Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)/Archive 1

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)
 * I have spent the morning doing original research, i.e. reading the Latin letter Viam agnoscere veritatis. The letter is purely religious in character. There is no mention of an alliance or the killing of Christians. Furthermore the date of the letter in the article (1248) does not match the date of the letter in my version (March during the second year of Innocent IV or 1245) or even the date of the letter provided in the German dissertation (1245). I stand by my earlier statement: this is yet another coatrack. Aramgar (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a tiny quibble. Reading a letter isn't original research.  If you had writen the letter, that would be original research.  Reading a letter is source-based research, which is allowed. Wjhonson (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul
Okay, after having gone spelunking through source documents, I think I've figured out what's going on, and I took a stab at untangling the article. Basically, it appears that "Viam agnoscere veritatis" is used to refer to multiple documents, at least three that I have identified so far. Two of them were the papal bulls issued in March 1245,March 5 March 13 and one, if I'm to believe Setton, was the reply from Pope Innocent that was sent in 1248. The German dissertation that is sourced, though it calls the document "Viam agnoscere veritatis", is actually referring to the document that we already knew about, "Dei Patris Immensa", and this checks out from the source that was printed in the German dissertation, which matches the source document that is in the MGH. So I created some new sections, and moved the excerpt up into the "Dei patris immensa" section, and I think that straightens things out. I also removed some of the other sources, as we discussed above, which don't specifically mention which letter that they're talking about.

Now, I've done my best to sort things out in the article, though I think I may have been skating the edge of OR in places, since I'm basically saying that the German student got a title wrong. So if someone could please doublecheck what I've done, and let me know your thoughts, I would appreciate it. --Elonka 00:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Papal missions to the Tartars in 1245
According to I. de Rachewiltz’s Papal Envoys to the Great Khans (Stanford University Press, 1971), “Innocent sent a number of exploratory missions to the East a few months before the Council (of Lyons) was to meet” (p. 85). How many embassies did Innocent IV send to the Mongols in 1245?: Aramgar (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Iohannes de Plano Carpini, Franciscan who traveled through eastern Europe and across southern Russia to Karakorum. According to the MGH, he carried letter #105 or “Viam agnoscere veritatis: cum non solum.”
 * Laurentius de Portugal, Franciscan who “was to reach the Mongols from the Near East.” (Rachewiltz, p. 87). According to the MGH and the letter itself, Laurentius carried letter #102 or “Viam agnoscere veritatis: dei patris immensa.” Roux has speculated that he may never have left (p. 313). Rachewiltz says that nothing is known of Laurentius' mission, including whether he reached the Middle East (p. 118). Jean Richard agrees (Histoire des Tartares, p. 21).
 * André de Longjumeau, Dominican who left at about the same as the two embassies above; Rachewiltz says March 1245 (p. 87). He passed letters intended for the Great Khan to a Mongol commander near Tabriz. The fate of the letters is unknown (p. 113). He returned to Lyons in April 1247 (p. 112).
 * Ascelinus de Lombardia, and Simon de Saint-Quentin, Dominicans who also left Lyons in March 1245 (p. 87), a date supported by the front matter of Jean Richard's edition of Simon's Histoire des Tartares (Paris, 1965) (p.13). The mission found Baiju somewhere in Azerbaijan and returned to Lyons in late summer of 1248 with two Mongol envoys. Rachewiltz does not name them but says that one was "a Turk and the other a Nestorian Syrian" (p. 117). The following passage from Rachewiltz is interesting:

5 March 1245: viam agnoscere veritatis
Aramgar (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For clarity, the above excerpt is from the document also known as Dei patris immensa (which you can see right after "veritatis"). This one was sent on March 5, 1245. --Elonka 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

13 March 1245: viam agnoscere veritatis
Aramgar (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And the above document (p. 75 instead of p. 72) is Cum non solum, sent March 13, 1245. --Elonka 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

22 November 1248: Viam cognoscere veritatis
Aramgar (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a faithful summary, not an exact translation. If you should have questions about words, phrases, meaning, or nuance; please feel free to ask. I would be happy to discuss these with you.


 * To king Baiju Noyan, princes, and barons of the Tartar army: viam cognoscere veritatis.


 * We have received your messengers and understood what they had to say.


 * Because of the responsibility placed on us, we look after the salvation of all peoples, so that all rational beings may know their Creator, follow him in faith and deed, and be with him after they die.


 * So that we may not appear to neglect you, since you live so far away, we have sent messengers to explain the true faith and advise you about salvation.


 * But since you are not yet Christians and are ignorant, knowing little of the Creator and Jesus Christ; as much as we are troubled, we know that a more serious danger threatens your souls, especially since you have heard about the faith and cannot be excused before God on account of ignorance. Nor ought you be glorified on the grounds of the strength through which, with the Lord permitting, you have conquered many nations.


 * Better that you humble yourself before Him, face to face, and recognize His forbearance, Who for so long has endured your destructive actions; that in waiting, you may be turned from errors to truth, and be able to fear Him, lest He provoked for too long a time should threaten you, since you do not recognize His omnipotence.


 * And so we advise you, warn you, and beseech you, at long last, listening to our advice and thinking about the perfection of your soul, leave the ways leading to destruction and approach the right way through which one comes to joy after death.


 * And that you may make more unencumbered progress towards belief in the Creator of everything, cease at once to exercise the sword of persecution in the slaughter of people, especially Christians. By abstaining from such things, which offend the eyes of God, you will more easily find His grace and mercy. Lyon, 22 November 1248.       Aramgar (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

the disputed tag
Are the disputes over yet ? There has been no edits to the article for almost 2 days. Can the disputed tag be removed ? This article is a DYK candidate. I would like to know if it's ready to be featured on MainPage yet? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The disputes on this page are not yet resolved and the page itself is not ready for the spotlight. I have been working on translations of the letters in question. Some of the assertions made about the letters in some of the secondary sources cited here are not true, while my assertions about what the letters actually say constitute original research. This article began as a coatrack to support one editor's specious assumptions about a Franco-Mongol alliance. Like many of the articles associated with the Franco-Mongol dispute (examples), this one may take several months to fix. Sorry. Aramgar (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I took another copyediting pass. As the article stands right now, I would be willing to remove the "disputed" tag, though if anyone else has concerns, please speak up, thanks. --Elonka 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I too am willing to remove the "disputed" tag. Aramgar (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Letters and bulls
I may have missed the answer to this somewhere above..but was it ever determined whether these are letters, or bulls? They are quite distinct - a papal letter is just a letter from a pope, which, while important, didn't have the same force as a bull. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the later evolution of the term "papal bull" but believe it is safe to call this kind of formal communication in the middle of the 13th century a bull: it most certainly had a seal dangling from the bottom. If you think it may be confusing, I would be happy just to call them "papal letters." Aramgar (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In Dr. Jackson's Mongols and the West, both Cum non solum and Dei patris immensa are listed in the index under "Papal bulls". --Elonka 06:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What kind of seal did it have? How are they described in the papal registers? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

1248 letter
Numerous authors write about the 1248 letter given to Aibeg and Sarkis:
 * "Histoire des Croisades", René Grousset, p523: Grousset mentions the "response remitted to Aibag and Sargis" in which "he deplored the delays to the general agreement between Mongols and Christiandom" ("Innocent IV congédia Aibag and Sargis en leur remettant pour Baiju une réponse dans laquelle il déplorait les retards apportés à une entente générale des Mongols et de la Chrétienté.").
 * "Reaching Innocent in 1248, they were given his final communication, an appeal to the Mongols to end their slaughters, especially of Christians (Rachewiltz, 87, 115-118)." in David Wilkinson, Studying the History of Intercivilizational Dialogues
 * Setton, p.522 "The Pope's reply to Baidju's letter, Viam agnoscere veritatis, dated November 22, 1248, and probably carried back by Aibeg and Sargis"
 * 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" (Original French quote: "Serbeg et Aibeg furent finalement congédiés le 22 Novembre 1248 avec une réponse, la lettre connue comme Viam agnoscere veritatis").
 * 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".

... are all of these historians wrong about the content of the 1248 letter? PHG (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what we need to be careful about, is ensure that we're only using historians that are actually talking about this particular document. For Grousset and Runciman, it's not clear that they're talking about this particular letter, since what's in the Latin does not bear any resemblance to what they're saying. Runciman also is not using the Registres letter as a source, but is instead referencing something by Pelliot (which I haven't read). I checked Jackson's Mongols and the West, and he's definitely talking about the letter #4682 from the Registres, but says about it simply, "Innocent's reply to Baichu, dated 22 November 1248, merely warned him of the consequences of persisting in error." (Jackson, p. 89)


 * Bottom line: I recommend that we stick with the modern historians' view of the letter, rather than trying to read anything into interpretations from over 50 years ago which may or may not have been talking about the same thing. --Elonka 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there really 3 “Viam Agnoscere Veritatis” letters ???
Where does the assertion come from that there were 3 letters called Viam Agnoscere Veritatis? There is visibly no reference in the article for this statement. I re-read the account by Jean-Paul Roux “Les Explorateurs au Moyen-Age”, and he clearly names three different letters by Nicholas IV to the Mongols, and he only mentions one Viam Agnoscere Veritatis. He clearly names the letters as: Is there any scholar who actually says there were 3 Viam Agnoscere Veritatis letters?? If so, is it even a mainstream assertion, or just a confusion by one author? Alternatively, is it just an original research statement? A few contributors have strongly criticized me for speaking about one “Viam Agnoscere Veritatis” and claimed there were actually three, but from the sources I have access to there was only one such named letter indeed (Roux). I checked on Google book, and there is not a single reference for "three Viam agnoscere veritatis". It would also seem that "Viam cognoscere veritatis" is never used as a name for the third letter. Please advise. PHG (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245)
 * Cum non solum (13 March, 1245)
 * Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248)


 * Please see my section above.  --Elonka 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To your knowledge, does any author say that there were 3 letters called Viam Agnoscere Veritatis? PHG (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any, no, but that doesn't mean the statement is inappropriate. See What is not original research. Anyone can look for themselves at the documents and see that they start off with "Viam Agnoscere Veritatis" or some variant.  Papal bulls are normally named after the first few words of the document, which is why there is probably confusion on this matter. --Elonka 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you've been steneously attacking me by claiming that there were actually 3 letters called "Viam Agnoscere Veritatis" when I only spoke about one, but this is actually just your own interpretation, and is not corroborated in any way by published sources?? Elonka, this is serious: it seems you have totally made up this story about the 3 "Viam Agnoscere Veritatis" letters to try to discredit the article I created! These letters are called by three different names by scholars (Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245) Cum non solum (13 March, 1245) Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248)) and actually nobody says there were 3 Viam agnoscere veritatis except you! I hereby demand an apology from you, and that you retract all your accusations. PHG (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, you were the one who brought in the document from the German dissertation, that quoted "Dei Patris Immensa" but called it "Viam agnoscere veritatis." You are also the one who has been quoting multiple scholars who don't mention any document name, and then trying to claim that this means that they were talking about this one.  Let's please keep things straight here. Check the above threads on this page for details. --Elonka 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will gladly recognize that I mistakenly quoted a segment of "Dei patris inmensa" for "Viam agnoscere veritatis" in the original Latin, that happens. It is unrelated, and it does not change at all the fact that you fabricated the story that there were 3 letters named "Viam agnoscere veritatis", a fabrication you used to attack me. You are only throwing more dirt to try to hide this fabrication. Please apologize and correct yourself. If anything, this article should either be called Letters of Innocent IV to the Mongols with the three letters in them, or Viam agnoscere veritatis with only the Viam agnoscere veritatis letter in it, in which case it will be again legitimate to insert the comment by Grousset about the "response" which was remitted to Aibeg and Sargis. PHG (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, Pope Nicholas IV? I think you mean Pope Innocent IV.  Pope Nicholas was decades later. --Elonka 06:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected, but the statement and the proposal stand. PHG (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that apparently no historian has ever talked about 3 "Viam agnoscere veritatis" letters. This turns out to be an interpretation made by a few editors here, based on their personal reading of the first words of the letters sent by Innocent IV to the Mongols. Historians however take great care in naming the three letters differently, precisely I suppose because they start with the same words. The three names used for these letters are (Referenced from Roux): We should therefore have one article for each letter, as is typical for Papal bulls (see Exultavit cor nostrum). I am also asking the various contributors who accused me of "misrepresention", claiming that "there were several Viam agnioscere veritatis letters rather than just one" (which I had created this article about), to retract themselves and correct their accusations on various pages (especially Evidence and Workshop pages on Arbcom). Regards PHG (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245)
 * Cum non solum (13 March, 1245)
 * Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248)


 * It's not "an interpretation made by a few editors here"; "reading of the first words of the letters" is standard naming procedure for papal bulls. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is obviously not the procedure that has been followed for these 3 letters however, perhaps because of the confusion that would have arisen. Apparently nobody has ever claimed that there were 3 Viam agnoscere veritatis letters (appart from 2 or 3 Wiki contributors here). In the literature, these letters are clearly named separately: Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245) Cum non solum (13 March, 1245) and Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248), and academic usage is what should prevail, rather than some deductions made by a few Wikipedia editors. PHG (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see that editors here are to be denigrated if Roux used an atypical naming system. I have the p.316 reference for Viam Agnoscere Veritatis; can you please give me the page references for his use of the other names? Kafka Liz (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Roux's naming system, far from being an atypical one, seems to be the standard. Apparently nobody ever wrote about 3 Viam Agnoscere Veritatis letters: this is a fabrication. I am not denigrating anybody, I am just asking not to be slandered with false claims:
 * For Roux (Les explorateurs au Moyen-Age ISBN 2012793398) it is: Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum homines in 1245 (p.94), and Viam agnoscere veritatis in 1248 (p.105).
 * For Jackson (The Mongols and the West) it is also Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum in 1245 (p.88).
 * For Setton (A history of the Crusades) it is "Two pontifical letters, Dei patris immensa dated March 5 and Cum non solum dated March 13, 1245" (p.519)
 * It is also the case for numerous other historians per Google Books, so it is obvious that Roux is absolutely not alone here. Quite the contrary: nobody ever speaks about "Three Viam agnoscere veritatis letters" . If somewhere such reference exists, it would be marginal at best. To all historians there is only one Viam agnoscere veritatis, which is the 1248 letter, and the 1245 letters are designated Dei patris immensa and Cum non solum.
 * Again, I am also asking the various contributors who have been accusing me of "misrepresention" by indignantly claiming that "there were several Viam agnioscere veritatis letters rather than just one" (which I had created this article about), to retract themselves and correct their accusations on various pages (especially Evidence and Workshop pages on Arbcom). PHG (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG: No. You created the article Viam agnoscere veritatis as a coatrack for your Franco-Mongol enthusiasms. You adduced the abridged version of Dei patris immensa from a German dissertation, called it Viam agnoscere veritatis, and made false claims about its content. You obviously still fail to notice that there are three letters of Innocent IV addressed to the Mongols that begin either Viam agnoscere veritatis or Viam cognoscere veritatis. Please read this talkpage again da capo. Aramgar (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Untrue. I just created this article to document Viam agnoscere veritatis.
 * 2) Yes, I mistakenly introduced a Latin excerpt from another letter in my original version, and I apologize for that.
 * 3) No, I did not make false claims about its content: I only quoted what Grousset and Runciman were saying.
 * 4) You are stubbornly denying the way the academic community calls these letters Viam agnoscere veritatis, Dei patris immensa and Cum non solum. Calling all of them Viam agnoscere veritatis because you just looked at the first few words of each letter is your own original research fabrication, and attacking me with such a fabricated claim saying that "there were several Viam agnoscere veritatis letters" is completely wrong. Respect other editors and respect the sources please. PHG (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, I admit to some initial confusion as to the nature of this discussion, but from what I see, no one is fabricating anything or trying to push original research here. I understand why you might feel attacked, but I think you are being a bit over-defensive here.  I’ve read this talk page from top to bottom several times to be sure I’m clear on what’s going on, and what seems to have happened is this:
 * You created an article with a Latin quote that did not say what you claimed it said
 * Other editors took issue with your claim yet tried to come to an understanding of how such a mistake or misunderstanding might have occurred (i.e. as a result of confusion between letters that begin in a similar fashion.
 * You seem to have misunderstood Elonka’s and Aramgar’s intent here. No one ever argued that the letters all had the same name, only that they began in a similar fashion. No one is denying the other names either; in fact, Elonka brought up these names first. No one here is behaving in the manner you describe. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note, PHG already forked this to two other articles Cum non solum and Dei patris immensa. Shell babelfish 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Untangling
In order to deal with the above-mentioned forks, here is my recommendation for how to proceed: Sound good? --Elonka 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems reasonable to keep Cum non solum and Dei patris immensa as separate articles
 * We should link them to a disambig page though
 * This current "Viam agnoscere veritatis" article should be moved to Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)
 * The Viam agnoscere veritatis page can then be set up as a disambiguation page, which points to all three documents. So if someone links to it, they can then be made aware that there is some confusion (which is the exact purpose of a disambig page). And if any future documents with similar titles are identified, they can easily be added.
 * These three letters bear similar addressees (the Mongols) and almost identical incipits (viam agnoscere veritatis or viam cognoscere veritatis). They clearly constitute a unified group. Your solution seems reasonable. Aramgar (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. On further examination, it is even untrue that the three letters share the same beginning. The start for the Cum non solum is indeed "Cum non solum" (see ), and the start for Dei patris immensa is indeed "Dei patris immensa" (see ): this is why all historians just call them this way, and nothing else. The notion that these letters could be called Viam agnoscere veritatis is therefore totally wrong and not supported by the academic community. The only letter which is called Viam agnoscere veritatis by historians is the 1248 letter. As far as I can see, there is absolutely no reason to make it a disambiguation page to unrelated documents such as the 1245 letters. PHG (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, PHG. What Aramgar said is that they share addressees and have very similar incipits. Please look again at the links you provided: the incipit is located just above the main body of the text, in the fashion of a title (please note my wording here - I am not claiming it actually is a title). Kafka Liz (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So that others may verify for themselves what is manifestly true, I have provided the following diffs: Cum non solum, Dei patris inmensa , and Viam agnoscere veritatis . Aramgar (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Untrue again. The incipit (see Wikipedia incipit article) is not the supplementary title above the text (often added by later editors), but the first few words of the body of the letter (which originally did not have such titles). The general practice is that the name of a letter is defined by its incipit, hence the very reason why Cum non solum is indeed called "Cum non solum" (see ), and Dei patris immensa is indeed called "Dei patris immensa" (see ). In your quote of the letters, you have misrepresented the title for an incipit, contrary to the practice of published sources, ). Please don't distort recognized academic nomenclature (followed by all historians above) or misrepresent the meaning of words such as "incipit" just to prove a mistaken point. PHG (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, again, no one is trying to distort or misrepresent anything here. Please, please try to have a little more good faith here. The text above the main body of the letter is not a supplementary title but the introductory address; what is your evidence that it was added by later editors? Kafka Liz (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know bulls did not have "titles" or "introductory addresses", they only had the body of their text (titles did not exist in the 13th century, see the Incipit article for details). This is why the incipit was used to describe them instead. The best proof of that is that no historian uses the introductory address to name these bulls, but only the incipit itself. The bottom line is that nobody calls the 1245 letters Viam agnoscere veritatis, so to claim it on Wikipedia is totally unjustified and is a total untruth. Just be honest enough to recognize that. PHG (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I take offence at my good faith efforts to de-escalate this dicussion being characterized as dishonest. You yourself referred to the text above the letter as "a supplementary title."  No one here ever claimed that the letters were all called "viam agnoscere veritatis" but merely pointed out that the letters began inn a similar fashion.  I repeat, on what evidence do you claim that the phrase above the main body of the text was added by later editors? Kafka Liz (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the Incipit article? It is clear enough. Have you actually read above that no historian actually calls the 1245 letters Viam agnoscere veritatis? This claim to the contrary is totally untrue, and furthermore has been used to attack me unfairly. Please kindly retract such flase accusations, that's all I'm asking. PHG (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is obviously some possible confusion here, which is why a disambiguation page seems reasonable. Just on this article itself, we already have evidence that multiple people were confused. PHG, when you created the article, you called it "Viam agnoscere veritatis", but you quoted Latin from a different document, Dei patris. This was understandable, considering that the German dissertation that you used as a source, got it wrong.  And it's taken a half-dozen editors here, weeks to try and untangle.  These kinds of legitimate confusion, are the exact reasons for a disambiguation page. It's not declaring an "official" title, but simply clarifying things for anyone who may be confused. --Elonka 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute your assertion in Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) 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 you are lying to cover up your claim that several letters were called Viam agnoscere veritatis, which is totally untrue. You have nevertheless used this false claim to attack me. Give some reference for that claim, otherwise it will be clear you are building untruths into Wikipedia just to try to "save face". PHG (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hadn't checked this in a few days, this is an elegant solution to an obviously confusing situation. Papal bulls aren't exactly something your everyday reader is going to have a lot of information about. Shell babelfish 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you have been virulently accusing me of writing about the Viam agnoscere veritatis letter, by claiming that there were actually several such letters. Your claim was actually untrue: Cum non solum is only called "Cum non solum", after the incipit of the letter (see ), and Dei patris immensa is only called "Dei patris immensa" for the same reason(see ). And the only letter to be called Viam agnoscere veritatis is the 1248 letter. This is also what all historians say. It's OK really, anybody can make mistakes, but I am only asking you that you properly retract the accusations you have made against me on this subject. Please be honest enough to these accusations on the  Evidence and Workshop page of Arbcom. Thank you. PHG (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When you start using words like "all" and "only" you're setting yourself up for trouble. "All" historians do not use those names; you've shown us two examples where this is not the case and its certain that we have yet to do a large survey of historians.  Lets please keep this discussion in the realm of what's possible and not make overblown statements that beg arguments. Shell babelfish 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What examples are you talking about? Please be specific. Just give me examples of historians who actually call the 1245 letters Viam agnoscere veritatis PHG (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well for starters, you could look at the section above titled Papal missions to the Tartars in 1245. Beyond that, if you give me a chance to get to the library, I can show you myriad examples of historians being all over the map when naming papal bulls; its a known issue and its certainly not something the average reader is going to be able to sort out.  Do you believe we should expect your average internet user to be aware of proper nomenclature for papal bulls and other correspondence? Shell babelfish 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I re-read "Papal missions to the Tartars in 1245" above, and unfortunately after verification MGH does not say that the title is "Viam agnoscere veritatis:Dei patris immensa": . And all the authors I have seen do name the letter Dei patris immensa only (as for Cum non solum ). All historians I have seen are naming the letter properly by their incipit, that is, the first words of the body of the letter . It is also the proper way of naming bulls. If someone somewhere is naming them differently, it would actually be a mistake, and there would be no reason to reproduce that mistake on Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhm, I didn't say they were correct when doing it wrong, I was just pointing out that its a common error, thus a reason for a disambiguation page. Shell babelfish 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(note: there is also discussion about this at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation), but to avoid further confusion, I recommend that we keep the threads here) --Elonka 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, we have already established that there is legitimate confusion on this, as indicated by the ref that you yourself provided, where the German dissertation called a document "Viam agnoscere veritatis", but quoted "Dei patris immensa". It is for cases like these, that a disambiguation page is appropriate.  Redirects are cheap, and Wikipedia routinely provides disambig pages for errors such as common misspellings, or pop culture confusion. By providing a disambig page, we are not trying to give any particular authority to the title, we are just trying to reduce confusion. --Elonka 22:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Untrue again. The German author in question quotes an excerpt from Dei patris immensa it turns out, but as far as I can see, she claims nowhere the title as Viam agnoscere veritatis (I made this mistake once, and alreay apologized). The only confusion between the three letters is actually here, being generated by a few users who have tried to claim that Viam agnoscere veritatis was the name of several letters, when it is not the case. My only point is that these letters have indeed three different names, which do follow the normal incipit rule for Papal bulls: Cum non solum (, Dei patris immensa, Viam agnoscere veritatis, and there is apparently a consensus among historians to call them so:
 * - For Roux (Les explorateurs au Moyen-Age ISBN 2012793398) it is: Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum homines in 1245 (p.94), and Viam agnoscere veritatis in 1248 (p.105).
 * - For Jackson (The Mongols and the West) it is also Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum in 1245 (p.88).
 * - For Setton (A history of the Crusades) it is "Two pontifical letters, Dei patris immensa dated March 5 and Cum non solum dated March 13, 1245" (p.519)
 * - It is also the case for numerous other historians per Google Books . Actually nobody ever speaks about "Three Viam agnoscere veritatis letters".
 * To all historians I have seen there is only one Viam agnoscere veritatis, which is the 1248 letter, and the 1245 letters are designated Dei patris immensa and Cum non solum. So my only point is that we should take the following actions:
 * 1) Accusations against me that Viam agnoscere veritatis is the name of three letters are untrue, and therefore should be retracted: please strike the corresponding accusations at the Evidence and Workshop pages at Arbcom.
 * 2) If not even a few proper sources can be produced to support the claim that Viam agnoscere veritatis would be sometimes used as a name for the three letters, then the Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) page should be deleted, because it is only the fruit of the confusion (intentional or not) of a few editors here. As far as I can see there is no confusion possible: these are three differently named bulls, based on three different incipits. PHG (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG, the point of disambiguation pages is to help editors find what they are looking for. The vast majority of the population does not know how to classify a papal bull, much less what an incipit is.  We're not trying to make any kind of accusation against you at all, we're just trying to work out the best way to clear up a confusing situation.  See below where someone else asked about the naming because that particular letter isn't standard.  This is not about you or the Arb case, so please, lets stick to the actual discussion here. Shell babelfish 07:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG, here is the diff of the article that you created, which you titled "Viam agnoscere veritatis"
 * In that early version of the article, you sourced this German dissertation, which talked about a different letter, the March 5, 1245 letter we now call "Dei patris immensa" (pdf)
 * You quoted Latin from that dissertation into your article, saying that it was from the 1248 "Viam agnoscere veritatis" letter
 * However, we have since established that the Latin you quoted, is not from the 1248 letter, it is from the 1245 letter
 * The confusion is understandable, since both documents use the term "Viam agnoscere veritatis" in some form.
 * Also, the German dissertation has multiple issues. On p 174, it lists a March 5, 1245 letter, and the "viam agnoscere veritatis" language, but *omits* the "Dei patris immensa" Latin. And it uses a completely different name, so the text of the dissertation refers to the March 5, 1245 document, which we call "Dei patris immensa", as "Agnoscere". I'm  not sure if that's a shorthand, and there may be a longer version elsewhere in the document, I haven't read the entire thing


 * But the point is, that by the fact that you were confused, and other editors were also confused, and future editors are likely to be confused (especially with a source like that dissertation), is the perfect justification that a disambiguation page is appropriate. The disambig page makes no accusations, no claims of truth or falsity, it simply states, "this term might be ambiguous, and might be being used to refer to multiple documents."


 * A disambig page does not require a "published source" to prove that a term is ambiguous. Indeed, disambig pages aren't supposed to use sources at all.  It is just a navigation aid. There is no loss of face involved with a disambig page.


 * As for your own actions, it seems pretty clear that you decided that you wanted to make a "Viam agnoscere veritatis" page to push your POV.  You then did Google searches to find documents which uses the term "viam agnoscere veritatis", and you found the German  dissertation, which you assumed was talking about the document that you wanted. You then referenced the dissertation in your new POV fork article.  You have done this before, where you cherry-pick sources, and you are obviously focusing only on the phrase or sentence that you need, and you are disregarding the surrounding text. Your actions here are  disruptive, they did cause considerable confusion, and your refusal to back down on  even such a simple matter as making a disambiguation page,  that is what is causing you to lose face.  If you want to regain respect within the Wikipedia community, the best way to do this is by showing that you are willing to work with other editors, and that you are able to graciously accept correction. But as long as you continue to tenaciously argue every minor point, in defiance of all other editors,  you are further increasing the probability that you are going to end up completely blocked from Wikipedia. --Elonka 07:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, in Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) you are actually writing "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", which is actually untrue: you have not been capable of producing a single source that actually refers to Cum non solum or Dei patris immensa as "Viam agnoscere veritatis". Quite to the contrary, all historians (my preceding post) seem to be refering to these letters with their own specific name taken from the incipit: there is no confusion whatsoever in the academic community about how these letters are named. You are just making a false claim, which you and other users have used to attack me, and it has to be retracted. You are typically uncapable of recognizing mistakes, whether I am (I have apologized already several times on this very page for my confusion on the German author). As User:Aldux has said in the past, it seems you "always have to be proven right". But the point is that you are creating an untruth here on Wikipedia, and you seem uncapable of retracting it. These are three differently named bulls, based on three perfectly different incipits. PHG (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG, do you even read German? Or did you just decide to cite a German source because you Googled the term "Viam agnoscere veritatis" in it, and you made an assumption without reading it? If you actually look at p. 174 of the source that you provided,(pdf), you will see that it lists the March 5 letter, but it does not call it "Dei patris immensa".  In fact, the term doesn't appear anywhere in the document.  Instead, they simply call it by the shorthand "Agnoscere": "entsprechend verwendet Innocenz auch das Verbum agnoscere".  Is this yet proof for you, that these documents are being referred to by multiple names? --Elonka 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That German source certainly does not refer to that letter by the the title Viam agnoscere veritatis, which is the whole point: at this point you have been incapable of showing a single source to back up your claim 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: Cum non solum, Dei patris immensa, Viam agnoscere veritatis". I known that's probably embarassing, but that's a fact: basically you are just trying to cover up the fact that you are making a false claim here, for which there is absolutely no support in the literature. This is a perfect case of you making false claims to try to win an argument or attack somebody. If you find a proper source to back up your claim about what Viam agnoscere veritatis may refer to, I will gladly agree to your disambiguation page (Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation), but until you can back it up, this is just a fabrication. PHG (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, in the text it refers to it as "Verbum agnoscere" and in the footnote uses "Viam agnoscere veritatis", but hey, there must be some reason that's wrong too. Shell babelfish 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Untangling (arbitrary section break)
So, the bottom line is that nobody has been able to find a single source to back up the claim 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: Cum non solum, Dei patris immensa, Viam agnoscere veritatis". Unreferenced claims can be deleted per Wikipedia rules. I suggest an alternative: if editors feel confusion can arise and some sort of clarification is needed, I suggest we rename Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) to Letters of Innocent IV to the Mongols, and that the line on top of each article be: For other letters by Innocent IV to the Mongols, see Letters by Innocent IV to the Mongols. Lastly, I am asking the various contributors here who criticized my creation of Viam agnoscere veritatis on the ground that there were several such-named letters, to retract their accusations on Evidence and Workshop at the Arbcom page. No big issue, no bad thoughts, just a regularization which I think is legitimate. Regards to all. PHG (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not how disambiguation pages work. Are we perhaps running into a language difficulty?  PHG, I know that English is not your first language...  Is the term "ambiguous" familiar to you? The purpose of a disambiguation page, per Disambiguation, is to help in navigation.  If some editor, somewhere, linked Viam agnoscere veritatis for some reason, they would most likely want the 1248 letter, but they might want one of the 1245 letters too. The term is ambiguous, hence the utility of a disambiguation page, with "disambiguation" meaning "to make less ambiguous", or to help the user navigate, if they end up at an article that they were not expecting. However, if you are concerned about the lead of the disambig page, we can definitely shorten it.  Instead of the "papal letters" language, we could shorten to just "Viam agnoscere veritatis may refer to:"  Would that address your concerns? --Elonka 09:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, it is just untrue to say 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: Cum non solum, Dei patris immensa, Viam agnoscere veritatis". This is only in your imagination and that of one or two editors here, but visibly no historian ever refers to the other two letters by the name Viam agnoscere veritatis. Therefore you are simply making a false statement when saying may refer to. This is not a matter of English, just a matter of honesty and a matter of only making referenced statements on Wikipedia. I believe the alternative proposal "For other letters by Innocent IV to the Mongols, see Letters by Innocent IV to the Mongols" or something to the same effect can satisfy your wish to connect to the other letters, without making a false statement about names. PHG (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No one agrees with you, PHG. In any case, this may all be moot soon, as the ArbCom case is now in voting phase.  If you haven't yet, I recommend that you read it, and consider your next actions carefully. --Elonka 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the argument actually is here; really, none of the letters should actually be called "viam agnoscere veritatis." That's part of the address, it's just the reason the letters are being sent - so the recipient will acknowledge Christianity as the true faith. It's possible that they weren't even part of the original letters, they may have been added by a compiler later. The incipits are Dei inmensa patris, Nuntios vestros, and Cum non solum. It's not really accurate to say they can all be referred to as "viam agnoscere"; if anything you could say this is a certain style of papal letter which extends far beyond the Mongols (check it out on Google, there is one to a Byzantine emperor as well). It sounds like the phrase may be a Biblical quote, not original to papal letters at all. But let's not create yet another coatrack article (or whatever they are called) specifically for letters to the Mongols, that would be silly and unnecessary. I don't even know what to conclude from all this; everyone is wrong and right simultaneously? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're right that none of these letters should be called "viam agnoscere veritatis" if the normal practice is to call letters by their incipit. But Setton calls the Nov 22 letter by this name, so I suppose we should follow his lead. Despite PHG's initial mistake of including the text of "dei patris inmensa" in this article, I don't think there's much of a possibility that a Wikipedia reader is going to be looking for "dei patris inmensa" under the title "viam agnoscere veritatis"--and thus, there's not much reason for a disambiguation page. (Whether anyone will be looking for any of these letters, especially if s/he is coming to Wikipedia from a space-time continuum where the Franco-Mongol alliance is not a burning issue, is something I will leave for someone else to ponder.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Like, this space-time continuum? :) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. So I think this is, Elonka, what you would call "a consensus" that these three letters are not called Viam agnoscere veritatis. As you are an Admin, Elonka, please kindly delete the Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) page and the attended mentions that the three letters may refer to Viam agnoscere veritatis, which is untrue. I am also asking the various contributors here who criticized my creation of Viam agnoscere veritatis on the ground that there were several such-named letters, to retract their accusations on Evidence and Workshop at the Arbcom page. Regards. PHG (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So I think this is, Elonka, what you would call a consensus that these three letters are not called Viam agnoscere veritatis - PHG are you agreeing that none of the 3 letters (including this one) should be under the title "Viam agnoscere veritatis"? WjBscribe 13:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, what I mean is that there are no sources whatsoever giving the Viam agnoscere veritatis name to the three letters at the same time: all sources clearly distinguish between Cum non solum (1245), Dei patris immensa (1245) and Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248).
 * The 1248 letter is clearly identified as Viam agnoscere veritatis by scholars (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" (Original French quote: "Serbeg et Aibeg furent finalement congédiés le 22 Novembre 1248 avec une réponse, la lettre connue comme Viam agnoscere veritatis"). Setton, p.522 "The Pope's reply to Baidju's letter, Viam agnoscere veritatis, dated November 22, 1248, and probably carried back by Aibeg and Sargis". This is also the case of a huge quantity of historians per Google Books.
 * The 1245 letters are also clearly identified by their own separate names (Roux Les explorateurs au Moyen-Age ISBN 2012793398: Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum homines in 1245 (p.94), and Viam agnoscere veritatis in 1248 (p.105). Jackson The Mongols and the West: Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum in 1245 (p.88). Setton A history of the Crusades: "Two pontifical letters, Dei patris immensa dated March 5 and Cum non solum dated March 13, 1245" (p.519). It is also the case for numerous other historians per Google Books.
 * There is absolutely no ambiguity about how these letters are named among scholars, and not a single academic source has been cited to back up the claim that Viam agnoscere veritatis' "may refer to any of these three letters". PHG (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) RE: Adam Bishop's comment here and other issues of substance from recent threads. I too have found a few other papal letters using the phrase viam agnoscere veritatis and a possible explanation: Thomas of Capua, a 13th century Archbishop of Naples and author of a manual of style entitled Ars dicaminis, provides a list of stock phrases that might be added to the salutation of papal letters addressed to pagans and the excommunicated. Among several choices is redire ad cor et viam agnoscere veritatis, or "[that they may] return to the heart and acknowledge the way of truth". This, of course, is original research, and I in no way advocate writing an article about this phrase. I would suggest, however, that we not call the 22 November 1248 letter Nuntios vestros, as there is no evidence of anyone calling it this and the phrase "Your messengers" does not seem to me unique enough to make a good shorthand incipit. This is perhaps the reason why some scholars have referred to this letter as Viam agnoscere veritatis. The fact remains that all three of the letters of Innocent IV to the Mongols begin viam agnoscere veritatis or viam cognoscere veritatis. They are a related group, and that they begin with the same or a similar phrase added to the salutatio is significant. Aramgar (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Incipits and titling
I find the above arguments about incipits somewhat puzzling. If "Cum non solum" and "Dei patris immensa" are called by their incipits, then shouldn't the Nov. 22 letter be called "Nuntios vestros quos ad nostram"? Because the phrase "viam agnoscere veritatis" in the Nov. 22 letter is parallel to its use in "cum non solum" and "dei patris immensa"--it's part of the salutation, not the body of the letter. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For Cum non solum, Dei patris immensa , the name given to these letter is indeed the incipit (the first few words of the body of the letter). Titles did not exist at that time and they were only added by more recent editors, and they are generally NOT USED to designate a bull (see Incipit article for a nice explanation). For the Nov.22 1248 letter, the begining of the body indeed turns out to be a salutation (apparently a rather exceptional case) to the Mongol ruler Baiju: "Bayonoy regi illustri, et nobilibus viris universis principibus et baronibus exercitus Tartarorum, viam cognoscere veritatis" (meaning in substance "To Baiju the great king and his barons, viam agnoscere veritatis"). I suppose this is why the actual incipit (beginning) is considered as being viam agnoscere veritatis', after the salutations. PHG (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG has yet to produce any evidence that Viam agnoscere veritatis was "added by more recent editors." Aramgar (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this is what the incipit article says about ancient Papal bulls in general. And it also says that the add-on titles are generally not used to name a bull, only the incipits. And this is what the community of historians has been doing in this case (my post above). PHG (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG, I'm not interested in getting into a protracted argument about this, but you seem to be misinterpreting what the incipit article says--"Some recent examples have been printed with a description placed above the text, laying out the document's subject matter, which functions more or less as a title. Yet even in those cases it remains common to ignore this heading and refer to the document by its incipit." That passage says that recent papal bulls have titles added above the text--it provides no evidence that salutations were added to medieval documents (which are not "recent examples") by later editors.


 * At any rate, if incipit of the letter is the first words of the body, and not the salutation, "Viam agnoscere veritatis" cannot be the incipit of the Nov 22 letter. "viam agnoscere veritatis" is clearly part of the salutation--syntactically, it must go with "Bayonoy regi illustri, et nobilibus viris universis principibus et baronibus exercitus Tartarorum..." It cannot be part of the next sentence. So, I have to conclude that the Nov. 22 letter is not being called by its incipit. This may be an unusual deviation from the normal way of referring to papal letters; I can't say I've looked at that many, nor read about them.


 * By the way, can anyone tell me where to find the text of "viam agnoscere veritatis"? It doesn't seem to be in the online edition where "Cum non solum" and "Dei patris immensa" can be found. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't know of an online source, but the text can be found in Les registres d'Innocent IV publiés ou analysés d'après les manuscrits originaux du Vatican et de la Bibliothèque nationale, (ed. Élie Berger) ,vol.II (Paris, 1887), no. 4682, pp. 113-114. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aramgar has kindly provided the Latin for all three documents in the above threads on this page, plus a rough translation of the 1248 document, in . I'd love to see translations of the other two as well, if any of the Latin-speakers here have time.  :) There is also an (incomplete) excerpt of the 1248 letter in the German dissertation, in one of the footnotes.  Search on "1248" to find it.  --Elonka 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. I'm sure that Aramgar has transcribed the Latin accurately, but I'd like to see how the text is printed in a modern edition, because it seems to me that PHG's argument about the title being added by later editors is based partially on the fact that in the online edition of "cum non solum" and "dei patris immensa", the salutation is in larger type and above the body of the letter. I'd like to see if a modern editor prints the salutation of the Nov 22 letter in the same way, or as part of the body of the text. Not that I think this is a critical point, it's just idle curiosity. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Akhilleus: Your question sent me back to the photocopy I have of the letter of 22 November 1248 from Les registres d'Innocent IV. Since the book was published in 1887, I would hardly call it a "modern edition"; nevertheless, it is the standard edition. The letter is formatted as follows. Note the italics: Aramgar (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems to confirm that the editor of the 1887 edition (Berger?) thought that the body of the letter began with "Nuntios vestros..." --Akhilleus (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems to confirm that the editor of the 1887 edition (Berger?) thought that the body of the letter began with "Nuntios vestros..." --Akhilleus (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, does anyone know where the original of this letter is currently located? --Elonka 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have not been able to find out where the original letter is. The original register -- a compendium kept by the Vatican of all papal correspondence -- is probably in the Vatican archives.  Perhaps it may be found here?  On a side note, I may have discovered a more modern publication of the letters:
 * Prieto, Augusto Quintana. La documentacion pontificia de Inocencio IV (1243-1254). 2 vols. Monumenta Hispaniae Vaticana: Registros/VII. Rome: Instituto Español de Historia Ecclesiastica, 1987.
 * but since I have not yet been able to examine it personally, I wouldn't want to say for sure. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have it: Reg. an. VI ; curiales, No. 21 ; fol. 68 verso . In short, a large volume in the Vatican Library in which the letters of Innocent IV or summaries of his letters have been entered for the year 1248, the sixth of his papacy. If you should locate this volume, seek the letter on the left-hand side of the page numbered LXVIII. Otherwise run to your nearest academic library and find Les registres d'Innocent IV publiés ou analysés d'après les manuscrits originaux du Vatican et de la Bibliothèque nationale, (ed. Élie Berger), vol.II (Paris, 1887), no. 4682, pp. 113-114. So far as I know, M. Élie Berger is not pushing some POV fantasy. Aramgar (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I am in St. Louis, and have access to the Vatican Film Library.  If the document is there, like on microfilm, if someone gives me a lookup number, I'll be happy to head down there and get a copy. --Elonka 01:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka: Aramgar and I are working on translations per your request. See User:Adam Bishop/viam for my progress. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For Cum non solus see the work in progress at User:Aramgar/viam agnoscere veritatis. Aramgar (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful work! I find it fascinating reading, but wow, they took a lot of words to get to the point. ;)  When you're done, what do you think about adding it to the relevant talkpages of those documents, and/or to Wikisource?  Thanks, and I look forward to the final translations, --Elonka 08:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename?
I suggest that this article be renamed. References supporting the fact that this letter is known as Viam agnoscere veritatis are rather few and given the pending ArbCom finding that PHG has manipulated and misrepresented sources, I think one must question whether this really is generally known by that name. I read Adam Bishop's comments above to mean that this phrase is fairly commonly used in such correspondence and that he doesn't think any of the letters should be under this title. Ideally, it seems to me that "Viam agnoscere veritatis" should be an article about the phrase, its use and history (or even a redirect to a Wiktionary page about it) and that the three letters should be under appropriate names. Are there other possible titles for this article? WjBscribe 13:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt we could write a good article about the phrase, at least not without doing a ton of original research. I think the expression is an allusion to the vulgate translation of Ps 118:30 "Viam veritatis elegi..." but I doubt I could find a secondary source that says this. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree also. For scholars there is only one letter called Viam agnoscere veritatis: the November 1248 letter. It is pretty straightforward and documented in my previous post above. PHG (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well so far PHG, you seem to be the only one saying that scholars refer to this letter by this name. Given that ArbCom's investigations have concluded that you an unreliable reporter of the content of sources ("PHG has cited scholarly books and articles for propositions that the cited works do not fairly support"), I would be interested to know whether there is agreement from others that this source is generally called by this name. WjBscribe 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this is getting rather ridiculous WJBscribe. On the one hand you have a totally unsupported and unreferenced claim by two users that Viam agnoscere veritatis may refer to three letters. And on the other, you have a ton of reference sources, including Google Book sources you can check right away, which say that these three letters are clearly named differently. There is no question where the truth is:
 * The 1248 letter is clearly identified as Viam agnoscere veritatis by scholars (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" (Original French quote: "Serbeg et Aibeg furent finalement congédiés le 22 Novembre 1248 avec une réponse, la lettre connue comme Viam agnoscere veritatis"). Setton, p.522 "The Pope's reply to Baidju's letter, Viam agnoscere veritatis, dated November 22, 1248, and probably carried back by Aibeg and Sargis". This is also the case of a huge quantity of historians per Google Books.
 * The 1245 letters are also clearly identified by their own separate names (Roux Les explorateurs au Moyen-Age ISBN 2012793398: Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum homines in 1245 (p.94), and Viam agnoscere veritatis in 1248 (p.105). Jackson The Mongols and the West: Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum in 1245 (p.88). Setton A history of the Crusades: "Two pontifical letters, Dei patris immensa dated March 5 and Cum non solum dated March 13, 1245" (p.519). It is also the case for numerous other historians per Google Books .PHG (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrapping everything up
Let me see if I can consolidate the different things running around so we can develop a consensus on where to go from here. The original article confused several letters, however, it would appear that it was an error on the editor's part and not just general confusion about these letters. Since articles now exist for the three letters in question, would it make sense to move the VAV letter back here? PHG has shown at least a couple of instances where scholars do name the letter "Viam agnoscere veritatis" - I think we agree that this probably shouldn't be the name, but do we have any sources that conflict this or give a different name for the 1248 letter? Shell babelfish 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, now that I've said that, the letter is here and there is a separate disambiguation page so I'm pretty confused about why PHG is still bringing this up. Shell babelfish 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Following the above discussion where it clearly appears that the three letters are named differently (and not a single source can be given in support of the claim that "Viam agnoscere veritatis may refer to three letters"), I already cleaned the page yesterday from these false claims. Also the page Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation) should be deleted (by an Administrator) because it is also based on a false claim that the three letters might be called the same. It is important that this be solved, because I have been extensively attacked based on these false premisses. The truth had to be acknowledged, and false accusations reverted. It is totally unfair that a large part of the Arbcom case has been founded on such untrue accusations. PHG (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)