This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catharism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
This article is rated C-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. |
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help! |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hello User:Epinoia, thank you for chiming in. With your revert [1] you reply to my mention of Moore in my edit summary. NB I only mentioned him in my edit summary which may have have caused some misunderstanding, because I neither mention him in the content nor reference him in the citations that you cut in good faith. Note (i) There are plenty of mainstream sources about the debate excluding Moore, e.g. "Whether or not a dualist Cathar heresy existed in medieval Europe has been widely debated among medieval historians over the past twenty years." [1] (ii) the debate is mentioned in the French language intro of this article, and (iii) per WP:LEDE we not only summarize the article but are specifically required to mention any controversy at the top. So I stand by my position that the revisionist dispute about Catharism's existence ought to be included in the lead and I would like to reach an agreement with you somehow. Again, we can put it down to my mention of Moore being a distraction, so we can dump him in favor of other sources if you prefer. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 11:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Talking at cross purposes now. This case is not to re-top the lede to say in Wikipedia's voice that there's a theory that Catharism didn't exist as a movement; this case - as my offer of compromise to you - is to include in the lede in Wikipedia's voice that there is a significant scholarly controversy about that theory, a controversy which is specifically stated as real by multiple verifiable, reliable sources. Whether the theory 'hasn't gained much traction' is your personal emphasis and may or may not be true; what matters here is that multiple verifiable reliable sources say there is a notable academic controversy around the theory itself, whether it has gained much traction or not. -- Chumchum7 ( talk) 06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Epinoia ( talk) 15:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)"The lack of any central organization among Cathars, regional differences in beliefs and practices as well as the lack of unbiased sources has led some scholars, such as R.I. Moore, Mark Pegg and Antonio Senna, to question whether a dualist sect that could be called Catharism ever existed."
The lead, if it does mention the revisionist theory, should make it clear that the revisionist theory is, to put it mildly, a minority opinion. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 02:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I restored the agreed-upon paragraph to the lead. I concur with the consensus here that doubts about the Cathars deserve to be mentioned in the lead. However, I find the wikilinked word " construct" a little jargon-y. I propose:
"There is academic controversy about whether Catharism was a real and organized movement or if the medieval Church imagined or exaggerated it." Jno.skinner ( talk) 21:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I cannot speak to the reliability of the source, "The Lost Teachings of the Cathars" or the the scholarship of its author,
Andrew Phillip Smith. So I really cannot say how likely it is to be accurate in reporting the beliefs of the Cathars.
But the author/source does make a very common but serious error in terminology--which this article reproduces.
Wikipedia should, of course, be accurate in relating a point made in a source it is citing. But that doesn't require perpetuating clear and demonstrable terminological errors the source commits in making its point.
The source says:
The Wikipedia article reports this:
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH VIRGIN BIRTH.
The term is often used, erroneously, to refer to the conception of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin named Mary (and by extension to any virgin birth). In fact, "Immaculate Conception" refers to the doctrine--also taught by the Catholic Church--that Mary was, by special grace, preserved free of the stain of Original Sin (the sin of Adam and Eve) from the first moment of her conception. Note that the term DOES refer to the conception of Mary in the womb of her own mother--but the Catholic Church, while teaching this doctrine, does not suggest that the conception of Mary, biologically speaking, happened in anything other than the usual way.
I intend to edit that phrase as soon as I can settle on a phraseology. But I think it might be an edit that I should explain more than I could do in an Edit Summary.
Uporządnicki (
talk) 16:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
There’s no mention here (I think) of the ensuing Children’s Crusade which was prompted by the number of orphans produced by the Albigensian Massacre. They were running riot in the streets and often had to resort to crime just to survive.
Stephen of Cloyes (1212?) led the French arm of the Children’s Crusade while Nicholas(?) of Germany led the German arm. The French king at the time (?) was quite reluctant to approve the campaign because he clearly thought it was folly (he was right) but he caved to political pressure from the cities and towns where these children were running rampant and reluctantly approved it. They marched over the Alps to great acclaim and support from the citizens that they met along the way, the idea being that only children, with their pure hearts, could succeed in converting the Infidels whereas the previous crusades had failed. Some of the children made it to Marseille (the others were reviled on their return journey) and were promised free passage to the Holy Land by a ship owner named as William Porcellius (?) and were promptly sold into slavery upon the arrival in the Middle East. Only one or two made their way back to France to bear witness to the fiasco some decades after the original event. Somebody please edit this. It’s based on a research paper I wrote over 40 years ago and my memory isn’t that acute! 98.2.197.245 ( talk) 06:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I know Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook is not academically relevant as authorities for this article, but I found it interesting to hear Tom Holland reference this Wikipedia article, among other things, as reflecting the "old" view of "Catharism" in their podcast. He cites a couple of authors which I see is also cited here. It is interesting to hear and then try to square two so different views: Catharism was as alleged vs. "Cathars" was an imaginary bogeyman that reformist popes (ironically the "puritan" (as in cathar) ones) invented. Is it worth discussing further whether the article should be more ambiguous in what Cathars were in the lede, to reflect this "revisionist" scholarship? I note the discussion above, and see it is already mentioned in lede, yes, but only after a large amount of stuff is established in Wiki voice that very credential scholars find highly dubious. Obviously, as someone knowing very little, I have no authority to say who is more likely to be correct. I can only note the very heated debate, and it does appear that the article at first glance is not quite representative of the level of scholarly controversy. Euor ( talk) 00:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The redirect The massacre of the Cathars has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6 § The massacre of the Cathars until a consensus is reached. Veverve ( talk) 15:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I revised to "sometimes regarded as a genocide" because, with only one source to back up "widely," I think "sometimes" is more accurate. Brian Osgood ( talk) 23:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
One has to ask why on earth this should be mentioned in the lead? Hence I undid this edit 149.50.160.90 ( talk) 12:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catharism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
This article is rated C-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. |
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help! |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hello User:Epinoia, thank you for chiming in. With your revert [1] you reply to my mention of Moore in my edit summary. NB I only mentioned him in my edit summary which may have have caused some misunderstanding, because I neither mention him in the content nor reference him in the citations that you cut in good faith. Note (i) There are plenty of mainstream sources about the debate excluding Moore, e.g. "Whether or not a dualist Cathar heresy existed in medieval Europe has been widely debated among medieval historians over the past twenty years." [1] (ii) the debate is mentioned in the French language intro of this article, and (iii) per WP:LEDE we not only summarize the article but are specifically required to mention any controversy at the top. So I stand by my position that the revisionist dispute about Catharism's existence ought to be included in the lead and I would like to reach an agreement with you somehow. Again, we can put it down to my mention of Moore being a distraction, so we can dump him in favor of other sources if you prefer. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 11:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Talking at cross purposes now. This case is not to re-top the lede to say in Wikipedia's voice that there's a theory that Catharism didn't exist as a movement; this case - as my offer of compromise to you - is to include in the lede in Wikipedia's voice that there is a significant scholarly controversy about that theory, a controversy which is specifically stated as real by multiple verifiable, reliable sources. Whether the theory 'hasn't gained much traction' is your personal emphasis and may or may not be true; what matters here is that multiple verifiable reliable sources say there is a notable academic controversy around the theory itself, whether it has gained much traction or not. -- Chumchum7 ( talk) 06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Epinoia ( talk) 15:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)"The lack of any central organization among Cathars, regional differences in beliefs and practices as well as the lack of unbiased sources has led some scholars, such as R.I. Moore, Mark Pegg and Antonio Senna, to question whether a dualist sect that could be called Catharism ever existed."
The lead, if it does mention the revisionist theory, should make it clear that the revisionist theory is, to put it mildly, a minority opinion. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 02:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I restored the agreed-upon paragraph to the lead. I concur with the consensus here that doubts about the Cathars deserve to be mentioned in the lead. However, I find the wikilinked word " construct" a little jargon-y. I propose:
"There is academic controversy about whether Catharism was a real and organized movement or if the medieval Church imagined or exaggerated it." Jno.skinner ( talk) 21:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I cannot speak to the reliability of the source, "The Lost Teachings of the Cathars" or the the scholarship of its author,
Andrew Phillip Smith. So I really cannot say how likely it is to be accurate in reporting the beliefs of the Cathars.
But the author/source does make a very common but serious error in terminology--which this article reproduces.
Wikipedia should, of course, be accurate in relating a point made in a source it is citing. But that doesn't require perpetuating clear and demonstrable terminological errors the source commits in making its point.
The source says:
The Wikipedia article reports this:
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH VIRGIN BIRTH.
The term is often used, erroneously, to refer to the conception of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin named Mary (and by extension to any virgin birth). In fact, "Immaculate Conception" refers to the doctrine--also taught by the Catholic Church--that Mary was, by special grace, preserved free of the stain of Original Sin (the sin of Adam and Eve) from the first moment of her conception. Note that the term DOES refer to the conception of Mary in the womb of her own mother--but the Catholic Church, while teaching this doctrine, does not suggest that the conception of Mary, biologically speaking, happened in anything other than the usual way.
I intend to edit that phrase as soon as I can settle on a phraseology. But I think it might be an edit that I should explain more than I could do in an Edit Summary.
Uporządnicki (
talk) 16:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
There’s no mention here (I think) of the ensuing Children’s Crusade which was prompted by the number of orphans produced by the Albigensian Massacre. They were running riot in the streets and often had to resort to crime just to survive.
Stephen of Cloyes (1212?) led the French arm of the Children’s Crusade while Nicholas(?) of Germany led the German arm. The French king at the time (?) was quite reluctant to approve the campaign because he clearly thought it was folly (he was right) but he caved to political pressure from the cities and towns where these children were running rampant and reluctantly approved it. They marched over the Alps to great acclaim and support from the citizens that they met along the way, the idea being that only children, with their pure hearts, could succeed in converting the Infidels whereas the previous crusades had failed. Some of the children made it to Marseille (the others were reviled on their return journey) and were promised free passage to the Holy Land by a ship owner named as William Porcellius (?) and were promptly sold into slavery upon the arrival in the Middle East. Only one or two made their way back to France to bear witness to the fiasco some decades after the original event. Somebody please edit this. It’s based on a research paper I wrote over 40 years ago and my memory isn’t that acute! 98.2.197.245 ( talk) 06:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I know Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook is not academically relevant as authorities for this article, but I found it interesting to hear Tom Holland reference this Wikipedia article, among other things, as reflecting the "old" view of "Catharism" in their podcast. He cites a couple of authors which I see is also cited here. It is interesting to hear and then try to square two so different views: Catharism was as alleged vs. "Cathars" was an imaginary bogeyman that reformist popes (ironically the "puritan" (as in cathar) ones) invented. Is it worth discussing further whether the article should be more ambiguous in what Cathars were in the lede, to reflect this "revisionist" scholarship? I note the discussion above, and see it is already mentioned in lede, yes, but only after a large amount of stuff is established in Wiki voice that very credential scholars find highly dubious. Obviously, as someone knowing very little, I have no authority to say who is more likely to be correct. I can only note the very heated debate, and it does appear that the article at first glance is not quite representative of the level of scholarly controversy. Euor ( talk) 00:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The redirect The massacre of the Cathars has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6 § The massacre of the Cathars until a consensus is reached. Veverve ( talk) 15:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I revised to "sometimes regarded as a genocide" because, with only one source to back up "widely," I think "sometimes" is more accurate. Brian Osgood ( talk) 23:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
One has to ask why on earth this should be mentioned in the lead? Hence I undid this edit 149.50.160.90 ( talk) 12:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)