Talk:Coat of arms of Slovakia/Archive 1

Bull sh.t
This article is a bull sh.t. There is no archaeological or other evidence that double cross was used in the 9th century Moravia. All archaeological and iconographical sources related to that state contain only simple latin crosses. The writer of this article uses a well established goebbelsian method that a lie repeated many times becomes a truth. I can understand that the author is a beleiver of such a "truth", but he is just parasiting on the Hungarian history. --82.34.65.155 (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fake
What is this???Only in the slovak history conception!!True datas, but...i feel so St.Stephan was slav/proto-SLOVAK after this text(hungarian history without hungarians. Really, this is the Slovak history??)-interesting! And Presporok in this text??, this is fake name in the 10th century!

"The double cross symbol appeared again in rudimentary features on the first coins that Stephen I, the first king of the Kingdom of Hungary((((((:D HURRÁÁ, this is tru)))))))))) (part of which the territory of present -day Slovakia was from the 10/11th century), had minted at an unknown place. Before he became king in 1000, he was the prince of the Principality of Nitra in present-day Slovakia ((((((//Saint Stephen was born "Vajk"[4][5] in the town of Esztergom[4]. His father was Grand Prince Géza of Hungary[4]; his mother was Sarolt[6], daughter of Gyula of Transylvania [7] a Hungarian nobleman who.....//))))) and was living there with his BAVARIAN wife Gisella (((((By this marriage, the hungarian Stephan became the brother-in-law of the future Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor. )))))) in the old Christian center Nitra. Moreover, at the beginning of his rule, they lived in Prešporok((((Posonium((Pozsony))))))) (Bratislava today), a town in which coins of Stephan were provably minted at that time. The frequent opinion that the double cross was a cross that the Pope granted to Stephen I. around 1000 is still disputed. The opinion arose only in the 15th century based on a legend from the 12th century, which in addition only says that Stephen received an apostolic cross (i.e. a normal, not a double cross).........

Pff, This Article.......... szándékos csúsztatás, ezáltal a magyar vonatkozások minimalizálása! Félrevezetés, manipulálás!

HUNGARIAN-SLOVAK HISTORYBOOK????? NEVER!!!!!!!!

And the Slovak coat of arms was/is a hungarian symbol in the history and today!



YES THE DOUBLE CROSS IS A HUNGARIAN SYMBOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.56.97 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Except the symbol is much older than Hungary... --95.102.82.235 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nitra coat of arms:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Heraldry only appears around 12th century, so any claims that a heraldic symbol is older than that are bogus. Though heraldry did reappropriate some pre-heraldic symbols in a couple cases... 93.103.139.149 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

The main problem of "Bratislava" is that you don't see any citation of it before 1920. Do you? 164.129.1.42 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2008 (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.


 * 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)

More here: [] --Csendesmark (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Godfrey of Bouillon
I thought the Cross of Lorraine got its name from being on the coat of arms of Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lorraine, one of the outstanding figures of the First Crusade. Or was I misinformed? -Agur bar Jacé 14:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

???
"Béla was a member of the house of Árpáds and was named after the Prague bishop Adalbert" whatthe hell?! His name was BÉLA, NOT Adalbert. So why was he named after him, eh?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.234.218 (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

probably because béla is the hungarian form of albert... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.109.51 (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

his traditional Slovak view has been recently disputed

?! .. who where :) .. i never lisen something abouth that .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.1.74 (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Béla (Magyar /belɒ/, English /beɪlə/ "BAY-luh") is a common Hungarian male given name. according to the English/German/Pole Wiki Someone may create a Slovakian one to make this clear for them too. --Csendesmark (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Similarities with the Hungarian Coat of arms
I personally like the Slovakian coat of arms, because it's reflects the common history between the Slovak and Hungarian people. But I dislike the fact: they are trying to sell them as an original Slovakian symbols (hills double cross). Which is not in sync with the Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines ---> Neutrality

And also not helping people, the argue will never end this way.

Regards Csendesmark (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove the "Upper Hungary" denomination.
 * Don't expropriate the hills and the double cross (yeah yeah everyone can make an explonation)
 * remove all uncredited info --> all because there is a LOT of those (and I am not fan of those), which are degrade the quality of an article.
 * they are trying to sell them as an original Slovakian symbols (hills double cross) Really?


 * During the 11th century (and before: Svatopluk, Principality of Nitra...) the dukes of Nitra had almost unlimited power in their territory. The coat of arms of the duchy displayed the two-armed cross that was absorbed into the Hungarian state emblem as a symbol for upper Hungary.


 * Nitra coat of arms: Nitra_CoA.svg --Omen1229 (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear... I seen that before, but never was older than 91 years. (not a joke, searched for hours)

No matter how hard I tried, Svatopluk's coat of arms also was a dead end. (zero hit) :(

The only "old" coat of arms which I found is Nyitra County which shows the well known Árpád stripes+hills with double cross combo

I can't find an actual image taken from a Chronicon Pictum or seal on some document where we might see those.

The first appearance of the double cross obviuosly wasn't in Hungary, we sometimes call it "Bizánci kereszt" refering to the origin. We didn't say that. I was referring the composition of the hills and cross together.

You may help us if you can find something a solid proof about those coat of amrs.

--Csendesmark (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC) (ps.: I am also glad you interested in the Hungarian language :) )

The greater coat of arms
Hi, I would just like to point out this file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slovakia_coat_of_arms_big.svg It is the greater arms of Slovakia and I think it is a shame it is not included on this page. I will also mention this on the official Slovakia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenflight (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Image in question
The image with the description "The Byzantine double cross on great Moravian rings" does not match the description. The jewelry displayed clearly does not depict any double crosses. --Xavier (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this article a joke?
There are only two citations: One is disproving a previous statement in the article, the other refers to an unofficial design. The rest of the article might as well be completely made up (in fact the biased tone of it suggests that it is). Other than that there are citations needed in numerous places. The only external link seems to leads to a site about family and children (completely unrelated). There are no references connected to the picture of supposedly Moravian findings (it's referenced as "own work"), so we don't know if it comes from a trustworthy source. I don't see how this article fulfills any of the article policies: No original research, Neutral point of view or Verifiability. This is completely unacceptable.84.236.57.134 (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Coat of arms of Slovakia. 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/20150722115033/http://www.genealogy-heraldry.sk/eng/eng1.html to http://www.genealogy-heraldry.sk/eng/eng1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)