Talk:History of Slovakia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archaeological evidence[edit]

"The archeological evidence prove that to the north of the line mentioned above, not only did the older settlement structures survive, but also territorial-administration organisation led by native magnates" I think this statement needs some clarification. How can an archaeological research prove that older administrative structures survived? I am just curious. (Could you take a look at this Borsoka) Fakirbakir (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

For example, the archeological research can document continuity of the local administrative centers ruled by native magnates.--Ditinili (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a common place in Slovakian historiography. For instance, Slovak archaeologists argue that the Hont and "Poznan" families were of local Slavic origin and survived the Hungarian conquest although all chronicles wrote that the same families were of German origin and came to Hungary in the late 10th century. Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Medieval chronicles are full of fictive persons and events, they were written with some purpose e.g. to legitimize a rule of some king, dynasty, etc. It is not something unusual if they contradict other available knownledge.--Ditinili (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The "native" magnates' bones can hardy speak about their vernacular and "real" ethnicity. Also, archaeological evidences cannot prove the survival of former territorial-administrative organisations. They can locate an administrative centre, however are unable to identify the administrative structures and organizational changes. That statement above is just "wishful thinking". Fakirbakir (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Theory that archeologists relies exclusively on some "bones" is not worth of comment. Additional discussion about "wishful thinking" could be interesting, however, we can close it as your personal opinion vs. properly sourced text from the recognized authors, from the trustworthy source, based on previous works of recognized experts like Alexander Ruttkay, who really did archeological research here, is a recognized expert on international level, etc. Ditinili (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
IMHO. I think making such a statement like this above speaks a lot about the author's (non-) professionalism. Archaeologists draw conclusions from findings (BONES, artefacts etc). What are the archaeological evidences for native (FYU "Slavic") magnates and survival of former territorial-administrative organisations? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
For example, a continous existence of the local power center and the lack of other military outposts in the same area can say a lot about local organisation. Further artifacts can answer the question of ethnicity, especially if they are not influenced yet by common multi-ethnic culture and "fashion trends". Fortunatelly, the author's (non-) professionalism can be evaluated based on his research results, international recognition, awards, etc and is completely independent on your opinion. Ditinili (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Continuous existence doesn't mean that there were no changes in administrative structure.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The article does not say that they were "no changes in administrative structure". This is obvious because the older administrative structure on higher-level depended on relationships within the Great Moravia. The article states that "to the north of the line mentioned above (...) territorial-administration organisation led by native magnates" survived (the statement matches the original source).--Ditinili (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Alexander Ruttkay's role in the development of the theory of a surviving Slovak nobility cannot be denied. Slovak historian Lukačka writes, "The renowned historian Daniel Rapant fist suggested the existence of a local Slovak elite after the fall of Great Moravia some time ago. At first, his theory was basically a matter of intuition, as in the early 1950s he could not support his claim with any conrecte historical or archaeological evidence. It was only following systemtic investigation of the aristocratic mnaors at Ducové near Piest'any, and later also at Nitriansa Blatnica, by Alexander Ruttkay in the 1970s that Rapant' hypothesis was unambigouosly confirmed." (Lukačka, Ján (2011). "The beginnings of the nobility in Slovakia". In Teich, Mikuláš; Kováč, Dušan; Brown, Martin D. Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 30–37. ISBN 978-0-521-80253-6. page 31.). Actually, the above issue is not connected to bones (as far as I remember, no magnates' bones were unearthed), but to the dating of earthworks, which were erected (in many cases in the Bronze Age), later abandoned, and reoccupied, and abandoned again... Slovak historians tend to propose that those earthworks (for instance, at Zemplén) were held in the 10th century by local Slavic lords who survived the Hungarian conquest. The same Slovak historians identify the (allegedly) surviving Slavic lords with knights mentioned in the medival Hungarian chronicles, saying that the same Hungarian chronicles were wrong when stating that those knights were of German, Hungarian, etc. origin. All the same, as far as I remember, the names of some Hungarian chieftains who plundered Europe was of Slavic origin, proving that local chieftains joined the Hungarians, similarly to the local lords who joined the Northmen in Britain, Normandy, Southern Italy, .... Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
We know well that the Arpads even attacked their own kinds (Koppany, Gyula, Ajtony etc) and they did not want to share power with anybody. We also know that they preferred to put their men in key positions regardless of ethnicity. That's how feudalism works. "Their men" could have been anybody, Magyars, Slavic locals, newcomer knights etc. I am still asking for archaeological evidences because you can't prove ethnicity and survival of territorial administrative organizations by dating of earthworks..... Archaeology hardly can identify organizational structures/changes. IMHO Fakirbakir (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
No comment.Ditinili (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
So, you are unable to clarify those "archaeological evidences" Fakirbakir (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I only don't feel the need to react on obvious non-sense like "you can't prove ethnicity", because it is clear that early Slavs and Hungarians in Slovakia did not share common material culture in the 10th century. It also seems that you are not able to understand what does it mean if original population preserved its power centers in some region and the outposts of other population are missing. You also missed that e.g. Ducové was destroyed by early Hungarians only in the late 10th century when the Arpáds expanded their power, thus it was not under their administration before.
I really don't know what to say to your theory that the ruler did not care about nationality. It is obviously something what supports (and does not refute) an opinion that he had not any problem with Slavic aristocracy, especially if that guys were loyal to him (you obviously missed this consequence; it is not about "sharing power", but about standard feudal hierarchy).
The whole discussion until now is about your personal opinions without single reference to any scholarly source from your side. Therefore, from my point of view it is a vaste of time.Ditinili (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
What a pity that you don't even understand my problem. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Fakirbakir, I understand your problems very well.Ditinili (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Fakirbakir, I think Ditinili's above remarks prove that according to a significant (Slovakian) scholarly POV local Slavic aristocrats survived the Hungarian conquest. This POV was published in peer-reviewed books, consequently it can (should) be presented in this article. Of course, editors should also emphasize that this is only a POV. As far as I know, the idea of the existence of a landholding aristocracy and "local power centers" (=earthworks which may or may have not been in use in the 9th and 10th centuries) is subject to scholarly debates. For instance, Jiří Macháček emphasizes that no richly furnished graves were unearthed, suggesting that "Great Moravia" was a highly centralized polity, without aristocrats whose power was independent of the monarch (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. ; Macháček, Jiří (2012). ""Great Moravian state"–a controversy in Central European medieval studies". Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana. Saint-Petersburg, RU: Publishing House of the History Department of the Saint-Petersburg State University. 11 (1): 5–26. ). Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The existence of local power centers is definitely not a subject of any serious scholarly debate. We do not talk about some hypothetical sites, but about heavily fortified and large agglomerations with numerous artifacts, like Bojná - Valy. There is also not any serious scholarly debate if such centers "may or may have not been in use in the 9th and 10th centuries" in general. Which important local center do you mean? They can be found from Devín to Zeplín.
The existence of landholding aristocracy is a completely different thing. A term "magnate" does not necessarily means a feudal landowner. The Slavs began to build these heavily fortified centers in the 8th century - in time, when nobody of them could play a role of the feudal monarch. Ditinili (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Their dating is not so certain. For instance, the "local power center" at Zemplén may have been built around 900 or 1000, therefore it is not a fact that it was built for and held by a local Slavic lord. (Takács, Miklós (1994). Zemplén. Kristó, Gyula; Engel, Pál; Makk, Ferenc. Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) [Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th–14th centuries)]. Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 963-05-6722-9., page 743.) Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI, 15 years later (4 September 2009) there was an international conference dedicated exactly to this topic (Hradiská severného Potisia – Hradisko Zemplín/Forthills in the northen Potisie/Forthill Zemplin). This opinion is currently outdated and untenable.Ditinili (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I am just wondering whether how many non-Slovak specialists (e.g. Hungarian) were invited to the conference. As I see you are a "one truth believer"... Please read something about WP:NPOV. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, no Hungarian historians were present, but this is not about the nationality of the scholars. As I understand, the conference was about ceramics found in the Zemplén fort which can be dated between the 10th and 12th centuries. All the same, if a historian writes that those ceramics prove that it was a power center of a 10th-century Slavic nobleman who survived the fall of "Great" Moravia, we cannot say that this POV cannot be presented in the article. Borsoka (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
1. There is a whole network of old Slavonic fortified settlements in Slovakia and Moravia. There is not any serious academic discussion if they existed in the 9th-10th century and if they were inhabited by Slavs. Boroska, discussions like "they may or may have not been in use in the 9th and 10th centuries" belong to the scholarly discussions from 18th and maybe 19th century. Nowadays, it is proven, largely documented fact, completely independent on one or two sites.
2. Fakirbakir's theories that the (ex-)president of the archeological institute Alexander Ruttkay (by the way honorary member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) cannot distinguish between old Hungarian and old Slavonic archeological findings is ehm... no comment.
3. Naivety how do you believe that Slovak Academy of Sciences or the Archeological Institute somehow manipulates research or employs idiots who take ceramics from 12th century and than conclude that the location was inhabited by Slavs in the 9th century... no comment. Do you really believe it? I don't know where did you get this information.Ditinili (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
1. Dilitil you may not know, but 1994 was in the 20th century. 2. I did not write that 12th-century ceramics was used to prove the 9th-century inhabitation of Zemplén Fort. Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
"Alexander Ruttkay (by the way honorary member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) cannot distinguish between old Hungarian and old Slavonic archeological findings is ehm... no comment."---> I have never said that. However, I asked for archaeological proofs for "native magnates" and "surviving administrative organization". How an earth can archaeological findings prove that the Arpads kept former "administrative organizations" and left "native magnates" in positions? It doesn't matter that the local population survived the conquest because I am talking about state organization. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, let me repeat - regardless of discussion about some particular site, there is a whole network of old Slavonic local centers. Theories that they "may or may have not been in use in the 9th and 10th centuries" belong to the scholarly discussions from 18th and maybe 19th century.
Fakirbakir, let's look for example on Ducové, because it is already mentioned in the article and it was a breakthrough discovery. Ducové is somewhere between two main Great Moravian centers - Nitra and the other one in Moravia. It is not hidden somewhere, but close to the important strategic point, where the old Slavs built one of the oldest Slavic forthills in Slovakia - Pobedim. After the fall of the Great Moravia, a lot of strategic fortifications ceased to exist. They ceased to exist quickly and the archeological horizon contains large amount of ash and arrow tips. This is especially the case of the Moravian centers. In Slovakia these signs of Hungarian attack can be found as well, but in many cases they are completely missing (!). The manor in Ducové survived the fall of the Great Moravia. Not only common people survived, but also their local magnate, who was already an early feudal lord. Contrary to the earlier Slavic elites, he (or let's say his ancestor) built his own representative residence and separated from his people. While Hungarians secured their strategic interests in the southern Slovakia, the local center in Ducové persisted until the Arpáds expanded to the north. Only then, in the late 10th century, the manor was destroyed. This is an excellent example how the Arpáds established their rule over Slovakia continuously and not at once at the beginning of the 10th century. Not so far from Pobedim and Ducové there is a large Slavic agglomeration Bojná. In Bojná, a large amount of non-Hungarians arrow tips was found. It seems (scholar hypothesis) that Hungarian army attacked fortification together with local Slavic armies. As some Hungarians fought against their ruler, the Slavs had not any problem to do the same. One note, before you come with your own theory how to reinterpret findings in Ducové and if this could applied also to other places in Slovakia - this is an example. Ditinili (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Dilitil, you should change your chronograph because you cannot distinguish centuries. The very idea of a local Slavic aristocracy surviving the fall of Moravia "was basically a matter of intuition" till the 1970s, according to the the Slovak historian Ján Lukačka (Lukačka (2011), p. 31.) - the 1970s were not in the 19th century. You also seem to accept dogmas, saying that "there is no debate about the existence of a whole network of old Slavonic local centers" - in modern scholarship, the lack of debate is always suspect. You also seem to identify the POV of a scholarly group as the truth which is not and cannot be debated by other groups of scholars. Finally, your reference to "non-Hungarian arrow tips" suggests that you have not read archaeological studies written in the 21st century. For instance, I suggest you should read Florin Curta's study here [1]. The Romanian scholar sharply criticizes the late Hungarian archaeologist István Bóna who wrote of a "Hungarian archaeological culture" and identified the first Hungarian settlements in Transylvania "by means of grooved-rim vessels and clay clay cauldrons" (Curta (2001), p. 147). The identification of objects with ethnic groups is nowadays a quite out of date approach. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, my chrongraph is OK, please, do not improvise again. In 1970, there was absolutely no doubt about Slavic origin of local hillforts and their pre-Hungarian dating. The "matter of intuition" was only (in that time hypothesis) about survival of local nobility after the fall of the Great Moravia, until evidence (like the manor in Ducové) was found. Let me repeat again. Your statement that "local power centers" (=earthworks which may or may have not been in use in the 9th and 10th centuries) is subject to scholarly debates." is a obvious non-sense. It seems that you are not able to distinguish between dogma and absolutely overwhelming opinion of the academic community. Hilarious speculations like "in modern scholarship, the lack of debate is always suspect" can be applied to the flat earth model as well. Theory, that "the identification of objects with ethnic groups is nowadays a quite out of date approach" is just another absolute non-sense. You can try to copy and paste this sentence to wiki page Archeology and wait for reactions. Of course, there are archeological cultures which cannot be associated with concrete ethnic group or they have multiethnic character.Ditinili (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Please read the first sentence of this debate: Fakirbakir wrote that the sentence stating that "The archeological evidence prove that to the north of the line mentioned above, not only did the older settlement structures survive, but also territorial-administration organisation led by native magnates" is dubious. Till the 1970s, the very existence of surviving local magnates had only been "a matter of intuition", according to a reliable source (Lukačka (2011), p. 31.), why do you say that only 18th- and 19th-century scholars denied the survival of the "Great Moravian" aristocracy? According to another academic work, the very existence of local magnates within "Great Moravia" is suspect (Macháček (2009) and (2012) - why do you think that the existence of "Great Moravian" local aristocrats is subject to scholarly debates, but the survival of the same local aristocracy is a theory which is accepted by all scholars? Why do you think that Florin Curta's scepticism in connection with the identification of objects with ethnic groups should be ignored? Why do you think that an absolutely overwhelming opinion of the Slovakian academic community is also accepted by all other scholars? Borsoka (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, I have answered Fakirbakir's question several times. I did it last time "15:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)". So, the original question was already answered, it is clear that it is based on real evidence(s), it is properly sourced, etc. It is closed.
Take a break, read carefully which of your statements I considered to be wrong, and do not try to "reinterpret" your original statements. If you have some general things to be discussed about archeology, methods and processes, do it in another page. If you have mainstream peer review academic source with alternative opinion e.g. on Ducové, than it is welcomed. Good bye.Ditinili (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you: we should not continue this debate. Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, text is properly sourced, the source is reliabliable and fully compliant with wikipedia rules. When you will have concrete, up to date source, claiming oposite or questioning research results, not only some speculations, your own conclusions based on indirect sources not dealing exactly with the topic, we can continue. If you can cite Macháček - some text related to post-Great Moravian era, directly questioning the research results, etc, do it right now.Ditinili (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, please try to concentrate: I have never stated that the texts are not propertly sourced, I only say that they do not present a neutral picture. Please also try to accept that theories accepted by the majority of Slovakian historians is not always shared by all historians. For instance, Ivo Štefan writes: "The courtyard in Ducové on the left bank of the River Váh, which is often mentioned as an example of a residence of a feudal lord depending on its own extensive landed property (Ruttkay 1997, 151–152; 2005), is in principle nothing but a lightly fortified stronghold with a church. Whether the feudal lord here managed it at his ownexpense or only administered an entrusted part of the upper River Váh region for the sovereign cannot, however, be decided" (Štefan, Ivo (2011). "Great Moravia, Statehood and Archaeology: The "Decline and Fall" of One Early Medieval Polity" In Macháček, Jiří; Ungerman, Šimon. Frühgeschichtliche Zentralorte in Mitteleuropa. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt. pp. 333–354. ISBN 978-3-7749-3730-7). As you can read Štefan's explicitly challenges Ruttkay's hypothesis of the existence of a feudal lord's residence in Ducové - of course, this residence may have been owned by a "Great Moravian" noblemen who or whose family survived the Hungarian conquest, but this is only a scholarly theory. Štefan also writes: "Alexander Ruttkay attributes the inoperability of the Moravian army in the defensive against the Magyars to a previous disintegration of the Moravian elite. It was to have occurred primarily as a result of the allocation of land ownership by the sovereign to individual members of the elite, who systematically began to develop their own economic environs and military units. They thus became independent of the sovereign and in the decisive moment could deny himmilitary support (e.g. Ruttkay 1997, 161; 2005, 248). For more reasons, the hypothesis can be considered as unsubstantiated. Neither the written nor the archaeological sources testify for the existence of a landed aristocracy in Great Moravia" (Štefan (2011), page 346). Consequently, Ruttkay's theory about the existence of a landed aristocracy is explicitly refused by an other historian. Of course, there may have existed a landed aristocracy in "Great Moravia" and some landholding aristocrats may have survived the Hungarian conquest, but stating that this theory is not only a POV or hypothesis would be an exaggeration. Borsoka (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, there are two questions which you have mixed together.
a) Can we describe Great Moravian elites as a land holding aristocracy?
b) Did older local structures completely lost their function with the arrival of early Hungrians - particularly north of the line where the presence of common Hungarian population and/or early military outpusts can be documented?
Macháček nor Štefan does not put existence of the local elites into question, but they deal with a different problem - if Great Moravian elites trasformed from their original role into "modern" landowners ("stabilised elite depending on extensive land ownership", p. 335) and what was the source of their power. E.g. if they "recognised the sovereignty of the ruler but continued to base its own power on its own resources, or did it derive its power already predominantly from services to the king or in direct concert with him" (p. 334).
The current article does not state anywhere that "landed arictocracy" existed in the GM, thus your statement that "Ruttkay's theory about the existence of a landed aristocracy is explicitly refused by an other historian" simply does not address any disputed text in the article. By the way, early Hungarian elites in the time of their arrival also cannot be described as a "stabilised elite depending on extensive land ownership", but it ..ehm... does not refuse some continuity, right?
Similarly, Štefan does not oppose opinion, that a part of local nobility contributed to the descuction of the GM. He only opposes hypothesis that they did it as "a result of the allocation of land ownership" and speaks about other factors leading to its internal desintegratin (p. 349). However, none of these hypotesis is included in the article, so there cannot be any contradiction.Ditinili (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I deleted all references to noblemen and hypotheses based on Ruttkay's dubious interpretation of the Ducové "manor". Borsoka (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
...what was obviously unreasoned, because I have just proved that sentences you have quoted are related to another problem and does not support your opinion in a particular question. You have not provided any further clarification or sources, but you simply ignored it.Ditinili (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. I clarified in the text that they were not a "landed aristocracy", although in this case their "strong position" is even more dubious. I think this problem should be clarified and substantiated. Or they may have been bankers or wizzards? Borsoka (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska... The question of land ownership is exactly where scholar opinions differ. From this point of view, your last edit is not correct because you (wikipedia editor) decided who is right. And because the original text left this question open and did not prefer any hypothesis, you made it rather worse than better.
It seems that you cannot imagine any other type of magnates than those whose power is based on extensive land ownership. It is obvious that high social position can have various origin (military success, respected leader of kin, etc), especially before fully developed feudalism. I assume that when archeologist say that they found somewhere a grave of old Hungarian magnate, they do not assume that he was a banker, wizzard or great landowner (in the case of nomads, theory about wizzard is probably more accurate than landowner, but I am not an expert).
I propose to do the following:
1. Exclude the problem of land ownership in Great Moravia from the article. This is not what raised this discussion, it has a secondary priority, can lead to unnecessary discussion and was added only now. Further details/discussions belong to the article about Great Moravia.
2. Replace word "nobility" with term "elites". Terms like "aristocracy", "nobility" are normally used, but it seems that it will help to distinguish between later feudal social class and earlier privileged elites.
3. Some of your tags were based on assumptions like "dubious interpretation of the Ducové manor". I hope that it is clear now, that the scholar dispute about Ducové is not related to its dating, existence, persistence after the fall of Great Moravia, etc. It is a dispute if it can be used also as an example of some stage in the development of feudalism. Thus, let's say that your assumption was not completely correct.Ditinili (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Any objections?Ditinili (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
My only objection is that your above remarks are not based on scholarly works. Who is the scholar who proposes the existence of a non-landholding aristocracy? According to Štefan, Ruttkay wrote of a landholding aristocracy and Lukacka refers to Ruttkay when writing of the survival of the local elite. Would you cite Lukacka's text which suggests that he did not write of a landholding aristocracy which survived the fall of "Great" Moravia? Borsoka (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"Would you cite Lukacka's text which suggests that he did not write of a landholding aristocracy?".
Your request is meaningless. Lukačka does not speak about landholding aristocracy because he did not write anything about landholding aristocracy. That's all. If you believe that he speaks about landholding aristocracy, you should cite him. This is your own assumption not supported by source.
"Who is the scholar who proposes the existence of a non-landholding aristocracy?" For example Jan Steinhubel or Richard Marsina, both respected experts on early history of Slovakia (STEINHÜBEL, J.: Nitrianske kniežatstvo [Dutchy of Nitra], 2004, p. 145, MARSINA, R.: Vývoj vojenstva na Slovensku v 10-tom až 12-tom storočí [Military development in Slovakia 10th-12th centuries] in Military history of Slovakia, 1994, p 105) and plenty of other sources, this is mainstream histography. By the way, also the current source is peer reviewed and not opinion of one historian.Ditinili (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, in the English version of Jan Steinhübel's work, there is no reference to "aristocracy or elites" (I refer to Steinhübel, Ján (2011). "The Duchy of Nitra". In Teich, Mikuláš; Kováč, Dušan; Brown, Martin D. Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 15–29. ISBN 978-0-521-80253-6. ). Therefore, I must ask you to cite a quote from Steinhübel's text which proves that he writes of the existence of a non-landholding aristocracy/elite. Likewise interesting, that in the English version of Ján Lukačka's work, there is reference that he thinks that there was at leas one Slovak land-holding noble family which survived the Hungarian conquest (Lukačka, Ján (2011). "The beginnings of the nobility in Slovakia". In Teich, Mikuláš; Kováč, Dušan; Brown, Martin D. Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 30–37. ISBN 978-0-521-80253-6. ). On page 33 of his cited work, he writes: "We do not know exactly when the Poznans converted to Christianity, but churches found within their manors (Ducové, Nitrianska Blatnica and Visegrád) were operating during this period. Indeed, the Poznans took over the neglected Benedictine monastery below the Zobor hill, overlooking Nitra in the last quarter of the tenth century and became its secular patrons. They revived the monastic community and granted it various properties from their land holdings." On page 35, he explicitly states: "It is worth noting that hereditary property of pre-Hungarian origin prevailed among the [Hunts'] family possessions". I have never stated that these ideas are not examples of mainstream historiography, they may even represent the dominant theory of Slovak historiography, but there are concurring scholarly views as well. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"Interestingly, in the English version of Jan Steinhübel's work...". It is not the same work. Steinhubel published large monography about Dutchy of Nitra (see [2]), your English article is less than short summary.
SK: Medzi slobodnými Moravanmi, ktorí chodili na celokmeňový snem, vynikali veľmoži. Hoci nemali veľký pozemkový majetok, boli bohatí a podieľali sa na správe štátu, či už na kniežacom dvore, alebo na hradoch.
Word by word translation:
EN: Among free Moravians who attended the tribalwide assembly, magnates excelled (= had a special position). Although they did not own large land property, they were rich and they significantly participated on the administration of the state - on prince's court or on hillforts ("hrad" means castle, but in this case the author means old Slavonic "grad", heavily fortified settlement).
None relevant "concurring scholarly views" were referenced until now. I have seen a) subjective opinions b) references to scholarly disputes about things not included in the article c) misunderstandings of the editor.--Ditinili (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. So Steinhübel wrote of rich aristocrats who did not hold large land property while Mikuláš Teich explicitly mentions the "hereditary property of pre-Hungarian origin" of the Hunts who granted "various properties from their land holdings" to a monastery. In the article, the Hunts are mentioned as the example of the surviving "territorial-administrative organization led by native magnates". Sorry, I do not understand the whole concept presented in the article: (1) the territorial-administrative organization led by native magnates survived (2) the native magnates were not landholding aristocrats (3) the Hunts who represent the surviving native magnates granted various properties from their land holdings to a monastery. The article seems to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Borsoka (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The article does not combine anything to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", it (nearly word by word) matches the original. Again, this is your own incorrect conclusion: "if they were not great land owners (as lords during advanced phase of feudalism), then they had no land property and could not grant it to anybody" (???). This is an obvious non-sense and again misunderstanding. The original article did not contain any info about land ownership and what was source of power of early magnates (extensive land ownership, thus in this meaning "land owning aristocracy"). Please, stop endless speculation and return back to my proposal.Ditinili (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, sorry I do not understand your above remark. Does the article says that the Hunts were one of the local magnates who survived the Hungarian conquest? Does the scholar cited above (Teich), and the article, says that they granted various properties from their pre-Hungarian landholdings to a monastery? Does another scholar cited above (Štefan) says the existence of a landholding aristocracy in "Great" Moravia cannot be proven? Do you think that the two scholars' view do not contradict to each other? If the Hunts are the best example of a surviving aristocracy, how can we say that the survivng aristocracy did not hold landed property? Borsoka (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, Štefan did not write in his article that Great Moravian elites did not own any land. He only analyzed if there existed "stabilised elite depending on extensive landownership". In other words, if their power was based on extensive landownership - what was a relationship between the ruler and elites and if they were relying on its own landed property as a source of their own power. This is "landholding aristocracy". Ditinili (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
"Neither the written nor the archaeological sources testify for the existence of a landed aristocracy in Great Moravia" (Štefan (2011), page 346). Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
And? You simply misuderstood term, that's all. You have created your own theory about total non existence of land ownership among Great Moravian elites. Theory which is against common sense and naive and you rely on one sentence. And now ... wow, surprise all other sources are against such interpretation. The whole Štefan's aricle is about something completely different. Ditinili (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Common sense? Naive? So any scholarly theory which contradicts your truth should be ignored? Please stop kidding. Please also compare Steinhübel's reference to rich aristocrats who did not hold large land property and Mikuláš Teich's statement of the "hereditary property of pre-Hungarian origin" of the Hunts who granted "various properties from their land holdings" to a monastery. Borsoka (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
"Landed nobility" or "landed aristocracy" is a category of aristocracy (terminus technicus). So, when Štefan speaks about "landing aristocracy" he speaks about a concrete category and about a stage of development of early feudal society.Ditinili (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
So although Štefan explicitly refuses Ruttkay's theories about Ducové and the existence of a landed aristocracy, he fully agrees with Slovak historians who refer to Ruttkay when writing about Ducové and the landed aristocracy (e.g. Teich). Borsoka (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You should say which theories he refuses. Does he refuse the existence of the manor? Does he have objections against dating? Does he disagree with an opinion that it has been preserved after the fall of the great Moravia? Does he disagree with an opinion that it had been inhabitated by Slavic magnate? No, he only disagrees with an opinion that this can be used as an "example of a residence of a feudal lord depending on its own extensive landed property". So, he only disagrees with an opinion that this can be used as a proof that (post-)Great Moravian nobility achieved some stage in the development of feudalism. Ditinili (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There are verbatim citations, proving that he refuses at least two statements made by Ruttkay. Please read them - there is no reference to feudalism. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
None of these verbatim citations put into question dating, ethnicity, persistence after the fall of the Great Moravia, they speak only about extensive landownership and terminus technicus landed nobility, right?Ditinili (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but according to the article the Hunts who are the representetive of the local magnates who survived the Hungarian conquest had large estates from the pre-Hungarian period. Do you think that the reference to the Hunts should be deleted from the article? Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the text should be merged with Hont-Pázmány where is enough space to discuss the problem. E.g. already mentioned Steinhubel also agrees that the power of GM magnates was not based on extensive land ownership, but he strongly supports a theory that Ponznan was definitely not a German knight and according to him, Hunt probably was not. This is too specific question for the general article about Slovakia. At the same time, just he opposes various nationalistic interpretations of early history, so this must be carefully evaluated.Ditinili (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the text of the alternate theory of the originis of the Hont-Pázmánys should be described in the proper article. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Aside from these detailed historical concerns, the very phrasing "The archeological evidence prove that..." is trebly wrong. First, evidence never "proves" anything (except in a legal sense, e.g. "proven guilty"); in science it simply leads to a generally accepted hypothesis. Second, archaeological (and paleontological) evidence in particular is even less conclusive, since it must be interpreted, and time separates us from direct observation of the hypothesized interpretation. Third, evidence is a singular-form, uncountable mass noun in English; thus, the construction "evidence prove" is ungrammatical. It would be better to write something like "The archeological evidence is interpreted as demonstrating that to the north of the line mentioned above....", and cite one or more reliable sources that interpret it this way.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


User:Ditinili, Pls don't delete maps unless you can find better ones. Thank you! Fakirbakir (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, it is better to omit more than 100 years old map which clearly contradicts the article and is refuted by sources already referenced by the article, than to confuse readers and to present outdated maps with "questionable" reliability.--Ditinili (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, I understand that the map of Europe around 650 is outdated and contradicts theories of contemporary reearchers. However the map is also included in 19 other articles on English Wikipedia, including Slavs, Early Slavs, History of Hungary before the Hungarian Conquest and (see the whole list at File:Europe around 650.jpg, in the section File usage on other wikis). In the same time. File:Lombard_state_526.png appears in the articles History of Slovakia before the Slovaks, Lombards, and Battle of Asfeld. Could you check if it is right to keep these maps there? (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hah, these maps don't contradict anything. What is wrong with you folks? Regarding the 7th century, Europe around 650.jpg (Muir) is actually an excellent map. Lombard_state_526.png is a derivative work (you can see the original map here:[3]) Due to copyright issues it's very difficult to find usable maps for Wikipedia. I don't say that these maps are perfect. However, they are better than nothing.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Fakirbakir, the first map (Lombards) contradicts at least 5 scholarly sources published by institutions like Archaeological Institute or Historical Institute of Slovak Academy of Sciences (see talk page for the map). Its reliability is currently not advocated nor by its uploader. You are right, it is not perfect. It is completely wrong and refuted by the archaeological research.
The second map - I think that the current article describes well the situation in the 7th century and it is not compliant with the borders of the khaganate somewhere in High Tatras. The Slavs (on your map) lived in the Czech Republic, Poland, a large part of Austria and in the southern part of the khaganate, but not in Slovakia. This is again an absolute non-sense. I can understand that this "inaccuracy" can be easily overlooked in articles like Francia or in general articles like History of Europe, but never in the article dedicated particularly to the history of Slovakia.
All the maps, which we recently discussed share some common features. They are based on outdated publications and "remove" Slovaks or their ancestors from the history. Is it a coincidence or an intention?Ditinili (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, if you read the discussion on the talk page of the map of the Lombards, you can read that the map that you have been trying to remove is based on a work written by Serbian historians. Do you think that Serbian historians decided to remove Slavs from the history of Slovakia? Do you think that P. M. Barford (who explicitly says that the Slavs only settled in the southeastern regions of Slovakia after the Lombards left the territory) wants to remove Slavs from the history of Slovakia? Borsoka (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, thank you for your trial for a mediation, but I did not ask you but Fakirbakir. I will probably ask the same question if some Serbian (Mongolian/Chinesse/Martian) historian will repeatedly push outdated sources sharing the same pattern and if we can document his anti-Slovak statements in the past as for the editor above. I want to focus on the problem and not on the editor, but I can hardly ignore it. So I simply asked.Ditinili (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome. Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Do you say that a map which is based on a work of a Serbian historian and which is obviously supported by a British archaeologist should be removed because it contradicts to the scholarly consensus of Slovak historians? Borsoka (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
British acheologist from 1911?Ditinili (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No. Barford's book was published in the 21st century (Early Slavs, it is cited in the article). Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you cite what is cited from Barford in the current article and supports the map? Ditinili (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili What are you talking about? These maps are NOT ethnic maps. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that there was a period, from about 425 to about 568 when Langobards controlled territories of present-day Slovakia. Also, we should not forget the Avar-controlled areas to the north of the river Danube. The Avar Khaganate lasted more than 200 years and had a great effect on these areas. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Fakirbakir the map shows "Lombard state". Can you cite Bardford, where he says that this "state" (let's say empire) was more or less equal to the present-day Slovakia + smaller part of Hungary, did not contain any part of the Austria, etc (= what can we see on the map)?Ditinili (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, please read the above remark of Barford more carefully. It was taken in connection with your statement about the settlement of Slavs in the territory of present-day Slovakia, not in connection with the Lombard state. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me summary. Already now, we have 5 scholarly sources focused especially on the early history of Slovakia (not some general publications). All of them clearly state that the Longobard expansion reached a part of the south-western Slovakia (Záhorie), not Slovakia in general. This is against the Fakirbakir's statement that the map "does not contradicts anything". Then, there is a scholarly consensus that the Slavs settled this area (like neigbouring south-eastern Moravia) later, when Longobards moved to the Italy. If we speak about concrete map, you have declared that the map is "obviously supported by a British archaeologist". And I am asking if you can cite him that he supports theory that the location of this empire was more or less equal to the present-day Slovakia + smaller part of Hungary, smaller part of Moravia except the south-eastern part and did not contain any part of the Austria, etc (as it is shown on the map). Ditinili (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
None answer. Ok, we can say that it is NOT "obviously supported by a British archaeologist" and for "Do you think that P. M. Barford (who explicitly says that the Slavs only settled in the southeastern regions of Slovakia after the Lombards left the territory" we can look on p. 56 where we speaks about the Longobards and southwest Slovakia.Ditinili (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of information about Slovakia[edit]

This article is about the history of Slovakia and it should contain mainly information about history of the Slovakia. However, it seems that under the cover of "shortening" properly sourced information about Slovakia and Slovaks (or their ancestors) are being removed and replaced by general texts. E.g. details about migration of the Slavs to Slovakia, details about local conflicts with the Avars are not elaborated but "shortened", whole section "the arrival of the Slavs" disappeared and is "shortened". Why?Ditinili (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you be more specific? Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I have already described the problem.--Ditinili (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
No you have not. Only one properly cited sentence was deleted [4], which was about the Avars' war against the Byzantine Empire. Borsoka (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, you have deleted complete block. And not the one [5]. I have no problem to source every single sentence. Simply, do not remove content specific to Slovakia. Ditinili (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Dilitinili, please try to concentrate. That specific information was moved before your message [6]. Actually, I think the text should be shortened, because it only says that Slavic groups comming from the east may have joined the Slavs who had already settled in Slovakia. Borsoka (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, it is nice that you have restored some content again when another editor reverted your deletion [7], but for now, please do not touch texts about the arrival of the Slavs do not "improve", "shorten", etc, anything. I will restore the section "the arrival of the Slavs" and not to shorten it, but I will describe it into details. Thanks.Ditinili (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove properly sourced sentences and pelase remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Do not joke. You and not me began to remove sourced content and I and not you stopped reverts and began a discussion.Ditinili (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 ???? Borsoka (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, I stopped reverting and opened discussion, not you. You began to remove ("shorten") sourced content and not me.Ditinili (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
And when it was obvious that you want to start an edit war I stopped shortening the text. However, I still say that those sentences should be shortened, because they say nothing more than "Slavs who came from the east settled among the local Slavs", Of course, we can write long sentences about simple facts but it contradicts to WP:Summary style. Would you specify what information was deleted that you want to restore? Borsoka (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska... Let it be. Simply, do not remove information about the Slavs - I cannot agree with this style of "shortening", when whatever else is extended, but information about the Slavs is "shortened", Slavo-Avaric relationships are reduced to some "befucs", various obsolete maps are introduced and advocated, etc. Do not speculate how I obviously wanted to begin "edit war", especially when I stopped it and opened discussion. I will simply create a section about the arrival of the Slavs (it somehow "disappeared"), because they are majority in the country until nowadays and it is reasonable section. Do not touch it for a while, thanks. Ditinili (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
????? You are kidding. Who wanted to refrain you from creatng a separate section about the arrival of the Slavs? Borsoka (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not "kidding". I am trying to coordinate edits and I am trying to reach some consensus.Ditinili (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
You are more than welcome. In order to be more effective, I suggest that you should be more specific, instead of making general (and mostly baseless) statements about other editors. Of course, your idea about a separate section about the arrival of the Slavs cannot be opposed. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's say, it is not constructive when some editor removes complete blocks of texts and then he/she pretends that he/she has absolutely no idea what we are talking about and says... ooo, I did nothing, I have removed only one sourced sentence.Ditinili (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to be constructive, please say that this or that is the sentence that you want to be restored even if it is not verified. I am sure that we could restore it for a short period. Borsoka (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, if something "is not verified" use appropriate tag and do not delete the text.
One note to your improvements: "According to a scholarly theory, the first Slavic groups settled in the eastern region of present-day Slovakia already in the 4th century". Klein, Ruttkay & Marsina 1994 definitely does not state anything like this (compare [8]).Ditinili (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, you are still making declarations about texts that I allegedly deleted. Would you be more specific? Which sentence was deleted? Please also be more careful: the above sentence about the settlement of the Slavs in eastern Slovakia is verified by Bartl et al., as well. If Klein et al do not write about it, I misunderstood the text from the article. Sorry, for it. Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, I wrote several times that I will restore later whatever I need and from your side it is enough to stop "shortening". That's all. Where is "unimportant" details about Slavic uprising in the Avar Khaganate? They were lost.Ditinili (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you refer to the unreferenced POV text about the sack of Komárno cemetery and the "probable" new balance of power? Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"POV" text is citation of recognized medievalist and because I knew that some people will put in into doubts, there was also and explanation in the footnote. For Komarno, I can provide you as many references as you wish. Your lack of knowledge of elementary facts is not a good reason to remove any text which you dislike.Ditinili (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, WP:NPA!! I doubt that Borsoka lacks the "knowledge of elementary facts". Fakirbakir (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but when I read your theories aka "Longobard state" I simply came to conclusion that you have serious gaps and you should slow down your work and to be less self-confident. Ditinili (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
What sort of "Langobard state theory"? I have never mentioned anything like that. And, please, stop making personal attacks. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not here to argue about non-senses. Scroll page up to the text about maps which "do not contradict anything".Ditinili (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, you are right: my lack of knowledge of elementary facts would not be a good reason to remove any text. That is why I deleted and will delete only non-referenced texts. If you think that the alleged sack of Komárno cemetery is a common place in Slovakian historiography you will find reliable sources without difficulty. Interestingly, this common place is not mentioned in any of the books about the history of Slovakia which were published in English in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Borsoka (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, just FYI, it is not only about cemetery. It means that the Avars (whose settlement area during the early khaganate era in general did not expand to Slovakia as it is also properly shown in the last Fakirbakir's map) lost control over the situation in their main center in the north. Similarly, other information which have low value for you e.g. the arrival of the Slavs from the south can have large implications, since the Slavs already in this period spoke different dialects and e.g. the result of these merged dialects is an excellent tool to distinguish between the local Slavs (later Slovaks) and other western Slavic populations in the early middle ages and the presence of residual southern Slavic elements distinguishes Slovak language from the other west Slavic languages until nowadays. Widely recognized fact about this migration could be (from the current formulation) also understood as a some kind of alternative theory.
By the way, the value of Kirschbaum book is in its availability for English speakers, however, he is not and expert on the medieval history of Slovakia).
Ditinili (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the scholarly POV about the cemetery and its destruction could be presented in the article (based on a reliable source), even if there is no reference to such an important event in any of the books about Slovak history which were published in English (you may not have realized, but there were at least 4 or 5 books about the history of Slovakia which were published in English in the 21st century). The South Slavic features of the Slovak and Czech languages are also mentioned in Bartford's book, but he does not link it to a migration from the south (Barford (2001), p. 17.). He only refers to the role of the Carpathians as a barrier between the different Slavic groups. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... My maps do not show any Carpathian Mountains on the border between Slovak and South Slavic languages, nor their ancestors. As a native Czech and Slovak speaker I would say, that the most of non-west Slavic residual elements like replacement of "dl" by "l" or "o" by "a" has nothing with Czech, e.g. l-a-keť(sk) and l-a-kat(sr), but l-o-ket(cz) and ł-o-kieć(pl); kri-l-o (many of Slovak dialects) and kri-l-o (sr) vs. kří-dl-o (cz) and skrzy-dł-o (pl), but I am only a native speaker, who know.Ditinili (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Did you publish your above views in a peer reviewed book? Borsoka (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I did not publish any peer reviewed book that that there is the Panonian Basin and not Carpathian Mountains which separate us from southern Slavs.Ditinili (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I see. You only misunderstand Barford's theory. Borsoka (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
He cannot present any own relevant theory about the evolution of the Slovak language, because he is an archaelogist (maybe recognized) and not a linguist. Barford, as an archelogist can easilly make a mistake in the field, where he is not an expert. If you look e.g. on p. 17, he explain features of central Slovak dialects by Serbian and Croatian influences, which is really one of linguistic theories, but the older one and already refuted (this can be documented by 4-5 publications about the evolution of the SK as I already provided). This significantly decreases his reliability for the linguistics and he should not be used.Ditinili (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, the common features of Czech, Slovak and Southern Slavic languages are also mentioned in a monography dedicated to the Slavic languages which was published by CUP. Why do you think again that CUP publishes not significant theories? Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, have you ever read my comment and objections related to reliability of the concrete author - an archeologist?Ditinili (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, please take into account edits which were made before your comments [9]. The idea suggesting that the Czech, Slovak and Southern Slavic languages share several common features is also mentioned in a peer reviewed monography dedicated to the Slavic languages and published by CUP. Your own research may suggest that this theory is outdated, but CUP published the book in 2002. Borsoka (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, I said very clearly that I have objections against using the publication of the archaeologist. Your reaction? You began to argue that a completely different book is reliable.
Does he reproduce outdated linguistic theories? Yes, he does. Did I give you a concrete example (his opinion about Serbian and Croatian influences; these really should not be overestimated)? Yes, I did. Is it my own research as you said? No, it is not, because I have also clearly declared, that these opinions are not acepted as an explanation anymore (+ sources where this could be verified are in the article).
Why cannot we use the archeologist whose reliability in the linguistics is questionable as a trusted source? Because who will decide which of his statement is OK and which is not? Simply, document what you can document without him, fix some words (e.g. many features = some features according to Sussex) and remove the rest.
Of course, I emphasize similarities with the south Slavic languages (we call it "juhoslavizmy" or "praslovanske rezidua nezapadoslovanskeho povodu") since the beginning as a typical feature especially of the central Slovak dialects, but I can hardly agree with Bardford's explanations (in general not only in the cited text). Not because it is "my subjective opinion", but because they are against the other referenced works dedicated directly to the evolution of the Slovak language.Ditinili (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, I understand that your research about the position of the Slovak language contradicts Barford's research. Unfortunatelly, Barford's statement about the common features of the Czech, Slovak and Southern Slavic languages is confirmed by a book published by Cambridge University Press. I also understand that you do not agree with Barford's conclusion about the separation of the Slavs living in present-day Slovakia and Poland in the Middle Ages. Again: wikipedia is not about not writing about theories. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, please stop lying and manipulating. I have clearly stated that all references about the development of the Slovak languages I have provided (and you know well about them and I have emphasized it repeatedly) refute Bardford explanation of the character of the central Slovak dialects by Croatian-Serbian influence and they present this theory as a "historical". So, your repeated statements about "my opinion" and "my research" is not acceptable anymore even as an misuderstanding, you intentionally ignore arguments and intentionally desinterpret my statements.
Summary of them: Závodný, Andrej (2013). Vývin slovenského jazyka a dialektológia [Evolution of the Slovak language and dialectology]. Trnava: Pedagogická fakulta Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave. ISBN 978-80-8082-615-4., Uhlár, Vlado (1984). "Historik B. Varsík o tzv. juhoslavizmoch v slovenčine" [Historian B. Varsík about so-called yugoslavisms in the Slovak language] (PDF). Slovenská reč (Bratislava: Jazykovedný ústav Ľudovíta Štúra Slovenskej akadémie vied) 49 (2), Krajčovič, Rudolf (1988). Vývin slovenského jazyka a dialektológia [Evolution of the Slovak language and dialectology] (PDF). Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo. ISBN 978-80-8082-615-4, Mistrík, Ján, ed. (1993). "Slovanské jazyky" [Slavic languages]. Encyklopédia jazykovedy (in Slovak). Bratislava: Obzor. ISBN 80-215-0250-9.)
I have also clearly (really very clearly) declared that I have no problem with any CUP book and I proposed a constructive solution how to prevent citation of the archaelogist, whose reliability in linguistcs is let say questionable and as we agree, this is not his primary field of expertise.Ditinili (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you quote Barford's thesis about the central Slovak dialect you referred to above? Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


Ditinili, I know that the existence of the "Principality of Nitra" is a common place in Slovakian historiography. Please also try to take into account other scholars: Curta does not name Pribina as prince of Nitra, Berend et al emphasize that the identification Pribina's Nitrava with Nitra is highly debated, Bowlus denies that identification. Curta and Berend et al were published by CUP - do you think that CUP publishes marginal POVs??? Please stop edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, Bowlus belongs to that marginal stream which try to find Great Moravia on a different place that the total majority of European historians, it is not surprising. I don't care if the Principality of Nitra is called "principality", "dutchy" or simply "political unit", majority of historians who deal with the Great Moravia do not have any problem with its formations from two units and with its location in Nitra. If the center was in Moravia, where was the second part? What is then "highly disputed", can you cite Berned?--Ditinili (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, the existence of the Principality of Nitra and the location of Great Moravia are two different issues. Berend et al: "According to some, Pribina's seat had been previously in Nitra (today in Slovakia), until 833 when the Moravian ruler Mojmír (Moimír, before 833-846) expelled him and conqurered his lands, but others dispute this and suggest another Pannonian area as Pribina's previous seat." (Berend et al pp. 56-57.). Why do you think that Archbishop Theotmar's letter of the occupation of Nitra by Svatopluk is a "minority view" which should not be "presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship"? Borsoka (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, we can safely say, that the absolute majority of publications about GM locates Prinicpality of Nitra to present-day Slovakia without any doubt and any other opinion is marginal (like it is marginal opinion about location of GM to Sriem, but "other" authors with such opinion exist). More, it seems that the statement "is highly debated" belongs to you, not Berend. The problem is not in presentation of marginal opinions, the problem is in the balance - when marginal theories are presented along with mainstream and there is not any clear division, but they have the same space. This is against the principle "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. ". The result is seriously unbalanced text, when the reader is not informed about commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as about commonly accepted mainstream scholarship, but it is more or less pushed into background by "alternative views and theories". Furthermore, the whole mainstream then looks like as a some kind of unreliable, poorly sourced and poorly documented alternative theory, what (I assume) was an intention.
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. What was the intention of the Cambridge University Press when publishing a book about the medieval history of Central Europe which presents the two POVs about Nitra at the same level? Please also take into account that the location of Constantine Porphyrogennitus' "Great Moravia, the unbaptised" and the identification of Pribina as a prince of Nitra are two different issues. Borsoka (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
What exactly you cannot understand? The opinion that the Principality of Nitra was not in the south-western Slovakia is marginal, the most of publication about the GM have no doubts about its location, it is supported by the archeological research and theory that there were not two principalities and Pribina was Mojmir's subordinate who tried for an independence (Třeštík) is not widely accepted even in the Czech histography.Ditinili (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think that Cambridge University Press present the theory that Pribina's Nitrava was not identical with Nitra in Slovakia if most publications have not doubt about Nitrava's association with Nitra? My impression is that you tend to identify your knowledge of uncertain historical facts as the mainstream view of historians. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, we do not rely on one publication (which seems to be focused mainly on later period). Location of principality of Nitra in another place is a marginal theory. (I can show you that e.g. Yale University Press published book full of demonstrable factual mistakes about Czechoslovakia, but it is a different topic).Ditinili (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditinili, I am sure that the publishing houses of the Cambridge University, Oxford University and the Yale University publish books which contradict my or your own knowledge. Interestingly, WP community tends to favour those publishing houses. Why do you think that the theory which denies the identification of Pribina's Nitrava with Nitra in present-day Slovakia is marginal in contrast a book published by the CUP? Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do I think so? Let's make list of publications (including peer reviewed) and authors, which/who solidly speaks about its location in Slovakia and other alternative opinions.Ditinili (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOR? We do not need to carry out our own original research. If CUP published a view, without stating that it is a marginal POV, we cannot say that according to our research that is a marginal scholarly theory that cannot be presented in WP. Borsoka (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree. NOR. You took one source and based on information that there are other opinions about the location of Nitra (?), you have completely thrown out dozens of peer reviewed publications and concluded that these opinions are somehow equal and more, that it is "highly disputed" what seems to be a formulation not present in the original.Ditinili (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I only say that Cambridge University Press does not present the allegedly mainstream view as the only existing theory. What sentence would you change in the article and how? Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I would present the major opinion as the major opinion and not rely on the one sentence from the book which seems to be focused on the later period and does not say (at least the quoted text) explicitly that these views are fully equal.Ditinili (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
What academic works says that it is the majority opinion? Interestingly, the book published by the Cambridge University Press does not make such a distinction between the two scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, the exact opposite is true. Theory about "highly-disputed" location of Nitra is your artificial construction, which relies on one publication which is not even focused on the history of the Principality of Nitra, but on the period 900-1300 and even does not contain formulation "highly disputed" (or, it is not in your citation which vaguely speaks about other theories). This is far from the rule "exceptional claims require exceptional proofs". More, it is not some "Slovak" theory, If I use again Czech historian Třeštík, he analyzed these "alternative" theories [10] and the result was that the location of Nitra is (letter by letter) "neotřesitelné" (p. 123) in English "unshakable", in other words the opposite is an absolute nonsens.
Thus, because you came with this fantastic theory that the location of Nitra is "highly disputed", you should say who are those scholars who had alternative opinions (not vague sentence from the book not focused on the topic), how their theory is respected among the academic community, what is their qualification and what real research they really did. I have no problem to make an extensive list of the publications which locates Nitra to Nitra.--Ditinili (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is the text of the article: "Some historians say that Pribina's original seat was identical with Nitra in present-day Slovakia, from where he was expelled by Mojmir I around 833. ... Other historians write that Pribina's Nitrava cannot be identified with Nitra.". This is what the cited source, published by CUP, (not me!) says. If Třeštík identifies Nitrava with Nitra, he can be presented in the article. Sorry, I do not understand what is your problem. Initially you said that the development of "Great Moravia" through the unification of the principalities of Moravia and Nitra is a mainstream theory, later you stated that Třeštík denies the existence of the independent Principality of Nitra (who thus must represent a marginal POV in your world), and now you are referring to Třeštík. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, you have only confirmed that whole your theory if based on one book, focused on 900-1300. Again - total lack of the general overview from your side (don't take it personally), black is white and white is black, total ignorance of any research done, mainstream is not mainstream and marginal theories are legitimized and equal to the major opinions. Why? Because of the 1 statement in 1 (!) book.
Please, do what you were asked for. Give me a list of publications and authors, I can make especially for you list of dozens of mainstream publications.--Ditinili (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I repeat: I do not have to make any original research. I referred to a peer reviewed book, written by experts of medieval history of Central Europe and published by the CUP, which does not make distinction between the two views. Borsoka (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You do not have to repeat. I fully agree with you that you rely on one sentence from one book which is focused mainly on 900-1300.--Ditinili (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: I know exactly why I cited Třeštík, just to demonstrate that even him does not put the localization into question.--Ditinili (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI: I initiated an RfC below.
P.S: Can you cite where Richard Marsina says ..that the ethnogenesis of the Slovak nation was completed in that principality during Pribina's reign?Ditinili (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Kirschbaum cites the following text form Marsina, Richard et al. Slovenske dejiny, referring to its page 23: "[W]e have to consider the Slavs inhabiting Pribina's principality as a specific group of Slavs who lived in the area above the middle Danube. ... For this entire area, we have to accept that the nation-creation process (etnogenesa) of its inhabitants was complete and we can speak of a Slovak nation from that moment on." (Kirschbaum, p. 25.) Do you think Kirschbaum wrongly translated the text from the Slovak book? Borsoka (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Marsina's view is much more complex. Let's compare it with his publication dedicated particularly to the ethnogenesis of the Slovaks, where his views are elaborated into details ([11]. Marsina clearly states that the term "nation" in this period does not match modern definition, but he uses it carefully and with some objections, because (as he states) the translation of latin "gens=tribes" cannot be also properly used for times when the tribes already ceased to exist (p. 14). Then, he explicitly says that the common ethnic awareness cannot be assumed with other ancestors of Slovaks outside the boundaries of the principality (p. 16). Marsina speaks also about further expansion of ethnic awareness (p. 16), new conditions after the integration into Kingdom of Hungary and he explicitly says: "they ethnogenesis has continued; its result were the Slovaks and subsequently the modern Slovak nation" (p. 17). So, it is clear that he does not believe that the "ethnogenesis of the Slovak nation was completed" somehow in general and for all Slovaks and there are two "shifts" in his theory - from Kirschbaum's side (oversimplification based on one carefully selected statement) and then from your side, when you introduced further inaccuracies in the interpretation.Ditinili (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand again. Did Marsina and his co-authors write in Slovenske dejiny that "we can speak of a Slovak nation" from the time of Pribina or not? Borsoka (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Please read my comment again. I have summarized Marsina views relatively in details. You cannot rely in one statement, ignoring whatever else.Ditinili (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your above statement. Did he write that "we can speak of a Slovak nation" from the time of Pribina or not? Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be interpreted in the light of Marsina's complete view, with all Marsina's objections against inaccuracy of the term nation and not out of the context. More, even the cited statement does not speak about "completed ethnogenesis" of the whole Slovak nation. Definitely, someone's opinion should not be indirectly interpreted by another author, what opens plenty of opportunities for inaccuracies, selective usage of statements, etc. The best source for documenting Marsina's view is... Marsina. Right?Ditinili (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, we can cite Marsina's own book as well. Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The main problem is that (again) not mainstream views are presented to readers, but marginal, where Marsina's own view is "deformed" and it seriously misguide English speakers . I have not any idea, why did you decide to "explain" views on Slovak ethnogenesis in this article, but the views which describe the Slovaks as "completed nation" without any objections in the time of the GM or earlier are marginal in the Slovak histography and represented exclusively by controvert authors, more or less existing on the periphery (like Milan Ďurica). The rest can be divided into two groups with serious dispute about the terminology (good examples are Kováč and Marsina), but the current article makes false impression about standpoint of Slovak historians. Ditinili (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you say that Kirschbaum falsified Marsina's words in order to promote a marginal scholarly POV? Borsoka (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I can read Marsina opinion from the first hand, I don't rely only on the single sentence. You should not too especially if more information about his views is already translated above, properly sourced and not compliant with your conclusion (indirectly built on top of information received from another author).Ditinili (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
So you say that Kirschbaum falsified Marsina's words and Marsina did not write that "we have to accept that the nation-creation process (etnogenesa) of its inhabitants was complete and we can speak of a Slovak nation from that moment on." Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 : Boroska, where did I say that Kirschbaum falsified Marsina words?Ditinili (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I have been lost. Marsina wrote that "we have to accept that the nation-creation process (etnogenesa) of its inhabitants was complete and we can speak of a Slovak nation from that moment on", but he also denied that the ethnogenesis of the Slovak nation was completed during Pribina's reign. I have never heard that Marsina had two personalities: one writing of complet ethnogenesis and an other denying it. Borsoka (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, please scroll up. There is already an explanation. Marsina says, that the people in the Principality of Nitra had already their own identity, thus from this moment we can speak about the Slovaks. He also explicitly says that this should be not applied to the all Slavs in the territory of Slovakia. Then, he explicitly says that this "nation" is not a modern nation, but it is more accurate term that the term "tribe", because the members of the original tribes already had higher supra-tribal awareness. Then, it is more accurate than the term "Slavs", because they were already not homogenous mass. He also explicitly says, that this is not a final step in the ethno genesis of the Slovak nation. Regardless of all of that, this view is not a common view of the Slovak histography, it is an object of intensive academic discussions (supported as well as strongly opposed) and goes far beyond the scope of this article. The best thing you can do is not to open this problem on this page, because if you really want to seriously describe views of Slovak historians on the Slovak ethogenesis, you will need a whole section and not one oversimplified sentence from one author, misguiding English readers (= as it remained misunderstood by you).Ditinili (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I desperately try to understand the logic: Marsina writes that the local inhabitants of the Principality of Nitra can be labelled as Slovaks, but they were not Slovaks???? And again: first you challenged the text of the article, saying that Marsina did not write it, now you say that Marsina's view is not widely accepted. Sorry, you should decide what is the case. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, my alleged statement "Marsina did not write it" is again your misunderstanding or manipulation or intentionally false statement or whatever. I have only asked for source and then I have explain that it should be understand in a wider context, because the author wrote more on this topic and not one sentence. Nothing more or less. No, this Marsina's view is not widely accepted, since the views of the Slovak historians on this problem strongly differs and Marsina is representative of one direction. Everything has been already explained, its on you if you want to look for problems or to try to understand.Ditinili (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have experienced that you think that you are able to decide what is the mainstream view and what is only a marginal POV among Slovak historians and among historians who wrote of a period of the history of Slovakia. Berend is not an expert in this field, Bowlus, Třeštík and Marsina only represent a minority views, according to you. Sorry, I am not so brave. Borsoka (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Please, stop make false statements about my opinions (repeatedly). Thanks.Ditinili (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Your remarks about the marginal view of Bowlus [12], about the oversimplicizing Kirschbaum [13], about the marginal view of Třeštík [14], about the low quality of some books published by Yale University [15] and about the strongly opposed view of Marsina [16]. You even assumed that CUP had "an intention" when publishing the "mainstream view" and the "marginal view" without stating that the latter is only marginal [17]. Borsoka (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, is a theory about location of GM on a different place than Moravia and Slovakia marginal and refused by the most of historians dealing with the history of the GM, or not (Bowlus)? Does Marsin's quotation fully and without any need for further explanation represents his opinion or not (Kirschbaum)? Is the opinion that Pribina was Mojmír subordinate commonly accepted by all Czech historians and strongly supported (Třeštík)? Did I say something else than it could happen also for the book from the prestigious university that it can contain a mistake (and I can demonstrate example) so you should not rely on one book and sentence, or do you again make false statements about my opinions and "low quality books from Yale? Did I say something else than if we speak about Marsina views on the ethnogenesis of the Slovaks, he represents one group of Slovak historians, but there is also very strong opposition against this view. Thus we cannot misguide English readers who can then believe that this is somehow the "official standpoint" of the Slovak histography? Where I assumed "an intention" of CUP? Read again your own link: [18]. I spoke about this wikipedia article and your edits, not about any "intention" of the Cambridge University Press.Ditinili (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you think you are in the position to decide what theory is mainstream and what theory is marginal. Please also read the statement in the article, there is no reference to "official standpoint": it is attributed to "Marsina and other Slovak historians", in accordance with the cited source (Kirschbaum). Please try to forget official historiography: we are in the early 21st century and WP is not a department of the Slovak, Hungarian, British or Zambian Ministry of Education. Sorry, I do not understand your remark: what was my intention when citing the book published by the CUP? Borsoka (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, I know well that wikipedia is not a department of any ministry of education. You can guess why "official standpoint" was in quotes. I will not return to any "Marsina" problem again, I did it maybe 4 times. I gave you good and reasonable recommendation - do not try to interpret opinions of the author whose works you have never read. If you cannot understand him even after several trials for an explanation, there is a chance that you will misguide also others.Ditinili (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
(1) Sorry, I have not found any recommendation: you have made several declarations. What is your recommendation? (2) You have not answered my previous question: What was my intention when citing the book published by the CUP? Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
(1) Search for: "The best thing you can do". (2) "I spoke about this wikipedia article and your edits", "intention" is in this case your statement.Ditinili (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
(1) If my understanding is correct, you say that Marsina's view should be deleted even if it is cited by at leas one other Slovakian scholar (Kirschbaum). Why do you think that Marsina's view is not relevant? If he is not a poorly estimated historian, we should rather present his views and also any relevant concurring theories. (2) You have not answered my simple question: what do you think was my intention when citing a book published by CUP? Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
(1) Please, read it again and also my previous comments. I fully support opinion that concurring theories on the ethnogenesis of the Slovaks should be mentioned. I have only said that this is very complex topic and it goes far beyond the topic of this article, since even Slovak historians do not agree on the terminology. So, instead of misguiding readers by simplified views (as it is now) OR writing whole section about it here (otherwise, you cannot do it properly, because also Slovak historians had to do extensive work and write numerous articles to explain their standpoints to each other and they did not reach consensus), we can do it properly in other article, not in general article about history of Slovakia. (2) I have already answered, read my previous comment.Ditinili (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
(1) Do you really say that the ethnogenesis of the Slovakian people is not relevant in the history of Slovakia, because it is a complex issue and cannot be presented in this article? Interesting approach. (2) OK. I have understood that I will never be informed what was my intention when I cited a book published by CUP. Please try to refrain from making misty remarks about other editors and their supposed intentions in the future. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(1) Yes, I really say it. For example, the article [Early Slovaks] with text like "Early Slovaks is an academic term used by some historians and archeologists for the ancestors of the modern Slovaks between 8/9-10th century. Usage of the term is not based on common academic consensus and advocated by several mainstream historians and archeologists as well as strongly opposed and criticized as an ahistorical (etc). ... all standpoints explained. (2) No comment. Whoever wants to make his own opinion about your intention, he can look on your and Fakirbakirs edits (in the long term).Ditinili (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think it is your POV and only your POV. It is obvious that the ethnogenesis of Slovaks is a relevant topic and CAN BE presented in the article. It doesn't matter if there is academic consensus or not. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a normal, rational recommendation (I mean my comment to point 1).Ditinili (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I still think that the most prominent views of the ethnogenesis of the Slovak people should be mentinoned. I think you misunderstand the concept of WP: WP is not for not writing of facts, concepts, theories, but about sharing knowledge. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No comment. In every second comment you try to misinterpret some of my words.Ditinili (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Please read the above conversation: "Do you really say that the ethnogenesis of the Slovakian people is not relevant in the history of Slovakia, because it is a complex issue and cannot be presented in this article?" [19] "Yes, I really say it." [20]. Does your latter remark means that you want to present the ethnogenesis of the Slovakian people in this article???? Does your latter remark means that you want to share knowledge with other members of our community???? Borsoka (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what to say more. I have clearly said that there are better places to discuss views on the early ethnogenesis of Slovaks, where they could be described in appropriate level of details. You can agree or disagree, you can rely on short simplified and misguiding texts or expand this article. In any case, the time I have spent by meaningless discussion where you relatedly tried to misinterpret every second sentence could be spend better. Ditinili (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't censor. WP:Censor. You know I even wanted to create an article for the topic named "The origin of Slovaks"[21] but some editors didn't like the idea [22].I didn't mind. However, due to (mostly) the fact that the Slovaks and Hungarians shared a common state for hundreds of years, the thematization of Slovak history became quite ethnocentric (IMHO). Regarding the Middle Ages, the ethnogenesis of Slovaks, obviously, is not an irrelevant topic. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, already the first sentence about "disputed" and "very contentious" origin of Slovaks fully characterizes your edits and opinions (usually more related to mid-war revisionism and biased chauvinism than modern science). I would say, that the rest of text, strongly biased and based on selective usage of the sources (sometimes of questionable quality) is also very typical.Ditinili (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
More baseless accusations and personal attacks from you.....Fakirbakir (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Fakirbakir, already the first sentence is clearly biased chauvinism. Do not complain.Ditinili (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The first "clearly biased" sentence wasn't written by me....There is no one historical truth, but many historical interpretations. I am afraid you don't understand it. As I see you really think that Szoke, Bowlus, Berend, Boba, Gyorffy etc are chauvinist pigs just because they have different ideas....Fakirbakir (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice trial to divert attention from the problem (biased text which should be previously used as a basis for text about "Slovak ethnogenesis") and to fake the claim that never has been used only to refute it. If we speak for example about Boba and Bowlus, we don't have to use such sharp formulations as you did, but can speak about very low level of acceptance of their theories about GM in wider academic community. Gyorffy's theories about early Slovak settlement were safely refuted. Berend at all is a special case since Boroska (with some creativity) came to conclusion that vague mention about other theories (so vague that authors even did not bother to reference authors of these theories means that it is "highly debated") what probably should lead reader to conclusion the issue of the location of Nitra is more controversial than it actually is. Ditinili (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Nitra[edit]

There seems to be general consensus is that indicating which is the dominant view should be clearly indicated in the text. Whether the other theory deserves a mention or not, it sems to me that the general consensus is for it, with the caveat that the wording be cleaned up. (non-admin closure) Kingsindian  03:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article contains the following text under the subtitle "Rise of Slavic polities": "Some historians say that Pribina's original seat was identical with Nitra in present-day Slovakia, from where he was expelled by Mojmir I around 833. .... Other historians write that Pribina's Nitrava cannot be identified with Nitra." The two sentences are based on 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.  which contains, on pages 56-57, the following: "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." According to Ditinili, the latter theory is marginal and should not be mentioned in the article. Could the theory which says that "Pribina's Nitrava cannot be identified with Nitra" be mentioned in the article or it should be deleted? Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should follow recommendation "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Identification of medieval Nitra from the times of Pribina or Great Moravia with the present-day Nitra is simply supported by the overwhelming majority of historians and fully supported by archeological research. It should be clear for any reader which theory is mainstream and what is an alternative, marginal opinion.Ditinili (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, Bela Miklos Szoke (he is the leading archaeologist at the Mosapurc excavations) disputes that Pribina's (and Wiching's) seat was situated in Nitra.[23] Fakirbakir (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It could be interesting, but it changes nothing on the fact that straightforward identification of Nitra remains non-problematic for the overwhelming majority of historians who deal with the history of the Great Moravia and it is supported also by the research on the place. Short overview of the archeological research in Nitra in English: Archaelogical sites of Nitra.Ditinili (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Historical Nitra was in present-day Slovakia. It is a generaly accepted and preferred opinion. (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the ostensible reliability of at least one of the opponents of the most common hypothesis, we probably should mention the alternative, but clearly indicate that it's a minority viewpoint. Hiding the fact that there is reasonable doubt in the minds of some subject-matter experts would do a disservice to our readers. In archaeology, it's actually fairly often the case that mainstream assumptions about the identification of specific digs with certain historically attested places turn out to be mistaken. This has, for example, happened multiple times with proposed locations of Camelot, in my adult lifetime. Anyway, the extant wording borders on WP:WEASEL-wording. While the original source was itself weasely, we don't have to repeat its poor use of vague "some [like who?] say this, others [such as?] say that" presentation. It would be better to simply state outright that the predominant theory is this one, and cite Wiszewski for it as well as some other reliable source indicating this is the most accepted (or only presented) view, and that an alternative, minority hypothesis is that other one, and cite both Wiszewski (as the source that it's a minority viewpoint) and Szoke (for the details of what the viewpoint is and who propounds it). Unless it wanders into WP:FRINGE territory, more information is generally better than less, especially when avoiding mention of something may raise WP:NPOV concerns.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody speaks here about hiding the fact that there are other opinions. However, I fully agree that it must be clear what is the most accepted view and what is hypothesis of small group of historians to prevent "false balance".Ditinili (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The prevailing opinion is identification of Pribina's Nitra (Nitrawa) with Nitra. I agree with Borsoka that we can mention alternative hypothesis, but also with SMcCandlish that we don't have to repeat WP:WEASEL-wording of the original source. (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Malformed citations need repair[edit]

I clean up random citation errors and this article has some difficult examples due to badly malformed citation templates and incorrect use of named reference tags.

  • This diff [24] introduced an error on May 12, 2008 (7 years old!). The citation used was <ref name='Origins'>{{cite book | pages = 308-309}}</ref> which produced:
. pp. 308–309.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
I assume the citation should have been completed as follows. I've added a |ref=harv parameter to allow use of the {{sfn}} shortened footnote template, used like this to create an abbreviated reference which links to the full citation (which needs to be placed into the Secondary Sources section for the {{sfn}} template to function properly). Note that there are no <ref></ref> tags placed around a {{sfn}} template. {{sfn|Kristó|1995|pp=308-309}}[1]
  1. ^ Kristó 1995, pp. 308-309.
Kristó, Gyula (1995). A magyar állam megszületése ("The origin of the Hungarian state"). Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely. ISBN 963-482-098-0. 
  • This diff [25] introduced an error on November 15, 2012. There are eight different malformed citation templates all using the same named reference 'Történeti Kronológia' but each shows different page numbers. Because they all use the same named reference, they all show up as a single citation like this - my assumed correction is below (intended for use with the {{sfn}} template).
. p. 51.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
Benda, Kálmán (editor) (1981). Magyarország történeti kronológiája ("The Historical Chronology of Hungary"). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 963-05-2661-1. 
  • This diff [26] introduced an error on May 16, 2015. A malformed citation template using the named reference 'Europe' produced the following, which I assume would be correct as shown below (again, intended for use with the {{sfn}} template).
. p. 360.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
Angi, János; Bárány, Attila; Orosz, István; Papp, Imre; Pósán, László (1997). Európa a korai középkorban (3-11. század) (Europe in the Early Middle Ages - 3–11th centuries). Debrecen: dup, Multiplex Media - Debrecen U. P. ISBN 963-04-9196-6. 

Apart from the 11 examples shown above, I see 41 more in the code for this article, none of which properly show the page number in their citations (and each of which will cause an error if the full citation gets deleted). For now, I've fixed the unrecognized parameter error - I'll leave the others for an interested editor who wants to clean up the entire reference section. Stamptrader (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Dubious statements[edit]

(1) According to Slovak historian Jan Steinhübel, the local Slavs remained neutral during the conflicts between the Longobards and Gepids, instead they invaded the Byzantine Empire. When invading the Byzantine Empire, the local Slavs had to cross the territories of the Longobards and/or the Gepids. What is the basis of Steinhübel's theory? Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(2) The article says that the Slavs living to the south of the line Devín-Nitra-Levice-Želovce-Košice-Šebastovce adopted Avar burial rites, jewellery and fashion. How do we know that they were Slavs if they cannot be distingushed from the Avars? Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(3) The article says that the Slavs living to the north of the line Devín-Nitra-Levice-Želovce-Košice-Šebastovce preserved their burial rite, but their number increased also because immigration of Slavs from the south. Does this statement means that there were also inhumation cemeteries to the north of the line? Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(1) If we look on your comment from the log: "Did they have an agreement with the warring Germans who let them cross their lands?" then the answer is that such military campaign really required permission of the Gepids. It is not something strange, because for all of them, the Byzantine Empire was much more attractive target. Such collaboration is not so shocking, for example it is documented that the Gepids helped the Slavs also to cross the Danube (for some payment).[27] Of course, again it is not "Steinhubel" theory, this is supported e.g. also by Třeštík (Vznik Velke Moravy/Foundation of the Great Moravia), both of them speaking about common military leadership necessary to organise such campaigns against Byzantines (and to make alliances with others).
Do we know that Slavs from the lands now forming Slovakia invaded the Byzantine Empire? What is the source of this scholarly POV? Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
...and your sources claiming the opposite are: ...? (Sorry, I will not spend more time with discussion like "my personal opinion is...")Ditinili (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have misunderstood something. I thought that the creator of the above interesting theory about the Slavs freely invading the Byzantine Empire across the territory where the Gepids and Longobards were waging war against each other is based on some evidence. If it is not based on evidence, but only a scholarly assumption, we should clearly state it in the article. Borsoka (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, if you are afraid that some opinions are baseless, then the answer is no, they are not. The authors who say that the attacks came also from the north of the Panonian basin (not only e.g. from the Lower Danube) came to this conclusion based on analysis like where these attacks came from, where they crossed Danube, location of the neighbours of these Slavs, etc. Of course, your role is not to "validate" their opinion and my duty is not to analyse this topic into details with you. My duty is to only to properly source these opinions and I will simply add more authors and maybe a short summary.Ditinili (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. I understand that the authors concluded that the Slavs from the Northern Carpathians freely crossed the territory of the warring Gepids and Longobards (but they, of course, remained independent of the Longobards), but it takes some time that their argumentation can be understood. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Your personal opinions, none sources, I will simply extend section for other authors.--Ditinili (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
(2) The question is not "were Slavs there", but "can we define clear and reliable criteria to distinguish between the Slavs and the Avars for the particular grave in the area". The material culture has features of both and it is influenced by fashion trends, so if e.g. typical Slavic weapons as Slavic axes are found together with the "Avar" jewellry, etc.Ditinili (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this should be clarified in the article ("Slavic axes" and "Avar artefacts"). Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then the "dubious tag" is inappropriate and you only need further clarification.
Ok. I understand that we will read about Slavic axes and Avar broches in the article. It will be fascinating: "it is well-known by mainstream historians that the Slavs never give up their axes and the Avars never used axes, but lived side by side in the same villages." Borsoka (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Your personal opinion and a trial for ironic speech cannot compensate the fact that you did not provide any source. Do you have any source or not?Ditinili (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my personal opinion is not important. Nevertheless, reading of Slavs and Avars living in the same villages and using the same cemeteries who used different weapons will be fascinating. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Stop your own research, if you are not able to provide any sources and you rely only your own opinions and "expertise". Ditinili (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
(3) Here I am not sure, what do you want to prove. Can you provide some scholarly source claiming the opposite to make clear what is the problem to be discussed (not your own deductions, conclusions, etc)? Thx. Ditinili (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I do not want to dicusse it. I'd like to understand it, because for the time being it is an idle statement. 04:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Borsoka (talk)
Ok, if you don't have any scholarly source and you do not want to discusse it, than the "dubiouss tag" is in this case also inappropriate and we can chat about the topic later.Ditinili (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. For the time being, we are not in the position to decide that it is a relevant information or not. Borsoka (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree, you are not in the position to decide that it is a relevant information or not. However, it is is properly sourced and again you have not provided any source to support your opinion that it is "dubious".Ditinili (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. We will read idle statements about Slavs who practised inhumation in the land to the south and cremation in the territories to then north of a line, but whose movements across that line can be archaeologically proved. Maybe the Slavs axes prove those movements, because they did not give up using their weapons, but they easily adopted burial rites. Is there a difference between the axes used by Slavs who inhumated their dead and axes who cremated them? Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, stop your own research, desinterpretations and ironic comments. You do not have any sources.Ditinili (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Please read the above conversation. All my statements are based on your interpretation of the reliable sources that you cited. You say that according to those reliable sources: (1) There is a line separating the southern and northern regions, because the Slavs did not give up their axes, but easily adopted inhumation rite in the south, but they continued cremating their dead in the north; (2) Nevertheless, the Slavs freely moved across that separating line (but we do not know the basis of this assumption); (3) The Slavs also freely invaded the Byzantine Empire across the territory of the Gepids and Longobards who were waging war against each other, but the Slavs remained neutral in the wars of the Gepids and Longobards. Did I change anything when summarizing these fascinating theories? Borsoka (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
In other words, you are shocked by:
(1) the existence of common Slav-Avar material culture
(2) the movement of Slavs to safer northern areas
(3) the collaboration between Slavs and Gepids, from the Slavic side not aimed against the Longobards, but the Byzantines
This is high level summary, without arguing about details. No comment.Ditinili (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
You are wrong again. No, I have not been shocked. (1) I know that you do not write about "assemblages which consist of X, Y and Z artifacts and which are attributed by AB to peoples 1 and 2", but about "common Slav-Avar material culture" (=Slavic axes and Avar artefacts). (2) I know that in your world only Slavs could move from the dangerous south to the north, because other peoples (Gepids, Avars, etc) enjoyed peril. (3) If you read the article, you would realize that it was me who included Procopius's reference to the collaboration of an exiled Longobard prince with the Slavs (the Longobard prince sought refugee among the Gepids). And I know that in your world those Slavs must have been mustered in the lands now forming Slovakia and scholars who deny this conclusion only represent a minority view. Borsoka (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what "my word" should be. However, because you were not able to provide any sources to support your opinion until now, I am removing tags. Ditinili (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Please try to read some books of archaeology written in the 21st century. Of course, the statements of "common Slavic-Avar culture" can be mentioned, but we should clarify that nobody excavated people who speak Slavic or Avar, but only objects which are attributed to Slavs or Avars or Gepids, and this attribution is only a theory. Borsoka (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, only general statements without any sources questioning concrete sentences.Ditinili (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Prevailing opinion of Nitra and location of Great Moravia[edit]

Of course, we can say that there is a "prevailing opinion" if we can verify our statement. Taking into account WP:Summary style, we should not list all arguments of the parties who are debating the location of "Great Moravia", especially if we do not need to mention that debate in this article (there is a separate article dedicated to "Great Moravia"). Nobody denies that a part of present-day Slovakia was annexed by that polity in the 9th century. Only the date of occupation is debated: scholars who identify Nitrava of the three late version of the 11 existing copies of the Conversio with Nitra say that Nitra was occupied in the 830s, other scholars (who prefer the nearly contemporaneous Archbishop Theotmar's testimony) say that Nitra was only occupied in the 870s. Borsoka (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.
"Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. (...) while there are cases where this kind of pedantic insistence is useful and necessary, often it is simply disruptive, and can be countered simply by pointing out that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious"
Also Boba, Bowlus and Edgers are aware that they theories are minor, that's why they try to "reconsider", "rewrite", etc.
Detailed arguments - they were listed by User:Fakirbakir not me, I only added counter arguments. It is not acceptable to intentionally create a false balance and not only to present prevailing and minor theories as equal, but detailed arguments are provided only for a minor view. This clearly violates neutrality and makes a false impression about the scientific ground of both theories.
The source about the occupation of Nitra only "in 870" is well known and as many other historical sources should be analysed critically not literally. The fact is that the most of the historians claims the opposite and they do not agree with such theory. Regardless of your or my opinion this is the minor view. More about how it is possible that Franish bishops made such mistake in Třeštík (2001), p. 116.--Ditinili (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you have to emphasize all the time that "this is the major opinion" and "that is the minor opinion"?? This is nonsense. Let the reader decide which theory fits better with the "evidence" we have.... I am telling you historians may differ on the "facts" (historical theories are not facts). Fakirbakir (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I do it, because it is recommended by wikipedia. Read "equal validity" can create a false balance.Ditinili (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
So, if my understanding is correct, it is only an assumption that there is a "prevailing opinion". Who made this assumption? Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not an "assumption". It is patently obvious fact that the most of publications about the Great Moravia even do not bother to reference this alternative theory. Can we agree on that or not?
However, you came with articifical, baseless and fringe theory that these two "hypothesis" are somehow equal and their level acceptance is equal (this is obviously incorrect believe and it the case that you are aware of it and push this desinterpretation, we are speaking about quite unethical manipulation from your side). Then, you have tried to support your opinion by one vague sentence in the book which is not detaily specialized in the topic, but as other editors properly noticed in RfC requested by you (!), we can hardly rely on such vague statements and we should not repeat them. In the meantime, you have refused to provide references to the authors who support this "equaly accepted" theory, who can be obviously (as you know) counted on one hand. In the same time we can really speak about about dozens other authors and since 1970 (Boba) hunderds of publications from renomed authors claiming oposite. More, two of three authors who are presented now as representatives of this theory belong to marginal historical view.Ditinili (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Please remember that the book published by Cambridge University Press does not make such a distinction ("prevailing" and "other" opinion). Maybe CUP cannot make distinction between the two theories. I know that you think that your knowledge of books published in Slovakia convinced you that there is a prevailing opinion, but CUP does not support your experience. Of course, if this distinction can be verified, we should mention it. Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This was already rejected and there is an agreement that this publication uses weasel wording which should not be repeated here. More, it is large misunderstanding or intentional lie that this CUP publication "contradicts my opinion". We can easily cite it again to demonstrate that it simply does not directly state that the theories are equivalent and this statement is only your own conclusion.
Since it is patently obvious that the most of the authors who research the GM demonstrably totally ignores this "equivalent" theory, I have to ask you who are those mysterious historians and archaeologist who denies association of Nitrava and Nitra to such extent that it should degrade this widely recognized and accepted opinion only to "one of many equivalent hypothesis"? For now, it is your baseless speculation.
Of course, I can very easily demonstrate that the most of recognized experts on the topic not only reject this theory but it is not worth of comment in their publication as an alternative. It has nothing with my own research, I can do it very transparently and whoever can verify it. Ditinili (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read the text I suggest before commenting it: there are no weasel words. If your claim can easily be demonstrated, please do not refrain from verifying it. Please read the references in the relevant part of the article, you can easily find scholars who say that Nitrava and Nitra are not identical, because a nearly contemporaneous source contradicts this identification and no archaeological evidence substantiates it either. Borsoka (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
If the authors referenced in the article are all what you can show us (in the case of Boba and Bowlus they authors with more than questionable acceptance) than you are really very far from making "any revolution" and proving that the "traditional view" on the location of Nitrava is not prevailing (= patently obvious fact). Ditinili (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with you: as soon as you can verify that there is a prevailing opinion, we should mention it in this article. However, if my understanding is correct, it cannot be so easily demonstrated as you stated above. If you are well aware the fact that CUP does not make a distinction between the two theories ([28]), why do you oppose this neutral presentation? Or you may not know that Cambridge University Press is more frequently cited in WP than results of WP-editors' own research as per WP:NOR. You can suggest that this rule should be changed if you think that the results of your own research about the value of the two theories should be presented in this article. I strongly suggest that you should read books published outside Slovakia in the 21st century about the 9th-century history of Central Europe, because you will be surprised: Bowlus and Boba are always cited. Borsoka (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for repetition: "neutral presentation" from CUP demonstrably uses weasel wording, it is a bad basis for any discussion and useless for further discussion. This is the problem of the particular sentence and it means that it's value is limited (of course, the source is otherwise reliable). It does not make any distinctions not because they are not any differences, but because the authors simply did not analyse the problem, they did not reference any historians and did not provide any reference. It is nothing more than one vague sentence from the book primarily focused on a different topic.
The question is what exactly do you want to demonstrate. If you want to demonstrate that the most of the experts on the GM simply ignore this theory and even do not mention it then yes, it can be easily demonstrated. I already proposed to do it and if you can confirm that you will be satisfied with this solution I will do it. Another solution is to propose to open RfC with a question "is the association of Nitrava with Nitra the prevailing opinion among historians who research the era of the Great Moravia?" Of course, we know about alternative views.
If you speak about WP:NOR than I have to say that it is YOUR original research that both theories have the same level of the acceptance (what is an absolute non-sense). This your opinion is currently more or less baseless, because it is based exclusively on one vague sentence and three historians and two of them are let's say controversial.
Of course, it has nothing with Slovak POVs, etc.Ditinili (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Please remember that I did provide a reference to a peer reviewed work (published by Cambridge University Press) which does not make a difference between the two theories, consequently the text I suggested cannot qualify as original research. You may misunderstand the concept of WP:NOR. According to this policy, if an editor verified his/her view with a reference to a peer reviewed book, he/she is not required to provide further references. For the time being, it is you who cannot verify a claim. Consequently, till you do not provide a reference to substantiate your claim (namely, that there is a prevailing opinion among historians), I will delete all reference to this "prevailing opinion". Sorry, I think there is no point in continuing our conversation till you do not provide a proper reference. Borsoka (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Boroska, your publication does not contain any statement that the theories are equal. It contain only one vague statement that other theories exist. The opinion that they are equal contradicts the facts that the most of authors totally ignores it. This is something which should be definitely carefully evaluated and elaborated instead of pushing views which can be only hardly to be accepted. That's all. Ditinili (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, I copy here the relevant text from the book: "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. ). Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This confirmed my statement that the authors of this publication did not wrote that both theories are equally accepted among scholars. They only wrote that different theories exist, nothing more or less. Then, this vague sentence was used by you to make a bombastic conclusion about equality - not explicitly written by the authors of the publication. Unfortunately, the sentence is so vague that Berend, Urbańczyk and Wiszewski did not bother to wrote who are the authors of these theories and did not provide any references to their works. However, is seems to be a reference to some southern theory. There is not any widely accepted theory which places Mojmir to Moravia and Pribina to Pannonia before his exile.
Instead of relying on one vague sentence, I propose to take seriously the fact that the most of authors ignore this alternative theory about Nitrava. It is on you, if you want to be collaborative or to push unsustainable opinion about equality. And maybe to take into account that because they ignore it or reject particular statements, they have no reason to further explain that these views are minor. I will return to this discussion in 2 weeks, because my university library is currently closed as I found today.Ditinili (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand with whom you are arguing. My statement above was the following: "I did provide a reference to a peer reviewed work (published by Cambridge University Press) which does not make a difference between the two theories, consequently the text I suggested cannot qualify as original research". Borsoka (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)