Talk:Historical revision of the Inquisition

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historical revision of the Inquisition article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 2 November 2006, see discussion.
No consensus, 18 December 2005, see discussion.

Catholicism

Historical revision of the Inquisition is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes

for Catholicism articles

Bringing this back(?)

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

NPOV and fringe templates

Hi everyone. I just added

WP:PROFRINGE

to me, and also greatly reduces the verifiability/notability of the article.

This is why I added these templates, and I am happy to further discuss them with anyone here who wants to.

Best regards, Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've taken the fringe one off for now, as I don't think the positions described can be so called in the terms WP uses - Henry Kamen for one cannot be so easily dismissed. "Historical revisionism of the inquisition", starting from the Black Legend, has many shades, and current mainstream thinking would accept at least some of it. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right about the fact that at least some historical revisionist views on the Inquisition are accepted by the mainstream, as many different beliefs/ideas fit under "Historical revisionism of the Inquisition". However, I still do think that much of the article is spent disproportionately advancing various fringe-y ideas and claims without adequately portraying them as the fringe beliefs they are. That said, I suppose that the article as a whole does not quite fit the criteria for the fringe template, so your removal of it seems fair enough. Thanks! Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 09:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding to this. The article cites basically two historians, cites no dissenting views and presents the revised views as "matter of fact" rather than as assertions or claims. I think the article needs to be junked and started again. 2601:98A:4001:A466:59B2:BD22:F7BF:6A04 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say from my knowledge about the history of The Low Countries, is that this page does a rather good job at adjusting the views on what happened before and during the

Dutch Revolt. I don't know enough about the Spanish Inquisition to contest or confirm anything else written about that here. However, not denying that religious persecution claimed many lives in The Netherlands, this was mainly the work of civic and central political authorities and not the "Inquisition". So on that subject this article fits neither Template:POV nor Template:fringe theories. If anything, even more work could be done to dispel the myths about the (completely absent) Spanish Inquisition in The Netherlands. (again, not making any claims about anything else in this article)Oda86 (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Yawn

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