Talk:Goliards

Citations and footnotes
I put up the "Citations missing" template because I believe the reader should be able to acknowledge the source and validity of the facts being presented to him or her, and that's precisely why footnote references exist. While I'm aware that the bulk of the article may come straight from the Encyclopædia Britannica, references to other sources should be present and properly indicated. -- Howdoesitflee (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of date information
I added the "Out of date" template because the cited sources of this article date back to 1884 (Symonds), 1911 (Encyclopædia Britannica) and 1927 (Waddell). I know for a fact that a) most books unfortunately just seem to pump their information from these popular yet out-dated sources and that b) there is modern original research available on the Goliards, the main problem being that it's sometimes hardly accessible for the common man, but more easily for the university student since he or she can access this information through faculty libraries or scientific publications search engines such as JSTOR. That said, I do think it's possible to find more recent material to make this article valid for the 21st century. -- Howdoesitflee (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and most of the research done on the Goliards has been conducted by Germans and therefore is in German. &bull; H☼&omega;d&Theta;esI&dagger;fl&notin;&isin;   {KLAT}  &bull; 02:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous definition
The page currently says,"The goliards were a group of clergy, generally young, in Europe who wrote satirical Latin poetry in the 12th and 13th centuries of the Middle Ages." This is not entirely correct. Not all of the Goliard were clergy, as described by Britannica, "Goliard, any of the wandering students and clerics in medieval England, France, and Germany, remembered for their satirical verses..." Many of them were students, not just clergy. I attempted to fix this but it was changed back to the incorrect definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifton Marien (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please WP:SIGN your talk page posts (and WP:INDENT replies).
 * Your change to the first sentence definitely did not match your reference. "Young people" is not equivalent to "students" or "young students". And I think students in this time period refers to religious students but feel free to find more information on that. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Clifton is probably correct that our definition is too narrow, but DIYeditor is correct that we need better sourcing (Britannica is a tertiary source) and that we must not read into it what we wish it said.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Goliard → Goliards – This is a naturally plural topic, the goliards as a /group/movement/class. No one really writes "so-and-so was a goliard" the way they would "thus-and-such was a painter"; it's not an occupational term. It's more like "the Pre-Raphaelites", though I don't see much evidence of adjectival use or an -ism form, so the most natural title is goliards. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PLURAL. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support They were a group of people, not an individual. Dimadick (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)