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
Raymond de Canillac is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
FTA: François Duchesne states that Raymond de Canillac wrote a book entitled Recollections, which he dedicated to Septimian, Archbishop of Narbonne.[1] There was no Septimian of Narbonne.[2]
There are several problems with this paragraph. Duchesne just took his information from the Nomenclator document (page 60), so if there is an error he didn't introduce it. The Nomenclator document was undersigned by quite a number, so it isn't even certain if it's less reliable than other official documents and there are a number of possible explanations. Maybe we misunderstand the name and one of the listed archbishops was intended, maybe there has been an archbishop who has been removed from other records for whatever reason, or maybe his name, title or see was misremembered, or maybe the book was addressed to a fictional archbishop as a literary device.
That's a lot of 'maybe' remarks and 'possible explanations'. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to do original research, as you seem to be doing (or original speculation). There is nothing wrong with the quoted information. Duchesne did say what the paragraph says he said. And there is no Bishop Septimian of Narbonne. --Vicedomino (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The paragraph as stated says that Duchesne introduced this error / oddity / anomaly / whatever, which is wrong, and it implies things about this anomaly that we cannot possibly know, which is uncited and original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably you are wrong, and apparently unable to construe a sentence. The sentence does NOT state that Duchesne introduced anything. The sentence implies nothing. You inferred. There is nothing that is uncited or is original research. All statements were fully sourced, from standard authorities. Sorry, but both of your interventions must be rejected. And it would be respectful, and in accordance with Wikipedia practice, if you were to sign your comments. --Vicedomino (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^Cf. Eubel, p. 356. Duchesne also states that Raymond de Canillac was Bishop of St. Flour before he became Archbishop of Toulouse. He was not. Cf. Eubel, p. 251. There was a Raimundus who was Bishop of St. Flour from 1317 to 1319, but he was Raymond de Vehens, and his dates are too early for Raymond de Canillac.
