Albigensian Crusade has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 1, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
User:Monochrome Monitor removed this article from Category:Genocides with the justification "debatable, as the section indicates". However, I don't think putting an article in that category should require universal agreement among scholars that it was a genocide. The scholarly debate about whether this is a genocide is informative to those trying to understand the topic of genocide, and so on that grounds alone it should be included in the category. Hence, I am putting it back in. SJK ( talk) 04:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That's an exceedingly stupid comparison. No scholar worth their salt denies the Armenian genocide. In contrast the Albigensian Crusade is debated for very real reasons- lack of genocidal intent (destruction of a people)-- Monochrome_ Monitor 13:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone can deny the existence of genocidal intent. The standard definition of genocide is that given by Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, which says (my emphasis):
...genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Clearly, Pope Innocent III, Simon de Montfort, etc., intended to "destroy, in whole or in part" the "religious group" of the Cathars, and they did it by at least "(a) Killing members of the group", and possibly (b) or (c) as well. Now, you might object that this is just how genocide is defined in contemporary law – but that definition was based on the definition of Lemkin, who coined the very word, and who was one of the drafters of the Convention. So, it seems that those who object that the Albigensian Crusade is not a genocide are using the term "genocide" in a narrower sense than contemporary law uses, indeed in a narrower sense than the very coiner of the word used it (for Lemkin is on record as saying he considered the Albigensian Crusade to be a genocide.) SJK ( talk) 21:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The target was perhaps not genetic, but it was definitely not only 'ideas' that were targetted either. Anyone who says that doesn't really understand what it meant to be seen as a medieval heretic. The albigensians, cathars, provincial heretics, or whatever you want to call them, chose willingly to belief something different than the medieval catholics, and therefore were the target of sieges (alongside there Catholic fellow-Occitans), mass-burnings and inquisition. The popes had been calling for military action like that in the Midi for years on end. After sieges, only Cathars were burnt; mass-burnt. How is that a lack of genocidal intent? This was not primarily a territorial conflict, remember that. Anyway, I think it should be restored, definitely for as long as the "List of genocides" here on wikipedia includes it. Also, I almost no of no scholars that don't classify this as a genocide, it is a "perfect" example for a "religious group" genocide. I also think that it is really silly to have a discussion about genocide between two people up on this wikipedia page. Mansize010 ( talk) 09:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
What does all that "VC" and "PL" stuff mean? Display name 99 ( talk) 20:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 00:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 22:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This has all been done. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I did as suggested for the first point, but not the second. I prefer to keep the image of the Cathars being expelled near the section about the events at Carcassonne. The map is more general and fits better in the infobox. I did, however, increase the size by a little bit. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't find the page number for the last book, but I took care of everything else. I know that books in FAs are always supposed to include page numbers, and that it's always preferable to have them, but I don't think that missing one out of over 100 should result in a GA review failing. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I removed the sentences: "A particularly prominent 12th-century Cathar preacher was Henry the Petrobrusian, who, in addition to being strongly anti-clerical, adopted the Pelagian view that people were not tainted with original sin, but instead succumbed to sin through their own actions. He gained a large following.{{sfn|Costen|1997|p=54}}" with the edit summary, "source cited does not say Peter of Bruys or Henry of Lausanne were Cathars"
The edit was reverted by @ Display name 99: with the edit summary, "Nor should it. Neither of them were mentioned in the paragraph. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also, when you remove content, be careful not to remove the source. You left the part of the paragraph that you didn't remove without a citation."
On pages 53-4 of The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade by M. D. Costen, Costen is describing other groups active at the same time as the Cathars. Page 54 is about Henry of Lausanne who was thought to be influenced by Peter of Bruys (Petrobrusian). Costen does call him Henry the Petrobrusian, but Henry is commonly called Henry of Lausanne. Costen does not say that Henry of Lausanne was a Cathar preacher. Neither Peter of Bruys (Petrobrusian) or Henry of Lausanne were Cathars, so to say, "A particularly prominent 12th-century Cathar preacher was Henry the Petrobrusian" is incorrect and needs to be removed from the article.
The page cited, page 54, is about Henry of Lausanne and is not a source for the first part of the paragraph about Cathar beliefs.
This can be confirmed on Google Books:
- Epinoia ( talk) 21:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Display name 99, although Henry the Petrobrusian has been moved to the Prelude, it does not show that he, or his beliefs, had any relationship to the Albigensian crusade. Placing Henry in the article gives undue weight WP:UNDUE to a relatively minor 12th century figure. This article is about the Albigensian crusade and we shouldn't go wandering off talking about Pelagianism and other views which have no relevance to the crusade. Let's stick to the topic WP:TOPIC. Just because something is useful or true does not mean it belongs in an article WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The only relationship Henry had to the Cathars was that he lived at the same time and in the same area. Although Bernard of Clairvaux preached against Henry, there was no major Catholic Church movement against him. Henry is not mentioned in the main article on the Cathars, so why would he be mentioned in the article on the crusade? Adding Henry and his beliefs to the article on the Albigensian crusade simply clouds the issue with unnecessary information. I ask you again to remove Henry the Petrobrusian from the Albigensian crusade article - thanks - Epinoia ( talk) 01:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Removed the sentences from the Cathar theology section, "On baptism, Cathars claimed that the sacrament should only be given to adults. Cathars regarded baptism not as a sign of God's grace, to be bestowed on anyone, but as necessitating the conscious decision of an adult.{{sfn|Costen|1997|p=54}}
This is left over from an earlier edit that mistakenly identified Henry the Petrobrusian ( Henry of Lausanne) as a Cathar preacher. On page 54 of The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade, Costen describes the beliefs of Henry the Petrobrusian as, "Baptism, the first of all sacraments, became the outward sign of a conscious decision of the adult, not a supernatural gift of Grace from God." Costen is describing Henry the Petrobrusian, not Cathar beliefs. I removed the citation with the sentences because p. 54 is only about Peter de Bruys and Henry the Petrobrusian and does not say anything about the Cathars.
According to the Wikipedia article Catharism, they "refused to partake in the practice of Baptism by water" which they saw as "the false sacrament of baptism." Cathars were anti-sacerdotal and had only one central rite, the Consolamentum, which was immersion (or baptism) in the Holy Spirit. - cheers - Epinoia ( talk) 05:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I have added some background to the Albigensian crusade. Please discuss here before reverting or editing. Thanks. - Epinoia ( talk) 15:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Display name 99- here are some references to be getting on with. These are all references cited in the Albigensian crusade article, I didn't draw from any other sources. Many references may have been missed because of inconsistent naming. I didn't find any references to the Tondrakians so I will remove them from the article (don't have time now, but will later today). I will address you other concerns later when I have time.
- Epinoia ( talk) 18:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Display name 99 - Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this, but here are some explanations:
As with most wars, problems did not begin immediately before armed conflict broke out. They built up over years, and it's important for us to explain not simply what happened during them but how they came about. The Crusades article does not begin with the Council of Clermont in 1095. It goes back centuries so that readers can understand the full context. That's our job here.
- I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have other questions I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. (and I apologize for the flaws in the citations) - Epinoia ( talk) 02:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The Pilgrim Church is unsourced revisionist history. It's a work of Baptist successionist apologetics. As such, it's not a proper source for historical background. 2600:4040:2B8D:F800:7DEB:817D:37D3:C046 ( talk) 18:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Albigensian Crusade has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 1, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
User:Monochrome Monitor removed this article from Category:Genocides with the justification "debatable, as the section indicates". However, I don't think putting an article in that category should require universal agreement among scholars that it was a genocide. The scholarly debate about whether this is a genocide is informative to those trying to understand the topic of genocide, and so on that grounds alone it should be included in the category. Hence, I am putting it back in. SJK ( talk) 04:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That's an exceedingly stupid comparison. No scholar worth their salt denies the Armenian genocide. In contrast the Albigensian Crusade is debated for very real reasons- lack of genocidal intent (destruction of a people)-- Monochrome_ Monitor 13:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone can deny the existence of genocidal intent. The standard definition of genocide is that given by Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, which says (my emphasis):
...genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Clearly, Pope Innocent III, Simon de Montfort, etc., intended to "destroy, in whole or in part" the "religious group" of the Cathars, and they did it by at least "(a) Killing members of the group", and possibly (b) or (c) as well. Now, you might object that this is just how genocide is defined in contemporary law – but that definition was based on the definition of Lemkin, who coined the very word, and who was one of the drafters of the Convention. So, it seems that those who object that the Albigensian Crusade is not a genocide are using the term "genocide" in a narrower sense than contemporary law uses, indeed in a narrower sense than the very coiner of the word used it (for Lemkin is on record as saying he considered the Albigensian Crusade to be a genocide.) SJK ( talk) 21:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The target was perhaps not genetic, but it was definitely not only 'ideas' that were targetted either. Anyone who says that doesn't really understand what it meant to be seen as a medieval heretic. The albigensians, cathars, provincial heretics, or whatever you want to call them, chose willingly to belief something different than the medieval catholics, and therefore were the target of sieges (alongside there Catholic fellow-Occitans), mass-burnings and inquisition. The popes had been calling for military action like that in the Midi for years on end. After sieges, only Cathars were burnt; mass-burnt. How is that a lack of genocidal intent? This was not primarily a territorial conflict, remember that. Anyway, I think it should be restored, definitely for as long as the "List of genocides" here on wikipedia includes it. Also, I almost no of no scholars that don't classify this as a genocide, it is a "perfect" example for a "religious group" genocide. I also think that it is really silly to have a discussion about genocide between two people up on this wikipedia page. Mansize010 ( talk) 09:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
What does all that "VC" and "PL" stuff mean? Display name 99 ( talk) 20:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 00:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 22:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This has all been done. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I did as suggested for the first point, but not the second. I prefer to keep the image of the Cathars being expelled near the section about the events at Carcassonne. The map is more general and fits better in the infobox. I did, however, increase the size by a little bit. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't find the page number for the last book, but I took care of everything else. I know that books in FAs are always supposed to include page numbers, and that it's always preferable to have them, but I don't think that missing one out of over 100 should result in a GA review failing. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I removed the sentences: "A particularly prominent 12th-century Cathar preacher was Henry the Petrobrusian, who, in addition to being strongly anti-clerical, adopted the Pelagian view that people were not tainted with original sin, but instead succumbed to sin through their own actions. He gained a large following.{{sfn|Costen|1997|p=54}}" with the edit summary, "source cited does not say Peter of Bruys or Henry of Lausanne were Cathars"
The edit was reverted by @ Display name 99: with the edit summary, "Nor should it. Neither of them were mentioned in the paragraph. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also, when you remove content, be careful not to remove the source. You left the part of the paragraph that you didn't remove without a citation."
On pages 53-4 of The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade by M. D. Costen, Costen is describing other groups active at the same time as the Cathars. Page 54 is about Henry of Lausanne who was thought to be influenced by Peter of Bruys (Petrobrusian). Costen does call him Henry the Petrobrusian, but Henry is commonly called Henry of Lausanne. Costen does not say that Henry of Lausanne was a Cathar preacher. Neither Peter of Bruys (Petrobrusian) or Henry of Lausanne were Cathars, so to say, "A particularly prominent 12th-century Cathar preacher was Henry the Petrobrusian" is incorrect and needs to be removed from the article.
The page cited, page 54, is about Henry of Lausanne and is not a source for the first part of the paragraph about Cathar beliefs.
This can be confirmed on Google Books:
- Epinoia ( talk) 21:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Display name 99, although Henry the Petrobrusian has been moved to the Prelude, it does not show that he, or his beliefs, had any relationship to the Albigensian crusade. Placing Henry in the article gives undue weight WP:UNDUE to a relatively minor 12th century figure. This article is about the Albigensian crusade and we shouldn't go wandering off talking about Pelagianism and other views which have no relevance to the crusade. Let's stick to the topic WP:TOPIC. Just because something is useful or true does not mean it belongs in an article WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The only relationship Henry had to the Cathars was that he lived at the same time and in the same area. Although Bernard of Clairvaux preached against Henry, there was no major Catholic Church movement against him. Henry is not mentioned in the main article on the Cathars, so why would he be mentioned in the article on the crusade? Adding Henry and his beliefs to the article on the Albigensian crusade simply clouds the issue with unnecessary information. I ask you again to remove Henry the Petrobrusian from the Albigensian crusade article - thanks - Epinoia ( talk) 01:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Removed the sentences from the Cathar theology section, "On baptism, Cathars claimed that the sacrament should only be given to adults. Cathars regarded baptism not as a sign of God's grace, to be bestowed on anyone, but as necessitating the conscious decision of an adult.{{sfn|Costen|1997|p=54}}
This is left over from an earlier edit that mistakenly identified Henry the Petrobrusian ( Henry of Lausanne) as a Cathar preacher. On page 54 of The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade, Costen describes the beliefs of Henry the Petrobrusian as, "Baptism, the first of all sacraments, became the outward sign of a conscious decision of the adult, not a supernatural gift of Grace from God." Costen is describing Henry the Petrobrusian, not Cathar beliefs. I removed the citation with the sentences because p. 54 is only about Peter de Bruys and Henry the Petrobrusian and does not say anything about the Cathars.
According to the Wikipedia article Catharism, they "refused to partake in the practice of Baptism by water" which they saw as "the false sacrament of baptism." Cathars were anti-sacerdotal and had only one central rite, the Consolamentum, which was immersion (or baptism) in the Holy Spirit. - cheers - Epinoia ( talk) 05:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I have added some background to the Albigensian crusade. Please discuss here before reverting or editing. Thanks. - Epinoia ( talk) 15:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Display name 99- here are some references to be getting on with. These are all references cited in the Albigensian crusade article, I didn't draw from any other sources. Many references may have been missed because of inconsistent naming. I didn't find any references to the Tondrakians so I will remove them from the article (don't have time now, but will later today). I will address you other concerns later when I have time.
- Epinoia ( talk) 18:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Display name 99 - Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this, but here are some explanations:
As with most wars, problems did not begin immediately before armed conflict broke out. They built up over years, and it's important for us to explain not simply what happened during them but how they came about. The Crusades article does not begin with the Council of Clermont in 1095. It goes back centuries so that readers can understand the full context. That's our job here.
- I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have other questions I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. (and I apologize for the flaws in the citations) - Epinoia ( talk) 02:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The Pilgrim Church is unsourced revisionist history. It's a work of Baptist successionist apologetics. As such, it's not a proper source for historical background. 2600:4040:2B8D:F800:7DEB:817D:37D3:C046 ( talk) 18:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)