This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1321 lepers' plot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
A fact from 1321 lepers' plot appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 June 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Something seems off or missing about this new article, which starts by plugging a theory of one particular academic, though it uses four sources. Trouble is, I don't have time to research and fix it. This was the heyday of the great pilgrimage routes through France, which after the Pyrennes could go west to Santiago de Compostela (one branch going through Huesca) or east to Rome. Santiago was more popular because of wars, robbers, etc on the Roman road, although some travellers or guides did both. I suspect political instability somewhere, probably in France, led to the 1321 scare, for I think this scare predated the first outbreak of the Black Death by at least a decade. French persecutions of Jews often occurred in waves and spilled over the Pyrennees. What's particularly odd is the restriction to Aragon, then a long-lived and politically adept King, since most of the travelers would also be traveling through the less-stable at this time kingdoms of Castile and Leon. But Aragon's ports were hit harder by the Black Death, because of overcrowding as well as the rats traveling on ships.Jweaver28 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I have no idea what your point is. What do you mean by "plugging a theory of one particular academic"? Which theory and which academic are you referring to? What do you believe needs fixing? Finally, I don't see what you mean when you say that "something seems off or missing about this new article".
Arnoutf, what made you brand the tone "not very neutral/encyclopedic"?
"Branding" is a big word for my edit summary when I classified it as "start". Phrases like "Lepers were the most abused people during the Middle Ages according to the American Jewish historian Solomon Grayzel" referring to a specific expert in the lead section and "Jews and Muslims were said to be implicated in the plot, providing an excuse for local authorities to attack both Jewish and leper communities. The hysteria quickly spread to the neighbouring realms, most notably to the Kingdom of Aragon." are not encyclopedic in tone e.g the word hysteria is a rather grand word; which is neither sourced, nor introduced in careful and balanced way before it is used. I do not say it should be fully rewritten, but a very thorough copyedit is required. Note that the didyouknow section on main is reserved for new articles which often have room for improvement. Arnoutf (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "encyclopaedic tone" to refer to a specific expert in the lead section? Pardon me, but where did you read that? Anyway, it is perfectly appropriate to refer to mass hysteria as hysteria. Sources do, naturally, and it is quite easy to verify that if need be; of course, the article already establishes quite clearly that people reacted hysterically to the rumours. I certainly don't claim that the article is perfect; several users have made welcome changes to it since it appeared on the main page, but suggesting that it is not neutral or encyclopaedic because the word "hysteria" is not "introduced in careful and balanced way before it is used" (literally impossible, as you cannot introduce it before you use it) is absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not take it as a personal insult. I like the article, I think it is an interesting topic. I also think it needs improvement before it should be rated as higher than start at this stage (note the article is not even 3 weeks old so it is a newly started article).
For the introduction of an article (WP:LEAD) we need a summary. In general the reference to a specific source/academic is at a level of arguments/aggregation that is almost certainly better suited for the main text instead of the lead/summary. My suggestion would be to move that specific reference to the main text.
If the phrasing would have been different there would be no problem (e.g. this lead to hysteric attacks (REFERENCE).... This hysteria spread... --- Or if it would read ---lead to attacks.... Similar attacks occurred in neighboring realms). Arnoutf (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am new to wikipedia and recently registered. I thought I would make my first contribution by editing and adding to this page on the the 'leper Scare' since firstly it is categorised as worth improving and secondly I have recently written a paper on the subject as part of my masters degree and might have some useful references etc. I am letting anyone interested in this page and previous editors know first to show I am genuine if inexperienced! Any advice welcomed. I have had a go at the wiki training videos etc.Davidsarri (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like views and advice on changing the the title of this page. I am new to editing so wish to respect the integrity of wikipedia. However the title 'The 1321 leper scare' is not how this event is referred to normally, so anyone searching, eg through google would not enter this description. In the citeable references the terms 'leper persecution', 'lepers' conspiracy' or 'lepers' plot' are used. I appreciate that if the more usual description of '1321 lepers' plot' is entered e.g. into google it will still bring this page up due to the reference to the alternative description in the introduction. The title, lepers' plot, is used elsewhere in Wikipedia, e.g. in the 'Death by Burning' page. In cited references on the event on the page historians never refer to it as the leper scare. I can find no citable references that use the word scare. Is it a problem to use the title, 1321 lepers' plot (or conspiracy), because it was in effect not a plot(or conspiracy) but a false allegation of a plot? The alternative is to use the title, 1321 leper persecution. If I do not hear to the contrary I will change the title. Davidsarri (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for taking interest in this subject! It seems that "lepers' plot" is indeed more common than "leper scare". But as you point out, is it helpful to refer to a scare as a plot when it was a scare and not a plot? Would we not mislead the readers by calling it a plot? On the other hand, we have WP:COMMONNAME policy, which would favor "leper plot". Surtsicna (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the title would more usefully be 1321 leper persecution, which is factually correct and closer to how it is referred to in cited works. Then in the first paragraph we can say, as it does, commonly known as the 'lepers plot' etc. Note quotations marks? Alternatively go with Lepers plot as not perfect but is the most commonly used term and explain in the introduction that it was alleged. What do you think? Davidsarri (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I agree 1321 leper persecution is not the right title, though a more accurate description than scare it is not used in sources as way of describing it. However I have found several references to lepers' plot both in citeable secondary and primary sources. Examples are Barber, M., 'Lepers, Jews and Moslems: The plot to overthow Christendom in 1321', History 66 (1981), pp. 1-17. Bernard Gui, Inquisitor at Toulouse between 1307 and 1324, refers to a plot in his Vita Joannis XX11 (excerpta ex chronicis quae nuncupantur Flores chronicorum seu Cathalogus pontificum Romanorum), Nirenberg, D. in his 'Communities of violence: persecution of minorities in the Middle Ages (1996) refers to it as a plot repeatedly e.g. p60 'Outside the chronicle tradition, the danger that Phillip's avarice was believed to bring upon his kingdom was expressed through the lepers' plot.' As mentioned it is also refered to as a plot elsewhere on wikipedia. I appreciate that these may not be bullet proof and that my concern about the fact that it was not a plot still holds true but on balance since neither scare nor persecution have any citeable references, 1321 Lepers' plot is the best option if followed immediately in the introduction with clarification that it was an alleged plot. What do you think? Davidsarri (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Davidsarri You moved this talk page rather than the article to a new name. I have undone that move. I have no opinion about whether this article itself should be moved to a new name. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
