| Revision as of 06:49, 5 February 2006 editJuro (talk | contribs)9,151 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:50, 5 February 2006 edit undoJuro (talk | contribs)9,151 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| This is incredible. It is the Hungarian article that is a huge infantile mess and you dare to put this tag to this article, although it mentions all the connections to Hungary that exist??? This is the most anti-Slovak version of such an article that can be written, not one single word is a POV. In addition, you last steps show that you have absolutely no idea what you are writing here, so please stick to what you know and stop this primitive campaign. The tag will be deleted immediately.] 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | This is incredible. It is the Hungarian article that is a huge infantile mess and you dare to put this tag to this article, although it mentions all the connections to Hungary that exist??? This is the most anti-Slovak version of such an article that can be written, not one single word is a POV. In addition, you last steps show that you have absolutely no idea what you are writing here, so please stick to what you know and stop this primitive campaign. The tag will be deleted immediately.] 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| As for Bratislava - it had many different names, really? And which town in Europe did not have different names? And do we use the various unindentifiable 9th names because of that |
As for Bratislava - it had many different names, really? And which town in Europe did not have different names? And do we use the various unindentifiable 9th century names because of that? We don't. But if this is your main "concern" you are free to change that. ] 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:50, 5 February 2006
NPOV
Though I am not an expert in this area, it seems that the writer(s) wish(es) to push a particular point of view, one of somewhat fanatic (if fervent and heartfelt) Slovak nationalism.
Referring to the double cross as coming from the Byzantine tradition (ultimately true enough) without mentioning that it was adopted by 'Hungarian' ruler Bela III, who was brought up in the Byzantine court, seems to have no other purpose than completely ignoring Hungarian presence and rule in the area of modern Slovakia, as does referring to "Bratislava", which was not called that at that time--it actually had many different names.
Also, is the info on the patriarchal cross better placed in the article Patriarchal cross?
Please refer to the article on the Coat of arms of Hungary for a better example of a neutral toned article.
This is incredible. It is the Hungarian article that is a huge infantile mess and you dare to put this tag to this article, although it mentions all the connections to Hungary that exist??? This is the most anti-Slovak version of such an article that can be written, not one single word is a POV. In addition, you last steps show that you have absolutely no idea what you are writing here, so please stick to what you know and stop this primitive campaign. The tag will be deleted immediately.Juro 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
As for Bratislava - it had many different names, really? And which town in Europe did not have different names? And do we use the various unindentifiable 9th century names because of that? We don't. But if this is your main "concern" you are free to change that. Juro 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)