Talk:Brussels massacre

Name

Is there any evidence that this event is called "Brussels massacre" in English histories? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've found two sources in English that refer to the "Brussels massacre of 1370" - seems a good name. Then "Brussels massacre" can be a disambiguation for this, the Heysel Stadium disaster (referred to as "Brussels massacre" in at least two journalistic sources), and Massacre of the Innocents (Rubens) (one version of which art historians refer to as "the Brussels Massacre", presumably because it was painted or at some time kept in Brussels). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "Brussels massacre" sounds more like a description than a name, and I think a better description could be found. I've also changed "Blessed Sacrament of Holy Miracle" back to "Miracle of the Blessed Sacrament". The latter is a translation of the French source cathedralestmichel.be. I don't know if the former wording in Arblaster's book, but it doesn't sound like grammatical English to me. jnestorius^(talk) 23:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That is the wording, or something very like it. It's an English translation of the Dutch and French names (which are also the names for the parallel entries in fr.wiki and nl.wiki): it's not a miracle of the sacrament, it's the sacrament (i.e. the eucharistic wafers) that had a miracle --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with "the Sacrament of Miracle":

1. it's bad grammar. To be grammatical, it should be "the Sacrament of the Miracle".
2. I've never heard "Sacrament" tout court used in English to refer to the physical object as opposed to the rite; on the other hand "Blessed Sacrament" can be used for either.
3. there is a conceptual difference between the 1370 event and the object. The event was commemorated; the object was venerated. The event was called "the Miracle of the Blessed Sacrament"; the object was called "the Blessed Sacrament of the Miracle".

jnestorius^(talk) 10:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether or not it's standard grammar, just that it seems to be the accepted name for this specific thing.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What is your source? Arblaster's book? Can you give the precise quote? jnestorius^(talk) 13:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already put two sources in the article, with quotes. There are plenty more on Google, but these look like pretty solid RS high up the list. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry.

1. Again, however, it is not the event that is called "Sacrament of Miracle"
2. I am getting Google matches for every combination of [-|most] [-|holy|Holy|Blessed] Sacrament of [Miracle|Miracles|the Miracle], so I suggest there is no canonical English translation, just a lot of adhoc glosses by various authors. So there is no need for Wikipedia to choose a bad gloss. I suggest giving the French/Flemish name and a gloss "Holy Sacrament of the Miracle" sourced from these two. jnestorius^(talk) 22:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

[Back to margin]: If there are reliable sources for three English translations in texts that are directly about it, not incidental mentions, then I think we should give, and footnote, all three: "translated into English variously as "Sacrament of Miracle",(n) "Sacrament of the Miracle"(n) or "Sacrament of Miracles"(n)." Although any one of the three would be an improvement on what was there a week ago. The text currently says that the event was "commemorated as" — change that to "commemorated in" and your first concern has also been addressed. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I would hate to clog up the main article with such finicky details. Relegate them all to a footnote. In French there is "Sacrement de Miracle" and "Sacrement du Miracle". The cathedral's English website has "Miraculous Sacrament" for the object and one use each of "Miracle of the Blessed Sacrament" and "Miracle of the Holy Sacrament" for the event. jnestorius^(talk) 11:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of a Linnaean taxonomy of historical events and practices, I'm rather in favour of being up front about what different terms apply to what's being discussed, just so a reader knows straight away that this is actually about the thing they want to know more about, even though the title of the article might be very differently worded from the mention they came across. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any two combinations of [-|most] [-|holy|Holy|Blessed] Sacrament of [Miracle|Miracles|the Miracle] count as "very differently worded". Something like this

The hosts allegedly profaned were venerated as Sacrement du [or de] Miracle and Sacrament van Mirakel (French and Flemish respectively; translated "Blessed Sacrament of [the] Miracle", "Miraculous Sacrament", or variants)

Footnotes

References

That looks fine to me. All of them are very differently worded from "Brussels massacre". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Split

Reading a bit further it looks to me as though we should have two articles: one on the judicial murders and one on the cult. The event lasted a few weeks, the cult lasted for centuries and has a literature of its own (in history of religion, art history, etc.). Covering the cult in full in an article on the massacre is starting to look like undue weight. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say rather that it is an argument for renaming the article. There does not seem to be much written specifically about the 1370 killings; an article about that alone would be a permanent stub, or a line in the host desecration article. jnestorius^(talk) 17:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsupported statements

• "the rest of the small community was banished": the source cited does not actually say this.
• "this time linking the Miracle to the contemporary Catholic opposition to secularism": the source cited does not actually say this.

Should these phrases be removed, or tagged as unsourced? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a simple {{cn}} is enough. Perhaps they can easily be referenced from one of the article's other sources. If I get time I might take a look. jnestorius^(talk) 17:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)