Talk:Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition

Untitled
I would say this argument is dominated by Edward Peters own personal opinion due to the fact he was a Catholic himself and because he himself being personally effected this is why his argument is very different from the majority of histians who have written about this era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.95.94 (talk)

Balance
This article does not seem particularly balanced. It seems to be explaining away all the reported persecution in terms of conspiracy theories. As I understand it the Inquisition led to mass exoduses. Firstly the Jews from Spain under the Order of Ferdinand and Isabella. Secondly the emigration of Hugenots from places such as Flanders, following the atrocities of the Spanish Duke of Alba. Of course Protestant nations used this for propaganda gains but this should not be the soul concern of such an article. There is much first hand documentary evidence of these migration and this is what a fair and balanced historical review should include in such an article. Otherwise such articles sit alongside those of Holocaust deniers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.37.200 (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are mixing things. The Inquisition never led any exoduses, because it wasn't its duty. You're talking about a decission taken and commited by the spanish kings for political reasons. (I'ts important to note how things were done, with a very civilizated behaviour for it's age. Jews were forced to leave many other states in europe and in worst situations. The kings allowed them to be converted, as many did, and gave them time enough to lave freely. Of course it's not something good itself, but shows a really advanced view of the human rights for its age. The decission carried a loose of manpower, money and capable people, but also brought stability as it was the own spanish people who demmanded the expulsion.) About the Hugenots, they were basically in France, and didn't affect Spain directly. In Flanders there were more Calvinists. And calling atrocities to Duke of Alba acts, denotes a poor history knowledge by yourselve. Think again about the history backgound. Much more atrocities were commited in that age in many other places. (By the way; why does Duke of Alba appears in an Inquisition discussion?)Duke of Alba was simply a general, a brillian one by the results, and only did it's duty. It's not specially well known for any acts of cruelty. YOure forcing the things a bit also by mentioning the Holocaust deniers, wich shows that even nowadays theres people affected by the propaganda of that age. You can check all the process' done by the Inquisition from 1530 to 1834 aprox. As their documentation was all saved. There were around 50000 process' and only around 1000 death condems in 300 years. (Inquisiton only judged, the dead penalty had always needed to be accepted by the political authority and commited by it.) If you see that the inquisition was created on 1478 we can assume that it's not easy to raise much more the numbers in so few years. You can compare them to the tens of thousends of people killed only by Elisabeth I from England or the Protestant witch hautings, wich are also registered in many books, in those cases, there weren't even judged. Roy Ender (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the discussion of the merits of the theory or its significance, but phew, this is still - ten years on since complaints were first raised - a truly terrible article in terms of its lack of neutrality. I have tried to improve the style, particularly of the  "Black Legend" section, by making clear that what is being said is theory,  not undisputed fact. Maybe some other editor can do likewise on later sections - life is too short for me to go through the whole article improving it! It also obviously needs a lot more sources - one or two citations at the end of a long section is not acceptable, since it is not clear who thinks what. --Northtowner (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Significance?
This article shouldn't exist. There is no evidence that a "Black Legend" as it describes exists; it appears to be Roman Catholic historical revisionism, engaging in Inquisition-denying apologetics. I would nominate this article for deletion.

65.110.254.148 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It also doesn't help that it appears to be almost entirely made from the scholarship of one man, this Kamen guy, who appears to have built his entire career on being an apologist for the Spanish Inquisition. There are sections that try to pain the idea that the victims were innocent as some kind of lie, ignoring the fact that even the "guilty" were charged with things that should not be crimes. Really, this article is disgusting. 70.50.56.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article should exist. The evidence there is a Spanish Black Legend can be seen in America, for example. Most of the people still think today that the cruel muerderers in the American colonization were the Spaniards, but the fact is that the rest of the countries anihilated the population. The Indians only remain in the Spanish colonies. How do you explain that without the Spanish Black Legend? Is it that the French, the British, the Dutch and the Portuguese found no Indians in their territories? All of this is due to the Black Legend propaganda, and the Spanish Inquisition is another case of anti-Spanish propaganda. Of course, the Black Legend is not just simple propaganda, because mere propaganda can not manipulate people's thoughts 500 years later like the Black Legend has done, when there is enough evidence that it is a lie and a manipulation. It is not only racism, hispanophobia or an attack to the Spanish state. The Black Legend is more like a methodology of exaggerating the Spanish defeats or errors and hidding the Spanish victories and achievements, creating defects where none exist and hiding all virtues, something unique to Spain.
 * You will find a lot of historians explaining what the Black Legend is, and how and why it was created.
 * MetalRocks (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a transparent falsehood regarding Spanish colonization of the Americas which we know from ample documentary and archaeological evidence to have been vicious, violent, and deeply cruel. There are no good colonists and bad colonists, just colonists and all perpetuated genocide, rape and theft. There are in fact native people who persisted in all areas of the colonized americas despite this centuries-long process by European powers to try and eradicate them. This is not because the Spanish were especially kind, but people First Nations people continuously fought back, made concerted efforts to retain their cultural practices, and developed new and complex social structures to maintain their existence. Your response is ignorant and without merit. 139.168.131.245 (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are both wrong. There are more Indians than ever, for one thing. Modern civilisation raised everyone’s standards - and some of the local tribes were as cruel as savages always are, anywhere in the world. Recall, it was easy to push over the Aztecs, as most of their subjected tribes joined the push, figuring anything could be better than this. They were right, too. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:4589:BB41:A18F:DC6B (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(I'm Costa Rican) Al de arriba, tengo que decir que todo lo que dice es absolutamente falso: De hecho el propio Hernán Cortés decidió aliarse con las tribus indígenas oprimidas por el yugo Azteca (que cometieron el genocidio en contra de los chichimecas) como por ejemplo los txacaltecas, para derrotar a la Triple Alianza.

Llegó a haber nobleza indígena incluso, como por ejemplo todos los decendientes de Moctezuma tales como Diego de Alvarado Huanitzin. Y demás esta decir que aquí nunca se aplicaron las políticas de segregación racial que aplicaron los anglosajones, aquí todos nos podíamos mezclar con todos, a diferencia del racista Estados Unidos que todavía en el siglo XX prohibia los matrimonios mixtos. Armando AZ (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Article is not neutral
I've tagged the article as not neutral. To give just a couple of examples of its non-neutrality. In just the summary paragraphs, the words "myths and fabrications" lead one to believe that the Spanish Inquisition is a totally made up event. This is further emphasized by the repetition of the word "propaganda" three times in the first summary paragraph.

Also, in the summary paragraphs, the statement that "only 1300" people were executed during the Inquisition requires balance. Not all authorities would agree on the 1,300 number and the existence of other, much higher estimates should be mentioned.

This article is more of an essay arguing against the "Black Legend" than an encyclopedia article. Smallchief (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Having come here because the page linked to the Eleno de Céspedes which I was adding references to (pursuant to a tag there requesting them), I was struck by how even just the "Misunderstandings" section I edited does seem a bit biased/slanted. -sche (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516070550/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM to http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM#VI.%20DEATH%20AND%20TORTURE%20FOR%20CATHOLICS%20AND%20PROTESTANT
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spanport.ucsb.edu/projects/ehumanista/projects/spanish_black_legend/01.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005125730/http://www.cervantesvirtual.com:80/FichaObra.html?Ref=7256 to http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/FichaObra.html?Ref=7256
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117191507/http://www.ucm.es:80/BUCM/revistas/inf/11370734/articulos/HICS9696110063A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/inf/11370734/articulos/HICS9696110063A.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709092855/http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/index.html to http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus for any of the proposals. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition → Black Legend and the Spanish Inquisiton – Adding the "of" in the sentence implies that this is considered to be a historical fact - it is not. It is simply a historical theory, nothing more. Replacing "of" with "and" adheres closer to maintaining a Neutral Point of View. Dunutubble (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose (for now). I am a bit confused about this proposal, and don't really understand the rationale for it, or the argument of the proposer.  It would be helpful if he could clarify.  Walrasiad (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Adoption of the proposed change would de-link the black legend from the Spanish Inquisition. They Spanish Inquisition and the black legend are connected -- not independent events. The abuses of people by the Spanish Inquisition is a fact as it is a fact that a "black legend" of those abuses by the Inquisition exists.Smallchief (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to my previous comment, in my opinion this article should be deleted as the subject of the black legend is much better and more fairly covered in Black Legend (Spain). This article is an argument against the black legend, not an effort to describe the black legend in a neutral and factual manner. Smallchief (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The current lead is terrible, but I think maybe this article should be titled "Spanish Inquisition in the Black Legend". Srnec (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Srnec - That could be a workable compromise. Dunutubble (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)