Talk:Russian Orthodox cross

NPOV issues?
This page seems to have a Russian Orthodox slant. Is the Orthodox cross more notable in that tradition, or should this be fixed to maintain a neutral point of view? 153 [x] 00:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I can judge from sr:Крстови and bg:Кръст and the result of some google-searching, the Serbs and the Bulgarians do not use it widely and sometimes call it Russian. But I am not sure, may be an opinion from the Balkan Slavs or the Greeks would be helpful. What I can confirm thoroughly, it is very typical for the East Slavic (Russian, Belorussian/Belarusian and Ukrainian) tradition and for the Russian one especially. In Internet jewelry stores it is also usually called "Russian".--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As a Greek I agree. The Russians and Ukrainians use a distinct cross, but for Greeks, Romanians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Arabs and so forth, there is no such thing as an Orthodox cross, with three or two bars. Actually the cross you find in early Christianity and in the East is the one where all parts have the same length, and no additional bars. The bottom slanted bar is certainly not found before the 15th century, and therefore despite the tradition that emerged later, there is no way to connect it with St Andrew. We should stop calling the Russian cross 'the' Orthodox cross, this is insulting to everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.199.125 (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've got your point. The problem is that the word "Orthodox" has some shades of meanings. You understand it in its sense that is all non-Catholic and non-Protestant Eastern churches. When I created the page I assumed that this type of the cross exists/existed not only in the Russian Church but in other Eastern churches, and moreover it came to Russia from Byzantium (like most Christian traditions also). I've added at least three sources where it is called Orthodox. Though I'm not sure that the St Andrew's cross has any connection with the three-bar cross.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

While it is true that all things Christian came to Russia via Byzantium, there has been a distinct Russian flavour in some things such as vestments, music (ok, it is a long story to bring in here how Russia lost its traditional music after Peter the Great), and also the cross style. The downward bottom slant does not appear in Byzantine sources, and even where we see a slanted footrest (in Constantinople, Jerusalem, Moldova until the 16th century), it is slanted upwards. The downward slant seems to be a particularly Russian and/or Ukrainian innovation, as it does not traditionally exist in other Slavic or Balkan countries either. Therefore, as it is not used by most Orthodox traditions (although it certainly belongs to one Orthodox tradition), we may refer to it as a cross that exists in the Orthodox world, but not as THE Orthodox cross. I am also taking off the mention to St Andrew, unless anyone can add a reliable (and not very recent) source that makes this connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.186.55 (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
Hello Любослов Езыкин! Regarding the tag I added the other day, I think changing "is usually" to "can be" as you did was an improvement in the wording, but it wasn't why I added the tag. The sentence in question is: I just don't see how you can attach a [horizontal] cross beam above the vertical beam and not across it. If that were the case, then it wouldn't be attached to anything—if a horizontal beam is attached to a vertical one, it will be across it. We are talking about a cross after all. Unless you mean on top of the vertical beam, so it makes a "T" shape? Best regards. Braincricket (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In Russia, the top crossbeam can be absent; however, in the Russian North it can be attached above the vertical beam and not across it.
 * I didn't realize that I would make such an ambiguity. :) I should answer on your discussion page and not simply add Russian sources (which English speakers can not read). Anyway I will answer here. Yes, the top beam makes a T-shape of the upper part of the cross. So you can see a modern picture and this Russian icon made in 1500 in a monastery in Vologda Region. Now I'm not sure if it's right to say that it's not across, so you can correct the phrase as you wish.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks for the clarification. I am just nitpicking what is otherwise a very nice article. The subject was new to me and I enjoyed learning more about it. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Cross triumphant over crescent
Can we put in the cross over crescent, a testimony to Orthodox victory of the muslim Tatars? 94.208.193.73 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just added it in, along with a reference. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I did not check the article and did not see this. No, it is absolutely wrong. Some so-called historians who write about Russia have no idea about actual Russian history whatsoever. The crescent under the cross has been existed before the Mongols and Tatars (see this research by an actual Russian historian).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also I hardly understand Thomas Stevens' "angel Gabriel thing". Was it from some icon?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:User:Любослов Езыкин, thank you for your concern and for the addition of your reference by B.A. Uspensky. The former claim about the conquest of Kazan was buttressed by China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, an academic journal and thus, a reliable source. WP:NPOV states that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As such, since we have two views--one by Didier Chaudet and the other by B.A. Uspensky, it is best to present both of them and attribute these views to the respective authors. I have made the appropriate edits and have done this. I hope this helps and hope you have a great day! With regards, AnupamTalk 15:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe there are also rules which state that sources cannot contradict facts and some sources can be defined as unreliable. a) Chaudet is not a Russian historian, does not specialize in Russian history, most likely does not speak Russian at all, and hardly knows anything about Russian orthodox symbolism - check. b) His statements "After all, the emblem of the Orthodox Church is a cross on top on a crescent" and "this symbol was devised by Ivan the Terrible, after the conquest of the city of Kazan, as a symbol of the victory of Christianity over Islam through his soldiers" are not true and blatantly contradict facts and as well as such phrases like "It is said" (by whom?) more likely shows his incompetence in this question - check. I believe he inserted these sentences in his work just "by the way", "heard something here, something there". Thus, we can ascertain his source as unreliable. We really can just simply throw it out as well as the ambiguous 120 year-old statement by Stevens (he's even worse - just a traveler and writer). By contrast, Boris Uspensky is a well-known professional historian who specializes in the history of Russian Christianity and his work entirely covers this question. I think the choice is pretty obvious. I think you just did not read Uspensky's work.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, User:Любослов Езыкин. I did indeed read Uspensky's article and in fact, added a quote from him to the article. As he is a historian, I believe his view adds value to the article (though I myself have never heard this view and believe it to be speculation). On the other hand, Chaudet's view is one that is far more prevalent, also mentioned in the Orthodox Arts Journal and The Baltimore Sun, just to name a couple sources. If you noticed, I also added a reference from another academic journal-- the Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, which also corroborates Chaudet's view; the quote states "Finally, the Russians, under Ivan the Terrible, defeated the Tatars in 1552 and firmly established Russian rule. In celebration of this conquest, the czar built two churches in the Moscow Kremlin and on the spires of the Church installed the Orthodox Cross over an upside down crescent, the symbol of Islam." Since scholarly sources present this view as well, to be neutral, we must include both views, appropriately attributing those views to the authors. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Disputed title
This article should be called Russian variation of the orthodox cross because it is the russian orthodox cross.IlikePie132 (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Though I dont know too much about Orthodoxy, I yet haven't seen this version of the cross in Greek Orthodoxy, I've only seen it in Slavic Orthodoxy. Despite this I think any Christian would embrace it, due to its historical relevance and origins as outlined in the wikipedia page itself. Citing this cross being used even in Israel. Trasat88 (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not Russian, it has not been invented by Russians, even though now it is most widespread in Russian Orthodox Christianity and symbolism. We did not call the Latin alphabet English or Spanish just because it is now mostly used in the English and Spanish speaking worlds.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is the Russian variation of the orthodox cross because i did an essay on the orthodox cross and i got an F because i used this and it is the Russian variation.IlikePie132 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it is the problem of narrow-mindedness of your teacher then. It can not be Russian when there are mosaics with this cross from Greece from at least the 11-the century, when ancient Russia (Rus') had been just Christianized ("officially" in 988, if you do not know).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well no it is your problem because the article has pictures of the Russian one and it is the exact same thing.So don't leave another single comment here until you learn something idiot.IlikePie132 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. Calling people names serves no purpose. Hairy Dude (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not right. The Russian variant of the cross does not appear before the 17th century. In all the older crosses with a slanted footstool until then, the footstool is slanted the other way, indicating an upward movement rather than a downward one, and they have nothing to do with the judicial view of the two thieves. The example of a downward cross that is offered here is from a 17th century copy. This cross is clearly a Russian innovation and simply does not appear anywhere before the Russians invented it. If anyone has an earlier source with a downward footstool, they should publish an article on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.14.3 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (non-admin closure)  sami  talk 18:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Orthodox cross → Russian Orthodox cross – According to the majority of sources provided in the article, as well it's a modern symbol of the Russian Orthodox Church. Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - "Orthodox" is currently too unclear, it could mean other "orthodox" denominations.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, to disambiguate the title which in its current state may be confusing.  CookieMonster755  ✉    03:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but I have some comments. First, it was not originally Russian, nor it was invented there. It has its origins in the Greek Byzantine Church and was gradually spreading into Russia since only around the 15th century. The reasons why it has disappeared from the Greek Byzantine Church, but become predominant in the Russian Church are not clear for me, though. For that historical fact at least a couple of sources explicitly name it "Byzantine" (though, I must admit always alongside with "Russian"). The final remarks, which may be less important for some, but more important for others, that for the current state of affairs it does not belong to Russia in its narrow meaning (the Russian Federation), but only if to "Greater Russia" in its wider spiritual or historical meaning. Those three things I bore in mind when I created/named this article. However, the more important thing may be that other Orthodox Christians such as Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, to name a few, may have stronger objections against such a plain general name ("Orthodox"). Indeed, in spite of the history, this variation is the most distinctive for the Russian Church today than for anything else. We may just mention that it was not always that.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME, if it is currently called "Russian Orthodox Cross" then it shouldn't be omitted. That would be the commonly recognizable title by modern day people.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 7 July 2018
Russian Orthodox cross → Orthodox cross. There is an article Russian cross (religion) about the authentic Russian Orthodox cross introduced in the 17th century. This article is about the Orthodox cross (☦), or Byzantine Orthodox cross, since it is traditionally used by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople from the 6th century. The present name "Russian Orthodox cross" creates confusion, and should be the title for Russian cross (religion).--User:W 7:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not right. The cross that is found in Constantinople in the 6th century, although by no means used exclusively as the only style of cross, has the bottom crossbeam slanted the other way. In fact, every cross with a bottom slanted crossbeam ANYWHERE before the 17th century has the crossbeam slanted the other way. If you find any evidence to the contrary please post it. But until then, please do not make uninformed statements.


 * Oppose According to the majority of provided sources nowadays this cross is associated with Russian Orthodox church and called Russian (Orthodox) cross. In Wikipedia the articles are named according to the most common name. So it doesn't matter when and where ☦ was introduced. Anyway the rare usage (mostly in the past) of ☦ by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople doesn't mean that this cross should be called "Orthodox". In fact different orthodox churches use different crosses and all of these crosses could be called "Orthodox". So it's a violation of NPOV to make ☦ more "orthodox" than other orthodox crosses. Moreover so called "authentic" Russian Orthodox cross is a classic original research. There are no reliable sources about place and time of its introduction. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read about the Russian cross (Russian Orthodox cross) above again, because it is not original research and is based on reliable sources. There is only one name and country for it, not just common. For the same reason it matters that the Orthodox cross was introduced by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 6th century, long before Russia existed. The Orthodox cross deserves its shortened name instead of the Byzantine Orthodox cross, because the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople also introduced the Byzantine cross. Shortening the name to the Orthodox cross does not make it more Orthodox than other crosses used in different Orthodox churches.--User:W 12:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First, the source about introduction of so-called "authentic" Russian cross in 1654 isn't reliable. It's just an online article on the website of a some local newspaper, written by the person who isn't a recognized scientific expert in the field of history and religion. Moreover for now this article is removed from the website . So I'm going to remove this statement from the Russian cross because it's false and the reliable sources (e.g. Изотова О., Касперович Г., Гурко А., Бондарчик А. Кто живет в Беларуси. — Минск: «Беларуская навука», 2012. С. 740) don't mention such information. Second, according to Article titles it doesn't matter what ☦ "deserves". According to the majority of the reliable sources it's known as "Russian (Orthodox) cross", so it should be described in Wikipedia under the most common name "Russian (Orthodox) cross". Moreover, name "Orthodox cross" for ☦ creates a very dangerous confusion because it's impossible to solve it using or any other template. All the crosses using by the Orthodox churches are Orthodox, including Greek Orthodox cross, Serbian Orthodox cross, Bulgarian Orthodox cross etc. The name Russian Orthodox cross for ☦ is completely fair because only in Russia this cross started to use without any restriction. Only in Russia ☦ started to be depicted on state coats of arms and military banners, only Russian ultranationalists use this cross on their banners. So this cross became a part of Russian culture and a distinctive feature of the Russian cultural landscape. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I really do not know how that has happened that the new article you suggest was in your user space and it was actually, not you, who moved it to the main space, but now Kazimier Lachnovič seems to be against it. What really was that? Whatever, that article is clearly WP:FORK, and at best it must be redirected to this article, at worse deleted altogether. Moreover, I see it's some sort of original research, because it claims the cross was created the 17th century which is not true. I do not much against the current name of this article, because for the current period it is indeed more associated with Russia and the vicinity than with the broader Orthodox world, even though it was not invented in Russia, but originally came from Byzantine. I do not, though, know what to do with the current disambiguation page, to merge or not. Probably, better not.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I tried to find a consensus with User:W, but now I find out that it doesn't work. So I'm not against merging Russian cross (religion) with Russian Orthodox cross. And in my opinion it's better to leave disambiguation page. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The article Russian cross (religion) was originally created in the main space under the name Russian Orthodox cross. Then it was moved without authorisation the way you described. The article Russian cross (religion) claims that "At the Moscow church council in 1654 the patriarch Nikon of Moscow promoted the decision to replace the eight-pointed Orthodox cross (☦) with the six-pointed Russian cross" which is true and is not the original research. The association of the broader Orthodox world with Russia is common among Russians, but is not correct. Most of the Orthodox Christians in English-speaking countries are Greeks and Bulgarians (speaking of the Slavic peoples), which brings back the inaccuracy of the name for ☦. Even according the Unicode it is Orthodox cross.--User:W 21:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually there are no sources for the statement "At the Moscow church council in 1654 the patriarch Nikon of Moscow promoted the decision to replace the eight-pointed Orthodox cross (☦) with the six-pointed Russian cross". Your only reference doesn't exist. So I created a redirect to Russian Orthodox cross. And please, stop violate the naming policy  or I have ask administrators to protect the article. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is really an open question how to consider the 6-pointed cross: as a variant of the 8-pointed one, or on its own. I do not really see why we have to call the 6-pointed variant "Russian", while not allowing this designation to the 8-pointed one as well. You claim the 6-pointed variant was installed in 1654. Unfortunately, that information is not very obviously stated in this document. However, other sources indicate that the newly installed cross was actually 4-pointed ; obviously that saw an opposition, because such a cross was thought as "Latin".
 * In any case, the 6-pointed variant may well have existed before that date. And there is no obvious reason why exactly this variant must be called "Russian". E.g. the 8-pointed variant is clearly seen in the seal of Ivan IV. Nikon himself wore exactly this.
 * Actually, it seems Nikon favoured this variant (though it is rather 7-pointed). So this may be argued that the 8-pointed they used is not "Russian", but generally "Orthodox". Which actually was in the early version of this article. But there was a claim that this must be re-designated as "Russian", and the move was done. Alright, but that means we have two "Russian" crosses, 6- and 8-pointed, and your article is a fork. And it seems you have tried POV-pushing in Russian WP as well.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oversourced (and other issues)
First, giving 37 (!) sources to the statement that this cross is called "Russian" is utterly ridiculous. This article does not need that much.

Second, I remind all the editors, particularly Kazimier Lachnovič, this is not Belarusian, neither Ukrainian or Russian WP, but the English one. Half a dozen of sources in R/B/U is OK, but several dozens is clearly out of place. Especially, when a lot of them "prove" the only thing that this cross is called "Russian", and called not in English, but in other languages (!). What is the point of that? If we need to decide how this cross is called in English we should use English sources and not find scores of sources in other languages and "translate" it into English. To whom do you address all this non-English sources? Who are supposed to read all of them? Once more, this is English WP, and the readers are supposed to be English speakers (native or not) who unlikely know and will read in Belarusian, Ukrainian, etc. Another bad side of it, this makes an impression of strangely giving a preference to the sources in Belarusian. Why is that? If the article speaks about something "Russian" (as you insist), it may be logically to use some sources in Russian (but again, not too many, just a few), but not in other languages, until they say something really unique (and this is not the case).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not against removing the R/B/U sources or replacing them with English ones where it is possible. I added as many sources as possible trying to protect this page from such edits . Unfortunately it didn't work. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Needs revisiting
If the NPOV issues were resolved in the previous conversations on the Talk Page, then, other editors must have gradually reversed any NPOV content. The article, incorrectly, claimed that this is exclusively Russian Orthodox in origin and in use with a few sentences claiming that it is not used in other Orthodox churches. That claim contradicts much of the sourced and accurate content. One particularly bizarre section of sentences claimed that the cross is "mistakenly" "misnamed" the Byzantine cross while, in the next clause, describing that it was used in Byzantine culture itself. How is it a mistake to say it is a Byzantine cross if it was used by Byzantine culture before the modern Russian Orthodox Church itself? In any event, those contradictions devalue the otherwise useful and informative content of the article. Furthermore, some of the sources seem vague or questionable.

As someone who was, and I suppose still is, an Eastern Orthodox Christian because I was chrismated Orthodox, it is concerning to see such erroneous claims that detract from the actual historical usage and nomenclatures of this cross among the Orthodox churches of the Eastern Orthodox communion. As someone with an MDiv. who has studied Eastern Orthodoxy, in addition to having been a lay member, I can say that much of the content as it stood ranged from misleading to just false.SeminarianJohn (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)