preserved in the Registers of Innocent IV, dated 22 November 1248 and addressed to Baiju, says that the pope received messengers from the Mongol commander, treated them hospitably, and understood their messages. Latin: Nuntios vestros, quos ad nostram presentiam destinastis, benigne recepimus, et ea que significastis nobis per ipsos intelleximus diligenter. Full text here.
• Matthew of Paris in his Chronica Maiora records the visit of two messengers from the Mongols in the summer of 1248. He says that their meetings with the pope were secretive, that the letters they carried were translated three times from an unknown language, that gifts were exchanged, and that rumors circulated about a Mongol attack on John Vatatzes, then Emperor of Nicaea and the son-in-law of Innocent's enemy Frederick II. I have added the full text below:

Matthew of Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry R. Luard, in Rerum britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores (London, 1872-73), pt. V, pp. 37-38. Eadem aestate venerunt duo nuntii Tartarorum, a principe eorum ad dominum Papam destinati. Causa autem nuntii eorum adeo cunctos latuit in curia, ut nec clericis, notariis, nec aliis, licet familiaribus, claruit patefactum. carta autem eorum quam Papae detulerunt ter fuit de idiomate ignoto ad notius translata, prout nuntii partibus occidentalibus appropinquaverunt. Suspicabatur autem a multis per quaedam argumentorum indicia, quod in carta continebatur, propositum et consilium Tartarorum fuisse, movere guerram in proximo contra Battacium generum Fretherici Graecum, scismaticum, et Romanae curiae inobedientem. Quod domino Papae non credebatur displicuisse; dedit enim eis vestes pretiosissimas, quas robas vulgariter appellamus, de eskarleto praeelecto, cum penulis et fururiis de pellibus variis cisimorum, et libenter confabulabatur ac favorabiliter et crebro per interpretes cum eisdem, et munera contulit in auro et argento clanculo pretiosa.

There is no evidence of discussions or complaints about an alliance in the primary sources. Aramgar (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Data dump

I am disappointed to see that the documentation I added to this talkpage in order to facilitate the evaluation of secondary sources (Grousset and Runciman) has been dumped indiscriminately into the body of the article. An encyclopedia article is not a data dump. This article needs to be rewritten and greatly reduced. Aramgar (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)