# Talk:John Sigismund Zápolya

I have conflicting sources here - Roland Bainton, Women of the Reformation from Spain to Scandinavia (Mineapolic, Minnesota, 1977) p226, describes his mother as being "the first ruler to issue an edict of universal toleration" in 1558 - yet here it says 1568 - I'm presuming Bainton was refering to the Edict of Turda - was the edict in form, but unpublished as statute law before this date?
Dragonfang88 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There were three edicts of Turda, in 1558, 1563, and 1568, each one including and expanding the liberties stated in the previous ones. The last is the one that is mentioned here and that is most widely known. --jofframes (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, perhaps that should be made clear??? It's quite handy information, it also makes it clear that Eastern Europe was way ahead of Western Europe in so far as religious toleration went Dragonfang88 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, what it makes clear is that John was a weak ruler.  In the power vacuum, the powerful local religious groups scrambled piecemeal to wring royal legal protection for themselves.  One should not read into the series of edicts a well-considered Royal Program toward tolerance.  Isabella was indeed ahead of her time, but she was not really in the driver's seat.  And similar pockets of enlightenment existed in the West as well, not just in Transylvania. Elphion (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Those who were "scrambling" for power were not religious groups as much as the nobles and the ethnic social groups that were behind them. The Edict(s) of Torda were the results of pacts between the nobility to preserve the balance of power and not fall in a mutually destructive civil war. Let us remind that the Principality of Transylvania barely survived thanks to the protection of the Turkish Empire and with the ever-present threat of the Austrian emperor who claimed the crown for himself. Apart from John Sigismund's weakness (including his bad health), anyone may have seemed weak in comparison with the rising Austria and the Sultanate at the very height of its power and expansion. --jofframes (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "nobles and the ethnic social groups that were behind them" is exactly what "powerful religious groups" are -- at least at this stage of history.  Religious politics usually follows the politics of the powerful, which is why the Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims did not get any guarantees under any of the edicts.  As for the relative weakness of John Sigismund:  yes he ruled in a milieu that included powerful players like Maximilian and Suleiman, but his father operated in a similar environment far more effectively.  John Sigismund's youth and ill health were undoubtedly factors, but he was still a weak ruler, whatever the cause. Elphion (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of "vassal of the ottoman Empire" to "King of Hungary", because it's not clear whether John was an Ottoman vassal for that entire period (1540 to 1570).  Clarification and/or some refs would help. -- Elphion (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think "John Sigismund Zápolya" would be better name of this page than the current one. He was a king as John II. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have renamed it.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reference from edit summary: Talk:Voivode of Transylvania.)
I'm reverting these [1] edits not because I disagree with the content, but because they leave the article in a confusing state and delete some references without replacements.  The meaning of "1540/59" is completely unclear.  An expanded description of what was actually going on is needed. -- Elphion (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

He resigned in 1551, but he was re-elected later. My only concern is that, I have two different dates 1556/1559 about the starting date of his second reign. What is sure the Diet of Szászsebes elected him for king in 1556 [2], however according to this source [3] 1559 is the proper starting date of his second reign because he ascended the throne from his mother Izabella (the regent) just in 1559. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Then, we should probably provide both dates with the explanation you have just given. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nagyon jó cikk lett, gratulálok. :) However, I think the last section about his rule as Prince of Transylvania is too short. John Sigismund died childess and his family became extinct after that (it should be also emphasized, I guess). In accordance with John's will, Gáspár Bekes should have succeed him as Voivode under the suzerainty of Emperor-King Maximilian. However the estates elected Báthory instead. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but I have not found reliable sources to verify these pieces of information (I mean that he was the last member of his family and he nominated Bekes his heir). Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, Bekes was not an official "heir", according to this 2005 publication. "Biztosította országának a szabad fejedelemválasztás jogát, és nem jelölt utódot." [p. 330]. "Utolsó Szapolyai" [p. 317 and 330] --Norden1990 (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to repeat "John Sigismund" everywhere, particularly in places where it is perfectly clear who is meant from "John" alone? -- Elphion (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think because it was his name. For instance, Francis Joseph is never mentioned as Francis. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Sigismund Zápolya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Will review this. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: A bit busy now, I think I will be able to get to this only by the end of this week. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 18:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@Borsoka: Found time for this. A well-written article! I have only a few comments to make: Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
King of Hungary and Parts of the Kingdom of Hungary are each linked twice in the lead
His father John I  "His father" is redundant
Link dowager queen.


### Rest
Duplicate links:  Transylvania (Accession), Upper Hungary (First rule), King of Poland (In exile), Selim II (Freedom of religion), Stephen Báthory (Prince of Transylvania)
There is some slight licensing trouble with the infobox image.
Rex electus What does this mean?
I noticed no more issues with the prose of the article. Sources and copyvio possibility checked. These should be all the comments, when these are done I would be happy to promote the article. Great job! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sainsf:, thank you for your review. I hope I fixed the above problems. Please contact me if further actions were needed. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I believe this article is ready to be a GA. I am happy to promote this. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at several different sources all by reputable academic publishers including Brill, Routledge, Cambridge and Wiley. They give different dates for the conversion - Routledge gives the date for his conversion as 1558 but I think it may be a typo. Other sources say he had embraced Calvinism by 1559. Others say he had become Calvinist by 1562. Brill says he became Lutheran in 1562 - there are books that give lengthy analysis that contradicts this and there are no secondary citations for this passing remark in the book - are there any other sources that say he was Catholic or Lutheran and have a more detailed analysis? Seraphim System (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphim System:, there is no debate among specialists of the history of Hungary during this period, that John Sigismund was born a Catholic, he converted from Catholicism to Lutheranism in the early 1560s, from Lutheranism to Calvinism before 1565, and died as a Unitarian. Borsoka (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I need to see the sources. There are a lot of errors in history books around this period (especially older ones), and the source should have citations and a credible analysis, not merely a passing comment, especially when other academic sources contradict it. Based on the mainstream argument in current sources, a conversion to Lutheranism in the early 1560s would not make sense - as they say he was supporting the Calvinists at that time.Seraphim System (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you do not need to see the sources as per WP:OR, especially if there is no debate among specialists. If you read books about the history of Reformation in Hungary, you will find that there was a great difference between the legal status of Lutherans and Calvinists for decades: the Lutherans were tolerated, while the Calvinists were not. Borsoka (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you need to use sources so other editors can verify challenged material. An editor who has been editing since 2008 should have a better grasp of Wikipedia policies.Seraphim System (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not there is debate there are sources that directly contradict this passing remark, which is primary for the author since it does not have any citations or footnotes. I am asking you to post further secondary sources with more in-depth analysis, otherwise I intend to change the article based on the sources that I have. Seraphim System (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(1) The article is well-referenced and there is a "Sources" section where you can find the cited sources. Most of them are dedicated to the history of Hungary in this period or to the life of John Sigismund, consequently they contain an in-depth analysis of the subject. (2) You have not referred to a single source. Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
These are the sources I have found. The section I am asking about, that says he was Lutheran is sourced entirely to a single sentence in Keul, I am looking for something more in-depth:
Brady, Thomas Allan; Oberman, Heiko A.; Tracy, James D. (1994). Visions, Programs and Outcomes: Ed. by Thomas A. Brady; Heiko A. Oberman; James D. Tracy. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-09761-2.
Greengrass, Mark (2014-11-28). Christendom Destroyed: Europe 1517-1648. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-698-17625-6.
Hsia, R. Po-chia (2008-04-15). A Companion to the Reformation World. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4051-7865-5.
The last source does say he was raised by a Catholic monk, but he is mainly known as a Calvinist who later becomes Unitarian. Not every trivial detail needs to go into the infobox. And none of these sources say he was Lutheran, in fact the first Brill source by Brady says that he had been supporting Calvinists since 1559:

"While the Saxon "nation" identified itself with Lutheranism, the Transylvanian Magyars and many of them in Hungary proper went over to Calvinism, which received especially strong support from Transyvania's anti-Hapsburg nobles and since 1559 from it's rival king, Jan Sigismund Zapolya". 
I have been looking for sources that say more about it for an hour so if your attitude is "No you do not need to see sources" and that is how you interact with other editors and sources, you should maybe reconsider whether Wikipedia is the right place for you, as it is supposed to be a collaborative environment and especially in an area like history which requires a mastery of many difficult and often contradictory sources.Seraphim System (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(1) I would be grateful if you tried to avoid personal attacks in the future. (2) Do you really think, the general sources that you cited above contain more in-depth analysis of the history of Reformation of Hungary than the academic works dedicated to this specific subject? (3) Brady does not say that John Sigismund was Calvinist in 1559. Please remember that the Catholic kings of France supported the German Protestants against the Catholic Habsburgs during the same period. (4) Since the multiple conversions of John Sigismund are emphasized in the works dedicated to his life, we should not treat them as "trivia" as per WP:NOR. (5) Please remember that deletion of well-referenced content is mostly treated as an act of vandalism. Borsoka (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't give me a lecture about vandalism, the onus is on you to justify inclusion. Removal is hardly ever treated as vandalism when there is an edit summary justifying it, it is a content dispute. The best thing is to try to figure out what that disagreement is about and to AGF.
Anyway, I will apologize, it is on page 255 of Keul, it isn't your fault whoever did the citations should have been more precise. I will expand it to include some of this since it does say he was baptized, etc - That is what I was looking for. Seraphim System (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I am glad that you realized that this article did not contain OR (that is, nothing was to be proved by me or anybody else). I think you could save much time if you read the articles before editing them. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Did I say something about WP:OR? At first I thought the source may have been relying on older sources that got the two Sigismunds confused - this is a common problem in older history sources. I usually will check citations for the things I am interested in and in this case the page cited wasn't very helpful. I specifically wanted to know if he was baptized Catholic or just raised by a Catholic monk and luckily, I stumbled on the page by accident. No harm done. Seraphim System (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)