Talk:Principality of Nitra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name

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

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

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

OKJuro 22:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason of the template

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

(proto)-Slovaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Principality of Nitra?

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elonka 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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