File talk:Lisbon1755hangingdetail.JPG


 * Regarding your summary statement on the editing of this image:

Since I can't seem to get this comment to show up in the edit summary, I will state it here. I find odd indeed your edit summary statement "there is no evidence that these are 'looters' being hanged" considering the caption of the Kozak collection you cite for the image states:  "Lisbon a few days after the earthquake. Camping outside the damaged town, executions of robbers and looters." Also, fyi, I have several sources, cited in the article discussion page, that give evidence for the hanging of 34 looters by civil authorities. If you want to get "technical" that maybe these were robbers or murderers or arsonists, not looters, that is fine. But then where is your evidence that priests were "supervising" when no source I have found states that it was anyone other than civil authorities that ordered the executions? And why, if they are "supervising," is one holding up a crucifix, the other reading from a book, the articles necessary and the actions of priests administering sacramental last rites? (NB The about.com caption is unattributed, and is rather less credible than the Kozak collection's caption, since it lacks proof that was what the priests were doing. Especially when it is not uncommon at all for priests, ministers, rabbi's, etc. to be present at state sanctioned executions - for spiritual purposes, not in supervisory capacities - and the Lisbon hangings were state ordered, not church ordered). I am sorry if these facts lead me wonder if your unattributed caption is a poor attempt to continue to implicate these priests, without evidence, in the hanging of earthquake survivors. Polycarp7 21:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sandover responds
Polycarp7, I have turned to my nearest dictionary (Webster's Second Edition, 1934). I find that the word "supervise" is defined as "To oversee for direction; to superintend; to inspect with authority; as, to supervise the printing of a book; also, to exercise supervision over; as, to supervise a department in a school or business." In its intransitive usage, the word means "To exercise supervision; to serve as supervisor." When we turn to the word "supervisor," we find multiple definitions and contexts, including (principally) "One who supervises; an overseer; inspector; superintendent; as, a supervisor in a factory; specif., on some U.S. railroads, a roadmaster," and a secondary definition of the word as "A spectator; a looker-on."

This, in fact, was the way Shakespeare used the word, and it remains current usage in my own household. Perhaps you think it a bit antique of me to use the word "supervision" in that way (just as it is antique of me, perhaps, to use the word "constabulary"), but I believe the word is accurate here. Again, if you don't like it, you are welcome to change it yourself.

I appreciate, and am sympathetic to, your interpretation of the engraving as one showing priests delivering last rites. I think it is obvious that at least one of them is doing so, though I can't make out the book you are talking about. What's curious here, perhaps, is why it takes at least two priests to do a job that one priest normally performs alone. It seems to me that at least one of those priests is there for some other reason, perhaps as a spectator or looker-on (yes, a supervisor) of the hanging. The priests are not shown performing the hanging, nor attempting to stop it; they are present, and engaged to the event (i.e., not looking away). No we don't know what the people are being hanged for -- and we really can't fairly extrapolate from other sources, because we only have this image before us to caption. (Despite the Kozak caption, there is nothing on this image that says anything about looters, or murderers, or criminals. The title of the engraving is "The Ruins of Lisbon."  That's it, and that's all we have to work with.  I'm not the editor of Kozak.)  I could ask you: why are the priests, and the constables, seemingly indifferent to the mayhem and crime that's going on before their eyes? If they are hanging criminals, why aren't they stopping other people from doing the same thing? Is this image itself a sham, an example of anti-Catholic or anti-clerical bias in Germany in 1755? I don't know. All I have tried to do is caption it fairly, accurately, and responsibly. I am describing what's in the image.

There's nothing in the caption about "roaming priests" or any other such thing. You may have lost sight of this, but I was the Wikipedia user who deleted that Wikipedia reference to "roaming priests." I thought it was a slur. I am sensitive to anti-clerical and anti-Catholic bias, and yes, I have a fair bit of frontline experience with it (see below). You've explained your reasons, but that doesn't change the simple truth at the heart of the matter -- you left that anti-Catholic "roaming priests" slur in the Wikipedia article when you could have removed it yourself, and you neglected to say as much in your own reporting. You have quite disingenuously insisted -- after the fact -- that you are "not a contributer [sic], just a user" of Wikipedia. That's untrue. There's plenty of evidence that you edited the main page of the entry, and did not remove the slur when you could have done so. As for your discussion page editing, you are prolific indeed (see Internet troll).

While I think you made a fair complaint about the Washington Post, you misrepresented the Wikipedia process in your article by not pointing out explicitly that you could have removed the slur yourself, and that you were invited to do so. That omission unfortunately undermined your larger and more important case, and alienated this particular Wikipedia user, who might otherwise have been an ally. (By the way, I was also offended by your inflammatory use of the word "claimed", as in the phrase "the person with whom I was corresponding claimed [emphasis added] not to have written the line." Just think about it for a minute, in light of the copy you have now restored to the Talk page.  You were well aware that Muriel had not authored the original slur, and were well aware that she was not defending something she had written in the first place. So that's just an awful insinuation.)

Yes, there is horrible anti-Catholic prejudice in the world. It exists, and it is a terrible thing. I was in Northern Burma (Myanmar) in early 1992, travelling as a tourist, when -- to my considerable surprise -- I found myself for the first time in nearly two weeks without my official "guide" (a presumed government spy, one of whom was assigned to supervise every English-speaking tourist at that time). Rather ingeniously, I was whisked aside for several hours by individuals who told me they had information of great import that needed to be delivered to the West. In recent days and weeks a number of towns and villages had been destroyed, razed, simply because they were Catholic (to be specific, they were ethnic Karen villages). Tens of thousands of people had been made homeless. The anti-Catholic pogrom was not new, but the extent and degree of this persecution seemed to be increasing at an alarming rate. On tiny sheets of paper, accounts of recent atrocities had been spelled out: towns, names, dates, excruciating details. "Give these to the Pope," I was told.

When you are told to give something to the Pope, and particularly something of this nature, you simply do what you are told. No one, by the way, ever asked if I was Catholic (I am not). Yes, smuggling out that information came at some personal risk, and there was a very harrowing multi-hour search at the airport in Rangoon (they went through everything, obviously having been tipped off to some irregularity in our normal tourist itinerary). But whatever the risk to me, it was nothing like the risk to the people who gave me the information in the first place, who in effect were trusting their own lives to the hope that I and my travelling companion could leave the country safely with the information intact. Yes, we were successful. And I am pleased to report that within just a few hours of my arrival in Bangkok, with no prior exposure to Vatican back channels, the information was delivered. (That, too, was an adventure! I did not literally get the papers to the Pope, which was obviously impossible, but passed them to a vetted church emissary.  The news was reported widely within a short period of time.)

I don't write all this to pat myself on the back -- what happened simply happened. If there's any lesson to be drawn from it, it's that I would ask anyone who ever reads this, whatever their faith (or lack of it), that they would simply do the same thing, the right thing, in a similar circumstance. Bias and persecution, motivated by religion or against someone's religion, is simply unacceptable in this world. Persecution is particularly egregious when it is justified in the name of wrongs committed centuries ago. While the Catholic Church has been slow to recognize many of its past mistakes, to its credit, it has acknowledged them (to wit, the Inquisitions, which continued in Portugal against suspected heretics -- marranos or crypto-Jews -- through and beyond the time of these hangings in 1755). To my mind, no discussion of this "roaming priest" controversy is really accurate without mentioning the wider context of the Portuguese Inquisition, which began long before the earthquake and which continued long afterwards. Unfortunately, there are many examples in 18th century Portugal of Catholic priests supervising the arbitrary execution of suspected heretics, who, by the way, were customarily burned at the stake (note that dry firewood was in short supply after the earthquake and tsunami... as Voltaire put it, perhaps facetiously, "hanging was not customary" for presumed heretics). Yes, Voltaire, and the historical reality of the long-running Portuguese Inquisition, are probably at the origin of this "roaming priests" slur. But if we want to understand what happened, we need to look at all the facts with open eyes, and acknowledge all the facts.

As Gandhi wrote, an eye for an eye only makes the world go blind. For my part, I apologize for the distress obviously caused to you by my posts on the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake Feature Article Nomination page.

A final word, and I don't mean to preach: can we both take a step back from this, perhaps meditate on the bigger issues raised here, on the real everyday victims of bias (both pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic), and perhaps find the way to draw, in your own words, a positive lesson from the 1755 Lisbon earthquake? That would make a great Part Three article, I think. Sandover 01:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[Also, if you respond to this, please do so below, so that my original text is not cut up. Thanks!] ______________________________________________________________________________________________
 * Response to Sandover:


 * Thank you for your reply, and for defining your usage of “supervisory.” It’s always good to define one’s terms. I have to say, though, your usage of the term "supervisory" - as "spectator - a looker-on,"  is, as you say, not the sense in which I, or most people, will take it.  They will take it in its most common usage.  And that is my objection.  As you have said with regard to the individuals being executed, (we can’t tell their “crime” from the picture),  neither can we tell from the picture that these priests are inquisitorial priests who tried the prisoners and relaxed them (condemned them for heresy and turned them over for execution by civil authorities).  As you yourself have said, the Portuguese Inquisition was primarily concerned with those persons who were baptized Christians, but were secretly practicing another faith, primarily Judaism.  And because we don’t know anything about the prisoners, (Converso, New Christian, Marrano – an abusive word applied to Conversos, Meshumadims – Jews who converted voluntarily, Anusims –Jews whose conversion was forced, Old Christian, Muslim, Moriscos, looter, murderer, etc.), we don’t know the capacity in which the priests are acting.  They may simply be the parish priests of the individuals, offering spiritual consolation.  The point is, we don’t know!  And precisely for the same reason that you don’t want to say they are “looters,” I don’t want to say the priests were somehow involved in their trial and condemnation.  Why, then, can’t the caption simply read “Executions during the Lisbon disaster”?  Why one standard for the ones being executed, and another for the priests?  Certainly there is evidence of abuses by the Inquisition, but please be careful to distinguish the true inquisition from the myth of “The Inquisition,” and not to feed into that myth.  Your statement that there are “examples in 18th century Portugal of Catholic priests supervising the arbitrary execution of suspected heretics” is very broad and gives no license to indict the priests in this image under that broad stroke.  The Portuguese Inquisition, like the Spanish Inquisition, kept very detailed records of their cases.  According to Edward Peters, (“Inquisition” page 98), between 1540 and 1760 (when its powers were reduced), the Portuguese Inquisition, “out of 30,000 recorded cases, is estimated to have condemned to execution 1175 Judaizers and burned 633 in effigy.”  That’s a period of 220 years, with about a 4% execution rate.  This was a higher rate than the Spanish Inquisition (in Spain, between 1550 and 1800, about 3000 executions by Inquisitorial verdict, about 2% of total cases recorded) and was much more narrowly focused on crypto-Jews.  The point here is that without examining the Inquisitorial records for the days following the earthquake, we can’t know these were Inquisitorial cases turned over for execution.  But in light of the fact that after the disaster the king ordered gallows to be erected for the purpose of hanging criminals, that 34 looters were executed by civil authorities, that in compilation of eyewitness accounts by Englishmen in Lisbon at the time of the disaster, the ONLY references to hangings involved those who were looting/stealing, the only references to the Inquisition involve one account which actually complimented the Jesuits for NOT taking advantage of the catastrophe to promote the Inquisition, and another which stated that (to paraphrase) not even the Inquisition could have devised the kinds of tortures of the mind the people were suffering in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, I don’t believe, as you do, that the caption as it stands, with the use of “supervisory” in a secondary, little used sense, is “fair, accurate, or responsible.”  I have tried, several times, to change it, but my changes are not showing up.  FYI, for a good treatment of Voltaire, and his “undeveloped” and quite “superficial knowledge” of the inquisitions, “more comic and foolish than deadly,” I highly recommend Edward Peters’ “Inquisition.”

You write that the “heart of the matter” is that I “left that anti-Catholic ‘roaming priests’ slur in the Wikipedia article when you could have removed it yourself, and you neglected to say as much in your own reporting. You have quite disingenuously insisted -- after the fact -- that you are "not a contributer [sic], just a user" of Wikipedia. That's untrue. There's plenty of evidence that you edited the main page of the entry, and did not remove the slur when you could have done so. As for your discussion page editing, you are prolific indeed (see Internet troll).”

Let’s be clear. Your remark that there is “plenty of evidence that [I] edited the main page of the entry” is for what purpose? To bring to light something I tried to hide? To “prove” I am a “contributor”? I’m not really sure of your meaning, but I am sure of what I did, and why.

What I did, when I came across the “slur” was to request a source for it. Not knowing whom to contact, or how to ask, knowing in fact nothing about your protocol, I discovered that I could edit the article, and so I placed my request right in the body of the article, paranthetically beside the allegation. I hardly think that shows I am trying to hide anything, or that it makes me a “contributor” to Wikipedia, (btw, thank you for the spell check – mine is not working), or that I am being “disingenuous,” but if you believe it does, then that is fine. You seem to want to assign bad motives to my actions, so you will believe what you want. It was not my intent to contribute to the essay, but to find a source. My “edit” might have been irregular to you, but it was for two reasons: 1).  to hopefully draw attention to whomever wrote the allegation so they could provide a source, and 2). And to hopefully bring to the attention of anyone reading or using the article (like more news media people!) that the allegation was unsourced and was in need of one. Maybe someone else reading the article, knowing it was in need of a source, would provide one. THAT was my thinking, and my intention. As for my leaving the allegation in, what I left in, and let’s be very clear, was the allegation PLUS my parenthetical request for a source. And that is the context of all my refusals to remove the “allegation.” Perhaps it is really all of you at Wikipedia, who have been criticising and attacking me, who are being “disingenuous” for conveniently leaving out the fact that what I am criticized for not removing was no longer just the allegation, but also included my request for a source as well. And it is ONLY with that in mind does my remark that I wanted to “leave it in for all to see, that it is unsourced, etc,” make sense.

What you fail to recognize is that what I was being “invited” to do, and what you are criticizing me for, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, was to remove not only someone else’s work, which may or may not have been true, but also my request for a source for it. I saw nothing wrong with my leaving the allegation in the article, as long as it was accompanied by a notice that a source was needed. Perhaps, in hindsight, I should have simply footnoted the allegation that way, rather than put it right in the body of the article. But I simply do not share the “problem” all of you have with my leaving the allegation (plus my query) in the text. As for your charge that I “misrepresented the Wikipedia process in your article by not pointing out explicitly that you could have removed the slur yourself, and that you were invited to do so,” once again, there was no INTENT to misrepresent anything. My objective was to find a source for the allegation. Removing it (and my request for a source), was not, for me, the best way to accomplish that, but was rather quite couterproductive, and as such, not worth mentioning, in my opinion at the time. I sense, by this entire line of reasoning, that you are trying to deflect the responsibility for your own omissions (failure to cite sources) onto me, rather than admit that those of you who are the major contributors to the article in question, should have checked on that allegation yourselves, a long time ago. Especially, as I pointed out, after a question was asked, and answered, about it!

In truth, (regardless of whether or not you believe it), I believed that linking to the discussion page, so the entire discourse between me and Ms. Gottrop could have been read by my readers, would not have been damaging to me – so there was no intent on my part to “misrepresent” anything. I believed then, and believe now, that most people would have perceived the matter as I do (and I could be wrong – but we tend to think others see things as we do). I believed that the readers would see Ms. Gottrop's quite offensive first response to me (which was in a private message I found when I opened a link to the article I had saved on my desktop), and they would have, I thought, been just as offended as I was. I also believed that my readers would wonder, as I did, why Ms. Gottrop did not check for a source and reference the allegation back in November, 2003, when she answered a question about it. Since I saw nothing wrong in my choosing not to remove the allegation + my comments, but rather to insist a source be cited instead, I therefore believed my readers would see nothing wrong with it either. So I DEEPLY resent any suggestion that this omission was a “calculating, willful, misrepresentation” on my part.

In fact, I still believe these things, but I respect that all of you feel it was a serious omission on my part, and I have said that I REGRET not providing a link to the discussion page, and my correspondence with Ms. Gottrop, so everyone interested can read it. I have promised to correct that, and provide links. I have nothing to hide, or to lose.

I admit to being puzzled by (and even suspicious of) these statements of yours:  “As for your discussion page editing, you are prolific indeed (see Internet troll),” and “…in light of the copy you have now restored to the Talk page.”  I have placed the discussion between me and Ms. Gottrop in chronological order, as it took place. That is ALL I did. It was not I who placed the comments OUT of order, but perhaps it was done by someone who DID have something to hide?? I did not add to, eliminate or delete anything (your “now restored to” implies), so I am confused by your suggestion I am “prolific” and an “internet troll.” But at this point, I am tired, very tired, of the petty criticisms and complaints about me! EX: The WP article was published December 31, but my article said December 30, the mis-spelling of my name, the attempts to assign sinister motives to my actions or inactions, the name-calling, the ad hominem attacks, my failure to mention the discussion took place on an informal talk page, etc! After I write this, I will not attempt to defend myself from your overt and covert attacks again. It’s futile! As to my use of the term “claimed.” My dictionary defines the term as “To state to be true, especially when open to question; maintain; a statement of something as fact; an assertion of truth.”  It was in this sense only that I used the term to summarize Ms. Gottrop’s and my discussion. Of course I was “well aware that Muriel had not authored the original slur, and [was] well aware that she was not defending something she had written in the first place.” Once again, you have assigned some sinister motive, an “awful insinuation” to my decision to summarize our discussion. Yes, I “left out” the parts where she invited me to delete the allegation. I also left out the parts which would not have flattered her, as I stated above. I chose to summarize our discussion, and am sorry if you have taken my use of “claim” in any other sense than what I intended. She was, in my opinion, stating as true that she didn’t write the allegation, and I was not trying to imply otherwise! I think your taking it the way you did, again, has more to do with you, than with me. It was not my intent to act in “bad faith” with Muriel, and I am VERY sorry if she believes I did. I believed I was acting in good faith by summarizing, rather than giving the full context, which I believed to be more damaging to her! But as I have promised, I will link to the Wikipedia areas where the readers can get the full context of my experience with Wikipedia and make their own determinations. I do not believe it will be flattering for any of you, but I have nothing to hide. You shared something personal with me, about your delivering that message to the Pope. I can only thank you, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of those Catholics who trusted you, for what you did for them. It was a truly noble thing you did. Now I will share something personal with you. I had surgery early the morning of the 3rd of March. It was my second one this year, and I have another one scheduled in 3 weeks. I slept for about 12 hours after the surgery, then was up for the next 36 hours. That was when I checked the Wikipedia site, to see if anyone had provided a source for the allegation. I was completely stunned by what I read was being written about me. I would not have even responded, except I was still a little “punch drunk” from the antisthetic. I have been having serious health problems for many years, but was mis-diagnosed for over 15 years, so my problems have worsened due to lack of treatment for the real condition. Due to this prolonged illness, over the years I have lost just about every material thing that I had worked for – my ability to work at my chosen profession, my marriage, home, savings, etc. For almost 17 years, my life has revolved around doctors and hospitals and labs. Within the past 12 months, I was finally properly diagnosed, and have been able to, for the first time in years, hope that I might be able to lead a somewhat “normal” life someday. Being asked to do the radio show, and being invited to write the article for CE, was not something I would even have been capable of doing 9 months ago. I was not looking for those non-paying “jobs” anymore than I was looking to find myself in a confrontation with Wikipedia, so I am not the person I think you all believe me to be. I am someone who is struggling to regain a tiny bit of the health most take for granted, and I really didn’t NEED this whole affair. I am always in a great deal of pain, and am often irritable and easily frustrated as a result. I do irritate people, and so for that, I am very sorry. But I don’t intentionally treat people the way I have been accused of doing, nor do I treat people the way you all have treated me. I understand you feel I "misrepresented" your editing process, but that hardly gave you license to attack me. It solved nothing for you. My experience with Wikipedia has been very upsetting for me, but I don’t intend to use that to retaliate in any way, or to treat you with “bad faith” in my next article. If any of you think that I have, if you read the article when it comes out, then I apologize in advance, but have no control over how people choose to perceive things. It is my intent only to share with my readers the entire context of my experience in trying to track down a source.Polycarp7 04:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Response to Polycarp7:

I am rather amused by the idea we were both writing responses to each other, at the same moment, in our respective ways (check at the timestamps on my 1755 Lisbon earthquake edits).

I take all your points, and once again I apologize -- the notion that I caused you pain in this is troubling to me, and I am deeply sorry for it. Please also know that I meant to correct that reference to Internet trolls to include me as well (since I fully qualify under a number of definitions there, or at least as a trollbaiter, which is mentioned in the article). I actually think that troll entry is instructive for many Wikipedia users, and referenced it for you because it shows what sorts of dark human nature (in all of us) can emerge in the anonymous Internet environment. We are hardly the first two to have fallen through the rabbit hole.

And I am aware that the terrain here is lopsided, because you are a public figure in this dispute and I am not (which is, ironically perhaps, the only reason I could write about what happened years ago in Burma...I've not mentioned it except to family and a few close friends, and am quite sure for other reasons I could never do so in public). Again, that asymmetrical quality of the argument, the fact that you are public and I am not, is all the more reason why I should have perhaps chosen more delicate words in responding to your article in the first place. I felt as if the Wikipedists who were trying to solve a problem were criticized unfairly; I think you took a fair swipe at the Washington Post, but caused Wikipedists some inadvertent collateral damage. I know, after all that's been written here, you feel obliged to defend yourself in another article online, and I don't blame you. It's a matter of honor.

But keep in mind that Wikipedists are not a monochrome lot. They are different people with different viewpoints and different roles. I have only been a Wikipedia contributor since the end of 2004. I am not and cannot be held responsible for proofing or fact-checking for an article I did not even read myself until late December 2004, and did not edit until January 19, 2005. That's long after the damage was done.

You do deserve credit for putting an end to one virulent anti-Catholic slur (see meme) that was propagated in the wake of last December's 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. I agree with you -- not only was the slur propagated by a line in the original 2003 Wikipedia text, on an article which was itself among the first 1,000 articles on Wikipedia (back when it was a kind of college campus experiment, with only a few hundred contributors at best) -- it remained in its vestigial, unsupported form until after the Dec 26th earthquake, when it was picked up and propagated elsewhere. It was unfortunate, but it happened. And I agree -- I think the slur is damaging. I think you did a good thing in spotting it, and calling it for it was.

You've illuminated for me a problem with Wikipedia, in that there's little incentive to take down un-footnoted material if it seems reasonable (and it did, given an historical awareness of the Inquisition). Just as a responsible person does not post a fact unless he or she knows it to be true, a responsible person does not delete a fact, either, unless he is reasonably sure it is wrong. (That said, the fact is usually not restored unless someone can document it.) These customs have evolved, rather quickly, over the past couple of years. But even with its many improvements and vastly increased contributor base, Wikipedia, perhaps by its very open nature, is not immune to factual error and disputes such as this. In fact, one might argue that it courts error. It's a magnet for mistakes.

But that's also Wikipedia's extraordinary gift, I think. Sure, Wikipedia may inspire conflict, but it also inspires conflict resolution. Countless people (including me) made their first edit after seeing a page and thinking, "Hey, wait a minute, that's not right!" New facts are brought to the table. Wikipedia inspires people to bring new ways of seeing and understanding, to hash out conflicting points of view (hopefully with civility), and to find solutions worded in neutral language. In our own anarchic and rather public way, you and I have managed to do that. I have great hopes for Wikipedia. Indeed, if we have any hope to survive on this world, we all have an obligation to do exactly this, find resolutions in big and small ways, in public, in private, with our friends and family, and within ourselves.

I am sorry for the difficulties of your recent surgery. Please know this stranger's thoughts are for your recovery, and for a resolution (at last) to the longstanding medical mysteries to which you alluded. God bless! Sandover 06:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________


 * Response to Sandover:

Thank you for the “Troll” explanation – I did find it instructive. And applicable to this present situation. I understand completely your feeling that the Wikipedists who was trying to help me (Ms. Gottrop) was unfairly criticized. My conscience is clear, really, on every point but that one. I myself felt that Ms. Gottrop, after her initial correspondence with me, was truly trying to be helpful, and I don’t think I acknowledged or expressed appreciation of that. For that, I am sorry. And you put my feelings on another aspect well – that in my “swipe” at the WP, Wikipedia was injured collaterally. The GOOD news is that Wikipedia has responded to that by vastly improving the Lisbon article, added footnotes, and fleshed out some of the areas that were too thin. I realize these weren’t all due to the things I wrote, but some were. And if it makes Wikipedia better, and no one was “mortally” wounded, then much good came out of it.

But I believe my criticism of Ms. Gottrop (and by extension, Wikipedia) was just, and I’ll explain more about that later. First, though, yes, I am a “public” figure (hard to believe – only a few months ago I could barely get out of bed), but I have no intention of focusing on my bad experience with what was being said of me. I intend, rather, to focus on the improvements Wikipedia has made. I would not have made it through 17 years of illness unless I was an eternal optimist – I tend to focus on the positives, rather than the negatives, which is what I intend to do in the Part Three article. I am not writing a “Part Three” to defend myself. There was always going to be a Part Three for the purpose of discussing the WP’s response – or should I say, lack of a response (which I can contrast to Wikipedia’s major improvements). I also intended, prior even to coming across the “discussion” that took place on Wiki about me, to go into more detail about the methods and protocol of the inquisitions, particularly the Portuguese, because it helps to explain my initial surprise at seeing the “priests roamed” allegation. The inquisition is, in fact, the “context” of the allegation, because even in its initial form from October, 2003, it originally read “Priests of the Inquisition roamed….” I wanted to draw that out in the first two, but there just wasn’t space.

I am not an expert, but I have spent some years studying the latest research into the inquisitorial documents, so my understanding of the inquisitions is quite different from yours, and from Ms. Gottrop’s. It’s ironic, but it was precisely because of my understanding of the inquisitorial procedure that I found the allegation “strange” in contrast to both you and Ms. Gottrop, who didn’t find it strange, but “reasonable.” Of course, I really don’t know the extent of your understanding, but just from the statements you both have made, (eg, that the allegation wasn’t “strange” due to an historical understanding of the Inquisition, “religious fanaticism” etc), I suspect there is much of the “Myth of The Inquisition” more than a real, factual understanding of it.

It’s this “Myth of the Inquisition” that is the common understanding, especially in the West, despite the research of Henry Kamen, “The Spanish Inquisition”; Edward Peters, “Inquisition”; John Tedeschi, “The Prosecution of Heresy”; and others. Their work isn’t “catholic white-washing.” Most of them aren’t even Catholic. But they are intellectually honest, and have done their research from the inquisitorial documents themselves, not from propagandist pamphleteers produced by people with an agenda or an axe to grind.

With the more “mythical” understanding of kangaroo courts operated by sadistic fanatics who tortured arbitrarily selected victims until they confessed, then burned them at the stake by the millions, the idea that “priests roamed the city hanging suspected heretics” isn’t so strange.

But in truth, that’s more the image of the French Revolution’s Committees of Public Safety, spawned by the “Enlightenment” which so condemned religious persecution. During the “Reign of Terror” over 40,000 French Catholics were tried before a kangaroo court, by seemingly unbalanced zealots, tortured, then executed for their Faith, by those who opposed religious persecution! As one writer put it, “Had the Committees of Public Safety functioned for as long as the Inquisition (roughly l230-l830), their death tolls would have been incalculable.”

In contrast, the inquisitions, including the Portuguese, were operated by trained lawyers, who adhered closely to a standard procedure, regardless of their personal “feeling.” The witnesses had to be secret (to protect the witnesses), but there had to be at least 2 before anyone was even considered a suspect. The accused made a list of their enemies, and no one on that list was allowed to testify against them – the inquisitors were highly skilled at identifying evidence or accusations made of “ulterior” motives. The evidence was carefully assessed, and dubious evidence thrown out, before any charges were brought. Then the accused person’s family was given time to prepare a defense. Torture was conservative, rarely used, and if it was, it was only once, and was well under that of the secular courts’ usage. The inquisition was always mainly penitential, rather than purely judicial, and so great effort was made to avoid turning the person over to the secular authorities.

The inquisitors assumed that those accused were like lost sheep - they had strayed, and needed to be brought back to the fold. Most of those accused were either acquitted or their sentence suspended. Those found guilty, because the purpose of the inquisitions was primarily penitential, were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be reconciled to the Church.

All of this took months, even years, which is why the idea that after the Lisbon quake, inquisitorial priests were just rounding people up and hanging them is absurd. If this happened, they would have been renegade priests, and then, the English Protestant eyewitnesses and those who opposed religious persecution, like Voltaire, would have had a field day with it. You can bet on that! But not a word, from any of them.

Ironically too, according to Edward Peters, Voltaire’s biggest outrage with the Portuguese Inquisition came when the Marquis of Pombal had a well-loved priest, Gabriel Malagrida, jailed on trumped up charges, strangled and burned in 1761, by the inquisition which Pombal now controlled. It was this execution that triggered considerable public outcry, Voltaire’s among the loudest. He wrote "Sermon of Rabbi Akiba" and had a Jewish Rabbi powerfully condemn Malagrida's execution.Polycarp7 16:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) Ironically too, when Voltaire wrote Candide and had the inquisitor condemning Candide and Pangloss for doubting original sin and free will, the inquisitor was serving Voltaire’s own purposes because these were positions that Voltaire condemned in Leibniz’s thought.

Some other interesting facts about the inquisitions, especially the Spanish, and the Portuguese, which was modeled after the it: 1). The inquisitions acted with great restraint when imposing the death penalty (and of course, they couldn’t administer it – that was the job of the civil authorities) – far more restraint then secular courts showed.  In fact, there are documented cases of people committing heresy on purpose, so that their case (looting, rapine, robbery, etc) would move from the secular court to the ecclesiastical court, which was much more lenient and humane. It’s a fact people rarely admit, but the inquisitions actually saved countless innocent people who would simply have been tried, convicted and executed by the secular courts.  2). Far more cases were dismissed than were turned over to the secular authorities for execution. And only about 2-4% of the total convicted were executed. Most were sentenced to life in prison, but this was often commuted after a few years. The most common punishment was some form of public penance. 3). The “auto-de-fe” was NOT a burning at the stake, as some mistakenly believe. This was a public ceremony in which the person was sentenced. As noted above, very few were sentenced to death.  The auto-de-fe (act of faith) was immensely popular among the people, because its chief purpose was to demonstrate or reinforce the peoples’ faith, and was primarily seen as a reconciliation of the lost sheep to the Church. 4). The inquisitors were concerned, more so than the secular authorities, with the mind and will of the accused. They acted like confessors with care for both body and soul. The records indicate that, as a result, they understood the accused far more than their secular counterparts, which often led to more leniency.Polycarp7 16:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It’s for these reasons that I believed the allegation to be false, and for the same reasons, believed Ms. Gottrop’s statement that she didn’t find it “strange” to reflect bias and lack of objectivity. Had I been able to deal more with the inquisitions in Part One of Two, my quoting her, and my comments, might have been more understandable. That is one of the things I am hoping to correct. I am reluctant to give links to the article’s Talk Page, because, as I’ve explained elsewhere, I believe it will not make Ms. Gottrop look good. Nor do I want to link to the other areas in Wikipedia where I have been the object some hostility, for the same reasons. And, I don’t think anyone really wants to read them. So, I will state Wikipedia’s position, as I understand it, and I will state mine, and leave it at that. I find your story about your adventure in Burma so fascinating that I would like to weave it into the article somehow, but as yet, don’t know if there will be space. First, do I have your permission to use it? I know you said you are reluctant to speak of it, so I don’t want to do it if it would make you uncomfortable. Second, if I can’t fit it in this article, perhaps another in the future – it is too important to leave unsaid.

And while on the topic of your adventure, I want to thank you for telling it to me. Usually, Catholics, like Jews, are treated as though they are being “hyper-sensitive” when they suspect anti-catholic or anti-semitic bias. And while this matter with the 18th Century priests is a small matter, anti-catholic bias, as you have learned, is not. It is a tremendous, and much overlooked, social problem. As I pointed out, the “Committees of Public Safety” was far more deadly in its short span than all the inquisitions put together, and spread out over 350 years. At the same time that Catholic inquisitions were at their peak (17th C), the Japanese Buddhist/Shinto persecution of Christians, in just 40 years, killed more people than the Spanish Inquisition in its entire history. In addition, anti-religious secular regimes of the 20th Century have killed more than all the inquisitions combined. So, I very much appreciate your not minimizing my concerns.

Finally, I want to comment on your question about the picture. Most depictions of that type are more symbolic than actual representations of what happened. Unlike our reporters’ photographs, they tended to compile layer upon layer of happenings into one space. It’s possible that all of what that picture contained happened over a period of several days or weeks, and was spread out over the entire length and breadth of the city. So, it doesn’t mean the looting and rapine was going on in plain sight of the priests and police. It just means it was going on, and the artist represented it symbolically. Maybe he was trying to highlight that this stuff was going on right under the noses of authoritative figures, who knows?

I hope this explains some of my thinking, and why I might have seemed I was being unfair to Ms. Gottrop. For me, her statement really did reflect more of the "myth" that the reality of the inquisitions. I truly will try to rectify that. Polycarp7 19:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sandover replies again
Polycarp7: How about using what you wrote as a draft for the forthcoming entry for the Portuguese Inquisition? If you don't, I will. I really didn’t know any of this, so thank you for taking the time to spell out, in particular, the procedural details of the Inquisition (for the understanding really does come from knowing the details). Of course the “roaming priests” slur isn’t “reasonable”-sounding at all in light of all this information. I’m looking forward to reading your Part Three. You’re a good and persuasive writer, and I’m sure you will make the points effectively.

I’m a little short of time this evening &mdash; so can’t reply at great length &mdash; but of course you have permission to use what I wrote about Burma (Myanmar) in Part Three or in a future article. The issue is important, and it makes sense to treat it separately in its own right. Perhaps you can offer a teaser in Part Three, promising a future Part Four?

I’m glad you are interested in this, and wish I could have written myself long ago when it could perhaps have made a more direct impact in stopping some of the ongoing atrocities. But it was obvious then that if my name were public, some very unwanted attention could potentially come not only to the person or persons who facilitated the drop, but to everyone else whom I spoke with over the course of two weeks in the country. The government would go around looking for someone to blame. As I said, we were officially on a “tour” (although we picked our own itinerary) and therefore had a series of government escorts with us at nearly every waking moment in the country. No doubt a record was made of everyone we met or spoke with over the course of our two week visit. Even after 13 years, I don’t think going public is something I want to risk, since I’m sure there’s still a record of my trip.

If you write this, two requests: one, that it doesn’t become a guessing game, as in, who is this “Sandover” guy who was in Burma in early 1992, who ferried out that stuff. I'm just not important. I would hate for people to speculate about my identity based on my online writing style or (even worse!) articles I’ve edited in the past. Or for someone to triangulate backwards from Rome. All I have said online is that I’m a teacher in California, and that’s all there is. I would rather this be an Everyman story. Second, while the mechanics of how the information exited the country are actually quite interesting, I would prefer to deflect any attention away from those logistics. No, this didn’t involve body cavities. We’ll leave it at that. But it was incredibly ingenious, this idea cooked up by the woman I was travelling with, and we pulled it off. Unfortunately, I’ve found that when I’ve told the story to friends (a handful over the years), they are much more interested in the drama of those few hours in the Rangoon airport than anything else. I always feel a little deflated by this, because it misses the big picture &mdash; obviously, you see the big picture. (Friends just chalk this all up as a “human rights abuse” committed against an “ethnic minority,” and the Pope as some sort of exotic offstage peripheral figure in it. Well, that hardly tells the story, does it?)

I know I used the word “adventure,” but that word doesn’t really apply until we got to Bangkok. Everything in Burma felt incredibly one-pointed, as if we were watching a movie happen that we were part of, too. There was nothing dramatic, in the sense of emotionally dramatic, about the request to take out information, the hand-off, etc. In fact, there wasn’t any debate at all between me and the woman I was travelling with about whether we would or would not take the material out of the country. We just knew we would do it, and we did it. No heroics. Then and now, it all felt like a lucid dream – and I say that because it really was an unusual feeling, that feeling of intense calm, which reigned over the transfer of the materials and over every minute until we were safe in Thailand.

However, Bangkok was a different story! From the moment we landed and passed Thai customs we were absolutely giddy – again, until then we didn’t know who was working for whom and how the Thai and Burmese governments communicated, and so couldn’t trust anyone, and therefore treated the arrival and customs in Thailand with the same seriousness as our departure from Bangkok. Getting through customs in Thailand was a breeze, but even so was a tremendous release. The scramble to get the information into the right hands was incredibly intense, since some of the information we were given was time-sensitive (but again, I don’t think I can speak about that). Fortunately, there are a lot of friendly people in Thailand who speak excellent English, and the people in the church were terrific. They had to figure out whether we were spies, too. It's all very funny in retrospect.

I have to sign off. But one final note about that Lisbon aftermath engraving: I agree that the events are probably a composite of time schemes, much like in medieval or early Renaissance painting. I’ll try to add a line to caption it appropriately. Do you think some of those uniformed men (constables) are also committing crimes? I can’t be sure. All best with your writing &mdash; Sandover 02:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
 * RESPONSE TO SANDOVER (Hope this shows up; I keep getting a "page too long" warning and can't figure out how to fix it).Polycarp7 22:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Sandover, by all means, use what I have written for the Portuguese Inquisition (and the Spanish, if it needs it - I confess, I haven’t really looked at it). I can edit it, or add to it later, if I have time, but I am a complete klutz when it comes to html language.  Once you take what you need, I can add footnotes (or give you the information, and you can do the part I’m a klutz with). You are right – knowing the procedures, how carefully every detail was followed, gives a more realistic, and less mythical picture of the real inquisitions.

I have learned another thing through this – what I was perceiving as anti-catholic “bias” in Ms. Gottrop’s response (it wasn’t “strange” due to the “religious fanaticism” etc), it's a result of, as you said, lack of knowing. So, I’m going to invite anyone reading my article, who is interested, to work on the Wikipedia entries that involve the inquisitions and the Catholic Church. I’m sure there are already many, but more won’t hurt. This is not ‘new” information – Charles Lea, back in the 19th C, was the first to use the actual inquisitorial files, although with a marked anti-catholic bias, and much has been done since by less “polemical” researchers. I don’t know why it isn’t in the school textbooks, but it should be.

I will have to check with the editors at CE if they will even let me use your story. It is so interesting, but I don’t know their policy for using things which can’t be attributed. Maybe since the nature of this case  don’t allow for full disclosure of the source……  I’ll check. But of course, if it is used, you will not be identified.

I thought it was interesting when you said: “Friends just chalk this all up as a ‘human rights abuse’ committed against an ‘ethnic minority,’ and the Pope as some sort of exotic offstage peripheral figure in it.” Philip Jenkins writes about this in his “The New Anti-Catholicism, The Last Acceptable Prejudice.”  There is a complete failure on the part of many to see religious persection (against Catholics) as just that. Instead, it is seen as “incidental, sporadic” and more the result of “social and political tensions” than religious repression. You know better, and that’s why their comments didn’t ring “true” to you. Anyway, I’ll see if I can do an entire article on your story, maybe even just lift your own words, without giving your name. Maybe just someone I met through Wikipedia, or something general like that. Again, I believe it’s true that most prejudice and bias are the result of lack of knowledge than anything else.

Have to go to my full-time job (another doctor’s appointment), but no, I can’t tell if there are any crimes being committed by the police guys, although there was something in some of the eyewitness accounts about how some of the king’s men took advantage of the chaos to do some looting.Polycarp7 20:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Added some and corrected some of the "inquisitions procedure" if you want to publish it.Polycarp7 16:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)