Talk:1562 Riots of Toulouse

Article
Still looking for:
 * The Anatomy of a Religious Riot in Toulouse in May 1562. M. Greengrass. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History July 1983 34 : pp 367-391 Cambridge University Press

Wowaconia (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Found, citing in wiki-article. Wowaconia (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Confused sources
Looking at older sources, one set the date of the massacre as Saturday and the other as Sunday. I had initially thought that this was the result of two separate events and placed them in the article as such. The work of M. Greengrass seems the most authoritative on this subject and he eliminates the confusion by explaining that instead of two events happening on two days (Some Protestants leaving one day, getting killed - the remaining ones leaving the next day getting killed), that it is actually one event stretched out for two days (starting on Saturday they begin to leave the city, the last to march out of the city does so on Sunday - then the massacre happens). I am currently using Greengrass as the authority to test the material gleaned from older sources and will correct the section on the Massacre shortly.Wowaconia (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.Wowaconia (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Length of article
Sections of this article (such as the information on the several edicts) could probably be broken off to their own pages, but currently the whole state of Wikipedia's coverage of the French Wars of Religion is a disgrace to the community in my opinion. Figures and events who/which played a massive role don't even have stubs much less the in-depth articles they deserve. As this article was my first in this particular field I will try to rectify that in the future, but for now I have left all this information on this page as I have focused on events that contributed to the riots and so even the edicts deserve a broader approach when they are given their own pages. Wowaconia (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Wowaconia,
 * Over the last several years, I have completely revitalised coverage of France for the period 1559-72. Including articles on each edict you mention in this article. Sovietblobfish (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts
At one point in the narrative, it has two cites for the idea that the Consulate had a majority (at least 5) of Protestant capitouls in 1562; at another, it says—also with a cite—that only two of the eight were Protestants.

Obviously both can't be right. Do the sources disagree (and why)? or have they just been misread? — Llywelyn II   05:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "They unilaterally deposed all the capitouls and ordered their property seized. This action was taken, even though only two capitouls were known Reformed members"


 * "Here "known" would refer to what their Catholic contemporaries knew - which may be in contrast to what historians can determine from examining preserved writings or from later behaviour of the figures in question.

--Wowaconia (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Parlement is not the same as a parliament
While I understand that a person may not like italics, the assertion that parlement is the same as an English parliament is wrong and the previous use of italics was an effort to stress the difference as many readers might make the assumption that its just an alternative spelling.

Parlement (French pronunciation: [paʁləmɑ̃]) was a provincial appellate court in Ancien Régime France.

Parliament (in the UK) the highest legislature, consisting of the sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons or a legislature similar to parliament in other nations and states.

One is a judicial body, the other is a legislative body.

The edits in this article that created the phrases: "parliamentary judges"; "parliamentary president" show the confusion by the editors that made them, as there is no such body as a parliament in Toulouse during this period.

The use of italics for foreign words is permissible to avoid confusion according to any Manuel of Style one wishes to put forward. The edits confusing parliament and parlement are proof in themselves that the italics are necessary in this article to stress the word is not English.

There seems to be less confusion about capitouls so I won't place the occurrence of that word back into italics when I undo the damage of the confusion around parlement. -Wowaconia (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

See wiki article Parlement that makes the same distinction between that and French Parliament. --Wowaconia (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

In an effort to be sensitive to other editors I will forgo restoring italics and see if I can head off the confusion by more clearly laying out the differences in the segment about Parlement.--Wowaconia (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)