Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt

Vlachs — nomadic or sedentary?

This article is severely biased. Stating that the revolters were a "group of Romanian peasants" is historically incorrect. As it stands, this article is just repeating the position of Ceausescu-era Romanian historiography. When I have time, I will write a more detailed account of the revolt. Scott Moore 09:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be more specific about inaccuracies:

- the revolt did not start at Bobâlna

- it was not a group consisting only of Romanian peasants who revolted. The revolt was led by a Hungarian petty noble, three Hungarian peasants, a Romanian peasant and a burgher. Those revolting included both Romanian and Hungarian serfs, as well as burghers.

- The Unio Trium Nationum was not signed just by nobles (the nobles were just one of three Estates in the Union).

Scott Moore 09:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. In addition, it should not be called "Bobâlna revolt"--the name in common use at the time was "Bábolna", with the Romanian form only becoming official after Trianon. I strongly suggest correcting the name.4.231.162.235 08:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Another necessary correction is the replacement of the phrase: "While the Hungarians, the Hungarian-speaking Székelys and the Saxons formed sedentary communities, living in villages and towns, most Vlachs were shepherds, herding their flocks between the mountains and the lowlands." First of all, the allegation is highly offensive against the Romanian population of Transylvania - which where already a sedentary population centuries before the arrival of the above mentioned communities. Another issue is the source of this allegation: a dubious work, published in a "Slavic" review by an extremist so-called "historian". Moreover, the article does not see the clear ethnic aspect of this revolt and is insisting only on the so called social aspect of it. The article reminds me the (ideological) history lessons from the communist history manuals for school children, during Ceausescu regime. I suggest the urgent revision or replacement of this highly un-professional article. Articles like that are lowering of the level of Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transylvanian (talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is that statement offensive? Why did the Vlachs customarily pay sheep as in kind tax if they were not pastoralists? What is the reliable source stating that the uprising had a clear "ethnic aspect"? Borsoka (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right in affirming that some Romanians were involved in animal husbandry. BUT the Romanians are not a nomadic population. The large majority of them live in sedentary communities and only a small fraction of the population is involved in transhumance (seasonal migration of the herds between mountain and lowland pastures). Here are some reliable historical sources, by Transylvanian, local, unbiased historians: - "Romanians and Hungarians from the 9th to the 14th Century. The Genesis of the Transylvanian Medieval State", Cluj-Napoca, Center for Transylvanian Studies, 1996

- "A Social History of Romanian Space.From the Beginning of Dacian state until the rise of Modernity", Mircea Brie, University of Oradea, Romania, 2005

Budai Nagy Antal Revolt or Bobalna Revolt?

This was the first major peasant revolt in the history of Hungary. The revolt is called "Budai Nagy Antal Revolt" by Hungarians and "Bobalna Revolt" by Romanians. Google search gave

• 861 pages for: Bobâlna revolt (many of these are copies of this very article)
• 1640 pages for:"Budai Nagy Antal" revolt
• 538 pages for: Răscoala de la Bobâlna
• 1340 pages for: "Budai Nagy Antal" felkelés

I suggest that the article is renamed accordingly. --KIDB 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been no comments until today, I do the changes.--KIDB 11:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

@Norden1990:, would you look at the title of the article dedicated to the revolt (I mean, Joseph Held's work)? I think the previous title is more in line with WP:Name. Borsoka (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

J. Held's work is only one source. There are "Bábolna" or "Bobâlna", but "Babolna" is incorrect. We should use Hungarian accents properly even an English-language publication did not use it. "Transylvanian peasant revolt" or its similar versions (uprising etc.) are more common. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. "Transylvanian peasan revolt" can be verified. Borsoka (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Transylvanian peasant revolt. 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/20070812105214/http://www.sigismundus.hu/guide/show.php?l=en&p=4_95 to http://www.sigismundus.hu/guide/show.php?l=en&p=4_95

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kpalion (talk · contribs) 11:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, I will be reviewing the article. Looks very well after the first reading. Specific comments coming soon! — Kpalion^(talk) 11:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Please let me know on this page if any action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting and well-written article with ample citations. I have no access to the sources so assuming good faith. Some issues need to be addressed, though, especially regarding neutrality, clarity and breadth of coverage. If there are any suggestions you don't agree with, please discuss. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   • Please settle on one variety of English. For now, the date format is British (day, month), but the word traveling follows U.S. spelling.

   • First of all, thank you for your comprehensive and thorough review. I highly appreciate your hard work. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

   • Sorry, I cannot differentiate the several varieties of English, but I changed the word "traveling" ([1]). Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

   • The <Hungarian place name> (now <Romanian place name> in Romania) pattern is quite repetitive. Perhaps it could be avoided by stating at the beginning of the "Background" section that Transylvania was a geographic region in the Kingdom of Hungary that now lies entirely in Romania. And then explain that historical Hungarian (or German) place names will be followed by their modern Romanian equivalents in parentheses. This way, you could just write <Hungarian place name> (<Romanian place name>) throughout the article.

   • Thank you. Changed ([2]). Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

   •  Thank you — Kpalion^(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

   Some fragments are not clear to me:

   • Union of the Three Nations: The representatives of the noblemen, Székelys and Saxons had never held a joint assembly without the authorization of the monarch. Does it mean that this was the first time they met without royal authorization?

   • Thank you. Changed ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

   •  Thank you — Kpalion^(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

   • Last phase: There is no evidence of the appointment of the delegates or their departure for Prague. When introducing Sigismund of Luxemburg, it might be good to add that he was also an emperor and a king of Bohemia. Otherwise, the reader may be wondering what a king of Hungary was supposed to be doing in Prague.

   • Thank you. Changed ([4], [5]). Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

   •  OK — Kpalion^(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Please make sure that the capitalization of official titles (such as "king", "bishop" or "voivode") conforms to MOS:JOBTITLES. For example: John had been declared an Antipope → John had been declared an antipope.

   • Thank you. Changed ([6]). Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

   • I've caught a few more. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig OK

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article has left me with some questions unanswered. If the rebels had won the battle of Dés, then why did they agree to a new compromise that was less beneficial to them than the previous one? The "Aftermath' section is particularly skimpy. What was the final result of the revolt for the peasants? Did they get to keep at least some of the concessions or did they fall back to status quo ante?

   • Thank you. Expanded ([7]). I need some more time to work on the "Aftermath" section. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

   • Looks much better now. Thank you. One small comment here, though: perhaps it would be good to briefly introduce Stephen Báthory, especially that he can be easily confused with the Polish king. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

   • Thank you. His office (judge royal) added ([8]).

   •  Thank you. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The "Background" section is very helpful.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   • Please address the issue of Vlach nomadism raised at Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt#Vlachs — nomadic or sedentary? Transylvanian has provided criticism and sources, which should not be ignored (if you believe these sources are not reliable, please explain why). Also, if there are historians who discuss the revolt in ethnic terms, then this should also be covered by the article.

   • I am pretty sure that Transylvanian presents fringe theories as mainstream scholarly views. @Transylvanian:, could you quote texts showing that the revolt is discussed in ethnic terms in reliable sources? Could you also quote texts showing that there are historians who say that the shepherds only formed a minority group among the Vlachs in 15th-century Transylvania? Thank you for your cooperation. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

   •   Transylvanian has not responsed, but the article now discusses the ethnic issue (or lack thereof). — Kpalion^(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

   • Some section titles ("Bishop Lépes's greed", "Victory and compromise") clearly reflect the rebels' point of view. Please change them to something more neutral.

   • Thank you. Changed ([9], [10]) Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

   •  Thank you — Kpalion^(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The stained glass looks quite modern. Is it certain that it is not protected by copyright (note that the photograph in this case is a derivative work).

    Not resolved. The copyright status is still not clear to me. It seems that Commons:User:Țetcu Mircea Rareș is the author of the photograph, but not the author of the stained glass. Per Commons:2D copying, a photograph of a 2-dimensional work of art "does not generate any new copyright because the resulting work is defined entirely by the original work; there is no creative input. Therefore, authors who create 2D copies are not entitled to copyright for these works, and the copyright of the original work applies." So either we can ascertain that the stained glass is in public domain (although this is not obvious to me) and then the photograph is also in the public domain or it's copyrighted and the photograph should be deleted. In any case, I still can't see much relevance of this image to the article. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

   Thank you. I opted to delete the picture ([11]). Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

    Thank you. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   How relevant are the illustrations of Alba Iulia, which is not even mentioned in the article?

   • Thank you. I expanded the caption ([12]). Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Borsoka, thank you for the changes made so far. I will put the nomination on hold for two weeks to let you expand the Aftermath section and resolve the copyright status of the stained-glass photograph. And, possibly, to get a response from Transylvanian. If you're done sooner or wish to extend the on-hold period, please let me know. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kpalion:, I expanded the "Aftermath" section of the article ([13]). I think the copyright status of the stained glass photograph is clear ([14]). Borsoka (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Borsoka, thanks for addressing my comments. There are still two minor issues, but once they're sorted out, it's good to go. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Kpalion, again thank you for your review. I hope I fixed both issues. Please let me know if further actions are needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Borsoka, and congratulations! This is a good article. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Kpalion, for your comprehensive review and support. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Orthodoxy

What were the negative consequences of the Vlach peasants' Orthodox religion in Hungary? They did not pay the tithe, while Catholic peasants were obliged to pay this 10% ecclesiastic tax. (Vlachs were only obliged to pay the tithe if they settled in a land abandoned by Catholic peasants.) The Vlachs paid only the fiftieth (that is a 2% tax), while Hungarian and Saxon peasants the ninth (a 10% tax). Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

WHY do you keep removing the added content and references cited? Please, carefully review the Wikipedia:Five pillars. (Rgvis (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC))

Because they contain highly dubious information. (1) "At the end of the 13th century, the Orthodox Vlachs were still on a footing of equality with the other three privileged groups.": There were several (more than three) privileged groups in Hungary (and Transylvania), including noblemen, clergymen, burghers, Székelys, Vlachs, Pechenegs, etc., but their privileges were quite different, so they were not "on a footing of equality". (2) "The Romanians suffered the additional disability of adherence to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which in predominantly Catholic Hungary was considered a deviant and sometimes even a heretical form of Christianity. They occupied the lowest rung of the social ladder, superior only to slaves." : What were the negativ consequences if a peasant was Orthodox in Hungary/Transylvania? Please carefully review WP:DUE and WP:PARAPHRASE. Borsoka (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

All informations are based on references cited! It is not for wikipedia editors to make judgment on history events (Wikipedia:No original research. (Rgvis (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC))

Rgvis - the plural of "information" in English is ... information. Information is not one of those words you just add an 's' on the end of. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.113 (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we do not need to present dubious, marginal information, as per WP:DUE. Are you really sure that Setton-Watson's book, published in 1934, still contains relevant information? Moreover, you are obviously in breach of WP:PARAPHRASING. Borsoka (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Books published in 1934 can still have value but additional sources would make the justification for inclusion stronger, and tertiary sources can help to resolve what is WP:DUE. The caveat is that setton-watson is politically involved in the Balkans during the Post-WWI period and should not be used uncritically - additional secondary sources which discuss his analysis would be preferable, if they are available.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I also provided two other different sources: [15], [16]. For sure, there are a lot many others. (Rgvis (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC))

Are those books available in English? You are allowed to use foreign language sources, but the strong preference is for English language sources under WP:V - the reason for this is so we can verify. Also, the page numbers linked to do not seem to be available. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Rgvis, please read my above comment and try to react. We do not need to add all dubious, margional POVs. If we do not know what were the negative consequences if a peasant was Orthodox in Hungary/Transylvania, we do not need provide this information. (Especially if we take into account that an Orthodox peasant paid less tax than a Catholic peasant, which suggest that an Orthodox peasant's position was more favorable than his/her Catholic peer.) Borsoka (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• This book [17] explains that Romanian peasants settled on the land were Orthodox which created a problem with the Catholic Church over the tithe, which they were forced to pay. This was before the debasing of the currency - the background section would benefit from revision as calling Romanians Vlachs does not really help the average reader. It's also not clear how this is relevant:

The voivodes presided over the noblemen's general assemblies, which were annually held at a meadow near Torda (Turda).[7][6] The Transylvanian noblemen were exempted from taxation in 1324.[8][9] They were also granted the right to administer justice to the peasants living in their estates in 1342.[8][10] The prelates acquired the same right in their domains in the second half of the 14th century.[10] From the early 15th century, the voivodes rarely visited Transylvania, leaving the administration of the counties to their deputies, the vice-voivodes.[5][7]

Since we are discussing WP:DUE, I think the entire background section would benefit from a rewrite. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all references are available on Google books (as English books), too (as already linked). The same information is even published (in brief) by Encyclopaedia Britannica, at: [18]
On the other hand, I agree that the "Background" section does not fairly represent the entire historical context (for example, about the fact that the Hungarians, Szekelys, and Saxons were settled in Transylvania, during those times, or that some Romanian noblemen converted to Catholicism and Magyarized, in order to maintain their privileges). (Rgvis (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC))

Also, interesting that the user Borsoka talks about WP:PARAPHRASE, as long as his own contributions are based on copy-paste texts from external sources, for example, this editing [19] and this source: [20]. It seems that the content of this article became biased made, starting from the first editings made by Borsoka. QED :) (Rgvis (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC))

Rgvis, if you do not understand the concept of WP:PARAPHRASE, please do not use it. The article has recently been reviewed twice: both reviewers concluded that the article is fully in line with that specific policy. Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Rgvis and Seraphim System, what are the pieces of information that you think we should present in the article? Please remember this article is about a specific peasant revolt, not about the history of Transylvania or the history of Hungarian or Vlach nobility in the province. Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) The general assemblies of the noblemen played a significant role in the peasant revolt. For instance, the leaders of the peasant were executed during such an assembly. (2) For the noblemen were exempted from taxation, most costs of the defence against the Turks were covered by the taxes paid by the peasants. (3) The agreements between the peasants and the noblemen covered the right of the landowners to administer justice. (4) The vice-voivode was the leader of the noblemen during the phirst phase of the rebellion because of the absence of the voivode. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Please remember that the fact that the Vlachs were Orthodox is mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The article may have been reviewed (and based on WP:GF), but as long as the content added by Borsoka can not be immediately verified according with the original sources (as already mentioned during the reviewing process, especially those regarding the offline Hungarian language sources), it is hard to say how much of this article is copy-paste with original text, carefully selected by Borsoka from the context. More over, each time I indicated direct links of the references cited (to be accesible by anyone), Borsoka deleted them. It seems that Borsoka has preferences only for authors, or texts that, in his personal opinion, can be cited. If the text serves his biased opinon, than everything is OK; if not, the content is cataloged as not relevant or WP:PARAPHRASE. All different sources witch present other perspectives than his opinion are worthless and must be eliminated with any price, even by the violation of the Wikipedia basic policies (WP:LOP). (Rgvis (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC))

You are accusing me of misconduct (baselesly), but you have not mentioned what are the relevant and important pieces of information that you want to add. Borsoka (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

All the information that I have added and I will add is based on reliable and verifiable sources, with the intention to bring real balance in the content's quality (as stipulated by the Wikipedia main policies: WP:CCPOL). (Rgvis (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC))

If you do not want to cooperate, I try to summarize what you want to add, also providing my comments.

• If my understanding is correct, you want to mention that "at the end of the 13th century, the [Vlachs] were still on a footing of equality with the other three privileged groups [that is with the Hungarians, Saxons and Székelys]". You want to refer to Seton-Wattson's book, which was published in 1934. As I mentioned above, there were more than three privileged groups in Transylvania and their legal status did not depend of their ethnicity or religion ([21], [[22]]): Catholic or Orthodox noblemen (of any nation), Catholic or Orthodox nobles of the Church (of any nation), predominantly Orthodox Vlach cneazes, predominantly Orthodox Vlach peasants, Catholic burghers of Saxon towns, Catholic burghers of other towns, newly arrived colonists, etc. Furthermore, the legal positions of these groups were quite different, consequently we cannot say that the Vlachs were "on a footing of equality" with the Hungarians, or the Hungarians with the Saxons, because a Vlach cneaz's position was more favorable than a Hungarian peasant's position. We should not present marginal, fringe theories in the article, as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• If my understanding is correct, you want to mention that "The Romanians suffered the additional disability of adherence to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which in predominantly Catholic Hungary was considered a deviant and sometimes even a heretical form of Christianity. They occupied the lowest rung of the social ladder, superior only to slaves." As I mentioned above, we should mention what were the negative consequences of being an Orthodox peasant in Hungary. Especially, because we know that the Vlachs only paid (10%) tithe if they settled on a land abandoned by a Catholic peasant, moreover Vlachs only paid the fiftieth (a 2% tax) after their sheep, while Catholic peasants paid the ninth (a 10% tax) on their flocks. We should not present marginal, fringe theories in the article, as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI: I sought assistance from WikiProject Romania ([23]) Borsoka (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rgvis:, instead of adding tags without explanation, you should explain your concerns on the Talk page. Otherwise, one could conclude that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It was already explained (and, not only by me). User:Borsoka, please try at least to behave as a civilized Wikipedia citizen. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC))

@Rgvis:, no, no concerns were explained either by you or by other editors. Declarations and the presentation of old fringe theories as facts cannot provide an explanation as per above. If you (or other editors) cannot explain your (or their) concern, the tags will be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, for you, the history of the Romanian Transylvanians might be a "fringe theory", but not for an impartial editor of Wikipedia. You know very well that editors do not have to make judgments about historical facts, as they are seen by various historians (even if we like it or not). Anyway, Wikipedia is an ongoing project, and each article is perfectible (whenever and as long as it is needed). (Rgvis (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC))

No, the history of the Romanians in Transylvania is clearly not a fringe theory. For instance, the Transylvanian peasant revolt is a relevant part of it. However, the above statements about "equal footing" and about "almost slave Romanians" clearly represent at least marginal theories, as I explained above based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Greetings everyone. A request for a third opinion has been declined, as there are more than two editors involved in this discussion already. I would recommend that you pursue another path such as dispute resolution, or perhaps a Request for Comment. Thank you, and good luck. CThomas³ (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

Instead of adding tags without explanation, you should explain your concerns. Please remember, I sought comments from WikiProject Romania more than a month ago ([24]), but no other editors have expressed similar concerns. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• If my understanding is correct, first of all, you want to mention that "at the end of the 13th century, the [Vlachs] were still on a footing of equality with the other three privileged groups [that is with the Hungarians, Saxons and Székelys]". You want to refer to Seton-Wattson's book, which was published in 1934. First of all, there were more than three privileged groups in Transylvania and their legal status did not depend of their ethnicity or religion ([25], [[26]]). For instance, the Catholic (Hungarian, Saxon or Vlach) and Orthodox (mainly Vlach) noblemen's position did not differ from each other even after 1437. On the other hand, an Orthodox Vlach cneaz's position was more favorable than a Hungarian peasant's position. Consequently we cannot say that the Vlachs were "on a footing of equality" with the Hungarians, or the Hungarians with the Saxon. We should not present marginal, fringe theories in the article, as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• If my understanding is correct, you also want to mention that "The Romanians suffered the additional disability of adherence to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which in predominantly Catholic Hungary was considered a deviant and sometimes even a heretical form of Christianity. They occupied the lowest rung of the social ladder, superior only to slaves." As I mentioned above, we should mention what were the negative consequences of being an Orthodox peasant in Hungary. Especially, because we know that the Vlachs only paid (10%) tithe if they had settled on a land abandoned by a Catholic peasant, while Catholic peasants were always obliged to pay this tax. Moreover, Vlachs only paid the fiftieth (a 2% tax) after their sheep, while Catholic peasants paid the ninth (a 10% tax) on their flocks. We should not present marginal, fringe theories in the article, as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, by revoking templates it means that, starting from this point, you agree with all referenced editings. Also, do not forget that the content of an article must be balanced and reflect all points of view (which are not "marginal, fringe theories", as you are trying to insinuate), and also, Wikipedia editors do not have the status of judge (all the more so as articles refer to historical events). (Rgvis (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC))

No, you misunderstood my action: my rationale was summarized above. Our community will of course accept all edits which are in line with the relevant WP policies, especially including Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE and WP:Due. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, in this case, the disagreement is far to be solved, so all templates will have to stay. (Rgvis (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC))

Rgvis, could you verify your claim? Please remember that you are so far the sole editor claiming that the article is not neutral. Borsoka (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not the only one! Borsoka, you do like to manipulate everything, don't you?? This is an example of how User:Borsoka changed other Wikipedia users editings on this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transylvanian_peasant_revolt&diff=810041766&oldid=810039495

Borsoka, you should reconsider your behavior, as a member of this community (WP:EOC). (Rgvis (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC))

(1) @Rgvis:, could you refer to a single editor who says that the article is not neutral? Please remember, I sought comments from WikiProject Romania more than a month ago ([27]), but no other editors have expressed similar concerns. (2) Could you refer to reliable sources verifying that the above claims, based on a book published in the 1930s and a tertiary sources, are not marginal, because they contradict to all books cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are you still trying to change the editings of Seraphim System? This is not only unethical, it is also very rude from you, Borsoka. (Rgvis (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC))

I did not try to change his/her edits. Would you please answer my above questions? Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality II

@Rgvis:, the article was significantly modified ([28]) fully in accordance with the recently closed discussion at the relevant noticeboard ([29]). Even Sedlar's marginal POV (which cannot be substantiated by examples) was mentioned in the article. Why do you think that the article is unbalanced and its neutrality is disputed? Borsoka (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it was not "significantly modified", at all. It is very clear that you are extremely biased in your edits (including those recently made, and which you call "marginal theory"). Obviously, to achieve the desired minimum balance, the article cannot be improved by the same editor who constantly opposes any change and tries (for many months) to stop any other legitimate edits of this article. On the other hand, I am convinced that, no matter how long it takes, this article can be brought to an acceptable form (and I am not the only editor sharing this opinion). (Rgvis (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC))

(1) @Rgvis:, could you summarize what are your concerns and refer to reliable sources that verify them? (2) Could you refer to reliable sources that share Sedlar's marginal POV about the "almost slave" position of Vlach peasants in Transylvania as a consequence of their Orthodox faith? (Please remember that this marginal POV is mentioned in the article upon your request.) (3) Instead of referring to unnamed editors who allegedly agree with you, could you ping them? (4) Instead of accusing me of misconduct, could you refer to "any legitimate edits" that I opposed without providing valid argumentation? Please remember, I sought assistance from Wikiproject Romania more than two months ago (and no editors have so far joined you) ([[30]]). I also sought assistance from the Neutrality notice board ([31]) (and I modified the article taking into account all remarks by third parties). (5) Yes, this article can obviously be improved, but this is not an issue of neutrality. Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The current article fails to mention the classical Romanian POV about the events, nationalistic as it may be. Considering it has shaped the image of this revolt in Romania, and was supported by publications that pass our reliability threshold (and probably more than 1/3 of the published research on this topic was published in Romanian), this POV should be documented at least in the assessment section. Until you or some interested editor adds this POV (with sources), I think the neutrality tag should be applied only on the last section.Anonimu (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. What is the classical Romanian POV? And what are the sources mentioning it? Borsoka (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Rgvis stated that "The article does not keep a balanced content regarding the historical facts presented; it is heavily based on the positions of authors affiliated to the Hungarian historiography, ignoring almost completely opinions of those affiliated to the Romanian historiography." Later, he added that the use of the ethnonym "Vlach" is one of the signs of the biased approach of the article; actually, the use of the ethnonym is based exclusively on publications of non-Hungarian scholars. He also explained that:

• "the introductory section is ambiguous in terms of some important aspects of the presented event (such as the ethnic component of peasants, or the location of the uprising), but, on the other hand, it abounds in some rather too detailed (and marginal) information for this part of the article" (actually, the lead emphasizes the multiethnic caracter of medieval Transylvania and contain much information about the elements of the society, including commoners, burghers and nobles);
• "the "Background" section superficially treats the history of the Transylvanian Romanians (of all social classes) and almost ignores the religious aspects of the presented context" (actually, the Background section contain more information on the history of the Transylvanian Vlachs than that of the Transylvanian Hungarians, Székelys and Saxons; the scholarly theory that Hussitism may have played a role in the revolt is mentioned in the article);
• the "Peasant war" section does not mention essential aspects of the uprising, like the calling for the establishment and recognition of the Universitas Hungarorum et Valachorum - Estate of Hungarians and Romanians; it also selectively uses information from some referenced sources;" (actually, the universitas Hungarorum et Valachorum and its significance are mentioned under the subtitle "First battle and compromise"; no examples of the selective use of information has so far been provided)
• "the "Aftermath" section does not sufficiently emphasize on the historical consequences of the presented events in terms of social and political life of Transylvania for the next centuries" (Anonimu also suggested above that the last section fails to properly describe the "classical Romanian POV" about the events, consequently I must accept that the "Aftermath" section should be expanded.)

(For further details I refer to the discussion here: ([32])) Borsoka (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality III

This is just a reminder or restatement. There was a request for dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. After some effort to identify what the issues were with regard to non-neutrality, I closed the dispute resolution with no conclusion because the editors did not consistently respond in a timely manner. A request was then made by one of the editors for formal mediation, but it was declined because the other editor, the one who primarily complains that the article is not neutral, did not respond. Complaining that an article is not neutral but only responding sporadically to third-party requests to facilitate compromise is not productive.

User:Rgvis - At this point, it appears that your complaints are empty complaints and should be ignored. If you think that the article needs improvement, you have to help improve it, or accept that other editors will ignore you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)