Talk:Cathar castles

Paragraph removed
Weirwolfwikipedia added to the article the following paragraph:


 * Several castles were, however, occupied by Cathar believers or by noblemen sympathetic to the Cathars. Such castles were attacked and destroyed by Simon de Montfort's "Albigensian Crusade", a dramatic example being the castle of Penne (Tarn) whose jagged ruins overlook the river Aveyron.

I have removed it, not because it is not important, but because it is confusing. The so-called "Cathar Castles", which this article concerns, have no historical connection with the Cathars at all; indeed they postdate them by many years. "Cathar Castles" is a modern tourism marketing term. The cathars did have fortified camps (castra) and de Montfort did destroy some (but not all) of these; this is mentioned in the individual entries where they exist. It might be an idea to list Penne under Other "Cathar castles" and, this being a castle that does not seem to have a Wiki article, write it up. Emeraude 12:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cathar castles. 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/20081225182237/http://www.payscathare.org/3-6270-HOME.php to http://www.payscathare.org/3-6270-HOME.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Tourism industry
, per this edit summary (and our dispute about wording), there are a few problems with the wording as it stands:
 * 1) The phrasing "term used to describe" in a lede is poor phrasing when it is not specifically an article about a term. Since this article is not about the term cathar castle, but rather the concept, using this phrasing in the lede is inappropriate.
 * 2) The lede should be a summary of the contents of the article. There is no place in the article that discusses how the term itself is used by the tourism industry.
 * 3) The claim itself, that the term is "used by the tourism industry" makes it sound as though the term is used exclusively or primarily by the tourism industry. This claim is uncited. Moreover, the source you cited in this edit summary when I mentioned a lack of attribution (which, by the way, is poor attribution practice in general, as claims in article space should be given a citation in the article, not just talk pages or edit summaries) does not make this claim. The specific wording in the source says that the term "was first used by the tourist service of the Aude department of southern France...". The most we could say from this is that the term was coined by the tourism industry.
 * 4) Even if we were to find a source that makes this specific claim, since this is not covered in the rest of the article, it is inappropriate to include it only in the lede. It's also inappropriate to frontload the lede with what is, at best, a side note about the origin of the term. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  03:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's all rubbish. Are you saying that the term "Cathar Castles" was not invented by the tourism industry? Are you saying that they are Cathar castles? The whole point is that the description, though widely used in tourism and promotion though not in academic literature, is totally inaccurate; the task of an encyclopedia is to presnet accurate, factual information. Your target seem sto be to prolong a falssehood that these actuallt are Cather castles. Emeraude (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I invite you to reread my initial comment to find that I am not denying that the term was invented by the tourism industry. But that's not even the claim that's being made in the sentence in question. The additional claim that you're now making here in the talk page, that the term is inaccurate as a description of this group of castles and that said inaccuracy is one promoted by the tourism industry, is not one made in our article.
 * As I have already indicated, there's nothing wrong with saying that the tourism industry coined the term, given the source you've indicated. But that's not the claim that has been in the article. Moreover, given that this article is not about the term but about the concept itself, we should avoid the phrasing "is a term" in the lede, per WP:ISAWORDFOR. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 13:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So what's your alternative? Emeraude (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already provided that in my most previous edit. I'm open to alternatives, particularly new ways to include the information about the term's coining, though I believe that information would be better left further down. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But the key to all of this is that not a single one of these castles was built by Cathars; indeed, some did not even exist at the time of the Cathars. The only connection is that Cathars took refuge in some of them. In other words, the whole name is a falsehood and it is clearly an invention in recent decades by the tourism authorities of the Aude department. (Brown tourist signs on the main roads as you drive into Aude say "Vous êtes en pays cathar".) The article is not about the castles themselves (each has a substantive article of its own) but about the grouping of them under a banner which is false. This must be mentioned at the top, not buried down the page. There is, though, a need to use inline citations, but that's a separate issue. Emeraude (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. That's not something stated in the article. At best, it can be inferred, but unless we find sufficient sourcing to make this case, it shouldn't be said in the article and, even then, not in Wikipedia's voice. If it's that important to mention how the term was coined, then it should appear somewhere outside of the lead.
 * If you're satisfied with not stating this opinion of yours outright, as is done in the rest of the article, then the wording in this version should be sufficient. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 01:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion. It's irrefutable - the castles had nothing to do with the Cathars. There is not a single historic reference to Cathar castles outside of recent tourist use. In the suggested version The fate of many Cathar castles... itself repeats the falsehood and shoulr read The fate of many "Cathar castles"..., but it's pointless doing that if the origin of the description has not already been given. Emeraude (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We can say that it's a modern grouping. We can say that the term was coined by the tourism industry. We can even, if we find sourcing to back this up, say that the categorization is not found outside tourism literature. Those are in the realm of objective fact. What we can't say, in Wikipedia's voice, is that the grouping or terminology is a falsehood. That's an opinion. The most we can do is find experts in the field to give their opinions so long as those opinions are representative.
 * The article already describes the situation neutrally with the facts that you lay out, which could lead to readers being more amenable to sharing your opinion. The additional information about the role the tourism industry is nowhere in the article. The lead should be a summary of article content, so it should not be the only place that important information is given. Putting it in the article and repeat it in the lead is the guidance given at MOS:LEAD. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  17:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You persist in saying that the use of "Cathar castles" as a tourism marketing term is my "opinion". If it is is my opinion, and a false one, then YOU must be able to find some other source that says so. You can't, can you? Where are the sources that show a long history of the use of this term? It's really a nonsense. You accept that the castles had nothing to do with the Cathars; they weren't built by them; many didn't even exist at the relevant time; etc.. You accept that there is at least one source that says the name is an invention with no basis is fact. So where's the issue? Emeraude (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)