Jump to content

Talk:Cagot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Agote)

Untitled

[edit]

What the hell is the "ith century"?

It is the century between the hth century and the jth century. 216.69.219.3 (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Story about "The only living Cagot" in today's Independent

[edit]

This may be a useful source for those editing this article: [1] 86.132.142.207 (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

[edit]

I suggest that the page is moved to Cagot as that name is used by both the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition and the Independent article --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.I added a template about the moving based on this. Cagot already excist that page redirects here, so maybe the things here should be copied there and this Agote should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrobolos (talk • contribs) 07:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Agote → Cagot — Agote is the Basque term; Cagot is the Occitan term; Cacon is the Breton term. It is essentially arbitrary as to which version we pick in English; neither one is any more "right" than the other... but I definitely get the impression that Cagot is the most common term used in English (mildly confirmed by Google Scholar). It seems like the Cagots of Gascony and Bearn are the most extensively chronicled, and the prejudice took a very long time to die out there, so I think there's a weak preference for having the article at that title. SnowFire (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure is quiet here... I'll just note for the closer that users supported a move long ago on the talk page (not sure why it never happened), and presumably haven't changed their minds when it comes to consensus. SnowFire (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In fiction

[edit]

Do we still have 'in fiction' sections? Who knows.

Nick Harkaway's book 'Angelmaker' features a lightly fictionalised version of the cagot called the 'hakote'. The cagot's putative origin as a fallen guild of carpenters is sexed up into being inheritors of a natural gift for understanding the workings of machines. Perhaps Mr Harkaway thought that by changing the name, he could obscure the origin; he should already have learned that that does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.127.91 (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More likely he altered the name because Angelmaker is a work of fantasy rather than realistic fiction, hence not intended to depict the real world. The fact that Harkaway's created word "hakote" is extremely close to "agote" (one of the other real-world names for the cagot) indicates that instead of attempting to obscure the origin he intended to make the connection quite obvious to any reader already familiar with the term "agote." 173.155.81.127 (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity question

[edit]

At the moment, we have the following line:

  • The Cagots were not an ethnic group, nor a religious group. They spoke the same language as the people in an area and generally kept the same religion as well. Their only distinguishing feature was their descent from families identified as Cagots.

The linguistic factor tells me that the Cagots had assimilated but their continuity of ostracisation with every generation (largely preventing interbreeding) meant that contemporary members had somewhat pure roots. I know that ethnicity is and always was the nation by which an individual has identified and I also know that for some villages in Bulgaria, the demographic structure of Bulgarians/Roma is 60-40 though one look at the population sees everyone with dark skin. To that end, would it not be better to say something along the following lines:

  • Whilst this population did not identify as Cagots ethnically (and made efforts to become assimilated), **possible WP:OR** their prevention from mixing with local populations meant that their identity was marked and persons could not easily disguise their background.

Even this is on the assumption that original Cagots were an ethnic group. If not, does anyone know how one group of people came to be labelled Cagots? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

google pics told me they're dwarfs. no mention of that in the article? 78.48.59.229 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

[edit]

Total hoax. Erase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.44.24 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth certificates

[edit]

Hi there. I changed "During the Revolution, Cagots had stormed *government offices* and burned birth certificates" to "offical records" because under the monarchy in France the Church was in charge of keeping birth certificates, not the governement. I could probably say "Church records" but there might have been some local exceptions unknown to me, where the government held these certificates. Have a nice day. 145.248.195.1 (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cagot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cagot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the origins section

[edit]

Hi all, I have a couple of suggestions about how to improve the current section on the origins of the Cagots. I'm a little worried that it leaves people with the wrong impression about who historians think they were because of the sources it uses and the way it uses them. Ideally it would rely less on references to the Cagots in books of sometimes dubious quality written by non-historians about other topics, and should include more reference to existing scholarly articles and books about the Cagots. Admittedly a lot of these are in French, but even the MA dissertation by Hawkins has a good outline of the modern historiography on the Cagots. I've grouped the main issues and potential changes under three headings:

Dubious sources

[edit]

This article cites Graham Robb's The Discovery of France nine times. If we go to the Wikipedia article about this book, we find two paragraphs describing how historians of France have called it a 'distressingly bad book' that doesn't engage with any of the recent scholarly literature published on the subjects it covers and propagates a Romantic view of French rural life that has since been revised and discredited. So it seems like a problematic source. I wanted to highlight a couple of places in this entry where Robb's book and its speculations and judgements are used as though it were authoritative that I think should be removed or changed.

First, Robb's suggestion that the Cagots were a collapsed carpentry guild is given an entire heading of its own, despite the fact that the entire section is written as speculation with no factual claims to support it (emphasis my own):

A modern hypothesis of interest is that the Cagots are the descendants of a fallen medieval guild of carpenters. This theory would explain the most salient thing Cagots throughout France and Spain have in common: That is, being restricted in their choice of trade. The red webbed-foot symbol Cagots were sometimes forced to wear might have been the guild's original emblem.
There was a brief construction boom on the Way of St. James pilgrimage route in the 9th and 10th centuries; this could have brought the guild both power and suspicion. The collapse of their business would have left a scattered, yet cohesive group in the areas where Cagots are known.

The only factual claims in this section is that there was a construction boom on a pilgrimage route through areas populated by Cagots (well before they began to be identified as a separate group by contemporaries), and that Cagots were frequently carpenters; there's nothing to support the suggestion that such a fallen medieval guild of carpenters existed, or that the Cagots were related to them. This suggestion as written probably doesn't need an entire subsection devoted to it.

Secondly, the article treats Robb's judgement that 'nearly all the old and modern theories are unsatisfactory' as final and uses it to discredit 'most of the above theories'. This is a problem for two reasons. First, there's no indication which of the theories listed above are considered by Robb, let alone why he considers them to be unsatisfactory. Second, when it takes Robb's (dubious) word that 'nearly all the ... modern theories are unsatisfactory', it privileges Robb's explanation above all other modern explanations (without presenting any other credible modern explanations).

It may well be fine to cite factual statements and examples from Robb's book if they're properly cited there (I don't have the book at hand so I can't check), but given that historians are skeptical about the quality of research and some of the arguments made in the book I think it's best to avoid uncritically reproducing them in case readers come away with the impression that it's the consensus view.

Questionable judgements and framing

[edit]

A number of sentences could be rewritten because they give the impression that they aren't properly supported by evidence. For example, 'early edicts apparently [emphasis mine] refer to lepers and Cagots as different categories of undesirables', which suggests that neither the editor nor the author of the cited work (Robb again) are familiar with the contents of the edicts this sentence is referring to. I think think the whole 'medieval popular explanations' section could be rewritten to make it clearer what the alternative theories were and how they have been disproved in the intervening years.

The final subsection of Origins contains a couple of very questionable paragraphs that should be removed. It claims that 'The Scandinavian origin seems to be confirmed by Martin de Viscaya in 1621', even though the quotation this statement is based on never refers to any Scandinavians. The final paragraph seems to suggest that Martin de Viscaya mistook visigoths for the vikings but the explanation it provides is unconvincing and unsupported by any citations.

Significant historiographical gaps

[edit]

The only modern explanations for the origins of the Cagots given here are from Robb, whose book is dubious and whose explanation is purely speculative; and from Supery's other history of the vikings. Supery's book is about the Vikings rather than the Cagots, and the French entry (which is more fleshed out and better cited) doesn't mention his work at all, suggesting it might not be a major contribution to the scholarly debate. It might be worth putting both Robb's theory and Supery's theory in a subsection together called 'Alternative speculative hypotheses' to avoid giving the impression that they're the scholarly consensus.

It might be worth including a subsection called 'Modern explanations' which goes through the arguments of Guerreau and Guy and Cursente about how the emergence of the Cagots may have been due to changes in the structure of feudalism in the 12th century. This created groups of landless people on the margins of normal society who eventually settled together in communities. These arguments can be found in the Hawkins MA dissertation if an English source is desired.

I'm planning on introducing the changes I've suggested in the near future. Is it acceptable to translate parts of the French entry into English, because it's considerably fuller?

--Apodemic (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Supery and defeated vikings

[edit]

The subsection on defeated vikings in the section on the origins of the Cagots comes from Joel Supery's La Saga des Vikings, une autre histoire des invasions. The preface of his book calls historians studying the Vikings a 'mafia' and the book has been described by an academic historian as 'a total fraud', a 'pseudohistory' that ignores all evidence that might undermine his thesis, suggesting that Supery claims that no one had made the argument before because people were seeking to hide the truth. It's therefore comparable to claiming that aliens built the pyramids.

A previous editor has removed edits before for citing another work by Supery (Le secret des Vikings) because that work was also controversial. As WP:UNDUE points out, we shouldn't legitimise pseudohistory by presenting it alongside credible scholarly works. I think the best course of action is to delete it; if people want to mention it, it should be in a section emphasising that it's a fringe view from someone who most scholars view as a pseudohistorian.

--Apodemic (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to grab pics

[edit]

Note to grab pictures from the following articles in near future:

--Cdjp1 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly useful if French speakers can contribute

[edit]

--Cdjp1 (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

[edit]

"... the Cagots predate the Cathar heresy." This is likely false, and I have absolutely no clue how it can be stated with any certainty sense the earliest references to the "Cathari" are from the 9th century. I have absolutely no clue why this is being repeated with such confidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9c00:e48:d5d1:b75e:1a81:7eeb (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

René Descazeaux

[edit]

René Descazeaux wrote a book Les Cagots - histoire d'un secret which claims in it's blurb "What if there was a Cagots secret? A secret wanted, kept, then almost lost? ... René Descazeaux, in line with his work Mysterious and Magical Routes of Pyrenean Spaces (Pélican d'or 2001 of the European Festival of Myths and Legends of Carcassonne), tries to open up new avenues - logical and coherent - and to sweep away the “fog” of the cagote enigma in order to lift a corner of the veil." Does anyone know what standing Descazeaux has, and whether they are a source we should investigate? --Cdjp1 (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cagot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cdjp1 (talk · contribs) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 17:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at this one. There's no quid pro quo for GANs, but of course I'd be delighted if you'd take the time to review one of mine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Several image captions end with a "." but have no main verb, so the "." is superfluous.
    Corrected --Cdjp1
  • I have added several "citation needed" tags. The amount of uncited text is not enough for a quickfail so let's proceed.
    All completed. --Cdjp1

Lead

[edit]
  • There are 14 citations in the lead. Since there should be nothing "new" up here (it's just a summary), all the refs should be moved out.
    None of the references are new, and are just taken from the sections of the text body that it summarises, I'm used to seeing this practice in near all the articles I come across. Should the lede not include any citations? --Cdjp1
    All should be removed. And please indent your replies!
    removed --Cdjp1
  • The lead seems rather short given the length of the article. It should briefly summarize each of the 11 chapters of the article.
    expanded --Cdjp1

Name

[edit]
Names for Cagots around France
  • The variations list is excessive, nor is it even clear why English Wikipedia should contain such a dictionary-type list at all. Gaskell and the Gehazi thing seems worth a mention; the whole Ladre/Leper thing needs a paragraph but it overlaps with "Other origins"; most of the rest seem to be variants of Cagot, and frankly could be dropped, perhaps leaving one example.
    The argument for the inclusion is due to how diverse the names end up being in the historical sources that talk of the Cagots, and the relevant literature all highlight the diversity of names. I will look to cutting down what are obvious variations in just the spelling, such as Agote/Argote. --Cdjp1
    Yes, there is far too much of that. Wikipedia is NOT a Dictionary, and it isn't its job to document words and language variations, especially in foreign languages. Such things belong here only when they actually illuminate the subject, which is a thing not a word.
    Passerby comment from someone who edited the article long ago: I disagree with this. Wikipedia absolutely mentions alternate names for the very real reason of having a user who lands on this page knowing it's actually talking about what they're looking up. If a reader doesn't see "Agote"/"Cacon"/"Ladre" etc., they might assume the redirect was incorrect or the like. This isn't something like just foreign translations of a word - this is what the group was actually called in various places where they really lived. It's inconvenient and annoying that there are so many names, but it's just reflecting reality. Note that Romani people also features quite a number of relevant local names, which I believe is correct. SnowFire (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. I'm not keen on lists as a structure, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments really don't remotely begin to persuade. a map seems to me clearly better, revealing features not clear in a list (even to those of us who know France well). It's visibly western; and the variation in names is indeed interesting. Maybe that's the way to go. It'd be nice to attach the floating names to actual places. An obvious question is why Brittany should have been familiar with Cagots (when, say, Burgundy wasn't). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should say that the map couldn't be used alone, so its use would justify keeping a list of variations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

[edit]
  • The first sentence says they're called Agotes, repeating what's said in 'Variations'.
  • Subheadings are unbalanced, there is only one subsection at the moment. Suggest adding a subheading (such as 'Distribution') to the unheaded subsection that begins the Geography chapter.
  • The Toponomy list is excessive and mainly uncited, so I suggest we ditch it, saving a couple of the best (cited) examples, leaving the section as text (and image) only.
    list cut down and reformatted as paragraph. --Cdjp1

Treatment

[edit]
  • Not sure the tacky modern sign in the image has any encyclopedic value.
    removed --Cdjp1
  • There's a "page needed" tag in 'Religion and government'.
    added page --Cdjp1
  • There are 2 single-sentence paragraphs in 'Work'.
    re-organised the Work section so this is no longer the case. --Cdjp1

Origin

[edit]
  • The section is curiously late in the article: could be at the top, just after 'Name'.
    Moved Origin section to just after the Name section. --Cdjp1
  • The thing is very long and discursive; both the Religious and Other subsections relapse into etymology (isn't that Name territory?). Somehow the section manages to spread confusion rather than impose order on the old, vague, allusive, and contradictory. Perhaps a table of major theories would help:

Theory --- Date --- Proponent --- Evidence for --- Evidence against
Theory1 1636 J. Doe Etymology.....[23][24] ... ... ...
Theory2 1727 ... ...

Religion

[edit]
  • Does this section serve any purpose? Maybe it could be cut down and merged. The Leo X appeal could merge into the 'Cagot allies' (retitled next section), for instance.
    Merged into other relevant sections, Treatment and Cagot allies. --Cdjp1

Government

[edit]
  • A misnamed section? Seems to be about Cagot allies? It does seem rather verbose for what it says, i.e. the Cagots did experience a measure of protection. Maybe cut down a bit.
    Re-named. --Cdjp1
  • The one-sentence paragraph "By the 18th century... population" doesn't fit here well unless some invisible point is being made (protection was starting to work?). Needs merging and explaining; more, the section needs to make its theme(s) clearer. Maybe subheadings "Ineffective protection", "Substantive progress" (or whatever) would help focus your thoughts.
Not a showstopper.

Modern status

[edit]
  • Section is misplaced, as the next section begins in the 16th century.
    Resolved by moving the next section. --Cdjp1

Cagot as pejorative

[edit]
  • This very short section perhaps belongs with 'Treatment'?
    Moved to treatment. --Cdjp1

Contemporary usage of Cagot symbols and terms

[edit]
  • This even shorter section (one sentence!) should be merged with 'Modern status'.
    Merged with modern status. --Cdjp1

In media

[edit]
  • This fragmentary list is not very satisfactory in a text article; it'd be better if threads could be found to relate some of the items: for instance, Heine and Grattan are travellers in the region.
    Converted to paragraph. --Cdjp1
  • The Trevanian item is uncited and looks like trivia, maybe cut it.
    Removed --Cdjp1
  • Part of the problem here is the wide date range. Maybe a table (Date --- Context --- Event --- Notes) would work better.
    Ok, that's basically sorted by the other edits.
  • The museum entry duplicates the museum paragraph in 'Modern status'.
    Removed --Cdjp1
[edit]
  • All 3 galleries seem WP:UNDUE, more of a procession than anything helpful to the reader. Why do we need more than one font, one door? The [untitled] architecture section is a little better: the badge, sculpture, Cagot houses, castle, and Rue des capots seem to be at least somewhat informative. Suggest we cut the gallery down to those 5 images, plus one font and the best of the doors (one or two)
  • Please explain in each caption why the image is of interest, so the pics don't just look like random architectural features.

Well I guess these are mainly a matter of style; the number isn't excessive enough for a fail so let's not worry about it.

See also

[edit]
  • The list here is again way UNDUE; it isn't See also's job to list every untouchable group around the world. The Cascarots are plainly relevant; Untouchability seems worth including; the rest can probably all go. The Caquins sound as if they might be related to Cagots? If so, include.
    Cut down see also, The logic is as follows:
    * Caquins of Brittany, group with extremely similar treatment and beliefs in similar origins, brought up in relation to Cagots in many sources.
    * Cascarots, group said to be descendants of Cagots and Roma people in the Spanish Basque Country.
    * Cleanliness of blood, Spanish Old Regime laws which explicitly detail Agotes (Cagots) alongside other groups of "unclean blood", thus dictating many of the legal practices of discrimination against the Agotes in Spain. This should eventually move into the main article body, when I finish translating the Spanish journal articles that discuss this.
    That should be done before this GAN completes.
    Moved into article. --Cdjp1
    * Dalit, the go to case of untouchability and caste discrimination, and are compared and contrasted with the Cagots in many of the 18th and 19th century research sources.
    This isn't sufficient justification; the link to Untouchability is enough for that.
    Moved into article. --Cdjp1
    * Gitanos, again, for the regular mention in relevant sources.
    Ditto, irrelevant.
    Moved into article. --Cdjp1
    * Maragato, again, for the regular mention in relevant sources.
    Ditto.
    * Untouchability, the whole concept as is very relevant to the treatment of Cagots, can probably be fitted into the article itself, and so I will attempt to do that.
    Yes, that might be best.
    Moved into article. --Cdjp1
    * Vaqueiros de alzada, again, for the regular mention in relevant sources.
    * Xueta, again, for the regular mention in relevant sources. --Cdjp1

Images

[edit]
  • All from Commons, licenses look plausible.

Sources

[edit]
  • Why is the blog in [51] Langlois reliable?
    Removed as we have to other citations for it from reputable journals already in use. --Cdjp1
  • The 'External link' to the Cagot museum seems to be dead. Maybe there's a new URL?
    Updated to current URL. --Cdjp1
  • The list says that the 1911 EB is used in the article, but there is no evidence of that. Surprisingly, the antique article is actually quite good. Maybe move it to 'External links' (or cite it in the text if you have in fact used it for something).
    It is used in the article, as [5] Chrisholm 1911. --Cdjp1
  • An astonishing 23 of the sources are verified with extensive quotations in the references, which extend to over 5,000 words. This is convenient for reviewers and editors; it looks expensive but "bits are cheap" as computer folks say, and nobody is forced to read the reference text if they don't want to.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cagot&oldid=1223428851"