Talk:Principality of Nitra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Name

I think it would be less confusing if only one form of the principality's name is consistently used in this and other Wikipedia's articles. Since we say "Duchy of Burgundy", Duchy of Saxony, and "Principality of Monaco", it would be better to use the form "Principality of Nitra" (as I chose creating this article) instead of "Nitrian Principality". The state was named after a geographic location (the estates of Nitra), not after a tribal name of non-existing Nitrians. Therefore, I will fix this in the text of the article (except the lead where other forms of the name should be mentioned) and in the template "History of Slovakia". Tankred 10:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are the following problems in what you write: (1) The name form Nitrian principality IS frequently used in recent texts (the reasons are irrelevant), and in general trying to find any "logics" in the names of historical countries etc. is very weird, (2) Nitra was called Nitria (Nyitria) in the past, (3) there is no rule whatsoever saying that one name form must be used everywhere in the wikipedia if there are several alternative names, as long as all the names are properly linked of course. Juro 18:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, your points are valid, but my idea was just to make the articles about Slovak history more user-friendly, especially for English-speaking people with little or no previous knowledge about the topic. Tankred 20:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OKJuro 22:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason of the template

This article is a complete nonsense although it fits perfect into the Slovak current politics. for example:"The principality is the oldest known state of the (proto-)Slovaks." Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmate (talk • contribs) 10:08, April 8, 2008

(proto)-Slovaks

I hope I do not have to link all the debates and articles from around the recent invention of Ján Slota: the "proto-Slovaks". All our Slovak friends are (I am sure) aware of this and the mainstream historian viewpoint, even between Slovak historians (!) that this is nothing but a nationalist history invention. The media was full with this, as well as Juraj Jánosik, so no suprise, why is this:[1] constantly getting deleted, since this was even more awkard (history) invention than the usuals are. I removed the line wich contained the expression "(proto)-Slovak", and replaced where needed with "Slavic". --Rembaoud (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend focusing on adding sources to this article. --Elonka 06:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I formatted the sources, copyedited a bit; also removed the reference for noble families, as we could see at the respective articles, their ancestry is not that clear. I suggest writing an article about Michael of Árpád(?) (see List of rulers in Slovakia), who allegedly ruled from 977 to 995. Squash Racket (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(from the main discussion page) I just looked at the history of the article a little better and the present version is almost exclusively the work of user:Juro with minor changes from other users. Actually Tankred's first version wasn't that bad but it was completely rewritten by Juro ([2]) using the edit summary "correct factual errors, added substance", this is the version that's mostly remained unchanged and functions as the present version of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Juro incidents all seem to be quite old, from nearly a year ago. My advice is, that if you don't think the article is good, then go ahead and edit it. The editing restrictions that I've been placing are only on reversions, not on good faith editing. To be clear:

• If you see something you don't like in the article, go ahead and change it.
• If someone removes a sentence, that you don't think should have been removed, add it back with a source.
• If someone else adds something that you think is "wrong", add a {{fact}} tag to it, and then if they don't provide a source in a reasonable amount of time, delete it.
• If someone adds sources that you don't think are good sources, bring them up here at the talkpage. Explain why you think that they're bad sources, and get other editors' opinions. If there's consensus that it's a bad source (or if no one objects) it can be removed from the article.

See also bold, revert, discuss cycle. No one (in good standing) is going to get in trouble for a single revert, if they explain their reasoning on the talkpage. As for those editors on 30-day revert limitations, they can still edit, they just shouldn't revert. And they can still participate at the talkpage. That's what the limitation is meant to do, to prevent those editors who seem to be unable to control themselves from edit wars, and let those editors who can control themselves, work on creating a consensus version of the article. So be bold, go ahead and edit!  :) --Elonka 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Principality of Nitra?

Sorry, but I must raise my "neverending" question: what is the primary source that mentions the "Principality of Nitra". Although Pribina (not "Prince" Pribina) is mentioned in the Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, but he is not mentioned as a prince, a duke, a count, but merely as "a certain Priwina". Moreover, Nitra is not mentioned in any of the primary sources as the capital of any principality, but it is merely referred as Pribina's (or Archbishop Adalram's) possession. Without a primary source proving that contemporaries called the territory "Principality of Nitra" or called Nitra as the capital of a state, it is difficult to argue that such a principality ever existed.

Some members of the Árpád family were dukes (not princes) of "One-third of the Kingdom of Hungary", but their territories was never mentioned as "Principality of Nitra". E.g., Duke Vazul is only connected to Nitra by the tradition that he was kept prisoner in Nitra (and he was never mentioned as duke of Tercia pars Regni). The three brothers, Géza, Ladislaus and Lampert inherited their father's duchy, but it is clearly connected to territories over the Tisza in the Chronicon Pictum.

If we cannot find a primary source mentioning the "Principality of Nitra", we could call it "Barony of Bratislava", "Archduchy of Devín" or "High Principality of Anybody-who-lived-in-the-time-of-Moimir-but-who-was-not-Moimir" and we could create a history (e.g. the Archduchy of Devín was united with the Barony of Bratislava forming the One-third of the Kingdom of Hungary, that could also be called as "Abbey Temporal of Zemplín Castle").

I must really apologize for the cynical style of the last paragraph, but I have been desperately seeking for a primary source, and I have always been referred to modern works. Borsoka (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

References

An anon editor blanked some references from the article.[3] I have no opinion on the quality of those references, but simply removing them without discussion is not appropriate. If an established (named) editor feels that there is a problem with the references, please feel free to edit the article, and/or bring up concerns here at talk. --Elonka 13:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The same happened at Pribina.--Svetovid (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the references. The url of one of the sources (Struggle..) doesn't lead to an actual online source, so it would be more appropriate to give relevant page numbers/section titles of the book. The next address is the main page of Britannica online, again the title of the relevant encyclopedia article in which you've found the info would be better.

The publisher of the third source inserted is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Slovakia, it's not a neutral source, but acceptable. Squash Racket (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There are concrete pages referenced.
"the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Slovakia, it's not a neutral source" - you need to back this accusation up.--Svetovid (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you tell me which article is page 1185 in Britannica?

Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Slovakia is not a neutral source. The ministry is working to improve the image of the country, they can't be seriously considered as a neutral source at the same time. But still, better than nothing. Squash Racket (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What does the sourced info have to do with Slovakia's image? Moreover, governmental sources are considered reliable at Wikipedia and we are dealing with historical facts, not qualitative features. Do not pass your personal opinion as universal rule. If you do have problem with governmental information in general, there are other places in Wikipedia where you should address this.--Svetovid (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Governmental sources at WP:FAC are regularly considered non-neutral and asked to be removed/replaced by neutral, academic sources. Still I said it was "acceptable", "better than nothing".

Would you please tell us in which Britannica article you've found the information? I'm asking for the third time now. Squash Racket (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the last sentence again ("But still, better than nothing"). Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A primary source, please. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Borsoka, just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, what do you mean by a primary source? Wikipedia's definitions are here: WP:PSTS. See also WP:SOURCES. --Elonka 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, Wikipedia's definition is perfect for me. E.g., the Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum is a par excelence primary source, although it does not mention the Principality of Nitra. However, other primary sources may prove that the "Principality" existed and contemporaries realised its existence. Borsoka (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources."--Svetovid (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that some secondary sources cited in the article seems to contradict the primary source referred by them; therefore, they cannot be reliable. E.g., a former version of the article stated that the Bavarian Geographer's work mentions the existence of 30 castles in the territory of the Principality of Nitra. If you read the Bavarian Geographer's work, you will realise that he did not mention the Principality of Nitra but he stated that the Merehanos had 30 castles who probably lived south of the Bulgars. Borsoka (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on published secondary sources. Our own interpretation of primary sources would be an example of the prohibited original research. The political unit described in this article is referred to in the Slovak and Czech historiography as the Principality of Nitra. Published sources may be found in Great Moravia. Since most work on this topic has been done by Czech and Slovak archaeologists/historians, the usage of this name has already penetrated the English language. I do not know any other alternative name used in English. Those few contemporary Frankish sources are not the only source of information about the principality. Much of what we know comes from the archaeological research. That is another reason why we should use modern secondary sources instead of relying solely on primary sources. On the other hand, there are two different interpretations of the Bavarian Geographer. I think this article should just copy the NPOV explanation from Great Moravia, where both interpretations and the original text are mentioned. Tankred (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." Based on the cited sections, I understand that we can use primary sources. My view is, that in this specific case (i.e, the history of Slovakia in the Middle Ages), we should clearly cite the primary sources used by the secondary sources, because some secondary sources seem to follow an exlusive interpretation. E.g., a former version of History of Slovakia stated that the Bavarian Geographer mentions the existence of 30 castles on the territory of the Principality of Nitra. If you read the Bavarian Geographer's work, you will realise that it does not contain any reference to the Principality of Nitra. Moreover, the "Merehani" having 30 castles are located in the southern part of the Carpathian Basin by a reliable, third party (Russian) published source (http://www.histline.narod.ru/bav-geogr.htm). In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I suggest that we should clearly distinguish between the primary source and its interpretation in the articles. Nevertheless, I will happily read interpretations of the primary sources (e.g., the history of the supposed Principality of Nitra) if any readers of the article can realise that it is only one interpretation of the sources cited. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Much of what we know comes from the archaeological research." In this case, we should clearly refer to this fact in the article. E.g., "Although contemporary written sources did not mention an independent Slav political entity (denominated "Principality of Nitra" by later authors) on the territory of Slovakia in the beginning of the 9th century, archaeological researches may prove its existence. Several fortresses and their destruction are dated to the beginning of the 9th century which may be interpreted that the "Principality of Nitra" had been flourishing for about 30 years before it was occupied by a neighbouring state. However, based on archaeological finds with characteristics of nomadic people, other researches attribute the building and destruction of most of the fortresses (especially, of the burgwalls) to the Avars who had been ruling the territory for more than 300 years and were defeated by the Franks during a fierce struggle documented by contemporary sources." Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a ban on research? That would be fun, since whatever you write here or wherever is a form of original research... PS: the first question we should decide, based on sources, that this entity has ever existed, or just another invention. There's a good book for this and such debates to cut short: Eduard Krekovič, Elena Mannová, Eva Krekovičová: Mýty naše slovenské, Bratislava, AEPress, 2005, ISBN 8088880610 --Rembaoud (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Based on these sentences, my understanding is that the citation of a primary source, in itself, would not contradict to our widely accepted standards. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: If a secondary source says something contrary to a primary source, this does not mean that the secondary source is incorrect. Be aware that primary sources are routinely incorrect. That's why we rely on secondary sources, to get access to the information through the eyes of historians who read the primary sources, debate those sources with other historians, do their own research, and write thoughtful essays reflecting the state of modern scholarship. History is an ever-evolving body of knowledge. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect an accurate summary of modern scholarship. We're not supposed to dig back into the primary sources and second guess modern historians. A few primary source quotes, if they're the kinds of things which are quoted by modern scholars, may be appropriate to include, but they should only be used for emphasis or illustration, and not as a way of drawing a different conclusion. --Elonka 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that contradiction between a primary source and a secondary source, in itself, does not mean that the secondary source is unreliable. Obviously, even primary sources may contradict each other, and historians can (or cannot) resolve the contradiction or decide in favour of one of the primary sources. However, referring to primary sources and mentioning that they prove the existence of something that is not mentioned in the primary sources would mislead our community. Naturally, I would be glad at reading several interpretations of the facts, but the article followed only one reading of the sources. As I understand, the current version of the text does not draw up different conclusions, but it only differentiate between sources and interpretations. Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If the current article is only focusing on one interpretation, where there are in actuality multiple significant interpretations in modern sources, then yes, that would be a violation of Wikipedia's policy on undue weight. Our goal is to provide a summary of modern scholarship, including all significant views, even if those views disagree, as long as the views are presented in the proper proporation. Where things get dicey is if we need to determine whether or not a particular view is "significant", but again, this is dependent on secondary sources, not primary. --Elonka 12:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If my understanding is correct, a balanced representation of views is necessary and the last changes did not harm this principle (I hope). Sorry, but finally, I must repeat my favourite question: is there any (at least nearly) contemporary source mentioning a "Principality of Nitra" or an "independent-country-existing-in-the-territory-of-present-day-Slovakia-until-it-was-occupied-by-Moimir"? I agree that the lack of written contemporary sources does not necesserily mean that such principality did not exist, but it is a relevant fact that should be clearly underlined in the article, because it is unusual that a political entity, with a territory covering most of Slovakia and parts of other countries, existed without being realised by the neighbouring states. Borsoka (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Contemporary scholarly sources which mention "Principality of Nitra"[4]
• Contemporary scholarly sources which mention Nitra and "Prince Pribina"[5]
• Multiple books (which may or may not be reliable) which mention the Principality of Nitra: [6]

Elonka 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But I knew that there were several secondary sources mentioning the "Principality of Nitra". My only question: what is the contemporary source that mentions it. It is unusual that a political entity is not mentioned by contemporaries. I do not want to deny the existence of such a principality, but I'd like to know why its denomination is "Principality" (why not Lordship, Barony, County) and why it is connected to "Nitra" (why not to Devín, Zemplín).Borsoka (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The one document Borsoka likes to mention all the time is not the only historical account, of course. Moreover, if he can't present any reliable sources that actually doubt the existence of the principality, he is just promoting his own original research.--Svetovid (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Svetovid, you are my rescuer. Please provide us your historical accounts (different from "mine", actually there are two sources). I do not want to carry out any original research, I just raised a simple question: what is the primary source mentioning the existence of the "Principality of Nitra" or mentioning "Prince Pribina"? I raised the question when I realised that several articles used some primary sources (Conversio Bagariorum et Carantanorum, the Bavarian Geographer) as a reference to the existence of a "Principality of Nitra" although there is no reference to it. This understanding is not unique, e.g. you can cheque at (http://www.histline.narod.ru/bav-geogr.htm) that reliable sources may locate the 30 towns of the "Principality of Nitra" far from present-day Slovakia. Borsoka (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That polity is called a principality by convention. Why are the Chinese emperors called emperors by Western sources if they had little idea about the Roman concept of imperium? By convention. The literature calls the Principality of Nitra the Principality of Nitra. There are many good reasons for that and you can find them in the literature. I do not know any other, alternative name of this polity used in English. If you have some fascinating original research showing that the name is not appropriate and should be changed, you are welcome to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and initiate a discussion among historians how to rename this polity in textbooks. But until then, Wikipedia should reflect what textbooks say. I am sorry. I know you are a very intelligent and well-read editor. I really enjoyed working with you at Great Moravia. But our mission here is to describe the current state of human knowledge (meaning published secondary sources), not to create some new knowledge of our own. Tankred (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I do not want to carry out any original sources. As to the emperors of China, I think the rulers of China were mentioned by several primary sources and the primary sources were translated into other languages. In case of the Principality of Nitra, if my understanding is correct, there is no such a source. Even in this case, we can call the political entity as Principality of Nitra, but we should clearly draw the attention of the reader that it is only a modern denomination for a medieval state whose existence is based exclusively on archeaologigal researches. Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

References (continued)

I would like to suggest a compromise: "The Principality of Nitra or Nitrian Principality (Nitrianske kniežatstvo, Nitriansko, Nitrava) is the modern denomination for a polity located in what is today Slovakia and some adjacent territories in present-day Hungary in the Middle Ages. Although its existence is not documented by contemporary sources, archaeological researches dated several fortresses built in the region to the beginning of the 9th century." The suggested text would summarize the facts Tankred revealed in his remarkes in the above discussion, i.e., (i) the "Principality of Nitra" is a modern denomination (ii) its existence is not documented by contemporary written sources, and (iii) reference to archaeological researches is made. I think the text is neutral, it is fully in line with the facts and it does not deny the existence of the political entity in question. Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Borsoka, do you have a source, in any language, which says "the existence is not documented by contemporary sources"? Otherwise that's pretty clearly a violation of no original research. Just because we haven't found such documentation, does not mean we could make such a statement. Or another way of looking at it, is that I'm hearing the Hungarians doubt the existence of the Principality. Can anyone provide a source for that? Even if "tabloid" sources? It doesn't mean that we'd necessarily use them in the article, but I'd like to hear the exact wording that the Hungarian press (or academics) are using. If, for example, Hungarian tabloids routinely say "the supposed" Principality, then we could add a section to the article like, "In Hungarian popular culture" and say something like, "Some Hungarian popular sources such as (sources) express doubt about the existence of the Principality, and say (quotes)". That would satisfy Wikipedia's neutrality policy, as it would present significant views (regardless of whether they were right or wrong) in a very neutral way, and be sticking just to the sources, rather than requiring us to make judgments. --Elonka 07:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thank you for your comments. As I mentioned in one of my former remarks, the existence of the Principality of Nitra is not part of the popular culture in Hungary (unfortunatelly, because, in this case, my favourite question must have been answered). However, I understand that parts of my proposed wording would not fully in line with our principles; therefore, I have to "see my librarian" before suggesting wording for the article. Nevertheless, I am a curious man and I cannot help raising my question: what is the (nearly) contemporary written source that mention the "Principality of Nitra" or "Prince" Pribina? Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that continuing to ask that question here is going to do much good, as I think that everyone who is reading this page, heard you the first couple of times you asked.  :) You may wish to post your question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, or at one of the relevant WikiProjects. --Elonka 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I realised that my favourite question (what is the contemporary written source proving that contemporaries realised that the "Principality of Nitra" existed) may not be answered in a short time, although the existence of the "Principality" is part of popular culture. Actually, it was not me who realised the lack of sources, because any of the scholarly works I have read on this topic forgot to refer to the (nearly) contemporary written source. I hoped that the secondary sources used by other editors when writing this article contained a reference and my question could be easily answered. Unfortunatelly, this is not the case, so let's circulate my question at other portals. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a "bit" harder to prove that something did not existed, than that it has existed. Positive claims must and can be proved. It would be pretty funny if I would claim that for example Michael Jackson is gay (and there are plenty of "sources" to prove this), and you could not delete that untill you prove that he is not. Wich is easier to prove? The claim or its denial? What do Wikipedia rules say in this case? We should do that too here. --Rembaoud (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The rules of our community, Elon refers to, prescribes that each sentences have to be based on reliable sources. As the secondary sources used by other editors may not contain reference to primary written sources proving the existence of the "Principality of Nitra", but they qualify reliable sources under the rules of our community, the ones who want to state that primary sources does not prove the existence of the "Principality of Nitra" have to find a reliable source that can be referred. Nevertheless, I will raise the question (what is the primary written source that proves the existence of the "Principality of Nitra) at other community portals. Maybe some members of the community will answer it. What about your above reference ("There's a good book for this and such debates to cut short: Eduard Krekovič, Elena Mannová, Eva Krekovičová: Mýty naše slovenské, Bratislava, AEPress, 2005, ISBN 8088880610")? As I understand its title refers to the myths of the history of Slovakia. You may cite it. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That book confirms the existence of the Principality of Nitra. It speculates about its location and borders. The archaeologist, Eduard Krekovič, says that the principality probably encompassed the south-west part of present-day Slovakia, and there were other smaller principalities all over Slovakia, as confirmed by archaeological finds.--Svetovid (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. Therefore, there is a new secondary source that confirms the existence of Principality of Nitra based on archeaological reserches. If my understanding is correct, the new source may also prove the existence of a bunch of principalities. Borsoka (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is more than ridiculous now. The existence of any smaller early medieval entity or event could be disputed using such "arguments" (nobody here is going to check medieval chronicles for you). There are plenty of primary and literally thousand of secondary sources referring to a principality centered in Nitra (hence it is called "Principality of Nitra"), the name itself does not matter. The current standard academic peer-reviewed book on the topis is "Nitrianske kniežatstvo" [literally "Principality f Nitra] by J. Steinhübel, in which you can find 1000 pages of text on this "non-existing" entity. The book is really standard literature now, used at universities and cited by all relevant scholars....And above all, the permanent requests for primary research and sources here are ridiculous, because you all are simply diletants and have no idea where to look for things, how reliable the texts are, and how to interprete the texts, how they fit with other sources and above all what archeological findings imply....And Mýty naše slovenské is basically popular literature, a completely irrelevant POV book with a clear aim, as the title itself suggests. Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.243.194 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon, please try to make your comments more civil in the future. --Elonka 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Anon! First of all, I promise that I do not want to deny or prove the existence of the "Principality of Nitra", and I do not know whether it was a large entity or (as you mentioned) a small one, I am only a curious soul. If my understanding is correct, you know "plenty of primary (...) sources referring to a principality centered in Nitra". Could you, please, name some of them? I would be really greatful. You are right: many of us (like me) are diletant, but if my understanding is correct even diletant people are entitled to raise silly questions in our community. As I raised my question ("what is the (nearly) contemporary written source that proved that contemporaries realised the existence of the <<Principality of Nitra>>") long time ago and it has not been answered yet, you will be the first who can help me to stop being ridicuolos. Yes, I really feel myself ridicuolos, because I thought that my silly question will be answered soon, as plenty of secondary sources describe the history of the "Principality". Borsoka (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is simple: Get the book and, if possible, all other elementary literature on Slovak history, such as Dejiny Slovenska 1-6, Včasnostredoveké osídlenie Slovenska, collections of medieval documents referring to the territory of Slovakia etc. and you will find the answers. I am not going to waste my time to prove things described in thousands of books, or play the "we are the young would-be historians rediscovering history"-game (while in reality we are playing the traditional Hungarian "lets deny the pure existence of Slovaks and Romanians in the Carpathian basin before the 9th century"-game, arent we?) Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.243.194 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank for your suggestion. Unfortunatelly, I cannot read Slovakian. Actually, I am not young and I am not a historian, I am a diletant as you (I presume) mentioned above. Moreover, I do not deny the existence of Slovaks and Romanians in the Carpathian Basin before the 9th century. Does your answer mean that you will not answer my simple question ("What is the nearly contemporary written source that mention "Prince" Pribina or the existence of the "Principality of Nitra")? My hope for the answer was based on your reference that plenty of primary sources could be cited. Sorry, I did not want to upset you and did not want you to waste your time to prove elementary things. I am pretty sure that there will be a historian or a child who will finally answer the question. Borsoka (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are unable to get and read basic literature, i.e. to get access to basic data, on the topic you pretend to be trying to discuss, then do not discuss the topic and do not change any articles referring to Slovak history, above all specific articles like this one. Since you are unable to get access to basic data (which is only available in Slovak), the logical implication is that texts edited by you contain wrong information, which in turn implies that you should be prohibited from any edits in Slovakia-related articles, in other words you should be blocked, if you refuse to refrain from such edits. That, however, will not happen, instead the completely uninformed admins (who for lack of knowledge seem to judge people according to the tone of their statements instead of reading the content of what they say) will continue to block all upset Slovak, Romanian or Serbian editors, just like some Hungarian sockpuppets here wish and have planned, and nobody cares.

Dear Anon, I think the fact that I cannot read Slovakian should not mean that I cannot add value to Slovak-related articles. If you read the Hungarian-related articles, you will find that there are several Slovak, German, Croat, etc. editors contributing to the text, and I presume most of them cannot read Hungarian. But they are welcome, because I am pretty sure that they have access to literature that a man-of-the street in Hungary cannot read; therefore they can add suplementary information. I agree that the 90% of the secondary sources is available only in Slovak, but beleive me there are some sources available in other languages (English, Hungarian, Latin, German) as well. If you think that the articles edited by me contain unreliable information you are more than welcome to challange them based on reliable sources. My only purpose (even it may be surprising for you) is contributing to the success of a project aiming at the collection of the present status of the knowledge of mankind. Moreover, personally I have never initiated the blocking of any of the Slovak, Romanian or Serbian editors, because they work (even if it is sometimes driven by emotion) provides us information. Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(replying to Rembaoud) The Michael Jackson situation is a bit different, because his article falls under our Biographies of living people policy. For those, anything negative is to be removed, immediately and aggressively. In terms of an article about an entity from a thousand years ago though, things are not as urgent. Now, it is true that per WP:V, anything that is unsourced can be removed immediately, and then it is the responsibility of those who wish to put it back, to include a reliable source. However in actual practice, it can be considered disruptive to simply remove every unsourced statement without giving people a chance to find sources. So the best thing to do is usually to add {{cn}} (citation-needed) tags and give people a chance to come up with a source, before removing something. --Elonka 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Steinhübel is a contemporary Slovak historian who is "pretty gallant" with Slovaks; wherever "Slavs" were in the sources he read, he "gallantly" changed it to "proto-Slovaks", and describes them as a distinct tribe within Great Moravia. Hmm...this "gallant act" and the description connected to it is sooooooooooo familiar from somewhere... --Rembaoud (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The topic is a principality and not ethnicity.

2. What you claim is a plain technical lie, because Steinhübel claims just the opposite. (Tough luck for you once again). And, just for the record, you admit that your are unable to read Slovak, but at the same time, “interestingly”, you have no problems with claim about the content of Slovak-language books; you have made only two concrete statements in this discussion (about Mýty naše slovenské and about Steinhubel) and in both cases it turned out that you are openly lying and nobody cares. Any serious discussion with any person being able to lie this way is a priori senseless.

Dear Anon, "just for the record", it is me (Borsoka (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)) who admited that I cannot read Slovakian and the above remak was signed by Rembaoud.

3. Your personal opinion on one of the most prominent current Slovak historians and on a standard academic book is completely irrelevant, it would be irrelevant if you were a professor, and it is all the more irrelevant given the fact that you are an obvious (to put it politely, because the Americans have no idea about Hungarian politics and history) „biased“ diletant (and 100th sockpuppet, btw). But even IF he was a nationally orientated author (which he isnt), using the same logic, virtually everybody in Hungary‘s neighbouring countries considers 50% of Hungarian (even academic) historical literature biased and nationalist etc., but nobody starts to delete the corresponding information from the articles on the grounds that he does not like the author’s opinion.

4. That‘s all on my part. Looking forward to further articles in this Hungaropaedia and have fun upsetting all editors from the neigbouring countriesm, renaming all towns and persons to Hungarian names and all inhabitants from the former kingdom into Hungarians, insulting everybody from Prague to the Black Sea in article summaries, deleting references you simply do not like from articles, and denying the pure existence of Romanians, Slovaks or Serbs, nobody cares, nobody notices what you have been doing for years here, so go on, and the admins here seem to be repeatedly happy to support you. Don’t forget to play the polite guy in discussions and to accuse everybody of exactly the things YOU are doing here, because that works here perfectly (when you are the first one to accuse people nobody comes to the idea that its you who does these things, right?). What a balanced and wonderful work this wikipedia (one huge joke). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.243.194 (talk • contribs) May 1

Dear Anon, I am really sorry that my silly question ("what is the (nearly) contemporary written source that proves the existence of the <<Principality of Nitra>>?") that has not been answered for cca. four months made you upset. Personally, I would like to ask you to continue your work, because - as I mentioned above - even editors with motions (that is a human feature) can add value and provide important information to the users of Wikipedia. However, we have to accept (all of us) that there are rules to be followed when editing and those rules are obligatory not only to me but also to other editors. If you read the discussion above, you will realise that some of my suggestions for the wording of the article were rejected, because they were not in line with the rules of editing. Just for clarificatin, I have never mentioned that I deny the existence of Romanians, Slovaks and Serbs even in the 9th century in the Carpathian Basin, because I do not deny it (I only have doubts about it, but I also have doubts about some favourite Hungarian theories).Borsoka (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As to your remark to Hungarian a c a d e m i c historians, I have not found any book during my life that insults Slovakian, Romanian or Serbian people. Mainstream historians in Hungary unanimously agree that the Carpathian Basin was inhabited by Slavic, German and Avar people when the nomadic (or semi-nomadic) Magyar tribes occupied it. Although, the Hungarian academic views sometimes differ from the Slovakian, Romanian, Serbian, German, Russian, American, British, etc. academic views, but, in itself, I presume it does not mean that members of the Academy of the Hungarian Science are narrow-minded nationalists; actually, it means that they are autonomous scientists. Moreover, all the books I have read from a c a d e m i c sources contains a detailed description of the opposite theories and a reference to their pros and cos. E.g., mainstream Hungarian historians do not deny the existence of a Slavic polity in the north part of the Carpathian Basin, but they express their doubts about (among other things) its frontiers (i.e., sometimes they are surprised that the frontiers of Great Moravia more or less follow the frontiers of the countries of the region in the 20th century). Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Borsoka. The anon has been blocked. It's unfortunate, because whoever it is does seem to have some knowledge of history. But if they are unable to present their views in a civil manner, we are going to ask them to leave. Does anyone have any preference on whether or not we should give the anon another chance, or just block indefinitely? --Elonka 15:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Another chance. :)213.134.25.95 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) It was me Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (I am absent-minded).

If you have blocked it to indefinite, than lift it immediately. If for a day or some, then let it expire, so "Anon" can calm down during that time. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted an offer to User talk:195.168.243.194, that if they gave their word to participate in a more constructive manner, I would lift the block.[7] So far I have not heard back. --Elonka 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research?

This entire article is one huge joke now. Every second sentence is original researche, archeaology is completely ignored, Slovak sources are completely ignored, standard literature is compeletely ignored; the article contains failed attempts to read carefully selected Latin sources by a certain Borsoka, who as each of his sentences here showa has absolutely no idea what he is doing. This is a good example of what wikipedia should not be and this article should be put on the main page as a warning to everybody. Incredible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.12.89 (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anon, just for clarification. Each edits (I presume) you qualify as "original research" are based on reliable (academic) sources referred in the text. If you think that the cited academic source that states that the only information we have on the independent "Principality of Nitra" is based on two references of a 9th century written source, you are welcome to challange it (based on reliable sources). If you think that archaeological researches are completely ignore, you are welcome to refer to those researches (based on reliable sources). The Latin sources are not selected, those are the only text referring to Pribina and its connection with Nitra (statement based on reliable secondary sources). If you think their translation is misleading (the Hungarian version was used, but my few Latin knowledge does not contradict to it), please feel free to challange them. I understand that it is difficult, for all of us, to accept that there are plenty of people whose views differs from ours, but we may accept and enjoy this diversity of approaches. I would be really happy if this page could be put on the main page as a warning (although I think that the article's message may differ from yours), although the article should be significantly developed and improved. Please, start to read your books and do not hesitate to challange any sentence of the article. Borsoka (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the obvious original research and hope Borsoka will finally let it go.--Svetovid (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Svetovid, would you, please, list what are the sentences you qualify "obvious original research"? I think there are plenty of sentences without reference in the text, maybe their sources should be added sooner or later. Borsoka (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We still don't have verified translations of your Hungarian sources. However, it's good to see that you seem to have given up on inclusion of at least some of your personal information, even though you continue to do so in History of Slovakia.--Svetovid (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please find the citation in Hungarian and its translation in the footnote. Please, try to understand that it is not my personal information, it is based on reliable sources. Moreover, I am sure that the Czech translation of the primary source (Conversio) is available for editors, because the primary sources and their translation were published in Prague from 1966 (Magnae Moraviae fontes historici. I-IV; Havlík, Lubomir (editor); Praha, 1966-). As I mentioned before, you are welcome to challenge any edits I made, but all of us have to use reliable sources when challenging any sentence in an article of Wikipedia. I would be really happy, if we could develop a good article (with the assistance of other editors who will probably join to us). Borsoka (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for information. As I understand, Johannes Aventinus was the first historian who referred to "Prince Brynno" who ruled over Bratislava, Brno and Nitra and who died in 861. Later, his "Prince Brynno" became identified with the Conversio's "Priwina", because the Conversion mentions that "Priwina" died in 861 and he had a possession in "Nitrava". My understanding is that this identification is the basis of "Prince Pribina's" birth. Please note that Aventinus lived in the 15-16th centuries, 600-650 years after Pribina (but his work is a primary source). Borsoka (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Appologies

Dear Slovak (and other) editors, I must appologise but I was bold and finally (after three weeks) deleted plenty of unsourced statements in the article. Therefore, I am sure that the article does not represent the Slovakian academics' mainstream view, but without citations the users of Wikipedia were not in the position to check the factual accuracy of the deleted statements. I hope that you will expand the article with several sentences based on reliable sources. I also experienced that most of you accept that there are multiple interpretations of the primary sources and therefore, we can agree that a unilateral presentation of historical presumptions would lead to the impoverishment of Wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Map of the Principality?

I noticed that this article does not have a map of this principality. Since I make maps, I can draw a map of this principality that would be free for usage in Wikipedia. However, I am not able to find some good external source with map on which I can base my own. So far, I founded only this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qNwtg5trdGo/TdUTswI7EUI/AAAAAAAAAa0/zYo1RsbRc3M/s1600/Nitra+Neutra+Nyitra+Nitriansko.jpg However, info in that map is unclear. I cannot distinguish what were borders of the principality there. Or more exactly: can someone clarify which border show what in that map? What represents shaded area with lines (in left part of the map) and what represents area without lines (in the right part of the map)? Or perhaps somebody have another map that I can use as a source? PANONIAN 18:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Independent state?

I think Principality of Nitra was a vassal state of the Frankish Empire. It was 'hardly' independent. An autonomous ?state? or territory within Kingdom of Hungary? About Tercia pars regni. It was not independent, it belonged to Kingdom of Hungary. It was controlled by the Hungarian Kings and their relatives. Tercia pars regni was not a state either. It was rather a 'domain of the king's relatives '.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I found sources about subject of its independence. According to the sources between 805 and 833 it was independent.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• There was no continuity after 902 or 906. Tercia pars regni appeared in the middle of the 11th century (1048). We can do nothing with 150 years (from 902 (906) to 1048). No sources about it. Moreover we do not know its exact 'borders'. It could have been in south Hungary or East Hungary as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think the Avar Khaganate or the Hunnic Empire will change their names to Hungarian Khaganate/Empire If Principality of Nitra can be called Slovak Principality. It is anachronism.Fakirbakir (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

it was a separate polity (not independant durring the kingdom of hungary and great moravia, but still separate) it has a own princes - slovak(slavic, moravian), polish, hungarian. hungarian kingdom lost a continuity between 1526 and 1867 - it was a integral part of habsburg empire. term "Slovak principality" is sourced by a reliable sources. Principality of Hungary is anachronism, its no old chronicle (from the 895-1000) which speaks about Principality of Hungary. This term is good. --Samofi (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a theory that a polity ("Principality of Nitra") existed continously from the 9th century till the beginning of the 12th century. However, it is only a theory which is not substantiated by any primary source (no early medieval or medieval sources refer to a "Principality of Nitra" or to a "prince of Nitra"). Similarly strange is the expression "Principality of Hungary". Is there any reliable source that uses the latter expression? Borsoka (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine sources exist about Tourkia or Western Tourkia in connection with Principality of Hungary. Duchy of Hungary (English source exists about it from 18th century) or Principality of Hungary are latter expressions like Principality of Nitra as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Western Tourkia is connection with Magyar tribes and Hungarians and not connected with the Principality of Hungary what is a construction of the late 20th century. --Samofi (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As form of Principality of Nitra as well. Principality of Nitra is a latter expression. Duchy of Hungary was used in English sources from 18th century. Moreover, tribal union does not mean territory, It means a kind of organization. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Slovak Principality and Old Slovaks

It would be great if the person who inserted these terms into the article would show up with neutral, reliable third party sources, because these designations are historically incorrect (the inhabitants of this realm were slavs, not Slovaks). BTW: In the formation of modern Slovakia, history playe a key role: the record of a "glorious past" became a key instrument of national agitation. This history was, however, often simply invented and mythological (using inadequate terms such as "Ol Slovaks" for the period of the eight and ninth centuries, renaming Great Moravia as Great Slovakia, giving a Slovak identity to the rulers of the region in the Middle Ages and so on.)

Your personal point of view is really irrelevant here. Old Slovaks or Slovak tribes (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22slovak+tribes%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk) are normal therms for a Slavic tribes in the present Slovak territory in 8-9th century. 32 important Slovak linguists and historians use this term. Here are the names: (http://www.voltaire.netkosice.sk/archive/slovensko/Stanovisko%20slovenskych%20historikov,%20archeologov%20a%20jazykovedcov.doc) If you have a problem with reliability of the sources try this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

Would you, please, specify what of the sources cited above uses the term "Old Slovak" (I found the terms "Proto-Slovak" and "Slovak tribes", but I have not found any reference to "Old Slovaks"). Nevertheless, these terms needs to be clarified, because it is not clear whether the three terms have the same meaning (the fact that three different terms are used itself suggests that their meaning is different). Moreover they seem to be ignored in secondary sources at international level (terciary sources may use them, but secondary reliable sources are always preferred for WP purposes). Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nitra Sloviens are old Slovaks, see this: http://books.google.com/books?id=DI7qAAAAMAAJ&q=%22old+slovaks%22&dq=%22old+slovaks%22&hl=sk&ei=ZTt6TpKpL8jOsgb8rcnhDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA Its a significant minor opinion from the Slovak sciencist. List of them I have add above. Its more sources about that, add "old sovaks" in google books. --Samofi (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your above source. I accept the fact that there is one source referring to "Old Slovaks". However, many other sources refer to "proto-Slovaks" or "Slovak tribes" when narrating the history of the same period. I think until scholars engaged themselves with the early medieval history of the territory cannot decide which one is the proper term we should not use them. What is clear that these historians refer to the existence of a Slavic population in the territory of modern Slovakia in the 9th century. Borsoka (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was Slavic population. But its a linguistic question also (they are Slavic ancestors of Slovaks):

a) some sources talks about Slovak tribes or Old Slovaks in 6-7th century ([8]) when the Slavs came into territory of modern Slovakia and it was "period after migration" b) other speaks about Slovak tribes or Old Slovaks in 8-9th century ([9]) when the language of the Slavic tribes were separated in to different groups and proto-Slovak language had components from the western and eastern slavic languages it was "period of integration" c) other talk about them in 10-11th ([10]) century when Slovak language was was formed as a independent Slavic language - "period of constitution"

(periods are from the book of eminent Slovak linguist Rudolf Krajčovič (http://www.osobnosti.sk/index.php?os=zivotopis&ID=59411) p. 15. Pôvod a vývin slovenského jazyka. 1981) --Samofi (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that exactly the above described diversity in using suggests that the terms "Slovak tribes", "Old Slovak" or "Proto-Slovak" have not yet received an exact meaning, therefore their use in the article should be avoided. The term "Slavic" could hardly be challenged in the context of the article. Borsoka (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I cannot agree. All 3 terms are synonyms - so we should to use the most preffered word. These tribes were separated from the other Slavic tribes in 6th century, linguisticaly were separated in 8-9 century so only these (Slovak) tribes were speaking mixture of western and eastern slavic language and in 10-11 century were created Slovak dialects. So in 700-800AD were these tribes lingusticaly separated from the other Slavs. --Samofi (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please add a reliable source proving that the terms "Old Slovak", "Slovak" and "Proto-Slovak" are synonyms. Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that "slovak" and "proto-slovak" and "old slovak" are synonyms. read properly --Samofi (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

arved grebert uses terms old slovaks and slovak tribes in the same context: [11] --Samofi (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Tercia pars regni = Duchy of Nitra

I redirected tercia pars regni here, coz it was a duchy of nitra: http://ekonyvtar.zrinyimedia.hu/container/files/attachments/25695/for_the_homeland_unto_death_1100_years-chapter_ii.pdf - p. 106 http://www.eac.sk/docs/slovensko_europe.pdf p. 32

From the talkpage of tercia pars regni: article has no references and tercia part regni is a latin rare name for a principality of nitra. so iam going to redirect it to the Principality fo Nitra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Nitra has nothing to do with Tercia Pars Regni. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It has to do, its the Nitra appanage duchy: http://books.google.com/books?id=3orG2yZ9mBkC&pg=PA278&dq=nitra+appanage+duchy&hl=sk&ei=f2GBTtnjNYTCswaL6sSRDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nitra%20appanage%20duchy&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=4Je2AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Nitra,+ako+jedno+zo+stred%C3%ADsk+rozpoltenej+Ve%C4%BEkej+Moravy+si+aj+v+ranouhorskom+%C5%A1t%C3%A1te+ponech%C3%A1va+funkciu+vojvodstva+(ducatus)+a+prezentuje+sa+ako+tertia+pars+regni.%22&dq=%22Nitra,+ako+jedno+zo+stred%C3%ADsk+rozpoltenej+Ve%C4%BEkej+Moravy+si+aj+v+ranouhorskom+%C5%A1t%C3%A1te+ponech%C3%A1va+funkciu+vojvodstva+(ducatus)+a+prezentuje+sa+ako+tertia+pars+regni.%22&hl=sk&ei=DWGBTt7bEIzesgbEtN2ODg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA: "Nitra, ako jedno zo stredísk rozpoltenej Veľkej Moravy si aj v ranouhorskom štáte ponecháva funkciu vojvodstva (ducatus) a prezentuje sa ako tertia pars regni." Nitra like a one from the centers of the Great Moravia has a function as a ducatus like a tertia pars regni. --Samofi (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

hungarian and slovak sources support this --Samofi (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The introduction is incorrect

"The expression of "Slovak" is problematic in relation of the medieval period, because they are essentially the product of the modern nationalism as it emerged after the 18th century." The History of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. According to this source we can not use the form of "Slovak Principality". Fakirbakir (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Its same kind of kind of neologism like "Principality of Hungary" or calling "Hungarians" the ethnicaly mixed tribes from 9th century (btw named Tourks, Huns, Ougrians, Avars, Uhri, Wengry...). Hungarian nationality - Natio Hungarica was connected with Hungarian kingdom, only in the 19th century was political nation "Hungarian" connected with ethnic Magyar. Look: http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no15_ses/09_nakazawa.pdf (Štúr initiated the formation of a Hungarian political nation consisting of many nationalities, which was different from the Hungarian nation formed only by Magyars through magyarisation. Lajos Kossuth had already identified the historical-political rights of king and corporations in the Kingdom of Hungary with the national rights of the Magyars) Present nations of Magyars and Slovaks are descendants of Natio Hungarica(Hungarians). Hungarian revolution was not magyar revolution. Slovaks fought for a Hungarian political nation and that for a Slovak nation. Magyars wanted to make a Hungarian nation connected only with Magyars. Hungarian nation before the 19th century does not mean present Hungarian nation (Magyars). Look this: Die Bezeichnung „Ungar“ kann sich, insbesondere in Geschichtstexten, auch allgemein auf die Bewohner des historischen Königreichs Ungarn und die des heutigen Staates Ungarn beziehen. In wissenschaftlichen Texten werden sie daher meist als „Magyaren“ bezeichnet(Joachim von Puttkamer: Schulalltag und nationale Integration in Ungarn. Slowaken, Rumänen und Siebenbürger Sachsen in der Auseinandersetzung mit der ungarischen Staatsidee 1867–1914. (=Südosteuropäische Arbeiten Band 115, Verlag Oldenbourg, München 2003, ISBN 3-486-56741-1, S. 11.) --Samofi (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Samofi, about a formation of "Principality of Hungary" talks even later traditions. And the credibility of them is questionable, nevertheless international community (including Slovak) accept it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Stajdl (talk • contribs) 17:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC) I think the scholarly sources cited in the article substantiate the use of the expression of "Slovak Principality". Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Diocese of Nitra

Perhaps it is worth to mention that establishment of bishopric of Nitra in the Kingdom of Hungary is also "debated" ("early establishment and continuous operation" or "late establishment").[12] Fakirbakir (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume that the referred text was written in the 1930s or earlier. If there is a 21th-century source (especially if it is written in English) which suggests that the first establishment of the Diocese of Nitra in the late 9th century is dubious, we could mention it. Borsoka (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody denies the "early" establishment, the question is about "continuity". I did read somewhere that some Slovak scholars tend to state that the bishopric did not cease to exist after the Hungarian occupation and they assume a sort of continuity there (they do not accept the latter date of establishment (1105)). The late establishment actually supports that "the region was fully incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary" because regarding the cessation of the diocese the Magyars erased earlier "organizational structures". Fakirbakir (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If nobody tells of me that I am a killer, but I say that I am not a killer, it suggests that I am a killer. :) The article does not refer to the continuity of the Nitra bishopric, because none of the referred sources makes mentione of such a continuity. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

lucidity

I really appreciate the hard work on the article however it is somewhat difficult to follow and read. We get to know a lot of theories, actually we read theories after theories, most of them have not even proven. I am just wondering, is there anything that we could do with this matter? Fakirbakir (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Its history in the 10th century is not "universally accepted". Why do we make a list about "10th century princes"? Fakirbakir (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Because there are (mainly Slovak) historians who write of the history of the Principality/Duchy of Nitra in the 10th century, even if they do not agree on the princes/duke of this polity or what it is. The list of the Hungarian grand princes in the same period is also debated: we do not have a complete list of them. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I would not put equality between the two cases. We have a few written sources about those Hungarian leaders, but we have almost nothing about "princes of Nitra". Fakirbakir (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing or almost nothing? There is a huge difference between the two expressions. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Makk's statement

Dear Borsoka, I think Makk accepts Polish occupation of Northern Hungary for a short period. Cited (Magyar külpolitika (896-1196)):

• p. 48 "Boleslaw...az 1015 — 1016-os időszakban a Felvidék nyugati részén a Morva folyó balpartján megszállt egy magyar területsávot."
• p. 49 "Győzelmet aratott István a lengyel fronton is. Megfutamította Gyulát, majd a Morva menti várakat visszafoglalta a lengyelektől. Az 1018- as bautzeni német-lengyel békekötés rendezte a magyar-lengyel viszonyt. " Fakirbakir (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fakirbakir, sorry I have just read your message. Yes, you are right: all Hungarian historians acknowledge that the Poles occupied territories which had up to that time under Hungarian rule. However, there is a significant difference between their view and the view presented mainly by Slovak and Polish historians. Makk and other historians emphasize that Boleslaus only occupied the region of the (northern) Morava river. Slovak and Polish historians say that almost all the lands what now form Slovakia were occupied by the Poles. Borsoka (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wordsmithing

I wonder if we can start a trend within Wikipedia (and throughout the English language) to cease using the phrase "agreed upon", and its cousin, "agreed to". (last line in first paragraph about the Duchy of Nitra) and simply use the much simpler, and more correct "agreed". If you subscribe to the "Economist" or other British publications, you know of what I speak. If not, please consider the above in your everyday correspondence. Thanks. Wordnerd241 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Over-emphasis on names of primary authors

Instead of naming all these non-notable people inline "According to so-and-so..", perhaps it would be better to construct a little bibliography of the works for readers who are interested. If anything is the POV of one primary source, then it does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia reports only the scholarly consensus. This does mean that there will be certain items that will have to be removed from the article. Abductive (reasoning) 04:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, you suggest that this article should be deleted, because there is no scholarly consensus on any detail of the history of this polity. However, I think if we follow your approach, 90% of the articles dealing with historical events which happened centuries ago should be deleted, because the interpretation of contradictory and fragmentary sources has always been a subject to scholarly debate. Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that much of the article will have to be removed. In any case, how do you know that there is no scholarly consensus? Did you read that in a secondary source? Abductive (reasoning) 15:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I must misunderstand something. In my vocabulary, all books listed under the "Secondary sources" subtitle are secondary sources. In the article, the contradictory views upon almost every detail of the history of this polity are based on these secondary sources. Consequently, I know that there is no scholarly consensus, because I read a number of books in connection with the early medieval history of the Nitra region. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a problem. According to the WP:No original research WP:Policy, people can not just create their own scholarly work on Wikipedia. You admit there is no consensus, which means you are doing original research. To put it another way, if Scholar A says something about Scholar B, even if he says he's wrong, it can be reported in a Wikipedia article as, "Scholar B says...". If Scholar C says, "there is uncertainty about... because Scholar A and and Scholar B disagree" then Wikipedia can say, "there is uncertainty about ... because Scholar A and and Scholar B disagree". One cannot say, "Scholar C says there is uncertainty" unless there is a Scholar D that says, "Scholar C says, 'there is uncertainty'." Get it? Abductive (reasoning) 00:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NOR: if scholar A says that "there is uncertainty" in reliable source, than we do not need a scholar B saying that "scholar A says that there is uncertainty" for referring to scholar A's view. Would you be please more specific? Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)