Talk:Historical revision of the Inquisition/Archive 1

Edit
86.29.93.254 17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)different user86.29.93.254 17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) The reference [1] given in the article refers to the SPANISH inquistion vis-a-vis inquisitorial organisations in other European nations at the time in the context of religiously based nationalism; the point of the article is the inquisition AS A WHOLE. To that end, it is a misleading ( economically truthful & out of context ) reference.

The writer Edward N. Peters is a catholic religious lawyer - I have checked. No sane person could reasonably expect his views to be balanced.

I suggest the article is scrapped, and a trimmed-down, fact-only article written. POV is so strong in the article that Wikipedia should be ashamed to have it included under the definition of an encyclopedia entry.

17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the opening paragraph, essentially replacing "historians" with "some historians". I do not see how it can be claimed that all historians have taken "a fresh look" at the Inquisition. Stammer 20:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit pedantic to me, and the constant flogging of "revisionist" is getting tiresome, like an Inquisitor shouting "Heretic!" or a Puritan shouting "Witch!" I'm getting tired of trying to fight off ignorance.Hobomojo 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"The writer Edward N. Peters is a catholic religious lawyer - I have checked. No sane person could reasonably expect his views to be balanced." The fact that you assume that a Catholic is incapable of writing an historically accurate analysis of inquisitorial practice makes me think you're exhibiting an anti-Catholic bias. I would suggest that you ignore his profession and judge his work on its merits - until then, it's impossible to assume that the work is unbalanced.

It also seems unreasonable for you to declare the entire article as inaccurate without presenting evidence to substantiate your claims. Though there are some issues of wording, it seems to be fairly well done, considering the controversial nature of the topic. I would be happy to listen to any specific issues you may have, backed up with evidence. --Falkan 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Edward Peters is the Charles Henry Lea Professor of history at the University of Penn. He is not a Catholic religious lawyer. If you "checked," your research skills are incompetent. If you want to stand by your ignorance, sign your post. Hobomojo 06:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Amazon.com

''Dr. Edward N. Peters, J.D., J.C.D. received his civil law degree from the University of Missouri at Columbia and his doctoral degree in canon law from the Catholic University of America. A frequent guest on Catholic media apostolates, Dr. Peters articles and reviews have appeared in a wide variety of Catholic and secular publications.''

From this description, Dr Peters sounds like a devout Catholic. While that does not invalidate his views, such a background should definitely be included in the article.Hellbound Hound (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WTF?-Can't you go to the U Penn website and check? You go to Amazon.com? And you take the "bio" from a different book by a different author????? BTW, Edward Peters, author of The Inquisition, is jewish. http://www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/peters.shtml Hobomojo (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The UPenn website in the link makes no reference to Peters being Jewish. I can't find any reference at all to his religious persuasion on the Web. Pirate Dan (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Henry Charles Lea professor at UPenn who wrote Inquisition is Edward M. Peters, not Edward N. Peters the canon law graduate. See here http://acmrs.org/pub_progs_dl_Peters.html .  Pirate Dan (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename
This article has been also posted under the title Inquisition Controversy in hopes of eliminating some of the POV that the title The Inquisition Myth suggests.


 * In the Ref. section of Inquisition, the author mentions Peters' book on the Inquisition Myth, which The Inquisition Myth addresses.

Merge
I would object to this article being merged with Inquisition. This article is essentially a historiography article that details a recent trend in history writing and certainly deserves an article of its own. It can be a "main article" off other articles so we dont have to keep repeating the same "myths" stuff in every inquisition article (there are many) and just have it all in one place. --Stbalbach 20:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I would favor a merge with Inquisition, just not yet: there are many POV's that still have to be removed or rewritten, and also the article is still too long to be merged just yet. A good way to rewrite POV's is putting down who's POV something really is, thus making it a fact. For example, the above sentence (a 'good' way ...) can be rewritten as: It is Basjoosten's opinion that putting down who's POV something really is, is a good way to rewrite POV's. For this, of course, you need the correct sources and you should (to my opinion) not put your own name as a source. If you cannot find the source, the POV should (this is still my opinion) be removed. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basjoosten (talk • contribs)

I would object to this merge as the Inquistion article is very well written whereas the myth article is not as well written and the neutrality of it is questioned. Also the Myth article is very contradictory and seems to not be very factual. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.226.103 (talk • contribs)

I also would object to the merge, although I feel both articles are well written. Both articles should stand on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.3.51 (talk • contribs)

I object to the merge. The Myths of the Inquisition piece was POV peddling and the term revisionism is correct and appropriate. When an article is citing a television program shown over a decade ago its POV peddling. --Gorgonzilla 01:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

POV
This article starting with the title is entirely POV. Throughout the article there are broad assertions made, all clearly intended to minimize the extent of the inquisition and the effect on the victims. The opening paragraph describes this as 'the best trends in modern history'. It is not. --Gorgonzilla 14:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The "trends" comment was in reference to the scholarly investigation of revisionous history, which is, in fact, one of the fastest growing and popular trends of modern history. The Inquisitions have sparked some of the best published research in this field. --User:Gth0824

Sockpupettry
The main editor of this article only created their account on the 18th. They are very clearly a sockpuppet and this article is very clearly an attempt to fork the inquisition article. --Gorgonzilla 14:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That can easily be proven by asking an admin to check the IP numbers. When you find out you´re wrong will you applogize for your uncivil behaviour here? --Stbalbach 15:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You could easily have used different IP addresses. The circumstances are that you inserted a highly POV section into the main article, then after several people make attempts to remove it you state that you will simply keep putting it back. Finally when I edit the section in a way that makes it effectively impossible for you to simply revert the changes without making it clear you are a POV pusher a fork article suddenly appears written by a completely new nym. So you can get into a steamly hissy fit if you like but the appearences are against you. The editorial line here is clearly POV and any attempt to remove the POV assertions is immediately reversed out.

--Gorgonzilla 18:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont know what to tell you except we not the same person. And no, I cant easily change my IP. Your behaviour is a bit strange frankly. I was not involved in any edits here today except to revert a complete blanking of the article. --Stbalbach 18:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I didnt write the BBC material in the Inquisition article, in fact I was against it at first, but after some discussions with others, did a fair amount of work to clean it up. I simply defend it because its within the rules of Wikipedia. I defend anything that is within the rules of Wikipedia, people have a right to put it here. It is your deletions that are the problem. You need to edit the article, if you think its POV, not delete it outright. --Stbalbach 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn’t saw "several people" making attempts to remove the BBC material in the Spanish Inquisition article lately. I saw only one person doing it (Gorgonzilla). On the other hand, I saw more than one person reversing Gorgonzilla's deletion routine; and I would have done the same under the circumstances. --Leinad-Z 22:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

pov is a highly regarded trait in historical study. the different historiographical interpretations should be valued with equal weight, allowing the reader to establish their own opinion based on the information available. the removal of this piece would be against the quest for knowledge that so many follow, a merger with other pieces wih alternate historigoraphy, or links to alternate interpretations woul be the bast option here.

Examples of indefensible POV statements
The following are presented as fact but are not only disputed but distinctly minority opinions. In each case the bias is in the same direction.


 * Generally, inquisitorial courts functioned much like the secular courts of the time, though their sentences and penances were far less cruel.
 * Oh really? The church got around this by 'relaxing' the victims to civilian authorities for execution etc.
 * rly, the inquisition was generally v. leniant towards first offenders, often letting them off with far less than secular courts would have. despite this death was usually the deterrant against 2nd offences.


 * Agreed, this should be clarified.--Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Clarification is needed, but the essential point is true. The inquisition opperated under the same principals as secular courts which also included torture as a means of determining truth. 68.113.6.195 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Any confession made following or during torture had to be freely repeated the next day without torture or it was considered invalid
 * A tendentious assement since the victim had every reason to believe that the torture would be repeated if they refused to confirm it.


 * Agreed, this should be clarified.--Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, clarification needed, but the original point has validity. Although torture was allowed there were specific regulation to its use and application and those regulations were promulgated by church authorities. Again, torture was used by secular courts for the exact same purposes.68.113.6.195 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As seen in the French inquisitions, the purpose of Spanish inquisitorial torture was to gain either information or confession, not to punish.
 * Inexcusable speculation as to motives. It can be claimed with equal justification that the point of the entire exercise was to supress any challenge to church autrhority by creating fear.


 * it could also be claimed that the inquisitors believed what they were doing was religiously correct, as indeed Isabella of castile and to a lesser extent Ferdinand of Aragon did.


 * Agreed.--Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Again clarification is needed. Both sides here have validity. "Ideally" torture was "believed" to be the only means by which to verify dubious statements. In practice it may have been used for any number of other means. However, it was not invisioned as punishment. Like our modern courts the inquisition followed a procedure. Begining with a denunciation the inquisition began investigations. Those investigations often involved interviews with individuals assumed to have knowledge of crime(s). If the inquisitors thought the accusation had merit they would interview the accused. This could involve torture, but did not require it. Next, accusations would be made. Defendants could then ask for legal counsel and respond to the offical accusation. After defense and prosecution had made arguments the tribunal would determine guilt. If guilty then punishment would be determined. Torture was not 'seen' at the time by contemporaries as punishment. It was a proof for determining the truthfulness of a statement.68.113.6.195 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The assertion that torture was used to extract confessions rather than to punish is testable, not speculative. It is based on the premise that torture was normally not continued after the suspect confessed, and that it was not part of the sentence imposed by the inquisitorial tribunal.  That appears in line with the evidence I've seen.  What I would be more curious about is, do most people in fact think that the Inquisition tortured people as punishment rather than for confessions?  I was never told that.


 * As to the Inquisition wanting to suppress any challenge to church authority, I think that's quite true, but it doesn't refute the point about torturing for confessions.  Pirate Dan (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The auto de fe that followed trials is the most infamous and misunderstood part of the inquisitions in Spain.
 * This is pure POV.
 * so is that.


 * Agreed, simple to fix, remove one word.--Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Artistic representations of the auto de fe usually depict torture and the burning at the steak.
 * That is stake, a steak is what you eat. The artists who drew the pictures almost certainly understood that the torture and punishments did not take place at the same time as the 'religious' ceremony but this is generally understood to be acceptable artistic license, showing the 'true nature' of the event from their point of view by including events that would occur before and after the ritual. Medieval art is not photo-journalism.
 * if this piece is about the removal of POV then why should the inclusion of artists pov be allowed?


 * Interesting! This should be included in the article, its certainly new to me. --Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Protestants in the decades and centuries to come would use this relatively short-lived persecution as the basis for their accusations about the awful “Inquisition.”
 * Pretty baldly POV.
 * yet true, the myths about the spanish inquisition were used as key examples of the cruelty of the RC church throughout the lutheran reformation, and deep into 16th and 17th centurys.


 * Agreed, simple to re-word. Basic idea is right. --Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In the interest of full disclosure it should be noted that Protestant parts of Europe were far more likely to have persecutions of witchcraft, and the execution of witches, than catholic countries. However, I think that the above statement and this debate is not useful to this page.68.113.6.195 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thus, although both the Spanish and Roman inquisitions prosecuted the offenses of witchcraft and sorcery very early and vigorously, they also were the first courts to be skeptical of the evidence and mechanism of witchcraft accusations, and they consistently offered the most lenient treatment to marginal cases” (Peters 1988: 111).
 * The article is full of bald assertions of this kind from Peters but there is no questioning of Peters' motives, perspective etc.
 * then link to some one who does, if you can find a contempary who will!


 * Well, there may be salvagable ideas here that can be re-worded. Or it can be balanced with opposing views from other scholars. It is permissable under Wikipedia rules to write about multiple points of view on the same subject. --Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It was the relatively limited persecution of Protestants, mostly by the inquisitions in Spain and Italy, that provoked the first image of “The Inquisition” as the most violent and suppressive vehicle of the Church against Protestantism.
 * Again, constant attempts to minimize the extent of the inquisition without reference to any substantive facts.


 * Im not sure I agree it minimizes it, it says "relatively limited persecution of Protestants", its just clarifying who its talking about. This could be re-worded to the same effect. --Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * These artistic images have arguably become some of the most long-lasting and effective perpetuators of “The Inquisition” myth.
 * There is absolutely no substantiation of the claim that the inquisition was misrepresented in any material respect.

Gorgonzilla


 * Agreed, this sentence needs to be re-worded. --Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That is only the first pass, There is not a single paragraph in the piece which is not POV. The entire piece is not simply revisionism, it is an appologia, an excuse for the Roman Catholic Church. The unfortunate fact of history is that the Catholic church did a lot of imoral and corrupt business in the middle ages, that is not something that should be glossed over or ignored because the facts hurt some people's feelings. Peters' argument appears to be pretty tendentious, he quibbles over the details and then draws the conclusion that the church did nothing really wrong, that the real criminals here are the protestants complaining about the attrocities.

It is of course entirely likely that William of Orange et. al. exaggerated the extent of the attorcities but it is equally likely that the Inquisition records are unreliable and have been filtered. Peters seems to accept the church records as gospel, contemporaneous reports suggest a different story. Accepting biased evidence from one side while excluding other evidence as contaminated by bias is itself bias.


 * I don't want to step into the POV debate too much, but I wanted to clarify one statement. It is actually far *less* likely that the records are unreliable; this is a large part of the reason that they have come to spur a fairly massive shift in the views of historians on this aspect of Early Modern History.  The contemporaneous "historical" accounts are more or less outright propaganda, for one side or the other.  The records are simple bureaucratic paperwork, the sort of documents which may be incomplete but which are rarely censored, both because (prior to the advent of modern historiography) they weren't really thought of as source material for subsequent historical research, and because the people keeping the records didn't think that they were doing anything wrong, and so would have felt no need to censor themselves (if anything, given the general attitudes at the time, they might have been expected to exaggerate the vigor of their prosecution rather than try to cover it up). - Alan 66.31.47.139 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The story that the piece does not tell is the fact that the Italian inquisition brought the Italian Renaissance to a screeching halt. Italy goes from being at the center of European scientific thought to the place where Gallileo was tortured for pointing out that the earth goes round the sun. Later the protestant countries define themselves as the place where the church does not enforce doctrine with inquisition, torture and executions. The number of the attrocities is not the important fact on which the argument is based, the fact that the church resorted to those methods to enforce its doctrine was in protestant eyes proof of the moral bankrupcy of the papacy. Arguing over whether it was thousands or tens of thousands is irrelevant. --Gorgonzilla 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I’m not a native English speaker, so I will not enter too much in this debate yet. But notice that: 1- Most atrocities from the Inquisitions occurred during the Early Modern period; not during the Middle Ages. 2- The Italian Renaissance is usually seen as one of scientific backwardness right from the start. (It would not be until the Renaissance moved to Northern Europe that the western scientific evolution - halted during the crisis of the 14th century - would be truly revived). 3- Galileo was never tortured. --Leinad-Z 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is obviously an issue with multiple POV's. It is possible to write an article that presents multiple POV's in a neutral manner. There is room on Wikipedia for all views, no matter how some may personally think about them (see historical revisionism (political) for some of the most grevious). I believe we should have a separate article that addresses these revisionistic history authors, so we dont mess up Inquisition with controversial material. It doesnt mean we have to present what the revisionists say as "fact", but we can discuss the major authors, thier major points, and any opposing views to those points. While I do think some of these authors have a bias (which can be discussed), they also reveal some new information -- the truth is gray. So this article may need to be %90 tossed out, but within lies the begining of a decent article on Inquisition revisionism. One thing is for sure: its better that the article be created now, instead of waiting for someone in the future to do it, eventually Inqusition revisionism will end up on wikipedia somewhere in some format, the more you delete it, the more people will re-create it. Once you have an official place for it, then the thing is settled. --Stbalbach 17:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember when David Irving began his campaign. He started by challenging inconsequential details and when scholars retreated on the onconsequential points used that as proof that the Holocaust was a myth. I have a big problem with an article that consists as this one does of slabs of material from an individual touting the phrase 'the inquisition myth'. The number of Jews murdered in the holocaust was more likely to be five million rather than six, does this mean that an article called 'the holocaust myth' should be allowed or that the number is relevant? What about data from a book or a TV program with the same title? We see the same mode of argument here, official records are accepted as unquestioningly accurate when they support the revisionist view, no matter what the motives of the scribes or redacters might have been, meanwhile sources that are unfavorable are ignored or dismissed on arbitrary grounds. --Gorgonzilla 23:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "The Inquisition Myth" is used to refer to the popular modern notion of a unified, century-spanning, single-bodied "Inquisition" which I think we can agree never existed. There were surely distinct periods of inquisitorial proceedings that were regional in practice, leadership, goals, organization, etc.  There was never THE Inquisition, but rather many varying, regional inquisitorial proceedings and periods. "The Inquisition Myth" does not reflect the number of victims or whether or not the inquisitorial processes existed, but rather this modern notion that "The Inquisition" was a unified and organized structure spanning the 10th through the 20th centuries.  The word "myth" could easily be replaced with another word.  Please note that the quotation marks and the word "myth" here and in the article are used to refer to this popular modern notion about the inquisitorial periods and are not used with any other meaning (e.g. fictionalizing the inquisitions).  --Gth0824

Please Just Delete This Article

 * Now that that's over, can anybody please explain to me what a "sockpuppet" is? I've never heard that term in terms of Wikipedia or the Internet.  Also, I am not User:Stbalbach, I am User:Gth0824.  I am actually hoping that this article does get deleted, I didn't join Wikipedia to get people worked up or offended in any way. Please just delete this article.  --Gth0824


 * A sockpuppet is someone who uses multiple login names to make it seem like multiple people. But I hope you stay, the article is good and it has been needed for a long time. There will always be people who disagree, in particular on controversial issues. But thats why anyone can edit the article, that's what makes Wikipedia work. I hope you'll reconsider your position, I certainly support the article and hope to work to improve it so all sides can agree with it. --Stbalbach 13:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Although I 100% agree with you about the editing of articles, peer review, the aims of Wikipedia, etc, I think that in this case, with this article, getting "all sides to agree with it" is probably not going to happen. As I see from your user page, you are a student of Medieval history, which, as you know, is an age fraught with revisionist history.  This article as it stands, is undeniably trying to address such revisionist history.  However, the entire genre of revisionist history is one of those genres this is almost never "agreed" upon.  My article inherenty rouses POV issues about revisionist history (even more than the Inquisitions, I don't think the actual Inquisitions have ever truly been the issue here) which, without completly rewriting the entire article, probably cannot be solved.  I truly appreciate your support for my article since I posted it and I look forward to reading your contributions.  --Gth0824


 * Well, it's been a long problem in the Inquisition article, as this issue has been yanked back and forth by various parties. My hope is to isolate the myth issue to a separate article where both sides can battle it out, while leaving the main Inquisition article without revisionism controversy. That way we can have a decent Inquisition article, and leave all the POV battles "outside". So imagine my great surprise when you wrote this article at exactly the same time the latest POV battle was going on over at Inquisition; it was certainly good timing (and appears to have aroused suspicions that you and I are one and the same.. lol very funny). But it is possible to write on these subjects neutrally, presenting the various arguments, and the historiography. Inquisition is certainly not unique in that regard. See for example Bayeux Tapestry.. or Huns.. or Great Sphinx of Giza.. these also have a good deal of historical revisionism issues, but I believe have reached a point they are not bad. --Stbalbach 14:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is with "inquisition" as well
This article is POV, OK, and should be dealt with accordingly.

But now, check the article "inquisition": the problem is the same, most of the "facts" presented there should have a serious second look. Inquisition has been a widely popular (romantic, probably anticlerical) theme for two centuries, and the old "references" used today were propaganda material then - not so honorable, after all.

How long does it take for an old POV to become truth?

My POV is, both articles should be merged, and rephrased to present the facts:
 * Inquisition is, indeed, a popular present-days myth. The intersting point for the reader is: what is that myth about?
 * The myth is mythic, but does have historical basis: what are these basis, what is under discussion?
 * Inquisition raises interesting questions about religion and justice: what are the issues?

This is what I'm trying to do on [] for instance. ... sorry for my english mistakes, I'm but a [poor foreigner].84.100.133.41 06:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My POV is that whatever it takes to bring the best and most reputable scholarship to both articles or a merged one is what is essential here. Unfortunately for those who hold dear to old convenient stereotypes will be disappointed. Top scholars from places like U. of Penn (an Ivy League) published with the backing of the U. of Cal. and Yale, not to mention  top British scholars on the subject are in very strong agreement on the historical distortion of the facts especially by English Protestants to make Catholic Spain look worse than they.  I am happy if the comparative figures are presented as such. Protestant never like to be reminded of the Tower of London and other places where far more Catholic died than than Protestants did in Spain.   --Vaquero100 05:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * this is history! the facts cannot be presented without a historiographical interpretation, wether it be the interpreation that the admin present or then one the author of this article presents. for the love of god just leave the article be.

Renaming Article
I moved and renamed the article before reading the log of the Deletion debate. In the latter, the title seemed to be the main issue, so I hope there is no harm done. I've also updated the reference from the Spanish Inquisition page, where I revised the sub-section on this topic.Hobomojo 14:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This article, judging from the title and the contents, is about "Recent scholarship on the Inquisition" in general. However, the introducion, apart from being very slender, clearly focuses on Spain and the Spanish Inquisition. This should be fixed. Str1977 (smile back) 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, that implies that the article is describing both sides in an academic debate and that the assertions made in the article are accepted as fact. They are not. The assertions made are simply a minority opinion of a small group of academics with a clear motive. -- Gorgonzilla 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First, in academic debates, there are multiple sides, not just two. Second, both Peters and Kamen do discuss multiple perspectives, which you would know if you read them. Third. and this is the big one, Kamen's work is THE standard English language work on the topic of the Inquisition, not the minority opinion, the CONSENSUS opinion. It has been continually revised, updated and republished for close to 40 years. Can you produce ANY scholarly book or article that challenges the interpretations presented by Kamen? ANY that asserts a "clear motive?" Please refrain from editing or renaming this article until you can produce evidence for your assertions.Hobomojo 15:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I reworded it with less emphasis on Spain. Thing is, though, it's research into the Spanish Inquisition that has mainly driven the field, since the latter looms so large over the debate. You're right though, it does need to be beefed up a bit. Hobomojo 14:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Hobomojo, but the intro still is only valid in the Spanish context. And even for that it is not really an introduction. However, I do not know how to write it better myself, hence no complaint.
 * PS. It is always great when issues one raises are addressed instead of other disputes being spilled into another section, Gorgonzilla. Str1977 (smile back) 09:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I recommend you (immodestly, I have written it myself) the Spanish article: es:Leyenda Negra de la Inquisición Española. It is based on Kamen and Peters with other small additions. Cheers, --Ecelan 16:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish I knew Spanish I would help translate. Do you have any plans to make it a WP:Featured article on the Spanish Wikipedia? -- Stbalbach 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It has become a featured article. --Ecelan 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV flag
I'm also removing the contested neutrality flag. This is a straightforward historiographical essay on recent work on the Inquisition. If anyone finds bias or neutrality issues they should state very clearly and very specifically what those issues are.

Please do not put it back until stating the issue. Hobomojo 14:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The flag is improperly removed, I have replaced it. The opening sentence shows the problem:
 * The two most significant and extensively cited sources of the modern analysis concerning the conflicting histories over the inquisitorial proceedings are Inquisition (1988) by Edward Peters and The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision (1997) by Henry Kamen. These works focus on exposing and correcting the revisionist and misinterpreted histories that surround the inquisitions today. The following research is an attempt to present Peters’s and Kamen’s ideas by discussing some of the most popular and misguided opinions about the inquisitions held by modern society.
 * This is a totaly POV statement asserting that Peters and Kamen's work is the most singificant, that it 'corrects'. Then the paragraph admits that the article is original research.
 * The article might be salavageable but the history here strongly suggests that it should be listed as AFD again. Also noted your attempt to rename the article, the term Revision is in the title of Kamen's book and is entirely accurate. --Gorgonzilla 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't speak to Peters's work, but Kamen's IS the most widely cited English language book on the Inquisition published in the last 40 years, and does correct quit a bit, so it is not POV, simply accurate. As far as "revision" goes, yes it is in Kamen's title, but you are reading way too much into it. Hobomojo 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of the word "revisionism" is detailed in the lead paragraph of historical revisionism. Basically there is a positive kind, and a negative kind. I'm sure that Kamen is using the word "revisionism" because new evidence and documents have come to light, as explained in historical revisionism - a perfectly legit and commonly used application of the word revisionism. -- Stbalbach 16:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but Gorgonzilla seems to be making the unjustified leap from "revision" to "negationism", the perjoritive, without being familiar with the works in question. Peters does not use the term "revision" in his title, and as this is an historiographical essay, better to call it recent scholarship.Hobomojo 16:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Either it is accepted in the field in which case it should be in the main article or it is an intellectual movement that is challenging the mainstream view. The term for such movements is revisionism. The term only obtained a pejorative tone after the holocaust deniers started to portray themselves as such. They are no more historians than Scientology and Christian Science are scientific. --Gorgonzilla 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're joking, right? It is an accepted field, and this article began about a year ago with an editor's attempt to integrate it into the main article. You baselessly kicked and screamed about POV then too, so the editor began this article. My recent attempt to integrate it into the main article has you kicking a screaming again, again without ANY substantiation. As far as revisionism goes, as an historian I avoid the term outside of a specialist audience lest the immediate assumption be the same one you seem to be making. Thus the name change. You claim Kamen and Peters are minority positions, outside of the mainstream, marginal, etc, etc. without providing a single piece of evidence to support your position. When Inquisition censors reviewed manuscripts for publication, they often submit lengthly critiques arguing fine points of theology and cannon law complete with citations. You have yet to produce ONE citation in support of your argument. Hobomojo 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not unusual for specialists in a field to have great difficulty producing NPOV articles on the subject. When subjective claims are presented as fact it does not require a citation to remove them. Bestselling is an objective fact, Best is a subjective claim. If you want to claim academic credentials then post them on your user page so we can see if you are a real historian or play one on the net. Otherwise shut up about your credentials, you don't sound much like a historian to me. --Gorgonzilla 12:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement was "Among the best" not "best". The former is evidenced by the publication history of the text in question and its adoption rate in university courses dealing with the Inquisition specifically or Spain generally. Deliberate misreadings do not enhance your credibility. As far as specialist vs. non-specialsit, etc. you have yet to illustrate ANY command at all of ANY of the literature on the Inquisition. How, then, can you pretend to be capable of evaluating claims made? Hobomojo 19:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So, Gorgonzilla, what are your credentials here?


 * I only ask because, right now, all you've done is raise a fuss about a bias that you see, but refuse to back up or cite. If you have reason for believing that the works of Kamen and Peters are patently false and horrendous, why don't you make some effort to display why?


 * Credibility comes from backing, not yelling. This article has the word of numerous experts on the topic; you have nothing. Why don't you even the scale? -Senori 05:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it has the word of two specific experts presented in terms that are hopelessly POV. Incidentally the number of books sold is not an indication of academic quality, quite the reverse. Ann Coulter sells rather a lot of books. So did the 'historian' David Irving. --Gorgonzilla 14:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No *true* Scotsman, right?


 * Kamen and Peters are respected in their field and, in any case, much more credible than no experts at all. If you think the analysis of their works have a specific POV, then fix the POV* (in a user space page, preferably)- don't claim that the article's subject is hopelessly lost. -Senori 16:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gorgonzilla: you have yet, despite repeated requests, to provide any evidence in support of your argument. Further, neither Coulter nor Irving have been published by University presses, neither holds a chair at a University, etc, etc. Rhetorically, you're wiggling and squirming so much that you are contradicting yourself. First you assert that they are marginal, controversial, out of the mainstream. When confronted with the facts that their work is central to the field and widely accepted, you squirm away and say that that's not relevant. Now you try to slander them, knowing nothing about their work. Hobomojo 21:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

New title is good
The new title is an improvement. It does not make comment on the work one way or the other. Hopefully the word revision will not be as contentious as revisionism. --Gorgonzilla 22:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * it is better. it should be Spanish Inquisition, as there have been many inquisitions and the revisionism is only about the Spanish. -- Stbalbach 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought about that sounds right. Should Inquisition be capitalized in that case? -- Gorgonzilla 00:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would still prefer "Recent scholarship on the Inquisition" since the article discusses both Kamen and Peters in depth. Kamen is treating the Spanish Inquisition, Peters, all of them. Likewise, the word "revision", valid as it is, has become too debased and carries too much of a connotation of "negation" for many readers. Hobomojo 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Even better would be "Inquisition historiography", merge in the black legend and other historians, not just recent ones. It is a whole story behind how we got to where we are today. I think this is what they did over at the Spanish wikipedia). -- Stbalbach 15:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and that might settle down some of the edit war in Black Legend. I'll see what I can come up with--hell, it would help me put together a class on the topic--but that will take a while. I'm on the road for the next year doing research, so the primary docs come first. Hobomojo 03:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Page still problematic
There is an underlying problem with this article, in that it is trying to explain a particular interpretation of history and at the same time, recounting that history. To my mind, that is why the article is going to continue to arouse controversy. Would it not be possible to shorten this article to simply introduce the views of Peters and Kamen, with some of their most important points referred to the relevant main articles, and then make sure that the article Inquisition presents the views of these two writers fairly and with due weight? It is all very interesting stuff that I wish I was more familiar with. Itsmejudith 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not neutral.
This article diminishes the many crimes against humanity and decency that the Catholic Inquisition(s) committed. Other than being responsible for several thousand deaths, dividing the continent of Europe, demanding orthodoxy, and eliminating dissenting religious believers (Jews, non-religious, etc)., the Inquisition is one of the most negative and counter-productive forces in history. The article glibly asserts that "Because the inquisitorial process was not based on tolerant principles and doctrines such as freedom of thought and freedom of religion that became prominent in Western thinking during the eighteenth century, modern society has an inherent difficulty in understanding the inquisitorial institutions." Is this code for saying "They killed people back then because not everyone was seen as having freedom to believe as they wish?"

This article has no semblance of neutrality and any reasoned discussion of the Inquisition (even just the Roman one) must include, at least once, the word "killed," because The Inquisition killed people. Read any of Will Durant's historical works for confirmation, preferably one covering the period 1200-1700.

Ridiculous drivel--articles like this are why Wikipedia is disrespected.


 * Agreement here. One cannot speak with neutrality toward the unjust murder of thousands of individuals, in addition to the deprivation of property visited on many more which, at the time of the Inquisitions, was a death sentence in and of itself. I am certain that Charles Manson was very devoted to his 'cause,' and that he believed that what he was doing was "right," "good," and "just," but do we devote time and an article to the discussion of why he was "right"? I fail to understand the purpose of this article, nor the reason that valid points within cannot be assigned to their appropriate mains. It is entirely plausible that the numbers cited by many historians are exaggerated, for example, but relegating corrected figures to this type of article implies that there is a "conspiracy" to keep corrected figures hidden. This is only the case when, as above, individuals use "corrections" as a pejorative, in an attempt to discredit or distort the very real accounts of torture, murder, and their requisite perversions of justice. RvLeshrac (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is neutral in that it is a discussion of the historiography, not the history, of the Inquisition. If you look at the edit history, the article is a fork from the main article on the Spanish Inquisition, and started because an editor at the time wanted to promote a particularly "Black legend" POV, and refused to admit that any more accurate analysis of the Inquisition had been done since the politically driven "history" of the 1820s. Since then, there has been a historiography section added to the main article, and we have a fairly stable version of it. This article was, early on, proposed for deletion twice, and the consensus was "Keep". Hobomojo (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 'This article is neutral in that it is a discussion of the historiography [etc]': This is absolutely not how I read it. I am very glad now that it has its current title, which helps, but as soon as you get into the actual article it simply states the revisionists' assertions as referenced facts, not as assertions within a historiographic debate. This talk page makes it clear that a far, far better article is waiting to be written on the basis of presenting conflicting POVs and phrasing them as such. 81.205.195.3 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The article defends and excuses and minimizes genocide. The expulsion or forced conversion of almost the entire Jewish and Muslim population of Spain and Portugal is a historical fact. Hundreds of thousands of people were forced to flee or convert. To say that "only" 5,000 people were killed is an admission of total moral bankruptcy. Relative to the population of the world it is not a lot. What are they proponents of this idea trying to say? That the Catholic faith of the middle ages was OK and worthy of admiration because it "only" killed 5,000 people and ruined the lives of maybe half a million others?

The article is also misleading in that it gives readers to understand that no clerical figures were involved in the inquisition. It is simply untrue. Not only were they involved, in many cases they were canonized in Spain and elsewhere. St. Dominic who "combatted" the Albigensians was one of them. To say that the auto da fe did not involve burning people at the stake is an embarrassing sort of claim. For the victims, that was the main part of the ceremony after all. A "religious ceremony" that culminates in murder can only be described as odious barbarism. This article is an offense to humanity as it stands. Mewnews (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)]]


 * Why are people trying to delete this article, instead of helping to write it "neutral"? It seems that some people feel uncomfortable with some information, wanting to hide it. Clearly neutrality must include some words; so why the word "genocide" appears only in the references of this article ? Go help it! The ideological political persecution has no place in Wikipedia! 201.3.109.102 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Waldensians were (are) not dualists
....even though the Cathars and the Waldensians had an unquestionably non-Reformed, dualistic perception of God ....

It's true about Cathars, but absolutely untrue about Waldensians and others like Petrobrusians etc. The mistake is very coarse, if not intentional, raising doubts about other statements in this article and competency of the author
 * Indeed it only proves that this whole article is bunk. It is a thinly veiled attempt to sell Catholic propaganda as fact. The two "experts" that this book relies on don't even touch the Spanish Inquisition's role in Spanish Netherlands. In fact it is those barbarities in that region - in places like Antwerp - that (because of the region's proximity to Germany, England and other protestant lands) that largly contributed to the infamy of the Inquisition and it's barbarity. This doesn't excuse any other barbarity performed by non-Catholics - but there's no reason to resort to blatant whitewash done by the POV pimps who are responsible for this wiki article. Loginigol 10:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please give references about the workings of the Spanish Inquisition in the Netherlands. If you do, yours would really be a breakthrough in modern historiography... --Ecelan 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The relationship between the Dutch and the Inquisition really does need to be better explained. I'll try to borrow Geoffrey Park's The Dutch Revolt again, as I recall it had a fair amount about the Inquisition working in the Netherlands.  The statement in the article "even though the Dutch organized their own state-run inquisitions, it was feared that King Philip II would implement a new 'Spanish Inquisition' in the Netherlands to eliminate Protestantism" is ambiguous on many levels.  First, who is meant by "the Dutch"?  Does it mean Dutch Protestants or Dutch Catholics, or both?  The Netherlands were an appanage of the King of Spain; what role did he have in the creation of such state-run inquisitions?  Are foreign-appointed bishops of Dutch diocese being described as "Dutch" here?  Second, why the reference only to Philip II, and not to his predecessor Charles V, who apparently appointed a Grand Inquisitor for the Netherlands in the 1520s?  Third, why the reference to a "new 'Spanish Inquisition' to eliminate Protestantism'?"  Is this meant to suggest that the "state-run inquisitions" that already existed did not intend to eliminate Protestantism?


 * Ecelan may be technically correct that there was no "Spanish Inquisition" in the Netherlands, in that the Grand Inquisitor appointed by the King of Spain in the Netherlands was not responsible to Spain's Grand Inquisitor, but there certainly was an Inquisition set up by King Charles V of Spain, and according to one website I can find it executed about 2,000 Protestants in the Netherlands, many of them Anabaptists (http://www.bede.org.uk/inquisition.htm). (Anabaptists, of course, were often persecuted by fellow Protestants as well as by the Inquisition).  The existence of this persecution in the Netherlands also casts serious doubt on the article's statement that "Protestants in the decades and centuries to come would use this relatively short-lived persecution [i.e. in Italy] as the basis for their accusations about the awful 'Inquisition.'"  Pirate Dan (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Inquisition was actually established in Netherlands in 1522 by Charles V without any assitance of the papacy, although a year later Pope Adrian V confirmed the inquisitors he had appointed. Up to 1566, at least 914 heretics, mostly anabaptists, were executed. However, this inquisition was responsible only for slightly more than a hundred executions up to 1554. After 1530 the persecutions of heretics gradually fell under the jurisdiction of secular courts, much more effective (and much more cruel) than inquisition. The Council of Blood in 1567-74 executed over 1100 protestants. All these information are according to William Monter, Heresy executions in the Reformation Europe, in: Ole Peter Grell, Robert W. Scribner, Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 49-59 CarlosPn (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. To clarify, Monter and Grell have 914+ heresy executions 1522-66, with slightly over 100 of the death sentences imposed by the Inquisition and the rest by the secular courts?


 * This, though, throws even more doubt on the idea that the Inquisition's bad reputation with Protestants all stemmed from the Italian Inquisitions' activities. It seems much more a case of lumping all persecutions of Dutch Protestants, committed both by the Spanish and by Dutch Catholics, together under the name of the Inquisition, when in fact the Inquisition was responsible for only a minority of these persecutions.  As witness Loginigol's reference earlier to the sack of Antwerp, a truly horrible event, but perpetrated by unpaid, mutinous Spanish soldiers rather than by the Inquisition.  Pirate Dan (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read once more this fragment and now I'm not sure if all except slightly over 100 executed by inquiition were executed by secular courts. Monter, pp. 51-52 says that from 1529 the jurisdiction over heresy in Netherlands gradually fell under the control of secular courts, e.g. in Hainaut already in 1533 the heretics were persecuted without any assitance of ecclesiastical courts; he says "sooner or later - usually sooner - secular justice took control over prosections of hersy". On the p. 55 Monter presented the following statistics: in 1523-29, when the exclusive jurisdiction of inquisition was still recognized, there were 11 death sentences; between 1530 and 1554, the number amounted to 524, and only one fifth of them Monter attributed to the Flemish Inquisition. From 1555 until 1566 he recorded 379 executions for heresy but does not specify the courts; he says only that the most cruel in this period (with over 10 executions per year) were the municipal courts in Antwerp. CarlosPn (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This Page is Beyond POV
I really can't believe that this page exists. Of course there is nothing wrong with discussing historiography trends. But this page actually refers to anything the medieval Catholic Church opposed as heresy. And it argues that ceremony's that ended with executions of so-called heretics didn't actually end with executions because technically the word "auto de fe" only included the religious ceremony before hand. I think I'm going to write an article about prisoner's "last meals" and claim it has nothing to do with execution because technically you finish the meal before you get executed. In its extreme focus on proving that the inquisition wasn't as bad as someone might think, this page entirely forgets to mention the huge number of people expelled from Spain and its territories because they either refused to accept the Church dogma or didn't do so sufficiently to convince their neighbors. But hey, I guess they didn't get killed, especially not in an auto de fe, which didn't involve killing anyway! Right. I would be happy to delete this page but it looks like an edit war would erupt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.196.236 (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is not objective, and I believe also factually in error on many points. It needs to be qualifed as representing a non-standard opinion with possibly a political agenda.
I agree that this article has problems related to point of view. But in my opinion the problem is much more serious. It represents an attempt by some (possibly predominantly Catholic) authors to minimize the horrors of the inquisition by making false statements. To start with the first sentence: The Historical revision of the Inquisition is a historiographical project that has emerged in recent years.

What is this "historiographical project"? Who are its members? Where does it exist (outside the mind of the author of the article)? Could I join the project? How would I contact it? If "Writers associated with this project share the view of Edward Peters,", then how is it a "historiographical project"? Would not "Fan Club of Edward Peters" be a more objective description? If it is a "historiographical project" can I participate even if I see Edward Peters as following a political agenda to whitewash the Inquisitions for the benefit of the Catholic Church?

Any way, there are many other specific issues with the correctness and objectivity of the article as an article about the Inquisition. If, on the other hand, it is an article about the opinion of two authors, as it states: "The following text presents Peters’ and Kamen’s ideas.", then it should be titled accordingly, something like "Peters’ and Kamen’s ideas on Revising the History of the Inquisition".

I will offer more ideas on this as time allows. Wikipedia is such a wonderful resource for the world, and attempts to use it to promote political agendas like whitewashing the Inquisition to help shore up the image of the Catholic church should be resisted by all who want Wikipedia to represent truth rather than politics.

Since I have this online now let me insert some brief quotes readers review comments from Amazon which support my views:

AVID READER OF HISTORICAL FACTS, March 17, 2003 By A Customer Peter's book as many have previously clearly and rightfully stated, is a "whitewash" which downplays the true horrors of the Inquisition. I have read many books on the subject and to my knowledge the best and by far most accurate account on this dreadfull institution was written by Author: JEAN PLAIDY, Title: The SPANISH INQUISITION; it's rise, growth and end.

By 	Justus Pendleton (Colorado Springs, CO United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Peters attemps to show the inquisitions in the context of religious and secular realities of the time. Peters contention is that the inquisitions were not especially notable in either the kinds of crimes they prosecuted, the ways they prosecuted them, and the severity of punishments meted out. He is not wholly successful in this.

Another problem is that the author's main contention is that the inquisitions need to be examined in relation to the efforts of other judicial bodies of the time. Unfortunately, Peters rarely offers much other than saying essentially "others were even worse".

After reading both this and Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition I found some discrepancies that make me question Peters' bias. For instance on p.94 Peters says that "...the Spanish Inquisition was not permitted to sentence anyone to death." Kamen on p.202-3 offers a slightly different take, "[The secular authorities] were obliged to carry out the sentence of blood which the Holy Office was forbidden by law to carry out. In all this there was no pretence that the Inquisition was not the body directly and fully responsible for the deaths that occurred." Peters' statement comes across as a whitewashing of responsibility.

I request that the flag for Disputed Objectivity be replaced on this article untill the fictitious "historiographical project" is removed and the article is titled as what it is, a restatement of a minority and likely politically motivated attempt to revise the history of the inquisition as less terrible than the majority of historians know it to have been.

Thanks, Gary Phillips Scienceandhistorybuff (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * " I have read many books on the subject and to my knowledge the best and by far most accurate account on this dreadfull institution was written by Author: JEAN PLAIDY, Title: The SPANISH INQUISITION; it's rise, growth and end." So, the best book you have read on this institution it is a book written by a novelist writing gothic novels with a pseudonym! I thank you for having proved the truth of what Prof. Peter writes in his book!--2.40.138.243 (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

On thoughtcrime and NPOV concerns
Here's a passage from the article:


 * This document, along with a number of successive publications, was reprinted and translated throughout Europe and became the definitive source on “The Inquisition” for hundreds of years. “Montanus portray[ed] every victim of the Inquisition as innocent, every Inquisition official as venal and deceitful, [and] every step in its procedure as a violation of natural and rational law” (Peters 1988: 134). The majority of the “histories” about “The Inquisition” written after 1567 relied on Montanus as their main source.

The view of the cited historian (Peters) is portrayed to be that Montanus is wrong; notably, that the victims of the Inquisition were not innocent; that is, they were guilty. But this invites the question: guilty in what sense? "Innocent" and "guilty" are words that have separate meanings in morality and law. It is assuredly the case that the Inquisition operated in accordance with the law of the day, just as the Holocaust did, just as the Gulag did.

The article fails to clarify which of two possible positions the revisionist historians hold, one of which strikes me as reasonable (but a bit trivial) and the other atrocious:


 * 1) That the Inquisition was a lawful persecution, rather than a lawless one -- that it was the methodical and normative act of the church and civil authorities of the time, rather than a random criminal terror akin to a disorganized pogrom, lynching, or terrorist attack;
 * 2) That the Inquisition was a morally correct act, rather than an immoral one -- that the persons tortured and executed were correctly treated; that the "heretics" were in fact in the wrong for their beliefs; and the authorities in the right in persecuting them.

This confusion seems to be what's behind the NPOV objections above on this talk page: the article comes across as approving of a morally atrocious view which, upon reflection, it's possible the revisionists in question do not in fact hold. Anyone want to clarify? --FOo (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is far from being well written and in many points requires substantial changes. But I can't wholly agree with your statements you've put above. It's clear that inquisitorial persecutions were legal at that time and that they were immoral according to our current moral principles. But the moral standards were not always the same - and inquisition acted in accordance with the moral standards of its time. Protestants who attacked inquisition also persecuted their own "heretics" (e.g. anabaptists) - there was no war of "intolerance" represented by inquisition with "tolerance" represented by thew opponents of inquisition. Today we do not accept these standards but we cannot ignore the fact that they were such in the previous centuries. Further - it's not true that Holocaust and Gulag were legal persecutions. Both Nazis and Communists often broke the law that was formally in force in their countries. I don't know any law of the Nazi Germany which would formally allow to kill Untermenschen. Communists also ignored even their own laws. Finally - Nazis and Communist persecutions were against the moral standards of their time - the same cannot be said about inquisition. CarlosPn (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "and inquisition acted in accordance with the moral standards of its time."

Sorry, but that is nonsence. The Church had total power. The Church was the only one persecuting. The only darkness in the Dark Age was the Church.

You do not seem to know a single thing about the inquisition, Nazi Germany or the USSR, yet you post here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If CarlosPn knows nothing about the "inquisition, Nazi Germany or the USSR," you certainly don't know anything about recent historiography of the "Dark Ages." The term Dark Ages has been repeatedly shown to be a misnomer, as the Middle Ages were actually a time of intellectual and social change and evolution, not stagnation like the term "Dark Ages" claims. Furthermore, the Church did not have total power- secular rulers were consistently in combat with the church over power and authority. Just look at the Investiture Controversies that erupted throughout these supposed "Dark Ages."

I'm not suggesting that the Church didn't have power- it did. But this power does need to be considered in comparison with the time and age, just as horrible acts need to understood through the "moral standards" of the time.

Furthermore, CarlosPn is correct in his comparison of Nazi Germany and the Gulags. The Gulags were consistently being hailed as modern achievements in rehabilitation, and great strides were kept to purposefully mystify the fact that it was doing just the opposite. "What We Knew," a book recently published by Dr. Eric Johnson, showed that the average German's ability to passively accept the genocide hinged upon their internal ability to forget and ignore it- this implies that they understood it to be morally wrong even in their own time.

I will say that we should be able to hold moral judgements over the past. I should be able to say that the Inquisitions throughout Europe were perfect examples of religious intolerance and certainly examples of evil. But I'm not going to conflate that with knowing or understanding the inquisition, which should be the purpose of historical inquiry.

--160.102.26.12 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is page is 100% Catholic apologetics
It is a total fabrication. There is not a single truth on the entire page! Even a completely blank page would be more informative than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh really now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.198.75 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted conradictory consecutive sentences
I deleted the following two consecutive contradictory sentences (leading numerals and paragraphing added)

(1) Uniformity of worship does not appear to have been the motivation for setting up the Spanish Inquisition at all.

(2) “The Inquisition can only be understood within the framework of the centuries of its existence, when religious uniformity and orthodoxy and obedience to authority were enforced by almost all political and religious institutions, and were considered essential for the very survival of society" (Hitchcock 1996).

Sentence (1) seems to me to be highly unlikely: why else were 100s of thousands of Muslims and Jews exiled and persecuted other than for the sake of uniformity of worship? But since this article concerns revisionism perhaps sentence (1) should be included somewhere, only not incoherently just before sentence (2). --NCDane (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Like most of this page, this just seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT; reading an article with "Historical revision" in the title one might expect to find things that appear "highly unlikely". Nor are they necessarily contradictory: "Uniformity of worship" is a good deal narrower than "religious uniformity and orthodoxy and obedience to authority", and the first sentence only refers to "the motivation for setting up the Spanish Inquisition". I agree they could be clearer, but I don't think the removal is justified. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why hasn't somebody done something about this page?
People have been posting complaints about this page since 2005 or 2006, and nothing has been done. Why?

I won't go into details, because the has been a plethora of well stated details already posted. This page is way beyond mere POV. It is an abomination. Its existence, as it currently exists, is an insult and a degradation of Wikipedia itself. It should not be here at all, as it currently is.

This page is an egregious bag of dirt. I would delete the damn thing myself, but it would just result in Wiki Wars. Someone with more power than I have needs to do something about this. This really stinks. Worldrimroamer (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Specific mistakes on this page
Rather than making vague, unactionable noises about bias, how about some discussion of specific errors and weaknesses of this article? Here are a few I've spotted:


 * "From the Middle Ages well into the seventeenth century in Catholic Europe, the law stated that the worst offence that could be committed was that which threatened the unity and security of the Catholic Church, and most importantly, the salvation of souls.[2]" This sentence implies that there was one "the law" (which suggests civil rather than canon law) across all of "Catholic Europe", which is almost certainly false. The cited footnote is unrelated.
 * The tone of the entire "Understanding inquisitions" section is one of calm and reasoned juridical process, which is belied by the later discussion of violence and torture.
 * "The two heresies that gave birth to the French medieval inquisitions were that of the Cathars (also known as the Albigensians) and the Waldensians." This is ridiculously, absurdly offensive in its bias; it's analogous to saying that, "The two inferior races that gave birth to the Nazi movement were those of the Jews and Gypsies." Persecuted groups do not "give birth" to their persecution.
 * The section "The 'Grand Program'" uses the word "reform" uncritically, giving a positive connotation to a historical movement that led to thousands of brutal deaths. Likewise, throughout the article the word "heresy" is used uncritically, which is to say, the viewpoint of the medieval Church is recited in Wikipedia's voice.
 * "Once an arrest was made, the accused was given several opportunities to admit to any heretical behavior before the charges against him/her were identified." This is just about the most positive possible spin that could be put on the notion of demanding confessions without even presenting the accused with the charges against her.
 * The section "The auto de fe", and many other passages throughout the article, uncritically accept the legal fiction of the strict separation of the civil and religious authorities, as if there were no connection or collaboration between them whatsoever. This is simply not credible.
 * "Spanish inquisitions were not exceptionally different from other European courts of the time in their prosecution of these offences, as many of these charges were viewed as part of a broad class of moral crimes that raised legitimate concern to spiritual and secular courts in an age when religion was regarded as the fundamental foundation of society." The unquestioning, direct (unquoted) use of "legitimate" is troubling indeed: it is not Wikipedia's place to say that this was legitimate.
 * "Protestants in the decades and centuries to come would use this relatively short-lived persecution as the basis for their accusations about the awful “Inquisition.”" This takes as read that the Protestants are wrong and even unjust in their claims.
 * The entire section on "The Creation of 'The Inquisition'" parrots this line, flatly and in Wikipedia's voice accusing Protestants of "creating" (that is, falsifying) accounts of Protestant martyrs, crafting "propaganda", and perpetuating a "myth".

These are just the most obvious cases I've noted in reading over the article. As a whole, the article is uncritical of the claims presented, and recites them in Wikipedia's voice rather than presenting them as points of controversy. --FOo (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether the following has been covered elsewhere on this Talk Page, but the following two sentences seem deeply dubious:


 * "Torture was used; however, it was allowed solely in cases that involved charges of religious heresy only. Because many inquisitorial trials did not involve heresy alone, torture was relatively rare."


 * It seems highly unlikely indeed that torture was only used in cases (as implied by these sentences) solely involving religious heresy - i.e. that if there were other charges torture was *not* to be used. This utterly beggers belief. I have asked for citations for these sentences. If they're not forthcoming in 24 hours, then I have little hesitation in striking them out. Alfietucker (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why nothing on the work of Ben Zion Netanyahu?
IIUC his work is central to the debate about why the conversos were targeted. Yet there seems to be no reference to either his work, or debate over it. For an article entitled historical revision of the inquisition this article seems rather narrowly focused on the "black legend" questions. Surely that is not the only issue in the historiagraphy subject to revision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The article should stay
The problem with this article is that for good old wasp Weltanschauung it is hard to overcome several centuries of Black Legend. Some people (laypersons mostly) aren't just willing to accept Kamen's work or any academic revision, no matter how standard or accurate it is... they are quite happy with Elizabethan propaganda. Well, leave it to historians. The article describes a fact, there is an academic interest in finding out what the Inquisition was about, and the (surprising for some) outcome of it shouldn't be dismissed by popular belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.122.46.45 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This article absolutely should stay. The Inquisition and the Dark Ages covered many centuries of history and represents the mass murder of millions. This horrible history should be not revised and criticized, but publicized.JGabbard (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Whose society?
" ...many of these charges were viewed as part of a broad class of moral crimes that raised legitimate concern to spiritual and secular courts in an age when religion was regarded as the fundamental foundation of society."

The main cause to the destabilisation of the fanatical religosity were that there was no acquiescence - certainly not within the worker classes who mostly revolted. History in this case was made for the elite. The concern of the elite rulers ought not be called 'legitimate' lest it appear they were on the right side of human justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.50.208.18 (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The trouble with altering history to suit current perceptions is that current perceptions change while history doesn't. If we take the position that these events happened, we are certainly not obliged to comment on them, using today's moral perspective (I almost said "moral arrogance"!).
 * I've been exposed to secular history from the Middle Ages which wasn't really influenced by religion that much, and it was much more horrible, without any resort to trial, appeal, or anything resembling 'justice.'
 * The Inquisition build the foundation from which current justice is dispensed. For example, we have the complete trial record of Joan of Arc. While the reasons for her execution seem more political than religious or judicial, the point is, the record can be reviewed. This was impossible before the Inquisition. Forget transparency! Forget judicial predictability.
 * All prior governments back to the Summerian expected people to submit to a single religion almost without exception. And the nobles ran everything right up until 1790 in most places except America and maybe Switzerland. Student7 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger?
It has been suggested that Historical revision of the Inquisition be merged into Inquisition. I support the suggestion.

The lead says, "The Historical revision of the Inquisition is a historiographical project that started to emerge in the 1970s, with the opening of formerly closed archives, the development of new historical methodologies, and, in Spain, the death of the ruling dictator Francisco Franco in 1975. New works of historical revisionism changed our knowledge of the history of the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions. Writers associated with this project share the view of Edward Peters, a prominent historian in the field..."

The lead does not seem to describe the content; none of the project, the writers, the new historical methodology or the newly-opened archives gets adequate mention in the article. Peters is cited 54 times, Kamen 7 times, few others. Two publications and two authors (and a few magazine articles) since the mid 1970s scarcely qualify as a project, especially since Kamen's first edition was published in 1965, a decade before the project started to emerge. The article mostly cites Peters for his views without citing any evidence or methods (new or otherwise). The article does not identify Peters as the creative source for these views. It does not even claim that the views are new. These are not neglected authors or neglected viewpoints. Citations from Kamen and Peters are about 20% of those in Inquisition. Kamen is very heavily cited in Spanish Inquisition where Peters is cited 4 times.

Peters, his book or his views may be notable, but I see nothing to justify a separate article for his views. Merge. Peters' work can be placed in context within a Historiography of the Inquisition article or section. Such a section can discuss the new historical methodology and the newly-opened archives. Helen Rawlings has a 20-page introductory chapter on the Historiography of the Inquisition in her relatively recent book The Spanish Inquistion (available online). "Since the mid-1970s, a new school of historians have examined the institution afresh from more objective multi-disciplinary stand-points that have challenged the findings of traditional scholarship." "Differing points of view have emerged..." The broader content of that chapter are a better match for the title and descriptive lead of this article.104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 74% of the "added text" originated from one editor.104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter whether there are 2 sources, 3 sources or 125 sources. As long as there are multiple sources, the subject itself is considered notable and worth covering. From there, we need to address WP:WEIGHT issues but the fact that 74% of the text added came from one author isn't really relevant either. The justification for a separate article is WP:SPLIT, not a consideration as to whether a particular book or author's views are separately worth covering. The subject is what we cover (and there has been plenty of historical revisionism of the Inquisition in its various forms) and how we cover it is then a matter of discussion.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Generic good reason for merger: Merging Overlap. For most sections of this page, there is a corresponding section in Inquisition.  Superficially, this article is simply an (alternative?) interpretation of the same history.  The exception is The Creation of "The Inquisition" section which has unique content.  That content would make a nice addition to Inquisition.104.173.68.20 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that much of that section is original research and that which isn't isn't sourced properly. I've just reverted a number of additions that added even more original research. If your interest is scholarship and research, by all means you should be encouraged in that endevour. But that's not what we do here. You can't simply list a number of groups/countries that had issues with Spain and conclude (based on your own research) that there was opposition to the Inquisition. We would need sources for each of those claims, individually.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Kamen and Peters have chapters on the subject of the section. Who else does?  If quoting Kamen & Peters is original research, the whole page is in jeopardy.  Please explain your objection in more detail.104.173.68.20 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To be concrete, please list your objects to changes in The Black Legend. It is mostly a quotation from Kamen.  My few words do not alter his meaning.  Well sourced.  No original research.104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Beyond the incorrect formatting for the references themselves, we have an article about the Black Legend. You know this because you have edited that article too. There is no need for the addition of information about that subject by way of a quote which makes no reference to the subject at hand. We refer to that as "synthesis" - bringing together disparate facts (like quotes about the manner in which the Black Legend developed) to draw inferences about the historical revision of the Inquisition simply isn't necessary. Its technically original research and would still be redundant if it weren't. That aside, as mentioned, you should try to follow style guides with regard to referencing - you're editing a range of articles in the same slap-dash manner - when formatting is really quite a simple thing to get right, it undervalues your contributions if you don't bother to reference them.
 * This edit is obviously problematic. Though none of those things actually relate to the subject at hand (hostility toward Spain, Machiavelli and Ferdinand, Italians and Neapolitans, Germanic mercenaries, Luther and the New World) they are lumped together to paint a picture of some broad opposition toward the Spanish Inquisition. Given the article is about the Inquisition, broadly, and not the Spanish Inquisition in particular, that's problematic. But it is even more so when you consider that those ideas are being brought together by you, not some external reliable source. We don't conduct original research and new ideas about why certain folks might have opposed some elements of the Spanish Inquisition don't belong in this article or this encyclopedia in that form.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To be continued as a fresh subject. This has drifted from "merger".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't want to get off-topic here, but the pope was often captive of various countries for lengthy periods (including Spain). Galileo, a friend of the pope, was prosecuted (by the Roman Inquisition) mainly on Spanish insistence, for example. The material seems correct to me. If it needs more citations, I suppose they can be obtained. But the Spanish Inquisition was notorious among Catholic countries, as well as Protestant ones. Note that flooding material with cites is discouraged. Student7 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit war
The deletion/reversion/deletion that has very recently occurred should be accompanied by discussion. In my opinion Kamen is not truly an apologist. The issue could be resolved by a merger or by broadening the topic. Defining the topic as agreement with Peters makes it vulnerable. Citing Peters almost exclusively is a weakness.104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Creation of "The Inquisition" section
Editor Stalwart111 has problems with The Creation of "The Inquisition" section. The section is claimed to be original research and improperly sourced. Is the section going to be deleted or fixed? The section does not seem to reflect the range of views in Kamen's chapter 15 and Peters' chapter 5. It is difficult to understand the significance of some of the material (like The Revolt of the Netherlands) without more context (like the Dutch Revolt mentioned in a later section) which is largely assumed by the historians. The section mostly ignores Peters' point that the distorted history eventually became part of the culture; a popular theme in Gothic fiction is the mythical Inquisition. The section is inadequate as historiography because it ignores later publications. Suggestions?104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Montanus section
This page currently says, "In 1567, the Spanish Protestant Antonio del Corro, a close relative of an inquisitor and ferocious enemy of the Spanish Inquisition published A Discovery and Plaine Declaration of Sundry Subtill Practices of the Holy Inquisition of Spain  under the pseudonym Reginaldus Gonzalvus Montanus (Peters 1988: 133)." Reginaldus Gonzalvus Montanus points instead to Casiodoro de Reina. Kamen mentions both authors. How can this divergence of opinion be gracefully included in the page?104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Effort made today.104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Early Catholic opposition section (Proposed to Stalwart111).
"Surprisingly, an early major source of anti-Inquisition propaganda happened to be Catholic in origin. With the outstanding exception of the the Holy Roman Empire, every significant Catholic state in Europe, including France, was at some time hostile to Spain."(Kamen 2014: 375)  The papacy "came to view [the Spaniards] as oppressors".(Kamen 2014: 375)  "The unfavorable image of Spain extended also to the Inquisition.  The most successful revolts against the tribunal occurred in the Italian territories of the Spanish crown.  There were risings in 1511 and 1526 in Sicily...  Ferdinand the Catholic attempted to introduce the Spanish tribunal into Naples ... but effective protests blocked his bid."(Kamen 2014: 375)  "Otherwise routine criticism of Spanish military conduct, unfair advantages seen to be given to Catalan merchants and administrators, and the local outrage at the military sacks of Prato in 1512 and of Rome itself in 1527, intensified anti-Spanish sentiment..."(Peters 1988: 132)  "In 1525 the Venetian ambassador claimed that everyone trembled before the Holy Office [of the Inquisition]."(Kamen 2014: 375)104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Prato is informative.104.173.68.20 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"The Inquisition" vs the Spanish Inquisition
Editor Stalwart111 complained that I addressed a narrow section of "The Inquisition".

The Creation of "The Inquisition" is mostly about the Spanish Inquisition. That is the one that created the inflated public and historical image. Montanus wrote from a Spanish perspective. The Netherlands fought the Spaniards. Rome was trashed by troops of the King of Spain. Famous paintings were by Spaniards. Spanish records were better and have been available to historians longer. The archives of the Vatican were opened after Peters' book was written. Look at Peters' section titles: "The Spanish Inquisition and the Black Legend" and "The Netherlands Revolt and the Spanish Inquisition". Non-issue.104.173.68.20 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Revolt of the Netherlands section
The Revolt of the Netherlands section says, "However, exporting the Inquisition to the Netherlands was never in the plans of the Spanish Habsburg rulers, at least after the time of Charles V." without citing a source. This might be true, depending on definitions, but is misleading. The Story of Civilization, Vol VII, The Age of Reason Begins, by Will and Ariel Durant (1961) pages 439-440: Philip II (Charles' son, King of the Netherlands and Spain) acquired 11 new bishoprics (to supplement 4) in the Netherlands, staffed with men willing to enforce rules against heresy. Philip, from Spain, sent names of suspected heretics. "Hardly a day passed without an execution." War between the Netherlands and Spain eventually followed. Peters' similar account of Philip's actions is on his page 148. Philip is quoted to the effect that the Netherlands' version of the Inquisition was "much less merciful". The section currently fails to explain why anti-Inquisition propaganda was so effective in a largely Catholic country. While both countries were "Catholic", their religious perspectives were quite different - humane humanist vs somber uncompromising. Culture clash.

Improving this section will be challenging. There are pages of context to be condensed around the image of the Inquisition. A central figure of many events in the Inquisitions was Philip II of Spain who allowed no biographies and arranged for his papers to be burned on his death. He was a polarizing guy in his time; in the absence of records he has polarized biographers and historians. His page says, "Philip's gravest mistake over the long run was his attempt to violently eradicate Protestantism from the Netherlands which was a major economic asset for the empire. Under harsh occupation, the Dutch finally rebelled and wrested independence after an eighty-year war, the strain of which did Philip's realm little good." Was this violent eradication initially the Inquisition? "Philip's rule in the seventeen separate provinces known collectively as the Netherlands faced many difficulties; this led to open warfare in 1568. He insisted on direct control over events in the Netherlands despite being over two weeks' ride away in Madrid. There was discontent in the Netherlands about Philip's taxation demands, and the incessant persecution of protestants." Incessant persecution sounds like the Inquisition.104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Attempt made today.104.173.68.20 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The Black legend section
Kamen says: "The anti-Spanish attitudes are sometimes referred to as a "Black Legend"..." "Persistent employment of the label for ideological ends in order to rebut any criticism of Spain's imperial record has made it both unsuitable for use and inaccurate. In any case many of Spain's actions, as with imperial powers today, were all too real and no "legend".  Montano's [Montanus'] famous book attacking the Inquisition, for example was in good measure a factually accurate account.  In the same way, accounts of military atrocities committed by Spain in the Netherlands and Italy were usually based on fact.  At all times, imperial nations tend to suffer ... in the arena of public opinion, and Spain was no exception, becoming the first victim of a long tradition of polemic that picked on the Inquisition as the most salient point of attack."

This seems relevant to me: right book, author, chapter, subject; Montanus, Inquisition, Netherlands, Italy, polemic. Kamen provides an ideal recent quote by a noted historical revisionist of the Inquisition. Kamen is familiar with Peters' work, citing him a handful of times in the relevant chapter. They have a common understanding of the term.104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh
Isn't it enough that the "real" article for the Inquisition is heavily filled with apologist views, do they really need their own propaganda page too? This page should not really exist in any case, there are private forums for those who want to propagate their biased views all over. As somebody else said: No wonder Wikipedia isn't being taken seriously by many. *Sigh* Swedra (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The historians cited in this article are mainstream secular historians. Very few - if any - of them are Catholic, much less "Catholic apologists", and their views have become widely accepted among historians of the medieval period. Ryn78 (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the editors have learned a lot from editing articles like this from WP:NPOV sources. The history in English-speaking nations, descended from Anglicans, mostly contain a pov version of the Inquisition. This is taken for granted throughout the English-speaking world. There are other topics that joint editing has brought out "the truth." And the influence, in our highly politically segregated society hasn't all been one-sided, but would be non-WP:TOPIC to name here. Student7 (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The (respected) sources are more neutral than this page. As books, they have room for nuance.  The Inquisition is the reputation of inquisitions which was trashed by critics.  Historians try to uncover the reality behind the reputation.  The Church and Spain have recently expressed regrets over related historical events.104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Historians cited in this article have in fact studied the reality of the subject by conducting exhaustive studies of the transcripts and other internal documents of these courts. The consensus among these historians - who are mostly secular - is that the issue has been distorted beyond recognition by polemic sources and popular books, movies, etc. This article reflects that consensus. Ryn78 (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Documenting that consensus with citations would be welcome.104.173.68.20 (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Understanding inquisitions
Moved the following here as the note does not seem to support the text, or at least is an interpretation.
 * From the Middle Ages well into the 17th century, the law in Catholic Europe stated that the worst offence that could be committed was that which threatened the unity and security of the Catholic Church, and most importantly, the salvation of souls.
 * (note)"This concern is reflected by a Papal bull issued on 18 April 1482 by Pope Sixtus IV, bull in which he protested:"that in Aragon, Valencia, Majorca, and Catalonia the Inquisition has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls but by lust for wealth. Many true and faithful Christians, on the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves, and other lower and even less proper persons, have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular prisons, tortured and condemned as relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and property and handed over to the secular arm to be executed, to the peril of souls, setting a pernicious example, and causing disgust to many."*Kamen, Henry. The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision, Orion Publishing Group, November 2000, isbn = 1-84212-205-3, p. 49.


 * Quote mentions neither "law", "worst offense", nor "unity and security". The citation seems to pertain to the source of the quotation, but it is unclear if the preceding sentence is also from Kamen or the editor. Mannanan51 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)