Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inquisition of the Netherlands


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Inquisition of the Netherlands

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Spanish Inquisition was not active in The Netherlands because The Netherlands were not technically part of the Spanish Crown and it could never hold jurisdiction there. There was an inquisition but it was not the malevolent secretive organization it is portrayed as here. Executions were more likely to be conducted by political authorities and not the church. Most of this article is based on 16th century rumors, Protestant propaganda, and 19th century historiography. The Talk page contains a list of references to which I suspect the author did not have access to because they often dispel the 'myth' or 'legend' of the Spanish Inquisition in The Netherlands as it is portrayed here. Oda86 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * An article by Belgian historian Werner Thomas discusses this myth of the Spanish Insuisition in the Netherlands. Oda86 (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Oda86 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. If the issue is neutrality, that is not a matter for AfD. If the argument is that Inquisition did not exist in the Netherlands, that is contradicted by reliable sources. See, for example, this book, recently published (2014) by a reputable publishing house (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). In fact, whether by actual practices or fear of its establishment, it is an important part of Dutch history as a cause of the Dutch Revolt. StAnselm (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article is longer than the two paragraphs in the book you referenced. Only one sentence from the Wikipedia article corresponds to what is written in those two paragraphs. That one sentence (about Francis Van der Hulst) seems to be the only factual part of the entire article. If the article is to be kept it would have to be rewritten entirely. If the importance of the rumors about the Spanish Inquisition merit being on Wikipedia, it should either be as part of the Black legend (Spain) or as part of the article on the Dutch Revolt. Oda86 (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, possibly as Inquisition in the Netherlands. I only had to take off my shelf J.I. Israel, Dutch Republic: its rise greatness and fall (Oxford University Press, 1995) and look at the index to find it had several passages in the subject.  This told me (pp.99-101) that Pieter Titelmans was Inquisitor of the County of Flanders, processing 494 heresy cases, leading to 105 executions.  The inquisition seems to have existed 1521-66, initially under Francis van der Hulst aimed at rooting out Protestantism.  No doubt there were differences from that in Spain; and perhaps its Spanish nature needs toning down, but that is a matter of editing not a question of whether the article should exist.  Whether executions were conducted by the church or the state matters little: they were the result of trials instigated by inquisitors.  I do not know enough about the history of the Southern Netherlands after the Dutch Revolt to know how Catholicism was reestablished as the state religion there, with Protestants either migrating to the United Provinces or converting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Most executions were not the result of trials instigated by inquisitors but by the Council of Troubles which was a special tribunal instituted by the governor-general. They tried heresy as a case of treason and didn't operate as part of the Catholic Church. A 2009 also study states that it was the political authorities that acted against protestants. Oda86 (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. There was an inquisition in the Netherlands, but it was imperial–papal and not the Spanish Inquisition. I have edited the article to make this clear. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edit does make it look like the beginnings of an actually factual article. It could be worth salvaging if a lot of it were removed. In particular anything based on The Rise of the Dutch Republic by John Lothrop Motley. Even his 19th century contemporaries were very critical of this work ("tendency to make up "facts" if they made for a good story"; "his views are generally too obsolete"; "bias in favor of Protestants and against Catholics"). It had set the tone of the entire article before the edit which might have made me more antipathical to the article as a whole.Oda86 (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cook, Bernard (2002). Belgium: A History also doesn't seem to go over well in academic circles in the Low Countries. One review concluded: "il faut cependant déplorer son manque réel de consistance et l’absence d’une vraie perspective d’information scientifique." (however, we must deplore its real lack of consistency and the absence of a real perspective of scientific information). Maybe part of the issue is that the Historical revision of the Inquisition - The Revolt of the Netherlands hasn't found it's way beyond Dutch and Belgian historiography. Most of what I find to make my point is written in Dutch or French whereas arguments from the other side tend to come from English or American writers. I also learned about the Spanish Inquisition in the Netherlands in high school but studying history at university, this was one of the things my professors took the time to debunk. I suppose nobody wants the truth to stand in the way of a good story Oda86 (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The kinds of content problems the OP describes are not appropriately solved through deletion, although I won't be surprised if this article becomes more about dispelling myths or historiography in time. I myself made an edit to this article with the edit summary: "Add quotation which questions this whole article". The quote included "there never was any scheme to establish a Holy Office of the sort known in Castile in the Netherlands". However, I also did a thorough search for sources and found a number, which I added to the further reading section. They seem to indicate notability, and I would be glad to see someone step forward to integrate them into the article. I'm afraid I just haven't gotten around to it. would you be up for the task? Daask (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with there being an article on "Religious persecution in The Netherlands" but that would widen the scope even further. It would also complicate matters even further because the Dutch Revolt was basically a civil war where one town might have seen the persecution of Catholics whereas a few towns over Protestants were subjected to the same. My main issue is with the term 'inquisition' because The term 'Inquisition' was already leading to confusion in the sixteenth century. [...] Since then, 'the Inquisition' has also been used in historiography as a container term and has obfuscated historical debates. Most of your sources are about rumors and propaganda about the inquisition (even if they do use the word "inquisition" in their title). Muchembled is actually a review of the book "Modern Inquisition trials in the southern Netherlands" in which he extensively criticizes the misuse of that term in the title. Historical revision of the Inquisition - The Revolt of the Netherlands mentions a forged "decree of the Spanish Inquisition signed by the King of Spain in 1568 declared most Dutch lives and property forfeit" that was not discovered to be a forgery until the 20th century (I would have to consult the source to know the actual year though). This would invalidate any source you mention published in the 19th and early 20th century. The main issue is that even historians constantly seem to correct each other on the proper use of the term as it applies to the Netherlands. Rewriting the page under its current title would leave nothing more than a stub. Rewriting it as "Religious persecution in The Netherlands" seems to broad and narrowing it down might render it too niche. If we were to turn it into "Myths about the Inquisition of the Netherlands" it would be better suited under Black legend (Spain) or Historical revision of the Inquisition - The Revolt of the Netherlands. The latter also still requires a lot of revising. I quoted a source below that, for me, indicates that as far as there was an inquisition in the Netherlands not enough information about it remains to build a notable article. All the rest just comes from historical misunderstandings and misuse of the term.
 * So, in summary: Integrating the sources you added might not be enough. Rewriting the article almost entirely, with exception of the contributions made in the last few days, might be enough. It would basically be a short section on how there wasn't really an institutionalized Inquisition in the Netherlands, only a handful of people with the title of inquisitor over a short time (see below). Laying out how persecution of Protestants was a civic matter, not one performed by the Church. And then a more sizeable sections about myths, rumors and propaganda about the Spanish Inquisition and the resulting misinterpretation by historians of the role the Inquisition played in religious persecutions in The Netherlands, which has been corrected in recent decades. Would that be a notable?


 * Keep. This inquisition existed, is notable. Whether it was an extension of the Spanish inquisition is a separate question. (does the source given support the term "protestant propaganda"?. Hydromania (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * re Propaganda: The term is used by historians on the Dutch revolt to describe the "paper war" waged at the time via pamphlets.
 * re the term inquisition: Using that term is problematic. There was a sort of papal inquisition that dealt with heresy from 1525 to 1540. This was in no way or form an extension of the Spanish Inquisition nor was it ever a stable organisation . After that it became the jurisdiction of the political authorities but their actions are still referred to in the article as those of an "inquisition". It isn't. Oda86 (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment --  This article contends that the outreach of the Inquisition in the Low Countries should not be exaggerated as Goosens has done by equating it with other early modern centralised Inquisitions. Unlike Spain, Portugal or Italy, the Inquisition in the Low Countries never turned into a stable organisation which survived for centuries: it was certainly buried by 1589, if not already by 1576-7. In fact, we argue that the Inquisition in the Low Countries should primarily be regarded as an 'office' bestowed upon individuals rather than as a proper institution. It never acquired a building or created separate archives. In the Low Countries, the Inquisition never formed a tribunal, yet individual inquisitors were called upon as specialised judges for offending clerics, or for judicial procedures de fide conducted by laymen. Inquisitors - and there were not so many of them in total - were often appointed ad hoc, after the death of the previous holder of the function. As importantly, the inquisitorial function was continuously reassessed during the sixteenth century, while never attaining a fixed equilibrium. Its functions were thus subject to changing dynamics: first, the inquisitors served as a much-needed check-and-balance on the civil courts and episcopal and papal inquisitors. Then they became an intelligence service for civil courts which had received broadened competence regarding heretics. Finally, after the episcopal reform in 1559, even inquisitors themselves no longer insisted on the necessity of their function. Hence, the inquisitorial office went through different phases of cooperation and antagonism with both the secular and the ecclesiastical officials with whom it shared responsibility for the repression of heterodoxy. Oda86 (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.