Talk:Nerses Balients

Problematic content

I've removed the following content [1]:

However, Edouard Dulaurier actually only mentions that Nerses may have exagerated Hetoum's accomplishments somewhat, specifically disputing that although Ghazan sent 15,000 men as far as Gaza Hetoum probably did not go farther to Cairo, but does not challenge the account of the Mongol's capture of Jerusalem and Hetoum's visit to the Holy City for 15 days afterwards.<ref>Receuil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Armeniens I, Chronique du Royaume de Petite Armenie, p. 659-660 [http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-51557&M=imageseule Note 1, p.659]:<br>"The account of the battle of Homs, in which [[Ghazan]] routs the Egyptians, on December 23, 1299, can be compared with that of Hayton, ''De Tartare'', cap. XLII, and the narration of M. d'Ohsson, ''Hist. des Mongols'', liv. VI, Chap. vi, t. IV, p.233-240. It is obvious that Nerses Balients added here a few fantastic details, devised to enhance the role played by the king of Armenia Hetoum II, as an auxiliary of the Tartars. We can very certainly put in doubt the pursuing of the Egyptians by this prince, after the battle, as far as the place named Doli by the compiler, which he located near [[Cairo]]. Indeed, the Mongol general who had been dispatched with a body of 15,000 men to pursue Sultan Nacer, did not go farther than Gaza, and stopped at the desert limit between Syria and Egypt". End of the note.</ref>

I think its important if articles are to have a neutral point of view, that we avoid editorialising. Discussing what people don't say inevitably leads to the writer's interests and emphasis coming through and is pretty close to WP:OR. If a third party has discussed the fact that these things are not challenged, I would support referencing that but find it being raised by our article to cross the line from reporting to analysis. WjBscribe 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WJBscribe for the comment. Of course, mentionning and quoting the works of an historian (who is otherwise extensively referenced by modern scholars on this very subject) is not OR in itself, and does have informational value. To your point though, I will rephrase so that it does not constitute "editorialising". Regards. PHG (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)