Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen I of Hungary/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Colm (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2014 (diff).

---

Stephen I of Hungary

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the first King of Hungary who is also a popular saint in Central Europe. His feast is observed on 20 August which is also a public holiday in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• You give his dates as born 969/975 and a few lines later as in or after 975.

Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "He was born as Vajk in Esztergom." I do not think Vajk should be in bold and it is not clear that Vajk was a name - I would suggest clarifying by adding that he was baptised as Stephen.

Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "who was descended from the prominent family of the gyulas." This is used below as a personal name, which suggests that it should be capitalised.

It is both personal name and a title: the gyulas bore the name Gyula. I do not know what is the proper solution in this case. I think in this context their status/title is the important. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "the Church in Hungary developed independently of the archbishops of the Holy Roman Empire." Church should not be capitalised.

Thanks. According to the ODE, when referring to a particular group of Christians, the world should be capitalised. I think in this case we refer to the Christians in Hungary. However, I am not sure. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "He ensured the spread of Christianity among his subjects with severe punishments for ignoring Christian customs." This does not sound right to me. "ensured the spread of Christianity" is euphemistic and the conduct required of Christians is not just following customs. I am not sure of the best wording but perhaps "He suppressed paganism by imposing severe punishments."

Thanks. He not only suppressed paganism, but also punished those who did not follow Christian customs. He forced his subjects to visit churches, to observe feast days, etc. Actually, one of the missionaries (Bruno of Querfurt) clearly states that many Hungarians were blinded. I would not change the wording. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "He survived all of his children, which caused bitter conflicts among his relatives" This is a non-sequitur - a man surviving his children does not generally cause conflicts.

Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "but the reliability of this report is dubious." This sounds POV - "historians consider this report dubious"?

Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Stephen's official biography" What does official mean here? Commissioned by Stephen?

Thank you. Text added. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "His two other legends" Presumably the legends are titles of biographies, but was the official biog also a legend?

Thanks. Yes, there are three "Lifes of Saint Stephens". I added more info. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "these heavy-armed warriors" I would say heavily-armed.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, thank you for your througout review. I highly appreciate it. Please find my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

• "Grand Prince Géza died in 997.[12][26] Stephen soon convoked an assembly" Soon seems the wrong word. Perhaps "Grand Prince Géza died in 997,[12][26] and shortly afterwards Stephen convoked an assembly"

Thank you. I deleted "soon". Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "He also decided to marry Géza's widow, Sarolt" More details would be helpful. Did he marry her? If not, proposed would be a better word. If he did, was it by force?

Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "According to the interpolated deed of the foundation of the Pannonhalma Archabbey,[45] he also prescribed that Koppány's former subjects were to pay tithe to this monastery.[33] The same document declares that "there were no other bishoprics and monasteries in Hungary" at that time." This seems to me confusing. If it was a dubious interpolation into an unquestioned copy of early documents, this should be clarified. Tithe should be plural. Does the "same document" means the deed, and did it say that there were no other bishoprics and monasteries?

Thanks. I modified the text. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "When sending one part of Koppány's quartered corpse to Gyulafehérvár, the seat of his maternal uncle, Gyula the Younger, Stephen demonstrated his claim to reign all lands dominated by Hungarian lords." I do not understand this. Sending part of a corpse demonstrated his claim?

Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "which excludes that he ever accepted papal or imperial suzerainty" This is awkward. I suggest "and never accepted papal or imperial suzerainty"

Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "proves that his crown" I would prefer shows that his crown.

Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "[Duke Boleslav the Brave's] territory included a certain burg," It is not clear at first that this is a quote, maybe because it is next to an image. As with the Laws quote above, I think it is better to have something like "According to Thietmar of Merseburg's Chronicum:" before the quote so that readers know at the start what they are reading.

Thanks. I preferred to move the picture. (The quotation template already refers to Thietmar. There is no need to duplicate the information.) Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "About a hundred years later ... " It is probably my ignorance of the geography of the area, but I found this paragraph difficult to follow.

Thanks. Further info added. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "The reports by Anonymous, Simon of Kéza and other Hungarian chroniclers of the Bár-Kalán, Csák and other 13th-century noble families descending from Hungarian chieftains prove that other native families were also involved in the process." Prove seems a strong word for an apparent speculation.

Thanks. Text modified (although I think these reports actually prove that the ancestors of these families joined Stephen, because otherwise they would have lost their lands). Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Stephen abolished tribal divisions" This seems unlikely - presumably he abolished administration based on tribal divisions rather than persuading them all to be friends.

Thanks. Reference to tribes is deleted. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I will be on a wikibreak for two days. I can only continue editing on Saturday. Sorry. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A bit more

• "However, 500 Hungarian horsemen who accompanied Boleslav the Brave to Kiev already in 1018 indicate that Hungary had been included in the Peace of Bautzen between Poland and the Holy Roman Empire." This seems the wrong way round, assuming that the reader already knows about the Peace of Bautzen. I would suggest something like "In January 1018 Poland and the Holy Roman Empire concluded the Peace of Bautzen, and later in the same year 500 Hungarian horsemen accompanied Boreslav on a Polish expedition to Kiev, suggesting that Hungary had been included in the Peace."

Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• "For some night suddenly awakaned by some revelation, [Stephen] ordered a courier to hasten in one day and night to Alba..." The purpose of this quote is unclear. If it is illustrating a myth that he had magical powers, then this should be spelled out. Also "For some night suddenly awakaned by some revelation" is an odd translation into English.

Thanks. The sections were moved. I hope it is no clear. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Leodvin's report suggests that Stephen intervened in the war ending with the Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria in 1018.[112] However, the exact date of his expedition is uncertain.[111] Györffy argues that it was only in the last year of the war that Stephen led his troops against the Bulgarians, because in the previous years he had fought against the Poles." This is unclear. 'intervened' does not make clear which side he was on - perhaps something like joined the Byzantines in an attack on Bulgaria. Also what had the Poles to do with it? This needs explaining.
• "Stephen transferred his seat" and "his old seat". Does this mean his capital? A bishop normally has a seat, not a king.

Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Gerard, a member of the Sagredo or Morosini family" I think that the fact that he was an Italian Benedictine monk and future bishop is more relevant than his family.

Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• "At this same time, dissensions arose..." I do not see the point of this quote. It appears to give a completely different account of the invasion without any discussion of which is correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Sections were moved. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

• "A report, preserved in Stephen's legends, of an unsuccessful attempt upon the elderly king's life by members of his court indicate that Vazul was mutilated for his participation in the plot, according to modern historians." You say that the legends do not mention Vazul, so how can they indicate that he was mutilated for participation?

Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• " Andrew I of Hungary (r. 1046–1060), although he acquired the throne due to a pagan uprising, prohibited pagan rites and declared that all of his subjects should "live in all things according to the law which King St. Stephen had taught them"[165] following his coronation." The last phrase "following his coronation" is confusing as it appears to refer to Stephen. It could be deleted.

Thank you. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• "emphasized Stephen's severity, with Györffy's words, "in an unlegendary way"." This is ungrammatical. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of 'Artistic representation' is not referenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I need some more day to search for sources, because I have not found any. Borsoka (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. This is in many ways a good article and based on extensive research, although I do not have access to the sources to check how they are used. However, the point of view is not neutral. The statement that Stephen's hand was discovered miraculously is WP:POV and unencyclopedic, and original sources attributing magical powers and holiness to him are quoted uncritically. The extensive citation of early lives of Stephen is WP:OR. The claim that Stephen was the first member of his family to be a devout Christian is presumably disputed among historians as Kornel Bakay in the chapter on Hungary in the New Cambridge Medieval History III says that his policy of imposing Christianity on the Hungarians by force was a continuation of his father's policy. Bakay also says that Stephen continued his father's policy of avoiding foreign entanglements and using his army against local rivals and rebels, a point not discussed in this article. Bakay further attributes considerable influence to Henry II. Of course, this is only one historian's view, but the article appears to ignore the views of historians who do not take a strongly pro-Stephen line. I have done some copy editing, but the article needs a good deal more. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and copyedit. (1) I am convinced that the article is a neutral summary of Stephen's life. However, he is also a saint who is venerated because of miracles attributed to him. "Sainthood" in itself a POV - that is why it is summarized under a separate section. All quotes from primary sources are based on scholarly works, excluding OR. (2) No historians debate that he was the first Hungarian monarch to be a devout Christian. Yes, his parents (as it is mentioned in the article) were baptised, but they remained in fact semi-pagans who continued to sacrifice to "ancient gods" even after their baptism. (3) The article writes of Stephen's all known military actions (of both his wars against Poland, Bulgaria and the Holy Roman Empire, and his wars against local chieftains and tribes). (4) Sorry, I have no access to the New Cambridge Medieval History III, so I do not know what exactly Bakay writes of Henry II's influence - "considerable influence" is quite vague. (5) Who are the historians of the "less pro-Stephen line" whose POV was ignored? Borsoka (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I qualified the statement that Stephen's hand was found miraculously by adding "believed to be" and you reverted with the comment "it was miraculously found". This is POV. You also have quotes attributing miraculous powers and holiness to him cited to original sources, which is POV and OR. In a few other cases you cite original sources, for example for "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword", according to the Illuminated Chronicle". Bakay says "The conversion of the Hungarians involved violence as well, since Geza did not merely invite priests (Brun and Adalbert) to spread the faith but ruled as a tyrant over his people. According to Thietmar of Merseburg he killed large numbers of people, though he met considerable difficulties in oppressing rebels and rooting out pagan rites." Even if Stephen was the first king to be a devout Christian, this suggests that his policies were to a considerable degree a continuation of his father's, whereas the article presents them as a fundamental break with the past. Bakay says that "It was Henry II who promoted the organisation of the chancery of Hungary" and "It can also hardly be doubted that Henry II played a significant part in the conversion of the Hungarians to Christianity". This is a good article, but in my view it is not quite of FA standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I maintain that citing primary sources based on works of scholars who also refer to the same source is not OR. That Hungary was converted by force is clearly mentioned in the article: "He ensured the spread of Christianity with severe punishments for ignoring Christian customs" (in the lead), he "converted his uncle's "country to the Christian faith by force" after its conquest", and "Bruno of Querfurt's report of the Black Hungarians' conversion by force suggests that Stephen conquered their lands at the latest in 1009" (under the title consolidation). All the same, I understand your concerns. Thank you for citing Bakay's assumptions of Henry II's role as well. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The passage from Bakay I quoted above was about Geza not Stephen. The issue is not whether Stephen converted Hungary by force, but whether his policy of converting by force was a fundamental change from a nominal adherence to Christianity by his parents, as the article implies, or a continuation of his father's policy, as Bakay implies although he does not specifically say so. Bakay does specifically say that Stephen carried on his father's policy of using his army to increase his authority internally and avoiding foreign wars as far as he could. I know very little about Hungarian history, and other historians may take a different view, but these are crucial issues which an FA article should discuss, as for example x says a and and y says b. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no debate among historians that Géza's and Sarolt's Christianity was only nominal. Neither do debate historians that the Hungarians' conversion began under Géza who used force to convert his subjects. I do not understand Bakay's remark of Stephen's foreign wars, because Stephen waged wars against Poland, Kievan Rus, Bulgaria and the Holy Roman Empire. Maybe he should have launched expeditions against England and China as well? :) Borsoka (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Bakay wrote "In order to keep these strict laws Stephen needed a strong army which he used - much as his father had done - against potential rivals and magnates indifferent to his authority (for example Ajtony-Achtum) rather than abroad. He did not even intervene in the Polish-German war of 1003-18 until Boleslav-Chobry had occupied certain territories of the Hungarian kingdom in 1018. Instead he concentrated on converting the people, waging war in 1003 against Black Hungary". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by WP reader

I do not think that Kornél Bakay would be a reliable source by now. Formerly he was a great archaeologist, but today, he is only known for his non-mainstream views (e. g. according to Bakay, Jesus Christ was not Jewish). He is a regular guest at the far-right Jobbik party events. See more, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Best wishes, János Á. --77.234.75.119 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. However Borsoka says that it is the general view of historians that the forcible conversion of the Hungarians pre-dated Stephen's rule. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess that Cambridge Medieval History is a reliable source independently of Bakay's political views. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:King_saint_stephen_signature.svg: "based on" link is dead, image needs US PD tag
• File:Chronicon_Pictum_P037_Szent_István_születése.JPG: needs a US PD tag, and is it possible to translate the summary?
• File:Aftnn_King_Stephen,_who_we_reckon_was_responsible_for_Christianity_in_eastern_Europe.jpg: source link is dead
• File:Stephen's_forces_capture_Gyula.png needs a US PD tag
• File:Istvánkirály.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
• File:Chronicon_Pictum_P042_Óbudai_templom_alapítása.JPG needs a US PD tag
• File:Sainte-Dextre_Basilique_Saint-Etienne.jpg would not seem to be covered by freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you for your comments. For I do not clearly understand the above issues, I approached a fellow editor to assist me in fixing the problems. Borsoka (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion on primary sources

• Could I suggest a compromise on the primary sources issue raised above? I can see the particular problem of citing to primary sources in an article on this period - they require heavy interpretation. As you say, though, these particular sources are also used in reliable secondary works. Would there be any harm in giving both a reference to the primary source, and to a reliable secondary source that supports the use of the primary source in this way? (e.g. "Medieval chronicler I, p.34; see also Reliable modern historian, p.154") That way it would be clear that no OR is being undertaken, but you'd still have your link to the primary source? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• That is fine so far as the sourcing is concerned. The problem is that quotes claiming that Stephen was successful due to holiness and magical powers are inserted without context, not with the "heavy interpretation" which they require, as you say. If they are intended to show the views of later chroniclers, they should be in the legacy section, not apparently explaining the events themselves. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

All quotes from a primary source are based on an academic work. Would you please specify which are the quotes that you propose to move?

I would suggest keeping quotes from the laws and admonitions, but stating the source at the start as it is irritating to have to look at the end to see what you are reading. All these should have a citation in a secondary source as well as the primary one, as Hchc suggested. Glaber's comment on pilgrimage is contemporary and could be introduced with something like. "According to Rodulfus Glaber writing in about 1040 (?):" I would remove all the eulogistic quotes and use them or other quotes to illustrate your discussion of the chroniclers' view of Stephen. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the quote templates themselves make it clear that they are quotes. Why should we change them or duplicate the info? Maybe question mark could assist? Borsoka (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This is purely my personal preference not a requirement or a policy so far as I know, and does not affect the FAC. I find it more readable when the source of a quote is given at the beginning as something like "According to Rodulfus Glaber writing in about 1040:" instead of the name at the end. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.