Talk:Auto-da-fé

"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)

"Blood" is the term used in contemporary documents and legislation. It is exactly from such dark pages of history as this that present day racists and white supremacists draw their terminology, and indirectly get many of their vile ideas. Your suggested sanitized version using 'ancestry' is a) anachronistic b) euphemistic and c) not born out by relevant sources. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Style Issues

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)

Spelling

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

The difference is that da means "of the" and de just "of". -- Error

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

Also on the translation, I don't agree with "Auto" as "Act", Gil Vicente has several works titled "auto" which give them a more suitable sense of "Podium" or "Altar", a place where faith is being displayed. Galf 09:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, FilipeS, I only ever eard about the spelling with a! Go figure. The Ogre 13:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems odd to insist on a "historically accurate" "auto de fe" spelling, when all the cultural examples in English use "auto da fe". That is the way it has been represented more often in literature and general works in English, which may indeed be different than results from the web.--Parkwells (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2008 (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)

We certainly have a bit of a mix-up here at the moment. The notion that auto de fe might be more historically accurate is potentially an important one, but is not currently conveyed effectively by the article (I didn't know it until I came and read the discussion!). The article currently looks as though the typo fairy has been busy, with the article 'named' auto de fe but talking about auto-da-fé or auto da fé or Auto-da-Fé throughout. The preponderance of auto-da-fé (whether or not it is linguistically or historically correct) in the English sources convince me that this article should be about auto-da-fé, and that it should draw attention to the alternative forms and historical origins carefully and informatively. Therefore I propose the following to bring some order to this:

* that the main headword be auto-da-fé (with auto da fé as an alternative form).

* that the article be named auto-da-fé and all other forms redirect to it.

* that the form auto-da-fé be used throughout the article when referring to the headword. All quotes from sources/titles, of course, should render the word(s) exactly as the source has them.

* that the Spanish origin be given as auto de fe (no accent on fe) and the Portuguese origin as auto da fé.

Any thoughts/comments/criticisms before I go ahead? Mooncow (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, this is plain wrong, it's a lack of basic portuguese language skills affecting many english wikipedia contributors. The form "auto da fe" doesnt exist in Portuguese. Neither in 16th century portuguese neither in modern portuguese. This a very common mistake on Wikipedia of users (english speaking one's) confused about the basic rules of contraction of articles ("o" "a" "um" "uma") and prepositions ("de" ,"por" etc.). The reason why some people have always seen it written "auto da fe" in sources published in english, is also that exact same mistake. Nowhere in portuguese language sources, historical or comtemporany is the form "auto da fe" to be seen. Well ... except primary school student ortography mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.247.43.180 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011

I remain convinced that this article should be called 'auto-da-fé' and should refer to 'auto-da-fé' throughout (except when quoting) as the established form used most commonly in English. I've made those changes. The article now asserts that the form was 'auto de fe' in medieval Spanish and 'auto da fé' in Portuguese: I shall leave it to those competent or knowledgable to adjust/correct those claims themselves as appropriate if necessary. Mooncow (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Spelling in Plural

Shouldn't the plural be autos-de-fe rather than auto-de-fes? - Mark Dixon (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Several usages and dictionaries concur with autos-da-fé as a plural for auto-da-fé (see the sources I noted in the request-for-move discussion below). I think it makes sense to go with autos-da-fé as the plural term in the context of this article at least. Mooncow (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Can these two sentences be coordinated better?:

• In Lisbon, the Rossio square was the burning place.
• The Inquisition enjoyed only limited power in Portugal, lasting only four years, with only one act of auto da fe in Porto.

Without knowing a thing about the subject, it appears to me that it should read:

• The Inquisition enjoyed only limited power in Portugal, lasting only four years. The one act of auto da fe in Porto took place in Lisbon's Rossio Square.

Would this be incorrect? -Willmcw 10:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"act of auto da fe" is redundant (along the lines of Rio Grande River). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:13, 24 Jun 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

Auto de fe Dates

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)

misleading text

I'm inserting new information in the article and removing the paragraphs bellow:

"Punishments for those convicted by the Inquisition ranged from wearing a special identifying penetential tabard or sanbenit, through other penances or terms of imprisonment, to the ultimate penalty of being "relaxed", that is, being released to the secular arm. The secular state performed executions, which generally punished a repeated offense of heresy, following a first conviction. If prisoners in this category remained obdurate, the executioners burned them alive; but if such prisoners became reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church, the executioners would strangle them at the stake before lighting the fire."

"There was only one act of auto da fe in Porto. In Lisbon, the Rossio square served as the burning place."

"The last execution due to the Spanish Inquisition – the last auto de fe – involved the schoolmaster Cayetano Ripoll and took place on July 26, 1826. His trial (on a charge of deism) lasted nearly two years. He died by garotting on the gibbet after repeating the words, "I die reconciled to God and to man"."

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.

bad writing

"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)

• I have removed the section altogether. Removed text follows:

  However, in his book Jewish Pioneers and Patriots published in 1942 by The Jewish Publication Society of America draws attention to information that raises a contradiction in some areas as to the above paragraph. Beginning on page 75, chapter 6 entitiled "The Martyrdom of Francisco Maldonaldo de Silva"; it details an AVTO DE LA FE and has a picture of the announcement being held by The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition of Peru, on the 23rd of January, 103 years after the discovery of Peru. Diego Núñez de Silva is the person in question. The account is too lengthy to relate.

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)

Clarification

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)

History

"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)

Clarification needed

The article currently states:

"But, neither torture nor burning at the stake took place during an auto de fé, which was a religious ritual."

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)

I think the author is trying to say is that members of the church did not themselves actually execute people convicted of heresy. Rather, the person would be "relaxed" to the civil authorities, who would carry out the actual sentence. Therefore, the "act of faith" never, technically, involved torture or execution, even though inquisitors would have known full well what was going to happen and would have cooperated in every way to ensure the condemned met his fate.

Also, the idea that "torture [did not take] place after a trial concluded" assumes a rather narrow definition of torture. Burning at the stake and the breaking wheel are both unnecessarily time-consuming and painful methods when a headsman's axe, a noose or a simple fatal cudgeling would have done the job just as well. Inflicting pain on the condemned was at least as important as actually killing him. 68.14.133.151 (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Fé

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)

Tagged Section

Started my draft of the Cultural References § 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.

• Support The Ogre (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, "de fe" seems to be in about as wide use as "da fe". See for example Google Scholar, where da fe has a small lead over de fe, but the hits for the former, unlike the latter, mostly seem figures of speech and not actually about the Spanish ritual. On Google Web "de fe" leads by a 2-1 margin. Besides, the "discussion in section 1 'Spelling' of the discussion page", as far as it is relevant, consists of Mooncow presenting his opinion without providing sources, getting some disagreement from an IP editor, and remaining unconvinced. That's hardly what I'd call a discussion. Huon (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Change to support per Mooncow's impressive list of sources below. Huon (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Both the dictionaries by my desk (Concise Oxford, 1964; Collins Concise, 1999) list the phrase under "Auto-da-fé". The Oxford dictionary mentions the Spanish spelling "-de-fé" at the very end of its entry as an alternative, but the Portuguese "Auto-da-fé" is the head-spelling chosen for listing. Collins just has the Portuguese "Auto-da-fé". Jheald (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

• Websters dictionary gives "auto-da-fe" ("da", hyphens, no accent)
• Random House dictionary gives "auto-da-fé" ("da", hyphens, accent). Random House also gives the plural as "autos-da-fé". It cites the origin as "Portuguese".
• Voltaire (or perhaps his editor/publisher), in Candide, uses "auto-da-fé" throughout: 11 occurrences in the text ("da", hyphens, accent). See http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19942/19942-h/19942-h.htm. Candide is quite widely referenced in the Wikipedia articles on the inquisitions in general and autos-da-fé in particular. The spelling "Auto-da-fé" was also retained in Bernstein's musical adaptation.
• Chambers dictionary (1994) gives "auto-da-fé" ("da", hyphens, accent). Chambers also gives the plural as "autos-da-fé". It cites the origin as Portuguese "auto da fé" (Spanish "auto de fe").
• Collins English Dictionary (10th ed, 2009) gives "auto-da-fé" ("da", hyphens, accent). Collins cites the origin as from Portuguese.
• Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition uses "auto-da-fé" ("da", hyphens, accent), although the article suggests that it is "more correctly" "auto-de-fé" ("de", hyphens, accent). Comments made by other wikipedia contributors above suggest that "auto-de-fé" is NOT in fact "more correct", as the "de" reflects a Spanish origin in which "fe" is NOT accented (also confirmed by the Chambers Dictionary reference above).
• Numbers of hits in Google web searches. Note that this is a complex and uncertain piece of evidence, as Google has various "smart matching" algorithms, so searches for some of these terms actually include hits for other versions. Also, the multitude is not necessarily right. Finally, some of the sources hit are transcriptions of the wikipedia article itself.

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.

• Majer Bałaban (1921, reference in article) used "Auto da Fe" ("da", no hyphens, no accent)
• Roger Zelazny (1967, reference in article) used "Auto-da-Fé" ("da", hyphens, accent)
• Unknown translator of Elias Canetti's 1935 novel (1946, reference in article) used "Auto-da-Fé" ("da", hyphens, accent). Unknown translator of new edition (2005) used "Auto da Fé" ("da", no hyphens, accent)
• Vladimir Nabokov, in the foreword to his translation of "Pale Fire", used "auto-da-fé" ("da", hyphens, accent). See http://www.biaes.com/download/ebook/literature/VladimirNabokov%20-%20Pale%20Fire.pdf.
• Article "Burning Times" (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/burning.html) uses "auto-da-fé" ("da", hyphens, accent)
• Catholic Encyclopedia uses a variety of forms and spellings. I count one occurrence of "auto de fe" (Jose Maria Morelos), one occurrence of "auto de fé" ("Mexico"), one occurrence of "auto da fe" ("Valladolid"), one occurrence of "auto da fé" ("Lisbon"), and four occurrences of "auto-da-fé" ("Gabriel Malagrida", "Imposters", "Inquisition", "Oracle").

I hope this helps. Mooncow (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Google ngrams is quite interesting, finding that "da fe" was definitely dominant in the 19th century (when the phrase seems to have been in more common use), but that in the 20th century use of the two forms may have been much more equal.

I have to admit I have always encountered the phrase as "auto-da-fé". I suspect use of that form, particularly in metaphor, may also have been helped by its more assertive staccato rhythm in English. Jheald (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting, although I'm not sure I quite understand what's going on there. For example, I see a huuuuuge spike for "auto de fe" in 1906, and yet when I click through to the search for 1906 hits there are 101 results, and when I change the search term to "auto da fe" it becomes 222 results. Also, I'm not sure I understand what it does with hyphens: terms with hyphens in seem to generate no hits at all. Adding the hyphens appears to be purely a feature of anglicisation of the phrase, as it doesn't occur in the source languages (Portuguese, Spanish) as far as I know, and it would be interesting to be able to track that over time. Mooncow (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cultural references

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)

False statement

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)

I'll try to look up that source, but the numbers seem roughly correct, vastly more so than the 1839 source's numbers. Compare the Spanish Inquisition article which provides modern scholarship estimating the death toll at about 3,000-5,000, which corresponds to 2% to 4% of a total of 150,000 cases. -Huon (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a bad reference to be quoted.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure it is, but that article actually presents reliable sources to back up its numbers. Namely:

• Gustav Henningsen, The Database of the Spanish Inquisition. The relaciones de causas project revisited, in: Heinz Mohnhaupt, Dieter Simon, Vorträge zur Justizforschung, Vittorio Klostermann, 1992, pp. 43-85. Provides a 2% ratio of executions for the 1530-1699 era.
• H. Kamen, Inkwizycja Hiszpańska, Warszawa 2005, p. 62; and H. Rawlings, The Spanish Inquisition, Blackwell Publishing 2004, p. 15. They estimate the number of pre-1530 executions for all of Spain at 2,000.
• Joaquín Pérez Villanueva & Bartolomé Escandell Bonet (red.), Historia de la Inquisición en España y América, vol. 1, Madrid 1984, p. 1395. Give the number of post-1699 executions in autos-da-fe as 111, plus 117 in effigie.

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)

• • The authors you quoted are far from reliable. The issue is that the Roman Catholic Church intentionally destroyed the data related to these crimes committed by Inquisition. That's why serious contemporary historians are going back to the historians who were closer to that time and who had ability to see not destroyed evidence.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide an example of such a serious contemporary historian? Huon (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• • You already got one. Here is more

"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)

Sorry for being dumb, but are you saying that the 1839 source you gave in the article is by a "serious contemporary historian"? Otherwise I seem to have missed the one I already got. The Venice source you gave seems to be both geographically and chronologically irrelevant, and the "Spain 1474-1520" source seems to argue that the numbers of the Toledo and Valencia trials actually do give a clearer picture. Neither modern source supports the quarter-million convictions, including 50,000 death sentences, given in the 1839 source. And neither source supports a deliberate campaign of evidence destruction. I am rather unimpressed. Huon (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Please, avoid attributing false statements to me! When I said "contemporary", I mean Cecil Roth. Relevance is not in chronology or geography, it's in and about widespread destruction of evidence. There is evidence in literature about destruction of evidence on Philiphines and Mexico, too. A to being unimpressed, I am unimpressed by your uncritical selection of references to prove your 2%, not even reading what I wrote, nor reading the references I quoted.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really missed the Roth source; thank you for pointing it out. But I have to note that for his first set of numbers Roth relies on the same source as the Penny Cyclopedia, namely Llorente, and that Roth also predates the reconsideration of the Inquisition that began in the 1970s. What I would like to see is a source that is aware of the newer estimates given by the likes of Henningsen and Kamen and still disagrees. Otherwise I fail to see why we should emphasize older scholarship over newer results. You have called the newer sources unreliable; could you please explain why?

Regarding Venice: Whatever happened to the Venetian archives is obviously irrelevant to the Spanish archives. Using a source about the destruction of archive A to support the unreliability of archive B seems ill-founded. Edward Peters argues in Inquisition (1988), p. 279, that the Spanish archives, despite some scattering and destruction in 1820, are in comparatively good shape and (still) allow to write a thorough history of the Spanish Inquisition. Huon (talk) 15:06, 18 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

First one

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)

Modern justice not available at Inquisition procedures

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)

Start of the auto da fe

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116184747/http://www.tv3.cat/historiesdecatalunya/cronologia/cron169134131.htm to http://www.tv3.cat/historiesdecatalunya/cronologia/cron169134131.htm

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments.

For comparison, see the Britannica 'Auto-da-fé' article. Quoting from it:

- "Auto-da-fé ... a public ceremony during which the sentences upon those brought before the Spanish Inquisition were read and after which the sentences were executed by the secular authorities. ... They usually comprised a lengthy procession, a solemn mass, an oath of obedience to the Inquisition, a sermon, and the reading of the sentences."

- "The victims were most frequently apostate former Jews and former Muslims, then Alumbrados (followers of a condemned mystical movement) and Protestants, and occasionally those who had been accused of such crimes as bigamy and sorcery."

Points:

1. Text such as, "after the trial, officials proclaimed the prisoner's sentence and administered it in an auto-da-fé," state that auto-da-fés included, or consisted of, the carrying out of sentences. This has been commented on several times previously on the talkpage.

2. The article seems to omit mention of victims other than Jewish conversos.

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)

I agree that the "research paper" tag does not make sense in this article, as the text seems perfectly understandable. I'm removing it. Also, the number of "citation needed" tags added to this article is clearly overkill. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Jizya(under History section)

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:

″[...]Not so, asserts author Darío Fernández-Morera, who shows how Muslims ran a dhimmi system that was a gangster-like protection racket. Christians and Jews had to pay up and accept second-class citizenship. If they rebelled, Muslims could cut off their heads or make their children sexual slaves.″

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)

Ommision

When did it end in Spain? Unlike Portugal, no date given. 31.94.73.86 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)