Talk:Spanish Inquisition/Archive 1

Cleanup
Tagged as needing cleanup due to lack of organization, doubtful facts, poor language use and slight bias 63.3.72.142 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

MISNOMER
Spanish Inquisition? What? There's no English Inquisition? No Italian Inquisition? No Portuguese Inquisition? No French Inquisition? IT OCCURED THROUGHOUT ALL EUROPE!!! This is just a continuation of the myth ttaht it was exclusively or mostly Spanish... It occured wherever the church had enough influence!!!

err No it didin't, the Spanish Inquisition was a unique institution set up directly by the Spanish Monarchy.

Level of Violence Relative to Rest of Europe
The rule when discussing historical atrocitites in wikipedia seems to be that they need to be placed in their historical context. For example, on the British Empire article, when someone wants to write about factual atrocities attributed to the British empire, the stuff always gets deleted. Someone will say, "oh, but the French and Portuguese were just as bad if not worse!" Why doesn't the spanish inquisition get the same treatment? Can anyone prove that the spanish inquisition was any worse than Elizabethan torture and executions? There needs to be a section placing the inquisition in its proper historical context.

--I agree. In a history book I am reading for High school, it says that the Germans used boiling alive in oil. Not any quick death either. While the English used hanging-drawing-and-quartering! Most unpleasant. In fact NOT fiction, out of 2-3 thousand people tried, only 150-200 people were executed. Not because they were "in the line of fire" of the Spanish government, but because they were people of religions opposed to the state religion who falsely claimed to have renounced their religions and embraced Catholicism only to gain high level government positions and then proceeded to promote their own religion's ideals. It was not unusual for an entire government to be of one faith and not permit those who would promote a different faith to enter the government. Those executed by the Spanish Inquisition were essentialy traitors to the Spanish government, giving the government the same, if not more right than neighboring countries, to put on trial and execute those who were GUILTY. I am Catholic and am constantly appauled at the attacks on the history of the Church. I hope that by putting in this small bit of info, I can help clear any fog of untruth that may still linger over the Spanish Inquisition.

Image of homosexual man being tortured, and quotation from Herrera Puga

 * Okay, I think I fixed it. I don't know how.  Just went to an older edit, and saved it.  Think I'll go hang my head in shame for awhile.....Polycarp7 22:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I copied and pasted an older edit, but it doesn't contain all the headings and etc. I have no clue how to do that. The article is up, but really needs to be done right. There has to be a way to recover from older edits, besides copying and pasting.  I'm so sorry for being a klutz.  I just don't know how I did it, but I must have done it!  Polycarp7 22:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yikes! Where did the article go?  I wanted to make an edit, and the whole thing disappeared! I'm a real novice at this editing stuff, and I'm afraid I did something wrong.  I know the article can be recovered, I just don't know how.Polycarp7 21:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good question. How does one revert such an article? (can't find anything about how to do it)--Wasabe3543 22:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I am also removing the "suspected of being homosexual" reference. This image is also on a few other web sites, with a different caption, nothing to do with homosexuals.  One simply states "The Spanish Inquisition." As I stated below, homosexuals were primarily tried by the secular courts, except in Aragon, the only inquisitional court which had jurisdiction over homosexuality.Polycarp7 17:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed this from the image of torture:

"According to Herrera Puga the authorities: ''"placed no limits on the means; in this way they used the rack, the lash, fire, etc. In some cases... they applied padlocked irons to the flesh which even led to the amputation of a hand...""

My reason for removing it is because it is simply untrue. I have a problem with the entire image, if fact, because it appears to be more from the "myth of the inquisition" genre than any factual representation. I will be happy to lay out my reasons in more detail if necessary, but suffice it to say now that this image does not depict any of the 3 varieties of torture that were used by the inquisition at that time. The instruments being used appear to be more from the "Black Legend" than what was used in reality. It might also interest you to know that, according to Kamen, (Spanish Inquisition p. 268) in "1509 the Suprema ordered that no action was to be taken against homosexuals except when heresy was involved." After 1529, but only in Aragon, was sodomy an inquisitorial matter. Not even the Roman Inquisition had jurisdiction over sodomy. It was, primarily, a "crime against the state" and it was the state, primarily, that had jurisdiction in this area. Again, according to Kamen, the secular courts were merciless in, in contrast to the Inquisition, which exercised a certain "liberality" which can be seen in the fact that some death sentences were commuted, and only those above age 25 were ever executed. And how does anyone know this is a "suspected homosexual?" Polycarp7 06:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you state what the three kinds of torture you mention are? Do you have a source to support your claim that no other kinds of torture were used? Hasdrubal 16:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The image is from the Enlightenment era, when making the Church look bad was good sport. See Middle Ages in history for a background on how the period has been inaccurately portrayed over the centuries (including our own). Stbalbach 01:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I am adding it again. It is verified in "Homosexuality and Civilization" by Louis Crompton and that quote is a contemporary historian of the time-period. Apollomelos 04:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is another quote from a German visiting Spain in 1495 about "sodomites": "hanging upside down with their genitals about their necks". The atrocities are well-documented in the Inquisition against the crime "against nature". I can give you numerous accounts of the ages preserved in the Inquisitor's detailed records. Apollomelos 04:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Apollomelos, a book on the history of homosexuality is maybe (probably?) not a very reliable source on the Spanish Inquisition. In many texts about the Spanish Inquisition, the facts are tainted with the black legend. The fact that "Herrera Puga" was "a contemporary historian of the time-period" is actually a bad thing since at the time a fierce propaganda campaign was (successfully) trying to create a diabolical image of the Inquisition.


 * "The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden (which never was used in Spain).


 * Was "Herrera Puga" unbiased? If you actually have evidence of the use of these methods, please show them. But beware not to use the work of polemists as source, there are many of them. Actually, it seems to me that there are more polemists talking about the inquisition than experts studying the subject. --201.9.7.123 13:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. Does anyone know of any places one could visit in Spain to learn about the Spanish Inquisition?

Removal of paragraph
I removed a paragraph inserted after the first paragraph that seemed to me to be both POV and not to fit in with the structure of the article. If there is any thing of value in it perhaps if could be reintroduced in the appropriate section (reproduced below for convenience) Billlion 18:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Endless was the catalogue of most pious men and eminent scholars who underwent purification, as it is termed, in this den of superstition and tyranny. The culprit was not permitted to speak with his attorney, except in the presence of the inquisitor and a notary, who took notes, and certified what passed; and so far from the names of the informer or of the witnesses being supplied, every thing that could facilitate the explanation of them was expunged from the declarations; and the prisoners, one and all, in these dungeons might truly exclaim, with Fray Luis de Leon, "I feel the pain, but see not the hand which inflicts it." Even in the early days of the inquisition, torture was carried to such an extent, that Sextus IV., in a brief published Jan. 29, 1482, could not refrain from deploring the wellknown truth, in lamentations which were re-echoed from all parts of Christendom. The formula of the sentence of torture began thus, Christo nomine invocato; and it was therein expressed, that the torture should endure as long as it pleased the inquisitors; and a protest was added, that, if during the torture the culprit should die, or be maimed, or if effusion of blood or mutilation of limb should ensue, the fault should be chargeable to the culprit, and not to the inquisitors. The culprit was bound by an oath of secresy, strengthened by fearful penalties, not to divulge any thing that he had seen, known, or heard, in the dismal precincts of that unholy tribunal?a secresy illegal and tyrannical, but which constituted the soul of that monstrous association, and by which its judges were sheltered against all responsibility.

This user has inserted a number of paragraphs like this, in many different articles. They all seem to be POV, and written in some 17th century English dialect. Jayjg |  (Talk)  18:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ferdinand and jealousy
The fact that the writer(s) is saying that Ferdinand was jealous of any other power within his borders is an allegation unless he/she has a journal by Ferdinand stating that he was jelous. Otherwise the writer(s) is providing false information and leading those who have read this article to be biased against Ferdinand. this could start a war with any persons who believe what Ferdinad and Isabella did was good.


 * In which galaxy are the creation of the Inquisition and the expulsion of all Jews from Spain "good"? -- Zoe

Actually, we could put one together starting from a set of values that isn't that far removed from our own various sets of values, if we allow for a "lesser evil" argument. I won't try it here, even for the sake of academic discussion, as it would be too long. But it's worth noting, you missed the point: not whether it actually was good, but whether there are material and non-ignoreable sets of people who might find it dismissive to brush it aside like that. PML.

This is an extremely POV article in its current form. The mention of "found Christ" relating to the Waldensian heresy is a glaring example of this. There is also no mention of the fact that many of those who were sentenced to be burned in the autos da fe were in fact only burnt in effigy, so the numbers of people historically stated as "killed" are accepted by other authors on this subject as being grossly inflated. There is also no mention of the Iniquisition's important role as state-sanctioned censor. The article could also benefit from a more detailed discussion of the history and social context of the conversos. -- Gene Poole

Wrong article
I doubt that the Spanish Inquisition reached Scandinavia or Venice. Probably, that should be in Inquisition.

A reorganization separating Historic development (diachronic) and the usual work of Inquisition (static) is neede.

Black legend
The foreign propaganda ("Black Legend"), singularly Protestant Countries, in creating a diabolical image of the Inquisition is recognized by Henry Kamen in this book.

William Thomas Walsh, in "CHARACTERS OF THE INQUISITION", implies that the popular story of the Inquisition is part of the " Black Legend,".

Why can't comparise in this article the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition with the 150,000 documented witch burnings?


 * Once again, please read about NPOV. There is no problem with presenting alternative historical explanations as long as they are properly attributed. Just replacing numbers by non-Catholic historians with those by Catholic historians is not the way to write a neutral article. The 3,000 to 5,000 "documented" executions by the Inqusition vs. the 150,000 "documented" witch burnings smack of vastly different standards of documentation. --Eloquence 02:34 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

¿Why the original version of this article (with numbers by "non-Catholic historians", as you say, and a non neutral language) don't caused the same discussion? That it's the question, my friend... Really, I used catholic web pages for this experiment. I'm bad :)


 * Imagine an article about smoking that reproduces verbatim the perspective of the tobacco industry. Then imagine one that reproduces current scientific opinion. Which one is more likely to be biased? Of course an organization which is directly responsible for these crimes is likely to downplay them. That does not mean that its perspective is worthless, it should just be weighed against others. --Eloquence 03:20 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Spanish inquisition and Black legend should be separate articles. The first article should be a balanced, NPOV article on a portion of Spanish history. The second article should be about the political uses of history and the politicization of history. Obviously opponents of Spain have used the inquisition for propaganda purposes, but the Black legend comprises much more than the inquisition. And regardless of how people have used the Spanish inquisition politically, it was real and merits its own NPOV article. Slrubenstein

An text from Blasco Ibanez, a spanish novelist:

They say: Oh. I know that country. It is the country of the Inquisición!

It does not seem, gentlemen, but that in no Earth country, there has been Inquisición more than in Spain. Anyone would think that the Inquisición was something that they invented in Seville or Burgos. Something that took a Spanish stamp and that was only known in Spain. The inquisición was a product of the religious fights. It was like a defense of a belief against another belief that rose opposite. But, Inquisición was it in all the catholic countries of Europe. Why to make an exception of us, the Spaniards and to make see because the Inquisition was something so only ours? In France, where there are so many writers, catholic, who by national spirit denigrate to Spain, even painting the Spanish catholicism like something aside from the others, like something Barbarian influenced by the national spirit.

In France, at night of San Bartholomew, killed more people than the Spanish Inquisición in three centuries, and, nevertheless, already it knows that always they say that? Inquisition is something Spanish. And, as soon as speech of Spain and all we, the Spaniards, stayed portrayed as a species of inquisidores.

The religious fights have made violences of a side and another one. The protestants writers attack Spain continuously, but the protestants have also made violences and also they have killed to much more people by religion.

In Ireland, Cromwell ordered to kill the sixth part of the population to be catholic. ¿And the religious war in the north of Ireland with countless acts of violence and irrational massacres against the Irish catholics on the part of the protestant authorities of England?

Miguel Servet, a spanish scientific, first whom the circulation of the blood discovered, died burned in Geneva. Who burn to him? Then, they were not the inquisidores nor the catholic religion. He was Calvin, the representative of the French Protestantism. And in England the religious fights have made spill blood. The monarchists, to defend protestantism, have persecuted to the catholics of there, the most irrational way. In the last centuries, by the way, he not only burned the Inquisition since also he burned regular justice, burned the courts to all person who took by wizards or who took by witches. And he was enough that an old poor woman by his extravagances called the attention of his neighbors so that they burned it. And where happened this? Then in the city of Boston, the United States, century seventeen. They burned to women by witches. And those countries remove spaniards continuously us as samples, like types, of the Inquisition.


 * Actually Servet fled to Geneva escaping Catholic persecution. And the Pope alerted Calvin, if I'm not wrong. -- Davidme

I've removed the section on the Black Legend, as there is already a lengthy separate article, and it was only vaguely linked to the rest of this article. - Hephaestos 08:02 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

In the following paragraph, I don't understand the last sentence:

Of the several Inquisitions, the Spanish Inquisition had by far the worst record for corruption and malice. The Inquisition began in the city of Seville, and the cruelty and terror for which it is known began there immediately. The "guilty" often had their hands chopped off before they were burnt, often alive. Still, there were cases of criminals who sinned against the Christian faith, since the Inquisition prisons were far less harsh that the Civil Justice ones.

Is this saying that some criminals managed (somehow) to get their cases moved into the Inquisition process instead of the civil justice process because the Inquisition process was less harsh? If so, IMHO, it needs to be a little clearer. If not, what is it saying?

-- RandyKramer - 26 June 2003 - When did Spain rule Venice or Scandinavia? Rmhermen 12:46 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hey Everyone, From what i've actually learned about the 'hard facts' of the spanish inquisition,the article is completely off on almost everything. Only 3 to 5 thousand people were killed at all during the years the office of the inquisition was up and running, a far cry from the 150,000 witch burnings in the rest of Europe. The inquisitors themselves were all lawyers, and they never punished anyone because of a single allegation. They were so stern in their practice of punishment only after proof that they completely rejected all allegations of any one being a witch, a choice the rest of Europe never wisened up to. Furthermore, there are no accounts of more then 2 percent of the population being tortured more then once, and no accounts at all of anyone being tortured more then twice. The supposed burnings very rarely occured, and the supposed horrible dungeons were actually better then that of the Spanish government's normal prisons, so much so that people with criminal charges tried to get themselves placed into inquisitoral prisons by pretending to be jewish. The inquisitors as a whole only worked in urban areas, where 20% of the population lived. The other 4/5ths were rural farmers which the inquisitors generally never went to, due to the fact that during the winters the roads would freeze over and travel was impossible. In the summer, tempratures would reach incredibly unpleasant levels, which provides for inquisitors who half the time didn't go into rural areas because they could not, and half the time because they didn't want to. Most civilians in rural areas never heard of, saw, or knew of any inquisitors at all. They didn't even have that many men to enforce it. There were never more then ten inquisitors per city. Lastly I'd like to say that its quite ridicuolous that spain has been so clearly villified. I'm a jew, and not a citizen of spain, so my own perspective would never be so biased towards spain, but even i feel disgusted at how wrongly portrayed they are in history with respect to the inquisition. I sincerly hope that Wikipedia will revise this article immediately. Sincerely, Gahl Liberzon.

it's been hacked
The text of the page has been replaced with "U ARE A FAGGOT" Obviously, this needs fixing...


 * Someone fixed it two hours after it occurred. &mdash; Chameleon 13:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Spanish Inquisition in the News
An article in Today's Guardian offers some radically lower numbers for those actually executed by the Spanish Inquisition: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1239577,00.html mennonot 09:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And then... The pope seeks forgiveness for Spanish Inquisition: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_040616si.shtml mennonot 16:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Removed:


 * Many more are said to have died or spent many years in the prisons and dungeons. It has been suggested that as many as 32,000 people may have been burnt alive, or in effigy, during the 340 years of the Inquisition's existence.

This is obvious weaselry. If a source for these suggestions is cited, they can go back in. &mdash;No-One Jones 20:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * ''The Inquisition was used against Protestants in the Netherlands during their war for independence from Spain.
 * This sentence is false. The Inquisition only had jurisdiction in the countries that were "granted" with it by the Pope, independently of their political ruler (king, marquess, count, ec.). As far I know Flanders/Netherlands NEVER had an own Inquisition, and the Spanish "Holy Office" (union of the respective Castilian and Aragonese inquisitions) never had jurisdiction in the Netherlands as they weren't part of any of those kingdoms/crowns.--Menah the Great 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know there was a local Episcopal inquisition in the Netherlands, that had nothing to do whatsoever with the Spanish one. --Ecelan 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
Why is the neutrality of this article challanged? Stargoat 16:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Must be the omission of "Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition". Scottbeck 02:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The Spanish Inquisition was the Inquisition of Spain."
Surely it would be easy for someone with a little bit of knowledge about the subject to change the opening sentence. I understand (having just learned it) that "Inquisition" has a specialized use here, but it sounds a lot like saying, "quantum mechanics is mechanics on a quantum scale"&mdash;it's not very useful unless you already know what it's trying to tell you. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who is Ryan Crompton?
From the Context section


 * In the 15th century, Spain was not a single state but a confederation of reigns, Ryan Crompton ruled each administration: The Crown of Aragon and Castile, ruled by Ferdinand and Isabella, respectively.

This doesn't make sense, who is Ryan Crompton?


 * Sounds like vandalism... --IvanP 19:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I expect it's a guy who the vandal knows and hates. Scorpionman 19:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Only Jews and Muslems
I thought the Spanish Inquisition was also persecuting a large Pagan population mainly in villages, is this correct?


 * If you mean witch-hunts and the like... The answer is no. Only two (2) "witches" were killed by the Spanish Inquisition during its 350 years of existence. There wasn't a pagan population in Spain at the time. Plus, unlike what some people believe, the people killed during the burning times were Christians wrongly taken by witches. If you want to understand the modern view of the European witch-hunt, read these articles:


 * The Burning Times;
 * Recent Developments in the Study of The Great European Witch Hunt.


 * They were written by "neopagan" authors, by the way. --201.9.7.123 23:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

French illustration
"The Inquisition was also used against focuses of early Protestantism, Erasmism and Illuminism and in the 18th century against Encyclopedism and French Illustration."
 * erm...French Illustration? Really? I'd love to know more, but the linked article doesn't seem apropos. Joestynes 06:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Enlightenment. --Error 02:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Auto de fe pic
I wonder if the Berruguete pic is appropiate. It represents the burning of Albigenses and was painted before the arrival of Inquisition to Spain. --Error 02:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The picture is Image:Inquisition2.jpg. I have removed it. Commons has pics of a real auto-de-fe in Plaza Mayor (Madrid), though they are not as spectacular or artistic. What I miss is a pic of the symbol of the Tribunal del Santo Oficio, the "cross and palm branch". --Error 03:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm ambivalent about using that pic, for the reasons that you mention, but it is used on the Spanish Wiki on the Spanish Inquisition, so.... Also, considering the close relation between the Domincans and the Inquisition, I don't think it's too bad to include the image of St. Dominic. As for the cross and olive branch, there are a number of versions of it that show up in a Google image search under "inquisicion". Don't know what the copyright status of any of them is, however. I'll see what I can come up with.Hobomojo 02:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not neutral at all
Anonymous user User:149.101.1.119 asserts: This article is not neutral at all. It's reporting of the facts is skewed, and it only gives references to "historical" works that are hostile to Catholic and Spanish civilization. William Thomas Walsh's Characters of the Inquisition tells the tale in a much more objective way, because he relied on original sources, whereas most English language historians, including those mentioned in this article, rely on Llorente for their numbers. Llorente has been decisively shown to have exaggerated the numbers in his bid to discredit the institution he claimed to serve; it was later discovered tha the was a member of the freemasons and had deliberate plans to undermine the influence of the Church in Spain.


 * Well, then surely you can come up with appropriate edits, backed by appropriate scholarly references that show your side of the story.


 * Atlant 18:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I know that there is controversy over figures of deaths in the Spanish Inquisition -- which is why I included both the "high casualty" and "low casualty" camps in the discussion. There are people who have attacked Llorente's numbers as unreaslistic, but he was the head of the Inquisition with unique access to documents, and other scholars definitely support his figures (or even higher ones!).  The article gives both sides of the debate.  Aside from the casualty figures, which are covered from both perspectives, what else do you object to as being "not neutral"  --Goodoldpolonius2 19:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is there not a banner on the front of the page indicating that the neutrality has been challenged?


 * Check the page history to see if somebody has removed it. --Error 23:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is not neutral. It is anti-Catholic and contains many historical errors, including the assertion that the Inquisition was used as a means of converting Jews and Muslims to Christianity. The Inquisition targeted only those professing Catholicism, but attempting to spread heresy among the faithful. There were synagogues in every major city and the Jews' freedom of worship was not at issue throughout most of the Inquisition's history. I suggest reading Walsh's Characters of the Inquisition. unsigned by User:149.101.1.119 July 27 2005


 * Can't be so. The Spanish Inquisition starts in 1478 if the article is right, and after 1492 in Castile and Aragon, 1498 in Portugal and 1512 in Navarre (I guess), it's illegal to profess Judaism in Spain (except for the British period of Minorca) until somewhen in the 19th century.--Error 23:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * First, the article does not say that the Inquisition was used to covert Jews. Second, from 1414 on, there were substantial efforts to convert Jews by force, and their freedom of worship was limited, from History of the Jews in Spain: "According to the not always reliable historian Zurita, more than 3,000 Jews were baptized during the year 1414; this probably was not due so much to the disputation as to the forcible conversions by Vicente Ferrer, who had returned to Aragon. In Guadalajara, as well as in Calatayud, Daroca, Fraga, Barbastro, Caspe, Maella, Tamarite, and Alcolea, many Jewish families submitted to baptism. The persecution of the Jews was now pursued systematically. In the hope of mass-conversions, Benedict issued, on May 11, 1415, a bull consisting of twelve articles, which, in the main, corresponded with the decree ("Pragmatica") issued by Catalina, and which had been placed on the statutes of Aragon by Fernando. By this bull Jews and neophytes were forbidden to study the Talmud, to read anti-Christian writings, in particular the work "Macellum" ("Mar Jesu"), to pronounce the names of Jesus, Maria, or the saints, to manufacture communion-cups or other church vessels or accept such as pledges, or to build new synagogues or ornament old ones. Each community might have only one synagogue. Jews were denied all rights of selfjurisdiction, nor might they proceed against "malsines" (accusers). They might hold no public offices, nor might they follow any handicrafts, or act as brokers, matrimonial agents, physicians, apothecaries, or druggists. They were forbidden to bake or sell maẓẓot, or to give them away; neither might they dispose of meat which they were prohibited from eating. They might have no intercourse with Christians, nor might they disinherit their baptized children. They should wear the badge at all times, and thrice a year all Jews over twelve, of both sexes, were required to listen to a Christian sermon on the Messiah" --Goodoldpolonius2 23:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this is NOT neutral. this article reads like it was written by a modern day Spanish apologist trying to minimize what really happened.

Because nobody's gotten to it yet...
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!! :D --IvanP 19:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You didn't even get the quote right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.86.239 (talk • contribs).

BBC Television material
Is there some reason someone keeps removing my item regarding the myths of the Inquisitorial torture chamber? This is all documented information and deserves to be on the page. Kindly stop removing it. from IsabellasKnight Nov 3, 2005.


 * Yeah because its allready mentioned elsewhere in the article, more cleary and with a source; and the way its written is POV, it presents it as fact and truth, based on a BBC documentary, and its just very POV and one-sided. Stbalbach 05:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, some information have been removed that might have been relevant, since they were not already mentioned in the article before. Gugganij 10:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, go ahead. Keep removing it. I've got it easily within reach on both my work and home computers in a nice little text document on my desktop. I'll just keep sticking it back in. -Isabella's Knight


 * What are the origins of these myths, why and how did they arrise? That they are myths is less interesting than knowing why and how these myths arrose. Stbalbach 05:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I just removed the BBC comment. Even a BBC television program is not a relevant source for an article of this type. Television programs are not scholarly articles subject to peer review, a television program should in any case be cited to the author/presenter rather than the publisher as is the case with any publication. The material in the program is not the view of the BBC, it is the view of the production company that made it. The program would only be notable if it was itself the cause of a major revision in the history of the subject, for example A.J.P. Taylor's lectures on the origins of the first world war. There are thousands of papers on this topic that meet that criteria. If you continue to restore the section it will continue to be removed. --Gorgonzilla 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * POV tags should not be used in protest over a source. If you truely believe the material is POV, then edit the article to present alternative views. The truth is, this material is not unique to the BBC and can be found in other mainstream material. --Stbalbach 00:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla
I would rather deal with this in talk then edit war. It's not at all clear what your problem with the text is. First you say the source is not viable, but the BBC is, according to Wikipedia rules. Then you say it is POV, but its simply POV written in a NPOV manner, with appropriate sources and contexts, which is perfectly valid by Wikipedia rules. Look at the Great Sphinx of Giza for example in the alternative dating section, there are dozens of POV's on the same topic (only a few so far represented).

If you dont think its written in a NPOV manner, then edit the text. The fact is, there are many mainstream sources that say many things about what did and did not happen, not just the BBC, they do in fact exists out there, and as wikipedians its our job to report on what they are saying. If you agree or not with what these historians are saying is not what POV means. We report on what people do and say. --Stbalbach 06:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My objection is that it is a secondary source and an unverifiable one. A program of that type would in any case be most likely to be produced by an independent production company for the BBC. So the role of the BBC is overstated, its like only quoting the publisher of a book. The piece should not be quoted unless at a minimum you can state the presenter and researchers on whose work the program is based. It certainly should not have a separate section unless the work played a pivotal role in Spanish Inquisition scholarship, which it clearly did not. For example the BBC lectures given by A.J.P. Taylor would certainly be relevant to an article on WWI. As it is there is simply a section which presents a series of assertions as fact and the only substantiation given is a TV program by an anonymous production company. Gorgonzilla


 * Ok, sounds like a fair enough concern. If someone wants address it with some additional research, Im not too interested at the moment but may return at some later date. Whoever does, I would suggest more academic sources, a search of "inquisition myth" on Amazon's http://A9.com will bring up a bunch of books that cover this topic. --Stbalbach 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I took out the eggregious POV comments, the section is really about torture methods. There also needs to be balancing comment that describes the techniques Inquisition used. There is actually a lot of support for 'the spanish chair' existing, so burning the soles of the foot seems to have been used. I don't think the original assertion is well sourced enough to keep that in the list of probably not used methods. Other methods such as the wheel and the Iron Maiden are definitely appocriphal, they are methods of execution and don't work well for interogation.

Number of Jews Expelled in 1492
Kamen makes a (seemingly quite scholarly) estimate of this number at <100,000. The article currently lists it as 200,000. Thoughts?


 * 200,000 Jews were expelled from Spain in June 30 of 1492. I changed it again. I used a reliable source, JewishVirtualLibrary


 * Considering how many people scream when a "Catholic" source is cited, I find it odd that the Jewish Virtual Library gets a pass (particularly after reading it--Wikipedia editors would scream about POV). Even moreso, as a challenge to Kamen, himself a Jew, and probably the most widely cited authority on the Spanish Inquisition in any language. The 200,000 figure probably comes from here, a primary source that should be used cautiously--In my not so humble opinion, more cautiously than the editors of the Sourcebook seem to be. Hobomojo 00:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason as to why the figure of Jews expelled should be totally removed from this article. In my opinion, putting statements like 'an unknown number of Jews were expelled' doesn't provide an accurate explanation of the scenario. More appropriate would be to put a certain range of figure from 100,000 to 400,000 or something.


 * Try reading the article, not just the lead: "The number of the Jews that left Spain is not known, not even with an approximation. Historians of the period give extremely high figures (Juan de Mariana speaks of 800,000 people, and Isaac Abravanel of 300,000). Nevertheless, current estimates significantly reduce this number. (Henry Kamen estimates that, of a population of approximately 80,000 Jews, about one half or 40.000 chose emigration [8]). "Hobomojo 01:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And please sign your posts. Hobomojo 01:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Simon Whitechapel's Flesh Inferno
I've got a copy of this book in front of me now, and it seems less than reputable. It appears to be more of a diatribe against the Catholic Church than a legitimate work of history. Perhaps it should be removed from the source list.

Lead section question
regarding this sentence:


 * This Inquisition was instituted at the end of the reconquest of Spain from the Muslims and was originally intended to ensure into the adherence of especially Jewish converts, as many Jews had converted under duress and were suspected of secretly clinging to their former faith.

Fundamentally there's nothing wrong with the content, and maybe Im missing somthing, but what does "was originally intended to ensure into the adherence of especially Jewish converts" mean? Is there a perhaps a better way to word that? --Stbalbach 17:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the opportunity of explaining, as I am not entirely happy with the wording.

The SI existed for three centuries and its tasks changed a lot during that time. In the end it turned into a kind of secret police. But in the beginning its task was that of any other Inquisition: to inquire into whether members of the Church were holding heretical views.

As the SI was founded, during the final phase of the Reconquista, the was widespread concern with the so-called "New Christians", mainly converts from Judaism. Many Jews had converted, some out of conviction, but also many under the pressure of mob violence, and others to further a career. Now, the SI targetted these Conversos in particular to find out whether their conversion was genuine or whether they secretly still adhered to their former faith.

Str1977 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I'm a wikipedia beginner and not an expert on the Spanish Inquisition, but I added the POV tag because this article is a mush of content from editors writing from two opposite views - 1. The view I've always heard where the Spanish Inquisition was an irrational orgy of religiously-motivated torture and executions and 2. The story you've always heard is propaganda agianst the Spanish.

I never heard of the "Black Legend" before reading this article, and I have no idea how significant of a controversy it is among scholors of the Inquisition, but this article read like an article about the Black Legend and not about the Spanish Inquisition. Assuming the "Black Legend" is real, it ought to be referenced in an neutral way. For example, the caption

"Artistic representations usually depict torture and the burning at the stake occurring during the auto de fe. This is historically inaccurate, since this type of activity never took place during the rituals."

is awful and doesn't help anyone understand the Spanish Inquisition. I doubt it is generally accepted that burning at the stake didn't happen. It may be a controversy, but adding a sentence negating the previous sentence is very awkward and unhelpful.

If you would prefer that this article start with "The Spanish Inquisition is a hoax intended to slander Spain", you probably shouldn't be editing this article.

If anyone knows how to make a request for attention from experts and wikipedia pros to help improve this article, please do so! 12.193.225.181 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC) -Dave


 * Its fine to disagree about article content but in general NPOV tags are used when there is a difference of opinion that can not be worked out through editing the article and/or talk page discussions. I would recommend starting with those options first before escalating things to a NPOV tag. --Stbalbach 03:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the history and the discussion of this page and you'll see that the differences in opinion are not being worked out - they are just going back and forth. I don't have the subject knowledge to recommend appropriate edits. Take a look as the section on "Torture Techniques Used" It starts by suggesting that reports of torture have been exaggerated - exaggerated from what? How about stating the commonly believed extent and nature of the torture and then stating that some beleive that it is exaggerated? It looks to me like neutral-minded editors have given up on this article. Instead of (or in addition to) a NPOV tag, how about a call for expert assistance who can help put the Black Legend in perspective? 63.238.234.33 17:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC) -Dave


 * Black Legend has its own article. There was an attempt to have a separate article that discussed the The Inquisition Myth (probably it should be called "Inquisition revisionism"). Most of that stuff however can be shown to be partisan and not neutral, more in the realm of historical revisionism (political), the Myth article needs a lot of work to bring it up to NPOV standards. This article generally follows mainstream views. --Stbalbach 19:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made a few clean-ups:

1. I removed the 1st paragraph in the "Death-Toll" section since it was redundant with respect to the Catholic Church-supported death-toll studies. Also it doesn't make sense to start a section by stating that the "previously accepted" death tolls are disputed without first staring what those death tolls are. I added the sentence "Some historians and Spanish schololors suggest that that the death toll has been exagerated over time as part of the anti-Spanish Black Legend." to replace non-redundant content of the deleted paragraph.

2. I removed the sentence "This is historically inaccurate, since this type of activity never took place during the rituals." from the caption of the 1st paragraph. The article states that burning of victims did actually happen. If burning at the stake didn't happen, then the picture should be removed completely.

3. I removed the sentence "But since the Spanish Inquisition was an important part of the Black Legend, it is hard for non-experts to know which texts and pictures are accurate descriptions of the inquisition procedures." from the caption in the second paragraph - POV.

The section on torture techniques need to be rewritten, as it doesn't say much about torture techniques used. the section currently is mostly about what torture techniques that weren't used according to some. 67.176.232.105 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) - Dave


 * Dave, I had not read these comments before I reverted your edits. But, still, I don't agree with your deletions. Specially in the case of the frist picture, we need clarification:


 * "This is historically inaccurate, since this type of activity never took place during the rituals."


 * The article explains that torture _did_ happen... but it did NOT happen DURING the religious rituals (auto-de-fé). That´s why the picture is innacurate. (sorry about english mistakes, I'm not a native english speaker and in a hurry) --Leinad ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] pois não? 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Leinad-Z, Let's talk about each of the three paragraphs/captions on which we disagree

1. 1st caption: I understand that that the burning didn't take place during the auto-de-fe, but the way that it is worded sounds like it never happened at all. The caption without the 2nd "This is in accurate. . ." sentence already states that it is an artistic representation. It is really important to point out that the burning at the stake happened after the trials instead of during? Is it important to mention the auto-de-fe at all in the caption? Why don't we just have the caption say "An artistic represnetation of Saint Dominic presiding over a burining at the stake" or if the consensus that the timing of the trials vs the torture is important, how about "Artistic representations usually depict torture and the burning at the stake occurring during the auto de fe, though burning a victim at the stake happened after the trials". I think it is awkward to write this explainiation of a preposition (during vs. after).

2. 2nd caption: I don't really know what to say except that the added sentence is irrelevant or at the very least out of place. Why does it matter what is hard for non-experts to know what is accurate. We wouldn't put a similar sentence on another article about, say, dinosaurs: "This is an artistic representation of a Triceratops, but it is hard for non-experts to know if these representations are accurate." Do you contend that the picture is inaccurate? If so, lets talk about it. Do you want additional mention of the Black Legend? If so, let's see if we can find a way to deal with it in a more encyclopedic way. ..

3. "Death-Toll" section: I don't understand the reasons for reverting my edits. My edits made for a much better flow. The way you want the section, it starts with a poorly-written generalization that starts with by refuting the commonly beleived numbers before those numbers are even presented. The section already has a section about the church-sponsored studies suggesting lower numbers. Only it appears in a more logical place - with the other estiamtes. I agree that the black legend ought to be mentioned, but not right in the begining. The relevance of the black legend to this article is that commonly-beleived notions about the scope and savagry of the inquisition have been exaggerated. . .you can't talk about exaggerations about the commonly-beleived notions before stating what those notions are.

67.176.232.105 02:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC) - Dave


 * Reverted Leinad-Z's edits. Let's talk before you make these edits again. 67.176.232.105 22:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC) - Dave


 * Leinad-Z and King of Hearts - Please stop undoing my changes without discussion. We are all trying to make this a good article. Also please be sure to use the minor tag appropriately. Dfuss 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to take a wikibreak, but, ok, let's go.

1st caption: "It is really important to point out that the burning at the stake happened after the trials instead of during?" - - - Yes. Burning at the stake DURING the religious rituals will be seen as way more barbaric to most people - but it never really happened. If the intention of the article is to inform the readers, it must be said the truth about misleading pictures.

"Is it important to mention the auto-de-fe at all in the caption? Why don't we just have the caption say "An artistic represnetation of Saint Dominic presiding over a burining at the stake"" - - - Well, the picture's author claimed to describe an auto-de-fe. Again you seem to be asking something like: do we really need to provide accurate information about the picture? (Answer: Yes). Also, since the selection and execution of the punishments was in the hands of the state, (and not the church), I suppose there were no priests "presiding over" burnings at the stake.

2nd caption: "Do you contend that the picture is inaccurate?" - - - This picture's accuracy was, indeed, questioned in the past. That was exactly the reason why the observation about how "it's hard to distinguish which pictures..." was there. Look here: Talk:Spanish Inquisition. AFAIK, we still don't really know if this specific picture is an accurate representation of the inquisition procedures or not.

"Reverted Leinad-Z's edits. Let's talk before you make these edits again." - - - Those are not exactly "my edits"; I am simply restoring text that you removed from the article. I will see how to reintroduce the relevant part of the deleted information in a way that addresses some of your concerns, (starting with the explanation about the 1st picture). --Leinad ¬ pois não? 16:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody Suspects the Spanish Inquisition
Somebody really needs to add a note on the article page explaining the phrase "Nobody suspects the Spanish Inquisition." I would, but I don't know, myself. AlanH 00:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's allready there. --Stbalbach 03:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Couldn't find it :'( --Natezomby

1st picture caption
The current caption sentence "Most artistic representations depict torture and the burning at the stake as occurring during the auto de fe. This is historically inaccurate: even thought this type of activity could occur in other moments, they never took place during the rituals." is awkward and gramatically incorrect, and it has been replaced repeatedly (including after my change yesterday). The second sentence, in particular needs to be changed.

1. 2 unclear uses of the word "that" as a pronoun.

2. "thought" instead of "though"

3. "in" instead of "at"

4. "they" instead of "it"

In order to just correct the grammar errors, it needs to be changed to

"The painting is historically inaccurate: even though burning at the stake could occur at other moments, it never took place during the rituals."

Further, the preposition "could" is out of place. Burning at the stake did happen at other times. The word "moments" is unusual too - "times" should be used.

"The painting is historically inaccurate: even though burning at the stake occured at other times, it never took place during the rituals."

To me, it seems strange to say that burning at the stake happened at other times - it seems more straightforward to say it happened after the trials. That's why I changed the sentence to

"Even though torture occured after the trials, it did not take place during the trials."

Perhaps people were tortured at the trials, but not burned. I don't know. We ought to be clear, though.

I also think it unusual to say that the picture is inaccurate. It is an artictic representation that combines two aspects of the Inquisition (auto de fe and burning at the stake) that apparently didn't happen at the same time. It should be sufficient to say so without calling the picture "inaccurate". Nearly every paining from the middle ages or renaissance is inaccurate by the standard applied to this picture. (Dfuss 04:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

Part of the problem is that the current version of this article as a whole is not very good in actually explaining the procedures of the Spanish Inquisition. It seems to me that, in many passages, the article mistakenly mixes 3 distinct events: 1- the trials; 2- the religious ceremony (auto-de-fe); 3- the punishment.

According to my current understanding of these procedures:


 * 1) If you are being investigated by the inquisition, there's a (small) chance that you'll be tortured during the investigation/trial, (as a mean to obtain a confession etc.);
 * 2) After the trial, if you have been found guilty, you will have to participate of an Auto-de-fe (to repent and ask God forgiveness for your sins);
 * 3) After the Auto-the-fe you would be given by the church to secular authorities who would then apply the punishment that the Spanish government had chosen for you. (There were many forms of punishment - burning was the most extreme and used only in a minority of the cases.)

(P.S.: I'm not an expert and would appreciate comments from other editors about the accuracy of the above description)

In the light of the explanations above, I have three main objections to the text you proposed, ("Even though torture occured after the trials, it did not take place during the trials."): - (1) It mixes the auto-de-fe with the trial; (2) it makes one think that everyone that participated in an auto-de-fe would be burned after it. In addition, (3) your text makes no mention of torture as another thing that never took place during the auto-de-fe. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 20:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and clarify the article. As for the caption, I think it would be best to have the caption to simply not have the "This is inaccurate. . ." sentence. How about removing that sentence and describing what actually happened Trial -> Verdict -> Ritual -> Punishment in the article? There is a lot more room to explain in the article than in a sentence or two in the caption. But at the very least, we should fix the grammar. --Dfuss 05:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Stupid article.
I only can laught reading this article. It has so many errors that i dont care about fixing it. An article that missunderstands "auto de fe" with trial....what can i say?. Ppl is writing and have no idea about they are writing. Another example of this is when it says "These punishments were conducted in public ceremonies called auto de fe that could last a whole day". Another stupid sentence by some guy who doesnt know what he is talking about. If u dont use the correct terms and confuse things.. how much credit do u deserve?.Nice, i just discovered that auto de fe is the same than trial and punishment?.....wow we get 3 diferent things in 1!!. 3x1!!!! like in supermarkets. Oh guys this is very sad, spain has records of almost every trial made by inquisition. But hey, im sure those guys who say 200.000 killed by inquisition are right, after are they are supermen who know about history of other countries and they dont even need to research it. Why dont u talk about german inquisition?. shorter but much worse. Or what about english inquisition?. Or what about swiss one? that was the worst only comparable to german one. Spanish inquisition killed some 3000-5000 persons in 350 years. That is nothing compared to the witch hunting, remember, spanish inquisition never did witch hunting. In europe more than 150.000 persons were killed for being "witches". or what about french inquisition?. they killed in one day more than spanish one in 150 years loool. And u still cry about how bad spanish inquisition was. Just a tip. Watch your own shit before bitching others about theirs. The diference of spanish inquisition and the rest of inquisitions is that it was state driven. Trials were made by lawners and there was a reasonable chance to defend yourself, unlike in the rest of europe where it was driven by village's tribunals. Jails were "hotels" compared to the standars of other countries. And now the last question that says all... If spanish inquisition was so bad.. then why it was the only inquisition in europe that didnt ban galileo's works?. Btw, about those "regular criminals" trying to switch to inquisition trials. Its true, many ppl preferred an Inquisitional trial since it was much more fair than secular trials, tortures where much better regulated (no more than 15 mins per session, no more than 1 time per day, no more than 3 times in the whole process). No tortures ocurred after the trial, always before as a method to get confessions. In Inquisition trials u had 2 neutral priests watching the tortures to ensure some warranties. And the jails where much much much better than standar jails, that is why a criminal preferred an inquisition trial than a secular one. You say how barbaric spanish were and bla bla bla. But guys, while you would be burned to hell for being an heretic by spanish inquisition, in england they were burning ppl for normal crimes like stealing and even screwing stuff from gardens... now cry about how bad spanish inquisition was...

Trikipum 12:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Errr... calm down, mate, it's only genocide and oppression. HawkerTyphoon 00:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num25.htm


 * 6000 here. Just saying..=D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.86.239 (talk • contribs).

Hasdrubal
I'm amused that you delete the cited material from the BBC, but choose to keep the un-cited material that has had a "citation requested" tag for months. Your claim about having good sources doesn't seem to hold up. Can you explain why a BBC documentary is not allowed as a source on Wikipedia? -- Stbalbach 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm amused that "The Spanish Inquisition teaches many a lesson to the student of history, not the least important of which relates to the dangers inherent in blurring the distinction between Church and State." should be considered NPOV. User:Netkinetic even defined the text as "looks like good edits"... Fascinating. --Ecelan 08:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, that sentence is NPOV. It is fascinating. --Stbalbach 21:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting opinionated introduction and other irrelavant opinions throughout
rather than giving an opinionated introduction iw ill change it, if people wanted to read about seperation of church and state they could go to that article themselves. IM also putting up a neutrality notice, ive noticed alot of writing with a bias against teh church, this is coming from an christianity detractor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Decidus (talk • contribs).

NPOV
Article is polemic rant against the Catholic Church. Really a poor piece and shameful for Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia has a Featured Article for this subject, it would be great to see someone translate it into English and replace this article entirely. -- Stbalbach 03:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made some significant edits to address the worst case POV problems. I also removed some irrelevant history that is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia thats not about the Inquisition. Keeping the NPOV tag because this article is currently the "Jewish History of the Spanish Inqusition" -- certainly an important perspective, but it leaves out the mainstream Catholic perspective (not revisionist, just mainstream Catholic - there is one), nor does it have the Muslim perspective, nor the other persecuted peoples (gays, gypsies, lepers, etc.. the usual suspects). -- Stbalbach 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The records and so forth used by Jewish and non-Jewish authors about the Spanish Inquisition have been largely drawn from Protestant, anti-Catholic sources devised during the Netherlands' War of Independence against Spain. Omitting sources that exhonorate the Inquisition based upon its own meticulous records from some of the blackest legends alongside the accusations is simply good sense. So privileged POVs are NPOV, go figure. Considering the sorry state of academia with its generic anti-Catholic biases, I could hardly imagine why a pro-Catholic viewpoint would be censored. --68.45.161.241 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a Church-run Site
repeated concerns have been voiced on both the Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition talk pages about these articles getting “white-washed” every so often by self-declared supporters of the church (which church i’m not sure). one or two in particular will paste over or npov any text that doesn’t completely tiptoe around the Church’s role in the Inquisition. this site has never been (to my knowledge) affiliated, run or sponsored by any religious group or sect. so viewpoints other than official church doctrine should not constantly be posted over or npov’d. the only specific complaint ever voiced was the use of “murder” which, between both articles, had been used twice. both instances were taken out even though the word, as used, could easily have been argued to be objective. many other changes were made to both pages. Jossi had made some very neutral changes on the Inquisition page and st. ballbuster couldn’t even live with that so I am reverting the Inquisition page back to Jossi’s very objective, carefully blended, most recent edit and taking the npov off of what is certainly an objective and informative Spanish Inquisition article even if it does suggest some Church accountability for what happened.24.145.184.199 05:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You just cant deal with anyone editing your article -- you revert any changes made to it with no discussion except to personally attacking me ("St Ballbuster" -- BTW I'm not Catholic, and it doesnt mean "St."). Youve allready been banned once for violating Wikipedia rules, how many more times? -- Stbalbach 14:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Blatant Anti-Catholicism
This is not a Church-run site; in that you are correct. However, you *cannot* use that as an excuse for such blatant disregard for non-neutrality. A day or two ago, the version that was up was neutral, but then was reverted right back to this pile of nonsense. The article takes one side, as evidenced by the entire last section, the one that talks about the "revisionists". Certainly, it could present the different views with a bit more objectivity. 68.73.63.200 12:19, 18 May 2006


 * Agreed. --Stbalbach 14:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * enough times as it takes to get a non-revisionist history of the inquisition on this page.24.145.184.199 15:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR
To all editors. Note that some editors of Inquisition have bee blocked for violating the three revert rule and that the article has been protected due to editwarring. This article, if current editor's behavior continue, will end up protected as well. Please try and find a way to reach consensus in the talk page. Edit wars never accomplish anything in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The anon editor is not only reverting a compromise page that kept a substantial amount of his original material, but he is reverting the NPOV tag without addressing the concerns on the talk page and he reverted the {fact} citation request tags, and has engaged in name calling. The anon editor has no care about the Wikipedia conventions or rules, the problem is bigger than 3RR. --Stbalbach 16:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He has also now done 4 reverts for the day. I have used my three so can't do anything about it until tomorrow. -- Stbalbach 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * he has now made fiver reverts today .. his edit summary comments do not match up with what he actually doing. -- Stbalbach 16:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with article
There are a couple problems with the article:
 * 1) It doesn't provide a motivation for the Catholic Church. It basically just says they were Catholic and greedy and corrupt and always had been. This is POV and not very enlightening. Historians have examined at least four different reasons why the Inquisition happened. See the Wikipedia Spanish Language Featured Article for a list.
 * 2) It is written from the perspective of the modern looking back on history. It places value judgments on a time that was very different from our own. History should help us understand how and why people did what they did, not condemn them.
 * 3) There are little or no modern up to date references. Most of the references listed are old. There are also no "mainstream academic" references such as from the the "Ivy League" University Presses (Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge). Also no footnotes or alterantive views on specific interpretations.

--Stbalbach 15:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

..surely this is a joke
This article is a piece of Roman Catholic bashing rubbish. It's actually one of the worse I've read, no I think it actually is the worst.

I will write a better one over the summer, I just wish I hadn't wasted my time reading this drivel.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.189.79.15 (talk • contribs).

Let's wait and see what marvel you are about to concoct for us, you Mystery Anon.(Miguel de Servet 13:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Spanish version
I'll translate the Spanish version, but it might take a while (I've got a dissertation to write). The irony is that the Spanish version started as a translation of the English version--and has been very thoughtfully updated, while this one has degenerated. As it stands, this English language version is utter junk. What is the take home message for the reader? The Inquisition was about killing the Jews and taking their money. Anyone who introduces a slightly more complex understanding (not to mention scholarship more recent than, say 1920) is a "Revisionist Historian" and therefore also a Holocaust denier. This effort should not be about foisting one's political opinions on the readers, which is how the article currently reads, but about bringing the best efforts of the community to the table. Talking about the Inquisition is hugely vexed and excites peoples passions--historians, at least the good ones, try to be dispassionate and critical of their sources and of their own biases. Hobomojo 04:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with everything you've said. I hope you can find the time as this article is a choice speciman of demagogy. --Stbalbach 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm starting slow, with a translation/modification of the Censorship section. I don't know how to do footnotes or links to other articles etc., so...bear with me as I learn as I go along.Hobomojo 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to add a footnote, put it in parenthesis and I or someone will do the markup, to see how its done. Or see Footnotes. "Censorship" section is a great addition. --Stbalbach 03:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I added a translation of the Protestants section, and will continue as time allowsHobomojo 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Continuing the translation
I added two more sections of the Spanish version on the Composition of the Tribunals and the Functioning of the Inquisition. The latter entailed folding in parts of the sub-section on Torture Techniques. I left out the comment about the Templars, mainly because I couldn't find any place to put it where it didn't sound stilted. I have grave reservations about including the comment about the "Spanish Chair", but I'm trying to respect other's contributions.

The following, however..."At the same time, torture was used so routinely during the Spanish Inquisition that the absence of its mention in a given historical record cannot be seen as evidence for its not having been employed." is absolutely unsupportable, logically or historically. That's the equivalent of saying "There is no documentary evidence that Molly has pierced ears, but every girl I see seems to have them, so Molly must have pierced ears too."

There are a couple more sections of the Spanish version I want to translate and add (I've been trying to stick to the less-contentious stuff) before dealing with the introductory sections and that last one. Trying to integrate the Spanish translation with some of the existing text will be pretty complicated. There are elements of a couple of different historical interpretations that don't exactly agree with one another embedded in those layers of edits. Disentangling them will probably require cutting out some things, which is probably good, since this is already a long article, but will probably annoy some.

Moving forward
Also, thanks to Jossi for adding some citations, but I'm putting the cleanup and NPOV tags back, if I can figure out how, since that last section is problematic, to say the least.Hobomojo 10:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Restored some portions of the torture section, this time with references. What is the problem with the last section? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What isn't the problem with it?

"Inquisition Revisionism"
 * Before "revisionist historian" became a spittle flecked epithet, it was a profound complement meaning an historian had taken a dead dry topic and demonstrated there was not only a great deal to learn, but what we though we knew was not exactly the case. In that sense, it's fine. But since it is so often (as it is below) perversely understood, I'd prefer "Contemporary Scholarship".

"The last 40 years have seen the development of a revisionist school of Inquisition history."
 * Right, Kamen, Peters, García Cárcel, and Netanyahu are probably the best known "revisionists" except...

"Inquisition revisionists tend to fall into three categories: some deny the existence of the Spanish Inquisition altogether..."
 * Show me one person anywhere who denies the existence of the Spanish Inquisition.

others argue that the Spanish Inquisition was simply not as brutal as claimed and that death tolls and tales of terror have been grossly exaggerated by Jews or Protestants and their sympathizers to gain pity...
 * It is simply a statement of fact to say that the death tolls and tales of terror have been grossly exaggerated. I have not seen anyone argue that they were exaggerated by Jews, but the use of the Inquisition for Protestant and anti-Spanish Propaganda from the 16th century forward is not seriously open to dispute.

thirdly, many revisionists are dedicated to demonstrating that the Roman Catholic Church was not responsible for the Inquisition and in fact went to great lengths to prevent it...
 * At best the above clause is a fundamental misunderstanding of a valid argument. The Spanish Inquisition was fundamentally distinct from other Inquisitions, as the Catholic Church in Spain was fundamentally distinct because of the Patronato Real, which gave the monarchy the right to make ecclesiastical nominations which were then usually rubber-stamped by Rome. That makes folks wanting to find a monolithic obscuritan Catholic Church uncomfortable. But more generally, there is the argument "Was the Inquisition one or many." There is no serious dispute among historians that it was many.

The revisionist school of Inquisitional history is embraced by certain racial supremacist groups, several political groups and a handful of Church scholars (though this is irrelevant in regards to ascertaining the historic truth).
 * I won't even touch the idea of "historical truth", other than to say that I think a historian's job is the search for less un-truth (among other things). But the rest of the parenthetical is correct: it is irrelevant, nutjobs will be nutjobs, politicians are politicians, and even the dimmest Jesuit is probably smarter than you and me put together. The essential point is this: the revisionist school of Inquisition history, if one must call it that, and if one means Kamen, Peters, García Cárcel, and Netanyahu, is completely accepted by the professional historical community. Do they disagree with each other at times? Of course, each has their own argument to make.

Inquisition revisionism, however, cannot fairly be attributed to or associated with any denomination of mainstream Christianity, including Roman Catholicism.
 * So, ok, lets have a meek attempt at mitigating the anti-Catholic innuendo of the entirety of the paragraph up to now.

Inquisition revisionists have a distinct set of data regarding death tolls for the Spanish Inquisition.
 * Yes, those would be the actual records of the Inquisition itself.

These tolls are, of course, considerably lower than most accepted figures and the revised numbers contradict original records, like those cited in the previous paragraph, most or all of which (necessarily) came from the Church in the first place.
 * Indeed they are considerably lower, and they are what most professional historians engaged in the topic consider to be the "accepted figures". They do not contradict original records, as they are based on original records.

There is not a single sentence or clause worth keeping. Hobomojo 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hobomojo, in Wikipedia articles we describe prominent POVs and attribute these to those that hold them. If there is a group of scholars and/or historians that are described as revisionists by another group of scholars/historians, we will be abiding by the policy of WP:NPOV to describe both POVs. So, the only problem with the text above is that it requires: (a) attribution and (b) sources. Without it, it is an unattributed POV asserted as a fact and that is contradictory to NPOV. So, whoever added that material can be respectfully asked to provide sources and attribute these POVs, let say within the text 10 days, otherwise the material will be removed. Other editors may also assist in providing sources, if they know any. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the over-reaching cleanup and NPOV tags, and placed a more appropriated unreferenced template on that specifc section. If there are other specific sections that need attention, please tag them as well. That way we can focus editors' attention on these areas of the article that require NPOVing and cleanup. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. I've mainly been translating and adding portions of the Spanish version which is substantially better than the current English version. I've pretty well stuck with the less-contentious parts, and, yes, citations need to be checked and added even there. The last of the less-contentious sections is Inquisition in the Arts, which I will be doing soon. That leaves the section on Death Tolls, the Black Legend (which is also a disputed article in the EN wiki, but is a good, short, but unreferenced section in SP) and the introductory sections.


 * As I said above, dealing with the introductory sections is complicated. There is an implicit POV in the narrative presentation of facts in those opening sections (basically Netanyahu's argument, who is virtually alone among modern historians for arguing that the Inquisition was more Ferdinand's issue than Isabella's). There's some pretty thorny, complicated and nuanced issues involved here, such as the issue of conversos vs. crypto-jews, and whether the Inquisition was more about institutionalized intolerance or more about consolidation of the nation-state and ensuring social control.


 * What I'd like to do is finish up the translation from the Spanish version, disentangle and integrate the introductory sections and then go through and update/add citations. Hobomojo 05:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, if there is any way to add a "scheduled for removal date" to the tag, that might be the courteous thing to do.

Translation
Ok, so the easy part is done. Translating and adding the part on the Black Legend won't be too difficult, but someone above (in this talk page, that is) had an issue with it earlier. There is a separate article on it in Wikipidia and it deserves mention.

The section on death figures also won't be too difficult to translate and integrate, save for two sentences: ''There are no death toll figures available for the massacres of 1391, 1468 or 1473. These numbers will likely never be known. ''

Since this is an article about the Inquisition, and the Inquisition was established in 1478, I'm not sure I see why these two sentences should remain unless one views the Inquisition as solely and uniquely anti-Semitic.Hobomojo 02:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * honestly I think the person who added all the text a while back that is in question is no longer around - if its translated from the Spanish wikipedia feature article it should take precedence over anything here that is controversial. -- Stbalbach 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, most of the easy stuff is done. Translating and adding the section on the Inquisition and the Expulsion of the Jews comes next. From there things get tough. There are two ways to go from there, either translating and replacing the English version with the Spanish, or trying to integrate the two (while removing material that is better covered later in the article, some POV elements, etc.). The easiest might be to do the former, and add back elements over time. I'm open to suggestions.Hobomojo 03:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree about translate and replace. Move the original to a temp location, such as Spanish Inquisition/temp, where it can be worked on or moved back piecemeal. --Stbalbach 14:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this all about?
"The Christian population of Spain, who had become darker complected as a result of the Muslim / North African conquest and therefore placed high public emphasis on being of “pure, Christian blood,” resented the converted Jews as “unpure” and called them “Marranos” or pig"

Its absurd to state that, how can one say that the population became darker from the African invasion??? the darkness in the population i would believe is because they are Mediterranean (people from the mediterranean such as spain, italy, southern france, Greece, Turkey, North Africa and italy do have darker skin so we can not say it is because of african invasion), they would traditionally would of been dark before the Muslim occupation. And someone tell me the logic in this, because they were darker they had a emphasis of "pure Christian blood", that doesn’t make sense because if your stating they are dark because they have African blood and they are putting up cries against those who have not got pure blood then it doesn’t make sense, this should be taken, out which i will until someone can reference it. i need refrences, it all sounds like opinion to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.44.188 (talk • contribs)


 * Your right. There was one editor who inserted a lot of POV material - hopefully it will be removed in time. -- Stbalbach 12:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputation of Barcelona
Perfectly fine to add Disputation of Barcelona to an article on Spanish History or Anti-semitism in Spain, Europe etc, but since this is an article about the Spanish Inquisition, it's a bit much to add the Lit and Film links for something that transpired two centuries prior to it being constituted. (Also, calling it an Auto de Fe is factually incorrect.)Hobomojo 02:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Translation Complete
OK, the translation from Spanish is complete. The prior version is located at Spanish Inquisition/temp, and portions of the initial section may creep back into this article. I'm tempted to go through it and just delete the blatant POV stuff so the remainder can be a useful resource rather a fount of junk. There's still disambiguation and language smoothing and reference checking to do...Hobomojo 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice job, Hobomojo! (--Stbalbach 00:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC))


 * Much better - many thanks! Dfuss 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Al-Andalus
Marking this article as part of Category:Al-Andalus is a bit far-fetching, considering the last Muslim kingdom of Iberia, Granada, fell in 1492. Regards, E    Asterion  u talking to me? 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Al-Andalus is an arabic descriptor indicating both a historical time period as well as a geographic descriptor. It does not equate to only Muslim governed areas. While Spain is still occasionly called Andalus, I only marked it as Al-Andalus to place it appropriately in catergories under Muslim history as that is the sub-category within muslim history that applies to the Spanish Inquisition, and marks the fag end of the historical period of Al-Andalus or the people of Andalus (i.e the muslims till they were evicted or converted). There is no attempt to claim it for Muslim kingdoms merely to associate this historical event with the those kingdoms for easier navigation and access to information dealing with the same. I will wait for you response or other comments before tagging it back. --Tigeroo 06:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Al-Andalus, at least outside the Arabian language, refers to Spain under Muslim rule. The geographical term would be Andalusia. Still, it is not fitting either, as the SI was present in all of Spain, not just in Andalusia. Given that there were still Moors at first in Andalusia, it is even less fitting, as the SI only dealt with Christians. Str1977 (smile back) 13:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Heresy
I'd like to ask Str1977 to reconsider the change from "an ecclesiastical tribunal" to "a tribunal dealing with heresy." Using "ecclesiastical" is in contrast to "secular", and could be "religious" if you prefer. True, both secular and religious courts were under the crown, and that is discussed later in the article. But saying "a tribunal dealing with heresy" is problematic for a couple of reasons.

The first is that a small percentage of Inquisition trials were actually about civil issues that would have normally been tried under civil courts. So saying that it was only a tribunal dealing with heresy is not precisely correct.

The other is a bit more complex. Seeing that the Inquisition was established in Spain pre-Luther and pre-Trent, the concept of what constituted "heresy" was in flux. Some historians (Pinto Crespo, for example) would argue that the debates of the calificadores during the Inquisition trials illustrate attempts to define the boundaries between what is and what is not heresy.

In other words, the phrasing "a tribunal dealing with heresy" makes it appear that the Catholic Church had some monolithic and unchanging conception of Church teachings about orthodoxy and heresy which is unsupportable by the historical evidence. Hobomojo 00:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So Str1977 has reverted, again, the phrase "ecclesiastical tribunal", but has not responded to the issues raised above. Rather than simply revert the change, how does one deal with this in a cooperative fashion? Hobomojo 03:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe he didn't see it. The general policy is that people need to respond and deal with issues on the talk page. If he reverted without responding to the talk page, you could revert back and say "Please see the discussion page and respond before reverting back again." -- Stbalbach 15:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Too complicated
How is a person who has no experience of the spanish inquisition supposed to understand this?? How about some introduction and definitions. Were not writing PhDs here people.


 * For the most part, this is a translation of the Spanish Language version, which is a Featured Wikipedia article. If you have some specific suggestions, please do make them. It is a long article, but the language, I hope, isn't that complicated, and most sections seem to have introductory paragraphs to me. Hobomojo 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Too Biased
This article is obviously biased. The Jews were not the primary target of persecution during the Inquisition, despite what the media would have you think. Please revise this factsheet as thousands of people, including children, are being fed lies.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.174.126.110 (talk • contribs).


 * The article is pretty clear that conversos of Jewish origin were the focus of the initial period of the Inquistion (through 1530), but that after that, other issues (like Protestantism) came to the fore. Also, the article reflects research done by historians (see the bibliography), not "the media". Do you have a specific criticism? Suggestion? Hobomojo 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation link repair
Under the heading "Repression of Protestants" there was a link to Guadalajara concerning the alumbrados that I disambiguated. I chose to link to the province. Does anyone have the knowledge to confirm this is the best, or if it should be pointed at the city? --- Jagged 01:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mala Sangre"/Limpieza de Sangre
"Why is there no mention of "Mala Sangre" the conception of bad blood, referring to Jewish Heritage, which was part of the basis upon which Jews were persecuted?"


 * Actually, the concept of Limpieza de Sangre is mentioned in the article, in the section discussing how the Tribunal operated, and the position of familiar. The Limpieza de Sangre questions were pretty formulaic and sought to establish Old Christian status, and also moral rectitude. They were so common, they printed up forms with the basic outline and filled in names, places, and additional questions. The basic questions were along the lines of "Is Fulano, son/daughter of Fulano (Padre and Madre), grandson/granddaughter of...greatgrandson/daughter of...legitamate, descended from Old Christians, not the recently converted, Moors, or anyone penanced by the Inquisition". In the 16th and 17th century (at least in my experience, and I've read more than I can count) they seem pretty rigorous, and, particularly in the early period, occasionally people would initiate the process themselves, simply to have it registered in case of need. By the 18th century, they start to seem pretty pro forma.


 * How, you might ask, would someone age 40 prove that their great grand parents on both sides were not recently converted or penanced? Well, round up the oldest folks in town and ask them! Pretty tough in a society remarkably mobile (around the globe, even) in the 16th-19th centuries. Consider, that for each of the individuals (14 total), there were supposed to be at least three witnesses (though, the same three could serve for all 14, if you could find three that knew the all great grand parents, weren't related to the individuals in question, etc--did I loose you yet?)


 * And guess what? People lie. I've read more than a few Limpieza processes where the witness couldn't possibly have known the people they were testifying about, since the subject had died 10-20 years before the witness was born! Moreover, the Limpieza process fell most heavily on folks seeking a government or religious posting, or folks wanting to emigrate to the Indies (you can actually read a bunch of them--if you can handle the handwriting--via the web), since many of the Licences to travel to the Indies include Limpiezas. In other words, although part of the dominant ideology, the majority did not have to undergo the scrutiny.


 * How oppressive was the concept? That's arguable, and interesting, considering the mobility and potential anononymity of the population within Spain and to the New World. There's been some good work done on Crypto-Jews in New Spain and the Spainsh Southwest, and I, for one, would like to see some done on Protestants, too. (There's a fascinating new book by Clive Griffin on Protestant print-shop workers in Spain that raises some great questions for New Spain).


 * In other words, I think the more interesting question is understanding how people confronted, overcame, and lived through oppression. (Given the current conjuncture, perhaps I'm just looking for reasons to hope!)Hobomojo

Sourcing the introduction
I removed the request for a source on the establishment/disestablishment of the Inquisition, since it seems to me to be absolutely needless. Any of the general works on the Inquisition, from Lea to Peters, will have this information, and it can even be found in general texts on World History. The larger context and specific issues that lead to the establishment and end of the Inquisition appear in the article, and are referenced, so asking for a citation for the first two sentences of the introduction just clutters things up. Hobomojo 03:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias
I believe the article is biased. About 3 to 3.5 million Muslims have been murdered and deported during the Spanish Inquisition and yet the Jews are mentioned twice as much as the Muslims have been mentioned. Can anybody plz explain this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrahim s (talk • contribs).
 * What is your source for that number? -- Stbalbach 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is quite clearly nonsense. The Inquisition was only concerned with the baptized. And even those Muslims expelled from Spain (which was not an action of the Inquisition) do not number up to millions (and were only expelled and not murdered). Str1977 (smile back) 19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Stanley Poole's book the Moors in Spain points to that number as well as Philip Hitti's History of the Arabs. I also dug out an article in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors. I believe that the numbers are correct. What I still don't know is how many were killed in proportion to those exiled. Ibrahim s 17:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Peters and Kamen (Gorgonzilla)
Hi Gorgonzilla - can you detail why you think the work of Peters and Kamen is not mainstream objective/neutral history? I don't know maybe your right - do you have some sources to show why, or what the nature of the controversy is? -- Stbalbach 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW I found 21 customer reviews at Amazon of Kamen's book. this gives some general overview of the nature of the complaints about the author. It is interesting he is Jewish, yet he is accused of showing the SI was not as bad as everyone thought - an interesting reversal from the normal Jewish history and suggestive of the books objectivity. As one reviewer says:


 * Apparently there is no amount of scholarship which will convinced the prejudiced. Kamen superbly shows how the number of victims of the Spanish Inquisition have been exaggerated to serve the cultural and religious interests of Jews, Protestants, liberals, haters of Spain, and so on.

Also here is an interesting review from The New York Times by Richard Kagan Johns Hopkins University.

-- Stbalbach 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kagan's review is interesting and largely favorable. His criticisms are also interesting, if a bit self-serving. His own work includes "Lawsuits and Litigants" (1985), and "Inquisitorial Inquiries" (2004), so he's pointing readers to his own (and his student's) work by faulting Kamen. His critique is valid, if a bit misplaced. Kamen didn't set out to do a micro-history of a trial (as Kagan did with "Lucrecia's Dream") but to provide a broad overview. But scholars quibbles over points of interpretation do not invalidate a whole body of research (no matter how much the anti-evolution folks at the Discovery Institute might kick and scream).

Hobomojo 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I thought the historiography was interesting, and probably should be worked into the article. -- Stbalbach 20:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

_Amazon Customer Reviews?_ What on earth are you thinking about. They are absolutely not relevant here any more than random blog comments. The statement made implies that the theories of this pair have gained widespread *academic* acceptance, a very difficult claim to prove and exceptionally unlikely to happen in the space of 10 years. The point is not whether Peters and Kagan are mainstream historians, the claim being made is considerably more than that, one that needs a very substantial degree of proof -- Gorgonzilla 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gorgonzilla: Kamen's work was first published in 1965, it has been revised and updated and republished for almost 40 years. It is the standard English language work on the Spanish Inquisition, published by Yale University press. Peters is the Charles Henry Lea (yes, THAT Lea) Professor at U Penn. They have both received widespread academic acceptance (Kamen's work has been translated into Spanish and is used in their university curriculum) and are mainstream historians. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is any evidence that their main conclusions are somehow questionable or marginal. Hobomojo 18:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from editing or reverting or otherwise vandalizing the page until you can substantiate your assertionsHobomojo 18:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You make unsubstantiated changes, change the name of articles to suit your point of view. Looks like projection at work here. --Gorgonzilla 21:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, I mentioned the Amazon comments not as a citation for the article, but for comment on the talk page, to help uncover why it is you (and perhaps others) are critical of these works by showing what the broader nature of the debate and public discourse is. Obviously some of those reviews are trash but some are serious and make good points. It's only one data point among many. I can start digging through JSTOR reviews next if that will help. At least it is a data point, you know? You have not really stated what your position is or what the problem is. I also don't think your that well versed in this material if you thought it was only 10 years old, the NYT article I linked reveals more historiography. -- Stbalbach 20:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The double standard you apply is quite amazing. You demand others provide scholarly references, but you rely on Amazon book reviews! If you look at the reviews of Ann Coulter's books or Mike Moore's you will find plenty that agree. That does not make them credible academic sources.
 * The point here is not whether Peters and Kamen are notable scholars. The article is unacceptable because it presents their subjective work as unchallenged fact. If this was indeed the case the article would describe the work of more than two authors. --Gorgonzilla 21:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I provided one source from the New York Times and Hobomojo has provided multiple sources and I could provide further sources very easily - as I said I posted the Amazon reviews in good faith on the talk page (not in the article) - your mis-representation of that as a "source" looks like a strawman to cover up the fact you have been unable to provide a single source to support your position - or even to say what your position is! Your just in attack mode throwing around "POV" with no substance behind it. I'm beginning to suspect you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject. -- Stbalbach 04:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This whole spiel is POV peddling
These assertions are all POV and cannot be supported:

'Among the best English language works on the Spanish Inquisition is Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision (1997), originally published as The Spanish Inquisition in 1965,'


 * The question of whether this is the best book on the inquisition is inherently POV.

while Kamen was preparing his doctoral dissertation. The original work has been continually revised and updated, taking into account the best and most rigorous modern scholarship, and the current edition is, according to historian Richard Kagen of Johns Hopkins University "the best general book on the Spanish Inquisition both for its range and its depth of information..."


 * The opinion of Richard Kagen cited as such might be acceptable but not the unsupported assertion that the book is 'the best'.


 * Kagan's review is one among many. Just because you don't like it does not make it POV.


 * The point is that the Kagan point is the only time where the term 'best' is used with attribution and thus the only objective statement. It may be acceptable for the article to state that Kagan's opinion is that it is the best. It is NOT acceptable for the article to assert that it is the best, that is POV

At the same time, scholars have taken a more nuanced approach to the Inquisition more broadly, rejecting the idea of a monolithic, obscurantist, Catholic Church with rigid ideas of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, immune to constraints of time and place.

more nuanced than what. Again POV peddling.


 * More nuanced than your opinion which is based on no more than your own narrow POV which has NO backing among scholars.


 * You do not understand what Wikipedia is about. One does not need to be an expert to judge whether a scholarly claim is supported or not.

The history of the Spanish Inquisition is a vexed and complicated subject that still arouses passionate (if occasionally ill-informed) debate. For serious students of the Inquisition whose only language is English, Peters's and Kamen's works should be the starting point.


 * The assertion about ill informed debate is extreeme POV peddling--Gorgonzilla 21:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have yet to illustrate that you have any command of the scholarly literature. Your repeated whining about POV without providing any substantiating evidence is by definition "ill-informed debate"Hobomojo 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You put the statement in the article. You did not substantiate the claim. Nor is it at all likely to be notable since there is ill informed debate on every topic. The clear intention here is to assert that all opposition to the claims of these two academics is ill informed. --Gorgonzilla 22:29, 2 November 2006

(UTC)


 * What, exactly, is your position. Forget all the Wikipedia rules and regs. Just say what your position is. What "opposition" to what "claims" are you talking about? -- Stbalbach 04:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Antonio Pérez
I miss a mention of Antonio Pérez. --Error 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Pérez case is a good one since it brings up so many issues (local fueros, use of the inquisition for political objectives to overcome the latter, one source of the Black Legend to name three). But where would you put it in the article? It doesn't fit in "Beginnings" since it happened a century after the constitution of the Inquisition.Hobomojo 03:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I left the task to other readers :) --Error 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kindom of Aragon Capital
The article states that Barcelona was the capital of the Kindom of Aragon. I believe this is incorrect. In the article about the Kingdom of Aragon, or the one in Spanish about the Crown of Aragon (same subject despite the different name), no mention of this is made.

I´m not a historian, so I may be wrong.


 * That's how it appears in the Spanish version of the Spanish Inquisition article, and I'll ask for clarification. On the Spanish Wikipedia page for Corona de Aragon, Barcelona is listed as one of the capitals, along with Zaragosa, Naples, and Valencia. "Capital" may just indicate the importance of the condado de Barcelona among the various titles accorded to the sovereign, though I have to check. Speaking of a capital strikes me (and struck me as I was translating the article) as a bit odd, perhaps anachronistic, since, for example, after the union of crowns, Ferdinand and Isabella had an itinerant monarchy, and Madrid wasn't declared the Capital of Spain until 1561 by Philip II. Hobomojo 04:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I got a good long response on the Spanish page, the short version is that it is anachronistic to call Barcelona the "capital" of Aragon during the period in question. So I'll remove that, (and Valladolid) from the article.Hobomojo 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It stroke me as the Crown of Aragon was "the first federal state", i.e. it was a crown made up of several kingdoms, confusingly including the Kingdom of Aragón, and the County of Barcelona, which never was a kingdom. Each kingdom/county may have had its capital, or something equivalent to the modern concept of a capital.

Good source
Lots of info. --Shamir1 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is by Henry Charles Lea who is discussed in this articles Historiography section. -- Stbalbach 15:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Monty Python
I think a reference to Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python) is important, as many people looking for that probably find themselves here, expecting a disambig or otheruses tag, so I added the { { otheruses } } tag. If this has already been added, discussed, and removed, I didn't find it on this page, so please just let me know before deleting it so I don't re-add it. Thanks! David 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jolly good. The Monty Python version is indeed what most people know of the event, and their version of it is a lot funnier, so a disambig tag is great :) DanielDemaret 07:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags in article
Fact tags are often used by editors to say "I disagree", but without any talk page justification why. Often, the disagreement is legitimate and the fact in question is indeed wrong, and should be deleted from the article. Fact tags are not an excuse for bad or wrong information to remain in an article. I would request that, rather then using fact tags, just simply move the contested content to the talk page with an explanation on why it was removed. If someone wants to add it back in with a citation later they will do so, but adding a fact tag doesn't really improve anything, really just makes the article seem less reliable. -- Stbalbach 15:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I put questions on the discussion section of the Spanish version asking for citations for the fact tags in Context and Protestantism. The one about the Spanish Chair I left in when I translated the Spanish version, with serious reservations but trying to respect earlier editors. I'll move it here.


 * "The “Spanish Chair,” a device used to hold the victim while the soles of their feet were roasted, was certainly in existence in Spain during the period of the Inquisition.[citation needed] It is uncertain, however, whether it was in fact used."


 * Since it is not in the Spanish version, I'm not asking there and would rather see it removed.Hobomojo 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Historiography
The purpose of the historiography section is to tell the reader what the historians position was. Quoting the historians directly is more meaningful and gets the point across than a third-party POV general statement such as "they were anti catholic". Let the historians speak for themselves in their own words, that is how good history is written. -- Stbalbach 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pressure by Ferdinand on Sixtus IV to sanction the Spanish Inquisition
One gets wrong the impression from this article that Sixtus IV freely endorsed the Spanish Inquisition. The pressure put on Sixtus by the monarchs of Spain, by threatening to withdraw armed forces in Sicily and withdraw naval help to the Vatican while it was under siege must have seemed like a death threat. No mention is made of this, and I think the article gives a totally misinformed view of papal support to the Spanish Inquisition if these details are omitted. Sixtus IV clearly opposed the Spanish Inquisition when it was requested, partly due to it undermining his authority, since they demanded that the pope should have nothing to do with it, but to put it under the crown, and later due to its unacceptable methods. DanielDemaret 07:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sixtus IV also openly wrote that the court of spain wanted the spanish inquisition out of greed, to get jewish possessions.DanielDemaret 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Easier to read
"These offences were infrequently paired with severe penalties". This had me mis-reading the sentence twice. Perhaps "These offences rarely lead to severe penalties". would be easier to read? DanielDemaret 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

concise definition
I came to this article hoping to find a definition of the meaning of the term 'Spanish Inquisition'. I think I now grasp the answer, but only after reading a many thousand words. Is it possible to express a concise definition in twenty words or so? Apparently not. If yes, consider putting that short definition in the lead section. In any case, thanks for the article. SaltyBoatr 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this says it concisely: ''A series of religious trials and persecutions, primarily between 1480 to 1530, carried out by the Spanish Monarchy in conjunction with the Catholic church serving the purpose to consolidate power."   SaltyBoatr 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all the Spanish Inquisition was an organisation, it was not a series of trials per se. That organisation, in turn, conducted inquiries and trials inside Spain. The organisation was set up, supported and controlled by the Spanish Monarchy.


 * As an analogy, lets try to define the British Court. The British court is not a series of trials, it is an organisation that conducts inquiries and trials, and that organisation was set up by and financed by... I am guessing here... the British Government.


 * The involvement of the Catholic Church was twofold: First of all, under duress, the pope Sixtus IV agreed to the organization. Secondly, members of the Clergy of Spain did the bidding of the Monarchs of Spain.


 * Inquiries, trials, and about 3,000 people were turned over to the secular authorities to be executed, mostly for heresy and some for homosexuality. I wish I could make this briefer, but for now I just wanted to make your definition less ambiguous. I hope that is ok. DanielDemaret 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me have another go at being concise: ''An organisation, which conducted religious trials, primarily between 1480 to 1530, set up by the Spanish Monarchy with the forced consent of Pope Sixtus IV, serving the purpose to consolidate power of the Spanish Monarchy in Spain." DanielDemaret 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding why I deleted "conduct punishment" in the definition. The Spanish Inquisition, strictly speaking, to my knowledge, did not administer punishment. For the most part, penitence seem to have been left to the condemned himself, going on a pilgrimage or building a church or whatever. For the death penalites, this was left to the civil authorities, and in a few early cases a mob simply took the punishment into their own hands, like in the extremely few early witches burnt. What most people remember as atrocities by the Spanish Inquisition, was the torture they authorized. Strange as this may seem, torture was seems to have been common practice as a form interrogation in civil courts around Europe, so this was not considered punishment itself. Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood so the torture itself was probably administered by non-clergy, but they were certainly responsible for it. Still, this was not punishment, just atrocious methods of interrogation. Punishment could only occur after a guilty verdict was found. A related question is when someone was imprisoned to be held for questioning. Imprisonment was not used as a punishment, but merely to a way to keep people from fleeing pending and during interrogation. DanielDemaret 06:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that punishment is not exactly or technically correct. But 'detentions, trials and sentencing' would be correct, and this I added.  Again, I am interested in seeing a concise definition in the lead, so that a reader can quickly gather an overview of the article from the reading the introduction.  I was in the position a couple days ago, when I came to the article knowing very little and hoping to find an overview in the introduction, and found that lacking.  SaltyBoatr 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * detentions and sentencing were defitely part a trial. But are they not always part of judicial trials ? Is that not redundant? If we are aiming for brevity, why bother with redundancy? DanielDemaret 17:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have the distinct impression that the term 'Spanish Inquisition', in American English standard usage at least, commonly means the entire series of events, not just the tribunal. SaltyBoatr 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct that it is often used that way. In many countries where Monty Python has been popular, the term "Spanish Inquisition" is synonymous with "papal witch-hunt". As far as I can tell, the "series of events" that is alluded to in American English standard use, is the one Monty Python alludes to. Perhaps this series of events should be explained in the disambiguation article Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python) ? DanielDemaret 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I love that scetch, by the way :) My favourite is the Parrot scetch tho. DanielDemaret 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem that makes people think that the Spanish Inquisition was a series of events might be that the word "Inquisition" also is a verb in English. But if we use that meaning in this article, I think we would risk "inventing" a series of events, taken from history, to fit the term, and our invention has no basis in any history book that I have read. We should be careful not to invent history just to follow a meaning of a word that nobody really knows what it means.DanielDemaret 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never seen that sketch, so it is unlikely to have influenced my opinion much. I will try to catch it someday soon.  SaltyBoatr 20:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rummel
Rummel writes that "probably" 150,000 died in jail during the Spanish Inquisition. Has anyone seen any other sources for this? It is not clear to me where Rummel gets this number from. DanielDemaret 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Sodomy
Before the Inquisition, trials of sodomy were conducted by civil authorities. It would be slightly interesting to know whether more or fewer people were convicted of sodomy after the Spanish Inquisition took over. DanielDemaret 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph changes
Dear me. I have seen the first paragraph change forwards and backwards a bit. Perhaps a little discussion to avoid an edit war might be in order? DanielDemaret 18:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Religious detentions" ? I never heard of such a thing.DanielDemaret 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I intend to change this:

"The Spanish Inquisition conducted religious detentions, trials and sentencing, primarily between 1480 to 1530, set up by the Spanish Monarchy with the forced consent of Pope Sixtus IV and served to consolidate power in Spain. It was not definitively abolished until 1834, during the reign of Isabel II.

The Inquisition, as an ecclesiastical tribunal, had jurisdiction only over baptized Christians. However, since Jews (in 1492) and Muslim Moors (in 1502) had been banished from Spain, jurisdiction of the Inquisition during a large part of its history extended in practice to all royal subjects. The Inquisition worked in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of recent converts known as conversos, or marranos."

1. "Religious detentions" is wrong, and detentions /sentencing is superfluous. 2. "The Spanish Inquisition conducted..." seems to confuse people who do not know what the word "Inquisition" means in this context. This should therefore be explained. 3. "The Inquisition" is not a historical unambigous name. There were many inquisitions.

Therefore I suggest

"The Spanish Inquisition was an ecclesiastical tribunal which conducted trials into heresy, primarily between 1480 to 1530. It was set up by Ferdinand and Isabella to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and was under the direct control of the Spanish monarchy with the forced consent of Pope Sixtus IV and served to consolidate power in Spain. It was not definitively abolished until 1834, during the reign of Isabel II.

The Spanish Inquisition, as an ecclesiastical tribunal, had jurisdiction only over baptized Christians. However, since Jews (in 1492) and Muslim Moors (in 1502) had been banished from Spain, jurisdiction of the Inquisition during a large part of its history extended in practice to all royal subjects. The Inquisition worked in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of recent converts known as conversos, or marranos." DanielDemaret 19:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I found the term 'religious detentions' here: Spanish Inquisition. As many cases of lengthy incarcerations occurred, I don't understand why you view it as superfluous.  Similar for the 'sentencing', as the fear of punishment was the primary source of power essential for the function of the tribunal; how was it superfluous?  SaltyBoatr 20:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny. I only see the word "detention" in your link. I do not see the expression "religious detention" anywhere. I have never heard of a "religious detention" before. In what way would a "religious detention", in that case differ from a standard detention? DanielDemaret 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the reason I find the word "sentences" superfluous is that all courts pass sentences, don't they? And detentions - well, every modern court that I have heard of that pass sentences over men chose to have some of then detained. It is like saying Socrates was a human man who ate. It would be enough to say Socrates was a man. The "human" and "ate" parts are sort of included in the idea of "man" and in the same way "sentences" and "detentions" are included in what courts do. If detentions had been unusual for courts, then it should be included, but since we all know that courts detain, I see no point in mentioning it. DanielDemaret 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * However, the interesting parts about the sentences and the detentions was this. The sentences were cruel and the detentions could be very long. So if we mention sentences and detentions in the first paragraph, then to make worthwhile, we should include "cruel sentences" and "lengthy detentions". I just hope it won't be too long a sentence. DanielDemaret 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be an improvement. I favor clear simple communication of the key points using simple words.  I expect a large percentage of the readers to read only the first few lines of the article, and the goal should be for these readers to get the key concepts quickly.  SaltyBoatr 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am flexible on which adjective, but detention and sentencing are key concepts. I see the central concept to communicate is that coercion was used to consolidate power.  Indeed, I favor using the word 'punishment' to accomplish this.  Though I am open to other ideas. SaltyBoatr 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmm. I see. Well, courts, states/monarchs always use coercion, so that's not new, but ok. But then again, the "Spanish Inquisition" did not technically administer punishments, as I have mentioned before. All the coercion footwork was left to civilians. Tricky isn't it? The church did not have to use force. I too would like the force part to be in there, but I am not going to put in something I know to be false. Best to put another sentence in the first paragraph instead of jamming up the first one. DanielDemaret 21:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I read 'coercion' when I read of detention and of sentencing, that is why I favor those words, but I am flexible. SaltyBoatr 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about adding this after "Isabel II" something along these lines:

"The court has been criticised ever since that time by the Pope, and by English and Spanish authors for the lengty detentions, the use of torture to get confessions and the cruel capital punishments it sentenced." DanielDemaret 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is better. SaltyBoatr 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I favor the 'small word' religious over the 'big word' ecclesiastical. The opening paragraph can benefit from a simple vocabulary because some of the readers of this encyclopedia are not 'big word' people.  Fourth grade children read this article too. Simplifying the opening is a public service, even if it is at the cost of a loss of precision of wording.  Any confusion caused by simple words can be clarified down below.  Other 'big words' in the opening paragraph that need translation include perhaps tribunal, baptized, heresy, orthodoxy.  I propose we reword the opening so a fourth grader can understand.  Agreed?  SaltyBoatr 20:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am all for simplicity. But it was not exactly a religious tribunal. How about "church court"? church instead of Ecclesiastical, and court instead of Tribunal? DanielDemaret 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, 'church court' is better. Wasn't it a 'state church'?  Perhaps 'state church court'. SaltyBoatr 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was definitely not a 'state church'. Exactly how much the Spanish Monarchs could control them, how much papal influence could hold them and how much their own convictions and consciousness could guide them is an intricate question. DanielDemaret 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't get the distinction. Were not all people, except members of the church, extradited? SaltyBoatr 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) First of all, "except members of the church" is wrong. Members or the church were definitely not excempt. All those belonging to the church equally investigated. Several priests were questioned in that court.
 * 2) Secondly, not all of the rest could be called, only members of the church. A church court has only has jusisdiction over baptized Christians. They could not call an orthodox jew to that court, but only those jews that had converted and become christians. The charge was whether or not they really believed in they conversion, or if they had converted merely for financial reasons.
 * 3) Thirdly, the distinction between a "state church" and a "church" is huge. It is that a state church is totally owned by the state, like the Anglican Church in England, or the Lutheran State Church of Sweden or Denmark. In Spain, the church still belonged to Rome. They still had to follow the rules set up by the Vatican. As an example of such rules, there is one estimate that 50,000 people were accused of witchcraft. Only 2 are recorded to have been sentenced by the Spanish Inquisition. Another 4 were burnt by a mob before the Inquisition proper even arrived at the site, but the mob obviously thought it was doing their bidding. (Which is one of the reasons the Inquisition got some local support. They actually stopped mobs from rioting by having a court ). In the "state churches" like in Germany practically all accused were convicted to death. See Huttons estimates of deaths per country in the table in Witch-hunt "State churches" do not have to follow Vatican procedures. So had it been a "state church" then my guess is that they would have murdered 300,000 instead of just 3,000. There is a huge difference between a "state church" and A catholic court controlled by monarchs.
 * 4) I am even having problems in my mind with the word "court" instead of "Tribunal" since a court might be misinterpreted in several ways, where as "Tribunal" is pretty much what we are talking about. But I shall let it stand until someone else protests. Perhaps they have better ideas on the name. DanielDemaret 06:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Too technical?
SaltyBoatr had problems with the original first paragraph. One look at the sentence, and I realized that although correct, it did not say what the Spanish Inquisition was, only what it did. So we are trying to improve that. Is the article still too technical? Does it still assume that one know what an Inquisition and relies on people surfing over to "Inquisition" and "Tribunal" just to understand those word? We want the article to be legible by all, as well as correct. DanielDemaret 06:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The spanish article uses the word "institution" instead of court or Tribunal. Is that any good? DanielDemaret 06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your help with this. I have taken your wording and edited it to use simpler words and active verbs.  I have tried to not alter the meaning.  I see that the word 'cruel' is widely used in the context of human rights, so it does not cross the 'weasel word' boundary in my opinion. I have a slight concern with the word enforced, but here is usage of the word where a court is to enforce law, so it is probably OK.  SaltyBoatr 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My suggested first paragraph:
 * The Spanish Inquisition was a church court which harshly enforced Catholic traditions, set up and used by Spanish King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella to consolidate their power in Spain, with the forced consent of the Pope. This court was most active from 1480 to 1530 but not formally ended until 1834 and has been widely criticized for cruelty including long detentions, torture to get confessions and sentencing of capital punishments.  SaltyBoatr 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I really liked Mamalujo's version better. "harshly enforced Catholic traditions" is very unclear since the exact nature traditions referred to here have not been in use by the catholic church for hundreds of years now. In fact, I don't even know what traditions you are referring to. Mamalujo also had a short first sentence. Short is good :) DanielDemaret 17:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the neither the church nor the church court had the power to enforce anything. DanielDemaret 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Today courts questions and sentence while the police "enforce". It was similar in those days. Civil authorities did the "enforce" part, not the courts.DanielDemaret 19:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to have to put back Mamalujo's version. It may be a bit long, but at least it is unambiguous and factually correct. Perhaps we should try to change one sentence at the time, to make the changes in the article seem less dramatic? DanielDemaret 17:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's start over, do we or don't we agree that the opening should be simple and clear enough for a fourth grader to understand? SaltyBoatr 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested new first paragraph
I dare not change it right now. I don't want an edit war, but how about this?

The main change is to put in === Overview === since a first paragraph should not really have more than one short sentence, if possible.

Feel free to put in "cruel and unusual" in front of Capital Punishment.

The Spanish Inquisition was a church court which held trials primarily between 1480 to 1530.

Overview
The court was set up by Ferdinand and Isabella with the forced consent of Pope Sixtus IV and was under the direct control of the Spanish monarchy.

Ferdinand and Isabella wanted to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms since different religious factions created violence and death in the newly conquered territories, very much as is still happening in newly conquered territories in the world today. Therefore they first expelled non-christians, and when it became clear that some that converted were insincere, the idea of a court was born. The court was not definitively abolished until 1834, during the reign of Isabel II.

The court has been criticised ever since that time by the Pope for being overly zealous, and by English and Spanish authors for long detentions, over-use of torture to get confessions and for the capital punishments it sentenced. Most modern scholars maintain that the Inquisition was not as severe as often portrayed and that many of the criticisms were without merit, as torture at the time was ubiquitous in Europe and capital punishment was much more used in other tribunals (see Black Legend).

An Inquisition, as an ecclesiastical tribunal, had jurisdiction only over baptized Christians. However, since Jews (in 1492) and Muslim Moors (in 1502) had been banished from Spain, jurisdiction of the Inquisition during a large part of its history extended in practice to all royal subjects. The Inquisition worked in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of recent converts known as conversos, or marranos.DanielDemaret 18:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up tag
Could someone provide a detailed and actionable rationale for the clean up tag? Not general opinions, but specific and actionable items. Typically the cleanup tag is used when an article has formating problems, such as inline footnotes that don't use ref tags, etc.. -- Stbalbach

Lead paragraph
The lead paragraph need to follow the rules set forth at WP:LEAD. The Lead paragraph is a high-level summary of the article contents. It should repeat what is in the article in a balanced summary format ie. if 25% of the article discusses historiography, then 25% of the lead section should be a summary of historiography. As it is, the lead section is poorly written. -- Stbalbach 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have merely tried to keep it factual. A previous lead was more according to "WP:Lead", but the problem with it seems to have been that people not familiar with the subject did not understand it. I don't suppose I could ask you to help out? DanielDemaret 21:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with WP:LEAD, especially WP:LEAD, as personally I feel that children should also find the lead paragraph accessible. SaltyBoatr 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also willing, and have been trying to help out (though I will be off line over the weekend). I find the word, 'orthodoxy' to be a 'big word' and not accessible. I tried to find simpler words to say the same thing, such as 'church traditions'.

Here is my latest suggestion for an accessible first paragraph:

''The Spanish Inquisition was a church court which ruled on Catholic traditions, set up and used by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella to consolidate their power over Spain, with the forced consent of the Pope. This court was most active from 1480 to 1530 but not formally ended until 1834 and has been widely criticized for cruelty including long detentions, torture to get confessions and sentencing of capital punishments.''

I would welcome specific edits, you know the subject better than I, and I am just trying to interpret the 'facts' accurately, simply and concisely. SaltyBoatr 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I get this right, Stbalbach. The lead should repeat what is in the article in a balanced summary format. That means that it should include a summary of each of :


 * 1) 1 Precedents
 * 2) 2 Background
 * 3) 3 Expulsion of the Jews
 * 4) 4 Motives for instituting the Spanish Inquisition
 * 5) 5 Activity of the Inquisition

* 5.1 Beginnings * 5.2 Repression of Protestants * 5.3 Censorship * 5.4 The Inquisition and the Moriscos * 5.5 Other offenses


 * 1) 6 Organization
 * 2) 7 Composition of the tribunals
 * 3) 8 Functioning of the inquisition

* 8.1 Accusation * 8.2 Detention * 8.3 The trial * 8.4 Sentencing * 8.5 The Autos de Fe


 * 1) 9 Decadence of the inquisition
 * 2) 10 End of the Inquisition
 * 3) 11 Death tolls
 * 4) 12 Historiography

* 12.1 The Spanish "Black Legend" * 12.2 Professional historians * 12.3 Inquisition Revisionism


 * 1) 13 The Spanish Inquisition in the Arts

* 13.1 Painting * 13.2 Literature * 13.3 Film * 13.4 Theatre and TV

And here was I worrying that it was already too long. This lead is going to be humongous :) DanielDemaret 22:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's somewhat of an art to write a good lead section, but it can be done, per WP:LEAD, it should be a mini, standalone version of the article. -- Stbalbach 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

biased sources
please refrain from using biased sources such as the CRISIS "magazine" i read the article from which you determined that the inquisition did not torture most of the people they converted, and there were was no source list from where they recieved their information which only serves to tell me that this article was written as propaganda to make the Catholic church look innocent of its atrocities in the past. I am not against Catholicism but I am a Historian and when a historical article is bewing printed one should always try to remain as objective as possible; especially when dealing with such a sore subject as the Inquisition is. I submit that that particular part of the article be deleated or at least be put into a section with a title that states that this is a modern catholics opinion of what happened. Because if one looks at the actual records of what was done to those people and to how many it was done to the results which were written done by the clergy of the church you should find that the supposed reputable CRISIS magazine is not only completely wrong but also promoting propaganda which is a lie and against the Christian religion "thou shalt not bear false wittness on thy neighbor." also even though one should turn the other cheek we must not forget that the inquisitors were essentially murdering people. "thou shalt not kill" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Tree that defies the fire (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I agree, this is an extremely controversial part of the Spanish I., there many POV's on it, in fact we have an entire Wikipedia article that discusses this complex and controversial topic - it deserves nothing less, and should be presented there with many sources, many POV's, otherwise it is unbalanced. I also agree that source is weak, there are many much better and more authoritative sources available. -- Stbalbach 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if this is the point of view the "catholics" have, it is funny that Henry Kamen, Edward Peters and even (partly) Henry Charles Lea, share the same point of view:
 * From Lea, Henry Charles History of the Inquisition of Spain vol. III: We shall see that occasionally tribunals abused the use of torture, but the popular impression that the inquisitorial torture-chamber was the scene of exceptional refinement in cruelty, of specially ingenious modes of inflicting agony, and of peculiar, persistence in extorting confessions, is an error due to sensational writers who have exploited credulity. The system was evil in conception and in execution, but the Spanish Inquisition, at least, was not responsible for its introduction and, as a rule, was less cruel than the secular courts in its application, and confined itself more strictly to a few well-known methods [...] In this respect, the comparison between the Spanish and the Roman Inquisition is also eminently in favor of the former.
 * So, what historian are you citing when you imply "that the inquisition did torture most of the people they converted"? Personally, that phrase, the I am not against Catholicism and the Bible quotes denote a quite strong POV. And please, cite the modern non-catholic historians that have another opinion, so that we can also judge for ourselves about the quality of your sources. As for we must not forget that the inquisitors were essentially murdering people Wikipedia is not the place to pass judgment, or to put personal opinions, but to inform (with sources) what the state of the art is.
 * Cheers, --Ecelan 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you want sources for Madden's words you can find them in Kamen, Henry, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. Yale University Press, 1999. ISBN 0300078803; Peters, Edward, Inquisition, University of California Press, 1989 ISBN 0-520-06630-8.
 * P.S.² It is funny how deeply entrenched is the prejudice that catholic historians "cannot be neutral", while protestant historians "must be".
 * This material is already covered in the inquisition myth article (or revisionism article - see the disambig page). Also in the historiography section of this article. -- Stbalbach 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr unsigned, you mention "inquisition did not torture most of the people they converted". Where does this come from? I can not see anything in the article here that mentions this, and I can not find that sort of information anywhere else either, neither by search engines nor by aid of my local university library. I apologize to everyone else here if my question is "feeding the trolls", but when in doubt, I tend to ask. DanielDemaret 09:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it yesterday. This is covered in the "inquisition myth" article (keeps changing names). Someone had added is recently. -- Stbalbach 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A new lead, based on trying to take one sentence for each section below in line with WP:Lead
The Spanish Inquisition was an institution that had precedents in other Inquisitions. The reconquest of Spain from the Moors resulted in a relatively peaceful mult-religious society, but violent anti-judaism ensued and jews converted en masse. Some of these conversos were suspected of not being sincere converts and the Alhambra Decree in 1492 ordered all Jews to leave their kingdoms, making about 40,000 jews leave. Various motives have been proposed for the monarch to start the Inquisition, such as increased policitcal authority, weakening opposition, doing away with conversos and sheer profit.

Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured pope Sixtus IV to agree to letting him set up an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy by threatening to withdraw militarily support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. Sixtus IV later accused the the spanish inquisition of being overzealous, accused the monarchs for being greedy and issued a bull to stop it, but he was pressured into withdrawing the bull.

During the 16th century, protestants were the main target instead and about 100 were executed. A list of of prohibited books were drawn up in an index to contain heresy. With time, converts from islam, moriscos, were also persecuted by the Spanish Inquisition. Other crimes were also taken up in these tribunals such as superstitions, heretical propositions, sodomy, bigamy and solicitation. Among superstitions, six witches can be positively verified to have been executed.

The Spanish Inquisition was an institution at the service of the monarchy, but it still had to follow procedures set up by the Holy See, and the appointment of Inquisitor General had to be approved by the pope. Most of the inquisitors were priests, and had a university education in law. Its income came from the confiscations and otherwise operated in conformity with Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. The procedures would start with Edicts of Grace, where people were invited step forward to confess heresy freely and to denounce others. Denounciations were followed by detentions, which in some cases lasted up to two years before the trial. At the trial, the defendant was assigned a defendant, who mainly adviced the defendant to tell the truth. A Notary of the Secreto meticulously wrote down the words of the accused. The archives of the Inquisition, in comparison to those of other judicial systems of the era, are striking in the completeness of their documentation. The percentage of cases where torture was used, which was as a means of getting confessions, varied. Sentences varied from fines to execution and those condemned had to participate in the ceremony of auto de fe. The arrival of the Enlightenment in Spain in the first half of the 18th century slowed inquisitorial activity and it was definitively abolished on July 15, 1834 From 1480 to 1834 probably between 3,000 and 5,000 people were executed.

Historians have revised their view of what happened over time. In the mid-16th century, coincident with the persecution of the Protestants, there began to appear from the pens of various European Protestant intellectuals the start of the Black Legend, which became very popular reading in Europe. As time moved on, professional historians appeared, and gave a more detailed, more nuanced and less exaggerated picture of events. The spanish Inquisition appears not only in books, but also in paintings and in recent films.

Unless protests are made, I shall make this, or something very similar the new Lead.DanielDemaret 21:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. DanielDemaret 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This sentence in paragraph three doesn't seem to make sense, and is adviced a word? ''At the trial, the defendant was assigned a defendant, who mainly adviced the defendant to tell the truth. ''  SaltyBoatr 20:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct of course. I have now copied the relevant phrase from below. Thank you. DanielDemaret 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Should "auto de fe" be in italics and/or wikified? SaltyBoatr 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and change it please. I am not good at wikifying :) DanielDemaret 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence says ...and Jews converted en masse. This seems like bad grammar, as the sentence has a predicate and no object. (forgive me if my grammar terminology is wrong) IOW, shouldn't it say something like '...and Jews converted en masse to the Catholic faith'? SaltyBoatr 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a clear improvement. I changed that now. DanielDemaret 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

aimed at ... unity ... through conversions?
It is a bit odd that this summary paragraph: Catholic_Church says the Inquisition, were aimed at securing religious and doctrinal unity within Christianity through conversion, and sometimes persecution, of alleged heretics. But that this article here makes no mention of ...aimed at...unity...through conversions. I am curious, which is correct? SaltyBoatr 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "conversion of a heretic"? The word "conversion" in these articles, usually refers to "conversion to the catholic faith". But the accusation of being "a heretic" is usually aimed at one who claims to belong to the Catholic faith, but utters heretical views. "conversion of a heretic" would then mean "converting a person belonging to the Catholic faith to the Catholic faith", which seems impossible. At the very least, the sentence in Catholic_Church should be made less ambiguous, if not changed. The "within Christianity through conversion", should perhaps be changed to "within Christianty through repentance and public retraction of heretical views." or something like that? DanielDemaret 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The people at the talk page on Catholic_Church have assured to me that the only possible interpretation of the word "conversion of heretics", is the conversion of catholics from straying from the true faith. I stopped arguing after that. DanielDemaret 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the section on Motives for Instituting the Inquisition has first


 * 1) To establish political and religious unity. The Inquisition allowed the monarchy to intervene actively in religious affairs, without the interference of the Pope. At the same time, Ferdinand and Isabella's objective was the creation of an efficient state machinery; thus one of their priorities was to achieve religious unity to promote more centralized political authority. Hobomojo 02:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alumbrados
The Alumbrados are listed under persecution of Protestants. Should that be there? They may have been heretics but I don't believe they could at all be considered Protestants.Mamalujo 18:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Protestant" derrives from "to protest", all heretical sects were by definition "Protestants". That they don't fit neatly into some modern notion of "Protestantism" is beside the point, and trying to slot them there is anachronisic. And by the way, removing the phrase that "most Inquisitors were priests" as "factually erronious" is, well, factually erronious. Hobomojo 05:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article on Protestantism has it that "Protestantism encompasses the forms of Christian faith and practice that originated with the doctrines of the Reformation. The term is derived from the Protestatio delivered by a minority of delegates against the (1529) Diet of Speyer, which passed legislation opposed by the Lutherans.".


 * Perhaps this part of the article on Protestantism is wrong? Its source seems to be "Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia". I read that sentence as meaning that the original meaning of the word "protestant" was even narrower than it is sometimes used today. I have not before heard Alumbrados called protestants, and I can not see how they can be. Luther protested against aspects of the Catholic Church, but Alumbrados did not really protest, did they? I may be wrong. This is certainly not my area of expertise, I just read a few books.


 * About Inquisitors being priests or not, I don't care which it is, but no matter which is true, the source should be cited, or if no sources found, then the "priest" part should be omitted, since it is challenged, until someone can provide any reference to either point of view. DanielDemaret 08:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * List of Grand Inquisitors of Spain, mainly priests.


 * It is not a question of the Protestantism article being right or wrong. The objective of the Protistantism article is, in part, to trace the origins of what is today known as Protestantism, and locate the origin of the term. While the Protestatio may have a clear statement that might constitute doctrine (and would probably thereby exclude most of today's US Protestants) is beside the point, it is just where the term originated. On the other hand the phrase "doctrines of the Reformation" lacks any kind of precision, but that's OK. The reformers (Luther, Calvin et al) and the Catholics (Counter-Reformation, Trent) were working out the boundries over the course of decades. I haven't looked at original documents regarding the Alumbrados, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were refered to there as "Luteranos" (which was much more common) or "Protestantes" since the definitial precision we use today was not in use at the time. The point is that, to the Inquisition, Christians (individually or sects) deviating from Catholic Orthodoxy, which was itself constantly being defined and redefined, were understood as "Protestants", and more frequently "Luteranos", (even if the beliefs expressed by the latter had nothing to do with Luther). The first rule of historical writing is "Don't be anachronistic", in other words, don't apply a modern notion of Protestantism to beliefs of hundreds of years ago; understand the term as it was used by historical actors at the time: vaguely, ambiguously and occasionally erroniously. Hobomojo 21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am merely saying that references would be a very good idea here. DanielDemaret 08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence immediatly preceding the paragraph on Alumbrados is " “Most of them were in no sense Protestants...Irreligious sentiments, drunken mockery, anticlerical expressions, were all captiously classified by the inquisitors (or by those who denounced the cases) as ‘Lutheran.’ Disrespect to church images, and eating meat on forbidden days, were taken as signs of heresy.” With citation to Kamen. What more do you want?Hobomojo 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another reason for the inquisition
I have added another possible reason for the Inquisition. I am surprised this was not mentioned since it came up in a few research papers while I was at the University of Pennsylvania. I'm sure much debate will ensue. Miguel 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Official Catholic Position or Encyclopedia Article?
do Wikipedia readers deserve a more balanced approach to this important historical chapter or is the Official Catholic/Monarchy apologist version the right thing for this typically trustworthy online resource??? what a disappointing article! if a book was written before the 1990s then it's irrelevant?? 209.162.40.192 09:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The most frequently cited author in the article is Henry Kamen, and since he's Jewish, and a Brit, you'll have to be pretty inventive to come up with an argument that his view is either the "official Catholic" position or the [Spanish] monarch's position. His work was first published in 1965, as a side project from his dissertation, and has been revised, updated and re-issued ever since. It is THE standard text on the topic. Hobomojo 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sixtus IV or Sixtus VI ?
The 1st sentence in paragraph 2 says "...pressured pope Sixtus IV to agree..." Then the next sentence says "Sixtus VI later accused ..." Finally the last sentence says "On both occasions Sixtus IV went along..."

I'm a bit confused: does the article talk about Pope Sixtus IV (FOUR) or Sixtus VI (SIX)? Is one of them a typo?


 * Typo, thanks Hobomojo 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive
I've archived the previous talk page as it was becoming unmanageably long. If anyone feels the need to copy back recent discussions, please do so. Hobomojo 05:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)