Talk:Catharism

Scholarly debate

Hello User:Epinoia, thank you for chiming in. With your revert 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." (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)

@Chumchum7: — while the topic may have been debated it is not accepted as mainstream (see WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:CHOPSY). The view that the Cathars were not an institutionalized religion is included in the body of the article, but it is not mainstream and therefore does not belong in the lead. WP:LEAD states, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." The sources are not strong: an abstract from Wiley Online Library, an LA Times article which refers vaguely to a "number of scholars", and an article in French inaccessible to many English readers. I don't feel this is strong enough support for the theory to include it in the lead. Moore's book, The War on Heresy, is named in the body of the article and his position given adequate prominence there. - Epinoia (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." So perhaps our solution would be not to focus on the theory, but to focus on the controversy; if not with those three citations then there are more if necessary such as Sennis writing for Cambridge University Press in Cathars in Question (2016): "At the heart of this volume is the aspiration to tackle in a comparative perspective an issue which is highly controversial and hotly debated among scholars: the existence of a medieval phenomenon which we can legitimately call ‘Catharism’." The said scholars have contributed the chapters of the book. Even the blurb of that book states: "Cathars have long been regarded as posing the most organised challenge to orthodox Catholicism in the medieval West, even as a "counter-Church" to orthodoxy in southern France and northern Italy. Their beliefs, understood to be inspired by Balkan dualism, are often seen as the most radical among medieval heresies. However, recent work has fiercely challenged this paradigm, arguing instead that "Catharism" is a construct, mis-named and mis-represented by generations of scholars, and its supposedly radical views were a fantastical projection of the fears of orthodox commentators." The subject of the controversy itself is clearly notable and the exact subject of a mainstream academic work; our guidelines require us to add more content on this to the article and specifically to include such controversy in the lede. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

- I don't believe it is enough of a "prominent controversy" to be mentioned in the lead - but let's wait for some other editors to comment and reach consensus WP:CONS - Epinoia (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

As nobody else is commenting, then how about we take it up with an WP:RFC linked to WP:HISTORY? It's WP:V verifiable that the subject is "hotly debated among scholars". If you still don't believe it's a prominent controversy, that appears to be a contradiction of a verifiable source with your own personal opinion, i.e. WP:OR. Where is the burden of proof here now? Do you have a verifiable source that states it isn't hotly debated among scholars? -Chumchum7 (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

- a request for comment is fine with me - you might want to read WP:BURDEN - it's still not WP:MAINSTREAM - Epinoia (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Am familiar with BURDEN, which is exactly why I raised it. We simply disagree about whether it is MAINSTREAM or not, so I'll start with a 3O. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

- it's not up to me to provide a "verifiable source that states it isn't hotly debated" - WP:BURDEN states that burden "lies with the editor who adds or restores material" - this re-examination of sources on the Cathars is too new (WP:AGE MATTERS) - the subject is still under discussion and no firm conclusions have been reached - it is acceptable to add the new material to the body of the article, but it does not belong in the lead which has long-standing consensus - Epinoia (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I am making, that the addition of the reliable source (Sennis 2016) satisfies the burden of proof. You've chosen to disagree, and so we'll have a 3O for starters. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

AGEMATTERS supports the rationale for inclusion and emphasis: "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light" ... "newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt." -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

- Moore's book is from 2012, Sennis from 2016 - the theory hasn't gained much traction since then, so cannot be considered mainstream. - Epinoia (talk) 14:36, 27 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)

— ok, how about something like this as a suggestion for the lead — I tried to attain a neutral, encyclopedic voice,

"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."

- Epinoia (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Third opinion Howdy hello! I am a fan of this suggestion, I think it relevant to mention. However, including it in the first paragraph of the lede seems organizationally poor, such controversy often is better at the end of the lede. I support adding it to the end of the final paragraph. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, thank you for the 3O. Happy sailing out there. --Chumchum7 (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Sennis comes down in either place in the debate, he seems to be more of a facilitator for it. I'm not sure that any scholars in particular deserve a mention in the lede at the expense of others. I would be happy with this as the final par of the lede:

"There is academic controversy about whether Catharism was an organized heretical movement or rather a construct of the medieval Church, which alleged the existence of a heretical group. The lack of any central organization among Cathars, regional differences in beliefs and practices as well as the lack of sources from the Cathars themselves has prompted some scholars to question whether Catharism existed. Other scholars say that there is evidence of the Cathar heresy, and also evidence that it was exaggerated by its persecutors in the Church."

Cheers, --Chumchum7 (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

— I think that is an excellent addition for the last sentence of the lead — I think the first sentence should be changed to "organized movement" rather than "organized heretical movement" as the Cathars did not consider themselves heretical and their heretical status in the eyes of the Church is mentioned at the end of the sentence — also, the last sentence could be amended to reomove "Cathar heresy" — perhaps, "there is evidence of the existence of Cathars" — we have to be careful about applying the label heretic per MOS:LABEL — it's fine to say the Church considered them heretics, but they should not be described as heretics otherwise — cheers, Epinoia (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The addition prompts WP:NPOV grammatical qualifiers and caveats to the rest of the article. This is in keeping with the rest of Wikipedia's entries about medieval and ancient history, where sourcing is scarce or scholarly interpretation is varied. For comparison, I am looking at the interesting use of qualifiers used at Jesus Christ (from the start) and Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. So for example:

Catharism (/ˈkæθərɪzəm/; from the Greek: καθαροί, katharoi, "the pure [ones]")[1][2] was a Christian dualist or Gnostic movement between the 12th and 14th centuries which thrived in Southern Europe, particularly what is now northern Italy and southern France.

This would now fit better as:

Catharism (/ˈkæθərɪzəm/; from the Greek: καθαροί, katharoi, "the pure [ones]")[1][2] has been described as a Christian dualist or Gnostic movement between the 12th and 14th centuries which thrived in Southern Europe, particularly what is now northern Italy and southern France.

And so on. --Chumchum7 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

Is that true though? I've seen a lot of discussion in the past few years about this controversy, and it seems to me like the revisionist theory is actually more popular among relevant scholars than the old theory. I've only really read second-hand accounts of the controversy, so I could be wrong about that, but at least the very least, "the revisionist theory is, to put it mildly, a minority opinion" seems false. Bigrigg47 (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

Seeing no response here I have modified the opening sentence of the paragraph. Thanks to all who collaborated to put this information in the lead! Jno.skinner (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dame guiraude supplice.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Virgin Birth is NOT Immaculate Conception!

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)

Children’s Crusade

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)

Rest is History

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)

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)

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)

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)

"The massacre of the Cathars" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

widely [?] regarded as a genocide

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)

"violation of the Catholic Nicene Creed"

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)

I was under the impression that the creed is what defines a heresy to the catholic church. I reverted your edit because I thought the statement was uncontroversial and I noticed you cited the Bible in your edit, which is improper use of a primary source. Now I see that I should find a source for the Nicene creed thing. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that according to the major mainstream churches anything which is out of step with one or other of the creeds (or indeed any of their other doctrines) will be considered heretical. But my question is why is the Catholic view important to mention in the opening paragraphs of this article. Why not mention it in a section which explains why the Catholic Church decided to persecute the Cathars instead? It seems to me as irrelevant in the lead as mentioning in the lead of an article on Catholicism how catholicism is considered heretical according to Islam, which might be important to note in an article about why Muslims persecuted Catholics but what would be its relevance in the opening paragraphs of an article about Catholicism? I hope i habe illustrated my point better. Best regards. 149.50.160.90 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The treatment of the Cathars in history is mostly because the Catholic church considers them heretics. This is why heresy comes up whenever Cathars are discussed. It's not supposed to be a badge of shame, but a highly relevant fact to their unfortunate position in society. In contrast, Catholics' experiences and the way people write about the religion are not usually defined by the fact that Islam considers them heretical. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem just make sure it is mentioned in the appropriate section since it is as irrelevant in the lead as mentioning Catholicism in the lead of an article about Islam. I will be very happy to see how Catholicism portrayed Waldensian Cathars as heretical discussed in the appropriate sub-section as long as the recent apology from Pope Francis (2015) is also mentioned. 149.50.160.90 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Not remotely.

@HansVonStuttgart: Outside voice here pointing out that random IP guy here should absolutely not be listened to and the treatment of the Cathars as heretics should specifically mention the Catholic authorities oppressed them as heretics as understood in Catholicism and Catholic canon law. (Assuming any of this existed, natch.) No, the discussion and links should not be ignoring the charges of heresy that 'justified' a war on the group, nor should the discussion and links be pointing to generic "interfaith disagreement" articles.

(That said, the title of this section is a bit bizarre. The Nicene Creed is nearly universal in organized Christianity. The tiny bit of it that's Catholic vs others is a feud with the Orthodox Church regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit and not anything that needs to be dwelt on in the Cathar article: they were heretics to specifically the Catholics inter alia because of issues with the Nicene Creed, not issues with specifically the Catholic Nicene Creed.) — LlywelynII 09:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This point is very poorly taken. Roman Catholicism became a thing after the Islamic Conquest and Islamic attitudes towards it specifically have never been a major concern for any large groups aside from Crusader states, Venetian colonies, etc. that knew what they were signing up for. Religions whose experiences have been profoundly shaped by Islamic persecution do mention it in their leads, just like this article does and should continue to. This would be true anyway, but it's even more needful since this article is focused on the medieval group massacred with Catholic approval and not really focused as much on the handful of modern dissenters who self-apply the term Cathar. — LlywelynII 09:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Poplicani &c.

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)

Split the article?

This article mostly presents what’s often called the "old view" of Catharism, which relies heavily on Catholic and inquisitorial sources from the time. These were written by the movement’s opponents and often reflect polemical or distorted interpretations of Cathar beliefs.

It might be more accurate and balanced if the article, especially the part about their theology, was split into two sections. One could present the way Cathars were described by medieval Catholic sources, and the other could cover how modern historians have tried to reconstruct their beliefs from those sources and from more recent research.

This would help readers understand the difference between contemporary accusations and modern historical analysis. Given how debated and complex Cathar beliefs are, that kind of structure could improve the neutrality of the article. 20thJune (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Does it present the 'old view'? Reading the article for the first time, I got the impression that both Catharism did not actually exist and that it was the figment of the imagination of an oppressive church, and that it was one of the first genocides in human history. I do not think this is the traditional view. ~2026-16393-60 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead changes, disputed template

Having read the above discussions: This definitely needed a rework, and I don't think the arguments presented in 2021 for keeping it out of the article more hold water (or stand up to policy very well). We can't have a section that discusses a significant controversy around the existence of Catharism within mainstream academic sources half way through an article that treats them as historical fact. I've tried presenting the information as neutrally as possible, but given the credence this discussion is given within academia it's probably worth reworking the article to hedge the history more than it currently is. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism/Manichaeism claim

@Ancient Greek Scribe, I've reverted your restoration of the material stating a direct link to Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism. The claim had two sources, one was a brief topic summary by Michel Costagliola, a medical researcher in France summarizing the history of the topic in quite a unique manner in a publication specializing in burns and fires, and a local museum's summary that is quite clearly missing a large body of scholarship. These are pretty low quality sources for this claim, considering context. Reliability is judged per-claim, and the source being relied on here is pretty weak in its handling of scholarship. WP:RSCONTEXT is a problem, here.

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable

~2026-34199-65 (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I had reverted you again because it does not state a direct link, but possible influences and it is a proposed viewpoint, which is why I changed the wording to not make it definitive, and specified where and who the sources and claims were coming from. In academic scholarship there are different perspectives, that is why it is important to attribute certain views when including them on the article. The Gnostic claim, similarities or connection is already discussed by many other sources in the article, but the Zoroastrian I agree is what could use additional support which I will search if that statement can be corroborated. The possible Manichaean allusions are also mentioned on the page outside of these references, so the inclusion of Michel Costagliola at least is fully warranted. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

To be more clear, this was a wound specialist summarizing a history topic in the Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters, and the local museum is making an extraordinary claim of historical validity without any of the nuance or scholarly debate around this topic being presented. This is not a reliable source for this claim on Wikipedia, so no, Michel Costagliola's claims are not at all warranted in this article.

Diffusion theory being presented as straight fact calls the source quality into question, museum or not, as it's not a mainstream understanding of the topic to the best of my knowledge. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, I now see where you are coming from about reference quality and reliability for extraordinary claims with regards to the material that I initially wanted to remain, fair enough and I am happy to drop it. I am also finding that indeed, the Zoroastrian links are speculative, the stronger case is with the Manichaean or Gnostic contexts. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The museum piece is a blog summary written by Harvey Kay, who appeared to have worked in the museum café and was just responsible for blog posts during their tenure. For example, their tikka masala recipe. I'm pretty certain that blog post relied on Wikipedia, since we can see at the time there was a self published source mentioning the Buddhism link that matches the blog post, which was later removed from the article. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I've been trying to dig through scholarship but this one medical paper seems to be the basis for these claims in scholarship, as far as I can find so far. To the point I suspect the Museum page was written following the Wikipedia article. There are sources which may have issues with source independence, like "Cathar "Time-Focused Dualism"—An Argument for the Eastern Origins of Catharism":

The Cathars did not especially emphasize the opposition of material-spiritual (or light-darkness as in Manichaeism) because it was obvious, butthey focused on the opposition between the temporary (transient) and theeternal (unchangeable). Te similarity of the Cathar radically dualistic the-ology to the earlier Paulician conception, is a strong argument supportinga traditional vision of Catharism as an element of the medieval dualist tradition rooted in the East.

But this source still has issues given the nature of being a Catholic publication rooted in accepting Catholic historical polemic as fact, and makes several unusual claims like:

Cathar dualism is confirmed not only by the Catholics, but also by the Waldensians (such as Durand of Huesca or Ermengaud of Beziers) and—most importantly—by the Cathar theological treatises, which still survive to this day: the so-called “Manichaean Treatise” written in the 1220s in France

The Manichaean Treatise did not survive to this day. It survives only in select quotes in a much later polemic work. I would not argue against the inclusion of "Catholic scholarship argues..." with more sources, but considering the issues there I'm not certain (one way or another) if it should be elevated as a co-equal theory in history or religious studies when the main issue seems to be a grievance around scholarship rejecting traditional Catholic narratives. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Upon reading the article further, I found that Malcolm Barber who is a reference for other points but not on this issue, in The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages https://books.google.co.tz/books/about/The_Cathars.html?id=cnHXAwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y (2014), p. 11:

"Not surprisingly modern historians have neither been so easily convinced nor have they found such ready unanimity. It is notoriously difficult to trace the path of ideas over centuries, especially when those ideas run counter to prevailing orthodoxy and are therefore subject to vilification, distortion, and suppression. Some historians, among them Dmitri Obolensky, Steven Runciman, and Hans Soderberg and, more recently and tentatively, Yuri Stoyanov while fully aware of the propaganda value of the Manichaean label to the orthodox, have been prepared to accept the essential continuity of dualism, tracing it from Gnosticism and Manichaeism to the Paulicians and thence to the Bogomils and the Cathars."

I also came across the Encyclopædia Iranica, which discusses possibilities here: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cathars-albigensians-and-bogomils/.

So my proposal would be to include these specifics that it is not only the Catholic narrative, and present the discussion/debate in context, that some support a possible diffusion of ideas and traditions (and that it is not even absolute). Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I think in context it's a little trickier, though I agree it warrants mentioning. The Encyclopædia Iranica source (which has come up on WP:RSN and is generally considered reliable on matters related to Iran) actually highlights this as a mostly historic consideration:

Since 1930, many authentic Manichaean sources have been found, mainly in Egypt. These have made it possible to study Manichaeism without relying on the interpretations of the Church Fathers. The results have raised questions about the supposed radical character of Manichaean dualism (Stroumsa, pp. 141-53; Drijvers, pp. 99-125; Tardieu, pp. 262-71; Koenen, p. 257). Some researchers have even ventured to claim that Manichaean texts allow both a dualistic and a monotheistic interpretation

[...]

As a result of the new evidence , the supposed influence of Manichaeism on the Cathars has been increasingly questioned, particularly as regards radical Catharism, because it was especially this variant of Catharism that was said to teach the same dualism as did the Manichaeans.

Likewise, of the scholars you/the source mentions Dimitri Obolensky and Steven Runciman were mostly active in the first half of the 20th century, and Hans Soderberg appears to have no academic footprint beyond a single 1978 thesis and died in 1988, so hardly able to respond to developments in the field.

Yuri Stoyanov is mentioned as tentatively accepting it, but that appears to counter his own book. From a a review on Ch. 4:

The forth chapter «The Dualist Communion », presents the history of the Cathars as a diffusion of Bogomilism and other Christian-related dualist sects to the West. Stoyanov stresses the thesis that although called Manichaeans by the contemporary polemical clerics, earlier western heresies had in fact no dualist roots apart from those tendencies inherent in Christianity

So this appears to be a flawed entry in the encyclopedia reference. I think it's fine to discuss the historical arguments that this was a perspective, but I don't seem to be able to find any modern scholarship that seriously discusses a link between Cathars and Manichaeans since the discovery of primary Manichaen texts. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I would support a historical approach to the topic and mention as an alternative. However, could you find a proper link to the Yuri Stoyanov review in that last comment, as when I checked and tried to access, it says "We're sorry, but the page you requested could not be found". Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, that got completely malformed. Here: https://www.persee.fr/doc/heres_0758-3737_2001_num_35_1_1951_t1_0148_0000_2 ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

We could more refine the Eastern transmission as a contested scholarly model versus the internal development of Catharism. It would include the above citations here, and Piotr Czarnecki whom you cited above. He is though as you raised the concern in Catholic publications like Catholic Historical Review and Studio Ceranea, but at least they are peer-reviewed and it can be contextualized for the scholarly contention, rather than as an undisputed fact. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the arguments historians are (currently) putting forward is that it isn't an alternative now that we have primary Manichaen sources, which we didn't until 1929. My understanding from a read over the literature on this is there's two things going on:

1. There's arguments about transmissions from the east, which today means the Byzantine Empire.

2. There's a separate historical argument that 'transmission from the east' meant/included Manichaeism, which is widely rejected in modern scholarship

So I think it's fine to discuss the former as one of the competing theories on the origins of the Cathars (the other being a moral panic) and the latter as a historical theory that is not supported in modern scholarship. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, and sorry to have taken more of your time, but could you represent the above information accurately on the Catharism article since you have currently more information on the history of these viewpoints, and can distinguish the historical things being argued in the 20th century compared to what is being discussed today in contemporary scholarship? I wouldn't want to start edit conflicts once again if any inclusions I make are not inline with your suggestions for how it should be mentioned. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, though I put a bunch of time into the article in the last couple of days and it may take me a bit to get around to. Feel free to go ahead and make edits, if there's any edit conflicts we can either bring them back here or clean them up on the go. This isn't exactly in my area of expertise, so I don't think I'm bringing any more of a unique or informed perspective than yours would be. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'll follow through with making the edits and see where it can all best fit, cheers again. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the highest priority is getting one "side" of the academic dispute out of Wikivoice. I think we need to be far more careful with how the Cathar beliefs and so on are presented when historians are now acknowledging that all of our information comes from combative polemic sources. For example, this paragraph:

They firmly rejected the Resurrection of Jesus, seeing it as representing reincarnation, and the Christian symbol of the cross, considering it to be no more than a material instrument of torture and evil. They also saw John the Baptist, identified as the same entity as the prophet Elijah, as an evil being sent to hinder Jesus's teaching through the false sacrament of baptism. For the Cathars, the "resurrection" mentioned in the New Testament was only a symbol of re-incarnation.

Cites one paper from 1980 and The Collector, which isn't great considering the field was thrust into chaos as of the 1990s. Certainly not good enough for wikivoice. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)