Talk:Catharism

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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:
:Italian Cathars believed that Mary was born of woman alone, not man, a curious shift in the virgin birth that makes Mary herself the result of an immaculate conception.
The Wikipedia article reports this:
: ... the Virgin Mary, ... possibly a human born from an immaculate conception herself.
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)
thread_title:  Virgin Birth is NOT Immaculate Conception! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Children’s Crusade 

message: 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)
replies: text: Per WP:NPOVFAQ we should "describe debates rather than engage in them." If the current article is effectively taking a side in a scholarly debate by overemphasizing one position, then yes, I think we should work toward balancing it. Do you know of an academic source that gives an overview of the state of the debate? Jno.skinner (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick search resulted in this. I do not have full access, but its description seem to reflect there being two highly different camps in the scholarship ATM. Dated 2018, the author is from Columbia University, apparently specializing in precisely this heresy question. The growing divide seems to have spawned this LA Times news article from 2018. A noteworthy quote: "[Alessia] Trivellone [a history professor at Paul-Valery University in Montpellier] is one of a growing number of early modern Europe scholars who have cast doubt on the Cathars' existence". But, of course, this is not an academic source in itself.--Euor (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

text: 6/7 paragraphs in the lead are written as if there is no controversy at all, and when the controversy is "was any of this real", that seems like a glaring absence to me. Bigrigg47 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rest is History 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:The massacre of the Cathars]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  widely [?] regarded as a genocide 

message: Publicani, Poplicani, Populani, &c. link here but aren't mentioned at all by the current article. #Term Cathar should be renamed #Name or #Names and cover the other terms in greater detail, especially if they were specific to some regions and groups versus the entire movement. — LlywelynII 09:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Poplicani &c.