Talk:Edict of Torda

Unnamed section

Okay, I think I've completed the article satisfactorily. I'm not sure the references at bottom look right. Also, couldn't find a free use image for the painting so I just used a couple of external site links where they had posted images. Is this okay? Could really use some feedback as this is my first contribution. Thanks. --Hecateschild (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unitarian propaganda

Yes, this article is currently Unitarian propaganda. Dpotop (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Elphion (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article went somewhat over the top, and I have edited it to tone it down a bit. Does this help? Or are there "points of fact" that you dispute? Elphion (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1. It is a partial religious freedom, not applied to the majority population (which were Orthodox).
2. Instead of being factual, it places Unitarians at the center of this measure, using as unique source an site named after, I cite from Wikipedia, the first Unitarian martyr (Michael Servetus).
3. I also don't see why section "Modern re-affirmation of tolerance" is relevant, and not just a piece of propaganda.

That's it. Dpotop (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1. It would help if you could contribute text and references regarding the partial nature of the tolerance. To a modern eye, the quoted text of the edict seems all-inclusive! But if the Orthodox were not included, that certainly deserves mention.
2. Unitarians were at the center of this; without Francis David it would never have happened. I agree that the sources currently are all from one side -- can you suggest other balancing sources?
3. The modern influence also deserves mention, as the edict has become an important historical reference for modern Unitarians. (The common interpretation of the edict may be propaganda, but the fact of its influence is not.) I think the echo at Torda in 1993 deserves mention, but I agree that the second section of the article should not be about that, but should more broadly address the edict's continuing influence. I've made some changes along these lines.

Elphion (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I found some interesting discussion of the historical milieu in a pair of recent histories of Hungary, and added more text to the article. Elphion (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of the recent edits, I propose removing the POV tag. Elphion (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no response, I've removed it. Elphion (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend it as propaganda. I didn't like the tone of the correction from Dpotop. And I was sincerely looking for more information from other users and recommendations for better sources. Elphion is correct, without the Unitarians it wouldn't have happened. That's not propaganda--that's a fact. And finally history is always from someone's perspective and it doesn't hurt to point it out. It does matter how it is pointed out, however. --Special:Contributions/Hecateschild (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I also believe "propaganda" is an unfair characterization, in the sense that there is no conscious intent to bend or misrepresent the truth. But what I hear from Dpotop is an impatience with the uncritical way this story is repeated in the West with a simplistic understanding of the historical context and what the Edict actually accomplished. (The usual take — that for the first time a king resolutely stood forth to grant all his subjects freedom of religious conscience — is wide of the mark.) There are at least two lessons here: Unitarians need to realize that there is more to this incident that David's stirring words, and Dpotop might reflect on how inflammatory the charge of "propaganda" sounds. I think everyone might meditate a bit on WP:GOODFAITH. I'm glad this exchange happened; I learned a lot. Elphion (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Development of the Edict

I have recently been informed on the talk page for King John II Sigismund that the Edict of 1568 is the most widely known, but the last, of the edicts of toleration passed at this time. Perhaps the two preceding edicts should be discussed? I have no knowledge on the topic but would appreciate such information. Thanks, Dragonfang88 (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article already mentions that the edict of 1568 was only one of a series, each procured by one of the influential churches of the time. 1568 was the only one of these to look beyond the groups being granted legal protection. Elphion (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Körösfői-Kriesch painting

A reliable source for the Influence section, some details on Aladár Körösfői-Kriesch's painting. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the study. What is the source? Is it a newspaper? Borsoka (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Keresztény Magvető, 86 (3-4), 1980. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

LEDE image

Is there an image that can be added to the LEDE of this article, or an infobox? Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

What about Aladár Körösfői-Kriesch's painting about the 1568 Diet of Torda? Borsoka (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edict of Torda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 14:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this over the next several days. --14:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Images

• All are properly licensed and appropriate for the article

Lede

• Good summary, no changes needed.

Background

• I would link burghers

Toward tolerance

• No changes needed, but I would make the word "jizya" appear in the text, not just the link, if I were you. It's nothing to stand in the way of the GA nomination, just my opinion.

John Sigismund, Dávid and Biandrata

• "denominational flexibility": this is a quote, but it's not clear who said it. A historian? If so, name that person.

The Edict

• This section is fine, no changes needed

Everything else looks good to me. After these minor issues are addressed, I'll be happy to promote this article. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you four your review. I modified the article in accordance with your above suggestion. Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks great, I'll promote it right away. Nice work! --Coemgenus (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again for the review. I highly appreciate your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Importance

Hello Borsoka, what do you think the importance of the article is to the UU work group? The article doesn't contain any content about universalism and only mentions unitarianism in passing a few times in lists of other denominations. If this was such an important subject to unitarianism shouldn't that importance be expanded upon in the body of the article? TipsyElephant (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I was also curious if you are a part of the work group as it looks pretty dead right now. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think counting of words is the best approach when assessing the importance of an article? Unitarianism was first legalized by the Edict of Torda. No, I am not part of any work group. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I'm not just counting words. As far as I can tell, nothing in the article says that this was the first instance of unitarianism being legalized. Doing a few google searches doesn't yield any sources that support the claim either. I don't have access to the books currently being cited, but if they claim that this is the very first instance of unitarianism being legalized shouldn't that be added to the article? Also, why do you care what the work groups importance of the article is if you're not even a part of it? TipsyElephant (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read the article again. If you read it more carefully, you will find the statement. Why do you rate articles without reading them? Borsoka (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Borsoka: would you mind quoting the section where it makes the claim? I've readmost of the article and I know that it made unitarianism acceptable at this time and place. I'm mostly asking that someone expand on the importance to unitarianism and I was wondering if there is an acceptable importance rating that I can set without you reverting my edit.

It currently doesn't appear any more important to unitarianism than to Calvinism, Lutheranism, or Catholicism, and the current rating for Chistianity in general is Mid. So low really didn't seem like a bad rating. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess it says "It was the first law to officially sanction the existence of a radical Christian community in a European state." but that's not exactly synonymous to "unitarianism was legalized for the first time ever." TipsyElephant (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm amazed that anyone familiar with modern UUism can be unaware of the importance of Torda. See, for example, Celebrating the Anniversary of Religious Tolerance at the UUA website. You may feel that this article does not underline that clearly enough, but that's no reason to lower the importance rating -- if anything, a high rating should spur editors in the project to work on the article to reflect the importance. Isn't that one of the points of the rating machinery? -- Elphion (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elphion: I didn't lower the importance rating at all. I gave it an importance rating for the first time and apparently it's more important than I thought. I don't know a ton about UUism which is exactly why I'm trying to contribute to the work group, so I can learn about it. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka and Elphion, what do you think the importance rating should be? That's all I'm trying to accomplish. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and set the importance to High and if you don't think that's enough feel free to change it. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)