Jump to content

Talk:Inquisition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jossi (talk | contribs) at 04:40, 17 May 2006 (WP:3RR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

number burned

A question to all you good Historians:

I have heard and read many times that the inquisition burned millions of witches. However, when I read up about this, I find that this is not exactly correct is it? First of all, it is not countless. According to one source I read a year ago, the number of witches burned in Spain as a result of the spanish inquisition was counted as: 2. (Jews and heretics in the thousands, anywhere I have read). I have read many other accounts, but not a single one that I deem reliable supports millions. Most witches seem to have been burned by other groups of people, from what I have read. Since I have heard and read this in many places, perhaps it might be worthwhile for someone to write a something to sort this out. Just to get the numbers straight, at least on witches. What do you say? Is it a good idea to set something straight here, if only just to contradict what seems to be held as "common knowledge" about the inquisition? Daniel Demaret

  • yes, the Spanish Inquisition, but how many witches were killed by the papal inquisition? m.e. 11:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Contrary to simply made-up propaganda, NO witches were killed by any "papal Inquisition". The Inquisitions concluded that "witches" as such SIMPLY DID NOT EXIST and thus the Church could not prosecute nor punish them.Dogface 15:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen gives the figure of approximately 3000 executed by Spain during the 3 centuries the Inquisition existed.

part of article removed

I removed a part of the article that was really not about the inquisition and it is really not accurate and is contradicted in the Wikipedia itself. Part of this seems to be being generated by interpretations being promoted in popular fiction books that are filled with inacuracies. Historical facts do not support these interpretations. AllanOlson


Gosh I'd love to know what you're reading about this. DO tell me you're not writing off the top of your head. Let me suggest E.F. Peters on the Spanish Inquisition - a useful contemporary source. If you're reading ANYTHING written by a 19th century English speaker (especially if his name is Lea), you are toying with the Leyenda Negra. --MichaelTinkler In fact, skimming back through earlier versions, someone had a pretty good version of the converso problem. I wonder why it disappeared? --MichaelTinkler

Jan Hus

Which inquisition murdered Jan Hus? --AxelBoldt

not an inquisition at all, but the Council of Constance. The Conciliar movement wasn't all it was cracked up to be by 19th century historians. --MichaelTinkler

resistance

this is worse than it used to be. "Resistance was usually futile." Tell it to the popes! The Arian situation was NOT solved by the Council of Nicaea. In fact, because of imperial patronage Arianism became the variety of Christianity most consistently supported by the government for the next 50 or so years. Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion - that was Theodosius I in the 380s. --MichaelTinkler

  • Unfortunately, a great deal of Protestant propaganda keeps claiming that Emperor Constantine I "invented" the unified Church. These propagandists likewise continue to perpetuate tired old mistakes like claiming that Rome ruled everything from the time of Nicea I onwards. In the 19th century, ignorance of the entirety of Eastern Christianity could be taken for granted. Thus, it was easy to fool a credulous and uneducated audience into swallowing these whoppers. Unfortunately, some people still believe these things today. We also still have a Flat Earth Society.Dogface 15:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

early definition of Christianity

Removed from entry:

In the first two centuries after Jesus Christ, many sects with wildly differing beliefs could call themselves Christian, and no one could authoritatively contradict them. However, after Emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity and the various local administrations were subordinated to the hierarchy centered in Rome, arguments could be resolved by Church Councils. The first such council, which had the most extensive effects, was the Council of Nicea, which formulated the Nicean Creed in 325. Those whose beliefs or practices deviated sufficiently from the orthodoxy of that Creed and other rulings of the councils could now be made "brought back to the fold" by the shepherd of the Church. Resistance was usually futile.

See my comments above. I tried revising it (e.g., changing 'established as state church' to 'legalized') but then I realized that it's too messy to rewrite. I'll try something on the entry. --MichaelTinkler

NPOV

What happened to NPOV? Yes, the Inquistions to us are pretty scary, but could we please try to remember that, to the vast majority of people living at the time of the first two Inquisitions discussed in this article, heresy was a BAD thing. Heresy existed, and not because of some conspiracy by Authority. Heretics not only went to hell, but their very presence in society put others at risk. At least, that's how your average medieval Christian would see it. CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT. JHK

You might as well say that Stalin was right to arrest, exile and execute thousands of people because (a) some people undoubtedly were plotting against him (b)

Most people in the USSR supported Stalin.

Exile 19:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Heresy is only a problem for religions that have centrally defined doctrines and dogma.

I removed this, because the article is about the Inquistions. This should be in an article about heresy. --Stephen Gilbert

Dmerill, why do you think links to Amazon support the NPOV? I think one could easily make the opposite case. Personally, I try to stay away from ISBN's altogether, because they tend to encourage people to buy the books rather than to just go to their library. Libraries typically don't use ISBN's, which is good, because ISBN's distinguish between different editions, hard- and softcover etc., which are usually irrelevant distinctions. --AxelBoldt

I would also encourage people to go to their library, but "encouraging" anything is by definition non-npov, isn't it? I'd be most happy to see us start listing the Dewey decimal catalog number as well so we aren't encouraging either way. And LC, below, is right on target. It's the specific, stated intention of removing Amazon that was most non-npov. And adding a wider selection of sources would be very, very welcome, but singling out anyone, however, vile I consider their business practices, is not npov. Sometimes it's hard to stand by a principle like npov when you'd rather say "fuck Amazon", but I'm trying to do that. --Dmerrill
The software is non-NPOV in that it singles out some booksellers over others and over libraries. Intentionally removing a non-NPOV feature can hardly be called non-NPOV. Without the ISBN links, the article is clearly more neutral than with them. --AxelBoldt
I agree, as things stand it is not completely npov. As I understand it, when something is npov due to only having partial, one-side information, the solution is to round it out rather than delete what's there. That is, imho, what we need to do here. --Dmerrill

I find the links very useful. With a single click, I can see the year the book was published, how long it is, some indication of the intended audience (popular vs. technical), and a list of reviews. This is usually more info than would be appropriate in the Wikipedia article itself, but it's nice to have such easy access to it.

A think the NPOV comment was referring to the fact that it links to all 3 of the largest booksellers, rather than just the 2 that aren't disliked by some people here. Personally, I'd like to see the software changed to be even more NPOV, and to look better. The ISBN should be a single link to a CGI script on wikipedia.com that then brings up a list of every bookseller we know of. Someday, it might even automatically bring up the ISBNs of other editions of the same book. I assume we'll have all this in the software eventually, so it's useful to use the ISBN notation in articles we write now. --LC

As another general criticsm of ISBN's: suppose you want to refer to Plato's dialogs or Euclid's elements. What ISBN do you list? There are dozens of editions. There's a good reason that libraries use title and author. --AxelBoldt

Agreed. I'd propose listing all currently available ISBNs, although that will require a change to the software. Perhaps the ISBN link redirects to a page which lists all the alternate ISBNs. Let people include any edition they recommend. Once again, when something is npov due to having only partial information, the solution is to round it out rather than delete what's there. --Dmerrill

immunity of non-Christians

"Jews or Muslims who did not become Christians were never subjected to the powers of the Inquisition." This is a tad misleading. The reason they were not subjected to the Spanish Inquisition is because they were expelled in 1492. Danny

Well, from 1481-whenever they were each expelled (again, let's not overstate the efficiency of pre-modern governments) they were not subject so long as they were not converted. "Spain" is, of course, something of a misnomer in the 15th century, too. MichaelTinkler
It's not misleading at all in the context of, say, the early 14th century crown of Valencia, where the Holy Office existed, and the Jews and Muslims had not been expelled.--Bcrowell 21:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

past tense

I think there may be a bit too much past tense. The Inquisition's torture chambers confessionals operated until 1870. The department itself continues today under a different name and confined to internal matters (and presumably with fewer stakes and faggots). see Peter de Rosa Vicars of Christ -- Kwantus

  • Shouldn't the article start "The Inquisition is a permanent institution...", given that the CDF still exists? ~~

Roman Emperor?

The History part looks badly written. What does the Roman Emperor have to do with the Inquisition! David.Monniaux 16:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Holocaust

removed this:

Also, some anti-Catholic authors consider the Nazi Holocaust to have been an Inquisition undertaken by Hitler (who was born Catholic and never left the Church) against the Jews at the behest of the Pope.

Which mainstream authors would that include? --Stbalbach 01:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Jack Chick and his sources. You may not agree with him, but he is the most widely-published living author in the world, clearly making him "mainstream." The sentence in the article clearly stated that this was only the opinion of "some anti-Catholic authors" which is an objective fact. It does not state conclusively that the Holocaust was an Inquisition, merely that some authors believe this, including some very, very popular and influential ones. You should not censor this viewpoint, even if you disagree with it. I'm adding it back. JTC 20:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

JTC, the problem is just because someone calls it an Inquisition doesnt mean is. See the discussion under Feudalism for example. By creating a header called "Other Inquisitions" you have implied that it was, in fact, an Inquisition. That is a POV. That is why it belongs under etymology, or some other header, that makes it clear the usage of the term is being used for political reasons, and not as a neutral historical description. --Stbalbach 21:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

whatever happened to the Portuguese Inquisition?

we are promised four inquisitions but we only get three... m.e. 11:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

non sequitur

The following text was at the top of the History section, at the end of the introductory paragraph, where it was a complete non sequitur:

For example we can observe the condemnation of the entire population of the Netherlands to death by the Holy Office in 1568. "On February 16, 1568 a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were acquitted. A proclamation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition and ordered it to be carried out into instant execution without regard to age, sex, and children. This is the most concise death warrant that had ever been framed. Three million people - men, women and children - were sentenced to the scaffold".. from The Rise of the Dutch Republic , by John Lathrop Motley, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 2, par. 12, p. 2.

If this is true, it needs to be discussed at the logical place in the article. I'm also guessing that the decree had no effect, but that would need clarification as well.--Bcrowell 21:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Grammar

Can someon fix the second sentence of the "Origins" Section? There's a run-on sentence, and I don't know enough about the topic to make heads or tails of it and thus I cannot fix it. Mrendo 17:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisition as Historical Event or as Office

I have difficulties understanding this article because of the way that different Inquisitions are described. Clearly, the understanding for the authority to conduct an Inquisition is important in any article on the Inquisition. What were the differences between the 'Spanish Inquisition' and the 'Medieval Inquisition' and the 'Roman Inquisition' my understanding (this may be wrong) was that they were all exercised by papal authority through the Congregation for the Roman and Universal Inquisition (later the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Can we separate those from, for example, the religious persecution practiced by the regions of Germany after the Western Schism? L Hamm 02:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Canon Episcopi and the Malleus Maleficarum

Would it be at all useful to bring up Marvin Harris' interpretation as to the causes of the inquisitions in Cows, Pigs, War, and Witches. Though this would deal with two separate phenomenon: the perceived threat of Satanism, and heresy.L Hamm 04:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit for NPOV

Edited article to mitigate pro-christian bias. Article failed to mention violence of any sort in Inquisitions, and lay blame for the Inquisitions on the "heretics" themselves, rather than examining the historical context in which the RCC defined certain people as "heritics". Also claimed passage from christian bible as historical fact.

71.249.59.155 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)J. Porkpie[reply]


Linked from external source

This article has been referenced by http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18384627-421,00.html

HardwareBob 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of the Inquisition

I've got a problem... as per the article, it would seem the institution was born in the late 1100s ... I've had, from sources I trust, though I've lost the book and can't quote, indications that a body dedicated to extirpation of heresies (and the earliest instances of heretics being burned at the stake), date back to the late Merovingian times (600 or so) ... and that French king Robert II the Pious had personal trouble with such a body and had to publicly recant and reaffirm his allegiance to the pope ... not quite as bad as the Walk to Canossa incident Emperor Henry IV of Germany suffered a century later... maybe the greatest instances of Inquisition activity and influence were those tied to the Albigensian crusade, and then the ethnic purification of the Spanish Renaissance times, but the institution itself is certainly not limited to those two periods. Does anybody have more information? --Svartalf 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewash?

Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that this article continually reverts to a state in which the inquisitions are given a positive spin? Which Christians are so proud of this moment in their history that they feel it necesssary to make religious persecution a noble act? —This unsigned comment was added by 71.249.81.74 (talk • contribs) .

No I don't get that impression. It's a history article, written from the perspective of how things were at the time. -- Stbalbach 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got that impression too. Sorry, but i think there are too meany christians willing to defend the image of Catholic church agains the "propaganda" --DavidAlexandrov 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a school of Inquisition revisionism, similar to Holocaust revisionisim, and its student(s) appear(s) to have constructed this page, which is very biased in favor of the Church's pov. Not only is their info wrong, but there's a whole separate page for Inquisition revisionists "the inquisition myth" where they've already posted the revisionist version of the inquisition - you'd think they could leave this page to folks interested in the accepted history of the Inquisition. 24.145.184.199 17:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the Encyclopedia Britannica article "Inquisition" (2006) and it's pretty much the same as our current article in tone and content. Neutral, sticks to the facts, un-polemic. It seems like anything that didn't call the Catholic church "terrorists" and "murderers" would be less than acceptable for you. Please read some professional encyclopedias to see how mainstream articles on this subject are written. --Stbalbach 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

To all editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inquisition&oldid=53634252"