Talk:Spanish Inquisition/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)</sup> 18:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of paragraph 

message: 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. — Chameleon 13:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  it's been hacked 

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

message: 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"—it's not very useful unless you already know what it's trying to tell you. --Aranel ("Sarah") 23:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Spanish Inquisition was the Inquisition of Spain." 

message: 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)
replies: text: I expect it's a guy who the vandal knows and hates. Scorpionman 19:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Ryan Crompton? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Only Jews and Muslems 

message: "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)
replies: text: Enlightenment. --Error 02:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  French illustration 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Auto de fe pic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not neutral at all 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead section question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1st picture caption 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree, that sentence is NPOV. It is fascinating.  --Stbalbach 21:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hasdrubal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not a Church-run Site 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Blatant Anti-Catholicism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:3RR]] 

message: There are a couple problems with the article:
#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.
#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.
#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)
thread_title:  Problems with article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ..surely this is a joke 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia:Footnotes. "Censorship" section is a great addition. --Stbalbach 03:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I added a translation of the Protestants section, and will continue as time allowsHobomojo 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish version 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: "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)
thread_title:  What is this all about? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disputation of Barcelona 

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

text: Much better - many thanks! Dfuss 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Translation Complete 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Category:Al-Andalus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Heresy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too complicated 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too Biased 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation link repair 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sourcing the introduction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I miss a mention of Antonio Pérez. --Error 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's why I left the task to other readers :) --Error 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antonio Pérez 

message: Lots of info. --Shamir1 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is by Henry Charles Lea who is discussed in this articles Historiography section. -- Stbalbach 15:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Monty Python 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historiography 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pressure by Ferdinand on Sixtus IV to sanction the Spanish Inquisition 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Easier to read 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rummel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Homosexuality and Sodomy 

message: 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)
replies: text: I found the term 'religious detentions' here: Spanish Inquisition#Detention.  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested new first paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. DanielDemaret 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Go ahead and change it please. I am not good at wikifying :) DanielDemaret 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, a clear improvement. I changed that now. DanielDemaret 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new lead, based on trying to take one sentence for each section below in line with WP:Lead 

message: It is a bit odd that this summary paragraph: Catholic_Church#Inquisition 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)
replies: text: "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#Inquisition 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)
replies: text:  The people at the talk page on Catholic_Church#Inquisition 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)
replies: text:  Actually, the section on Motives for Instituting the Inquisition has first
# 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)
thread_title:  aimed at ... unity ... through conversions? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another reason for the inquisition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Official Catholic Position or Encyclopedia Article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sixtus IV or Sixtus VI ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archive