Talk:Decree of Turda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The formalities of NPOV 2 Country malefactors belonging to any nation, especially Romanians. 3 Word choice 4 This was the first time in Transylvania that discriminatory law enforcement along ethnic lines was legally codified.

[edit] The formalities of NPOV

"Confronted with a demographically very significant Eastern Orthodox Romanian population in Transylvania reluctant to convert to Roman Catholicism, the Hungarian Crown was inevitably worried by the recent rise of two consolidated Orthodox states on Transylvania's southern and eastern borders." No doubt. But this is interpretation of motivation, and it would be good to have a citation of a specific historian who says so. - Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with NPOV? It's not a biased statement. I agree that there should be references to support the validity of the text in general, but not in order to defend its NPOV.-Montblanc2000 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Country malefactors belonging to any nation, especially Romanians.

The emphasis is on the malefactors!! Not Romanians??? BTW when was this Edict emitted? In 1366. After the second wave of Black Death in Hungary (1359, the first one with smaller impact was in 1348) ... which almost generated political crisis in Hungary ... so much functionaries died in a few days ... It was only a simple matter of security policy ...--fz22 20:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Take please this examples:

"I like all beautiful animals, especialy horses"

The one and only sense is that the second category belongs logicaly to the first. The meaning is not " I like only those horses that are beutiful", but "among all beutiful animals, I like especialy horses"

After all, this is quite cheap sophistry. Every sound-minded person would understand the phrase "to expel and exterminate evil doers, especially Romanians" in the sense that Romanians are evil-doers and "esse delendam".

It is exactely the impression which I tried to avoid through my interpretations.

Would I strictly observe the "philosophy" of Wikipedia, I could very well limit my article to a factual presentation, with ample citations of that decree, refraining from every attempt of an historical interpretation.

As Jmabel | Talk (18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC) very pertinetly notes, I transgressed the limits of NPOV, taking the risks of a quite comprehensive interpretation, which puts the Decree of Turda in an historical perspective.

I assumed the responsibility of a not strictly NPOV, precisely in order to avoid that the Decree of Turda is percieved as sanguinary as it looks at first lecture.

I do this out of a self-evident scientific bona fide.

PS By the way, how did you mean this: ""It was only a simple matter of security policy ..."--fz22 20:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC) ....to expel or exterminate malefactors, especialy Romanians

Regards, --Vintila Barbu 15:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To protect the main traderouts againts malefactors ... in the post Black Death times. Brasov, Sibiu just got trading privileges in that period and started an instense export trade with Wallachia, Moldavia, and with Genoa's colonies on the Black Sea coast. --fz22 16:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word choice

Do we really mean to say "Louis I's consequent Catholic proselytising campaigns…" or should that be "…subsequent…? Consequent ==> "caused by", subsequent == "later in time". - Jmabel | Talk 05:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

what I really meant was, that Louis I constantly followed the aims of catholic proselytism. For this, Romanians, French and even Germans say: consequent, consecvent, konsequent. As you point out, this is not the English sense.

Definitely, "false friends" in English continue to betray me...After all these years...

"systematically" would probably do a better job

Thanks, --Vintila Barbu 12:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This was the first time in Transylvania that discriminatory law enforcement along ethnic lines was legally codified.

I can't reopen our debate because it was not closed :) I still think things are somehow mixed up here. The decree is consisted from many parts as it is stated quite precisely in the article: "social and public life, administration, criminal law and judicial practice." This statement: "ad exterminandum seu delendum in ipsa terra malefactores quarumlibet nacionum, signanter Olachorum" is related to the criminal part not the social one. So we can't say "this was the first time ... discriminatory law enforcement along ethnic lines". regards --fz22 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the formulation law enforcement used in the article refers exactly to the criminal part and "not the social one", as you very correctly put it. I cannot see where our opinions differ...:))

...and don't forget: nobody blames you for that Edict...:)

...not even Louis is to blame for it. Those were the times. Judging past times according to present day norms might be a pastime of semi educated talk shows, books and journals. We don’t want have anything to do with it, don’t we ?  :) --Vintilă Barbu 14:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)