Talk:Historical revision of the Inquisition

message: First of all, in my opinion, this article either needs to be deleted or deeply revised (*ba dum tss*).  Secondly; I don't really have anything new to add to this talk page, I just wanted to try and start-up the conversation again, because the last post on this page was made 2 years ago. Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bringing this back(?) 

message: Hi everyone. I just added Template:POV and Template:fringe theories to this page, because this page is seriously biased towards Catholic apologists, and it's been that way for quite a while now.  As can be seen in the article's edit history and in the previous Talk page discussions, there are several other wikians who agree that this article is POV.  Additionally, the article does not do nearly enough to let the reader know that historical revisionism of the inquisition is very much a fringe view.  Another glaring issue is the fact that the bulk of the article's information comes from one source – revisionist Edward Peters's Inquisition.  The article often states Peters's claims as fact, which seems pretty WP:PROFRINGE to me, and also greatly reduces the verifiability/notability of the article.
This is why I added these templates, and I am happy to further discuss them with anyone here who wants to.
Best regards, Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've taken the fringe one off for now, as I don't think the positions described can be so called in the terms WP uses - Henry Kamen for one cannot be so easily dismissed. "Historical revisionism of the inquisition", starting from the Black Legend, has many shades, and current mainstream thinking would accept at least some of it. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right about the fact that at least some historical revisionist views on the Inquisition are accepted by the mainstream, as many different beliefs/ideas fit under "Historical revisionism of the Inquisition". However, I still do think that much of the article is spent disproportionately advancing various fringe-y ideas and claims without adequately portraying them as the fringe beliefs they are. That said, I suppose that the article as a whole does not quite fit the criteria for the fringe template, so your removal of it seems fair enough.  Thanks! Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 09:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Disagree with tag. The article seems to be about more recent scholarship about the inquisitions as demonstrated by Peters and Kamen. Any statements that may appear to some as NPOV are cited to either of them. There has been, and still is, ample opportunity to add dissenting views from other reputable academics. One may not agree with either Peters or Kamen, but their theses seem to be accurately presented. Manannan67 (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and fringe templates 

message: Having read all of the above discussion it appears that for a good number of people, their grasp of the subject is circa 1820. There were a number of "inquisitions" at different times, in different places. Sometimes the secular authorities ignored it, sometimes they cooperated, mostly they used it to their own advantage. Part of the hysteria about the big bad Church, which had progressively less influence, is an inability or reluctance to engage with the political realities in the respective countries under various rulers. Manannan67 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yawn