Talk:Decree of Turda

Neutrality, factual accuracy

It is not based on the complete work of Aurel Pop. The reference to the original spirit of the decree is cenzured by the clique of self-named admins here. With what right? The degree can be read -- maybe you SHOULD help the readers by providing the original text, instead of cenzuring truth!PredaMi (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(1) "The conditions imposed by the decree for maintaining or acceding nobility (in particular, affiliation to the Roman Catholic Church and possession of a royal certificate of donation for the owned land) were to select and limit the noble class over a period of centuries, which in turn accelerated the decline of the Estate of Romanians."

• No conditions were imposed by the decree, therefore the decree did not limit Romanians to receive noble status.

(2) "This was the first time in Transylvania that discriminatory law enforcement along ethnic lines was legally codified."

• The decree explicitly states that an oath taken by a Romanian knez brought to his land by royal writ equals to an oath taken by a nobleman, and oath taken by other Romanian knezes and Romanian communers are also treated equally with oath taken by judges or non-Romanian communers, respectively. Is this a discrimination?
• Actually, discriminatory legislation "along ethnic lines" had already been adopted in the Kingdom of Hungary: against Jews, Muslims and Cumans.
• Actually you clearly confuse the religious intolerance (which is a basic element of medieval European societies) with the ethnic discrimination (which earliest form was born only in the era of nationalism in Europe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.190.107 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No. In the case of Cumans, legislation was aimed against their nomadic way of life. Moreover, Saxon towns in Transylvania prohibited Hungarians to settle among them from the 1400s, in Kolozsvár/Klausenburg/Cluj the townspeople was clearly divided along ethnic lines (German v. Hungarians), in France laws were adopted against the Lombards (yes, they were bankers). So, I think history is not so clear, that anything can clearly begin only in this or that age, our human faults are always the same. Borsoka (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(3) "Louis I's systematic Catholic proselytising campaigns encountered a determined resistance among Romanians, who were Eastern Orthodox."

• Louis I proselytized by force on the southern borderlands of his kingdom (mainly in the territories occupied from Bulgaria), but otherwise there were Orthodox landholders in the kingdom who fiercely supported the king. For instance, Balc of Moldavia received significant estates and held high offices in the kingdom.

(4) "The decree takes an explicitly negative view of Romanians: propter presumptuosam astuciam diversorum malefactorum, specialiter Olachorum[1] in ipsa terra nostra existencium (…) ad exterminandum seu delendum in ipsa terra malefactores quarumlibet nacionum, signanter Olachorum [2] - because of the evil arts of many malefactors, especially Romanians, who live in that our country (…) to expel or to exterminate in this country malefactors belonging to any nation, especially Romanians."

• The decree itself states what was the reason of its reference to the Romanians ("their way of life and disorderly behaviour"), but it is ignored in the article.

Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• It is true, the problem was that the vast majority of contemporary Vlachs lived nomadic lifestyle, nomads and settled (civilized) people had always many conflicts, due to the sharp differences of their moral and ethical values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.190.107 (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Although, the above remark seems to be an OR for the time being, I agree with it. Just one remark, I would not state that settled people are civilized in contrast with the uncivilized nomadic people - nomadism was the only economic activity which enabled people to live in the Eurasian steppes and in the high mountains of the Balkan Peninsula and Central Europe for centuries. Therefore without nomads civilization could not appear in this territories. Borsoka (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you deny the fact that agricultural civilised societies (means settled)are more developed than nomadic societies? Nomadism is a stage between indigenous-communities of prehistoric lifestyle and civilised agricultural societies. The development of human societies have 5 main basic levels: 1. indigenous-communities of prehistoric, 2. Nomadism 3. civilsed (settled) lifestyle with agriculture 4. Industrial society 5. post industrial society. (the development have more detailed levels but they are not basic levels)

"...the whole article is based on one source, Ioan-Aurel Pop's work..."

the article contains five references from three authors so, the remark is simply not true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.48.102 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

But we should provide a neutral picture. For instance, we should present the POV, that the decree of Torda/Turda proves that the sudden appearance of a migrating population (the Vlachs) among the sedentary Saxons and Hungarians made the adopiton of special laws necessary. Borsoka (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

1. "...a migrating population (the Vlachs)..." The Romanians (using the endonym Romanian, not the exonym Vlach) were by no means a migrating but an autochtone population

2. "...made the adopiton of special laws necessary... this is a pure speculation, thus, OR, which is not allowed in WP

We do need the honest and good-intended expertise of contributors, not the mythology of Hungarian patriots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.10.104.13 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) Yes, there is a POV, which claims, the Romanians did not migrate from the Balkans to the Kingdom of Hungary, even if the earliest Romanian chronicles explicitly say that the Romanians came across the Danube before moving to the kingdom. This POV is mentioned in the article. (2) A sentence followed by a reference to a peer reviewed book cannot be described as OR. Borsoka (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"earliest Romanian chronicles explicitly say that the Romanians came across the Danube before moving to the kingdom"

care to cite sources ? I don't think so, since there are none

"A sentence followed by a reference to a peer reviewed book cannot be described as OR" - what sentence ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.99.42 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"since there are none"....? i.e. Cantacuzino Chronicle(KIENGIR (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC))

Yes: "...the Romanians arrived who had separated from the Romans and wandered to the north. Having crossed the waters of the Danube, they dismounted at Turnu Severin, others in Hungary, by the waters of the Olt, by the waters of the Mureș and by the waters of the Tisa, reaching as far as Maramureș." ([1]) And see also the Moldo-Russian Chronicle: "In the time of King Vladislav, the Tatars led by their prince, Neymet advanced from the waters of the Prut and the Moldova against the Hungarians. … King Vladislav … sent envoys to the Old-Romans and the Romanians. Thereupon we, Romanians joined forces with the Old-Romans and came to Hungary to help King Vladislav. … Vladislav, the Hungarian king rejoiced over the divine assistance. He highly appreciated and rewarded the Old-Romans for their courage. … King Vladislav … granted them lands in Maramureș between the Mureș and Tisa at a place called Crij. The Old-Romans gathered and settled there. They married Hungarian women and led them into their own Christian religion." ([2] pp. 27-28.) Borsoka (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

no doubt about it ! however, calling the Cantacuzino Chronicle "earliest Romanian chronicles" is simply false and you should know it better and this was the point i objected to; besides, inferring historical truth from late medieval chronicles about early medieval events is ... hazardous; anyway, in this case, indications about a late wave of (a)romanian transdanubian migration from the south in the tenth century seems to be endorsed by ethnological and linguistical arguments: at least a rural upper class in medieval Maramures appears to have aromanian roots. And please refrain from deleting sourced information and feel free to complete the work, not destroy it in a confrontational way. I appreciate you having answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.99.42 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Please try not to delete well sourced information. Yes, I fully agree with you: we should not base historical research solely upon medieval chronicles. For instance, if there is no evidence of the presence of a Romanian-speaking population in Transylvania between the 5th and 12th centuries, we should not say that the Romanians continuously lived there based on a medieval chronicle either. Borsoka (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"...if there is no evidence of the presence of a Romanian-speaking population in Transylvania between the 5th and 12th centuries..." there is plenty of evidence, linguistical, archeological, written sources, etc. The scientific historical community and all mainstream works consider the early (proto-)Romanian presence in Transylvania as an evident truth and closed subject. On WP we are not allowed to simply delete well sourced information, as you do. Please come with other, alternative information, if any and please refrain from obscuring legitimate information.

"Eurocentral" !? Who is this ? How ridiculous ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.217.13.190 (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Decree of Torda

This article should be renamed 'Decree of Torda'. Turda is only from 1918. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.117.172 (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The decree belongs to the history of the ethnic Romanians, who lived in Transylvania (then part of Hungary). So, the current title is well-founded. However, I think, The notability of the article itself is highly questionable.--Norden1990 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear IP, from 1920. I'd support the renaming, hence the Romanian notability of the event has not any connection to the contemporary name.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC))

Hi Super!

I have feedback https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decree_of_Turda&diff=prev&oldid=1153438575

I do not know exactly at the moment the wiki rules but when the decree was made in 1366 the city was part of Hungary and called Torda. Other article also uses contemporary name: Edict of Torda

I know present name is Turda, but it would be not accurate that we should use the contemporary one? I see in wiki the birth place of many persons named on the contemporary name and write the present day name also. Like János Arany: (2 March 1817 Nagyszalonta, Kingdom of Hungary, Austrian Empire (now Salonta, Romania)) OrionNimrod (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Rules do not require to use the name of the time. There are however conventions in certain topic areas. In that of Hungary and Romania this is indeed what is commonly done. I don't have a problem with the article being moved but only through a formal requested move (RM). Read WP:RM to learn how to propose one so that we can get the participation of several users. Super Ψ Dro 20:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Super! Thanks your feedback and advice! OrionNimrod (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Super! What do you think about the name? "Decree of Torda" now, but this is from 1366, but it was a lot of diets at Torda with a lot of decrees at Torda: in the link each year means a diet at Torda: https://mek.oszk.hu/04700/04756/html/41.html. I suggest to rename "Decree of Torda in 1366". OrionNimrod (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The common format would be Decree of Torda (1366). You still need to do a formal requested move (how to at WP:RM#Requesting a single page move). Super Ψ Dro 17:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This topic is highly connected to the history of the Romanians (this decree is relatively unknown in Hungary), thus I support the current title of the article. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Discriminatory/POV lead

Hi @OrionNimrod

Any particular reason you do not want to use talk page to discuss changes?

Also, I see you are following my edits on any page, even ones you were not a contributor. Any reason for that? Aristeus01 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01!

I think you started this thing some month ago without any talk page, you started an edit war https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decree_of_Turda&diff=prev&oldid=1152375418

Again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decree_of_Turda&diff=prev&oldid=1153880325

Again, big obsession: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decree_of_Turda&diff=prev&oldid=1163241460

I removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decree_of_Turda&diff=next&oldid=1152375418

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decree_of_Turda&diff=prev&oldid=1154109975

Borsoka also did not accept it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decree_of_Turda&diff=next&oldid=1163241460

You agreed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decree_of_Turda&diff=prev&oldid=1163384120

I see you do not like the full text of the decree, just deliberately biased cherry picking https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decree_of_Turda&diff=prev&oldid=1163571471

I explained everything in the comment of my edits.

The decree takes action against malefactors: propter presumptuosam astuciam diversorum malefactorum, specialiter Olachorum in ipsa terra nostra existencium (…) ad exterminandum seu delendum in ipsa terra malefactores quarumlibet nacionum, signanter Olachorum - because of the evil arts of many malefactors, especially Romanians, who live in that our country (…) to expel or to exterminate in this country malefactors belonging to any nation, especially Romanians.

Do you deny this text? This is the decree the topic is about that.

As we can see first you intented to add a not neutral content to the lead (refering to Pop biased language, the Romanian nationalist author) exclusively use the biased Romanian viewpoint by him as the lead fact. You wrote "took explicit discriminatory measures against Romanians" it is biased to pretend that decree had only bad deeds and nothing more, and those bad Hungarian deeds exclusively against Romanians. We extended what is in the text of decree actually: "to take measures against malefactors belonging to any nation, especially the Romanians." Your content is still inside, but you are not happy, I see you do not like "malefactors of many nations" part which is in the decree text. Do you deny this part? I see you do not like it if the content is no biased but presenting what is in the text.

You say in your revert that presenting the original text is not neutral, just I do not understand that how can be not neutral the original text, this is not Hungarian or Romanian viewpoint, this is simple just the original text, however you had not a problem with the neutrality to presenting your biased content to the lead. I assume you edit by bad faith.

I also does not make any sense to duplicate the exactly same content what is in the next sentence in the backroung section just below. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

I would've never imagined the description of an act that is explicitly discriminatory against Romanians will be contested by anyone for being described as explicitly discriminatory but here we are... I guess the mentality in some Hungarian circles hasn't changed much in the last 700 years, as seen by your party's contribution to Wikipedia.

You consider Pop nationalist? Well, too bad. Unless you can prove it, it's just your bias, don't ask me to support it. As far as reality goes he is the head of Romanian Academy, therefore one of the most reliable voices for articles like this.

You always assume I edit "by bad faith", this isn't the first time you claim that. I've asked you repeatedly to take the case to an admin if this is what you think, but you prefer to revert my edits anywhere and harass me. Do you deny this? Aristeus01 (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01,

"I would've never imagined the description of an act that is explicitly discriminatory against Romanians will be contested by anyone for being described as explicitly discriminatory but here we are"

I do not understand, I wrote: "to take measures against malefactors belonging to any nation, especially the Romanians." I added just words what is the actually text, seems you are who deny what is in the original decree text. That decree was against malefactors belonging to any nation and ephasized the Romanian malefactors, not all Romanians. As we can see the Romanians were not exterminated. But you pretend the decree made measures explicitly discriminatory against all Romanians, however only against malefactors Romanians.

"I guess the mentality in some Hungarian circles hasn't changed much in the last 700 years, as seen by your party's contribution to Wikipedia." "but you prefer to revert my edits anywhere and harass me. Do you deny this?"

Well I did not make any law against anybody or against any ciriminals because I am not working in justice so please do not refer to me, also you do not know what is my party, but you are to keen to spread misinformations or biased info in Hungarian related contents. I do not revert you everywhere just in these Hungarian related cases, but I see you forgot not only me reverted you in several cases.

Well I saw when even Romanian users claimed Pop as nationalist here in Wiki, and after reading some analysis about Pop's works it is really clear that he repeats just that well known national-communist anti-Hungarian theories and he wrote many factual incorrect things as I read myself some things from him. https://www.g4media.ro/academia-romana-intra-oficial-in-zodia-nationalismului-noul-presedinte-ioan-aurel-pop-e-protectorul-lui-ponta-si-un-admirator-al-curentului-nationalist-din-ungaria-polonia-si-cehia.html

But Pop is presented in the article, so this was just an opinion about Pop. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)