Talk:Historical revision of the Inquisition

---

Rename

This article has been also posted under the title Inquisition Controversy in hopes of eliminating some of the POV that the title The Inquisition Myth suggests.

• In the Ref. section of Inquisition, the author mentions Peters' book on the Inquisition Myth, which The Inquisition Myth addresses.

Merge

I would object to this article being merged with Inquisition. This article is essentially a historiography article that details a recent trend in history writing and certainly deserves an article of its own. It can be a "main article" off other articles so we dont have to keep repeating the same "myths" stuff in every inquisition article (there are many) and just have it all in one place. --Stbalbach 20:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I would favor a merge with Inquisition, just not yet: there are many POV's that still have to be removed or rewritten, and also the article is still too long to be merged just yet. A good way to rewrite POV's is putting down who's POV something really is, thus making it a fact. For example, the above sentence (a 'good' way ...) can be rewritten as: It is Basjoosten's opinion that putting down who's POV something really is, is a good way to rewrite POV's. For this, of course, you need the correct sources and you should (to my opinion) not put your own name as a source. If you cannot find the source, the POV should (this is still my opinion) be removed. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basjoosten (talk • contribs)

I would object to this merge as the Inquistion article is very well written whereas the myth article is not as well written and the neutrality of it is questioned. Also the Myth article is very contradictory and seems to not be very factual. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.226.103 (talk • contribs)

I also would object to the merge, although I feel both articles are well written. Both articles should stand on their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.3.51 (talk • contribs)

I object to the merge. The Myths of the Inquisition piece was POV peddling and the term revisionism is correct and appropriate. When an article is citing a television program shown over a decade ago its POV peddling. --Gorgonzilla 01:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article starting with the title is entirely POV. Throughout the article there are broad assertions made, all clearly intended to minimize the extent of the inquisition and the effect on the victims. The opening paragraph describes this as 'the best trends in modern history'. It is not. --Gorgonzilla 14:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The "trends" comment was in reference to the scholarly investigation of revisionous history, which is, in fact, one of the fastest growing and popular trends of modern history. The Inquisitions have sparked some of the best published research in this field. --User:Gth0824

Sockpupettry

The main editor of this article only created their account on the 18th. They are very clearly a sockpuppet and this article is very clearly an attampt to fork the inquisition article. --Gorgonzilla 14:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That can easily be proven by asking an admin to check the IP numbers. When you find out your wrong will you applogize for your un-civil behaviour here? --Stbalbach 15:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You could easily have used different IP addresses. The circumstances are that you inserted a highly POV section into the main article, then after several people make attempts to remove it you state that you will simply keep putting it back. Finally when I edit the section in a way that makes it effectively impossible for you to simply revert the changes without making it clear you are a POV pusher a fork article suddenly appears written by a completely new nym. So you can get into a steamly hissy fit if you like but the appearences are against you. The editorial line here is clearly POV and any attempt to remove the POV assertions is immediately reversed out.

--Gorgonzilla 18:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont know what to tell you except we not the same person. And no, I cant easily change my IP. Your behaviour is a bit strange frankly. I was not involved in any edits here today except to revert a complete blanking of the article. --Stbalbach 18:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I didnt write the BBC material in the Inquisition article, in fact I was against it at first, but after some discussions with others, did a fair amount of work to clean it up. I simply defend it because its within the rules of Wikipedia. I defend anything that is within the rules of Wikipedia, people have a right to put it here. It is your deletions that are the problem. You need to edit the article, if you think its POV, not delete it outright. --Stbalbach 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn’t saw "several people" making attempts to remove the BBC material in the Spanish Inquisition article lately. I saw only one person doing it (Gorgonzilla). On the other hand, I saw more than one person reversing Gorgonzilla's deletion routine; and I would have done the same under the circumstances. --Leinad-Z 22:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

pov is a highly regarded trait in historical study. the different historiographical interpretations should be valued with equal weight, allowing the reader to establish their own opinion based on the information available. the removal of this piece would be against the quest for knowledge that so many follow, a merger with other pieces wih alternate historigoraphy, or links to alternate interpretations woul be the bast option here.

Examples of indefensible POV statements

The following are presented as fact but are not only disputed but distinctly minority opinions. In each case the bias is in the same direction.

• Generally, inquisitorial courts functioned much like the secular courts of the time, though their sentences and penances were far less cruel.

Oh really? The church got around this by 'relaxing' the victims to civilian authorities for execution etc.

rly, the inquisition was generally v. leniant towards first offenders, often letting them off with far less than secular courts would have. despite this death was usually the deterrant against 2nd offences.

• Agreed, this should be clarified.--Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Any confession made following or during torture had to be freely repeated the next day without torture or it was considered invalid

A tendentious assement since the victim had every reason to believe that the torture would be repeated if they refused to confirm it.

• Agreed, this should be clarified.--Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• As seen in the French inquisitions, the purpose of Spanish inquisitorial torture was to gain either information or confession, not to punish.

Inexcusable speculation as to motives. It can be claimed with equal justification that the point of the entire exercise was to supress any challenge to church autrhority by creating fear.

it could also be claimed that the inquisitors believed what they were doing was religiously correct, as indeed Isabella of castile and to a lesser extent Ferdinand of Aragon did.

• Agreed.--Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• The auto de fe that followed trials is the most infamous and misunderstood part of the inquisitions in Spain.

This is pure POV.

so is that.

• Agreed, simple to fix, remove one word.--Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Artistic representations of the auto de fe usually depict torture and the burning at the steak.

That is stake, a steak is what you eat. The artists who drew the pictures almost certainly understood that the torture and punishments did not take place at the same time as the 'religious' ceremony but this is generally understood to be acceptable artistic license, showing the 'true nature' of the event from their point of view by including events that would occur before and after the ritual. Medieval art is not photo-journalism.

if this piece is about the removal of POV then why should the inclusion of artists pov be allowed?

• Interesting! This should be included in the article, its certainly new to me. --Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Protestants in the decades and centuries to come would use this relatively short-lived persecution as the basis for their accusations about the awful “Inquisition.”

Pretty baldly POV.

yet true, the myths about the spanish inquisition were used as key examples of the cruelty of the RC church throughout the lutheran reformation, and deep into 16th and 17th centurys.

• Agreed, simple to re-word. Basic idea is right. --Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thus, although both the Spanish and Roman inquisitions prosecuted the offenses of witchcraft and sorcery very early and vigorously, they also were the first courts to be skeptical of the evidence and mechanism of witchcraft accusations, and they consistently offered the most lenient treatment to marginal cases” (Peters 1988: 111).

The article is full of bald assertions of this kind from Peters but there is no questioning of Peters' motives, perspective etc.

then link to some one who does, if you can find a contempary who will!

• Well, there may be salvagable ideas here that can be re-worded. Or it can be balanced with opposing views from other scholars. It is permissable under Wikipedia rules to write about multiple points of view on the same subject. --Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• It was the relatively limited persecution of Protestants, mostly by the inquisitions in Spain and Italy, that provoked the first image of “The Inquisition” as the most violent and suppressive vehicle of the Church against Protestantism.

Again, constant attempts to minimize the extent of the inquisition without reference to any substantive facts.

• Im not sure I agree it minimizes it, it says "relatively limited persecution of Protestants", its just clarifying who its talking about. This could be re-worded to the same effect. --Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• These artistic images have arguably become some of the most long-lasting and effective perpetuators of “The Inquisition” myth.

There is absolutely no substantiation of the claim that the inquisition was misrepresented in any material respect.

Gorgonzilla

• Agreed, this sentence needs to be re-worded. --Stbalbach 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That is only the first pass, There is not a single paragraph in the piece which is not POV. The entire piece is not simply revisionism, it is an appologia, an excuse for the Roman Catholic Church. The unfortunate fact of history is that the Catholic church did a lot of imoral and corrupt business in the middle ages, that is not something that should be glossed over or ignored because the facts hurt some people's feelings. Peters' argument appears to be pretty tendentious, he quibbles over the details and then draws the conclusion that the church did nothing really wrong, that the real criminals here are the protestants complaining about the attrocities.

It is of course entirely likely that William of Orange et. al. exaggerated the extent of the attorcities but it is equally likely that the Inquisition records are unreliable and have been filtered. Peters seems to accept the church records as gospel, contemporaneous reports suggest a different story. Accepting biased evidence from one side while excluding other evidence as contaminated by bias is itself bias.

The story that the piece does not tell is the fact that the Italian inquisition brought the Italian Renaissance to a screeching halt. Italy goes from being at the center of European scientific thought to the place where Gallileo was tortured for pointing out that the earth goes round the sun. Later the protestant countries define themselves as the place where the church does not enforce doctrine with inquisition, torture and executions. The number of the attrocities is not the important fact on which the argument is based, the fact that the church resorted to those methods to enforce its doctrine was in protestant eyes proof of the moral bankrupcy of the papacy. Arguing over whether it was thousands or tens of thousands is irrelevant. --Gorgonzilla 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I’m not a native English speaker, so I will not enter too much in this debate yet. But notice that: 1- Most atrocities from the Inquisitions occurred during the Early Modern period; not during the Middle Ages. 2- The Italian Renaissance is usually seen as one of scientific backwardness right from the start. (It would not be until the Renaissance moved to Northern Europe that the western scientific evolution - halted during the crisis of the 14th century - would be truly revived). 3- Galileo was never tortured. --Leinad-Z 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is obviously an issue with multiple POV's. It is possible to write an article that presents multiple POV's in a neutral manner. There is room on Wikipedia for all views, no matter how some may personally think about them (see historical revisionism (political) for some of the most grevious). I believe we should have a separate article that addresses these revisionistic history authors, so we dont mess up Inquisition with controversial material. It doesnt mean we have to present what the revisionists say as "fact", but we can discuss the major authors, thier major points, and any opposing views to those points. While I do think some of these authors have a bias (which can be discussed), they also reveal some new information -- the truth is gray. So this article may need to be %90 tossed out, but within lies the begining of a decent article on Inquisition revisionism. One thing is for sure: its better that the article be created now, instead of waiting for someone in the future to do it, eventually Inqusition revisionism will end up on wikipedia somewhere in some format, the more you delete it, the more people will re-create it. Once you have an official place for it, then the thing is settled. --Stbalbach 17:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember when David Irving began his campaign. He started by challenging inconsequential details and when scholars retreated on the onconsequential points used that as proof that the Holocaust was a myth. I have a big problem with an article that consists as this one does of slabs of material from an individual touting the phrase 'the inquisition myth'. The number of Jews murdered in the holocaust was more likely to be five million rather than six, does this mean that an article called 'the holocaust myth' should be allowed or that the number is relevant? What about data from a book or a TV program with the same title? We see the same mode of argument here, official records are accepted as unquestioningly accurate when they support the revisionist view, no matter what the motives of the scribes or redacters might have been, meanwhile sources that are unfavorable are ignored or dismissed on arbitrary grounds. --Gorgonzilla 23:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• "The Inquisition Myth" is used to refer to the popular modern notion of a unified, century-spanning, single-bodied "Inquisition" which I think we can agree never existed. There were surely distinct periods of inquisitorial proceedings that were regional in practice, leadership, goals, organization, etc. There was never THE Inquisition, but rather many varying, regional inquisitorial proceedings and periods. "The Inquisition Myth" does not reflect the number of victims or whether or not the inquisitorial processes existed, but rather this modern notion that "The Inquisition" was a unified and organized structure spanning the 10th through the 20th centuries. The word "myth" could easily be replaced with another word. Please note that the quotation marks and the word "myth" here and in the article are used to refer to this popular modern notion about the inquisitorial periods and are not used with any other meaning (e.g. fictionalizing the inquisitions). --Gth0824

Please Just Delete This Article

• Now that that's over, can anybody please explain to me what a "sockpuppet" is? I've never heard that term in terms of Wikipedia or the Internet. Also, I am not User:Stbalbach, I am User:Gth0824. I am actually hoping that this article does get deleted, I didn't join Wikipedia to get people worked up or offended in any way. Please just delete this article. --Gth0824

• • A sockpuppet is someone who uses multiple login names to make it seem like multiple people. But I hope you stay, the article is good and it has been needed for a long time. There will always be people who disagree, in particular on controversial issues. But thats why anyone can edit the article, that's what makes Wikipedia work. I hope you'll reconsider your position, I certainly support the article and hope to work to improve it so all sides can agree with it. --Stbalbach 13:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Although I 100% agree with you about the editing of articles, peer review, the aims of Wikipedia, etc, I think that in this case, with this article, getting "all sides to agree with it" is probably not going to happen. As I see from your user page, you are a student of Medieval history, which, as you know, is an age fraught with revisionist history. This article as it stands, is undeniably trying to address such revisionist history. However, the entire genre of revisionist history is one of those genres this is almost never "agreed" upon. My article inherenty rouses POV issues about revisionist history (even more than the Inquisitions, I don't think the actual Inquisitions have ever truly been the issue here) which, without completly rewriting the entire article, probably cannot be solved. I truly appreciate your support for my article since I posted it and I look forward to reading your contributions. --Gth0824

• • • • Well, it's been a long problem in the Inquisition article, as this issue has been yanked back and forth by various parties. My hope is to isolate the myth issue to a separate article where both sides can battle it out, while leaving the main Inquisition article without revisionism controversy. That way we can have a decent Inquisition article, and leave all the POV battles "outside". So imagine my great surprise when you wrote this article at exactly the same time the latest POV battle was going on over at Inquisition; it was certainly good timing (and appears to have aroused suspicions that you and I are one and the same.. lol very funny). But it is possible to write on these subjects neutrally, presenting the various arguments, and the historiography. Inquisition is certainly not unique in that regard. See for example Bayeux Tapestry.. or Huns.. or Great Sphinx of Giza.. these also have a good deal of historical revisionism issues, but I believe have reached a point they are not bad. --Stbalbach 14:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is with "inquisition" as well

This article is POV, OK, and should be dealt with accordingly.

But now, check the article "inquisition": the problem is the same, most of the "facts" presented there should have a serious second look. Inquisition has been a widely popular (romantic, probably anticlerical) theme for two centuries, and the old "references" used today were propaganda material then - not so honorable, after all.

How long does it take for an old POV to become truth?

My POV is, both articles should be merged, and rephrased to present the facts:

• Inquisition is, indeed, a popular present-days myth. The intersting point for the reader is: what is that myth about?
• The myth is mythic, but does have historical basis: what are these basis, what is under discussion?
• Inquisition raises interesting questions about religion and justice: what are the issues?

This is what I'm trying to do on [[1]] for instance. ... sorry for my english mistakes, I'm but a [poor foreigner].84.100.133.41 06:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• My POV is that whatever it takes to bring the best and most reputable scholarship to both articles or a merged one is what is essential here. Unfortunately for those who hold dear to old convenient stereotypes will be disappointed. Top scholars from places like U. of Penn (an Ivy League) published with the backing of the U. of Cal. and Yale, not to mention top British scholars on the subject are in very strong agreement on the historical distortion of the facts especially by English Protestants to make Catholic Spain look worse than they. I am happy if the comparative figures are presented as such. Protestant never like to be reminded of the Tower of London and other places where far more Catholic died than than Protestants did in Spain. --Vaquero100 05:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

this is history! the facts cannot be presented without a historiographical interpretation, wether it be the interpreation that the admin present or then one the author of this article presents. for the love of god just leave the article be.

Renaming Article

I moved and renamed the article before reading the log of the Deletion debate. In the latter, the title seemed to be the main issue, so I hope there is no harm done. I've also updated the reference from the Spanish Inquisition page, where I revised the sub-section on this topic.Hobomojo 14:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This article, judging from the title and the contents, is about "Recent scholarship on the Inquisition" in general. However, the introducion, apart from being very slender, clearly focuses on Spain and the Spanish Inquisition. This should be fixed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that implies that the article is describing both sides in an academic debate and that the assertions made in the article are accepted as fact. They are not. The assertions made are simply a minority opinion of a small group of academics with a clear motive. -- Gorgonzilla 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First, in academic debates, there are multiple sides, not just two. Second, both Peters and Kamen do discuss multiple perspectives, which you would know if you read them. Third. and this is the big one, Kamen's work is THE standard English language work on the topic of the Inquisition, not the minority opinion, the CONSENSUS opinion. It has been continually revised, updated and republished for close to 40 years. Can you produce ANY scholarly book or article that challenges the interpretations presented by Kamen? ANY that asserts a "clear motive?" Please refrain from editing or renaming this article until you can produce evidence for your assertions.Hobomojo 15:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I reworded it with less emphasis on Spain. Thing is, though, it's research into the Spanish Inquisition that has mainly driven the field, since the latter looms so large over the debate. You're right though, it does need to be beefed up a bit. Hobomojo 14:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hobomojo, but the intro still is only valid in the Spanish context. And even for that it is not really an introduction. However, I do not know how to write it better myself, hence no complaint.

PS. It is always great when issues one raises are addressed instead of other disputes being spilled into another section, Gorgonzilla. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you (immodestly, I have written it myself) the Spanish article: es:Leyenda Negra de la Inquisición Española. It is based on Kamen and Peters with other small additions. Cheers, --Ecelan 16:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish I knew Spanish I would help translate. Do you have any plans to make it a WP:Featured article on the Spanish Wikipedia? -- Stbalbach 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV flag

I'm also removing the contested neutrality flag. This is a straightforward historiographical essay on recent work on the Inquisition. If anyone finds bias or neutrality issues they should state very clearly and very specifically what those issues are.

Please do not put it back until stating the issue. Hobomojo 14:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The flag is improperly removed, I have replaced it. The opening sentence shows the problem:

The two most significant and extensively cited sources of the modern analysis concerning the conflicting histories over the inquisitorial proceedings are Inquisition (1988) by Edward Peters and The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision (1997) by Henry Kamen. These works focus on exposing and correcting the revisionist and misinterpreted histories that surround the inquisitions today. The following research is an attempt to present Peters’s and Kamen’s ideas by discussing some of the most popular and misguided opinions about the inquisitions held by modern society.

This is a totaly POV statement asserting that Peters and Kamen's work is the most singificant, that it 'corrects'. Then the paragraph admits that the article is original research.

The article might be salavageable but the history here strongly suggests that it should be listed as AFD again. Also noted your attempt to rename the article, the term Revision is in the title of Kamen's book and is entirely accurate. --Gorgonzilla 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't speak to Peters's work, but Kamen's IS the most widely cited English language book on the Inquisition published in the last 40 years, and does correct quit a bit, so it is not POV, simply accurate. As far as "revision" goes, yes it is in Kamen's title, but you are reading way too much into it. Hobomojo 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word "revisionism" is detailed in the lead paragraph of historical revisionism. Basically there is a positive kind, and a negative kind. I'm sure that Kamen is using the word "revisionism" because new evidence and documents have come to light, as explained in historical revisionism - a perfectly legit and commonly used application of the word revisionism. -- Stbalbach 16:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but Gorgonzilla seems to be making the unjustified leap from "revision" to "negationism", the perjoritive, without being familiar with the works in question. Peters does not use the term "revision" in his title, and as this is an historiographical essay, better to call it recent scholarship.Hobomojo 16:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Either it is accepted in the field in which case it should be in the main article or it is an intellectual movement that is challenging the mainstream view. The term for such movements is revisionism. The term only obtained a pejorative tone after the holocaust deniers started to portray themselves as such. They are no more historians than Scientology and Christian Science are scientific. --Gorgonzilla 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're joking, right? It is an accepted field, and this article began about a year ago with an editor's attempt to integrate it into the main article. You baselessly kicked and screamed about POV then too, so the editor began this article. My recent attempt to integrate it into the main article has you kicking a screaming again, again without ANY substantiation. As far as revisionism goes, as an historian I avoid the term outside of a specialist audience lest the immediate assumption be the same one you seem to be making. Thus the name change. You claim Kamen and Peters are minority positions, outside of the mainstream, marginal, etc, etc. without providing a single piece of evidence to support your position. When Inquisition censors reviewed manuscripts for publication, they often submit lengthly critiques arguing fine points of theology and cannon law complete with citations. You have yet to produce ONE citation in support of your argument. Hobomojo 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not unusual for specialists in a field to have great difficulty producing NPOV articles on the subject. When subjective claims are presented as fact it does not require a citation to remove them. Bestselling is an objective fact, Best is a subjective claim. If you want to claim academic credentials then post them on your user page so we can see if you are a real historian or play one on the net. Otherwise shut up about your credentials, you don't sound much like a historian to me. --Gorgonzilla 12:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement was "Among the best" not "best". The former is evidenced by the publication history of the text in question and its adoption rate in university courses dealing with the Inquisition specifically or Spain generally. Deliberate misreadings do not enhance your credibility. As far as specialist vs. non-specialsit, etc. you have yet to illustrate ANY command at all of ANY of the literature on the Inquisition. How, then, can you pretend to be capable of evaluating claims made? Hobomojo 19:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So, Gorgonzilla, what are your credentials here?

I only ask because, right now, all you've done is raise a fuss about a bias that you see, but refuse to back up or cite. If you have reason for believing that the works of Kamen and Peters are patently false and horrendous, why don't you make some effort to display why?

Credibility comes from backing, not yelling. This article has the word of numerous experts on the topic; you have nothing. Why don't you even the scale? -Senori 05:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it has the word of two specific experts presented in terms that are hopelessly POV. Incidentally the number of books sold is not an indication of academic quality, quite the reverse. Ann Coulter sells rather a lot of books. So did the 'historian' David Irving. --Gorgonzilla 14:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No *true* Scotsman, right?

Kamen and Peters are respected in their field and, in any case, much more credible than no experts at all. If you think the analysis of their works have a specific POV, then fix the POV* (in a user space page, preferably)- don't claim that the article's subject is hopelessly lost. -Senori 16:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla: you have yet, despite repeated requests, to provide any evidence in support of your argument. Further, neither Coulter nor Irving have been published by University presses, neither holds a chair at a University, etc, etc. Rhetorically, you're wiggling and squirming so much that you are contradicting yourself. First you assert that they are marginal, controversial, out of the mainstream. When confronted with the facts that their work is central to the field and widely accepted, you squirm away and say that that's not relevant. Now you try to slander them, knowing nothing about their work. Hobomojo 21:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

New title is good

The new title is an improvement. It does not make comment on the work one way or the other. Hopefully the word revision will not be as contentious as revisionism. --Gorgonzilla 22:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)