Talk:Goa Inquisition/Archive 2

Recent Edits
The papal bulls in the fifteenth century were to Africa. The Portuguese had no interest in this type of proselytism until the 1540s and until the reign of King John III (in Asia). The Inquisition was only introduced in Portugal in 1536 (by the King of Portugal D. João III). Jesuits only exist after 1540. Conquest of Goa is an idea of Albuquerque, not of the King (Manuel I) or Government (Sry Lanka, Malacca, Ormuz, Aden, yes they were part of a King`s government project as of Afonso de Albuquerque). Please avoid issues based on historians who are not specialists in Portuguese, European or Iberian History or more amateur essays (I do not say that is the case). There was no such concept of colonies in the Portuguese or Spanish empires (nor colonial government in the 16th and 17th centuries). They were societies based on medieval and Renaissance organizations (States, such as Brazil and State of India (Asia, East and Pacific Africa), Municipalities (within States) Praes, Viceroyaltys, and Capitanies). Initially the Padroado was of the Order of Christ in the 3 Continents, until 1520s (with the support of the Franciscans), although officially Catholic, quite autonomous of Rome (based Tomar and Lisbon (political), and practically without any practical obedience, let alone rendering accounts to other Ecclesiastics, inside or outside Portugal, and with very little knowledge of Rome (formal only, based on the Bulls), and of completely different philosophy, more based on the project Crusade (but the proselytizing, light, nape based on force), just unlike the Inquisition, later, the later curiously averse to the Crusade, to the project of Jerusalem (Manuel I). And who is "Martin Alfonso"? Or Albuquerque? Medieval Europe was full of Progrons (England, parts of Germany, France etc.), unlike the Iberian Peninsula, except for a few. Ex: in Barcelona (14th cent.), ​etc. In Portugal, there was only one in history, in 1506 (in Lisbon), provoked by a minority (including local and foreign) but doing a great massacre. The Introduction of the Inquisition 30 years later, had supporters and opponents, as before. Votes of good editions. --LuzoGraal (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That is not what the WP:RS are stating. Please skip the lecture and this pretension that only you know what Jesuit and Inquisition history is. We can't do OR, or include your personal views, or ignore NPOV guidelines. It must be sourced and verifiable in quality secondary scholarship. I have checked the old version and the summary fails verification, is unacceptable. Please do not remove sourced content or recent scholarly sources. Please do not attack scholarship and historians, pretending you know more than scholarly sources. I welcome you to add sources and sourced content, but only after you have personally checked and verified that content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all :, I must say I have an embarrassment and I apologize for this. Explan.: I only read the article diagonally. I did not check the sources. In what I have restored, I did not check them either. They were old. And they are facts. Recognizing that this is about the Inquisition, seemeded to miss the differences between a period before and after the Inquisition (and just put sources). Such differences were the reason some priests suggested the "necessity" of the Inquisition in India and Asia. More freedom of customs before, various groups and communities still practicing their religion, almost like Ormuz or other points, where the majority practiced its religion and had until its King or local ruler (and there the Inquisition (later) did not arrive actually, although it claimed religious power over Portuguese cities or bases in the East (State of India) but it was a different administrative case of Goa. What I saw and thought was a cliche style of the theme (only in some passages), which seemed to me to be copy-past of sources (and a seemingly partial political and ideological language already outdated, which is no longer used in Wikipedia, even by virtue of its policy of impartiality, but I admit that it will be unfair (and I read diagonally.) and isn´t the case. In the rest, it is more accurate and complete. And it is a great a detailed work as far as I read. Beware of what goes out without reformulating, even if there are few sentences or paragraphs removed (is it not better to look for the sources?) I precipitated myself and inadvertently showed ingratitude as a reader. Anyway, it was not my place to bring sources when I made the comment (I do not have time at the moment). They were just topics to get started and this is discussion. Example: This is a topic I know a little and I have researched. Fundamentally, it also allows us to know the persecuted and their existence, as well as the existence of their movements througout history. Not only the organized religions of the time and of today (the same). The article on the Portuguese Inquisition is still quite summarized; in addition to the known target groups: New Christians and Jews, Sorcerers (witchcraft and other traditional practices), Muslims, Hindus (in Asia) among others - also Catholics / Christian intellectuals free minds; I added (year or more ago) other highly popular traditional beliefs and movements (which were less known to the public today) with sources, among which a Prof. of the University of Lisbon, which has gathered large historical documentation, making no fact, target or oppressed group, being true, stay out of the article (as far as we know today). But in the name of that precipitation - and I have not yet fully read it, I leave my apologies. --LuzoGraal (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * LuzoGraal: Thank you. I appreciate the admission, apologies and your cooperative spirit. The Inquisitions around the world is a well-studied subject by well-respected historians, ethnologists, religion scholars and others. Many peer reviewed secondary and tertiary scholarly publications, along with a trove of primary documents exist. This article must rely on such quality scholarship, paying particular attention to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:COMPREHENSIVE as this is a sensitive topic. Such contributions from this article's page watchers, you and others would be most welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent studies of Inquisition records
This article needs a cleanup, a lot of statements are outdated on account of recent scholarship: https://www.heraldgoa.in/Review/Goa%E2%80%99s-inquisition-facts-fiction-and-factoids/196631 49.15.231.155 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The recent "scholarship" you are referring to is by Alan Machado who is not a scholar. He is an engineer by profession and write fictional novels Varoon2542 (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem. User:Varoon2542 has not read the book on the subject. Machado's book is a non-fiction work directly based on the records kept by the Goa tribunal of the Portuguese Inquisition. Anant Priolkar's book on the Goa Inquisition (which forms the basis of all the multiple Internet links User:Varoon2542 has cited) has been discredited in recent years by contemporary records because Priolkar never bothered to study the Portuguese archives about the Goa Inquisition. 49.15.231.5 (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Checked statements about User:Varoon2542 regarding Alan Machado. Only one of Machado's books is a novel ("Shades within Shadows"), the rest are non-fiction books about the history of the Mangalorean Christian community. Even his book on the Goa Inquisition is a non-fiction continuation of those books on the history of Mangalorean Christians. It appears that User:Varoon2542 is one of those Hindus who refuses to accept the contemporary evidence that the overwhelming number of Goan conversions from Hinduism to Christianity were voluntary, and that the Goan Inquisition had widespread local support (it were native Christians who were responsible for denouncing the accused to the Inquisition, arrests were not arbitrary as previously believed). 49.15.229.8 (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * These recent edits removed a definition for a reference that was used elsewhere in the article; I've replaced it. I'm not sure if the intention was to remove this source completely, or just from one section of the artice. It seems odd to remove such heavily-referenced material with the claim that it's a "false edit", though -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @49.15.229.8: Yes, but how is Machado's book recieved by (other?) scholars? Do they support it, criticise it, or do they outright ignore it? The last is the worst, as that indicates that it isn't considered worth responding to. What sort of academic background does he have? Otherwise this removal would be undue weight being given to someone who may only be a WP:FRINGE historian. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 01:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Amateur historians can do good work; the test is how they are accepted by established historians. I guess we should first look at what books Machado has written.
 * ATC Publishers and I.J.A. Publications are religious publishers which isn't promising. A search in Google Scholar for "Alan Machado" found 5 items that cite him though only 4 were for him as a historian; only one of these seemed to be half way reliable and was for an earlier work (Machado 1999) in
 * Note "Pedro Machado" is a historian (University of Indiana, Bloomington) whose interest does cover India so searching on Machado would result in a lot of winnowing to find just "Alan Machado" cites.
 * Going back to my first remark about amateur historians, a deep dive into a set of documents (such as those about the Goan inquisition stored in Lisbon) that don't seem to have been examined deeply before is just the sort of work an amateur historian can do well (or badly). However Wikipedia editors as Wikipedia editors aren't in the position to evaluate the work. It needs an established historian to evaluate it perhaps as a review in a journal in the field or perhaps by actually citing it. Erp (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alan Machado's work has been supported by other scholars like Dale Luis Menezes (currently at Georgetown University), Paolo Aranha, etc. because the sources for his book are the Goa Inquisition records stored in Lisbon and also other documents from during that time period (1500s to 1800s). His findings about the Goa tribunal of the Portuguese Inquisition are also in agreement with the latest research on the Portuguese Inquisition such as Giuseppe Marcocci and José Pedro Paiva’s História da Inquisição Portuguesa (1536-1821) (2013).
 * The main problem is that most of the published scholarship isn't in English. (The volumes of Documenta indica are available on Hathitrust.) Hence 20th century Hindu revisionist narratives continue to be used as the main source for articles on the Goa Inquisition, even after they have been discredited by the contemporary documents and the resulting updated scholarship. (Anant Priolkar's book from 1961 is an excellent example of such revisionism.) 49.15.229.8 (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I had a suspicion that much of modern scholarship might be in Portuguese (and it seems Italian and French).
 * (Marcocci has published books with the Oxford University Press, both hold academic positions in history) Nothing requires that the reliable sources be in English.  You can cite Marcocci & Paiva (just be sure to include page numbers).  Menezes list of publications doesn't seem to indicate he has published anything on the Goa inquisition yet.
 * In the meantime one can also check the sources others are using for instance
 * are likely unreliable. Also for the modern reliable looking sources, make sure the entry text reflects what they contain. Erp (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I had a suspicion that much of modern scholarship might be in Portuguese (and it seems Italian and French).
 * (Marcocci has published books with the Oxford University Press, both hold academic positions in history) Nothing requires that the reliable sources be in English.  You can cite Marcocci & Paiva (just be sure to include page numbers).  Menezes list of publications doesn't seem to indicate he has published anything on the Goa inquisition yet.
 * In the meantime one can also check the sources others are using for instance
 * are likely unreliable. Also for the modern reliable looking sources, make sure the entry text reflects what they contain. Erp (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * are likely unreliable. Also for the modern reliable looking sources, make sure the entry text reflects what they contain. Erp (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * are likely unreliable. Also for the modern reliable looking sources, make sure the entry text reflects what they contain. Erp (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * are likely unreliable. Also for the modern reliable looking sources, make sure the entry text reflects what they contain. Erp (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Konkani suppression
This section needs to be removed from the article, it has nothing to do with the Goa Inquisition. Attempts to suppress the Konkani language in Goa by the Portuguese government began in 1684 (over a century after the start of the Inquisition in 1560) due to Maratha invasion attempts instead of religious reasons, and Konkani suppression wasn't part of any of the trials held by the Inquisition tribunal in Goa. Thomas Stephens (Jesuit) even wrote a book on Konkani grammar that had several editions printed in Goa during Portuguese rule without any problems. Some religious texts by Hindu authors (e.g. Krishnadas Shama) were also preserved by the Portuguese.