Talk:House of Visconti
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Buzz Visconti, Duke of Hazzard"? Now wait a minute... --Cyrenaic -Addendum: Removed Buzz Visconti. For what I've found out, he's merely a medical official on films such as Kill Bill and an extra on a couple of films. No indication of being a member of the Visconti family. If anyone can produce any evidence of this, fine, but either way, he doesn't belong in the family tree from the 15th century. --Cyrenaic
Visconti is a surname with a clear meaning - "viscount". The èppoint is: viscount of what, and when? The two families - in Pisa and Milan - were most likely NOT related to each other. AFAIK, the Milanese Visconti came from lesser nobility, their ancestor was lord of Massino Visconti, Albizzate and Besnate. Online I've found to now ZERO sources, apart the redundant and translated Wikipedia itself, claiming a link between the two families. Same surname does not mean automatic kinship, even in the Middle Ages.
Separation of the two families (Pisan and Milanese)
I suggest to separate into a new entry ("Visconti of Milan") the part of the article concerning the Visconti of Milan. As stated above, they are two different families. The corresponding article in italian language (it:Visconti) is entirely devoted the Visconti of Milan. A separate article is about Visconti di Pisa (it:Visconti di Gallura). Naming explicitely the Visconti of Milan and thus keeping three different articles ("Visconti" for disambiguation, "Visconti of Milan", "Visconti of Pisa") seems to me a better solution. --Bg69 (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Caption under image of Biscione
The serpent prior to biblical times was a sign of goodness. The human in the mouth of the snake is proposed to be a Saracen who were perceived as evil in Christian history. The symbol therefore depicts the triumph of Good over Evil.
This is a highly problematic caption for a neutral and factual encyclopaedia to allow. It needs immediate editing or it will remain a clear indication of how Wikipedia is becoming corrupted, misleading and unreliable.
To say that because 'prior to Biblical times', ie before circa 70AD at least, the serpent was a sign of goodness, the family who took up this symbol over one thousand years after Biblical times did so in reference to that very ancient and defunct symbology rather than symbology prevailing at that time and for centuries preceding its use is plainly ridiculous. And then to assign this 'good' triumphing over evil' interpretation to the symbol because of that ancient and so irrelevant pre-Biblical symbology is a gob-smacking assault on logic as well as plain old common sense.
If the author is trying to refer to more contemporaneous pagan symbology which survived in varying degrees in those regions, then the author needs to state this clearly with references, or not at all.
The image is very plainly of a human being with the lower half of its body inside the mouth of a serpent/dragon-like creature. To suggest that this is a representation of 'good triumphing over evil' requires a very clear and thoroughly referenced and balanced discussion, which this is absolutely not. In the absence of such a study worthy of an encyclopaedia, I would strongly suggest removing all in that caption following the first sentence ending 'swallowing a human'. It is currently not good at all for Wikipedia's reputation (to put it mildly).