Talk:History of Slovakia

Recent edits regarding Principality of Nitra

Wait a second please, with reverting and rewriting regarding this entity. User:Svetovid has just received a block as he was on no-revert policy and has reverted without proper explanation the edit by Borsoka, which had changed

future Principality of Nitra

to

supposed Principality of Nitra

with edit summary The existence of the "Principality" of Nitra has not been proved yet based on written sources.

Very quickly afterwards, anonymous user 217.116.37.138 has replaced text

An anonymous Bavarian geographic work Descriptio Civitatum et Regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubiti mentions in 817 the existence of 30 castles on the territory of the Principality of Nitra and of 11 castles on the territory of the Moravian principality.

by

An anonymous Bavarian geographic work Descriptio Civitatum et Regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubiti mentions in 817 the existence several castles over the Danube.

with edit summary The Bavarian Geographer did not mention the Principality of Nitra.

I am no historian and indeed I have no sources by hand, but something seems wrong to me.

First Borsoka edit. At Talk:Great Moravia#Principality of Nitria? Unification of two principalities? there is debate between Borsoka and Tankred about existence of principality of Nitra. It seems Tankred had answered all questions. Article stays with Principality of Nitra as accepted entity. Why then Borsoka has changed "future" (as Samo Empire preceded Morava and Nitra principality) to "supposed" on completely different article, i.e. here?

Now anon edit. I wonder whether he has read primary source in Latin, based on his edit summary. Otherwise I cannot understand how can he be so sure. Maybe some other source. It would be very helpful to anyone working with the article if someone, preferably the anon if he stops by, could elaborate on this. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ruziklan. Thank you for your remarks. As to the existence of the "Principality of Nitra", I refer to Talk:Great Moravia#Principality of Nitria? Unification of two principalities? where I raised the question that has not been answered yet. I cannot read primary sources in Latin, but there are some translations available on-line, and you can checque that the Bavarian Historian did not mention any "Principality of Nitria". The English translation of his text is available at Great Moravia and it has not been challanged by other users.Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have answered all your questions at Talk:Great Moravia#Principality of Nitria? Unification of two principalities? and we have a neutral version at Great Moravia that can be used also here. Am I mistaken? Tankred (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Great Moravia#Principality of Nitria? Unification of two principalities?, you will find that my question has not been answered yet. Borsoka (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Moravia

"But the rich deposits of iron, silver and copper also served as strong attractions to the rulers of the Frankish empire." Is there any reference that the Frankish empire attacked Great Moravia because of the rich deposits of iron, etc? The Frankish empire attacked all the neighbouring territories, and rulers of the neighbouring territories attacked the Frankish empire for several reasons (sometimes "just for fun"). I suggest this sentence should be deleted.Borsoka (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"To put an end to the aggression of the Eastern Franks, he attempted, starting in 853, to establish an alliance with the Bulgars." The primary source (the Annales Bertiniani) mentions that the Bulgars promoted the alliance and suggests that the Bulgars received donations from the Western Franks in order to attack East Francia. I think the sentence should be modified properly. Borsoka (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"(Note that Prague did not become an archdiocese until 1344.)" It is not relevant information, I suggest it should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"the establishment of the Slavon language as the liturgical language (867), the first liturgical Slav language after Hebrew, Latin and Greek" Do we really think that e.g., Chinese, Persian people used any of the mentioned languages in their liturgy? I think this sentence should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Any sentences that you wish to challenge, go ahead and add {{fact}} next to them to request a citation. Then if no one supplies a source in a week or so, you can remove the sentence. Or, you can be bold, update the sentence yourself, and add a source to allow verification of your change. --Elonka 05:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is being bold advisable even now when Borsoka seemingly disagrees with so many things that are common knowledge for educated Slovak? As to his question, I would just add a word "Christian" to "liturgy" - and then it is common knowledge as I know it for 25 years. Surely some history-dedicated editor will be able to turn {{fact}} into sourced information. Deleting all facts he disagrees with would cripple the article in my view. --Ruziklan (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As to the above suggestion to the liturgical languages, your solution looks perfect for me. :) Borsoka (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As to the reference to the Archbishopric of Prague. I know that it is a documented fact, I would not deny it (I am not so bad you think of me). My suggestion is based on the feeling that this reference is superfluous. The reference that the first archbishopric in Slav territories was established for Method means that the archbishopric is older than the archbishopric of Prague. Borsoka (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

At to the reference to "rich deposits of iron, silver", my feeling is that is also superfluous. But I do not deny that the Frank Empire attacked several times the Moravians. Borsoka (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would go ahead and edit. Even for those editors under restrictions during these disputes, they are not being prevented from editing the article, they are only being prevented from reverting the article. Ideally what I would like to see is all editors working on editing the article, steadily trying to improve it. That's an article in a state of "healthy" editing. Think of it like a living organism, where the editors are the lifeblood, bringing in nutrients and taking away waste. One way that an article becomes "sick", is when it gets stuck in an endless cycle: one move forward, one move back, one move forward, one move back (I'm sure you've seen the same in chess!). What I'm trying to do, is get everyone back into the flow of steady improvements. One editor adds something, another adds a source, another maybe challenges that source, another reworks the sentence into a different format, another adds a better source, another adds an opposing viewpoint and their own source, etc. As long as information is coming from reliable sources, and the article remains in a neutral tone which is written in a way that best benefits our readers, go ahead and be bold and dive in!  :) --Elonka 13:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How could I mark if I suggest that a sentence should be deleted because it supplies information that is (i) either irrelevant (e.g., an article named "Mary Stuart" would refer to "Scotland" mentioning that Scotish people prepare excellent quality of whiskey, whiskey is made of ...., etc) or (ii) superfluous (e.g., "Dog" is an animal. Dogs are not human beings. Dogs are living creatures and they are not objects). Thanks! Borsoka (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why this: "... Prince Pribina (mentioned as "a certain Pribina" in the sources)"? Useless for reader. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the only contemporary written source (Conversium Bagariorum et Carantanorum) mentioning him in conection with Nitrava does not style him "prince", he is mentioned as a "certain Priwina").Borsoka (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember, secondary sources trump primary. If there are reliable secondary sources which say "Prince Pribina", that's all that's needed. --Elonka 16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, references to reliable secondary sources were made that (i) refer to Pribina as a chieftain of the Slavs and (ii) mention that the only primary source mentioning Pribina's connection to Nitra is the Conversio. The secondary sources are written by mainstream Hungarian historians. Borsoka (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian-Slovakian disputes

This article appears to be within the scope of several disputes between Hungarian and Slovakian editors. To address this, a central page has been setup at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, where several of the issues are being discussed, and work is being done towards the creation of a guideline which will help reduce such disputes in the future. Any interested editors are invited to join the page and participate in the discussion. --Elonka 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Borsoka's edit

Can someone stop these edits that go against everything Wikipedia should be?--Svetovid (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the reliable s e c o n d a r y sources used was made when editing the article. I think the edits are fully in line with Wikipedia's principles. If it is right, why do you want to banish me? Borsoka (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, given the way some history articles are edited, I would rather prefer waiting a bit to see what everything will be added and then the rewriting with proper balancing of all information and exclusion of original research may be done. If you choose to take this approach, in the meantime you can check sources added and collect any other information to have good grounds for probably ensuing debate. Hm? --Ruziklan (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the original research.--Svetovid (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Svetovid, I would like to emphasize that the two sentences you removed are not based on primary but on s e c o n d a r y sources that are properly cited in the text; therefore they cannot qualify "original research". Borsoka (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are still adding redundant phrases like "styled as prince by later historians," and "mentioned as ... by modern historians." The Babylonian Empire was also called this later and that's the way it is. English in its modern form didn't even exist back then.
For the last time, the document you cite (even though you don't speak Latin) is not the only contemporary source. If you can't acknowledge that after being told by many editors many times, you need to be seriously warned. See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Svetovid (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Svetovid, if you think that the phrases you mentioned above, are not in line with the rules of Wikipedia, do delete them. But undoing edits based on reliable (secondary) sources may be against our rules. Just remember, that my favourite question ("what is the nearly (contemporary) written source that styles Pribina as <<prince>> and mentions the <<Principality of Nitra>>?") has not been answered yet. I cited a reliable (secondary) source that states that the only (nearly) contemporary source mentioning the connection of Pribina and Nitra is the Conversio and the secondary source refers him as "Pribina". Of course, reference should be made to the fact that he is styled as "Prince" by later authors (I think this is a remarkable fact). If you find a reliable source mentioning that a contemporary source styles Pribina as "Prince" or his domain as "Principality of Nitra", do not refrain from citing it. If you realised, I have not deleted any reference to his dignity ("Prince"), the text I suggested based on a c a d e m i c source only states the fact that the only contemporary written source does not use this title (this may be also a remarkable fact). 213.134.25.21 (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC) It was me Borsoka (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC) (sorry for my permanent absent-mindness)

You seem to have problems with semantics. The Slovak title is knieža, which translates as Fürst, which translates as prince in English. Some writers refer to Pribina as duke, which would be an even higher rank. And the Nitra and Balaton polities would then be duchies.--Svetovid (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. I was sure that Pribina is styled with the rank equivalent to "Prince" in the Slovak academic sources. However, I mentioned that he was probably never styled with such a rank by his contemporaries, and this presumption was confirmed by reliable secondary sources. I accept that nowadays he is widely referenced as "Prince Pribina"; therefore I do not suggest that this denomination should be changed in the article, any more. I only would like to draw the attention of the readers of the article to the verifiable fact that this is a rank given to him only centuries later. Borsoka (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, leaders of even smaller Slavic polities (a dozen of Czech tribes, Vistulans in Poland, etc.) are referred to as princes in Frankish and Bulgarian sources. I think the convention of calling Pribina a prince comes from this usage. I have no idea how he stylized himself. But modern books call him a prince and I think we should respect it. On the other hand, I have nothing against a footnote explaining that we do not know how the original title of Pribina. It will not harm anyone. I hope this conflict will be soon over. Tankred (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember he is mentioned as "a c e r t a i n Priwina" in the same sentence that refers to "Moimir, D u k e of the Moravians" in the only (nearly) contemporary source. Nevertheless, the edits I made were based on reliable secondary sources. Taking into account these facts I think a footnote would not be enough, in particular because there are articles describing the history of the "Principality of Nitra". However, let's continue commenting the articles on Talk:Great Moravia, or Talk:Principality of Nitra. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased with the secondary sources that are being added. However, as a small course correction, I think that there is too much detail about Great Moravia being put into this article, which is really supposed to be primarily about the History of Slovakia. Per WP:SUMMARY#Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised, we have a link to Great Moravia (which is where the details are probably more useful), and the section here in the Slovakia article should just be a summary of what is in the Moravia article. If we're in a situation where we're getting more details put here, than there, we have a problem. So could we perhaps move this discussion to Talk:Great Moravia, or Talk:Principality of Nitra, instead? Thanks, Elonka 22:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OKBorsoka (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the entries on Pribina and medieval Slovakia from the "Lexikon des Mittelaters/International Encyclopaedia of the Middle Ages", which is the standard reference book for medieval studies (I have only the German version, use a translator if you do not understand):

Privina: Fürst in Pannonien seit 830/840, um 860 im Kampf gegen die Mährer; 833 vom mähr. Fürsten Mojmír I. aus Neutra (Nitra) verdrängt, floh mit seinem Sohn Kocel zum obersten Grafen (Präfekten) des bayerischen Ostlandes und empfing auf Befehl Ludwigs des Deutschen in der Martinskirche des Salzburger Hofes Traismauer (Niederösterreich) die Taufe. Privina war wohl mit einer bayerischen Adligen verheiratet und hatte noch als Heide - 827/828 - durch den Salzburger Erzbischof Adalram zu Neutra die älteste bekannte Kirche im Slavenland nördlich der Donau weihen lassen. Privina blieb in einer schwierigen Lage, bis ihn Ludwig der Deutsche zwischen 838 und 840 mit »einem Gebiet Unterpannoniens, das am Flusse Sala liegt«, belehnte, wo der Slavenfürst seine Hauptburg Mosapurg (Zalavár) errichtete.

Thanks. Although, my "Deutch" is really weak, but if I understand the text above it does not say that he was "Prince of Nitria" (the text refers to him as "Prince of Pannonia" (i.e., "Balaton Principality"). The above text also mentiones that he was e x p e l l e d from Nitra by Moimir. However, I suggested, based on reliable sources, that no contemporary written sources style him as a "Prince" or mention the "Principality of Nitra". The above text is a secondary source and you will find such text in even English, Hungarian academic books. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Slowaken - Chapter: Geschichte: Seit der Wende des 6./7. Jh. standen die Slaven in der heutigen Slowakei im Süden in direkter Berührung mit den Avaren. Der Südwesten des Landes gehörte dann zum Kernbereich der Herrschaft Samos (620-658/659). Vor 828 entstand ein Fürstentum, das von einem größeren und ein bis zwei kleineren Stämmen gebildet wurde; sein Fürst (wahrscheinl. schon in zweiter oder dritter Generation) hieß Privina, der in Neutra (Nitra) residierte, wo der Salzburger Erzbischof Adalram 828 eine christliche Kirche weihte. Schon um das Jahr 833 eroberte Mojmír I., Fürst des nach Westen angrenzenden mährischen Fürstentums, Neutra und legte damit die Basis für die Entwicklung des Großmährischen Reiches, das unter Svatopluk I. (871-894) eine Blütezeit (Mähren) erlebte. Der erste und einzige namentlich bekannte Suffragan des mährischen Erzbschofs Method (Konstantin und Method) wurde 880 für die Kirche in Neutra ernannt (Wiching). Nach der Eroberung durch die Magyaren um 906 (?) wurde Neutra zum Sitz des ungarischen Teilherzogs Üllö (Jelec, Hulec), Sohn des Großfürsten Arpád. Nach 955 war Neutra kurze Zeit in den Händen des böhmischen Fürsten Boleslav I., doch residierte hier Anfang der 70er Jahre der ungarische Teilherzog Michael, Bruder des Großfürsten Géza. Später saßen Michaels Söhne Ladislaus der Kahle und Vasul (1031-37?) in Neutra.... and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.12.89 (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As you see, secondary sources may contradict to each other in the same book. Here, correct me if I am wrong, the theory of "Principality of Nitra" and "unification of two states" is described. Otherwise, this is a new secondary source without a statement that a contemporary written source mentions him as "Prince". However, let's continue commenting the articles on Talk:Great Moravia, or Talk:Principality of Nitra. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned and proved wrong countless times. If some Hungarian historian called Pribina a chieftain (did he actually?), that doesn't change anything about the fact that the title is Prince. Stop publishing your wild fantasies.--Svetovid (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the text is deliberately a secondary source, because I and nobody else feels like going through Latin medieval texts all over Europe to find and compare some titles, when (1) all serious secondary sources claim the same thing, (2) wikipedia rules require secondary sources and for good and obvious reasons (no original research etc.). In addition, we have discussed the duke etc. issue already under the Stephen article (it is not as simple as it seems) and my points have been completely ignored by you et al., so why should I care in the first place, right? Secondly, no normal Hungarian academic source calls Pribina a chieftain, normal Hungarian academic sources (i.e. those I know) do not differ from Slovak, Czech, Austrian etc. sources for the time period at hand. Finally, I would like to see "contemporary" sources for calling most of the early Arpáds, Kopány etc. princes etc. (which you do in this wikipedia) and not chieftains, lords etc.; and interestingly in these cases the word chieftain is really used also by academic sources, but you are not proposing such a change (those who know the circumstances in this wikipedia know the answer). It would be also interesting to find "contemporary" sources for the founding of Rome in the mid-8th century and so on. And we could go on like this for many medieval European countries. So dont be ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.12.89 (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Addendum: Although this is not so important, note that he ruled over several tribes, which itself means that he cannot be a chieftain, because a chieftain normally rules over one tribe.

Thank you for your comments above. Just some remarks. 1. Yes, I was naive when I thought that my question (what is the primary, nearly contemporary, source mentioning Pribina as Prince) would be answered in a short time, because "Prince Pribina" is part of popular culture in Slovakia. For example, a similar question (what is the primary source mentioning Árpád as grand prince) would probably be answered in short time, because "Our Father Árpád" is part of popular culture in Hungary (for further details, I refer to point 7 below). 2. Pribina is mentioned in only one contemporary written source, and this source contains only two small references to his life preceding his escape to East Francia (statement based on reliable source). 3. The two small references says that he was "a certain Pribina expelled by Moimír, duke of the Moravians", and for him a church was consecrated in his "possession called Nitrava"; note that the contemporary references mention Pribina as "a certain Pribina", while Moimír is styled as "duke" (statement based on reliable source). 4. Yes, Pribina is sometimes styled as Prince even in Hungarian academic sources, but (based on my experiences) most of them refer to him as "Pribina". But I do not know what is the normal practise, since his contemporaries did not refer to Pribina as Prince of Nitra, but later authors prefer to style him Prince. 5. Hungarian academic sources (based on my experiences) do not deny the existence of a polity in the Western parts of present-day Slovakia, and they refer to the polity sometimes as "Principality of Nitra" 6. The text of the article mentioning Pribina as "chieftain" is based on reliable source. Moreover, the text also refers to the fact that he was styled "Prince" by later historians. Therefore, I think the wording is neutral. If you can prove based on reliable source(s) that he ruled over several tribes, you should add this information in the text w i t h a r e f e r e n c e to the reliable source you use. 7. Árpád is mentioned as "grand prince" by Constantinos VII, the Byzantine Emperor. The heads of the Hungarian tribal federation were styled as "grand prince" by his Western contemporaries, as well (for further details I refer to article Grand Prince of the Magyars, references). As to Koppány, as far as I can remember I have never heard the expression "Prince Koppány" or "Duke Koppány". He is mentioned only as "Koppány" or sometimes "Vezér Koppány" (the meaning of "vezér" is a military leader who leads armies, I am not able to translate it) in popular conversations. 8. As to Rome, I am not looking for the primary (nearly contemporary) source proving the establishment of the "Principality of Nitra", I just asked for a primary source proving that this is a denomination used by its contemporaries. Borsoka (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Svätopluk or Svatopluk?

I have just realised that the King of Great Moravia is sometimes referred as Svätopluk (History of Slovakia), sometimes as Svatopluk (Great Moravia, Svatopluk I). Somebody should unify the usage, should not they. My view is that Svatopluk is the usually accepted form. Am I wrong? Borsoka (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

English writers usually ignore accent marks, but Wikipedia's guideline is to use them so the spelling should be Svätopluk.--Svetovid (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

History of Slovakia uses the Slovak diacritics because the Slovak language uses ä in his name. Accordingly, you can find ä in most books on Slovak history. But the Czech sources use a, so (as the main author of Great Moravia and Svatopluk I) I decided to use a. I have no strong preference for any of them and the decision was a bit arbitrary, based on the fact that the number of Czech sources is probably higher than the number of Slovak sources. As far as I know, this is the usual problem of articles about historical figures from Central Europe. Articles on Hungarian kings are named using the English names (as they appear in English sources), but links inside articles almost always use the Hungarian spelling. I do not know how this works in other regions, maybe we should ask someone from outside for an advice. But I think this is a really minor issue anyway. Tankred (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK Borsoka (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary

The current summary on the top of the page is everything but good. Everyone knows, who clicks on this page, that he/she will read about the history of the territory of todays Slovakia. It should be improved.

Also there is a Hungarian tale about how Svatopluk lost his KoH territories to the Magyars. I think it worth a mention, I haven't read it anywhere in wikipedia. :( --Rembaoud (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the proper place is Svatopluk I where a reference is made to the Legend of Svatopluk's twigs. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

History of the Slovaks or the territory of todays Slovakia

This article mixes the history of the Slovak people with the history of their current homeland's history. It is confusing, I changed it to only modern Slovakia --Rembaoud (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please quote controversial sources

Since there seems to be some conflict over interpretation of sources, I recommend that we include more exact quotes from those sources (not the entire thing, but a relevant sentence or two). Per WP:RSUE, I would also like to see translations being provided of non-English sources. This doesn't need to be done on every reference, but on those that are being challenged, especially about Prince Pribina, I think quotes in the references would help to stabilize things.

Also, I'm not sure that everyone is using the Popups Gadget here, but if not, I strongly recommend it. I use it all the time, and it makes source-checking much easier. Each time I read a Wikipedia article, when I see the little Footnote number, I can just hover my mouse over the number, and I'll get a popup that lists the source of that footnote. If there's a link, I can click on it and read the source for myself (pressing the mouse-wheel is useful, as it will open the link in a separate tab). For non-English sources though, it would be helpful to include the English translation, as that way it's very easy to check if the text in the Wikipedia article is really accurately representing what is in the source.

To turn on popups, click on "Preferences" at the top of the page, then click on the "Gadgets" tab, and select "Navigation popups". The wikEd gadget is also extremely useful (for those who are using Firefox browsers), as it color-codes text in the edit window, which makes editing much easier.

Thanks, Elonka 13:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Duplicated sources

As another thing which will help simplify sourcing here, please be aware that you do not need to duplicate the entire reference at each place it is used. A better way is to list the entire source once, and then on further mentions, just mention the author (or title) and page number. Another method that I like very much is to only list the author/page in the "ref", which will show up in the "Notes" section, and then list the complete book citation (without page number) in a list of sources in the "References" section. For an example of this method, which also uses the "quote your sources" method to help reduce conflict in a dispute, see Franco-Mongol alliance. If you have Popups enabled, you can just step through the references and see the quotes, and then all the detailed book information is included at the bottom. --Elonka 14:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality is disputed?

Are there any disputes based on reliable sources or is this tag irrelevant?--Svetovid (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Although, it could probably be improved, but I think it became less biased. I suggest that the parts covering the history of the 15-19th centuries should be expanded. It is surprising that the 100-year-long (OK, let's say 200-year-long) history of the "Principality of Nitra" and "Great Moravia" is described in more details than the 400-year-long period. Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with neutrality per se? Again, any disputes based on reliable sources?--Svetovid (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this tag should be deleted (therefore I will delete it). However, I also suggest that the article should be expanded. I do not think that a "debate" (based on reliable sources) would be a problem: different authors may approach the same subject in different ways, even some of the authors (or all of them) may be biased. Our principal purpose, I presume, that articles in Wikipedia should summarize the basic points of the several (principal) approaches. Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

tribal leader

I don't know whether the Hungarian author actually used this title, but it's nonsense because it's not used by authors (what tribe?). Moreover, it's interesting to see that Borsoka (talk · contribs) uses phrases like "later historian", but suddenly the title "tribal leader" coming from a contemporary author is acceptable. Why the double standards?
Pribina was a prince, which is documented by plenty of sources already present in the article. Removal of this fact is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Why is this continuous removal of facts permitted?--Svetovid (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hungarian author uses the expression "törzsfő", an expression used for the heads of German, Slavic and nomadic tribes. The expression suggest that he was not a "head of state" ("prince") but a "head of tribe(s)" instead. As the only primary source (statement based on reliable source) mentioning him in connection with Nitra, refers to him as "a certain Priwina" (while Moimir I is styled "duke" in the same sentence of the primary source), I think the "tribal leader" is a proper expression (and it is based on reliable source). Borsoka (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since reliable sources have given him the title prince (or even duke), source used by you is vague (In which period of Pribina's life was that title used? How detailed is the book?) and could be considered unreliable. But if you finally acknowledge that secondary sources matter, then you acknowledge that the title was prince, since that's what an overwhelming majority of them, including the most important ones, say.--Svetovid (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I really do not understand your remark above. Do you have a reliable source mentioning that the cited book is unreable? Otherwise, your above remark is very similar to original research (Are you in the position to declare that a book on history is vague, just because it differs from the books you have used?) By the way, could you refer to a reliable source mentioning that Pribina was styled prince in any of the (nearly) contemporary (I mean h i s contemporary) primary sources? I think that it would be a possible solution. Otherwise, for the time being, the facts follows: (1) a reliable source mentiones him as a tribal leader (other reliable sources mention him as "Pribina", or "Pribina, Prince of the Balaton Principality", or "Prince Pribina", or "Pribina, Prince of Nitra"); (2) a reliable source mentiones that the only contemporary written source mentioning him in connection with Nitra is the Conversio (3) the Conversio mentiones him as "a c e r t a i n Priwina expelled by Moimir, D u k e of the Moravians". (Please note the article does not mention him as "a certain Pribina", because the reliable source does not use this adjective.) Borsoka (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If the source doesn't say "tribal leader", then we shouldn't use that language in the Wikipedia article. If the source says "Torzsfo", then use that term. However, be cautious about WP:UNDUE, in that we shouldn't give excessive weight to a term that may only be used in one source. It seems fairly clear that the most common usage in modern secondary sources is "Prince". We can mention that other terms have been used, but please be sure to keep things in proper proportion to how widespread the views are. --Elonka 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The secondary source says "törzsfő" that means (its English translation is) "tribal leader". In the sentence, where the "tribal leader" expression is used in the article, no reference is made to Pribina, it only says that the "Slavic people lived under a tribal leader", an the sentence also refers to the fact that this tribal leader is styled "prince" by later historians. I hope the sentence is neutral and is based on reliable sources. I have read some secondary sources that mention him purely as "Pribina", without styling him "Prince" or anything else. Even, the German text, cited by one of the (I presume) Slovak editors above, mentions him as "Pribina, Prince of Pannonia" not as "Pribina, Prince of Nitra". This article summarizes issues relating to the "Principality of Nitra" (and Principality of Pannonia (Balaton Principality and Principality of Nitra were different polities); therefore, I think that there is no internationally or generally adopted style for him in connection with his activities in Nitra. Slovak sources prefer style him "Prince" and some enncyclopedias may also use this style, while some of them do not mention him as a Prince in connection with Nitra. I really do not know what is the solution. If my understanding is correct, a reliable source is used, the sentence is neutral and it does not contradict to other reliable sources. 213.134.29.101 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry, it was me: Borsoka (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Czech and Slovak sources consistently call him a prince. As far as I can tell, this title is also given to other contemporary leaders of Slavic tribes (often ruling smaller polities than the one ruled by Pribina). The word "prince" in this context is a direct translation of the Slavic title "knez". I think this is a more general issue. Let me quote from Prince: "All findings of the title "prince" used for a lord of a territory before the 13th century are either translations of native titles to Latin or the term used in a more general sense than as the formal only title of the potentate in question." I think it would make sense to call Pribina a prince of Nitra (as he is called in many if not most secondary sources) with an explanatory footnote added after the title. Tankred (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)