Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edict of Torda/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 31 January 2022 [1].

Edict of Torda[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an early example of religious tolerance in Europe: the edict was the first law to sanction a radical Christian denomination. It was issued in the "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom", a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, that emerged after the fall of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. In this realm, religious tolerance developed as a consequence of the long tradition of the coexistence of autonomous communities. The Transylvanian Saxons converted to Lutheranism, most Hungarian nobles preferred Calvinism, the Hungarian and Saxon burghers of the wealthy free royal city of Kolozsvár and some Székely communities were open to Antitrinitarian ideas, but other Székely groups and some powerful noble families (including the Báthory family) insisted on their Catholic faith. The young ruler John Sigismund Zápolya showed curiosity about theological issues and several religious debates were held under his auspices. He was born Catholic, but he converted first to Lutharanism, then to Calvinism, and died as an Antitrinitarian. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The map is challenging to read due to the font/size of the legend, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • Thank you. I seek assistance from a more experienced editor. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text is more legible; colour is still an issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Körösfői-Kriesch_Aladár_Tordai_országgyűlés.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was published in Austria-Hungary on the occasion of the millenalian celebrations in Hungary in 1896. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Thank your for your thorough source review. Linked. Borsoka (talk)
  • I would drop the "www." for the above as well
  • You have some ISBN 10s (the ones that don't start with a 9), I recommend coverting to isbn 13s, unless you are keeping some of them because the publication itself only includes ISBN 10s
  • Should be "Viking Press" (linking not necessary) I believe, should maybe be Brill Publishers (per our article, but I have often see it as just Brill, so up to you
  • Modified and most publishing houses linked. Borsoka (talk)
  • An identifier for Parke would be nice; if no ISBN is available, try an OCLC for worldcat, here for example
  • WorldCat gives the Parke book's first name as "The Epic of Unitarianism: Original Writings From the History of Liberal Religion"
  • The link that the Sugar ref has is rather pointless, considering that the OCLC links to the same page already
Reliability
  • Are we sure a book on Unitarian Universalism has authority to speak on a 500 year old Edict? The source seems particularly random
  • Yes, it covers the period, especially because the Edict of Torda is the first law sanctioning the existence of a Unitarian denomanation. Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thank you for the clarification, sounds good Aza24 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look great otherwise
Verifiability
  • Ref 84, 12 (both) and 43 all good
  • Nominator has a history of FAs, and given the above I see no reason for further spot checks. Happy to do more if requested by the coords or others Aza24 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass for source review – Aza24 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Catholic Church and other terms in the article body that are now only linked in the intro?
  • Thank you for starting the review. I hope I linked all terms ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "punish all Lutherans" Better to keep links outside quotes? For example, the earlier "execution of Luther's followers" would maybe be more appropriate?
  • Done.
  • " began teaching the theology of Jan Hus in the 1430s" Maybe briefly present this for context? "proto-Protestant theology"?
  • Alternative solution ([4]).
  • "leading to a civil war that lasted nearly two decades." Link the war, if it has an article?
  • No article exists.
Is it the same civil war that is mentioned throughout the article, or are there more? Was a bit difficult to understand. Could be nice with an article, hint hint... FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The civil war is now mentioned only twice in the main text. The civil war lasted from 1526 to 1541. Yes, it would be nice, but I have no material... :) Borsoka (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He occupied the central region, but he confirmed John Sigismund's rule" Second "he" seems unnecessary.
  • Deleted.
  • Link John Sigismund's name in the first instead of second caption that mentions him?
  • He is linked when he is first mentioned in the main text (for further details see below)
I know, I mean the image captions are independent of the text in this way, so the first image that mentions him should have the first link? FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it! Modified.
  • You should be consistent in whether you refer to him as John Sigismund, John Zápolya, or John Sigismund Zápolya, now it's a random mix.
  • John Zápolya was John Sigismund Zápolya's father. I think the latter is consistently mentioned as John Sigismund with the exception of his first mention in the lead.
Alright. it confused me that you referred to the son both as John Sigismund and John Sigismund Zápolya in at least an image caption. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understand. Modified.
  • " in the eastern Hungarian Kingdom" Is this the same as "especially its eastern territory" mentioned earlier? In that case, the first mention should be the linked one.
  • No, the two territories are not the same. I applied an alternative solution to introduce the "eastern Hungarian Kingdom" ([5]).
  • "between Lutheran and Calvinist clergymen" You haven't mentioned or linked Calvinism until this point, so should be linked here.
  • "He emphasizes that no peasant can receive salvation" Why specifically peasants? What sets them apart theologically?
  • Expanded.
  • Link adoration of Christ?
  • "It was the first law to officially sanction the existence of a radical Christian community in a European state" Which of them? Antitrinitarianism? I think it could help to state this explicitly.
  • Done.
  • "John Sigismund was biased towards the Antitrinitarian preachers, but on 25 October 1569 he states" Why mix of past and present tense?
  • Typo fixed.
  • "of wearing the Star of David or other distinctive sign" Signs?
  • Done.
  • Link Jews? Perhaps to History of the Jews in Romania?
  • The young John Sigismund doesn't seem to be linked in the intro.
  • He is linked in the first sentence with his full name.
  • Calvinism is linked twice in the intro.
  • Fixed.
  • Unitarian is not linked in the article body.
  • Fixed.
  • Perhaps state that the Székelys are a type of Hungarians?
  • I do not know how it could be mentioned naturally in the text. Perhaps a note? Borsoka (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now, my remaining points were of little importance. FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your thorough and comprehensive review, and also for your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • " in the "eastern Hungarian Kingdom" of John Sigismund Zápolya". Why the quote marks? Why the lower case e?
  • Thank you for starting a review. I modified, but my concern is that it was not an official name, because John Sigismund regarded himself the lawful king of Hungary just as his opponent, Ferdinand of Habsburg, who ruled "Royal Hungary" (the northern and western regions of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary).
  • "The Catholic and Orthodox Churches had already coexisted in the". Delete "already".
  • Deleted.
  • "persecution of the Lutherans in 1523". Do we need "the"?
  • Deleted.
  • "In the early 1540s the Diets acknowledged the right". Diets plaural? You have only previously mentioned one diet.
  • "Dogma" is derogatory and probably PoV. Suggest change to 'doctrine'.
  • Modified.
  • "the following Diet". Do you mean 'the following session of the Diet"?
  • Link Early modern Europe.
  • Linked.
  • Skimming I note three block quotes, one lengthy. MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
  • Recommend deleting the first block quote. I don't see what it adds for a reader.
  • Deleted.
  • "creating an "eastern Hungarian Kingdom"" Why the quote marks? Should it be 'creating the "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom" '?
  • Modified. See my remarks after your first comment above.
  • Linked.
  • "re-affirmed the agreement that the Hungarian noblemen, Transylvanian Saxons, and Székelys had signed during the Transylvanian peasant revolt in 1437, making this "Union of the Three Nations" a fundamental law". The chronological jumping around jars. Why is this not covered in Background?
  • "Between 1541 and 1545, the Diets (or legislative assemblies)". The link refers to a singular Diet. Elsewhere in this section you refer to a singular Diet. Can we sort out whether there were one or several Diet/s?
  • Sorry, I do not understand your above comment. There are several individual Diets mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following Diet confirmed". 'The following session of the Diet confirmed'?
  • Sorry, I do not understand your above comment. The article does not refer to sessions, but individual Diets. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second block quote seems to directly contradict the clause immediately before it: "it also outlawed the Sacramentarians in 1558".
  • The edict about the ban on Sacramentarianism is not quoted. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked.
  • I don't see what the paragraph on Erasmus and Servetus adds to the article. Why is it there?
  • Their views influenced Dávid and contributed to the development of Antitrinitarian theories.
  • There seems to be very little information on the actual Edict, or the session of the Diet which passed it or on the debate(s) about it. And most of what there is is a quote from it. (Or is that the entire Edict? If so, could we be told.) This makes me wonder if enough reliable secondary material exists to merit an article higher than stub status.
  • I may not understand your above remarks. The article is about the edict: its background, its text and its consequences. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if a reader went through this without the title and lead, I am not sure that they would realise that. I was expecting to see several things, including how the secondary sources analyse the language of the Edict, possibly sentence by sentence or clause by clause. It may be that I found the large block quote, which seems to be without context, confusing. Is that the whole Edict or an extract from it? I would have hoped for a section, or at least a paragraph, on the make up, background and deliberations of the diet which passed the Edict, rather than a single sentence. Is that really the sum total of what is known of it? And is there any commentary on Sigismund's motivations? He comes across as a compliant cipher pushed around by strong advisors. Did this apply in other policy areas?
Yes, the edict is short and we do not have much information about the debates at the Diet. The article describes the road to the Edict: how religious tolerance was first introduced in the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom and how it became the standard. The article explains how texts in the Bible influenced the edict's text. Yes, John Sigismund was driven by new and new waves of the Reformation by strong personalities, but not because he was a puppet, but because he was interested in religious debates - the article describes this process in details. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Báthory urged"; "his demand". Did he urge or did he demand? They are different things.
  • "The co-existence of the four "received" (or officially recognized) denominations". Why the quote marks?

That's it for a first read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, I have expanded a little where you asked, and note that there are several of my comments which you don't seem to have responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding, but I did not understand your remarks. Please see my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning oppose. I don't feel that the information specifically about the article title is comprehensive. Also, the way information is presented I struggled with prose is engaging, eg I was unaware that the full edict is quoted in the article until told it was in this review. However, this may just be me, so I am not going to formally oppose. If other reviewers believe the article to be comprehensive and engaging then I shall not stand in the way of such a consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

We're past 3 weeks with only one general support. This may be archived if we don't see progress to promotion in the next several days. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks. Yes, I have to accept that religious tolerance is not a favorite topic in our community. We prefer soldiers, wars, battles. We represent humankind. :) Borsoka (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Gog and other potentially interested folks? FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. After nominating the article, I noticed the relevant wikiprojects about the nomination. @Tom (LT): as the reviewer of the article could you also participate in the FAC process? @Gog the Mild: do you have time to continue the review? Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Edict_of_Torda/archive3&oldid=1069173733"