Talk:Russian Orthodox cross

src: cdn2.i-scmp.com

Video 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:??????? and bg:????? 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)

Maps Talk:Russian Orthodox cross

Clarification

Hello ???????? ??????! Regarding the {{clarify}} 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:

• 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 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)

• 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)

src: static.timesofisrael.com

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, Anupam^Talk 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 Y?zýkin (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Also I hardly understand Thomas Stevens' "angel Gabriel thing". Was it from some icon?--Lüboslóv Y?zýkin (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:User:???????? ??????, 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, Anupam^Talk 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 Y?zýkin (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, User:???????? ??????. 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, Anupam^Talk 14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

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 Y?zýkin (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 Y?zýkin (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)

src: si.wsj.net

Requested move 25 December 2017

Source of article : Wikipedia