Talk:Albigensian Crusade

User:Monochrome Monitor removed this article from 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)
 * As another data point, is a subcategory of, despite the fact that many historians in Turkey dispute the label of "genocide". So, by the same logic, the fact that some historians dispute that this was a genocide does not mean it cannot be added to that category. I think, it should be enough if it is a mainstream (rather than fringe) opinion among relevant scholars, even if it is not a universal one. And, given that Lemkin (who coined the very word genocide) considered the Albigensian Crusade to be one, the viewpoint that it was a genocide cannot fairly be labelled "fringe". SJK (talk) 05:07, 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):

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)


 * I know the Genocide Convention. The "religious" part has never been used to charge people with genocide under international law, except in the case of ethnoreligious groups. (bosniaks, armenians, jews...) Lempkin is not the ultimate authority on genocide. Is Watson the world's foremost authority on DNA? Do you realize what a slippery slope it is... so many other religious groups ("heretics") were anihilated in "holy wars". It was not the people they were targeting, it was their ideas- not the way they were born.--Monochrome _ Monitor  22:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is simply a question of definition. Do we define genocide to include attempts to destroy a religious group? The Genocide Convention says yes. Lemkin says yes. You can't compare Lemkin to Watson, since Lemkin coined a new word, which makes him somewhat of an authority on what it means – by contrast, Watson and Crick didn't even discover DNA, which was already a known substance, nor were they the first to call it by the name "deoxyribonucleic acid", they were simply the first to correctly identify its structure (as their paper makes clear) – besides, DNA is something clearly identifiable in nature, whereas "genocide" is simply an attempt to put a label on some subset of human behaviour which (the vast majority of) people consider gravely wrong, which means that the definitional boundaries of "genocide" are inherently going to be much more arbitrary than those of "DNA". I'd add, as far as I can see, the "historical debate" on this topic isn't actually a historical debate at all, just a debate about how to define the word "genocide" – those who say that the Albigensian Crusade wasn't a genocide don't actually have any disagreement about historical events from those who say that it was, they simply believe the word "genocide" should be given a narrower definition. The real subject of the debate then is not in fact the Albigensian Crusade, but whether to adopt a narrower or broader definition of the word "genocide". SJK (talk) 06:27, 16 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)

Henry of Lausanne was not a Cathar preacher
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. " with the edit summary, "source cited does not say Peter of Bruys or Henry of Lausanne were Cathars"

The edit was reverted by 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)


 * , thank you for your explanation. I removed the word "Cathar" (there's no need based on what you said to get rid of the entire section) and added information taken from p. 186 of Strayer 1971. Please see my edit summary. I shouldn't have used the word "reckless" because I have a little bit of a better understanding of what you meant now. But your quibble was not an enormous one and I think you could have gone about it better than simply deleting all of that information. Display name 99 (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - Henry was not a Cathar and his views do not belong in a section on Cathar theololgy - the Petrobrusians (Peter of Bruys) and the Henricans (Henry of Lausanne) were separate sects, not Cathars. Page 54 of Costen is about Henry, not about Cathar theology. If Costen is relevant to the first part of the paragraph on Cathar theology, then a new page reference is required, not page 54. Please remove the reference to Henry and his views from the section on Cathar theology as it just adds confusion - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - also note that the Wikipedia articles on Peter of Bruys and Henry of Lausanne do not mention any relationship to the Cathars at all. - Epinoia (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , I moved it to Prelude and noted that there is no evidence that Henry subscribed to Cathar tenants on dualism. I don't see any mention of the other two guys in the article now so I don't see a problem there. Display name 99 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - re:names - the followers of Peter of Bruys (or Bruis) were called Petrobrusians. Henry of Lausanne may have been influenced by Peter of Bruys. Costen calls Henry of Lausanne, Henry the Petrobrusian - so Henry the Petrobusian is the same person as Henry of Lausanne. To call him Henry the Petrobrusian is to refer to the Petrobrusians, the followers of Peter of Bruys, so all are directly involved even if not mentioned by name. - Epinoia (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

, 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)


 * , I disagree with your positions. From what I can gather from the sources, Henry was primarily known for being very anti-clerical and wanting to reform the Catholic clergy and reduce its power. I encourage you to read what the Cathars had to say about Catholic priests if you have not done so already. This undermines your argument that his beliefs had no relation to the Albigensians. Three of the biggest books on the Crusade-Strayer, Costen, and Malcolm-all discuss Henry. I think he gets the normal equivalent at least 2-3 paragraphs in each. If someone's beliefs and activities are given that much attention in at least three of the most significant books about a particular subject, I think that means he's probably an important figure whom we can devote a few sentences to. Clearly, if he was a major preacher in the area in the decades that Catharism was spreading, and if his main point (clerical corruption) was squarely in accordance with what the Cathars believed, he must have had some impact on them. Basically, you've managed to show that it would not be proper to call him a Cathar because none of the sources do so. But your argument that none of his beliefs aligned with Catharism and that he was not a significant figure in the prelude to crusade seems counterfactual, although I think not deliberately so. Display name 99 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , Anti-clericalism was a characteristic of many restorationist groups, such as the Paulicans, Tondrakians, Bogomils, Arnoldists, Petrobrusians, etc. The Bogomils were much more important to the Cathars than Henry the Petrobrusian, but they only get one mention in passing in the article, so detailing Henry's beliefs gives undue weight WP:UNDUE. Read, for example, The Pilgrim Church by E.H. Broadbent, which details restorationist and Apostolic groups. Broadbent puts the Petrobrusians and Henricans in with the Cathars and Waldensians, but only because they were active around the same time. Henry may have shared some beliefs or attitudes with the Cathars, but he was not a dualist, which is fundamental to Cathar belief. You say, "he must have had some impact on them." That's original research or opinion. I did not say that, "none of his beliefs aligned with Catharism." I said, "had any relationship to the Albigensian crusade." My point is that Henry the Petrobrusian and his beliefs do not belong in an article on the Albigensian crusade. What does "adopted the Pelagian view that people were not tainted with original sin, but instead succumbed to sin through their own actions" have to do with the Abligensian crusade? WP:IRRELEVANT Henry the Petrobrusian had nothing to do with the crusade. Henry was arrested around 1147 and the crusade did not begin until 1209, so he was out of the picture 62 years before the crusade began. If you want to paint a background picture of anit-clericalism in the 11th & 12th centuries then you need to include the Arnoldists and Petrobrusians along with Henry. I refer again to WP:UNDUE, WP:TOPIC, WP:IRRELEVANT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Please remove Henry the Petrobrusian from the Albigensian crusade article. - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , I removed the discussion of Pelagianism. As for your claim that Henry had nothing to do with the crusade, to this I cannot agree. It would be original research to say that he must have had some impact on the Albigensian Crusade if not for the fact that he is discussed in detail in at least three separate books on the Albigensian Crusade. But because he is, it is clearly not original research. 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 also note your statement that you think Henry was given undue weight compared to other groups which you believe are more important but receive little to no coverage. If you want to add information about those groups to the article, be my guest. Rather than exclude some relevant information because other potentially more relevant information is being left out, I'd rather see all important information included in the article. If you think that the Arnoldists, Petrobusians, and whoever else are more important than Henry, you're welcome to have that reflected by devoting more to them than the article currently gives Henry. There are currently three sentences on Henry (which really isn't that much), and I'd be fine with up to about a paragraph or two, probably right after the discussion of Henry, devoted to analyzing these groups. Display name 99 (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , I object to your recent revert of my edit. The policy that you linked to does not specifically say that such words are prohibited, only that they should be used with caution and with proper attribution. "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance," it says. Well, it is not unprovable, because if he were not notable, he would not be discussed in three different Albigensian Crusade books. And the article clearly does use facts to demonstrate his importance, as this policy requires. I think that it would be best for you to restore my version. You also have an unnecessary comma after Petrobusian which I at least encourage you to get rid of. Display name 99 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - I'm working on a sourced revision that will give a fuller picture of the background to the crusade - may take me a while - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - the paragraph starts, "A number of prominent 12th century preachers" - this includes Henry of Lausanne. We don't need to repeat that he was prominent or notable, it is already established - Epinoia (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Baptism
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.

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)

Background
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)
 * , I have to say that I largely oppose your recent edit. For one, the citation style is not consistent with the rest of the article. It's important to have uniformity in an article (especially for OCD editors like me) and at some point I'd like to alter it slightly. But the main problem for me is that you've taken groups that existed in one case 500 years before Catharism even began in a totally different area and started describing them in the article. You've made little attempt to describe what these groups believed and no attempt whatsoever to describe their relationship or potential impact on the Cathars. What does what happened to a group of religious dissenters in the Byzantine Empire under Justinian II, 500 years earlier and on a totally different side of the Mediterranean, have to do with the Cathars? If there's a link, state it. If not, leave it out. Are all of these groups discussed in major books on the Albigensian Crusade? Some probably are, but not all. And if not, why are we talking about them here? To say that these groups form part of the background on the crusade but not to have that supported by Albigensian Crusade historians is WP:Original research. When I said that I was OK with you adding information on different dissenting groups, I was thinking of groups that lived in the general area of the Albigensians and at about the same time, not this. My mistake was in not researching these various groups that you mentioned to see who they were. Otherwise, I would have been more careful in my comments to you. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I'm going to have to ask you to reduce the size of the content that you added. This is especially true of the Paulicans, who appear to be the most egregious example of a group with no importance at all to the subject matter being discussed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I made a couple of minor edits to the recently added passage.
 * On the issue raised here, I can see the potential relevance of saying that other similar groups had existed elsewhere in Europe and had been or were being eliminated, implying that the Albigensian Crusade was part of a wider pattern. It would be good to cite a reliable source that makes the same point: then it wouldn't be just us saying that the information is relevant. Andrew Dalby 12:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your comment. I have trouble seeing the connection to many of the events concerning the Paulicians. They, or at least the discussions of their origin and persecution under Justinian II, in my opinion absolutely have to go. Most of the books that are cited aren't even about the Albigensian Crusade, which makes it difficult to say that the information taken from them is relevant. What course of action would you recommend? Epinoia, I also just noticed all of the Harvard errors that your edits created. When you use Harvard refs, please do so correctly. The claim that the Cathars may have originated from the Bogomils does signal that the group might be relevant, but unfortunately this the one thing that needs more detail yet doesn't have it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - I need some time to search sources and respond to this properly. In the meantime, you may want to check out the relationship between the Bogomils and the Paulicians and the Cathars Bogomilism, Bogomilism. The Paulicians are more closely related to the Cathars theologically than Henry of Lausanne and, through the Bogomils, there is a direct line to the Cathars (see the second paragraph of the lead of the Albigensian crusade article, "The Cathars originated from an anti-materialist reform movement within the Bogomil churches"). Including the Paulicians shows that suppression of Cathar-like beliefs had been going on for centuries before the Albigensian crusade and is part of the background of the crusade. But give me some time - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , very well. The only thing that I think really needs to be added is detail on the connection between the Bogomils and the Cathars, which I'm happy to give you time to do. I'm a college student and taking a course on the Crusades, and today the professor mentioned the Bogomils, and said that they "later became the Cathars." "Great timing," I thought. I really think you can cut down on the discussion of the persecution of the Paulicians and just say that they were "persecuted" without getting into any further detail. I will go ahead and adjust the citation style at some point. Harvard referencing has to be done correctly and the rest of the style should be consistent with the remainder of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

- 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.
 * Paulicians - Publicani
 * Barber p. 10, 14, 21, (p. 12 – “the Paulicians, the Bogomils and the Cathars all saw themselves as “Good Christians”)
 * Broadbent pp. 45-46 and various other references
 * Lemkin p. 59 (“Paulicians, also called Publicani”), p. 61 (“Other sects which the Cathari were supposed to spring from were the Paulicians.”), p. 65 (Nicetas “Chief of the Paulicians in Constantinople” arrived in Toulouse to preside over a synod of Catharist teachers.)
 * Lock p. 162 (“urged Innocent to launch a crusade against the Bulgars because they allied themselves with…Bogomils and Paulicians.”)
 * Pegg p. xi (“The Cathars…were “the debris of early Christianity”…reappeared between the tenth and fourteenth centuries as heretical Paulicians and Bogomils in the Balkans...”
 * Oldenbourg p. 30
 * Peters p. 23, 28, 32, 51, 104, 105, 108
 * Sismondi p. 94
 * Sumption (one reference – no page number as from ebook)
 * Wolff et. al. p.203


 * Bogomils
 * Barber p. 12, 15, 22
 * Broadbent p. 57-66
 * Costen p. 58
 * Cross et al p 303 (article on Cathari)
 * Elwood et al p. 174 (“various movements seem to have revived Gnosticism. Examples are the Cathari and the Bogomils in the Middle Ages.")
 * Lock p. 162-163 (“and it is possible that some Cathar practices came to the West from the Balkan Bogomils…”)
 * Moore p. 138, 323, 366, 372
 * Mosheim p. 254, 320-323, 363, 385, 522 – and various other references
 * Oldenbourg p. 31, 51
 * Pegg p. xi
 * Peters p. 24, 28, 32, 51, 103-108
 * Robertson p. 249-252
 * Strayer p. 184-185
 * Wolff et al p. 144, 208


 * Arnold of Brescia – Arnoldists – Publicans
 * Costen p. 104
 * Moore p. 157-161 & 242-253


 * Peter of Bruys – Peter de Bruis - Petrobrusian
 * Barber p. 31
 * Broadbent p. 86
 * Costen p. 53
 * Moore p. 146- 155 and various other references
 * Strayer p. 186


 * Henry of Lausanne – Henricans – Henry the Monk – Henry the Petrobrusian
 * Barber p. 31
 * Broadbent p. 86
 * Costen p. 54
 * Moore - Various mentions from p. 146 through 159 and various other references
 * Strayer p. 186-187, 196


 * Peter Waldo – Waldensian
 * Barber p. 35, 63, 88, 214
 * Broadbent pp. 96-101 and various other references
 * Costen p. 56-57, 163
 * Marvin p. 206
 * Moore – p. 220-328 & others
 * Stayer – pp. 36-39 and various other references

-Epinoia (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a very full list! Just to make my point clear, since this article is not about the Cathars as such but about the Crusade, the issue of relevance is: Was the Crusade part of a wider pattern of repression of similar heresies? I don't think it will be difficult to find sources to support this -- see the citation of Lock above: anyway, that is what's needed (in my opinion). Andrew Dalby 13:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * and, I made a number of edits to the article today. Most of them involved referencing revisions, while a few concerned content. I have to say Epinoia that, while I did oppose several of your edits, the article now looks more comprehensive, more accurate, and altogether better than it did before. Thank you for your contributions. If you want to add any more about the connection between the Cathars and the Bogomils, feel free, but other than that, I think we've said all that needs to be said about the pre-Cathar sects and movements. Display name 99 (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

- - Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this, but here are some explanations:
 * "But the main problem for me is that you've taken groups that existed in one case 500 years before Catharism even began in a totally different area and started describing them in the article."


 * - The Cathars were part of a wider spiritual reform movement that stretched across Europe, it wasn't confined to southern France. In constructing the background I was following your teaching,

"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."


 * "You've made little attempt to describe what these groups believed"


 * - The individual beliefs of the groups are not relevant to the Albigensian crusade; we don't need to know that Peter of Bruys opposed organ music. Anyone who wants to know more about their beliefs can follow the Wikilinks. I pointed out relevant beliefs that were common to nearly all the groups and to the Cathars: that they were based on scripture, followed an Apostolic faith (the Cathars traced the origin of the Consolamentum to the laying on of hands in Acts 8:17), were anti-clerical and denied the sacraments.


 * "and no attempt whatsoever to describe their relationship or potential impact on the Cathars."


 * - The brief history of persecution provided shows that the Cathars were part of a broader religious movement in Europe and that there was a shared history of persecution of Cathar-like ideas leading up to the crusade. Contemporary groups such as the Paulicians, Henricans, Arnoldists and Waldensians seem to have had no influence on Cathar beliefs and, except for the Waldensians, were long gone before the crusade started.


 * "What does what happened to a group of religious dissenters in the Byzantine Empire under Justinian II, 500 years earlier and on a totally different side of the Mediterranean, have to do with the Cathars? If there's a link, state it. If not, leave it out."


 * - The links between the Paulicians, Bogomils and Cathars are well referenced in the literature, even if called into question by some scholars. Including them in the background of the crusade shows that suppression of Cathar-like ideas began long before the crusade. As you said, "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."


 * "Are all of these groups discussed in major books on the Albigensian Crusade? Some probably are, but not all. And if not, why are we talking about them here? To say that these groups form part of the background on the crusade but not to have that supported by Albigensian Crusade historians is WP:Original research."
 * - All the groups mentioned are referenced in the literature as indicated by the list of references I provided above. The only one not mentioned was the Tondrakians and I removed them from the background summary.


 * "When I said that I was OK with you adding information on different dissenting groups, I was thinking of groups that lived in the general area of the Albigensians and at about the same time, not this. My mistake was in not researching these various groups that you mentioned to see who they were. Otherwise, I would have been more careful in my comments to you. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I'm going to have to ask you to reduce the size of the content that you added. This is especially true of the Paulicans, who appear to be the most egregious example of a group with no importance at all to the subject matter being discussed."


 * - As noted, the Paulicians are important in the history of the Cathars and in the history of the lead-up to the Albigensian crusade. As you said, your “mistake was in not researching these various groups.” The Paulicians and Bogomils have more to do with the history of the Cathars than the Petrobrusians or Henricans who seem to have had little or no involvement with the Cathars, other than being in the same place at the same time.


 * "I thought I made it clear on the talk page that I opposed removal of this paragraph [on Henry the Petrobrusian]. How can you honestly tell me not to revert your additions when you decide to remove content that you don't like even after a talk page discussion that earned you significant concessions?"


 * - The background I added included Henry of Lausanne and incorporated him into the wider spiritual scene and shared history of persecution and showed some common ideas. Any additional mention of Henry became redundant, so I removed it.


 * - The statement, “A number of prominent 12th century preachers insisted on it being the responsibility of the individual to develop a relationship with God, independent of an established clergy” has no citation and I do not believe it is true of all 12th century preachers. The articles on Peter of Bruys and Henry of Lausanne do not mention “the responsibility of the individual to develop a relationship with God.” This sentence should be removed.


 * - Any statement of Henry’s individual beliefs is irrelevant to the Albigensian crusade. It is already established that Henry was part of a wider spiritual revival that was anti-clerical and that the Henricans, the Petrobrusians, the Arnoldists and the Waldensians were not dualists, so the sentence, “Henry's preaching focused on condemning clerical corruption and clerical hierarchy, although there is no evidence that he subscribed to Cathar teachings on dualism” is redundant, unnecessary and should be removed from the article. Also, except for the mention of anti-clericalism, no connection is made between Henry and the Cathars or the crusade.


 * - Although you have been championing Henry of Lausanne, you will find if you continue your research that Henry of Lausanne was not a major figure in history, and certainly not in the Albigensian crusade. His core ideas were not his own but from Peter of Bruys (hence the name Henry the Petrobrusian). Henry founded no major sect, had no lasting influence, there was no major campaign against him by the Catholic Church and after his death his followers faded away. And how “large” was his following? Can it be quantified against the Cathars or Waldensians? Also note that the Wikipedia articles on Peter of Bruys and Henry of Lausanne do not mention any relationship to the Cathars or the Albigensian crusade at all.


 * "The only thing that I think really needs to be added is detail on the connection between the Bogomils and the Cathars"


 * - The relationship between the Cathars and the Bogomils is already established in the second paragraph of the lead and does not need to be repeated. “The Cathars originated from an anti-materialist reform movement within the Bogomil churches of Dalmatia and Bulgaria…”

- 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, by Broadbent, E. H. (1931) is a not a reliable source for background information on Catharism
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)