Talk:Stephen I of Hungary

Artistic representation
I know this article is heading toward a feature article status. Can the Artistic representation section be better sourced and expanded or removed and added elsewhere because it lacks the coverage that other sections has in this article?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * , thank for your remark. I tried to find literature on the topic, but I failed. I have just made an attempt to seek assistance here. If it does not work either, I will delete the section in a couple of days. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Licence parameter problems
Dear Hchc2009 I am checking the images on Wikimedia Commons. Due to the GA-requirements I am deleting the problematic images (licence problems). Fakirbakir (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with the licences...? Have you nominated them for deletion yet? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fakirbakir, rather than deleting the images, it looks as though you simply need to add the PD-Art license to the original Commons files - see and  for more info. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (NB: I've fixed File:Istvan-ChroniconPictum.jpg for you as an example.) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009, No you have not not fixed it. We need two licences. 1, the licence of the author (the author who took the picture) 2, a US public domain licence. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Borsoka, the licence problems are fixed. Unfortunately I had to remove a couple of pictures. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have a look at File:Istvan-ChroniconPictum.jpg again - you'll see that the US PD license is there, and the Commons doesn't require a separate license to cover the photographer as the license tag notes that ""faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain"; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for more details of how this works. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (NB:User:Nikkimaria pinged, as the FA image reviewer, who knows more about this kind of thing than I do) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Hchc2009, maybe I was not clear. The Chronicon Pictum is PD, of course because it is an old chronicle. However, somebody went to a library and took photos about the Chronicon Pictum. We need the author's permission. "File:Istvan-ChroniconPictum.jpg" does not have the permission from the author who made the picture. The uploader did not say he/she took the photo. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have another look at the page I've just linked to, "Wikimedia Commons explicitly permits the hosting of photographs that carefully reproduce a two-dimensional public domain work; such photographs are in the public domain in the United States" - under US law, the photographer does not have any rights over the image they took of a Public Domain work. This is why the license that's now on the image file states "this photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain", and covers both the original PD image and the photograph of it. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Hc: Wikipedia goes by US law, which considers reproductions of a 2D work not original enough to warrant a new copyright. Other countries have other rules, but it appears that the copy was made in the US so that issue wouldn't apply here either. That image, and from a quick look the others being disputed also, can be included as public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But we still need a permission from the author (who made the photo).... Fakirbakir (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You would only need permission from the photographer if they held copyright over the image (e.g. if they took a photograph of a beautiful summer's day, for example, when they'd have copyright over the resulting photograph); as Nikki's noted, US law doesn't consider simply taking a photograph of a 2D work to generate any new copyright, so there's no permission needed before using the photograph. If you wanted to host the image (say) in the UK, that would be different, but the Commons operates the licensing on this using the US rules. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You must show evidence that the image is not under copyright. You cannot use a random image from the internet on Wikimedia Commons. If you upload an image and it is NOT your own work (your own photo) then you will have to explain the source of your image (even if the Chronicon Pictum is a "PD-document" it won't be enough). Fakirbakir (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, have another look at the image file. If you think that the picture wasn't first created in 1360, or that the original author of the Chronicon Pictum didn't die in the 14th-15th centuries, or that the PD-Art tag is incorrectly applied, then it's worth challenging it on the Commons (e.g. by proposing the file for deletion), but otherwise it does seem to be tagged and licensed correctly. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually that image should be deleted on Wikimedia Commons. The Chronicon Pictum belongs to the category of "PD-old" under US law, however the uploader did not state that he took the picture, in other words the photo is not his/her own work, therefore nobody knows where the photo comes from. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is not the uploader's own work, then he/she has to ask permission from the author. Or, he/she has to show evidence that the author of the photo has been dead for more than 70 years. Look at this image, I uploaded it, but it was not my own work. I had contacted Merja Salo who gave me permission. I followed the instructions of OTRS. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think it isn't a legitimate image for the Commons, then you should certainly put in a deletion request, but I'd be very surprised if you'd find the Wikipedia and Commons policies didn't support it being retained. Nikki (above) is a very experienced editor on image licensing and worth listening to - she does many of the Featured Article image reviews - and I'd strongly recommend rereading the linked pages above on the policies. It's also worth having a read through the Derivative Works section at WP:CFAQ for the legal background on this one.
 * You could of course challenge the nature of the original work, suggesting that it was not really made in the 14th century - although I note above that you do think it is a Public Domain work from an old chronicle.
 * I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of File:Khanty family.jpg to this discussion. The image is clearly a colour photograph of a modern family, dated to 2013, and I'd have thought it very unlikely to be justified for retention on the Commons on the basis of the PD_Art license...! The reason for OTRS in these cases is because the photographer, Merja Salo, has a copyright on the image, and it is important to know that he has genuinely released it under this license. As explained above, and in the linked pages, under US law this doesn't apply to straightforward photographs of 2-D Public Domain images. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the Commons's policies are quite strict. I am not talking about the writer of the Chronicon Pictum but the author of the photograph. I think Nikkimaria knows that beside the US-PD-tag (PD-Old, because the Chronicon Pictum was written hundreds of years ago) the uploader has to show permission for the use of photo if the photograph is not his/her own work. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The work was scanned by somebody in the US; in the US legally that person does not have copyright and so cannot grant or deny permission for use. The work is as free to use as if the uploader scanned it themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Nikkimaria, concerning the description of the "Istvan-ChroniconPictum.jpg", it says nothing about its origin. Actually, the image is not even user Korossyl's own work. Remember the first question when you upload an image ( "Is it your own work?" ).... Fakirbakir (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A slavish copy, which File:Istvan-ChroniconPictum.jpg is, does not require permission of the person making the copy because no new copyright has been created. We just need to know the creator of the original 2D image, when it was created and/or if it has been previously published. There is no need for further discussion because the image is properly licenced and described. If you don't like that please stand by your, unfortunately misguided, conviction and nominate it for deletion on the commons or, per the idiom, "put your money where your mouth is." ww2censor (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What? Look I removed some images because the article had been nominated for GA. Your personal attack will not help the case... The article will not pass if it features problematic images. You should know it.... Fakirbakir (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What we are telling you is that these images are not problematic according to Wikipedia's copyright policies. The image description specifies that it is an out of copyright image sourced to a facsimile edition at the University of Maryland (in the United States). That is enough to tell us that it is okay to use, regardless of who actually scanned the image, because that person does not hold any copyright and so we don't need permission from them. For File:Khanty_family.jpg, you needed permission because that was an original work, not a copy. But if I photocopied that image and you uploaded my photocopy, you would only need permission from the original author, not from me. That's the same thing that's happening here, except that the original image is so old that we don't need permission from its author either. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are repeating yourselves over and over and over and over again. It's not so complicated. No permission is needed from the photographer. Fakirbakir, please read the relevant page in Commons: commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. The Wikimedia Foundation's official position is that faithful reproductions of 2D, public domain works of art are themselves in the public domain. The photos themselves are also in the public domain. Taking a picture of an old painting or chronicle does not give you copyright in the US, according to the Wikimedia Foundation and according to Commons guidelines. You as a photographer have no say about who uses that photo, if the photo is a faithful reproduction of a 2D public domain work of art. I repeat for Fakirbakir: No permission is needed from the photographer as he/she does not hold copyright according to US law. The photo is in the public domain. Now head over to that Commons official policy page and try to fight your legal battle there. I doubt they will change the policy for you. Qorilla (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Qorilla, if you know the rules perfectly then please go and fix the thousands of problematic images on Wikimedia Commons. We always encounter these kind of problems ("US-PD template" is missing, obscure origin of the image...) when the articles are reviewed (e.g. GA nomination). Or, at least keep an eye on the GA nominations (Featured article candidates/Stephen I of Hungary/archive1 (image review), or Talk:Béla IV of Hungary/GA1). Fakirbakir (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually did just that a couple of days ago. I fixed a couple of dozens of licenses over at Commons related to the Chronicon Pictum. The ones included in this article have proper licenses now. Ideally, we would fix all the licenses, but I won't do that myself for a thousand images, I have better things to do. Probably it should be automated. But this issue is no longer related to this article, since these are properly licensed now, so no problem with the GA thing. Qorilla (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

King Saint Stephen vs. Saint Stephen
Do you think we should have something (possibly another redirect) that explains that King Saint Stephen is not Saint Stephen (the first century martyr)? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Religion
why Religion in the Infobox is Pre-Schism Catholic?(Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)).
 * Fair point. Overprecision: Catholicism before 1054 was pre-Schism Catholicism. Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * but why that?, Its much better to use Chalcedonian Christianity like the Article about Basil II, or just Roman Catholicism like Charlemagne. (Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)).
 * Yes, I modified, preferring the second version, becuase there were significant differences between the two versions of Chalcedonian Christianity centuries before the Great Schism. Borsoka (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Grimelda
, could you refer specialized sources (that is sources dedicated to Stephen I, the Árpáds) that use the "Grimelda" name? Reliable sources cited in the article do not name her, because her name is unknown. Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Agatha Arpad" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Agatha Arpad. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 05:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"Stephen 1 of hugary" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Stephen 1 of hugary. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dudhhr (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Quotes
Hello,

My quote was reverted. I am new and I am not exactly understand the quoting rules/system in the Wikipedia. Could you explain me how works? Because I see many quotes in many pages, even in this page. How can we decide what is good quote what is not?

I have put this quote to the page, because I thought it is relevant to the section of the origin of King Stephen. (Also I see this quote in the Hungarian wikipedia in the page of Bonfini.)

''Stephen of Heaven had Taksony as his grandfather, who born from the most ancient clan of the Huns, Géza as his father, Mihály as his uncle, and László Kopasz and Vazul as his cousins. It is said that Géza hated very much the Scythian savagery, began to recover from the pagan inhumanity of the Huns, and afterwards showed himself much more indulgent towards foreigners than towards his own people, namely, in order not to have to satisfy the infected and filthy spirit of the Hungarians by force and arms, he made so far an unknown peace with all the surrounding peoples. — Antonio Bonfini: Rerum Hungaricarum decades''

I see the Wikipedia rules, that "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe", but I see this also "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." and I though my quote is relevant, and of course I am not intend to add million of quotes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory

Could you explain me how works? And what was the problem with my quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionnimrod (talk • contribs) 09:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is primarily based on secondary sources. Primary sources can typically be used if their use is verified by a reliable secondary sources. The above quote does not contain facts that are not mentioned in the text and it represents a late 15th century scholarly view. Its notability in context is highly debatable. Borsoka (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)