Talk:Spanish Inquisition

Nobody expects
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Susan talk to me  23:21, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Their chief weapon was fear- fear and surprise... Dreadnought 05:52, 23 December 2007 (EST)

from article:

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION Mr. AKjeldsen ! Our chief weapon is surprise...and fear.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Dreadnought / talk / contribs

... and a fanatical devotion to the Pope ... damn &mdash; Unsigned, by: SusanG / talk / contribs

Sorry, but weighting the article for your personal motives still doesn't legitimately place it in "British comedy". Nothing says desperate quite like an "in pop culture" section.
The topic line is an edit comment wherein British comedy was removed as a cat. Open for discussion.  ħ uman  23:08, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * This section was created to short-circuit "argument by edit comment". I see it is failing thus far.  ħ uman  23:16, 28 October 2008 (EDT)


 * (edit conflict) Jokes referencing the Monty Python sketch are fully compatible with SPOV. But weighing the article down with an "in pop culture" section?  We are not Wikipedia.  We are RationalWiki.  We shouldn't shovel in an "in pop culture" section and categorize the article as "British comedy" just because someone likes it that way.   23:19, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't know why "we shouldn't" follows from "SPOV". What this article needs is more content about the inquisition itself.  Right now it's an introductory paragraph that follows nicely from the MPFC intro, about Jews being killed/forcibly "converted".  In the modern western world, if you say "Spanish Inquisition" in a random group of people, I'd bet most people would respond: "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"  Thus the validity of the section.  I also included your edit comment comment about reducing the death and torture of thousands to "comedy".  The article is not yet "weighed down" with information, let alone a pop section.  I only know Cardinal Ximinez' name due to the Pythons!  Anyway, we shall now apply the RACK to you.  And if that doesn't work, you will be forced to endure.... THE COMFY CHAIR!  ħ uman  23:30, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * PS, everyone, apparently "someone" = me. Take it with a grain or bag of salt.  ħ uman  23:31, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Isn't there a Fun article? If not, why not make one & link to it? Toast 23:37, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I also think we should put all of the stuff that doesn't belong in an appropriate funspace article.  23:40, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * We should stay on mission.  23:40, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * When people want to learn about something in pop culture, they to go Wikipedia. We're already out of our league when it comes to the particular niche we've laid claim to, much less the ones (pop culture, et al) we haven't.   23:40, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * When people on RW want to express something that is on-topic, they put it in an article. When people want to do "research", I don't think they are coming to us for our awesome stubs...  ħ uman  23:44, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * You have described our purpose perfectly—when people want to "express something that is on-topic". I think you've finally managed to describe what RationalWiki is here for.   23:55, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * But, explain to me how an "in pop culture" section considered "on-topic"?  23:55, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Because, as I said above, it's the first thing that comes to most people's minds these days.  ħ uman  00:07, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
 * So you're saying we should primarily cater to what people expect?  00:31, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
 * No, just that it's part of what we want to write about it. Now, do you have any actual arguments you want to bring, in terms of improving this article stub after deleting my contribution at least twice without copying it to the talk page, and endlessly reverting me without bothering to start a "discussion"? (Which I did)  ħ uman  00:40, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
 * You seem to have your own self-serving definition of "arguments", considering that most of my statements above qualify as arguments. You merely chose to reject them.   00:54, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

the book I had
on the Spanish Inquisition seems to have disappeared but I shall try and come up with something in the next few days. eeeeeekCarptrash 23:47, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Cool, I will use all my unearthly powers to help you remember where you put it.  ħ uman  00:09, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

How did you do that? Thanks. That worked. i donated it to the library book sale two years ago. You're great, Keep working at those powers. eeeeeekCarptrash 00:42, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Surprise picture
This would be the one place where a blink tag would be appropriate. Tytalk 12:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There ARE references to this stuff
Please don't put in the "This page contains too many unsourced statements, and needs to be improved." nonsense. EVERY major point in "The real Spanish Inquisition" section is referenced...including the Protestant overexaggeration and compassionate one. See that little number after the quote? That is called a reference and even tells you "who wrote this".

For those who don't know Thomas F. Madden, the author of the reference provided to the above is an American historian, a former Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, and Director of Saint Louis University's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

Remember when Madden is saying "After the reforms, the Spanish Inquisition had very few critics. Staffed by well-educated legal professionals, it was one of the most efficient and compassionate judicial bodies in Europe. No major court in Europe executed fewer people than the Spanish Inquisition." he is talking about the Europe of 1500 to 1700 not of today.

Just because you don't agree with what is said don't claim there isn't a reference when there is especially when it is one of such high caliber.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)