Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  Oh, and for the answer to my edit summary...   :) --Elonka 07:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Random section break