Talk:Spanish Inquisition/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Asterisk

What is the meaning of the asterisk in the second sentence? Eli lilly 23:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask Hobomojo he owns the article. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Otranto

I once read that the massacre at Otranto in 1480-1481 was an inspiration for the inquistion. Fvdham 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section of an article is supposed to be a summary of the article. Someone moved the entire lead section into the body of the article and called it "summary". Brilliant. Now someone can write a proper WP:Lead section by summarizing the article and we can have TWO summaries. -- 71.191.36.194 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mamelujo

Look, in a section on historiography, it is not only appropriate, but important, to set out the arguments of previous historians. You continually want to remove them as "discredited". True, there have been revisions, but Lea is still considered fundamental to Inquisition historiography. It is also inappropriate to plagiarize from another writer's work. As for the section on torture, it is hardly "better cited", since it relies on a Catholic periodical, while the section previously relied on neutral historians. The author is also in error on his figures about the percentage of those tortured, confusing the percentage put to the stake (2%) with the percentage who suffered torture. The author also does not cite his sources, thus there is no way to track his assertions any further, where as the cited historians in the previous version are well footnoted. Hobomojo (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the ONLY English anthology on the primary sources of the inquisition disagrees with you. The inquisitorial records are absolutely clear. The only authorized method of torture was by suspension, rack and water, and the application of torutre can only be authorized by a tribunal of inquisitors. This can be backed up by the transcrips of the interrogations and torture sessions themselves. -Chin Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.67.160 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And what would that "ONLY English anthology" be???Hobomojo (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dismissing Fox's "book of Martyrs"

Dismissing Fox's "book of Martyrs" without even a look at the historical reference to lieutenant-general M. de Legal is not presenting a true history of the Spanish Inquisition and its affect on Protesants. Also Monty Python had a movie "Yellowbeard" that should be added to the entertainment section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talenblackhawk (talk • contribs) 04:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox's Book of Martyrs was rightly dismissed by scholarship. Look at when and where it was written. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.67.160 (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i messed up footnotes

Hi Folks - sorry. i have no idea what i did wrong. I added some footnotes, and now the whole section is a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimicifugia (talk • contribs) 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

used undo and was able to fix footnotes--Cimicifugia (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora

Early Years Not Important?

HI Cimicifugia! I rolled back your edits because they introduce substantial bias into the article. Quoting Ben-Sasson in the lead is a bad idea, since it puts undue emphasis on the issue of conversos, that only occupied the Inquisition during its early years (save for a stint in the 1640-1650s). Besides that, it is recognized as an unreliable source, see the AHR review for the reasons why. The book burning section duplicates information in the section on censorship, and introduces pure black-legend falsehoods. Llorente is widely acknowledged to be an unreliable source due to his partisanship during the struggles of the 1820s-1830s. Hobomojo (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hobomojo - what is AHR? Isn't it important to be clear that the conversos were the original motivation for the institution of the Inquistion? This is a key fact few people know. To me saying"only in the early years" gives it undue deemphasis. What is your reference for making your POV on this the determinative one? If it is merely your own opinion, then it is not privileged to be the only one that appears in Wikipedia. I have trouble believing Ben-Sasson is an unrelibalbe source - please provide your references for that. You are obviously very expert in this area, which I am not. --Cimicifugia (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia

The AHR is the American Historical Review, the journal of the American Historical Association. Ben-Sasson's work is reviewed there, not all that favorably. Yes it is important to be clear that conversos were the original motivation for the Inquisition, which the article does. Citing Ben-Sasson in the lead, which should be a general overview of the article, puts undue emphasis on this point. I would strongly disagree that "few people know" the origins of the Inquisition as a response to conversos. The Inquistion lasted until the 19th century, and most of its victims over the long period were not conversos. Hobomojo (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this already?

From the section above: As for the section on torture, it is hardly "better cited", since it relies on a Catholic periodical, while the section previously relied on neutral historians. The author is also in error on his figures about the percentage of those tortured, confusing the percentage put to the stake (2%) with the percentage who suffered torture. The author also does not cite his sources, thus there is no way to track his assertions any further, where as the cited historians in the previous version are well footnoted.

There is no way to find out where the author is getting his figure of 2% since he doesn't footnote the article. Kamen finds 7-11% in the 16th and 17th cent. citing Garcia Carcel and Bennassar and suggests that in the late 17th cent it was even higher. (p. 189). See page 199 for the 2% figure on those put to the stake. If you can come up with the source of the 2% figure for those tortured, I would be happy to see it, since it conflicts with other sources. Looking at another of Madden's articles on the Inquisition, it appears that his source might be the 2000 Vatican report, which would mean he's referring to the Roman inquisition, not the Spanish. Hobomojo (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is so little said about profit as motive?

I'm not an expert on Spanish Inquisition, but I was browsing Henry Charles Lea who dedicates several chapters (A History of the Inquisition of Spain Volume 2: Book 5 - Resources) to the topic to monetary gain from confiscation and fines. Is Mr. Lea no longer considered an authority on the topic? Is there an expert on the topic who can redress this issue? Kea2 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Profit is listed in the article as one among a number of motives for instituting the Inquisition. It would be difficult to argue that it was a motive for its continued existence, however, since the vast majority of those denounced were humble peasants, priests, etc. i.e. folks without substantial assets. Kamen's review of the primary and secondary literature includes "Whatever the income form confiscations at any time, it is safe to assume that the tribunals did not grow appreciably wealthier, or at least did not keep up their temporary wealth for long periods." p. 151. His section on finances runs from p. 148-157.

Lea still has much to offer, though Mamelujo would say he's been completely discredited. In the century since he wrote his massive history, there has been a lot of very fine-grained work done on many aspects of the inquisition, including finances. His conclusions need to be taken with a healthy grain or two of salt. Hobomojo (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by "even sentence to the galleys"?

This is apparently does not mean "sentenced to the gallows", as for hanging, as hanging is not referred to elsewhere in the article as a possible punishment. The ultimate punishment was burning at the stake, which does not involve "gallows". So does this mean the accused was sentenced to serve as an oarsman on a "galley" (ship)? Anyone know? DarylNickerson (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sentence to the galleys was sentencing to be an oarsman. Probably tantamount to a death sentence, just slower. Hobomojo (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You know those cartoons where they have emaciated men rowing boats? It's like that, I think. 124.217.119.77 (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Population

Were the few (if any) Eastern Orthodox Spanish persecuted? Possibly foreign diplomats, merchants? 71.194.63.161 (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, only those who were members of the Catholic church were subject to the authority of the inquisition. Though, non-catholics weren't particularly well-liked in medieval Spain, they weren't hauled in to court. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Further reading or bibliography addition (1)

In relation to the section Spanish_Inquisition#Repression_of_Jews, for consideration. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wheelwright, Jeff; Warren, Scott S. (October 2008), "The Secret of San Luis Valley", Smithsonian, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 48–56, ISSN 0037-7333, retrieved 2008-10-26, (subtitle) The discovery of a cancer gene among some Hispanic Catholics in southern Colorado supports the theory that they're descended from "secret Jews" who fled the Spanish Inquisition{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Moriscos

Hi Tim-- If you read the paragraph following the sentence you deleted, you'll see that the Moriscos were not finally expelled from Spain until the 17th century. Not to difficult to draw from that that the treatment they received was more lenient than that given to the Jews who were expelled in 1492. But I added a cite anyway. Please familiarize yourself with the literature before making rash and unfounded edits. Hobomojo (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing "History" Section

I'm removing the "History" section and putting it here, if anything can be salvaged. This section started with these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spanish_Inquisition/Archive_1#First_paragraph_changes and the series of discussions that followed. As someone above pointed out, at some point, an expanded lead paragraph was transferred to the body of the article and titled Summary, then History. Now some gadfly has come by and tagged a number of sentences with fact tags, though the citations appear in the body of the article. The original rationale was to have a section accessible to children, but this is obviously not achieving its goal, simply producing more complication and confusion. I agree, there are citations below that could and should be integrated into the body of the article, but for the time being, let's just remove it and focus on the article rather than a highly condensed and compressed version of the article.Hobomojo (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

History The Spanish Inquisition was used for two important reasons: one was based on politics and the other was religion. The tribunal was an institution that had precedents in other Inquisitions.

In the 15th century, as the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon united under the Catholic monarchs and concluded the Reconquista with the conquest of Granada, anxiety grew about the cultural unity of the country. People became anxious and suspicious about the hundreds of thousands of Jews and Muslims who had recently converted to Christianity, called conversos or, derogatively, marranos. Many people doubted the sincerity of these conversions. Indeed, many Jews and Muslims accepted baptism to escape violent anti-Jewish outbursts around 1400 and anti-Moorish violence in the 1520's. In 1492, by the Alhambra Decree, the government ordered all remaining Jews who would not convert to Christianity to leave the kingdoms; in 1526 the same was mandated for Muslims. Then, around the 1540s, the Spanish Inquisition turned its fire on the Protestants in Spain in an attempt to put together a single nation.

Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs' decision to found the Inquisition, such as increasing political authority, weakening opposition, doing away with conversos, and acquiring new properties and treasure.

Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured Pope Sixtus IV to agree to an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy. Ferdinand threatened to withdraw military support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. Sixtus IV later accused the Spanish inquisition of being overzealous and accused the monarchs of being greedy. The Pope issued a bull to stop the Inquisition but was pressured into withdrawing it.

During the 16th century the church found a new enemy: Protestants, about 100 of whom were burned as heretics. The Inquisition made an index of prohibited books which were found to contain heresy. Converts from Islam, called moriscos (Moors), were also targeted by the Holy Office. The Spanish Inquisition was an institution at the service of the monarchy, but it had to follow procedures set up by the Holy See.

Most of the inquisitors had a university education in law. The procedures would start with Edicts of Grace, wherein people were invited to step forward to confess their heresy, and to denounce other heretics. Those so denounced were detained. A defense counsel was assigned to the defendant, a member of the tribunal itself, whose role was to advise the defendant and to encourage him or her to speak truthfully. 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 for the completeness of their documentation.

The percentage of cases where torture was used as a means for gaining confessions varied, but, in general, was quite rare. According to a joint BBC/A&E documentary, in the city of Valencia of over 7,000 documented cases, less than 2% experienced any torture at all. It usually lasted no longer than 15 minutes. Fewer than 1% of the prisoners were tortured more than once. Sentences varied from fines to execution (also rare - below 2%) and those condemned had to participate in the ceremony of auto da fé (act of faith). The arrival of the 18th century slowed inquisitorial activity; the Inquisition was dissolved by Napoleon's brother King Joseph Bonaparte, and although it was nominally re-established with the Borbon restoration it was definitively abolished on July 15, 1834.

From the mid-16th century to the mid-17th century, a time when Europe was torn apart by Catholic-Protestant strife, various European Protestant intellectuals, who generally had minimal or no direct access or experience of the Inquisition, began to write what has come to be known as the Black Legend. It was part of Protestant polemic in support of the Protestant Reformation. With the gradual ebbing of religious hostilities, professional historians began investigations, and revealed a detailed, nuanced and less exaggerated picture of the Inquisition.

• You forgot to edit the refs so as not to generate a non-existant ref table. I'll leave it for now. Jubilee♫clipman 00:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Holy Office" redirect

Why does The Holy Office redirect here? That page should be a DAB page since the modern Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is also known as The Holy Office (it used to be called Holy Office of the Inquisition). Given that the latter link actually redirects to Inquisition, this implies that any Inquisition could be called The Holy Office. Further, Liturgy of the Hours as occasionally referred to as The Holy Office (though incorrectly). There is also the film, though that is DABed in the header. Confusingly, Holy Office (no "The") redirects to Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Any thoughts? Jubilee♫clipman 00:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I've re-redirected to the congregation, but a disam page might be justified. Sending it here was clearly wrong anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of Jews burned at the stake

User:Contaldo80, Please point me to the specific source that disputes the number given (32,000). Even if there is a dispute, both sides get a fair mention. The book is published by Shaar Press [1], a division of Mesorah Publications, no question of reliability here. Shlomke (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The number of 32000 burned is based on the very old work of Juan Antonio Llorente “Historia crítica de la Inquisición de España” (1817). This estimation has long been discredited - according to Henry Charles Lea: "There is no question that the number of these [burnings] has been greatly exaggerated in popular belief, an exaggeration to which Llorente has largely contributed by his absurd method of computation, on an arbitrary assumption of a certain annual average for each tribunal in successive periods. It is impossible now to reconstruct the statistics of the Inquisition, especially during its early activity, but some general conclusions can be formed from the details accessible as to a few tribunals". Lea compared the data given by Llorente with the data based on the documents - you can the results here. Further research established the probable number of victims of the Inquisition between 3 to 5 thousand; this range is generally accepted by all scholars engaged in the research on Inquisisition - it's given by such scholars as Henry Kamen, Garcia Carsel, William Monter, Jaime Contreras, Gustav Henningsen, Edward Peters etc. The number of 32000 is nothing more than product of invention of Llorente and it is amazing that it's still repeated in 21th century CarlosPn (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. In that case I think we should make mention of Llorente's figures, those who discredit him, and the generally accepted number. I will put this in. Would you be able to supply the sources? Shlomke (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the inquisition did not burn jews at the stake. It burnt heretics and conversos (who may or not have been crypto jews) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.63.217 (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia

I have removed the homophobia category. According to the category page, "This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic." The Spanish Inquisition was a group - specifically, a tribunal. UserVOBO (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the above criteria is that "alleged" is actually the key word; rather than the fact that the article is about a group. I think you've misread the criteria. Those leading the inquisition were clearly motivated by a hatred of those that committed same-sex acts - as being seen to having a corrupting effect on society. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's utterly preposterous. The intention of the revised category is obviously to exclude individuals and groups. If you are in any doubt about that at all, I would suggest taking the issue up with Good Olfactory, who changed the category definition. UserVOBO (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My intent in changing the definition (which was pursuant to the CFD linked to in the defn) was to exclude individuals and groups. To make the argument that it only excludes "alleged" homophobic groups and individuals but not "actual" homophobic groups and individuals just re-creates the same problem that existed before, since users will always disagree about who is and who is not actually homophobic. The inclusion of the word "alleged" was not intended to limit the restriction's application; rather, it was to make it clear that it applied to any group or individual that someone was claiming was homophobic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. First point to make is that the Spanish Inquisition should probably be seen as a historical event rather than a specific group of people. That said, is the argument therefore that it was not spurred by homophobia? Secular and ecclesiastical authorities of the time had a profound fear of the corrupting nature of those engaged in sodomy and were keen to ensure punishment. That must be an example of homphobia surely? Otherwise it would be helpful for examples of articles where the 'homophobia' category would be legitimate. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish Inquisition was a group, and the reason given for removing the category stands. The purpose of changing the category criteria was precisely to avoid debates such as this, where we run the risk of engaging in endless back and forth on what is homophobia and what isn't. UserVOBO (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this article for real?

This treatment renders the inquisitions as some sort of judicial process, a bureaucracy, and relatively benign with only some torture - but only in interrogation and never as punishment (that's okay then). Quite remarkable. Oh, and by the way, interesting that the authors think burning humans alive at the stake (after first burning their face black - "bearding") does not qualify as "torture as punishment". Historical revisionism in action. -- 62.25.106.209 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) ..Actually those thing appear to be myths spread as religious propaganda, when in reality the church didn't kill people - it was the secular state. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

I'm sorry, but the National Review can hardly be considered a scholarly source; it is not subject to peer review by historians, and announces its political slant unabashedly.PJtP (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And it has been shown not may very killed at all http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3809983.stm --IceHunter 21:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was taught the same thing in a history class at my University. Keep in mind the inquisition couldn't judge people outside the church. But it did have quite a few who made false conversions under duress then when they returned to their previous beliefs got hauled before the inquisition. Not everyone got burned at the stake though, a lot of this has been made out to be much more volatile that it truly was. --Kraftlos (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The modern "extreme" impression of the inquisition is likely the result of British revisionism to demonize the Spanish, and Catholics in general. --NEMT (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If anything this article doesn't go far enough in the direction of demystifying the inquistion. The inquisition in Spain was extremely well-organized and governed by clearly established procedures, all of which could be proven by the meticulous records it had kept. We have tomes and tomes of primary documents on hundreds if not thousands of cases, with the transcript of the interrogations, the method of torture (if applied), and the that authorized it, the witnesses, etc. Far more than what you would expect from, say, a medieval CIVIL court. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.67.160 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, is this article for real? - or is the text or only the spirit from The Catholic Encyclopedia? Throughout, it certainly seems "designed to serve the Roman Catholic Church", the stated Intent of the Encyclopedia, and works hard to minimize eras of intimidation, insane righteousness, torture and murder. -A Jesuit educated Wikipedia enthusiast --Bobrowen (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So put in some well ref'd sources to balance what you think you see... Spanglej (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty shocked when I got a real education in the Spanish Inquisition myself. Nevertheless, the scholarly consensus on this subject is pretty well established: the popular version of events are more or less invention of the Enlightenment as well as result of contemporary Protestant propaganda.

Chin Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.1.192 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Image

An image frequently misinterpreted as the Spanish Inquisition burning prohibited books. This is actually Pedro Berruguete's La Prueba del Fuego (1400s). It depicts a legend of St Dominic's dispute with the Cathars: they both consign their writings into the flames, and while the Cathars' text burns, St Dominic's miraculously leaps from the flames.

This picture is completely wrong for this article. As the thumb states it is not even about the Inquisition. I'm sure we can find a better more relevant picture somewhere...--Buster7 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

. . . . . . Do you think you could find some that included period clothing for non-royals? Or where could those be found? thanks

I agree with Buster7 - the image is incorrect (by its own admission) for this article. It's probably better to not have one at all than to have this one included - Prasad (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed that this picture is unrelated to the article. Since there has been no opposition to the above proposal to remove the pic in over a year, I'm removing it now. I think that pics in articles are a GREAT idea, and I hope someone can find an alternative pic to place in lieu of this one. But I don't have time right now to find a substitute. --Noleander (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention of work by Ben Zion Netanyahu?

The section on modern scholarship would be strengthened by a discussion of his work and reaction to it, I think. Ricardianman (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have since added a paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The picture is slightly truthful. Have you ever read the novel "Incantation?" over 16,000 books wre burned in an auto de fe, the night Jewish religious and medical books were burned in public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeeeraffe (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Separate Article for the Inquisiton in New Spain

Should another article be made for the Tribunal of the Holy Office in New Spain? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article and believe it's relevant enough to have a separate article for it. --RRV56 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Black african slavery as the reason for the inquisition

Was the spanish inquisition initiated because of the victims of the inquisition were involved in black african slavery? Alot of jewish people and muslim people in spain were involved in the enslavement of black africans and the catholic church seems to have been opposed to black africans being enslaved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.90.104 (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is "No". The long answer is it's complicated. Dominican friar Las Casas, the defender of the Indians, is seen by some as the father of Black slavery. See Hanke's "The Spanish Struggle for Justice." In the 1630s-1640s there was a Inquisition purge of the crypto-Jewish communities in Cartagena, Lima and Mexico, many of whom were involved in the slave trade, and some historians argue that that disastrously affected Spain resulting in the ultimate loss of Portugal following the revolt of 1640.Hobomojo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

Torquemada?

There is no mention of Torquemada on this page (You know...the first Inquisitor General to Spain?!?), and the statistics on his page regarding the inquisition do not correlate with the statistics given here. 70.179.23.9 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Torquemada is mentioned in the sub-section "The start of the Inquisition." The problem with the statistics is due to problems with the documentation, but the 2,000 figure in the article dedicated to him is most likely over-inflated. As far as I can tell, it comes from the Rawlings work cited in the Torquemada article, unfortunately, Rawlings herself offers no citation for where she got her figure. Hobomojo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

RE: Moore

The following sentence appears at the end of the 2nd paragraph of the section entitled: "Previous Inquisitions"

But in the coming years the Muslims were increasingly subjugated by alienation and torture. This is displayed by the fact that "Moore" the name of the Muslim dynasty in Spain is still the 9th most common English surname "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_(surname)". The Jews on the other had who thrived under Muslim rule now suffered similar maltreatment. The discrimination was understandably more against Muslims, naturally since they were the ones defeated by the new rulers of Spain.

As you can see there is a link there to the article for the English surname "Moore". However the (interesting) bit of trivia put forth by the above quoted sentence is actually contradicted by the information in the linked article, which explains that the name is Gaelic/English in origin. Furthermore the linked article lists "Moore" not as the 9th most common surname in England, but the 31st. I am just a passerby reading this fine article and I don't know which article contains the correct information, but I thought I would point this out in case a more experienced wikipedian might make a judgement. M4gill4 (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography section

Coud anyone update the bibliography section? It seems it is still a leftover from the 1911 Britannica .... I've grouped it in three subsections (recent, seminal and old), but I don't know if all the recent are of a serious scholary level, and most of the old section ... I'll add a couple of modern books I think worth (Rawlings and Hozma), but it needs a heavy update (look f.i. at the spanish article) --Wllacer (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Underplays the pain caused to the Jews

The pain caused to the Jews was significant and as such should be mentioned in the first line of the article. Since greater than ninety percent of the victims were Jews, it was one of the most severe forms of State and Church sanctioned antisemitism. The rest of the article deals with it rather clinically. This article is not neutral until these problems are rectified. Ezra Wax (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ezra. Just to start the discussion, can you provide a source that backs up the claim that "greater than ninety percent of the victims were Jews..." Hobomojo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

In Spain, James I the Conqueror established the Inquisition in Aragon in 1238. Isabel the Catholic petitioned Pope Sixtus IV for the Inquisition in 1477 and receives permission in 1478. The reasons provided by Isabel states that many people “without reward or force” maintained their own observances and Jewish ceremonies, exercising a strong proselytism. During this period in Spain proselytism meant not baptizing oneself, or praying in front of an image of a Saint. Non-idolatrous Christians were classified as Jews. Spain does not conquer all of the Moors lands until 1498. (Source: Educated in Aragon, Spain, but I no longer have my high school history book. I am providing a link in Spanish that concord with what I learned in high school.) http://serjudio.com/dnoam/inquisicion.htm

The link provided below shows maps depicting the Christian Kings conquering the Iberian Peninsula (the peninsula that contains Spain and Portugal). http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd_1911/shepherd-c-082-083.jpg

This article states, “Because of its objective — combating heresy — the Inquisition had jurisdiction only over baptized members of the Church (which, however, encompassed the vast majority of the population in Catholic countries). Secular courts could still try non-Christians for blasphemy.” This statement contradicts the Spanish Inquisition information found in the source below, where Jews and Muslims were submitted to the inquisition in Aragon and later in Cadiz (Jews are not baptized, non-idolatry Christians for not praying when passing in front of images of Saints).

The article does not mention the great transfer of land and 31,312,768 maravedis (gold coins) were calculated to have been confiscated by the Inquisition from accused in Andalusia between 1488 and 1497, one might well conclude that the severity of the persecution was due more to financial concerns than to the desire to suppress the Judaizing heresy. In the first part of the sixteenth century the Inquisition took enormous sums from its victims. Almost 87 million maravedis were confiscated by eight courts between 1536 and 1543 alone. The wealth and land was divided in between the royal treasure and the Holy Office of the Church. Source: A. Domínguez Ortiz, Los Judeoconversos en España y América (Madrid: Istmo, 1988) Oneofshibumi (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of what you have pointed out, Oneofshibumi, is correct, but still, entirely beside the point. The claim Ezra Wax makes is that "ninety percent of the victims were Jews," which is the basis for his tagging the article as biased, and it is factually incorrect. Please produce a source supporting the claim that 90% or the victims of the Inquisition were Jews.Hobomojo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

Oneofshibumi. Let's start with some nitpicking ;-) it was 1492 not 98 when the last moorish kingdom (Granada) dissapeared from the Iberian Peninsula. Could you pls. elaborate on the concept of "non-idolatrous Christian"? I know it's hard when not being a native english speaker, but without defining the concept is hard to follow your argument.

Kamen book has a most interesting section dealing with the converso problem before the stablishment of the Inquisition (and it is translated in Spanish). And noone can deny that the main (perhaps sole) reason why the Spanish Inquisition was brought up, was to deal with false converts from Judaism and the social risk it -was perceived- provoked.

The finantial side of the Inquisition was a troublesome matter since the first days, but modern scholars tend to think that is was -in general- not a main cause, but rather a windfall, and was basically used up in self-maintenace of the institution (pace Rawlings, p.151)

Can you expand on the cases where Inquisition dealt with NON-baptized jews and moslems? (which after 1493/1530 it must mean foreing born). Can get no references. It's worth to note that the behaviour regarding moriscos was absolutely at variance to that of judaizers ...--Wllacer (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the POV complaint is that it implies the need to switch the POV from that of the Inquisition as an institution to that of the individuals who suffered under the institution. It also suggests that the article manifest a moral outrage for past events rather than provide an objective analysis of the institution as a historical actor. Its not like the article overlooks the death toll or the scope of its victims. The complaint seems to be that it doesn't criticize the Inquisition for doing what it thought it should be doing. We may think that their goal was wrongheaded and discriminatory bordering on genocidal; yet it cannot be denied that those concerns were alien to the actors involved and were not part of the moral fabric of early modern society. Additionally, the claim that 90% of the victims were Jews is unverified and actually not true according to the standards being applied at the time. As can be found in an scholarly study (Kamen is a good example) the Inquisition only had jurisdiction over baptized christians. The crucial issue at stake here is Jewish conversions. In the decades leading up to the creation of the Spanish inquisition many Jews had converted to avoid popular persecution in pogroms. After 1492, all Jews had to convert or face expulsion by SECULAR authorities. Ferdinand and Isabella ordered their conversion to promote a new nation-building policy. After 1492, any Jew who had converted was considered a Christian in the eyes of the Church and the Inquisition. Understandably many Jews did not intend to abandon their faith but nonetheless accepted baptism in order to remain in their home. Thus, the 'Jewish' victims of the Inquisition were not considered Jews - a group excluded from Inquisitorial investigation - but heretics who had relapsed and abandoned their baptisms. Ultimately, the historical problem is one of perspective. Many Jews who converted to avoid expulsion by secular authorities did not really intend to become Christians and considered themselves still Jewish. Yet, to the Church the acceptance of baptism made them Christian any continuation of Jewish practice became heretical and could be investigated and punished by the Inquisition. On the whole this article conveys this paradox. The NPOV flag should not apply as it was only placed in order to shift the POV to the opposite side of the issue! Grin20 (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Torture section citing www.crisismagazine.com

The Torture section had a paragraph that minimized the use of torture by the Catholic Inquisitors during the Spanish Inquisition. The paragraph cited an evangelical Catholic webpage, www.crisismagazine.com. This can not be considered a non-biased or academic source. I have therefore, removed the section. Please cite a non-biased, academically credible source, if the section is reinstated. AJseagull1 (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As a post script, the Evangelical Catholic site cited no source for their claims. AJseagull1 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your objection is without merit. The author, Thomas Madden was the former Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University, and Director of Saint Louis University's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. He is a highly noted medievalist, recipient of the Haskins Medal and, for example, is considered one of the foremost historians of the Crusades in the United States. Moreover, the the assertion that he is cited for is not at al controversial among contemporary scholars. Mamalujo (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Due to your raising this issue, I have added additional sourcing for the assertions sourced to Madden. That should resolve the issue. Mamalujo (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I requested a semi protection for the article considering the high number of ip edits.--Sam 15:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was unexpected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.60.2 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

^^ You, Sir, WIN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.57.148 (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 October 2011

Please remember to mention that nobody expected it.

In10secondsflat (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Data, Statistics and Accuracy

Exact number of people executed by the Inquisition is not known nor it make sense to build any statistics based on non-existent and incomplete data. Here are some references

"No serious attempt will be made at any statistical approach, both because the figures - strongly affected by the accidental survival or destruction of evidence - would in any case be too small to prove very much, ...."

from: Brian Pullan: The Jews of Europe and the Inquisition of Venice, 1550-1670; I.B.Tauris, 1998 ISBN 1860643574, 9781860643576 page xiv

"The almost complete loss or destruction of the records of the Seville and Cordoba tribunals make it effectively impossible to substantiate accounts, in contemporary and latter sources, of the number of arrests and deaths i the early days, though surviving documentation of other tribunals, such as Ciduad Real-Toledo and Valencia, provide a clearer picture."

from: John Edwards: The Spain of the Catholic Monarchs, 1474-1520 Volume 5 of History of Spain; Wiley-Blackwell, 2000 ISBN 0631221433, 9780631221432 page 94

That is the reason for many historians going back to the historians that were closer to the inquisition times and who were able to see the documents now destroyed or lost. The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society claims:

Llorente, who wrote with calumness and had access to the archives of the tribunal, gives an approximate estimate of the number of executed under each inquisition general, from which it results that the total amount in Spain is about 32,000 persons burnt, either alive or after being strangled, 17,000 burnt in effigy, and 291,000 condemned to various terms of imprisonment, to the galleys, or subjected to other penalties. During the eighteen years of Torquemada's inquisitorship alone, about 8800 persons were burnt. This calculation does not include the Spanish colonies, nor the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, which were long subject to the Spanish Inquisition.

Cecil Roth quoted Llorente, the ex-secretary of the Holy Office, giving the similar numbers: 31,912 burnt, 17,696 burned in effigy, and those reconciled de vehementi 291,450. The same author quotes Amador de los Rios stating that, between 1484 and 1525, 28,540 were burned in person, burned in effigy 16,520 and penanced 303,847.

Bear in mind that "penanced" actually means "condemned to various terms of imprisonment, to the galleys, or subjected to other penalties". Many of those who "penanced" died never being set freee.

TODO Completely remove Henningsen-Contreras statistics for the period 1540–1699 and Autos da fe between 1700–1746 sections (for their incompleteness and marginality) and rewrite the remaining text.

--71.178.112.40 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Llorente's and Rios' statistics have long been discredited. Edwards' remarks concern only the first (though most intense) years of the Spanish Inquisition. There exists a sufficient documentation to make reliable estimates for the period after around 1540. CarlosPn (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
    • References, please. Keep your opinion for personal use. About destruction of evidence I gave a 1998 year reference. Where are yours?--71.178.112.40 (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
      • References are in the article. The numbers given by Llorente and Rios have been discredited already in 19th century. See, among many others, H. Ch. Lea, History of the Inquisition of Spain, vol. IV, pp. 516 ff. The estimates of Llorente and Rios were based on entirely arbitrary assumptions about the annual average number of executions bu each tribunal per year. Modern estimates are based mainly on the annual reports of te local tribunals to Suprema. Hennigsen and Contreras have examined these materials and achieved the results presented in the article. The exact total number of executions will never be known but it is not the case that we are unable to say anything about the number of victims of the Spanish Inquisition. CarlosPn (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
        • References in the article are selected to 'prove' 2% of burned. As to Llorente and de los Rios, they are not discredited if finding an author who disagreed with them. Here is an Englishman who has full confidence in Llorente (Cecil Roth (1964) The Spanish Inquisition, W. W. Norton & Company, 1964 ISBN0393002551, 9780393002553 page 123). Moreover, Llorente's book is a 2010 republished book (by BiblioBazaar, 2010 ISBN 1147500436, 9781147500431), and the English language writing historians referenced him more than 9,000 times. So, this annuls your disqualification. Who is your H. Ch. Lea? The importance of Llorente's work is in "Thus he had access to materials now no longer in existence." as per The Historians' History of the World: Spain and Portugal, Volume 10 of The Historians' History of the World: A Comprehensive Narrative of the Rise and Development of Nations as Recorded by Over Two Thousand of the Great Writers of All Ages, Henry Smith Williams, Editor Henry Smith Williams, The Outlook Company, 1904 page 664. I can easily give similar account about de los Rios. Llorente's work is not "based on entirely arbitrary assumptions about the annual average number of executions bu each tribunal per year". It's based on the documents that were destroyed intentionally. "Modern" estimates are non-sensic for being narrowed on the reports which were never complete nor, even those once written, survived. You are using very narrow insight into this issue and, at the same time, pretending some authority by offering a strong opinion.--71.191.22.174 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Llorente's work is available online. His work is a very important one, but not because of his calculation of the number of victims, which is fantastic and greatly exeggarated. Llorente himself admits how he has achieved his numbers (pp. 575 - 583), and they are not based on documents. He has made several arbitrary assumptions based on a very small piece of evidence, some of them he has misread or perhaps even intentionally falsely presented. For example, ha stated that 16th century author Mariana gives the number of 2000 executions during a single year 1481 in the district of Seville alone. But actually Mariana gives this number not only for the year 1481 but for the "first few years" of Inquisition and not only for the district of Seville but for the whole Spain. Your question "Who is Henry Charles Lea?" is ridiculous. You should know that he is one of the most distinguished historians of the Spanish Inquisition, far more important than Llorente. He was a Protestant with strong anti-Catholic prejudice, but an honest historian. His analysis has proved without doubt that estimate of Llorente is a pure nonsense and no serious modern historian of the Inquisition accepts it. Even Cecil Roth on the very same page you cited commented: These figures are so enormous as to seem highly suspicious. Besides, Roth had written his book before the systematic examination of relaciones de causas has begun. And you may be sure that modern historians are well aware of the fact, that surviving documentation is incomplete. Academic literature on the Spanish Inquisition is very rich, especially in English and Spanish. You critisice my contribution to this article but apparently you are not familiar with this literature CarlosPn (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
          • BTW, the respective passage of the book of Brian Pullan that you have cited, concerns Inquisition of Venice (not of Spain) and does not refer simply to the calculation of the number of victims of the Inquisition but to the attempts of the statistical summaries of the categories of its victims, their views and attitudes CarlosPn (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    • So, I see, what you do not like, you do not read. Llorente said, "These circumstances oblige me to found my calculations on the combination of certain data, which I found in the registers and writings of the holy office." So, you are still at yours: Llorente himself admits how he has achieved his numbers (pp. 575 - 583), and they are not based on documents.?! As to your conclusions, which is fantastic and greatly exaggerated, is it based on not reading more than H.C. Lea who was even not educated as historian and which was a scribe, not a scholar. What was it what Llorente some of them he has misread ? Name these documents and the archives containing them. As to Mariana, where Llorente said that this Mariana did not do what you claim he did? So, if there is no enough evidence, then how you could ever claim that there were only 2% burnt out of those convicted? Statistics is not calculating percentages based on incomplete and inaccurate data.--71.191.22.174 (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Llorente attributed to Mariana the statement about 2000 burnt during 1481 in the district of Seville alone on the pp. 36-37 and repeats it on the p. 575. I do not understand your question. That Mariana didn't say it has been recognised already by William Prescott History of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, the catholic, of Spain, Volume 3, 1838, p. 585. The summary of the opinions of the academic scholars about the Llorente's calculation can be found here. Besides, you should know also that, although many documents have been lost, the archives of the Spanish Inquisition are still one of the best preserved judical archives of the early modern period. There is enough evidence in these archives to make serious estimates of the number of its victims, at least for the period after 1540. This has been done by Henningsen and Contreras. But of course you may still believe Llorente and reject all academic literature on the topic. BTW, Llorente was also a scribe, he had no academic training. CarlosPn (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Llorente was a man who knew Roman Catholic Church inside out for holding very high position within that church for long, long time. Llorente had access to the documents to the highest scope and saw those who were destroyed. Offering authoritative There is enough evidence in these archives to make serious estimates of the number of its victims, at least for the period after 1540 is yet another of your nonsenses you are passing here. That's why Wikipedia cannot be referenced even in the works of our history courses students across USA and worldwide.--71.191.22.174 (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
        • A year ago, I've watched a PBS talk about the Spanish Inquisition. Two American university professors clearly stated that most of evidence about this crime in Spain was destroyed. Talking about accuracy here does not make sense. Any of the estimates can be accepted or rejected for some reason. I think that Llorente and Rios shall be referenced in this article along with others leaving it to the reader to choose what he likes. That is the way to improve this article. I do agree that any kind of statistics is meaningless here.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
        • That's not my nonsense - that's the opinion of academic scholars, such as Gustav Henningsen, Jaime Contreras, William Monter, Francisco Bethencourt, Ricardo Garcia Carcel, Henry Kamen, Jean-Pierre Dedieu, Edward Peters, Helen Rawlings, Andrea Del Col etc. But you simply don't want to know it. Your choice CarlosPn (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Llorente's and Rios' estimates belong now to the same category as 9 million witches burned during witch-hunt. They cannot be treated as equal to modern estimates CarlosPn (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• I hate taking side in this discussion, but I have to point at some findings:

"However, the most detailed set of trial statistics has come from Jean-Pierre Dedieu's exhaustive survey of the well-preserved records for the tribunal of Toledo, From 1483 until 1820 Dedieu counted 7,216 trials, but also found traces of several thousand other defendants judged before 1575; he estimated about 12,000 cases in all, ...."

from E. William Monter: Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily, Cambridge University Press, 2003 page 30

"During the first 30 years of its life over half of all those tried by Spanish Inquisition were brought before tribunals. This was the period of maximum repression when victims were hounded out ..."

from Helen Rawlings: The Spanish Inquisition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006 page 14

which make me see that it is clear that a lot of documentation about these crimes was lost. Thus, we cannot say that there is enough evidence in these archives to make serious estimates nor I see that any of the authors mentioned above ever said so. If we correct 44,000 cases studied by Henningsen & Contreras by the Dedieu's rate of correction, we'll quickly go to over 70,000 estimated trials and applying Rawlings statement that more than half of all cases happened in the first 30 years excluded by Henningsen & Contreras, then we are at 150, 0000 estimated cases. Bearing in mind that many documents seen by Llorente and de los Rios vanished, I would not discard their estimates as exaggerated. Another fact is H. Ch. Lea never visited Spain and never saw the documents that were available at the time he was writing his books about the Inquistion.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"hate to take sides"?! You and IP 71 are the same person. You already have a side. Don't insult our intelligence. As has already been explained, we go with scholarship on wikipedia. Nothing else really matters, especially not your personal interpretation of the data.Farsight001 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence!! All your comments are primitivism, ignorance, and stupidity.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So no valid sources or scholarship to support your contention then?Farsight001 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Neverthless, I'll answer once more. Statistics of Henningsen and Contreras concern the period between 1540 and 1700, they do not cover the whole period from 1480 until 1820 and it is precisely remarked. Further, one should not overestimated the documentation known to Llorente. First, he was secretary of Suprema and had access to the documents of Suprema but not to the archives of the local tribunals. Further, it was simply impossible for him to read and to analyze all documentation he had accessed. His calculation of the number of victims is not based on the detailed examination of the documentation. As I has written above, he had made several assumptions based on the very small piece of evidence. He did not try to count all the trials he was able to get to know, with possible exception for the second half of 18th century. He took the numbers from a few tribunals for some short periods and extrapolate them. The modern scholars do the same, but they base on the far greater and more systematized piece of information. Furthermore, one should know what does it mean in this case that the majority of the documents are lost. This does not neccessarily mean that we are unable to reconstruct the numbers of trials and the penalties they had received. The archives of Inquisition contained documentation of different kinds. It is true that for the first period (until 1530) the majority of he trial records (minutes of the hearings of witnessess and accused etc.) has been lost. However, the sentences were pronounced in the public ceremonies autos da fe. Documentation of these ceremonies is preserved to much greater extent than minutes of proper trials. They often attracted considerable public attention and are recorded also in the external sources (chronicles, diaries etc.). Besides, inquisitors or their assistants were obliged to produce several reports for Suprema or for other internal use. From around 1540 all local tribunals had to provide to Suprema annual reports of their activities, including summaries of all cases. These reports are known relaciones de causa. Some archives (e.g. that of Cuenca) contain catalogs of cases or lists of those relaxed to the secular arms, whose sanbenitos should had been placed in their parochial churches forever. There exists abecedario de relajados in Valencia for the period 1485 to 1593, mentioned by Monter, Frontiers of heresy, p. 21 and H. Ch. Lea, vol. III, p. 562; or similar list compiled by the inquisitors of Llerena in 1576, see Lea, III, p. 167-168. Documents of the tribunal of Seville for the years 1481 to 1524 are entirely lost, but there are accounts of autos da fe preserved in the municipal archives, see Klaus Wagner, La Inquisición en Sevilla (1481-1524), in Homenaje...Carriazo, Sevilla 1973, III,pp. 439-460. Finally, it has to be remarked (cause I'm impressed that this is not clear for my adversary), that "estimation of the number of victims" means that the documentation is just incomplete and we're unable to establish the exact numbers, but there are attempts to establish approximate numbers basing on quite rich (when compared to other judical institutions of that period) preserved documentation. With complete archives there would be no need to make any "estimation" because the exact numbers would be known. Basing on the available materials it is estimated that Spanish Inquisition is responsible for 125000 to 200000 trials and between 3000 to 10000 executions. Some favour lower estimates (e.g. Monter, Kamen), some higher (Dedieu, Bethencourt), but the minimal and maximal borders are clearly defined. Any numbers higher or lower beyond this scope cannot be considered reliable, unless some new substantial evidence would be found CarlosPn (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning Llorente and what documents he saw, something more must be added. He claimed that he was unable to include the tribunals of Sicily, Sardinia and of America because he had no access to their documentation. This would mean that relaciones de causa were largely unknown to him. These tribunals provided similar annual reports as Iberian tribunals that are collected together with them in the archives of Suprema. Hennigsen and Contreras included them in their statistics. If Llorente had the access to this documentation, he would have been able to include Italian and American tribunals in his work. But he did not. CarlosPn (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm giving up. Each of your sentence, if taken apart from this response, might have some sense. But, whole response is a complete nonsense. Your conclusions are not supported by the names you counted. No one set minimal or maximal numbers based on the available documentation. that is just figment of your imagination. Your "he had made several assumptions based on the very small piece of evidence" is just one example of your figments. Then "modern scholars do the same, but they base on the far greater and more systematized piece of information". Then "Some favour lower estimates (e.g. Monter, Kamen), some higher (Dedieu, Bethencourt)"? Dedieu's work is dedicated to only to one tribunal - Toledo. Lea is a man who never set foot on Spanish soil and all his writings about Spanish Inquisition are based on works of other historians. What you wrote and what you are defending by hook and crook is not more than a blog.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Dedieu wrote not only about Toledo. He gave also the numbers for a whole Spain from 1480 until 1820: around 200000 trials and no more than 10000 executions. These numbers are given in Dedieu's L'Inquisition, they are cited also by Andrea Del Col, Inquisizione in Italia, p. 234; Francisco Bethencourt, The Inquisition. A Global History, p. 339-340. Both Del Col and Bethencourt cited also Garcia Carcel, who gives the numbers of 125-150 thousand trials and 3,5% of executions (4375 - 5250) during the whole operation of Spanish Inquisition. Spanish historian Jaime Contreras in 1994 BBC/A&E production, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" says that the total number of executions by the Spanish Inquisition was between 3000 and 5000. Contreras worked together with Gustav Henningsen on the project relaciones de causa. William Monter in Frontiers of heresy, p. 53, provides even lower number (2750), to which seems to have inclined also Henry Kamen and Helen Rawlings (although it is rather undestimation, because during first fifty years udoubtedly more than 1500 were burned at the stake, in one later article Monter slightly modified these figure). My conclusions are certainly supported. You are completely unfamiliar with the great majority of the academic literature on the topic. You got to know that Dedieu had written a book about tribunal of Toledo but you haven't even checked if he wrote something else on the topic. "He [Llorente] had made several assumptions based on the very small piece of evidence" - for you it's one of my figments. But this appears clearly from Llorente's own word. Have you noticed, that during almost all periods Llorente gave exactly the same numbers for each tribunal? Some local tribunals have well preserved archives and the examination of these archives brings the results disastrous for Llorente's calculation. The most striking example is that of Canaries. According to Llorente, this tribunal burned 1118 heretics in persona and 574 in effigie. The actual numbers are 11 (ELEVEN) burnings in person and 110 (one hunder and ten) in effigie, see La actividad procesal del Santo Oficio. Algunas consideraciones sobre su estudio. CarlosPn (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is examination by Joseph Perez, The Spanish Inquisition: A History, Yale University Press, 2006, ISBN 0300119828, 9780300119824, p. 170-173 about the number of victims f the Spanish Inquisition, ended with conclusion that Inquisition was responsible for fewer than 10,000 death sentences followed by execution, which is in accordance with the statements I've written above CarlosPn (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You are pretending to be a knowledgeable man, eh? First of all where exactly, on which page, of the Dedieu's book you see those 200 000? Moreover, there is a number of questions you did not answer yet: which documents Llorente did not understand and who set (and where) min/max numbers of those sentenced by the Inquisition in Spain. Please, stop talking about things not related to the questions you did not answer.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dedieu gives these numbers on the p. 85, putting them as maximal possible numbers. Who set min/max numbers - I've put the references above (esp. Del Col and Bethencourt), there is a general consensus among historians. Concerning Llorente: 1) He said that 16th-century author Mariana gives the number of 2000 burned in person in the district of Seville alone during the single year 1481. But actually Mariana gives this number for a whole Spain and for the whole tenure of General Inquisitor Torquemada (until 1498) 2) Llorente said, that contemporary author Bernaldez said that in Seville between 1482 and 1489 (so excluding the year 1481) seven hundred conversos were burnt in person. But actually Bernaldez gave this number for the period 1481 to 1488, and, moreover, it's likely that this number includes both executions in person as well as in effigie. Llorente falsified Bernaldez testimony in order to harmonize it with the alleged 2000 burned in the single year 1481 3) Llorente said that in Toledo during the first year of operation of Inquisition 200 people were burned. But from his own accounts of autos da fe celebrated in Toledo during this time clearly appears that only 27 were burned. Besides, in his appendix about number of victims Llorente does not refer to the archival documents of Inquisition of any kind.

The condensed examintation of his basic numbers for his estimation can be found here, but his misreading of Mariana has been revealed as early as in 1837 by American historian William Prescott: History of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic: Volume 3, p. 518. CarlosPn (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC) BTW, I've provided you with the example of Mariana in one of my posts listed above. CarlosPn (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the full quote of that page (Dedieu,p. 85):
Nous pouvons avancer quelques chiffres, avec prudence: dans toute l'Espagne, deux cent mille personnes au total ont dû passer devant lui, le tiers avant 1530; dix mille exécutions, au maximum, les quatre cinquièmes au cours des trente premières années; un procès pour cinq mille Espagnols, chaque année, à la fin du XVe et au début du XVIe siècle, un pour vingt mille ensuite, un pour cent mille au XVIIIe. C'est peu.
1. What Dedieu said here is 200 000 total (deux cent mille personnes au total; fr. total is not en. maximum). He passes this number to the reader with caution (avec prudence). Where he used the maximum word? He claims only ten thousand executions, to the maximum ( dix mille exécutions, au maximum). C'est peu. This is well above your 2% you are claiming in the article. Furthermore, Dedieu claims that 200 000 were put on trial out of which third of them before 1530. Now, we have a more contemporary author (Helen Rawlings: The Spanish Inquisition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006 page 14) which contradicts Dedieu: "During the first 30 years of its life over half of all those tried by Spanish Inquisition were brought before tribunals." Both of them (Dedieu, 1987 and Rawlings, 2006) cannot be right. How could you reconciliate these two contradicting statements? If I accept Rawlings as closer to the truth, for knowing that initially the main Inquisition target was a large population of Moriscos and Jews, which was completely destroyed during the first 30 years, and accept Dedieu's numbers, then the total (not maximum) would be close to 270 000 which brings us closer to de los Rios' and Llorente's estimates. What is your 'scholastic' method here, may I ask you? You used the Google book search engine and entered the search string containing "Jean Pierre Dedieu" and "maximum" to get support for your false claim about Dedieu you wrote on this page. As it was mentioned before, by some user, "penanced" actually means "condemned to various terms of imprisonment, to the galleys, or subjected to other penalties". We cannot talk about executions and the number of executed if not including those who died in the Inquisition torture chambers never facing after any court in Spain. Wast majority of those sentenced to the slave work in mines and on galleys did not survived their sentence terms. If we estimate these no-trial and postponed death penalties, the number of executed could be tripled or quadrupled, i.e if accepting Dedieu's percentage (5%) we could come to 15 or 20% of executed.
2.This disagreement between Dedieu and Rawlings shows that there was no the maximum agreed upon as you claimed here.
3.You claimed that Llorente misunderstood some documents, but you did not say which ones. Here your response is not about the documents, it's about his supposed misinterpretations of other authors' findings.--216.52.207.75 (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

First above all, you and IP 71 and IP 66 are the same person. Please, stop making an impression that more users share your view (as it was mentioned above by some user...). But ad meriti:
#Dedieu did not use the word maximum in reference to the number of trials. But this is the highest number put by the modern scholar. Ricardo Garcia Carcel, Gustav Henningsen, Jaime Contreras and Agostino Borromeo accpeted lower numbers (125-150 thousands). All modern estimations range between 125 and 200 thousands. Nobody proposed higher number. Dedieu put these numbs "with caution", but this does not mean that he thought that it may be higher, it's rather a great adjustement for the lost documentation. Certainly, Dedieu's 200000 is not the same as 340000 given by Llorente. I've put further references (Del Col and Bethencourt) to support the statement about some consensus.
#If I accept Rawlings as closer to the truth (...) and accept Dedieu's numbers - No. This is not the case. It's true that Rawlings said (p. 14) During the first 30 years of its life over half of all those tried by the Spanish Inquisition were brought before its tribunals. But on the next page she put the following numbers: It has been estimated that, at most, around 2,000 people died at the hands of the Inquisition in the period up to 1530, while perhaps as many as 15,000 were ‘reconciled’ – disciplined, but not sent to the stake, which is not even close to Dedieu's ca. 70000. She clearly contradicts herself, since she referred to around 50000 trials between 1540 and 1700 (pp. 12-13).
# Dedieu claims that 200 000 were put on trial out of which third of them before 1530. Now, we have a more contemporary author (Helen Rawlings: The Spanish Inquisition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006 page 14) which contradicts Dedieu: "During the first 30 years of its life over half of all those tried by Spanish Inquisition were brought before tribunals." Both of them (Dedieu, 1987 and Rawlings, 2006) cannot be right (...) This disagreement between Dedieu and Rawlings shows that there was no the maximum agreed upon as you claimed here - yes, the are considerable discrepancies between various estimates.The range I've given above is quite wide: 125-200 thousand, so there's a difference of 75000 between minimum and maximum. But it does not mean that borders are not established
The doubts concern particularly the initial period. These discrepancies may be partially atributed to the fact, that historians not always clarify what they are talking about. We know that several thousand persons in the initial period were reconciled under Edicts of Grace and formally were never brought to trial. Some statistics certainly ommit them. Example: Dedieu gives the number of 3196 trials inToledo from 1485 until 1530. But to these we should add as many as 5200 persons who were reconciled under Edicts of Grace. Furthermore, in the modern period some minor cases were concluded ad hoc (usually with small fines) during inquisitorial visitations, without formal trial. Statistics of Henningsen and Contreras initially included 49092 cases but this number was subsequently reduced to 44674 because such minor cases concluded without trial were eliminated. Dedieu suggests c. 130000 cases after 1530, this rather must include minor cases, keeping in mind statistics provided by Henningsen, Contreras and Teofanes Egido, which even with adjustments for the lost records would not bring the total number of formal trials higher than ~90000 between 1540 and 1746. This may be concluded basing on his own words that a total of 200000 persons were brought before the Inquisition, he does not refer here only to the formal trials.
#You say: <<penanced actually means condemned to various terms of imprisonment, to the galleys, or subjected to other penaltie. We cannot talk about executions and the number of executed if not including those who died in the Inquisition torture chambers never facing after any court in Spain. Wast majority of those sentenced to the slave work in mines and on galleys did not survived their sentence terms. If we estimate these no-trial and postponed death penalties, the number of executed could be tripled or quadrupled>> - any references for such revelations? Any evidence the Inquistion has ever sentenced anybody to the work in mines? Or that majority condemned to galleys died before the end of their term? Penanced in great majority received spiritual punishments - even "imprisonment" usually meant that convicted was sent to the monastery or put under some kind of house arrest (Kamen 1965, p. 198). Torture were rarely applied and Inquisition was generally milder than other contemporary courts. those who died under torture or simply before their trials were completed were usually burnt in effigie, and as such, they are included in the statistics for this kind of sentences.
# <<This is well above your 2% you are claiming in the article.>> - In the article actually there is a following statement: <<García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000; applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560–1700 — about 2% — the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Nevertheless, very probably this total should be raised keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively>>. This does not mean that 2% were executed, but that 2% were executed between 1560 and 1700 and this is based on Henningsen-Contreras statistics. In the initial period this percentage was higher, as appears from Dedieu's and Garcia Carcel's statistics for Toledo and Valencia. However, their often cited numbers do not include the reconciliations under Edicts of Grace. Dedieu provides the following numbers foir Toledo until 1530 - 289 executions in persona, 428 in effigie, 2479 persons reconciled or absolved. This would mean, that 9% were executed in person and over 13% in effigie. But to these we should add as many as 5200 persons who were reconciled under Edicts of Grace, which would reduce the percentage of executions in persona to 3,5% and those in effigie to 5%. Garcia Carcel gives for Valencia (1484-1530) the number of 754 executions in persona, 155 in effigie, 1076 penanced and 12 declared innocent. However, this again refers only to the formal trials. At least 700 persons were reconciled under Edicts of Grace between 1484 and 1486 (Monter 1990, p. 13), additional 983 in 1488 (Lea, I, p. 243) and some 230 moriscos were reconciled in the same way in 1519 (Lea, III, p. 345). Adding these numbers, the percentage of executions in persona and in effigie would decrease from almost 38% to 19% and from 8% to 4% respectively.
#Concerning Llorente misinterpretations - my answer does not concern documents, because, as I've referred above, his calculation is not based on documents. I've used this word in wider sense, although the examples of misinterpretation of inquisitorial documents by Llorente can be also provided, one of them is clarified by Monter 1990, p. 257 and 262 (it concerns the alleged witch hunt in Navarre in 1507). However, Llorente's statistics are not based on documents, so these examples would be irrelevant for our discussion. But Llorente's falsifications of the statements of Mariana and Bernadez, which he used as basic for his calculations, are beyond any doubt CarlosPn (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• • It's good to see that there are people of common sense and sound mind: 66.151.103.8 (New York) AND 216.52.207.75 (Atlanta GA). Here is my response to "Penanced in great majority received spiritual punishments - even "imprisonment" usually meant that convicted was sent to the monastery or put under some kind of house arrest "
  • In 1567, at the beginning of the great naval buildup that led to the battle of Lepanto, the Suprema ordered that all penitents sentenced to perpetual imprisonment and the habit should have their sentences changed to at least three years of galley service (Inquisition and society in the kingdom of Valencia, 1478-1834 by Stephen Haliczer, University of California Press, 1990, page 81)
  • The worst penalties in the repertory of punishments were galley services in the King's fleet, which was first exacted by Aragonese inquisitors in the 1540s ... (The Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1614: an anthology of sources by Lu Ann Homzar, Hackett Publishing, 2006, page xxvii)
  • Christian doctrine demanded that repentant sinners be fortified in their faith; the galleys were one of the worst places imaginable to receive spiritual nourishment. But the Spanish Inquisition served the king as much as it served the church, and the king needed rowers. Spain galley fleet had grown until it required more than 8,000 men ... (Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily by E. William Monter, Cambridge University Press, 2003, page 33)
  • They were also aware of the Spanish Inquisition's reputation for passing exemplary sentences on those found guilty of heresy, and that the punishments for this crime included execution. Several of the journeymen ... were fearful of meeting such an end or of being condemned to the oaring Spain's galley fleet... a sentence which, at least for the older ones among them, would be tantamount to a lingering death ( Journeymen-printers, heresy, and the Inquisition in sixteenth-century Spain by Clive Griffin, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 48)--71.191.19.40 (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    • These references confirm merely that the galleys were among the penalties used by the Spanish Inquisition, which I do not deny. But neither of them supports the theory that majority of those condemned to the galleys died. Besides, Inquisition was not the only court that condemned Spanish people to the galleys. You have cited Monter, Frontiers of heresy, p. 33. But read further this passage: Charles V, and especially Philip II, put increasing pressure on secular courts to sentence prisoners to the galleys whenever feasible. Inquisitorial galleys' sentences were usually applied for a period between 3 and 5 years, while secular courts sentenced for life (Kamen 1998, Polish ed. 2005, p. 188). The most common inquisitorial penalty were lashes and fines (ibid., p. 189). And what about "slave workng in mines?". You have proven once again your unfamiliarity with the topic we're talking about CarlosPn (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
      • "But neither of them supports the theory that majority of those condemned to the galleys died." - as an answer, see the text in bold above; moreover, you shall learn more than practicing a poor google book search. There are other sources about conditions and life of galley rowers, which will give you closer insight into the truth. I already provided one.
        
        Llorente did not provide any statistics, rather estimates, based on the Inquisition archives given to him by Joseph Bonaparte in 1808 when J. Bonaparte abolished the Inquisition. Most of that archives were destroyed.
        
        Advice 1: Do not distort and misinterpret references you are calling upon as you did with Dedieu, Llorente and other authors you are calling upon. As to Monter 1990, p. 257 and 262, Monter did not say anything about a document misinterpeted by Llorente; he says only that "He apparently misdated his source, since there was no Spanish Inquisition in Navarre in 1507 (it was introduced in 1513 after Ferdinand's conquest)"
        
        I did not say anything about slave work in mines - ask the person who said so.
        
        Advice 2: However, with a better google book search you could get some answers:
        
        "On previous occasions, civil and religious crimes were sometimes dismissed if a qualified Morisco offender was willing to work in the silver mines of Guadalcanal or the mercury mines of Almaden." (from Daily life during the Spanish Inquisition by James Maxwell Anderson, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, page 115).
        
        "However, for the chained men .... condemned prisoners on the galleys of the Most Catholic King of Spain or the Most Christian King of France, to serve at the oars was a form of living death. ....In Spain, debt, sedition, even petty crime could bring a sentence to the galleys. As the demand for oarsmen rose, so the flow of criminals through the courts who were condemned to the galleys Increased. Often those who had served their time at the oars and were due for release were held back."(Infidels: a history of the conflict between Christendom and Islam by Andrew Wheatcroft; Random House Digital, Inc., 2005, page 10)
        
        "Their sole function was to work themselves to death. Shackled hand and foot, excreting where they sat, fed on meagre quantities of black biscuits, and so thirsty they were sometimes driven to drink seawater, galley slaves led their lives bitter and short. The men, naked apart from a pair old linen breeches, were flayed raw by the sun; sleep deprivation on the narrow benches propelled them toward the lunacy; the stroke keeper's drum and overseer's lash - a tarred rope or dried bull's penis - whipped them beyond the point of exhaustion during long stretches of intensive effort when a ship was trying to capture or escape another vessel" (Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World by Roger Crowley; Random House Digital, Inc., 2009, page 77)
        
        "The emphasis on repression served various agendas. Morisco galley slaves provided essential manpower for the Spanish Mediterranean fleet, while fines and confiscations helped pay the salaries and running costs of the Inquisition itself, at a time when the Holy Office was in financial difficulties" (Blood and faith: the purging of Muslim Spain by Matthew Carr; The New Press, 2009, page 126)
        
        All together, your "encyclopaedic" approach here is to not see what you do not like, to disqualify, argue, deny obvious facts vs. to understand and correctly interpret, to go over nonsenses you already claimed or "clarifying" them by adding more irrelevant references, to gave the reader your version of the "truth" which, at the end, disqualifies you and Wikipedia. That's exactly why Wikipedia is disqualified as a valid reference and source by historians and academics worldwide. --71.191.19.40 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I've read the text in the bold and it does not support the theory that majority of those condemned by the Inquisition to galleys died
          About Llorente's statistics or estimations I've wrote several times above and I'll not repeat it again. No modern historian treat them seriously
          I did not distort any references to Llorente, Dedieu or anyone else
          I do not rely only on "google book search". Of course, I use it also, but my own "home library" includes the copies of the books about the Spanish Inquisition of Monter (Frontiers of heresy), Kamen (The Spanish Inquisition. A Historical Revision, in Polish translation), Del Col (Inquisizione in Italia), Bethencourt (The Inquisition. A Global History), Llorente (History of the Inquisition), Lea (A History of the Inquisition of Spain), Rawlings (The Spanish Inquisition), Roth (Conversos, Inquisition and expulsion of the Jews from Spain), Homza (The Spanish Inquisition. Anthology of Sources), Peters (The Inquisition), Edwards (The Spanish Inquisition, in Polish translation) and Haliczer (Inquisition and Society in the Kingdom of Valencia). The book of Dedieu I've read several years ago in Polish translation. I'm interested with the history of the Inquisition for a long time and I've spent a lot of time on reading about it. For this reason, I'll not answer for your personal attacks on me. Most of the charges you've presented above are precisely those that can be rightly ascribed to you, especially that your approach "is to not see what you do not like". CarlosPn (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Concerning Monter, p. 257 and 262, you have again read not the whole passage or do not understand it. Llorente not only misdated his source (1507 instead of 1527) but also based on the entirely forgered documentation. Besides, even those documents did not attribute the burning of 30 witches to the Inquisition (as states Llorente) but to Royal Council of Navarre. Here is a citation from Monter: the long-lived myth of thirty witches executed in Navarre in 1507 with 150 others penaned by the Inquisition was created by Llorente CarlosPn (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Not only you misinterpreted references, you slipped into lying. Provide the copy of that page (262) and make it visible to the readers here and, after, I'll provide the same copy. Where Monter says anything about Llorente "not only misdated his source (1507 instead of 1527) but also based on the entirely forgered documentation"?. --71.191.19.40 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
              • Your charges are completely unfounded. It's not my fault that you're unable to understand what you read. I'm providing the full citation from Monter, p. 262 note 17:

The fullest discussion of the literary sources of this imaginary 1527 witch-craze is in Caro Baroja, Brujeria Vasca, who devoted his second chapter (pp. 25-47) to it. The "Avellaneda letter," as Caro Baroja notes, exists in three manuscript copies at Madrid's Biblioteca Nacional, but this does not make it an authentic source. Not even Inaki Reguera (whose doctoral thesis [published in 1985] was approved by Caro Baroja), who read carefully through Libros 319 and 320 at Madrid's Archivo Historico Nacional Inquisition section which detail the Suprema's correspondence with Navarre during 1527 and failed to find any mention of this episode, ever seems to have considered that the whole story was fabricated from bits and pieces of the 1525 Balanza witch-hunt. Another Navarrese scholar, Florencio Idoate, who located several key documents about the 1525 witch-hunt in Pamplona's Archivo General de Navarra, found nothing from any 1527 hunt among the massive pile of papers from the Consejo Real; in his Brujeria en Navarra, pp. 38-42 and 51, he offers the best clue about this noteworthy letter, suggesting that it might have been written from licenciado Balanza (abusively styling himself an "Inquisitor") to the Constable of Navarre, Luis de Beaumont (not the Constable of Castile), about the events of 1525 (not 1527). The evidence against the existence of any 1527 witch-hunt in Navarre is considerable. No independent confirmation for the events of the "Avellaneda letter" has been found either among the Suprema's correspondence (which appears to be complete for 1527 and contains a few letters to Navarre on other subjects) or in Pamplona. Moreover, with the detailed instructions from the Suprema arriving in Navarre in January 1527, it would have been a remarkably unpropitious moment to start hunting witches - especially for Inquisitor Avellaneda! But somehow all the greatest scholars who have studied the Inquisition, from Llorente to Lea to Caro Baroja to Kamen, have plodded along repeating the same hair-raising tales out of Sandoval's History without asking themselves if these events really happened. CarlosPn (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• You already disqualified yourself by a bunch of other nonsenses you wrote here. Going further the same way does not help you at all. What Monter claims looks like: 'I do not see the evidence supporting Sandowal's writing about the witch hunt'. Monter's story 'Witches, magicians and inquisitors before 1525' is far from being acceptable more than an opinion, taking into account that the documents of that times were intentionally or accidentally destroyed. Lack of evidence is not a proof that the described event did not happen. Such opinion requires validations of other scholars before accepted as a serious finding. Moreover, the Llorente's event misdate can be seen no more than a typo. Monter only noted that Llorente and others did not investigate (didn't they?) the event described by Sandoval, rather accepted 'as-is'. Wikipedia is a victim of ignorance, distortions, and bad intentions. That way it will not ever come close to Britannica, or any other real encyclopaedia.--71.191.19.40 (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

I'd like to remind all contributors to this page of No personal attacks. Please confine your posts on how you think the article could be improved and confine your comments to the edit not the editor. Thank you, Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from October 31st 2011

See the details of Data, statistics, and accuracy [2] above. The main problem of this article is incompleteness, undue weight, bias, selective use of references aimed to support the user point of view. --71.191.19.40 (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. That is a very long section and I am unclear as to what you are requesting to be changed. You can of course discuss your concerns with the article here and see if you can get a consensus to make changes, but {{edit semi-protected}} really should be used when you have a change you want to be made, not to raise general concerns. If you come up with something specific let us know. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What of this quote?

What of this quote which directly contradicts the low numbers of immolations being cited in this article?

"The horrid conduct of this Holy Office weakened the power and diminished the population of Spain by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry, and commerce, and by compelling multitudes of families to abandon the kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors, and by immolating on its flaming shambles more than 300,000 victims."

Jean Antoine Llorentine (secretary to the Spanish Inquisition from 1790-92), History of the Inquistion; as cited in R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power (New York, 1876 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.162.79 (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What of this quote? Nothing. This number of victims is totally unfounded and unanimously rejected by all modern historians of the Spanish Inquisition CarlosPn (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think that you see beyond your priest's robe. "rejected by all modern historians"?? Ha!--71.178.106.120 (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Defence Attorney

The article downplays the role of the defense attorney. Several sources I have read note that the defendants attorney was charged with finding witnesses and recording their testimonies to predetermined questionnaires, which were then considered by the tribunal. I'll edit this in the article soon unless someone does it. Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Meaning

I edited out references to being sentenced to the galley. Could someone check the meaning of it in this line? "In the case of men, the penalty was five years in the galley (tantamount to a death sentence)." I doubt people were being sentenced to the ship's kitchen. Umma Kynes 14:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

They were being sentenced to royal vessels called galleys. If you clicked on the like you would see the type of vessel being described. The life for rowers was not much different than the slave galleys of ancient Rome hence the mortality.24.124.115.90 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)