Talk:Raymond III, Count of Toulouse

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

France

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Medieval Genealogy

This Raymond III of Toulouse should be Raymond IV of Toulouse, the son of Raymond III. Check the information at here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundehul (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow this way: Raymond Pons, Count of Toulouse, died in 944; his only son from his wife Gersende de Gascogne, Raymond III took over in 944 and died in 972. Raymond III's son from his wife, Gundinildis, was Raymond IV who took over his father's role as Count of Toulouse until his death in 978 or 979. Raymond IV had a son named William III who succeeded as the Count of Toulouse around 978/979. Sundehul 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundehul (talk • contribs)

Why? Raymond Pons has always been numbered as Raymond III, and removing his number has no justification, but has great potential for confusion. See below. Agricolae (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problem with page

This whole page is a disaster. Traditionally, Raymond III Pons was father of William III. We now know that this was not the case, but that throws all numbering into chaos, and there is no scholarly consensus. One reconstruction inserts only a single Raymond. They then niftily solve the numbering problem by removing the number from Raymond Pons and calling the new one Raymond III. This has the advantage of not requiring a renumbering of the later Raymonds, but is not the most likely solution to the problem (in fact, it seems to be preferred primarily by genealogists, simply because they don't want to renumber the later Raymonds).

The Codice de Roda gives a pedigree where (Raymond) Pons was father of a Raymond, and grandfather of a Hugh and a Raymond. The will of Garsenda, widow of Raymond, names separately her nepos (nephew or grandson) count Hugh, and nepos Raymond, son of Gunidildis. This leads to the reconstruction that Raymond Pons had Raymond who married Gunidildis, having in turn Hugh and Raymond who married Adelais, in turns having William, i.e. two new Raymonds. (An unpublished alternative that has been discussed is an attempt to merge the two, making William son of Adelais the younger half-brother of Hugh and Raymond, sons of Gunidildis, but this too has problems.) Then there is the most unusual, interpreting nepos as nephew, an alternative reconstruction identifies count Hugh with the Count of Rouergue, and makes Raymond, father of William a member of this same Rouergue branch of the family instead.

In other words, there are three published reconstructions, and several more guesses, with no consensus. This Raymond III page does not accurately portray the situation, but rather mixes and matches different parts from different theories, creating an nonsensical chimera (for example, stating in the text that "Raymond III" had Pons Raymond (completely unsupported) and William, then listing his children as Raymond and Hugh). I don't even know the best way of fixing the problem, but when the historians themselves can't even decide if there is one or two generations here, and everyone is using different ordinals to refer to the missing counts, it is hardly NPOV to present it as has been done here. Perhaps the best solution is to create a single page for the Succession of Toulouse, 950–978 which can discuss the entire controversy without forcing these round pegs into the square holes of individual pages for counts that may never have existed, and about whom we really know nothing other than who they might or might not have married or had as children or parents, all of which will be different depending on which reconstruction is followed. Agricolae (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you think is best, but you would have to do it. You can see what sources I used; they are out of date. I even knew of the succession/genealogy issue when I created it, but I was unaware of exactly what the issue was, so I had no idea what information was now known to be incorrect and what needed revising. Unfortunately, I do not have easy access the sources required to clean up the mess. If you create a lenthy bibliography of the sources needed, though, I can check to see if I can access some and help fix it, but otherwise you are almost certainly the only regular contributor qualified and capable of doing it. (Since I don't know about the controversy, I cannot say whether "Succession of Toulouse, 950–978" is a good idea, but if you think so, I encourage it.) Srnec (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that won't work either. Settipani places Raymond Pons' death in 940/944, so even the date range in the page name is problematic. I am at a loss as to how to square this circle. The real problem is that an encyclopedia is designed to present consensus. When there is no consensus, having articles for people who may never have existed becomes problematic. As to recent references, I am unaware of anything other than Stasser, Fromond and Settipani that specifically analyze the problem. I suspect the eventual consensus will be that there were two additional Raymonds as counts, descending from Raymond Pons - basically the Roda document's version (followed by Stasser and Settipani, and one alternative given by Fromond), but as I am sure you appreciate, scholars don't just get together and vote on a consensus, it can take a century for a scholarly paradigm to shift to a new one, particularly in a field where there is only infrequent publication.

I have read back through some of the sources, and now have a better idea what I think the solution is, but for Wikipedia purposes, my analysis is irrelevant unless I publish it. Solving this problem here requires a way to discuss this issue on a page or pages that accurately reflect(s) the uncertainty, and neither numbers nor dates would seem up to the task. Can anyone suggest a page title? I hesitate to use something cute like "The Missing Counts of Toulouse" but that is basically the kind of thing we need. Maybe I should just create it and hope someone renames it with a better name. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. On the matter of a title: Counts of Toulouse, 940–978? In discussing the succession the issue of the date of death of the previous count will come up, so the article will be discussion the issue of who was count during the period 940–954. Also, this title would make a good link from the page Counts of Toulouse (to which County of Toulouse is a redirect). The succession could be treated as a section at that article, but it might be unwieldly and distracting there. Srnec (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The problem with merging Raymond III, Count of Toulouse and Raymond, Count of Toulouse (972-978) is that these two don't represent the same 'person'. Specifically, there are two theories out there. One gives the succession Raymond Pons->Raymond III->William, the other Raymond Pons->Raymond d. 972->Raymond d. 978->William. Thus Raymond 972-978 in one solution represents 'half' of Raymond III in the other. What is really needed is a NPOV page that clearly indicates there is no scholarly consensus on any of this. Agricolae (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a Succession of Toulouse, 944–978 article. That article can explain the confusion and link to Raymond III, Count of Toulouse, which can contain all the information about the Count of Toulouse up to 972 and then, after indicating the nature of the dispute, with a link to the in-depth article, describe what is known about whomever was count in 972–78. Then we don't need two articles dealing with what might be one person and we have a full treatment of the academic dispute to reference to from both the count's article and the list of counts (and wherever else we need). Of course, a note would still have to appear in the lead of the Raymond III article to explain that some believe another person named Raymond was count after 972. Does this solution sound acceptable to you? Srnec (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a stand-alone Raymond III article like the one that now exists is an inherent POV fork. Such a name implies that there is a single coherent individual being referred to, but there isn't. Raymond III version 2.1 is a count who ruled from 944 to 978, having married Adelais of Anjou and been father of William of Toulouse. Raymond III version 2.2 is a count who ruled 944 to 972, having married Gunidildis, being father of Raymond X, husband of Adelais and father of William. Raymond III version 2.3 is the same as Raymond, Count of Rouergue. And in fact, "Raymond III, Count of Toulouse" has been used for centuries to refer to Raymond Pons - that would be version 1.0. If we go to the trouble of creating a 'Toulouse succession' article, then I would be in favor of merging/redirecting both the current Raymond III and the Raymond 972-978 articles into it because a stand-alone Raymond III would either represent just one of the POVs or it would have to repeat the content of the Toulouse Succession page, thereby being redundant. That being said I have been putting off writing it, and have been bogged down addressing various genealogycruft. Agricolae (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I hadn't thought of the genealogical barriers. I was just thinking that if we know the count of Toulouse, named Raymond, did X in year Y, then we can write it into our on article on the count for that period. I'll see what I can do, but you are more qualified and have more sources available. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, these 'new' Raymonds are all genealogical constructs. The discovery of a document that showed William the son of Adelais caused people to go back to underutilized genealogical sources, the Codice de Roda, the will of Garsenda, and accounts of Adelais marrying her 4 husbands, and some scattered records naming 'count Raymond' not identified as being of Toulouse. I don't know that there is a single charter unambiguously referring to a Raymond Count of Toulouse between Raymond Pons and Raymond the Crusader. (Cawley mentions one from 972 naming 'Count and Marquis Raymond . . . in Agde' who could be our man, but which man that is depends on the reconstruction.) Agricolae (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]