This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.173.4.69 (talk) at 23:16, 22 January 2007 (→Coins of Béla). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:16, 22 January 2007 by 89.173.4.69 (talk) (→Coins of Béla)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Heraldry and vexillology B‑class  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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.InFairness 07:26, 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.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)
- Your own words on this talk page demonstrate the point I was trying to make perfectly: That I "dare to put this tag on this article..." references to my allegedly "primitive campaign" and your granting me permission to make an edit on the article: "...you are free to change that..."
- I am sorry you are angry. But are these kinds of inflammatory statements about another Wikipedian 'really' the best approach? If you were trying to communicate any helpful message, it has been lost. What I heard instead is that you have no respect for Hungarian users; you have no respect for me as a person and for my point of view, which may differ from your own; and you are either unwilling or unable to address the concerns that I brough up by my edit.
- You own words demonstrate the kind of POV pushing that I am trying to point out in the article. If Misplaced Pages is to function, we have to be able to have rational debates. Using inflammatory rhetoric helps no one and contributes nothing to the article nor to Misplaced Pages.
- I stand by my recent edits, and in a spirit of friendship challenge you to directly address the issues I raised. InFairness 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- My reaction results from your primitive edits and additions in the Slovak nobility article, which show that you have absolutely no idea what you are doing. And I am not ready to spend my time with discussions with such people, I am too long in the wikipedia to know where this leads. I have written this article some two years ago based on scientific texts, with all necessary pictures etc. and will not go to the library to search them and all the primary argument chains again, because of someone who has absolutely no idea what he is doing here (the cover for ignorance in such topics is always fighting against "nationalism" with such articles). The whole discussion would end by questions of the type "and why is 1+1 = 2" and not 3 - prove it...
And: This article is NOT nationalist, it is anti-nationalist, and the facts it contains are not more disputed than any other facts from the Middle Ages. Like this, I could go and add fact-tags to every second sentence in any older article the wikipedia and finish this "glorious activity" by putting a NOPV tag at the beginning of each article (after all, there are "fact" tags in the text, aren't they?). Or even better, let us put a NPOV tag right at the Main Page of the wikipedia... Juro 07:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Juro, can you please explain what makes the Coat of arms of Hungary article "a huge infantile mess" in your opinion? I'm asking it not because that article happens to be written mostly by me, but because maybe you can find ways to improve it.
I think InFairness made good edits to this article. And please don't start this "using modern names for medieval towns" again...
Alensha 13:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
When I have the time...Juro 07:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
"Slovakia, as an heir of Christian tradition" seems to suggest to the reader that Slovakia - a non-existent country at the time - was some kind of center of Christianity or that it played an important role at all in the early Middle Ages. The article tries to carefully downplay the difference that there is no continuity between the Byzantine and the current Slovak majority religion (Catholic on the account of Hungary and Protestant on the account of Czech (Hussite) immigrants). 84.2.101.221 21:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The three mounds
When used as the symbol for northern parts of the kingdom, it was usually used with three hills below the double cross, and when used as a symbol of kings, it was used without the three hills.
Is this sure? What about these?
The first great seal of Louis I. http://www.mek.oszk.hu/01900/01948/html/index136.html The second great seal of Louis I. http://www.mek.oszk.hu/01900/01948/html/index139.html
Both contains the triple mound.
The text says "usually", that does not mean always. Also the sentence probably refers to a slightly earlier period. Juro 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
1. Well, a great seal is important enough to be made precisely. Louis II crowned in 1342 so I presume his first great seal was made the same time. It would be good to know earlier depictions of the double cross with the triple mound.
- I do not remember anymore from where the sentence stems, if you think it is better not to have it there, just remove it (that will not cause any harm to the text). Juro 13:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2. I changed "normal cross" to apostolic cross. 81.183.151.131 13:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- You do not have to discuss such obvious points. Juro 13:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Coins of Béla
Béla had own coins minted in 1050 in Nitra, the capital of his principality – coins which deliberately differed from those of the Hungarian king and which beared the double cross symbol.
I never heard before that Béla as Duke of Nitra used a double cross symbol. As far as I know it first appeared during the reign of Béla III. So I searched for this coin. Here is a picture: I can't see the double cross. ??? 81.182.180.190 06:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should look better. If it were not a double cross, then i see no meaning in that long arm, which ends with a little cross. 89.173.4.69 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)borislav
I have found an essay (by a Slovak author) saying that seeing double cross in these coins is a misinterpretation. Titus Kolník: Byzantské korene ikonografie a symboliky štátneho znaku Slovenskej republiky Historický Zborník, 1999. 9. 13–32. p. /Since I do not speak Slovak, I used this brief review in Hungarian.-> / 81.183.150.74 06:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories: