Talk:Cagot

Cagot is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by Cdjp1 (talk) at 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: Historically persecuted people

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

France Mid‑importance

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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spain Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

History

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes Section size for Cagot (30 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 1,296 1,296 Name 152 18,312 Etymology 8,029 8,029 Variations 10,131 10,131 Geography 2,780 6,608 Toponomy 3,828 3,828 Treatment 1,756 18,449 Religion and government 6,287 6,287 Work 6,590 6,590 Accusations and pseudo-medical beliefs 3,816 3,816 Origin 1,504 16,931 Biblical legends 1,442 1,442 Religious origin 3,331 3,331 Medical origin 2,711 2,711 Other origins 7,943 7,943 Religion 3,076 3,076 Government 7,698 7,698 Modern status 3,826 3,826 Cagot as pejorative 782 782 Contemporary usage of Cagot symbols and terms 1,729 1,729 In media 5,473 5,473 Cagotic architecture 3,400 5,131 Fonts 530 530 Doors 1,201 1,201 See also 2,058 2,058 Notes 26 26 References 36 14,641 Bibliography 14,605 14,605 Further reading 1,534 1,534 External links 359 359 Total 107,929 107,929

This article contains a translation of Cagot from fr.wikipedia.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Christianization#Christianization of Europe (6th–18th centuries)|Christianised relatively late]] The anchor (#Christianization of Europe (6th–18th centuries)) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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]

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

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 --

.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]

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]

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?

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]

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

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]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080218031011/http://www.iheu.org:80/node/2451 to http://www.iheu.org/node/2451

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.

• 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. —

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218031011/http://www.iheu.org/node/2451 to http://www.iheu.org/node/2451

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.

• 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]

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

• https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagots
• https://an.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagot

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

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjEFybgC6tc
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O9Ztt1wdds

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

"... 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 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]