This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Auto-da-fé article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"traced the bloodline of Christians New and Old"
Words like "blood" and "bloodline" should not be used to indicate ancestry. "Blood" implies contemporary physical traits (similar to how we today think of DNA, somewhat incorrectly, as a carrier of physical traits), and as such, "blood" is a word favored by white supremacists and racists and is often accompanied by racist terminology like "purity of blood" and "not one drop [of non-white blood]."
This sentence should instead say, "traced the ancestry of Christians..." The use of the word "blood" to indicate ancestry should be removed from this article and all Wikipedia articles and replaced with "ancestry."
(I apologize if I've posted this incorrectly, this is my first time ever posting to a Wikipedia talk section.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:820:ED89:1452:ACE2:A065:63A4 ( talk) 14:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I've added tags to two sections, the "History" section and the "A Spectacle in Antisemitism" section to indicate that a large portion of the former and the entirety of the latter are written in essay-style and lack any citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B855:33E4:249C:7D07:86CF:BED5 ( talk) 17:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I've always heard "auto da fe", with "da" instead of "de", and that it's Portuguese rather than Spanish. Is changing "da" to "de" the only difference between the Portuguese phrase and the Spanish, or could this perhaps be an error? Michael Hardy 16:32 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
That's the only difference and auto de fe is more historically accurate. So long as auto da fe is redirected I think it's fine. Jacquerie27
Just for the record, I'm Portuguese and the most common designation in modern Portuguese is by far "auto de fé" (or auto-de-fé) In old Portuguese this was also the case, with the occasional variants "auto-da-fé", "auto da fé", "auto público de fé" and "auto público da fé". Another important distinction, "auto" in the case of "auto de fé", means "indictment", and not so much "act". So this was an indictment by religious officials that would accuse people to be killed by civil punishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.209.59 ( talk) 00:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know about the spelling with a until I read this, but I see that some Portuguese speakers do use it. However, auto de fé (with or without hyphen) is the most common spelling by far, as a web search will confirm. This is perhaps not a big deal, but the article gives the misleading impression that only the spelling with a exists in Portuguese, when it's almost the opposite. FilipeS 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
As for me I have read a lot of books in English and never heard about the spelling auto de fé up until now. A WEB search also is in favor of auto-da-fé
On the other hand, FilipeS, I only ever eard about the spelling with a! Go figure. The Ogre 13:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree, auto da fé would be more appropriate, all the English dictionaries give the variant with da
If we are using the Spanish spelling, it should be "fe" not "fé" since that word is not accented in Spanish.-- Oconel ( talk) 07:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the plural be autos-de-fe rather than auto-de-fes? - Mark Dixon ( talk) 15:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Can these two sentences be coordinated better?:
Without knowing a thing about the subject, it appears to me that it should read:
Would this be incorrect? - Willmcw 10:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If the first auto de fe took place in 1481, how could Pedro Berruguete paint Saint Dominic presiding over an auto de fe in 1475? He couldn't. It seems that he actually did it in 1490. Elad
The caption lists the date of the auto de fe painting as 1475, but how is this possible if the Inquisition didn't begin in Spain until 1478 and the first auto de fe in 1482 (and Portugal in the 1500s), as the article states? Is the painting from a site outside of Spain that began holding autos de fe earlier? Draeco 06:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm inserting new information in the article and removing the paragraphs bellow:
While there is some valuable information above, almost all of it is not really related with the auto-de-fe. The trial/investigation was not part of the auto de fe. The punishments did not occur in the auto de fe. The above paragraphs, together with the historically inaccurate picture that illustrate this article, were generating much confusion. --
Leinad ¬
pois não?
06:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
--Something Else not about above paragraphs-- To learn more about the auto-de-fe, read The Cross By Day, The Mezuzah By Night. It is a fiction book but it shows a lot about the autos- de- fe and also about the marranos and Edict of Expulsion. I am doing a class project about the marranos and that helped a lot.
"However, in his book Jewish Pioneers and Patriots published in 1942 by The Jewish Publication Society of America draws attention ..."
Whose book? Who draws attention? -- Jibal 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
That the account is "too lengthy" is no excuse not to explain just about what it says and how does it contradict the other information given in the article: that "auto da fe" (or "auto de fe") was an act of public penance of a sentenced heretic and reading of his sentence; that it took place in Spain, Portugal, and their colonies; and that it is inappropriate to refer to the actual execution as "auto da fe" ("act of faith"). - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This article mentions a couple of times that it was not, typically, torture or excectution. But it never actually says what actually DID happen. PerlKnitter ( talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"The first Spanish auto de fé took place in Seville, Spain, in 1481; six of the men and women who participated in this first religious ritual were later executed." It would be helpful to know how many men and women took part, out of whom six were executed. It would also help to know for what offense they were executed. Dick Kimball ( talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it on purpose that there is no mention of the condemned's religious background and characteristics? if so, why is that? eg Jews, Muslims, and the many others who were targeted by auto da fés. In this article, Jews for instance are mentioned only in the bottom page categories and in the references. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SandsSasha (
talk •
contribs)
02:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The article currently states:
However, the article is illustrated by a 1495 painting by Pedro Berruguete which depicts two men being executed. Is this painting incorrect? It has been widely reproduced. Currently, this does not makes sense. Mick gold ( talk) 14:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
I am Spanish and in Spanish the word "fe" (faith) does not have an accent. It is wrong to say "Auto de fé", the correct spelling is "Auto de fe".
Therefore, the word "da" does not exist in Spanish, perhaps in Portuguese yes. "De" means "of" and if you want to mean "of the" you have to write "del" (masc.) or "de la" (fem.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.235.77.129 ( talk) 14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, in English the Portuguese variant is much better established and the whole variant of auto de fe seems to be a forceful Hispanization of the English language, hopefully I will use the only one correct auto-da-fé variant in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.147.138.92 ( talk) 18:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Started my draft of the Cultural References § 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 07:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article moved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Auto de fé →
Auto-da-fé — Spelling consistently as 'auto-da-fé' per discussion in section 1 'Spelling' of the discussion page
Mooncow (
talk)
04:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Huon raises a good point about sources, so here are some of the sources I consulted before proposing "auto-da-fé" as a spelling to standardise upon.
Form/spelling | Google search hits† |
---|---|
"auto de fe" | 241,000 |
"auto de fé" | 307,000 |
"auto-de-fe" | 241,000 |
"auto-de-fé" | 307,000 |
"auto da fe" | 118,000 |
"auto da fé" | 610,000 |
"auto-da-fe" | 118,000 |
"auto-da-fé" | 176,000 |
† All searches performed (with quotation marks in place) from www.google.co.uk on February 14th 2010 with SafeSearch off.
I hope this helps. Mooncow ( talk) 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed all cultural references of the type "X mentions 'auto-da-fé' in his work Y" which gave no indication that it's more than a passing mention. I left those where a work is titled "auto-da-fé" or where an indication was given that it's a significant plot element. Huon ( talk) 09:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
This statement is not supported by the reference accompanied:
"No more than 2% of the hundreds of thousands that were persecuted were ever executed. The primary motivation of the trial was to obtain reconciliation and forgiveness of convicted offenders, but the trials were also ideological and racial persecutions, mainly towards relapsed conversos, Jews converted into Christianity under the pressure of the Holy Office. The trials can also be seen as an appeal for public support.[6]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.110.141 ( talk) 13:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure it is, but that article actually presents reliable sources to back up its numbers. Namely:
These numbers simply do not add up to the tens of thousands claimed executed in the 19th century source, and the total number of trials is, according to García Cárcel, just 150,000, less than the 1839 number of convictions. Huon ( talk) 20:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"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 -- 71.178.110.141 ( talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
·I am a non-expert on the topic, but I felt like I should point out that the estimates of 31912 vs 28540 vs "around 3000" seem kind of ludicrous. The first two estimates are precise, though not necessarily accurate- and they are in the same ballpark. I checked the source on the the third estimate, and found some of his claims to be contentious- though he is well respected in the field. I get the feeling that there has been an effort to minimize the crimes of the Church on wikipedia... which would make sense, since Christianity is the most popular religion and editors, being largely Westerners, are largely Christian. For instance the article on Hitler's religion documents all sorts of people who claim to have heard him being critical of Christianity in private, but doesn't document all (or any, if I remember correctly) of the many times he praised God and/or Jesus in his televised speeches and in Mein Kampf... I stopped counting after around 20 of such exultations. In any case, I thought we might want to walk the "around 3000" number back a little bit in terms of credibility. This is my first edit- apologies if I did it it all wrong. User77OccamsRazor Fri 04 Jun 2021 04:40:26 AM PDT
This book [1] refers to an auto-da-fe at Minerve, Hérault in 1210. (p 387). Presumably he's referring to the incident described at Minerve, Hérault. This would seem to push the date of the first one up. Any thoughts? Oreo Priest talk 12:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that modern justice was not available at Inquisition procedures. In fact, the modern system of justice grew out of the Inquisition. The Inquisition recorded testimony for later review, which is how we know the details of Joan of Arc's trial, for example. When people had the choice of being tried by a secular court or the Inquisition, they would choose the Inquisition! While modern readers may not take that as grateful support for the Inquisition, they can at least take it as a condemnation of local (lay) court procedure!
Someone keeps inserting that the accused did not have the right of discovery of witnesses and evidence prior to the trial. This is true! This right was invented in the United States in the 1950s or so. It did not exist between Hammurabi and Woodrow Wilson. The idea was to observe how the accused reacted to unexpected evidence and witnesses, the only way people without video cams, lie detectors, fingerprints, and DNA, could think of how to trap a cunning felon. See, for example http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3142&context=californialawreview. (Need more on "criminal discovery" articles/history in Wikipedia BTW). Student7 ( talk) 20:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
A statement in the first subsection reads, "The first recorded auto-da-fé was held in Paris in 1242, under Louis IX.[2]" This seems to be true. Then the paragraph goes on to give the fundamental underpinnings of the Spanish Inquisition. What is missing here, is that Louis did not wake up one morning and say, "Gee, this seems to be a great day for an auto da fe!" (which is a Spanish term, BTW). There has to more than just Louis, a victim, and a match. Right now, there is nothing except a link to a hard copy. I couldn't find anything better online, but there are journals that other editors have access to. Student7 ( talk) 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Auto-da-fé. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
For comparison, see the Britannica 'Auto-da-fé' article. Quoting from it:
Points:
One further point: at the top of the article a template stating, "This article is written like a research paper or scientific journal," has been included. I think that's very far from the truth.
← ZScarpia 12:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, under "History" there is a brief discussion of the jizya system and the dhimmi status that Jews and Christians were given under Muslim Spain. This entire argument is basically a quote from the first citation(WNG), that describes itself as "Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth". The cited article from WNG starts by saying:
I don't believe this is a trustworthy source. The description of the jizya/dhimmi system is entirely different both in content and tone from Wikipedia's own article on this topic. As I don't really know the etiquette for editing Wikipedia, I'd like to ask for help in strengthening that section. Thank you in advance. Drigeolf ( talk) 19:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
When did it end in Spain? Unlike Portugal, no date given. 31.94.73.86 ( talk) 00:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Auto-da-fé article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"traced the bloodline of Christians New and Old"
Words like "blood" and "bloodline" should not be used to indicate ancestry. "Blood" implies contemporary physical traits (similar to how we today think of DNA, somewhat incorrectly, as a carrier of physical traits), and as such, "blood" is a word favored by white supremacists and racists and is often accompanied by racist terminology like "purity of blood" and "not one drop [of non-white blood]."
This sentence should instead say, "traced the ancestry of Christians..." The use of the word "blood" to indicate ancestry should be removed from this article and all Wikipedia articles and replaced with "ancestry."
(I apologize if I've posted this incorrectly, this is my first time ever posting to a Wikipedia talk section.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:820:ED89:1452:ACE2:A065:63A4 ( talk) 14:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I've added tags to two sections, the "History" section and the "A Spectacle in Antisemitism" section to indicate that a large portion of the former and the entirety of the latter are written in essay-style and lack any citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B855:33E4:249C:7D07:86CF:BED5 ( talk) 17:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I've always heard "auto da fe", with "da" instead of "de", and that it's Portuguese rather than Spanish. Is changing "da" to "de" the only difference between the Portuguese phrase and the Spanish, or could this perhaps be an error? Michael Hardy 16:32 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
That's the only difference and auto de fe is more historically accurate. So long as auto da fe is redirected I think it's fine. Jacquerie27
Just for the record, I'm Portuguese and the most common designation in modern Portuguese is by far "auto de fé" (or auto-de-fé) In old Portuguese this was also the case, with the occasional variants "auto-da-fé", "auto da fé", "auto público de fé" and "auto público da fé". Another important distinction, "auto" in the case of "auto de fé", means "indictment", and not so much "act". So this was an indictment by religious officials that would accuse people to be killed by civil punishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.209.59 ( talk) 00:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know about the spelling with a until I read this, but I see that some Portuguese speakers do use it. However, auto de fé (with or without hyphen) is the most common spelling by far, as a web search will confirm. This is perhaps not a big deal, but the article gives the misleading impression that only the spelling with a exists in Portuguese, when it's almost the opposite. FilipeS 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
As for me I have read a lot of books in English and never heard about the spelling auto de fé up until now. A WEB search also is in favor of auto-da-fé
On the other hand, FilipeS, I only ever eard about the spelling with a! Go figure. The Ogre 13:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree, auto da fé would be more appropriate, all the English dictionaries give the variant with da
If we are using the Spanish spelling, it should be "fe" not "fé" since that word is not accented in Spanish.-- Oconel ( talk) 07:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the plural be autos-de-fe rather than auto-de-fes? - Mark Dixon ( talk) 15:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Can these two sentences be coordinated better?:
Without knowing a thing about the subject, it appears to me that it should read:
Would this be incorrect? - Willmcw 10:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If the first auto de fe took place in 1481, how could Pedro Berruguete paint Saint Dominic presiding over an auto de fe in 1475? He couldn't. It seems that he actually did it in 1490. Elad
The caption lists the date of the auto de fe painting as 1475, but how is this possible if the Inquisition didn't begin in Spain until 1478 and the first auto de fe in 1482 (and Portugal in the 1500s), as the article states? Is the painting from a site outside of Spain that began holding autos de fe earlier? Draeco 06:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm inserting new information in the article and removing the paragraphs bellow:
While there is some valuable information above, almost all of it is not really related with the auto-de-fe. The trial/investigation was not part of the auto de fe. The punishments did not occur in the auto de fe. The above paragraphs, together with the historically inaccurate picture that illustrate this article, were generating much confusion. --
Leinad ¬
pois não?
06:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
--Something Else not about above paragraphs-- To learn more about the auto-de-fe, read The Cross By Day, The Mezuzah By Night. It is a fiction book but it shows a lot about the autos- de- fe and also about the marranos and Edict of Expulsion. I am doing a class project about the marranos and that helped a lot.
"However, in his book Jewish Pioneers and Patriots published in 1942 by The Jewish Publication Society of America draws attention ..."
Whose book? Who draws attention? -- Jibal 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
That the account is "too lengthy" is no excuse not to explain just about what it says and how does it contradict the other information given in the article: that "auto da fe" (or "auto de fe") was an act of public penance of a sentenced heretic and reading of his sentence; that it took place in Spain, Portugal, and their colonies; and that it is inappropriate to refer to the actual execution as "auto da fe" ("act of faith"). - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This article mentions a couple of times that it was not, typically, torture or excectution. But it never actually says what actually DID happen. PerlKnitter ( talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"The first Spanish auto de fé took place in Seville, Spain, in 1481; six of the men and women who participated in this first religious ritual were later executed." It would be helpful to know how many men and women took part, out of whom six were executed. It would also help to know for what offense they were executed. Dick Kimball ( talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it on purpose that there is no mention of the condemned's religious background and characteristics? if so, why is that? eg Jews, Muslims, and the many others who were targeted by auto da fés. In this article, Jews for instance are mentioned only in the bottom page categories and in the references. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SandsSasha (
talk •
contribs)
02:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The article currently states:
However, the article is illustrated by a 1495 painting by Pedro Berruguete which depicts two men being executed. Is this painting incorrect? It has been widely reproduced. Currently, this does not makes sense. Mick gold ( talk) 14:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
I am Spanish and in Spanish the word "fe" (faith) does not have an accent. It is wrong to say "Auto de fé", the correct spelling is "Auto de fe".
Therefore, the word "da" does not exist in Spanish, perhaps in Portuguese yes. "De" means "of" and if you want to mean "of the" you have to write "del" (masc.) or "de la" (fem.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.235.77.129 ( talk) 14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, in English the Portuguese variant is much better established and the whole variant of auto de fe seems to be a forceful Hispanization of the English language, hopefully I will use the only one correct auto-da-fé variant in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.147.138.92 ( talk) 18:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Started my draft of the Cultural References § 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 07:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article moved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Auto de fé →
Auto-da-fé — Spelling consistently as 'auto-da-fé' per discussion in section 1 'Spelling' of the discussion page
Mooncow (
talk)
04:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Huon raises a good point about sources, so here are some of the sources I consulted before proposing "auto-da-fé" as a spelling to standardise upon.
Form/spelling | Google search hits† |
---|---|
"auto de fe" | 241,000 |
"auto de fé" | 307,000 |
"auto-de-fe" | 241,000 |
"auto-de-fé" | 307,000 |
"auto da fe" | 118,000 |
"auto da fé" | 610,000 |
"auto-da-fe" | 118,000 |
"auto-da-fé" | 176,000 |
† All searches performed (with quotation marks in place) from www.google.co.uk on February 14th 2010 with SafeSearch off.
I hope this helps. Mooncow ( talk) 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed all cultural references of the type "X mentions 'auto-da-fé' in his work Y" which gave no indication that it's more than a passing mention. I left those where a work is titled "auto-da-fé" or where an indication was given that it's a significant plot element. Huon ( talk) 09:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
This statement is not supported by the reference accompanied:
"No more than 2% of the hundreds of thousands that were persecuted were ever executed. The primary motivation of the trial was to obtain reconciliation and forgiveness of convicted offenders, but the trials were also ideological and racial persecutions, mainly towards relapsed conversos, Jews converted into Christianity under the pressure of the Holy Office. The trials can also be seen as an appeal for public support.[6]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.110.141 ( talk) 13:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure it is, but that article actually presents reliable sources to back up its numbers. Namely:
These numbers simply do not add up to the tens of thousands claimed executed in the 19th century source, and the total number of trials is, according to García Cárcel, just 150,000, less than the 1839 number of convictions. Huon ( talk) 20:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"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 -- 71.178.110.141 ( talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
·I am a non-expert on the topic, but I felt like I should point out that the estimates of 31912 vs 28540 vs "around 3000" seem kind of ludicrous. The first two estimates are precise, though not necessarily accurate- and they are in the same ballpark. I checked the source on the the third estimate, and found some of his claims to be contentious- though he is well respected in the field. I get the feeling that there has been an effort to minimize the crimes of the Church on wikipedia... which would make sense, since Christianity is the most popular religion and editors, being largely Westerners, are largely Christian. For instance the article on Hitler's religion documents all sorts of people who claim to have heard him being critical of Christianity in private, but doesn't document all (or any, if I remember correctly) of the many times he praised God and/or Jesus in his televised speeches and in Mein Kampf... I stopped counting after around 20 of such exultations. In any case, I thought we might want to walk the "around 3000" number back a little bit in terms of credibility. This is my first edit- apologies if I did it it all wrong. User77OccamsRazor Fri 04 Jun 2021 04:40:26 AM PDT
This book [1] refers to an auto-da-fe at Minerve, Hérault in 1210. (p 387). Presumably he's referring to the incident described at Minerve, Hérault. This would seem to push the date of the first one up. Any thoughts? Oreo Priest talk 12:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that modern justice was not available at Inquisition procedures. In fact, the modern system of justice grew out of the Inquisition. The Inquisition recorded testimony for later review, which is how we know the details of Joan of Arc's trial, for example. When people had the choice of being tried by a secular court or the Inquisition, they would choose the Inquisition! While modern readers may not take that as grateful support for the Inquisition, they can at least take it as a condemnation of local (lay) court procedure!
Someone keeps inserting that the accused did not have the right of discovery of witnesses and evidence prior to the trial. This is true! This right was invented in the United States in the 1950s or so. It did not exist between Hammurabi and Woodrow Wilson. The idea was to observe how the accused reacted to unexpected evidence and witnesses, the only way people without video cams, lie detectors, fingerprints, and DNA, could think of how to trap a cunning felon. See, for example http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3142&context=californialawreview. (Need more on "criminal discovery" articles/history in Wikipedia BTW). Student7 ( talk) 20:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
A statement in the first subsection reads, "The first recorded auto-da-fé was held in Paris in 1242, under Louis IX.[2]" This seems to be true. Then the paragraph goes on to give the fundamental underpinnings of the Spanish Inquisition. What is missing here, is that Louis did not wake up one morning and say, "Gee, this seems to be a great day for an auto da fe!" (which is a Spanish term, BTW). There has to more than just Louis, a victim, and a match. Right now, there is nothing except a link to a hard copy. I couldn't find anything better online, but there are journals that other editors have access to. Student7 ( talk) 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Auto-da-fé. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
For comparison, see the Britannica 'Auto-da-fé' article. Quoting from it:
Points:
One further point: at the top of the article a template stating, "This article is written like a research paper or scientific journal," has been included. I think that's very far from the truth.
← ZScarpia 12:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, under "History" there is a brief discussion of the jizya system and the dhimmi status that Jews and Christians were given under Muslim Spain. This entire argument is basically a quote from the first citation(WNG), that describes itself as "Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth". The cited article from WNG starts by saying:
I don't believe this is a trustworthy source. The description of the jizya/dhimmi system is entirely different both in content and tone from Wikipedia's own article on this topic. As I don't really know the etiquette for editing Wikipedia, I'd like to ask for help in strengthening that section. Thank you in advance. Drigeolf ( talk) 19:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
When did it end in Spain? Unlike Portugal, no date given. 31.94.73.86 ( talk) 00:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)