This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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)
It is a partial religious freedom, not applied to the majority population (which were Orthodox).
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).
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)
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.
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?
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.
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)
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)