Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vlachs — nomadic or sedentary? 

message: 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)
replies: text: There have been no comments until today, I do the changes.--KIDB 11:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budai Nagy Antal Revolt or Bobalna Revolt? 

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

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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:  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)

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

text:  and , 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)
replies: text:  (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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: FYI: I sought assistance from WikiProject Romania () Borsoka (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Orthodoxy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality III