Talk:Principality of Nitra

Active discussions
Principality of Nitra was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 24, 2013Peer reviewNot reviewed
June 13, 2014Good article nomineeListed
October 4, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 16, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that much of the history of the Principality of Nitra remains uncertain?
Current status: Delisted good article

Diocese of NitraEdit

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").[1] 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)

lucidityEdit

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 statementEdit

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)

WordsmithingEdit

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 authorsEdit

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)

WP:NOREdit

Ditinili, please try to be neutral. I know that if a Slovak or Czech historian writes that something is vague or alternative, you accept this view as the general opinion of all historians of the world. However, instead of verifying your claim, you are expanding your edit war to this article. If you cannot substantiate your claim, all reference to "prevailing" or "alternative" theories will be deleted, in accordance with WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not joke.Ditinili (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
If my understanding correct, you are unable to prove that there is a "prevailing" theory about the identification of Nitrava. Borsoka (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
No comment. Whatever I added to this article was properly sourced.Ditinili (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
No, you say that there are "alternative theories" about the location of Nitra. For there is no "prevailing opinion", we cannot speak of "alternative theories". Furthermore, most historians cited in the article only says that Nitrava was not identical with Nitra, without saying an alternative location. Borsoka (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
For now, we have only historians whose academic credit is ehm,... let's say "questionable" and their works are target of a sharp criticism.Ditinili (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
According to Ditinili. And we also have a peer reviewed source which does not make such a distinction. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, when we will have more authors whose works are not target of such criticism like Boba, Puspoky Nagy etc, we can return to this discussion.--Ditinili (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As soon as you have verified that there is a "prevailing opinion" about the identification of Nitrava with Nitra we can write of alternative theories. Borsoka (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Please, focus on the current text. The current section contains opinions of historians whose works are ignored, rejected or they are a target of large criticism and their acceptance is limited (like Boba or Puspoky Nagy). I fully respect that these alternative opinions exist. The term is appropriate for the current content.Ditinili (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I am always surprised that you are not aware of the fact that criticism is a natural aspect of modern scholarship. Please try to read more books published outside your home country. Your approach and remarks suggest that you have limited knowledge of international literature and you think that the books you have so far read contain the "mainstream" or "prevailing" theory. For instance, Florin Curta (one of the universally known experts of early medieval archaeology and history) is sharply criticized by Slovak and Czech historians, because his "alternative" approach of the Slavs' ethnogenesis contradicts to the "mainstream" theory of Slovak and Czech scholarship ([2]). Several theories of Alexander Ruttkay, a leading Slovak archaeologist, are rejected by other scholars, because they say that those theories are poorly substantiated ([3]). Should we qualify the theories of Curta and Ruttkay as "alternative theories"? As I mentioned Boba and Bowlus are frequently cited scholars in international literature. Of course, we do not need to mention scholars whose opinion is ignored. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It has nothing with "my" and "other" countries. Surely, the discussions always exist among the experts, but the statement that theories of Boba, Puspoky Nagy or Bowlus were ignored or rejected by the most of the experts (of course some exceptions exist) can be easily documented (some references are already in the article about the Great Moravia). We can also cite reviews of their works from recognised experts which make these historians at least controvert. For example: relying exclusively on written sources, intentional excluding of the written sources which do not fit their theories, poor knowledge or total ignorance of archaeology. All of this belongs to a standard criticism of these authors. If you speak about Florin Curta he is not an exception: "By contrast, the arguments of Imre Boba were exclusively based on written sources and his understanding of archaeology was at best primitive (even by the standards of the 1960s) and at worst, dismissive".(Curta: The_history_and_archaeology_of_Great_Moravia_an_introduction, 2007)Ditinili (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read what Curta wrote of leading Czech and Slovak historians (including Třeštík who is cited in the article to prove that Boba's view is an "alternative theory"): "I have been struck over the years by the obstinate efforts of several Czech historians and archaeologists to make the Slavs appear in those territories as early as the sixth, if not the late fifth century, despite the obvious absence of any solid evidence in support of such views ... Second, I was equally puzzled by the many inconsistencies in the archaeological discourse about the so-called “Prague type” of pottery...". Can we say that Třeštík is an "at least controversial" scholar whose views can be regarded as an "alternative theory"?. I must repeat: read more books published outside Slovakia, because I assume that you are convinced of the existence of "mainstream, generally accepted theories" because of the lack of your knowledge of wider literature. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Curiously, if we speak about "other" countries (not Slovakia or the Czech republic) this text was published in the Czech journal Archeologické rozhledy. I am very happy that you are aware that the opponents are leading historians (= recognized experts) what moves this discussion to a little bit different level. Academic discussions are of course a standard way how to make a progress in the research, however I hope you can see the difference between historians who are considered to be a leading experts and historians whose works were mostly ignored or rejected. If we can find reviews according to which the works of Florin Curta or Dušan Třeštík were rejected or ignored by the most of historians, claiming that Curta and Třeštík rely exclusively on the written sources, intentionally and systematically ignores sources not matching their theories and they have rather poor knowledge of the archaeology or completely ignore it, then we can consider them to be equal to Boba, Puspoky-Nagy and Bowlus.Ditinili (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read Curta's text again, more carefully: "I have been struck over the years by the obstinate efforts of several Czech historians and archaeologists to make the Slavs appear in those territories as early as the sixth, if not the late fifth century, despite the obvious absence of any solid evidence in support of such views." What is the difference between the refusal of a significant part of the works of Třeštík and other (Czech) historians by a foreign historian, and the refusal of Boba by Třeštík and the Czech historians? Sorry, I have been waiting for a reliable source, substantiating your claim that there is a "prevailing" theory about the location of Pribina's Nitrava for days or even weeks. I cited (several times) a book, published by Cambridge University Press, which verifies a neutral approach in this topic. As I mentioned above ([4]), instead of verifying your claim, you decided to expand an edit war. In the same message, I told you that "If you cannot substantiate your claim, all reference to "prevailing" or "alternative" theories will be deleted, in accordance with WP:NOR". Please stop you edit war, and try to accept that there is no mainstream view about the location of Nitrava. Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Please, do not manipulate and lie (I am sorry, but I have to be open). After my last post where I clearly described the difference between Cutra and Trestik on one side and Boba, Nagy and Bowlus on other side, you stopped ANY discussion (until now) and began to modify article pushing the same view as before, without ANY discussion. Thus, statements about edit wars can be addressed more to you and Fakirbakir than to me. This can be easily documented from the article history. Since I had not received any feedback and you obviously ignored any trial to reach consensus, I only restored the content deleted by you (including sourced content). Please, focus on the fact that Boba, Nagy and Bowlus are clearly controvert. Your citation DOES NOT confirm the neutral approach. It does not say that the authors have the same academic credit, it even does not say who they are, it only says that the different opinion exist. The rest is intentional manipulation of the source. I absolutely agree that the other opinion exist. Nothing more is written in your source. Ditinili (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
... and while I wait for a discussion, both of you commited additional 5 changes. LOL.Ditinili (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I am not a liar: "According to some, Pribina's seat had been previously in Nitra (today in Slovakia), until 833 when the Moravian ruler Mojmír (Moimír, before 833-46) expelled him and conquered his lands, but others dispute this and suggest another Pannonian area as Privina's previous seat." (Berend, Nora; Urbańczyk, Przemysław; Wiszewski, Przemysław (2013). Central Europe in the High Middle Ages: Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, c. 900-c. 1300. Cambridge University Press. pp. 56-57. ISBN 978-0-521-78156-5.) I did not manipulate anything, but as I mentioned below ([5]), it is obvious that you already made an attempt to manipulate the source (Boba's work) you allegedly cited. Please read and adopt WP:civility. As I mentioned above Třeštík can easily be qualified as a controversial scholar, who "despite the obvious absence of any solid evidence" tried to prove something, according to an other scholar. And Třeštík is one of the scholars who sharply criticize Boba. Sorry, but WP is not about Ditinili. I told you that ([6]) "If you cannot substantiate your claim, all reference to "prevailing" or "alternative" theories will be deleted, in accordance with WP:NOR" two days ago. Borsoka (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you demonstrably manipulated an interpretation of the source, arguments are above. The difference between Curta and Trestik and Boba, Puspoky-Nagy and Bowlus were well explained.Ditinili (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No, you are making declarations. You have not proved anything for at least a week. Borsoka (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
What exactly? That the works of Boba, Puspoky-Nagy and Bowlus were mostly ignored or rejected? Ok, I will add sources for this statement to this article.

Nitrava and NitraEdit

What did the onosmatics say? If Nitrava is the secondary form (derriving from Nitra), why not the secondary form was adopted by the Slovaks, Hungarians, Germans? If Nitrava is the primary form, what proves that it could transformed into Nitra also in the Hungarian and German languages? Did they say that Nitra (the primary form) could derrived from Nitrava (the secondary form) - Boba says that Nitra could not derrive from Nitrava. Borsoka (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If Nitrava is the secondary form (derriving from Nitra), why not the secondary form was adopted by the Slovaks, Hungarians, Germans?
Because there is not any reason why they should finally adopt secondary and not primary form. More, both forms were recorded already in the 9th century before the arrival of Hungarians or Germans.
If Nitrava is the primary form, what proves that it could transformed into Nitra also in the Hungarian and German languages?
Hungarians frequently removed "-ava" when they adopted local names from Slovaks, this is well documented by numerous examples. E.g. Myslava->Miszla, Tibava->Tiba, etc. From this point of view, the transformation Nitrava->Nitra is non-problematic. Germans are irrelevant, because they came after Slovaks and Hungarians and simply adopted the current version.Ditinili (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Linguists are not so sure about this (IMO). There is nothing "refuted". "To me as a linguist, Nitrava cannot be equated with Nitra unless there is specific evidence. No such evidencehas been adduced, to my knowledge." ([7]p. 98) Fakirbakir (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
There are already references to 3 newer works published AFTER this statement. More, one is exclusively dedicated to the problem of suffix -"ava", the second to the problem "Nitra vs. Nitrava" and summarizes also all older theories.Ditinili (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, sorry I do not understand. You suggest that there is a secondary form (Nitrava) which was adopted by the Hungarians and developed into Nyitra in the Hungarian language. You also say that the Hungarians, Slovaks and Germans may have adopted the primary form (Nitra). So, if my understanding is correct, there is no evidence that the Slovaks preserved the secondary form. What do your sources say on this issue? Borsoka (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not "suggest" that Hungarians adopted word Nitrava and then reduced it to Nitra. I have only answered your questions. The second alternative (adoption directly from the primary form Nitra) is more probable and preferred. However, yes, it is possible as you can see from examples.
Slovaks do not have to preserve the secondary form. Why? Ditinili (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, look, there is no one truth. Many different opinions exist on this matter..... Fakirbakir (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Great, that's why I created section for alternative opinions.Ditinili (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
However, you have not verified that there is a "prevailing opinion" about the identification of Nitrava with Nitra. Please also clarify, based on the cited sources, the contradictions I mentioned above. Did Hungarian Nyitra derrive from the secondary Nitrava or from the primary Nitra? From which form (Nitrava or Nitra) did the Slovak form develop? Borsoka (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not see any contradiction. The explanation is above.Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
So the Hungarian form developed from both the secondary and the primary forms. This is obiously the region of fringe theories with paralel universes. Moreover, a simple question ("From which form did the Slovak version developed?") cannot be answered based on the three cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a clear manipulation and demagogy from your side. You have asked two questions about two alternatives (see 18:10, 20 July 2015). I did nothing but answered on both. Both of them easily explain the problem (is the name Nitrava compliant with the Nitra = yes it is) and are clearly against the Boba's linguistic speculation "The attested toponym «Nitrava» would have remained in modern Slovak «Nitrava». The town Nitra in Slovakia is known in Hungarian as «Nyitra» and in German as «Neutra». A ninth century form «Nitrava» would have developed in Hungarian into a form «Nyitro», in German into «Nitrau» and in Slovak would have remained «Nitrava». Consequently, the toponym «Nitrava», known from the Conversio, can not be identified with Nitra in Slovakia." We have three sources analysing the problem in details and the result is that it is not only possible, but it can be done in both way. Directly from the primary form Nitra, documented already in the 9th century, but also from transposition through the secondary form Nitrava (SK)-> Nyitra (HU) -> Nitra (SK). The second option is linguistically possible and well documented for other towns (!!!), but not preferred for Nitra because the name Nitra is documented too early (as a location in 9th century, before the Hungarian arrival and as a hydronyme in 1006). Your statements about "parallel universes" are baseless, because you have never asked if both alternatives happened in parallel but separate questions and I have never declared that both alternatives hapenned in parallel.
Of course, I can answer the simple question "from which form Slovak version developed". The sources strongly suggest that Nitra is the primary form. I am removing the tag - it is completely baseless.Ditinili (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, please count my questions above. (1) If Nitrava is the secondary form (derriving from Nitra), why not the secondary form was adopted by the Slovaks, Hungarians, Germans? - it has not been answered yet. (2) If Nitrava is the primary form, what proves that it could transformed into Nitra also in the Hungarian and German languages? - it was answered. (3) Did they [=onosmatics] say that Nitra (the primary form) could derrived from Nitrava (the secondary form)? - it has not been answered yet. Sorry, but your statments are still mystical: do you say that there is a primary form (Nitra) and a secondary form (Nitrava), and the secondary form was adopted by the Hungarians and developed into (Nyitra) which was adopted by the Slovaks [Nitra (unknown?) > Nitrava (local Slav?) > Nyitra (Hungarian) > Nitra (Slovak)]? Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
(1) Answered on 18:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC). If the Nitra is the primary form (this is strongly suggested) then Hungarians simply adopted the primary form. Nothing more or less. More, the form with root Nitra and not Nitrava is documented before their arrival. (2) You agree that it was answered. (3) The question is non sense, because the primary form cannot be "derived", because it is the primary form. Read the text again, slow down and do not speculate.Ditinili (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not the question what is nonsense, but the text in the article: (1) Boba say that modern Nitra could not derrive from Nitrava (2) Modern onosmatics say that Boba is wrong. (3) Modern onosmatics say that Nitra is the primary form and Nitrava is a secondary form, consequently Nitrava derrived from Nitra - why does this statement contradict to Boba? Please read and think before editing. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
LOL. The question if the PRIMARY form can be derived from the SECONDARY is not a non sense? Of course, it is. Please follow: A: Boba says that is not possible. B: Three up to date onomastics works document that it is possible. Your conclusion: B DOES NOT contradict A. No comment.--Ditinili (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You again ignored my question: why does modern scholars' statement that Nitrava was derrived from Nitra contradict to Boba's view that Nitra could not develop from Nitrava? Nevertheless, I changed the text in accordance with your remarks, even if the above theory is quite surprising, but if there are scholars who wrote this, we cannot deny their reliability. Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not ignored anything. If A: Boba says that Slovaks could not use the form Nitrava and then the form Nitra B: other works say that they easily could and they did, then A contradicts B.
Ditinili, sorry, but I tend to think that you are manipulating your sources. Above and here ([8]) you wrote that Boba "refused identification of historical Nitrava with modern Nitra. According to Boba, the words "Nitrava" and "Nitra" are different, transposition between them is not possible in Slovak language", although Boba mentioned all modern (German, Hungarian and Slovak) forms of the name of the town and concluded that none of those forms could develop from Nitrava (Boba 1993, p. 23.). Please also read your text in the article, it does not say what you write here. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Your "changes" were again total non-senses. I have declared repeatedly, that the transformation Nitrava->Nyitra->Nitra is possible but not preferred explanation. However, you made it the primary theory and the main explantation.Ditinili (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do not refrain from adding the primary theory. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Read again, please, slowly and carefully. There are two possible explanations:
a) the preferred: Nitrava is only a derived form from Nitra. The derived (secondary) form disappeared, the primary form persisted. Because the primary form was Nitra, nobody had to adopt any new name.
b) possible, but not preferred: the Hungarians shortened name Nitrava to Nyitra as they did in many other cases. Then, Slovaks adopted new, upgraded name as they did in many other cases
Both alternatives are against the Boba's assumption, that the name "in Slovak would have remained «Nitrava»". Both alternatives explain also Hungarian name Nyitra. In my opinion, this is very clear.
The article already contains the text which properly describes this fact - shorty: contrary to Boba's assumption, modern onomastics can demonstrate that it is possible to have the word Nitra in the modern Slovak language even if another form (Nitrava) was documented in the past. More, it really suggested that the form Nitrava was only derived (a secondary) form of the Nitra. The last sentence is only "bonus", Boba's opinion is more then problematic also without the last argument. Ditinili (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, finally you were able to explain the theories in a proper way. So there are at least three theories. Why do you think that the above two theories are more convincing than Boba's theory? Borsoka (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Because the other authors are able to document many real and concrete examples of the process which is according to Boba impossible? :-) Ditinili (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Třeštík about NitravaEdit

Sorry, I do not understand Třeštík's POV. Could we also say that "the Archbishop of Salzburg, in 2015, did not know that the Archbishop of Bratislava was consencrated to a town in Poland, the Czech Republic or Hungary in the 1980s"? According to Třeštík, "Nitra" was an important center in Great Moravia in the 870s. Furthermore, the archbishop of Salzburg were involved in the conflicts with Methodius (the archbishop of Moravia). Do we assume that the same archbishop had no knowledge of the political events of that early medieval realm??? Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course you can. If you remove internet, newspapers, TV, phones and you will travel everywhere by foot or on horse, you can compare information flows in both periods and you can say it.--Ditinili (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if we assume that the archbishop of Salzburg was involved in a conflict with Great Moravia without knowing the basic events of its history during his lifetime. And if we accept the testimony of 3 late versions of the 11 extant copies of a document compiled in the Archbishopric of Salzburg against an almost contemporaneous (late 9th-century or early 10th-century) letter, written by the Archbishop of Salzburg. Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
We can close this topic. It is quite normal that contemporary sources contain inaccuracies. You can have a different opinion.Ditinili (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read again my above remark. The contemporaneous sources do not contradict to each other: 8 copies of the Conversio do not even refer to Nitrava; the reliability of the late 9th-century archbishop's letter would have never been challenged if 3 later versions had not made mention of Nitrava. Sorry, but Třeštík's POV is so superficial. Do you really think that this strange argumentation should be mentioned? Is his argumentation is accepted by other historians? Borsoka (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, I don't care about your personal opinion. Do I really need to explain that you are making the same mistakes as the author of your hypothesis? E.g. relying on the one source which can be easily explained by mistake, the ignorance of the archeology, etc? Just cite the author then we can add also counter arguments and move forward.Ditinili (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Easily? You should read many many books of early medieval history. No, you do not need to explain anything, because your personal views and my personal opinion are not important. However, I would like to know whether Třeštík's argumentation is accepted by other historians? Or is this a marginal theory? Borsoka (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No comment. You know well that the most of recognized historians do not support theory that Nitra was annexed around 870 and they know the letter very well.Ditinili (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I do not know. Do the "most recognized historians" accept Třeštík's theory according to which the archbishop of Salzburg did not know what had happened in his neighborhood because a late version of a document compiled in his diocese may imply that he was wrong? Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It depends on how do you define a neighbourhood. For example, I would not say that Bratislava and Zagreb are in the neighbourhood, but they are still closer than Nitra and Salzburg. Please, stop your own speculations.Ditinili (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Please, remain serious: if we deny that clerics in the Archdiocese of Salzburg had knowledge of the neighboring Nitrava, we lost all connection between Pribina and Nitra(va) and we cannot say that Nitra was occupied by Moimir around 830, because the only source of these events is a compilation made by those clerics. By the way, you obviously do not know, but the jurisdiction of the archbishops of Salzburg reached as far as the Danube: that is why the Bavarian bishops captured Methodius who wanted to expand his authority over Kocel's domains in Pannonia. Nevertheless, if my understanding is correct, there are no other historians who accept Třeštík's view. If this is the case, why do we emphasize his view? Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I am serious. You began with the demagogic comparison of the situation in the 9th and 21th century. Please, stop your own speculations how to interpret primary sources, stop your own speculations about opinions of other historians, stop your speculations about what I know or not and feel free to add any text based on reliable sources. Thanks.Ditinili (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No, you are hysterical, that is why you tend to accuse other editors of being liars or manipulators. I am not speculating, I do not interpret primary sources and I must say that your knowledge looks quite provincial. I have only been asking whether other historians' accepted Třeštík's POV about the lack of information of Great Moravia in the neighboring Archbishopric of Salzburg, or it is only a marginal theory. Borsoka (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
LOL. What other do you do if you "do not interpret" primary sources? Obviously, you do. You did not reference any historian until now, only described your OWN speculations based on YOUR interpretation of sources.
Of course, Trestik opinion is not unique. Also, his work contains a reference to a similar conclusion of Richard Marsina, it is on p. 115, note number 52, described in more details on p. 279. R. Marsina: Nitrianske biskupstvo a jeho biskupi od 9. do polovice 13. storocia [The dioceze of Nitra and its bishops from the 9th to the half of the 13th century]. Historicky casopis 41, 1993, p 532.
And of course, your own theory explains nothing and definitely does not make the guys in the Salzburg more informed. Because it means, that in their "neighbourhood" (nowadays more than 4 hours by car if you turn it to the highway) grew some independent and relatively strong political unit but nobody registered it until 900 when somebody, who focused on a different problem than analysing domestic Slavic conflicts wrote that it was annexed around 870.
It is simply strange, how you are able to immediately forget what is own research, rules about civility, you are immediately able to decide what is a marginal theory while criticizing other authors, you are willing to remove properly sourced content from recognized authors if it does not match your opinion, etc.--Ditinili (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I am glad that you you are now in the phase of laughing. I hope this phase will last long, because you were able to answer my simple question. Now, I understand that Třeštík's interesting theory is widely accepted in Slovakia. If my understanding is correct, Slovakian historians say that (1) Salzburg clerics who completed the Conversio after 900 (to prove their archbishops' claim to jurisdiction in Nitrava) were well informed of events that happened in Nitrava around 830; however, (2) Salzburg clerics who drafted a letter for their archbishop around 900 were wrong when describing events (to prove that their archbishops never had any jurisdiction in Nitra) that happened in Nitra around 870; consequently, (3) the identification of Nitrava with Nitra is possible. I love this theory. It obviously should be mentioned in the article, because it is based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I have answered your question. I understand and respect that something can look to be more or less probable from your point of view, based on your own interpretation of the primary sources and knowledge. However, because we agree that the sources are reliable and it is not a marginal view, I will not loose my time and move forward. Ditinili (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:copyvioEdit

Please read WP:Close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing which violates this rule/reccomendation.Ditinili (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Taking into account your previous edit summary, please read it more carefully. Borsoka (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing which violates this rule/recommendation.Ditinili (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You obviously do not understand it. Or you was wrong when writing the edit summary for this revert [9]. Borsoka (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please, cite the original, cite the article and then cite the rule which was (according to you) violated. Thanks.Ditinili (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Policy: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy." Your edit summary: "Per source. Quotation word by word. Take a break a think about the meaning." Borsoka (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
John: "The sky is blue." The article: "John says that the sky is blue". This is not any copyright violation.Ditinili (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure? Can you decide whether it is a quote or a summary? Borsoka (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure that there is not any copyright violation.Ditinili (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You should not be sure. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content. Borsoka (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your recommendation. There is not any copyright violation. Ditinili (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You are wrong. You should read texts more carefully. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
LOL. OK.
A) "John: "The sky is blue." The article: "John says that the sky is blue". This is NOT any copyright violation, more if it is properly sourced.
B) You are unable to compare whatever with the original, but I am a native speaker. If you have some doubts, please contact some Czech editors here on wikipedia.Ditinili (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please read the relevant WP policies that I referred to above. Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I did it. There is not any copyright violation and you have never read the original.Ditinili (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it is obvious that I must stop the debate here. Please remember that copyvio is a serious issue in our community. Borsoka (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
OK :-) Ditinili (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understandEdit

Ditinili, sorry I do not understand. Do you say that Dušan Třeštík and Zbyněk Meřínský say that Pribina, the ruler of Nitrava, was Mojmir of Moravia's official in Nitrava, but the same scholars also say that Nitra was only united with Moravia after Mojmir expelled Pribina from Nitrava? Would you clarify this interesting interpretation? Borsoka (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"Scholars who write that Pribina was an independent ruler also say that his principality was united with Moravia after he was exiled from his homeland in around 833". This is a little bit unclear and unfortunate formulation because it can implicate to the reader that the Pribina's position and date of his expulsion are somehow related. Trestik suggests that the territory of the Slovakia was united with Moravia in two phases. The first phase began already during the wars with the Avars when the western Slovakia served as an area where the Slavs organized troops for the attacks (cz: "nástupný prostor"). In 830's the integration of this part of Slovakia was finished.Ditinili (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
If only the dating is problematic, please feel free to rewrite it. Borsoka (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I plan to rewrite the section completely. In the meantime, the tag is used appropriately. Ditinili (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not an answer. Please feel free to rewrite the section. Please remember WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It is an answer. Template is used in accordance to its expected purpose and description, the text will be improved later. Ditinili (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. I understand that you do not have time. I deleted all reference to dates. Borsoka (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
What was not the best solution, because by this step, you have also removed references to all authors who date unification of both parts to 830's (contrary to controvert Bowlus). Sorry, I am reverting your change and please, be patient.Ditinili (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I am so excited. This must be a new original theory. Are there scholars who say that Pribina was an indenpendent ruler, but Nitrava was only unified with Moravia years after his expulsion? Or are there scholars who say that Pribina was Mojmir of Moravia's official, but Pribina's Nitrava was only united with Moravia when Mojmir expelled Pribina?Borsoka (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to read the original for better understanding.Ditinili (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, as you may know, I cannot read those scholars' theories because they only published them for a smaller community. I am not surprised because my experiences with your favorite theories suggest that these theories must be fascinating. I am sure that I will love the theory about a province (Nitrava) which was governed by a monarch's official (Pribina), which was only subjected to the same monarch after he expelled his official from the same province. Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
They are not published for a "smaller community". They are normally published and available in average (non-academic) bookstores. I will not comment your misinterpretation, read the explatation above.Ditinili (talk)

16:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Which explanation? I have not found any above. Sorry, when I wrote of a smaller community, I referred to the language barriers: I am not surprised that they did not want to publish those interesting views in English. Borsoka (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Really? Read the first answer. I will not comment everything what is shocking or fascinating to you.Ditinili (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I am totally disturbed: you wrote of Trestik in the first sentence, but Trestik is not cited in the sentence in the article that you have been challenging. You should read before adding templates and starting an edit war. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear, read again the first answer and the comment in the template. Ditinili (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Trestik cited in the sentence which was challanged? Does the sentence summerize properly the views of the cited (!) authors? Does Trestik say that Nitrava was independent of Moravia under the rule of Pribina (who was an official of Mojmir of Moravia, according to Trestik)? Borsoka (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
omg, a comedy about a sentence in the section which will be rewritten anyway. What seems that it was clear to you is not clear to you anymore. Salted by various speculations as usually, trials for misinterpretations, etc. I am going to nice gold and cold beer. See you later.Ditinili (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
* Nobody ever wrote that the sentence is not sourced. There is a difference between a request for sources and request for clarification. That's exactly why there are also two different templates for each case. From this point of view, your objection against the tag is meaningless.
* Since the beginning (what is clear also from the history of the article and the tag) Trestik was used as an example of a historian who has the same dating of the events (830's), but he does not support hypothesis about an independent ruler.
* However, it seems from the article that these two independent things (position vs. dating) are related. There are clearly not.
* The fact that you are not able to understand it only proves that this part needs clarification.
* If you lack a general overview about the topic and everything is surprising, fascinating and new for you, then you should consider if this is compliant with your ambition to edit the article. Especially, if you are not able to read the most of publications about the topic due to the language barrier (as you wrote) and if you do not understand something, you are completely lost and compensate it by your own speculations.Ditinili (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Nitrava and NitraEdit

Why do you want to delete a debate about the identification of Pribina's Nitrava with present-day Nitra from this article? Borsoka (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not. I properly merged the text with the main article (Great Moravia), because the authors and their credibility, the cited works, the arguments and the criticism are the same. Otherwise, we should cite Sklenar in this article, then in the main article, to explain Boba's theory here and also there, to explain his reliability here and also there, etc. Now, it is consistent on one place and properly linked to provide reader whole content without duplications.--Ditinili (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Please answer my question? Why do you think that the identification of Nitrava with Nitra depends of the location of Great Moravia? Even if Great Moravia was located in present-day Moravia, Pribina's Nitrava can be different from present-day Nitra. Could you refer to a scholar who says that Nitrava cannot be identical with Nitra because Great Moravia was not located in present-day Moravia? Borsoka (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I have answered, please read your question again.
"Could you refer to a scholar who says that Nitrava cannot be identical with Nitra because Great Moravia was not located in present-day Moravia?" Me? Why? Please, read my explanation above.Ditinili (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No, you have not answered. You have not mentioned one single scholar. (If you assume that Bowlus, Boba, etc. say that Nitrava was not identical with Nitra because Great Moravia was located in the south you are wrong. They never made such a statement.) Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
What? Boroska did you read my explanation?Ditinili (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Would you name a scholar who stated that Nitrava cannot be identified as Nitra because Great Moravia was not located in present-day Moravia? Borsoka (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Sklenar, Boba and other (not me) made this statement about Nitra a part of their wider theories. These theories (in the whole context) are properly described in the main article (Great Moravia). Also together with information about a credibility of their authors (in Boba's case pretty low), what is unfortunately concealed in this article and it seriously misguide readers. Particularly in the case of Sklenár, re-location of Nitra is not only dependent on re-location of Great Moravia, but re-location of the whole Great Moravia is a side effect of his trial to move it from the territory form Slovakia for political reasons.
There are two options:
a) we have to repeat whole Sklenar's theory here, we have to repeat here that Boba's is not taken seriously at all by the most of expert historians, we have to repeat here all claims contradicting the current state of knowledge and we have to repeat also counter arguments. We have to repeat all future extensions and criticism, e.g. citation of numerous opponents who accuse Bowlus (and similar authors) for manipulation of the text, etc.
b) we can hold all these duplicated information in one place
The worst thing we can do is to provide partial and misguiding information. (Of course, I can argue that you are not able to document that these theories are independent as much as you say and curiously, all authors cited until to now are for some mysterious reasons advocates of southern thesis, but it is not my goal.) Ditinili (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
No, we have to apply WP:summary style: we only have to write of the Principality of Nitra here. If I say that (1) 1+1 = 2; and (2) 2+2=11, consequently (3) 1+1+2=11, you cannot say that because my (2) and (3) statements are wrong, my (1) statement is also wrong. The identification of Nitrava with Nitra is a separate problem, does not depend of the location of Great Moravia. For instance, a work published by the Cambridge University Press (Berend, Nora; Urbańczyk, Przemysław; Wiszewski, Przemysław (2013). Central Europe in the High Middle Ages: Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, c. 900-c. 1300. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-78156-5.) does not state that the identification of the two settlements depends on the location of the Moravian realm. Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:summary style does not mean, that we will conceal criticism, right? If we do not conceal criticism, then we have (unfortunately) repeat Sklenar reasons, Boba's lack of knowledge of archeology, the fact that his work is not taken seriously by the most of historians, etc. "A source not sayig something" is a typical "proof" by "silencio" and means nothing. I also agree that for example Erich von Däniken (like Imre Boba) can be right, but we will not present his work along other non controvert material without a mention.
By the way, you changes in the main article somehow (unfortunately) led to a loss of some information. It's strange how (for example) an information that etymologists provided one of explanation of shortening Nitrava to Nitra already in 30's even if Boba firmly believes that it is not possible. It is strange, that also some other information disappeared, particularly those not fitting your opinion. Strange. Ditinili (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
You are right: WP:summary style does not mean, that we can conceal criticism: we must mention all major views. However, we must summarize them, because WP is an encyclopedia. Otherwise, you are wrong. First of all, you do not know what my views on the location of Great Moravia or on the identification of Nitra are, because I did not share them with you: WP is not a chat room where we can share our views with other editors, but an encyclopedia which can be edited according to consensually approved rules. Secondly, the deletion of a long explanation of the evolution of the name of Nitra, and its relevance in connection with the Principality of Nitra, belongs to the article dedicated either to Nitra or to the Principality of Nitra, but not to the one about Great Moravia. Consequently, what is surprising that you deleted the references to the debate about Nitra's name from this article ([10]). Finally, as I have several times mentioned, you have not referred to a single scholar who says that the identification of Pribina's Nitrava with present-day Nitra depends of the location of Great Moravia. On the other hand, I referred to at least one academic work which does not make a link between the two issues (I refer to Berend et al). Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1. Boba's views on etymology are completely irrelevant for the general article about Nitra, because he is not an etymologist (more he is not even respected scholar among expert medievalist). Thus, his theory, as well as an explanation how ridiculous it is, belongs exclusively on such place where his theory is described. "Long" explantation was well placed in the note and did not break the main text. However, because it seems that some editors have no idea about etymology and take any non-sense seriously, we can expect the same for readers and so, proper explanation is very welcome.
Do you really say, you wanted to prove that Boba's view (according to which the modern names of Nitra could not develop from Nitrava) is "ridiculous"?

Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to properly inform reader, that what was a mystery for Boba was a) analyzed by etymologists dozens years before his publication b) is not a mystery for the current research.--Ditinili (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Until now, this theory is represented here exclusively by authors of the southern thesis. Surely, we can argue how "independent" they are. I have clearly demonstrated and it is also properly sourced, that for example in the case of Sklenar, they are not only related, but re-location of Nitra is the primary goal of re-location of GM (how closer can they be related?). So, your statement about "none single academic work" is patently incorrect. From my point of view, YOU and not me have to document somehow that these issues are not related, because people like Boba and other made it an integral part of their hypothesises. Of course, I can also document that these arguments are understood as closely related by experts and also counter arguments are closely related. For example a study of [[Hertwig Wolfram]: Historical sources and the position of the Great Moravia, Historicky caspopis, vol. 43, issue 1, 1995, p. 3-14, where he nicely show how these two geographical things nicely works together.
So now, when we refuted your hypothesis that it is my "original research", I expect serious proposal how do you want to prevent duplications. Shell I really copy and paste here texts about Sklenars, Boba and Bowlus, their reliability, criticism, etc?
"I referred to at least one academic work which does not make a link between the two issues" You did nothing. You should document what is written, not to make your own theories based on what is not written.Ditinili (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Please remember may above remark ([11]). You can read a neutral statement on pages 56-57. On the other hand, you have not referred to a scholar who argues that Pribina's Nitrava cannot be identical with Nitra because Great Moravia was located to the south of the Danube. Scholars say that Pribina's Nitrava cannot be identical with Nitra, because (1) only 3 version of the 11 copies of a late source (written by Salzburg clerics at least 40 years after the events described) refer to Pribina's Nitrava and its occupation by Moravia, obviously aiming to increas the jurisdiction of the Salzburg Archbishopric, but (2) an other source (also written by Salzburg clerics, but maximum 30 years after the events described) implies that Nitra was only occupied by the Moravians around 870 (and the latter document obviously did not claim that the archbishop of Salzburg had jurisdiction in Nitra). There is no reference to Great Moravia in their work (please read any of the sources cited in the article). Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Your "above remark" has nothing with your statement "Scholar says that Pribina's Nitrava cannot..." Who are these mysterious scholars? If we talk about annexation in 870 (total non-sense, but I don't care for now), it is Charles Bowlus, one of authors of southern thesis (surprise!), a rather controvert scientist accused by the opponents from manipulation of sources. None mention about Great Moravia (?) in his work means that the title of his work is (another surprise!) "Nitra: when did it become a part of the Moravian realm?. Evidence in the Frankish sources" (= you are wrong). Now, let's look on his own abstract of the article, how these two issues are not related and if it is really true, that there is "no reference to Great Moravia in his work": "It is frequently asserted that Imre Boba's attempt to relocate the heartland of ninth-century Moravia cannot be correct because it is a well-known ‘fact’ that c. 830 Moimar, the first Moravian duke, drove his rival Pribina from the fort of Nitra north of the Danube. However,.." So, you are wrong again and your statement is incorrect. The word "Moravia" is used in the article 132x, but of course, Bowlus mostly does not use adjective Great. More, until now, I have provided references to Wolfram, Marsina, Meřinský, Třeštík and Štefaničová who do not interpret these two issues as an independent. As you can see, Bowlus also understand these two issues very closely related. More and above, he use it as an important argument for his southern thesis.--Ditinili (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was wrong and I closed my above remark before ending it. Nevertheless, I also would like to know who are those mysterious scholars who say that "Pribina's Nitrava cannot be identical with Nitra, because Great Moravia/Moravia was located to the south of the Danube". You have not mentioned any of them. You do not need to make long declarations: "X. Y. scholar stated that Pribina's Nitrava cannot be identical with Nitra because on page ... in his/her book titled ....". Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
LOL. Your epic fail is not related to any "closing above remark". That's about your trial to prove that Bowlus "does not mention Great Moravia at all" what turned against you. Now, we have a nice list of historians containing both the authors of southern hypothesis and the opponents, who demonstrably do not understand these issues as an independent, but identification of Nitra as an important and let's say integral part of the theory. I will leave on you, if you can document some sentence imaginated by you (not me). The conclusion above and a demostration of close relationship of these two issues (or perception of this close relationship by scholars) is all what I wanted.Ditinili (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes I make mistakes. Maybe it is because I am a human being. However, Bowlus does not say that Pribina's Nitrawa was not identical with Nitra because Great Moravia was located to the south of the Danube. In the cited work, he says that the two settlements cannot be identified, because Pribina's Nitrava was occupied in the 830s, Nitra only induring Svatopluk's reign by the Moravians according to the relevant sources, written by Salzburg clerics. Consequently, you have not mentioned a scholar who says that "Pribina's Nitrava was not identical with present-day Nitra, because Great Moravia was located to the south of the Danube". Borsoka (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary: We have demonstrated that also Bowlus sees these two topics closely related and made it explicitly a part of his argumentation.
Now, we will not analyse how could you make such mistake, my goal is to keep these southern theories together and properly reference them instead of spreading arguments, counterarguments, etc, to several articles. I hope, there are none objections. Let's create one quality text.
Do not bother me by request to document some sentences imagined by you, never stated by me. I do not care if they are correct or not, it is your agenda, not my.Ditinili (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I understand, that you cannot refer to a scholar who says that Pribina's Nitrava cannot be identical with Nitra because (Great) Moravia was located to the south of the Danube. If this is the case, why should we delete the argumentation from here and move it to a long article? Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's read my comment above and please focus on the part where I explained goal and put special attention to sub script.
Since the beginning, your imagined statement has never been a part of my argumentation, I will not waste a minute by it. Ditinili (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Please read my comments above: (1) anything can anywhere mentioned, but in this case WP:summary style can hardly be taken into account; moreover, (2) if there is an article dedicated to the Principality of Nitra, we have to mention debates about it, and the identification of Nitrava with Nitra is subject to debate and this debate is mentioned in academic works. Borsoka (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
"we have to mention debates about it". Yes, definitely. The best way how to do it is to write one good text about Boba's, Bowlus' and company and not to spread discussion and argumentation. And then, to link this content with a short intro.
The worst way how to do it is to provide partial information or to duplicate totally counterproductive discussions like this. What if I want to provide conter arguments about Bowlus theory about anexation of Nitra in 870? I will do it here and also in GM article? No, such controvert material has to be elaborated and discussed on one place.Ditinili (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
No, we could mention that the identification of Nitrava with Nitra is subject to scholarly debate (because there are only two sources which may refer to 9th-century Nitra, but they contradict to each other) in the article about Great Moravia, and we could summarize the principal points of the debate about the identification here. We could mention that the location of Great Moravia is subject to a scholarly debate (because the traditional view of its northern location have not addressed many issues), and we could summarize the main points of the argumentation in the article Great Moravia. There are no duplications. Borsoka (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
We cannot sumarize anything until we have one good and quality text. Otherwise we will clearly duplicate discussions and argumentation.Ditinili (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your approach. Slovakia is located in Europe: should we write a long article about Europe, including the history, geography, etc. of Slovakia, before a separate article about Slovakia is written in order to avoid duplication? If we only mention the relevant information in both articles (as I suggested above), no information will be duplicated, and all statements would be verifed with proper references to reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The "relevant information" is whatever related to identification of Nitra, right? The fact is that the most elementary knowledge and the most obvious stupidities (sorry for saying that) are targets of heat discussions here. This is, what you want to have in two places until some consenzus is reached?--Ditinili (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
No, read my above remarks again here ([12]) and here ([13]). There will be no duplications and all relevant arguments can be presented. Borsoka (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I will give you one month (as a chance, to not to block my further work). If information about the controversy of some authors will not be then properly described here or properly linked, if the relationship to southern theories will not be properly described, if criticism will not be properly described and if the article will remain the same mess as now (none difference between the authors who are highly controversial, authors who are not even medievalists and between peer reviewed works of leading historians, I will return to my proposal.Ditinili (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hereby, I grant you the privilege to return any time and I bestow upon you hundreds of months to edit this article in accordance with WP policies. Of course, I preserve the same rights for me in accordance with the privileges of all WP editors. Borsoka (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
OK. I interpret this ironic comment as a lack of the good will to achieve compromise solution.Ditinili (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
You obviously misinterpreted it. Of course, you can initiate the reassessment of the article, but you should follow the proper procedure. You find more instructions here. I strongly suggest you that you should change your attitude: you are a simple editor with no authority to make unilateral changes. Borsoka (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

POV - false balanceEdit

The controvert authors are presented along with opinions of leading historians without any difference.Ditinili (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read below how academic works approach this issue in the 21st century:
  • "Where exactly [Constantine and Methodius] went is subject now to healthy debate. The traditional location of Rastislav's "Great Moravia" grew up, not accidentally, with the multiethnic Habsburg empire and placed it along the Morava river in the territory of present-day Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. A growing numer of scholars argue that ["Great Moravia"] should be situated much further south and east, in the vicinity of Sirmimum." (McCornick, Michael (2001). Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, AD 300-900. Cambridge University Press. p. 189. ISBN 0-521-66102-1.)
  • "According to some, Pribina's seat had been previously in Nitra (today in Slovakia), until 833 when the Moravian ruler Mojmír ... expelled him and conquered his lands, but other disopute this and suggest another Pannonia area as Pribina's previous seat." Berend, Nora; Urbańczyk, Przemysław; Wiszewski, Przemysław (2013). Central Europe in the High Middle Ages: Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, c. 900-c. 1300. Cambridge University Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-521-78156-5.
  • "The core of Great Moravia could not have been situated anywhere else but north of the middle Danube River, in Moravia, the eastern part of what is now the Czech Republic. Such an unambiguous conclusion is not at all meant to diminish the value of studies seeking to locate Great Moraviaelsewhere within the Carpathian Basin. The serious problems of geographical orientation raised by analysis of the written sources (such as the clear orientation of the Frankish military system towards the south-east), which ultimately led Imre Boba and his followers to question the traditional location of Great Moravia, will have to be explained in some other way." Macháček, Jiří (2009). "Disputes over Great Moravia: chiefdom or state? the Morava or the Tisza River?". Early Medieval Europe. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 17 (3): 248–267. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0254.2009.00276.x. Retrieved 2013-08-30.

Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As we both know, there is a clear controversy about some authors (e.g. Boba, Bowlus and Eggers), well documented in the GM article. The first citation is from the author, who is a recognized expert in a different area, not in this topic. The second formulation is vague and states nothing about the credit of the authors, only that they exist. The third is citaton of the author, who rejects Boba's and Bowlu's works.Ditinili (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a clear controversy about the location of Great Moravia, because "[t]he serious problems of geographical orientation raised by analysis of the written sources ... will have to be explained ...". Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
We have already demonstrated in other place how did you manipulated Machacek text. Thx.Ditinili (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You (with whom?) did not demonstrate anything. Would specifically refer to your demonstration? Please remember that it was you who only mentioned his arguments against Boba's views, without citing his final conclusion: there are issues that has not been addressed by scholars who accept the traditional view. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I have demonstrated that you conceal a mention that Machacek (who should be used to confirm that e.g. Bowlus) is not controvert, rejects his theory.Ditinili (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No, you have not demonstrated it. If you refer to this remark ([14]), you are obviously wrong. You obviously ignored my corresponding (previous) edit in the article, which emphasizes that he refutes the theory. I did not want to hide and did not hide anything in the article. It was you who did not cite Machácek's final conclusion: Boba and Bowlus drew the attention to issues that had not been addressed by scholars accepting the traditional view. Please try to understand that even if your edits are driven by your bias ([15]), not all other editors are driven by emotions. I strongly suggest that you should change your behaviour and approach. Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
LOL. I am not driven "by emotions". Did Machacek rejected Bowlus theory or he did not? Did you conceal this mention (also here) or you did not?Ditinili (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You are driven by bias ([16]) and I did not conceal Machacek's rejection ([17]). Please read and apply WP:civility. Borsoka (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose to close this topic. Publication a) is published by author, whose research is not primarily focused on GM ("he wrote several pages" as you stated in another discussion) b) does not say anything about Boba nor Bowlus, thus cannor reject their controversy c) the author rejected explicitly Bowlus and Eggers. That's all.Ditinili (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
(a) Please read my above remark about our limits: we cannot challange the decision of the editors of Cambridge University Press. (b) He especially mentions Boba, Bowlus and Eggers. If you have not read his book, why have you been making negative remarks of him? (c) Machácek also emphasizes the weakness of the traditional view which drove Boba, Bowlus, etc to search an explanation. Machácek's remarks proves that the traditional view can be challanged. Borsoka (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
a) The main "limit" is that you are not able to cite single McCornic book about GM, except several pages from the book about history of economy. b) cite c) Machacek rejects Boba and Bowlus. Any view can be challenged, that's how scientists makes progress. We are talking about concrete authors, not about general approach.Ditinili (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I sought community assistance on the relevant notice board to close this never-ending debate ([18]). Borsoka (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Steinhübel about the borders of the Principality of NitraEdit

"The Hungarian-Polish chronicle describes the southern and eastern frontiers of the Duchy of Nitra during its union with Poland. .... Thanks to these Polish chroniclers we can delineate the historic frontiers of the Duchy of Nitra." (Steinhübel 2011, pp. 19-21). Please respect Steinhübel's own work. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In his work "Principality of Nitra", pp. 242-248 he provides a relatively large reconstruction of borders based on various sources. So, if we "respect his own words", I am afraid that we cannot say that this is his the only one source. The statement "I can go by bus" does not mean that I rely exclusively on bus. Ditinili (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
What sources do he mention in his work which was not published in English? Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
He uses various sources like donation certificates to reconstruct boundaries. Now, it is not important to prove that he is right or not, but the statement that he relies exclusively on Polish-Hungarian chronicle is formally incorrect. That's all.
Do you really suggest that when he wrote that "we can delineate the historic borders of the Duchy of Nitra" thanks to late Polish chronicles, he was wrong? Borsoka (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't. Can you understand that even if he trust this information it is not his the only one source? It means that the comment bellow the map was formally incorrect. Ditinili (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you suggest that he cannot properly summarize his theory? Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that you probably misunderstood the text. He did not write that it is his only one source. As it is clear from his other works, it is not.. Ditinili (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
He explicitly says that "we can delineate" the frontiers of the Duchy of Nitra "[t]hanks to these Polish chronicles" (Steinhübel 2011, p. 21). I understand that you think that he could not summarize his views, you do not need to repeat it. Borsoka (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he wrote it. And?Ditinili (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he wrote it ... full stop. Borsoka (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
So, there is an agreement that he wrote this. Now, because it was also documented that he does not rely exclusively on Polish-Hungarian chronicle, what was proven and properly documentede, you should cite him where he said that this is his the only one source. Otherwise, you simply misunderstood something. Ditinili (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
No, his words are clear. Stop edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Probably not clear for you. I am not "edit warring". You are simply a vandal, who pushes his opinions regardless of sources.
Let me summary.
1. I say that it is not the only one source he uses. I can support me opinion by a reliable source - his another work, referencing to concrete pages.
2. However, you try to interpret his words in such way that it is the only source. The fact is, that he did not say it explicitly and it is only your own conclusion.
Until you are able to document, that he said it explicitly or you can prove your opinion by his another work, you will not introduce such statements into the article.Ditinili (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
(1) No, I am not a vandal. Please read and apply WP:civility. (2) Steinhübel's own words summarize his own views of the delineation of the borders of the Duchy of Nitra. If you do not agree with this simple statement, you do not understand basic WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I removed the text. At least, because it makes a false impression that the map was created by Steinhubel. I have no problem to mention his opinion later and on the different place but doing it correctly, citing his various works properly.Ditinili (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The map is only prominent for this article, because Steinhübel says that the borders of the Nitra duchy can be delianeted based on the the late Polish chronicles report of Poland's southern frontiers. Please do not try to summarize Steinhübel's views and methods than Steinhübel himself. I strongly recomend that you should stop edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no objections against the map. However, the map is created by another author and not by Steinhubel, but the comment under the map makes an impression that it is his work. Also, I also cannot see any problem to cite Steinhubel from various sources properly. Ditinili (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality improvement is necessaryEdit

One of the worst articles I have read on wikipedia. A lot of sources with a poor reputation (Boba, Puspoky-Nagy) sometimes sources from 70s or 80s (Vlasto and others), unbalanced, unclear, needs to be rewritten.195.91.7.84 (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to rewrite it. The main problem is that the subject of the article (the "Principality of Nitra") is not presented in monographies which represent a high level of scholarship. For instance, if you read Ján Steinhübel's cited work, it presents scholarly assumptions as facts, without referring to any other views and without mentioning that the very existence of this principality is highly doubtful. Borsoka (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you really read it? 195.91.7.84 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Boroska, please, answer the question. It seems that you are again guessing the content of the work which you have never read.Ditinili (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Please try to remain civil. The above work is a collection of assumptions, presented as facts. Borsoka (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you read the book or not? Ditinili (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Really? Can you explain how if you cannot not speak the language? Ditinili (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand. Why do you think that I only pretend that I can understand English? Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Boroska, there is a very detailed monography with 576 pages and 1900 notes where the author explains in deep details nearly every aspect of his work and he also very frequently describes other opinions. What did you read? Ditinili (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
If you did not read my statement please do not comment it. Please read it again. Borsoka (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The main problem is that the subject of the article (the "Principality of Nitra") is not presented in monographies which represent a high level of scholarship.
E.g.: Steinhübel, Ján (2004). Nitrianske kniežatstvo [Dutchy of Nitra] (in Slovak). Bratislava: Veda, vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied. ISBN 80-224-0812-3.
Peer reviewed publication, 3 reviewers, all of them were prominent historians, one of them was awarded also by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
It is clear that you really never read this monography and it also seems that you do not understand a difference between a monography and a short chapter. Surprisingly, you make large conclusions based on your lack of knowledge and general overview. By the way, you were the one who repeatedly removed information from this source in a different article (History of Slovakia). I am absolutely not surprised that this source disappeared from the article. It happened with various sources and not only in this article, when some editor removed properly sourced text and then removed the reference.
Of course, removal of properly sourced text from reliable and up-to date sources, only because somebody noticed that there are also some poor or outdated sources (instead of fixing the problem) is a horrible and meaningless approach. Ditinili (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I maintain that Steinhübel's cited work does not represent a high level of scholarship, because it presents assumptions as facts. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Your personal opinion, the work meets all criteria for reliable sources as it is required by wikipedia. Ditinili (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I have never stated that it is not a reliable source for WP purposes. I only said that this article can hardly be significantly improved because of the low scholarship of the works dedicated to its subject. Borsoka (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Most of the sources with low level of scholarship (like Boba and company) were introduced and advocated by editors like you. Of course, the article can be significatly improved, but not by the editors who has absolutely no idea about some topics, they do not respect results of research because they dislike it, and they cannot read most of the works due to language barrier. I think that in your case, contributing to the articles about Hungary (or to the sections related to the common history) will be much more useful and effective. Ditinili (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstand the whole concept of WP, but I do not want to change your mind. Yes, you think that WP is a crusade against heretics and those who do not join your crusade are also heretics who should be expelled. However, we live in the 21st century. Sorry, I do not want to continue this funny conversation with you. You are more than welcome if you can improve this article and you can be sure that I will also edit this article. Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:DUE is not "a crusade against heretics". More, the removal of the text based on works of recognized authors (as you did) instead of giving due weight to minor opinions is a very bad way how to "defend heretics". Ditinili (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

TagsEdit

I would like to understand the tag. Do you think that any references to princes of Nitra after Pribina should be deleted, because none of the subsequent "princes" are mentioned as princes of Nitra in most works dedicated to them? Borsoka (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What is a source of this information? Own research? Ditinili (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
No. If you read works dedicated to the life of most of the alleged princes of Nitra, you will not find a single reference to this title in connection with them. Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You mean - the works you have read? Ditinili (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I cannot refer to works read by other editors. Borsoka (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification. It means that the works you have read (?) do not mention something, but other do. This makes your opinion (at least) very subjective. If you really read it, because it seems that you repeatedly write about various works which you have never read. Ditinili (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Would you be more specific? I do not know to what cases you are referring. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course. For example, you have tried to edit the article Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia, particularly a part about Eggers's and Trestik's work, without reading any of them.Ditinili (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
No. I have never stated that I read those works. I wanted to ensure that their views are properly presented, because anybody who reads the article and reads reviews of Eggers' theory still can realize that Eggers' theory is not fairly presented. Borsoka (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
You made several edits based exclusively on your own assumptions about the content without reading any of the works. Now, you assume that if you read something it is "most of works". Bad approach. Ditinili (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
No. Could you prove your above statement? Yes, I know that you think that you are an expert of this field because you read some works written by Czechoslovak, Czech and Slovak historians. However, it is obvious that you do not know other literature. You think that my assumptions were invented, because you do not know that scholarly theories that you accept as a dogma are not always accepted outside Slovakia (for instance, the presence of an Onogur Bulgar population in the lowlands along the Middle Danube and its subsidiaries, including the Morava is a common place in Hungarian historiography). Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Shortly, I do not write the articles about the works which I have never read. Ditinili (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Shortly, neither do I. End of conversation. Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The history of the article mentioned above proves opposite as can be verified by anybody at anytime. Ditinili (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

ArcheologyEdit

This article is labeled a "Good article", but lacks photographic evidence of archaeological material, references to primary sources, contemporary coins, etc. All it has is a debated map and a photo of a modern day romanticized statue. Is this still a "Good article"?

TagsEdit

Hello Borsoka (talk · contribs) and Ditinili (talk · contribs). I'm about to translate the article to Portuguese, as I'm doing with many articles about Slavic's history. But I saw that after all modifications this article still have three different tags about specific problemas that exist on it. My question is, does anyone have any idea how to solve them? Considering everything that was remove from this article, another question, some articles about Arpad's family members still mention the possibility that some nobles were nominated to this State by the great-princes, but as I understood all mentions to Nitra after Pribina were removed with all the references, but it is still mentioned on the individual articles. Other thing, why do we need to change Vlasto's book to a supposed better source? Just because it if from the 80s? I don't understand it. If we take in consideration Late Antiquity and Early Byzantine periods, to study about people who lived near the Mediterranean at that time the better source so far to study it is the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, and the first volume of if is from 1971, 9 years before Vlasto's book. I understand that a lot of things can change during three decades, but I don't understand why we have to remove it.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your enquiry. According to official Czechoslovak and Slovak historiography, the unification of the "Principality of Nitra" (=an early medieval Slovakia) with the "Principality of Moravia" (=an early medieval Czechia) gave rise to the development of "Great Moravia" (=an early medieval Czechoslovakia) around 830. In the 1980s and 1990s, Slovak historians continued the history of the "Principality of Nitra" until 1108. For no primary source mentions this principality, most (certain or uncertain) early references to Nitra are to be regarded as a proof of the existence of a principality centered around the town, while other early references to the same town, which clearly contradict the official view are to be ignored. Consequently, all information which contradict this official view would sooner of later receive an "undue weight" or "better source needed" tag in the article. Vlasto's sin is that he describes Pribina (the allegedly independent first, second or third prince of Nitra) as a high-ranking Moravian official. Similarly, a historian's reference to a letter, written around 900, which strongly suggests that the Moravian ruler Svatopluk conquered Nitra only around 870, will be labelled as a marginal view or alternative theory. I hope Ditinili can clarify the issue, because he is an expert of the history of this mystical principality. Borsoka (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure what do you mean by the "official" (and "unofficial") historiography or the "official view". In 2017, there is not any "official" opinion, only free scientific research (often a cross-border research). The opinion that "Great Moravia" was some kind of early medieval Czechoslovakia is (as far as I know) not supported by any modern Czech and Slovak scientist. Of course, this view existed in the past and played an important role in Czech-Slovak relationships. The role and position of Pribina is not completely clear. He could be a sovereign ruler or an official from Moravia. We simply do not know. There are pro and con arguments. In any case, we cannot speak about a "sin" (???) such views are held also by modern historians. Yes, the problem of Vlasto's book that it is simply too old. There are theories that had to be revised also in last 15 years, because they were not compliant with modern dating methods. Only for this reason, I suggest to cite recent sources.
How to fix existing issues? We should cite mainly recognized Central-European medievalists (e.g. Richard Marsina, Zdeněk Měřínský, Dušan Třeštík maybe older works Herwig Wolfram) and to give due-weight to publications of authors with a questionable or poor reputation in this field (Imre Boba, Matin Eggers or Charles Bowlus). Stanislav Kirschbaum is also not the best author. His works are available in English, but he is not an expert.
Yes, the theory that Svätopluk conquered Nitra only around 870 is a marginal alternative view. Uncritical evaluation of contemporary sources belongs to the 19th century. Ditinili (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is no official historiography, but all views contradicting it, are marginal or old. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, you can write an article about "the official historiography", who reviews, approves or denies theories, etc. Ditinili (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I do not want to write that article. We should also use the books of recognized medievalists, who had been born and worked outside Czechoslovakia/Slovakia/Czech Republic, such as Charles Bowlus (who is regularly cited in academic works published outside Czechoslovakia/Slovakia/Czech Republic). We should forget our dogmas. Borsoka (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The statements about "the official ideology", "sin against something", "dogmas", etc are largely unscientific and sounds like a conspiracy theory. It is not our task to fight against some alleged dogmas. Also the statements like "the official ideology" indicate that these views are prevailing and largely accepted.
The theory of Charles Bowlus about the annexation only in 870 from the south has a poor scientific reputation. The theory that it was annexed at the worst case in 830's from the west is largely accepted. On the one hand, there are numerous archaeologic evidences proving the existence of shared culture between present-day Moravia and Slovakia (maybe except the most eastern part) dated before 870. On the other hand, there is an unknown polity with the central agglomeration in Nitra (as far as we know, it was not just an average ducal hillfort, but the agglomeration non plus ultra) with unexplained questions how it could grow in the Moravian backyard. Why the material culture is shared right in the territory where according to "dogmas" Great Moravia already existed? If Svatopluk subjugated some Pagan tribes in Nitra only in 870, why the burial rite is compliant with the Christian burial rite? Where are Pagan shrines and related artifacts? From were the army liberating Moravian centers in 871 came from? Was it recruited from the territory annexed only in 870? Why were these soldiers loyal to Svatopluk already one year later? Was it in their interest? Ditinili (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If we can't prove that x or y are non reputed, I suggest an intermediary approach, that I particularly did about other topic totally different (the portuguese version of Arshak III, where the historians are divided according their theories about the time that his king ruled). What I did was take all conflitual theories and put it all together on a explanatory note, showing to the reader that there is not a consensus about that, and I think that this might be a case here. I see that the difference of time is huge between the theories, but We would put on the text just the date more cited on the books and scientific papers and complement it with a note saying: "Despite such date, according to w, x and y another possible date is A because..." I think it's the better approach now, considering that both of you, who is arguing about it for so long, didn't prove to each other who ir righter or wronger.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. On the other hand per WP:NPOV: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. Ditinili (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
We cannot fight against dogmas, but we do not need to accept them. Charles Bowlus is widely cited in books published by academic institutions, so we cannot ignore him, even if he has challenged dogmas. (1) Shared culture between present-day Moravia and Slovakia: the territories were exposed to the same cultural influences (Roman Empire, Germanic peoples, Slavs, Avars and the Carolingian Empire) for centuries, so it would be surprising if they did not share the same culture. (2) Flourishing settlements and regions often existed on the "backyard" of countries: the wealthy Transylvanian Saxon towns in the southeastern regions of medieval Hungary, the important centers of silk manufacture in Central Greece in the southwestern corner of the Byzantine Empire, etc. (3) Svatopluk's army: we know that he ruled a separate realm during Rastislav's reign, so he obviously had an army. We do not know where Svatopluk's realm was situated, it is only an assumption that it was identical with Nitra. Do we know that the soldiers from Nitra were loyal to Svatopluk? Is there, at all, any reference to soldiers from Nitra during Svatopluk's reign? (4) Paganism/Christianity in Nitra: "On the basis of the archaeological data so far, the presence of a chuch on or near Castle Hill [in Nitra] is doubtful. That Castle Hill was fortified with a palisade in the 9th century is, for the time being, also doubtful. What is sure is that the Carolingian era there is indicated by just a few modest burials containing vessels and conducted with pagan rites." Szőke, Béla Miklós (2014). The Carolingian Age in the Carpathian Basin. Hungarian National Museum. p. 53. ISBN 978-615-5209-17-8. Borsoka (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't speak about an ignorance, but about avoiding giving undue weight. (1) Then, it must be explained why are the same artifacts from the 9th century rarely found on other places also exposed to the Roman, Avar or Carolingian influence, but they are common in the territory where Great Moravia should be. (2) See 1 (3) Surely, but if the Frankish army captured main Moravian centers, we should really answer from where the Slavomir's army came from. A good answer is that from the unoccupied part of the country. Large centers in Slovakia like Bojná, Nitra, etc, on the "periphery" seem to be a reasonable explanation. (4) I don't speak about one church referenced in Conversio which could be at other places, not only on the Castle Hill. It could be on Martinský Vrch, Na Vŕšku.... Maybe, it will never be found, because Nitra was extended, rebuild, destroyed, rebuild... The size of the agglomeration does not to allow to reduce this site to "few modest burials containing vessels and conducted with pagan rites". Once again, it is one of largest contemporary agglomerations in the Central Europe. Ditinili (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we should not give undue weight to any views. (1) I did not write anything of all territories exposed to Roman, Avar or Carolingian influence. I specifically referred to territories which were exposed to Roman, Germanic, Slavic, Avar and Carolingian influences. Could you mention other territories on the borders of the Roman and Carolingian empires, which were for centuries inhabited by Germanic, Slavic and Avar groups? (2) I do not understand your reference to point 1, taking into account that my points 1 and 2 are independent of each other. (3) Sorry, I do not understand your remark. Why do you assume that the occupation of the main Moravian centers prevented Slavomir from gathering troops from the unoccupied or occupied parts of Moravia. Please remember the partisans' fight against the Nazis in the occupied regions of France, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Italy during WWII. (4) The quotation from Szőke mentions only the Castle Hill, but Szőke is positiv that there is no certain archaeological evidence of an early 9th-century power center in Nitra. Yes, we can assume that there was a power center without archaeological evidence, but we should not say that our assumption is a fact and views contradicting our assumption are marginal. Nevertheless, if we agree that we should not give undue weight to any views and we should not present scholarly theories as facts, we are on the same side. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
(1) This sounds like a very artificial explanation. Surely, present-day Moravia and Slovakia were not the only one territories exposed to the Roman, Germanic, Avar, Slavic and Carolignian influence. Curiously, e.g. very characteristic jewelry is found mostly in these territories, maybe rarely on other places. E.g. Slovenia was also exposed to the same influences, curiously, the culture is somehow different. (2) I see this very closely related, since a theory about an unknown independent polity with the same artifacts raises (at least) questions. More, if Nitrava was annexed only in 870, where is the destruction layer from cca this period? I mean something similar to the destruction layer known from the turnover of the 9th/10th century which was found on several places. (3) Well, we are not here to make or to evaluate our own theories. For me personally, the comparison of early medieval warfare with modern partisan warfare is completely irrelevant. (4) I don't have this publication and it is not in my university library. No doubts, Nitra is the largest agglomeration from this period unearth is Slovakia (larger than the medieval town). I am curious, what it was.
Anyway, we are not supposed to fight against "dogmas" or to search for the ultimate truth. If some opinion is widely accepted, then it is largely accepted. Ditinili (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
(1) There are significant differences between Slovenia and the plains to the north of the Middle Danube. Slovenia was under Roman rule for centuries and a significant Romanized population survived for further centuries, but the valleys of the Morava and Nitra rivers were never occupied by Rome. The latter territories were inhabited by Germanic groups for centuries, while no major Germanic groups settled in Slovenia before the arrival of the Slavs. The Avars directly dominated the plains to the north of the Middle Danube and they also settled in the same territory, while the Slavs of Slovenia only paid tribute to the Avars and fought along with them. The Carolingian Empire integrated Slovenia, while Moravia and Western Slovakia was not an integral part of the Carolingian Empire for more than 1-3 years. It would be strange if the culture of early medieval Slovenia were not different from that of Moravia and Western Slovakia. (2) If we believe that there was an important center of power in Nitra before 870, we are surprised that it was not destroyed when Svatopluk occupied it around 870, according to an almost contemporaneous letter. However, if we know that there is no archaeological evidence of a power center in Nitra, we are not surprised. (3) Yes, we are not here to evaluate our own theories, but you have been attempting to demonstrate that theories contradicting your favorite theory are baseless and marginal. For this purpose, you raised a question, implying that Slavomir's case evidences that there must have been an alternative power center in Nitra, which enabled him to re-occupy the parts of Moravia, which had been occupied by the Franks. Have you heard of the occupation of Scotland by the English in the late 13th century and the successful fight of Wallace and Robert Bruce? What about the Byzantine occupation of Bulgaria and the rebellion of the Cometopuli? Assymetric warfare is not connected to the 20th century. (4) Yes, Nitra developed into an important center in the late 9th century, after it became the seat of a bishopric and Svatopluk. Power centers could develop in decades: before the Mongol invasion, there were no power center on the Castle Hill in Buda, but about 30 years later, there was a royal castle, which was surrounded by dozens of villages. Otherwise, as I have told you, we agree that we are not here to fight against dogmas, but we do not have to label theories which contradict to the favorite theory of our homeland as marginal, etc. Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
(1) Naïve, sounds like WP:OR, does not take into account e.g. long trade routes, such approach e.g. overemphasizes Germanic and Roman influences just to demonstrate the "uniqueness" of the area, cannot explain mediterran or byzantine-oriental styles (althought what is called a "byzantine-oriental" style is also discussed, since some similar artifacts can be found e.g. in Bulgaria, but with a different evolution).
If my understanding is correct, you have accepted that "the existence of shared culture between present-day Moravia and Slovakia ... dated before 870" does not prove that the two territories were united already around 830, because many factors could contribute to such a phenomenon. (Yes, we could underemphasize the consequences of 500 year of Roman rule in Slovenia, in contrast with 500 years of Germanic rule in Slovakia, but it would be quite strange.) Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Your personal opinion. --Ditinili (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
(2) The theory about the center built in e.g. 30 years (870-900) is not compatible with the local research. Even if we ignore the local research, it is strange that Pribina build the church at his property in underveloped Nitrava (something what was not completely common), Svatopluk founded bishopric at underdeveloped Nitra, the Slavs build centers all around, but not at this strategic location... If the center in Nitra "did not exist" (does it ?) Well, everything can be explained, but if you combine several unlikely facts... Does Szoke really speak about 870?
The local research has not proved the existence of a local power center in Nitra: there are no fortresses, which can be dated to the first decades of the 9th century. Yes we can assume that Nitrawa where the archbishop consecrated a church for Pribina is identical with Nitra, but this is an assumption, not a fact. Győr, Vác, Eger were not power centers before fortresses were built and bishoprics were established there: they developed into important centers, because of the existence of a local fortress and cathedral. Why do you think that each place with a strategic location must be also a power center? There was no fortress on the Castle Hill of Buda for centuries, although it was strategically located on the Danube, as its later history proved this. Yes, everything can be combined: based on a marginal note on a Bavarian manuscript we can create a Principality of Nitra and unite it with Moravia into Great Moravia around 830 if we ignore an other Bavarian manuscript which suggests that Nitra was only conquered decades later, and if we say that archaeological evidence for an early-9th-century power center in Nitra cannot be found, because the town has been rebuilt so many times. I have never stated that Szőke speaks about 870: he only strongly emphasizes his doubts about the association of Pribina's Nitrava with Nitra. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The disputed year 870 was not in "the first decades" of the 9th century. It seems that you do WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Did Szoke wrote that there was not any power center in 870? I am not interested on your evaluation of the primary sources - WP:PRIMARY Ditinili (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
(3) Speculations (both theories are speculations - the first one can be at least cited as an expert opinion of several experts, but I am not sure also the second can be, or if it is WP:OR.
Yes, we can assume that soldiers from Nitra came to fight against the Franks, but it is only an assumption. For instance, Eric J. Goldberg says, that Slavomir's soldiers came from Stare Mesto (Goldberg, Eric J. (2006). Struggle for Empire: Kingship and Conflict under Louis the German, 817–876. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-7529-0, pages 309-310.)Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, then there is such exert opinion (like for the first theory). Ditinili (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
(4) See 2.
See 2. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of all pros and cons, wikipedia is not a discussion forum. The theory that both territories were integrated before 870 is widely accepted and presented by numerous scholars. The end. This is a plain fact. You can believe that they are correct or not, you can say that it someone's favorite theory or not, but it absolutely does not matter. If some theory is widely accepted by numerous scholars and a small group of scholars have a different opinion, then simply follow WP:DUE_WEIGHT. Ditinili (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I have never suggested or proposed that any theories accepted and presented by most Czechoslovak, Czech and Slovak scholars should be ignored. If you read the start of this debate, you can realize that only the existence of multiple tags is being debated here. Those tags should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:RS does not say anything about a nationality. The assumption that there is some Czech and Slovak prevailing view and "another" prevailing view is WP:OR.Ditinili (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I have not said that there is "another" prevailing view. I only referred to the fact that Czechoslovak, Czech and Slovak historians regard the existence of a Principality of Nitra as a fact, while other historians are not so sure. Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
You mixed several problems. a) the status of the territory in 833 (maybe Pribina was a Moravian official, maybe he was an independent ruler) b) the status in 870 and its alleged annexation at this time. Does Szoke say that the territory had been an integral part of the GM emire only since 870 or he does not? Ditinili (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I do not mix. (1) If Pribina's Nitrawa was not identical with Nitra we could hardly speak about a Principality of Nitra. (And the status of the territory is still a question of debate, if Pribina's Nitrawa and Nitra were one and the same towns.) (2) No, Szőke does not speak of the occupation of Nitra. Borsoka (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
(1) Even this assumption is not correct if Nitrawa means a larger estate in the Nitra river valley. (2) Then, who are scholars stating that Nitra was annexed in 870? (Except Bowlus and his controversial theory about GM) If you are referring to Szoke to support a theory of another author (annexation in 870) and he did not say it, it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.Ditinili (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Szoke: "A „Duna feletti területről” Moimar morva fejedelem által 830 táján elűzött Priwinát előszeretettel nevezik nyitrai fejedelemnek, holott a források, köztük az életéről legbőségesebben tájékoztató Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum soha nem említi (gentilis) duxként, s Nyitrán sincs nyoma Karoling-kori fejedelmi székhelynek (ahogy az állítólag Adalram érsek által felszentelt templomának sem)."p 2 -Rough translation: Pribina who was expelled from "above the territories of the Danube" by Mojmir around 830 is usually titled as "prince of Nitra", however, among other sources, the Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum which gives us the most detailed explanation about his life doesn't even mention him as dux and there is no sign of a princely seat in Nitra during the Carolingian age (nor his church allegedly consecrated by Archbishop Adalram).... Fakirbakir (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
"A consecration document relating to a church in Nitra by the Salzburgian archbishop Adalram on behalf of prince Pribina exists, but, in spite of intensive excavations in the Nitra region, where traces of one sacral building and of another were found, neither could be positively identified as the church consecrated by Adalram" British Archaeological Reports, International Series, Issues 929-931, 2001, p. 88. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
"is usually titled as "prince of Nitra" This topic is already covered by the article Pribina. It is not related to any open tag and also in this discussion, it was stated that we simply do not know if he was an independent ruler or a Moravian official.
"there is no sign of a princely seat in Nitra during the Carolingian age" - dubious or/and clarification needed, Nitra#History is a better place for more details.
"neither could be positively identified as the church consecrated by Adalram" - again, it is not related to any open tag, there is a wide agreement that this church has not been found yet and it is not clear if it is possible. Nitra is not Mikulčice or Bojná - abandoned and preserved. Hot candidates were/are Hradný vrch and Martinský vrch, however another location is also possible. We also do not know where is the grave of saint Methodius, but he surely died.Ditinili (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
(1) Yes, maybe Nitrawa was an estate in the Nitra river valley. However, the article is about an alleged principality. (2) If Pribina and Nitra was not connected and there existed no power centers in the tonw, we can hardly speak about the Moravian occupation of the town around 830. WP:DUE? Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
(1) No, you wrote "If Pribina's Nitrawa was not identical with Nitra we could hardly speak about a Principality of Nitra". Even if the church was not consecrated exactly in the territory of present-day Nitra, but e.g. in the neighboring village (hypothesis) and "Nitrawa" means a larger estate, this is not the argument against the existence. (2) Firstly, it is generally accepted by numerous scholars that the mention is reliable and they are connected. Although if we accept a hypothesis that there was none fortification in 830, it does not automatically mean that it was annexed in 870. Thus, I am asking again and again, who are the scholars who say that it was annexed in 870 (except Bowlus). (None power center = one of largest contemporary agglomeration in the contemporary Central Europe). Ditinili (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"...and for Nitra (Nitrava) he (Eggers) claims that this region was incorporated with Moravia only between 871/874 and 880, i.e, under Svatopluk." (Henrik Birnbaum, Some remaining puzzles in Cyrillo-Methodian studies, SLOVO, sv 47-49 (1997-'99), 7-32, Zagreb 1999, pp. 21-23) Fakirbakir (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Egger's poor-quality work is already covered here. Something serious? Ditinili (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"Egger's poor-quality work"??? Sorry, but who are you to label him like that? Fakirbakir (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The guy who read the book (initially written as a dissertation work) and also the reviews from prominent central European historians and archaeologists like Richard Marsina, Herwig Wolfram, Zdeněk Měřínský, Dušan Třeštík and others. All of them studied the topic for decades and noticed significant methodologic mistakes, poor knowledge of archaeology, etc. Also the guy, who can compare Egger's theories about the history of Western Slovakia with the publications written by scientists who really do research in the region like Jozef Zábojník, Milan Hanuliak, Matej Ruttkay, Karol Pieta and many others.--Ditinili (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Evidence for flag and coat of armsEdit

Do we have physical evidence for the flag/coat of arms or is this Wikipedia creating "facts" again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.85.85 (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Checking the page for File:Nitrianska_vlajka.png, the description says it is at best a speculation, but does not mention any source or evidence for the usage of this flag in the period mentioned in the article. Wikipedia should remove the flag until further evidence is provided.
As for the coat of arms, it's the COA of a late 12th century Hungarian king, not the Nitran principality. Should also be removed. This article itself reads like a "history building" project based on no or unreliable sources.

It had own coins with double cross https://colnect.com/en/coins/coin/63475-1_Denar-1064%7E1074_-_G%C3%A9za_Duke-Hungary https://colnect.com/en/coins/coin/63469-1_Denar-1048~1060_-_B%C3%A9la_Duke-Hungary https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41713.html https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces40114.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=9NQ6DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=geza+duke+of+nitra&source=bl&ots=KVWBTfpguF&sig=ACfU3U3oTck0opH-IgbPzVlZeWW7ILs17Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP66a8tJDlAhXBnFwKHWmYA-YQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=geza%20duke%20of%20nitra&f

https://books.google.com/books?id=9NQ6DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=bela+duke+of+nitra&source=bl&ots=KVWBTfpetJ&sig=ACfU3U1lFka_lG7QVIeLPkNoXnx2ZF7J-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7opXas5DlAhWtQkEAHcGYDLAQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=bela%20duke%20of%20nitra&f

https://books.google.com/books?id=9NQ6DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=geza+duke+of+nitra+battle+mogyorod&source=bl&ots=KVWBTfpkvE&sig=ACfU3U3ClgbijFsfa4eWJRw7ZmvsGYKliA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8sq__tZDlAhV7QkEAHaGwBVcQ6AEwDXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=geza%20duke%20of%20nitra%20battle%20mogyorod&f

own flag and coat of arms Battle of Mogyoród, the King's flag were the red and white stripes. https://esacademic.com/pictures/eswiki/67/Chronicon_Pictum_P85_M%C3%B3gyor%C3%B3di_csata.JPG The rule was practically independent under Béla and Géza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeyroxpay (talkcontribs) 03:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Béla as the ruler of the "Duchy" minted coins, but he was not only the ruler of Nitra, but also of many other territories (including Bihar). Could we say that Queen Elizabeth II is the queen of Manchester and for this reason the flag of Manchaster is identical with her personal flag? Borsoka (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Béla was Duke of Nitra, Géza also. It has a lot of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeyroxpay (talkcontribs) 14:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we know that Béla and Géza were dukes of the "Duchy" and we assume that his duchy included Nitra and Bihar counties. We also know that in Slovakian historiography they are mentioned as dukes of Nitra. However, no medieval document wrote of a Principality or Duchy of Nitra and its dukes and no medieval documents referred to them as princes or dukes of Nitra. Borsoka (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

this https://books.google.com/books?id=9NQ6DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=bela+duke+of+nitra&source=bl&ots=KVWBTfpetJ&sig=ACfU3U1lFka_lG7QVIeLPkNoXnx2ZF7J-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7opXas5DlAhWtQkEAHcGYDLAQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=bela%20duke%20of%20nitra&f is not Slovakian book Béla's coins and Géza's coins are practically same. Both were dukes of Nitra, This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biharia coat of arms of Bihar, Géza was duke of Nitra, his brother Ladislaus duke of Bihar. Battle of Mogyoród, Géza against king Solomon, the King's flag were the red and white stripes. https://esacademic.com/pictures/eswiki/67/Chronicon_Pictum_P85_M%C3%B3gyor%C3%B3di_csata.JPG

what are you talking about ,,PoV,, map, check the Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of France, Spain, duchies etc a lot of examples, everyone have pov map. And stop, because you ignore facts and sources, this is similar as vandalism.

Individual reassessmentEdit

GA ReassessmentEdit

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Principality of Nitra/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Article includes multiple improvment tags, it's also much much shorter than it's original GA counterpart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NightBag10 (talkcontribs)

Just pinging Borsoka and 3family6 to make sure they are aware of this. AIRcorn (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think this meets current standards for verifiablity. There are large chunks of text with no way for the reader to figure out how to reference them to a source. buidhe 21:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, this article has been changed substantially, and unfortunately does not meet GA criteria anymore.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree, it does not meet GA criteria and should be relisted. Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Since Nightbag10 has not edited in a while and we have a good consensus here I am going to delist this. AIRcorn (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Map of the Principality of NitraEdit

@Zeyroxpay:, the map is highly controversial. It claims that the so-called "Principality of Nitra" included present-day Slovakia and large parts of Hungary. However, there are scholars who say that Béla and his sons' "Duchy" included only some counties in the northwestern part of the Kingdom of Hungary and some other countries in the eastern territories. For instance, the following map shows the "Duchy" and its northwestern territories are quite small.

 
Hungary in 1102 - Ducatus (Tercia pars regni) in darker blue

Let's forget that the association of Béla and his sons' Duchy with the alleged Principality of Nitra is highly controversial, because no 9th-12th-century sources write of a Principality/Duchy of Nitra or a prince or duke of Nitra. However, we cannot forget WP:NPOV and cannot present a PoV map as a fact. Please also read WP:3RR carefuly, because edit warring may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

map shows 1102, not 11.th century yes, it was written in the Latin texts. https://books.google.com/books?id=6M9fAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=dux+nitriensis&source=bl&ots=geUUs4_oz-&sig=ACfU3U0VEb6YzGJ_Gwda07RwFm5tWBDmRQ&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=dux%20nitriensis&f

https://books.google.com/books?id=HcpcAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=dux+nitriensis&source=bl&ots=7VRU3Gztot&sig=ACfU3U2DTW417WVw7vaFjO5IV6W_63advw&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=dux%20nitriensis&f

https://books.google.com/books?id=2nedMK12I7YC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=dux+Nitriensis&source=bl&ots=FHPfCardg5&sig=ACfU3U3aVGOALds8RVVGo4EvjN_cwAKJwg&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=dux%20Nitriensis&f

so stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeyroxpay (talkcontribs) 14:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Yes, around 1208, the Gesta Hungarorum wrote of a late 9th-century Zobor describing him as the duke of Nitra. The same source also write of Roman dukes ruling Pannonia and Khazars dwelling in Bihar. What is the connection between this legendary duke and Béla and his sons' duchy? Borsoka (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

FlagEdit

Any citations about that flag? Or is it just 21st century fan work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.52.134 (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

it has, read it in upper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeyroxpay (talkcontribs) 19:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No. The article doesn't name a single source, the file description page doesn't name a single source. Remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.115.80 (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=9NQ6DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=geza+duke+of+nitra&source=bl&ots=KVWBTfpguF&sig=ACfU3U3oTck0opH-IgbPzVlZeWW7ILs17Q&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=geza%20duke%20of%20nitra&f

https://books.google.com/books?id=9NQ6DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=geza+duke+of+nitra+battle+mogyorod&source=bl&ots=KVWBTfpkvE&sig=ACfU3U3ClgbijFsfa4eWJRw7ZmvsGYKliA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=geza%20duke%20of%20nitra%20battle%20mogyorod&f

https://colnect.com/en/coins/coin/63475-1_Denar-1064%7E1074_-_G%C3%A9za_Duke-Hungary , https://colnect.com/en/coins/coin/63475-1_Denar-1064%7E1074_-_G%C3%A9za_Duke-Hungary https://esacademic.com/pictures/eswiki/67/Chronicon_Pictum_P85_M%C3%B3gyor%C3%B3di_csata.JPG Battle of Mogyoród, Géza against king Solomon, the King's flag were the red and white stripes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeyroxpay (talkcontribs) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A coin is not a flag. Learn logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.115.80 (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

in medieval times, flags were based from the coins, seals etc. Also, you can see it in the Chronicum pictum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeyroxpay (talkcontribs) 17:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

There were no coat of arms until the end of 12th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CumbererStone (talkcontribs) 16:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

MapEdit

What's the reasoning behind replacing the old map with this one?Basserr (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Principality of Nitra" page.