Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis

I dispute the assertion 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...". I don't known of any historical source that says so. I am afraid User:Elonka is lying to cover up her claim that several letters were called Viam agnoscere veritatis, which is totally untrue (see Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis). Some reference would have to be given for that claim, otherwise it will be clear that Elonka is building untruths into Wikipedia just to try to "save face". PHG (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid the use of terms like "lying," especially when the matter is embroiled in an arbitration case. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is already discussion about this matter at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)#Untangling, I recommend that to avoid forking, we keep further discussions there. --Elonka 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

God what a terrible mess of a discussion. All I know is that only one of these three articles currently mentions the words "Viam agnoscere veritatis", the other two simply link to it. Therefore it is clear that mos:dab does not require a dab page as there is nothing to disambiguate (yet). I am going to put the redirect back and if the resolution of your fun discussion is to include "Viam agnoscere veritatis" as alternative meaning for all pages this can be reinstated as a dab page ... but not before imho (and in the opinion of the manual of style). Abtract (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a lengthy discussion, yes, but the point is that there was an extensive discussion about this page's existence at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248), and that the consensus at that time was to have a disambig page. If you disagree, you are welcome to try and persuade differently, but in the meantime, please do not revert against consensus. --Elonka 03:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the article talk page aside, the contstruction and formatting of the dab page should be discussed here. And based on the relevant guidelines, it does appear that there is one topic (the 1948 letter). The two other entries on this dab page, if indeed commonly known as Viam agnoscere veritatis, should say so on their own article pages. So, to discuss the variances with the disambiguation guidelines:

1. Why shouldn't the primary (only) Viam agnoscere veritatis article be at Viam agnoscere veritatis?
2. Why should Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) exist at all, if the other letters not known as Viam agnoscere veritatis are already linked from Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)?
3. If they are known as Viam agnoscere veritatis, why don't Dei patris immensa and Cum non solum note that?

Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Because this is a special case, where the disambiguation page was created as a compromise position in a much larger dispute that involved an ArbCom case, one editor being completely banned from the topic area for a year, and dozens of articles needing complex cleanup. Perhaps at some point its existence can be re-examined in the future, but for now, the least disruptive course is to simply leave it alone rather than stirring things up again. If anyone here would like to assist with the cleanup efforts though, additional help would be very much appreciated. --Elonka 15:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually JHunterJ, if you read through the discussion and look at the history of the articles, you can see that the other articles did originally have notices on them that said "if you're look for a different letter referred to as VAV" or something of the sort at the top to assist in disambiguation, but one editor because of a larger problem, kept removing them to prove a point.

The original problem is (again, would have been helpful for you to read the discussion) that while only one letter is officially named "Viam agnoscere veritatis" that we know of, the letters all start with "Viam agnoscere veritatis", were sent around the same period to the same place and dealt with the same subject. They have been confused for each other before in scholarship and by Wikipedia editors trying to work on the subject. The reason this is a disambiguation page and not the main article with notes is that readers who have been confused in this manner are unlikely to readily realize that they wanted the Dei patris immensa or Cum non solum articles without the additional context to identify which actual letter they were looking for (the year and carrier).

So, if you'd like to re-add a note to Dei patris immensa and Cum non solum, I don't think anyone would object, but I think you'd have to make a much better case than technical issues to override the consensus that was developed rather painfully around the Arb case. Shell ^babelfish 15:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't know anything about Dei patris immensa and Cum non solum. If someone who does know something about them would like to re-add the note to those articles, that would certainly clarify things here. I did read the long, long discussion on Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248), but (a) that Talk page is for that article, not for this disambiguation page and (b) there is no obvious final consensus there. If the discussion of the article resulted in the creation of a disambiguation page, the created disambiguation (which falls under a different project) should start out conforming to the disambiguation guidelines and explaining the variances. And please, it's JHunterJ, or Hunter for short if you like. JHunter just looks weird. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're disagreeing with the disambigation page and discussion because it wasn't held in the right place? Also, you probably need to take into account with that discussion is that the one major opponent there is no longer allow to edit these articles because he was found to be misrepresenting sources - absent his objections, most of which were found to be false, there was a general agreement to handle the confusion in this manner.

In any case, do you have any suggestions for how to help clarify this page or can you be more specific about what you feel is non-conforming? Right now, I'm not really sure what you feel needs fixed.

I apologize for missing the ending J on your user name the first time, I've corrected my original post. Thanks for pointing that out! Shell ^babelfish 17:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quite simple, disambiguation pages are to help readers get to the article they seek when there are (usually three or more) several articles with (more or less) the same name ... at the very least each target article should have reference to the dab topic within it ("also known as" etc) or a section about the dab topic. Two of these articles don't even come close to conforming. To solve it is also simple - either the two articles should be changed to make "also known as" mentions (with citations of course) or the dab page is scrapped. As it stands right now it is diambiguating thin air. Abtract (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, honestly, the amount of people that are actually going to be looking for this is so small that it doesn't even matter either way. I suspect the only reason you are here is because it showed up on some bot-generated list for the disambiguation WikiProject. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Abtract (and JHunterJ) also appear to be involved in a User conduct RfC regarding a tendency towards edit-warring. It is unfortunate that this dab page, already the subject of extensive discussions, has now gotten dragged into their dispute. If I said again, "Please drop this", I wonder if it would do any good? --Elonka 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that Elonka has also taken part in that very same Rfc so does that mean she is also not neutral as Hunter and I? No, I prefer to assume good faith and address the issues not the editor. Abtract (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note - editors watching this page may be interested in this proposal. Abtract (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quite simple, disambiguation pages are to help readers get to the article they seek - exactly the point here. Looking beyond the just article name, which attempts to use the proper name given to the bulls, there are many similarities in the letters which have led them to being confused before. If someone were to search for "Viam agnoscere veritatis" they might want any of these three letters, there may also be others that they could possibly be looking for, but these are the ones most often confused. Is there a good reason, other than your reading of the mos page, that we shouldn't use a disambig to make sure readers are able to get to the article they're really looking for? Shell ^babelfish 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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: as I said elsewhere and JHJ say above, 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. The 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) 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And as I said above, the articles used to have that information which was removed by someone trying to make a point. I suggested JHunterJ go ahead and add it back to the other articles, he asked for someone with more expertise in the area to do so. I don't think it makes sense to get rid of this page until that happens just to recreate it again, so how about we skip that step and just let someone fix the two articles that apparently caused this concern back to what they were before? Shell ^babelfish 22:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with that but JHJ will not do it because he does not know the subject (nor do I come to that). Why don't you do it? Abtract (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand him not wanting to do it; this is an incredibly obscure topic. I've added the head note back to both articles, but in order to expand on it in those articles, I need to get a hold of the sources again which are unfortunately, just as obscure as the subjects ;) Can't make a trip to the college library until at least Monday, but I know they had some of the sources last time I had to go looking. Shell ^babelfish 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I am really trying to be helpful here but a simple hatnote doesn't wash. What you need to be able to say is that these other two documents are sometimes confused with our beloved "Viam agnoscere veritatis". If they are, let's say so; if they are not, then we don't need a dab page. Abtract (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And, as I explained, I will need to re-look at the original sources to make sure I'm quoting them correctly and will do so as soon as I have my hands on those sources again; I even indicated a time frame. Is there something I'm missing here? Shell ^babelfish 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't read yr post properly. Good luck with this, I may not be around much for a while. Abtract (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)