Talk:Cagot/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

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)

Comments

• 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

• 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

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)

  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)

  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)

Geography

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Section is misplaced, as the next section begins in the 16th century.

  Resolved by moving the next section. --Cdjp1

Cagot as pejorative

• This very short section perhaps belongs with 'Treatment'?

  Moved to treatment. --Cdjp1

Contemporary usage of Cagot symbols and terms

• This even shorter section (one sentence!) should be merged with 'Modern status'.

  Merged with modern status. --Cdjp1

In media

• 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

Gallery

• 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

• 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

• All from Commons, licenses look plausible.

Sources

• 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.