Talk:Albigensian Crusade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 French military history task force
Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
A Wikipedian removed Albigensian Crusade from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Removal date: 16 November 2006
Wikipedia CD Selection Albigensian Crusade is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Really needs NPOV.

The information on the Cathars or their destruction needs to be moved to more appropriate articles.

kh7 13:34 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Montréal vs. Montéal

Early in the article, it's referred to as a piped Montéal (which goes to Montréal, Aude), but later on it's just referred to as Montréal. Is this just two variant spellings, in which case we should go for consistency? Or two different towns? Or a simple typo? I'm not French, so I can't guess. SnowFire 18:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a typo Ernie G C P Spiggot 17:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a typo Andrew Dalby 17:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mariage

Just noticed this in the text "It is interesting to note that it was relatively easy to be acquitted of charges of Albigensianism before the Inquisition. One common method was proof of marriage, as Albigensians denounced the sacrament." News to me, and seems unlikely since lots of ordinary believers did mary. Can anyone provide a good reference? Also, phrasing is arguably POV as mariage (technically matrimony) is a sacrement only to Roman Catholics. Ernie G C P Spiggot 17:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Protestants who don't think marriage is a sacrament simply didn't exist at that point in history. The church, which was pretty much all there was apart from the heretics, who were essentially outlaws, thought it was a sacrament at the time. In otherwords the standard position at that time was that it was a sacrament, and the albigensians happened to denounce this standard position. It is important not to fall into the trap of putting historic situations in the context of modern demographics. Clinkophonist 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me saying so, but I think you are mistaken in several respects. (a) Your argument is circular (b) what people thought at the time about sacrements is not relevant to this particular argument. It is now POV to refer to sacrements as though they have some objective reality just as much as it to refer to Cathars as heretics. It is important not to fall into the trap of anachronism.(c) I think you'll find that the Cathars and other Gnostic Dualists existed for well over a millennium before the RC Church settled on its seven sacrements. The idea that "the albigensians happened to denounce this standard position" is therefore not really tenable. Nostick 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the Cathars didn't exist for more than 300 years; they certainly didn't exist for well over a millenium. Clinkophonist 00:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure we're all gratful for your sharing of your deep knowledge of this area. I wonder if you'd be kind enough to let us know when the Gnostic Dualist tradition started and also how you're defining Cathar.Gcp 08:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Battle of Bouvines

I'm intrigued by your restoration of the Battle of Bouvines reference to the Albigensian Crusade page. To me it made no sense at all in the context. However I might be wrong. I'd be interested to hear your reasons. --qp10qp 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I restored the Battle of Bouvines because it needs to be mentioned in the article. The context of that war/battle is important to understanding the overall sequence of events and what was happening at the time. Battle of Bouvines was not just any old battle it had major historical consequences. -- Stbalbach 01:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're dead right about that battle, but I have no idea what it has to do with the events of 1208 described in the paragraph in question. Look again:

The powerful count Raymond VI of Toulouse refused to assist and was excommunicated in May, 1207. The Pope called upon the French king, Philippe II, to act against those nobles who permitted Catharism, but Philippe, who was occupied with the Battle of Bouvines, declined to act. Count Raymond met with the papal legate, Pierre de Castelnau, in January 1208, and after an angry meeting . . . etc.

The Battle of Bouvines took place years later, in 1214.--qp10qp 01:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

ahh.. what's seven years :) thanks for finding that mistake. -- Stbalbach 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Famous Quote

I've changed the translation of "Caedite eos ..." to reflect the use of enim as surely, of course or naturally rather than for, which doesn't quite capture the meaning. Also, the use of novit would mean discerns, learns or discovers (id est upon their deaths) rather than knows. There is more of an arrogant edge in the Latin that the commonly translated version (but there is disagreement, of course, because he was quoted some 30 years later). Another variant would be "Just kill them! Surely God discovers which ones are his." Mephistopheles 14:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/b/Talk%7EAlbigensian_Crusade_4ccb.html"