Talk:Svatopluk I of Moravia

This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Slovakia High‑importance

	Slovakia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hungary Low‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Great Moravia#People|Moravians]] The anchor (#People) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Svatopluk, Prince of Nitra

As far as I know, Svatopluk is not mentioned in any of the primary sources as "prince" or "ruler" of Nitra. The only primary source which describes "Svatopluk's Moravia" is the De Administrando Imperio which locates his principality somewhere in the territories east of the river Tisza of Hungary and Romania. Does anybody know what is the source based on which it is assumed that he was ever a prince of Nitra? Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read for example Annales Fuldenses.--Yopie (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already read it. Annales Fuldenses does not mention that he was prince of Nitra, it only refers to his independent principality. The only source which describes Svatopluk's Moravia is the De Administrando Imperio (written some 50 years after his death) which clearly locates "his" Moravia somewhere to the territory bordered by the rivers Tisza, Mures, Somes, Timis. Nevertheless, if you could specially refer to the part of the Annals of Fulda which speaks of Svatopluk as prince of Nitra, I would be really grateful. Borsoka (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, if the source does not mention that form 'prince of Nitra' we should leave out that sentence and the article will be more accurate. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Svatopluk dislike the sloven languange

Svatoplug outlaw Method folowers. They exile into Bolgaria and set up the old slavonic church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.149.11.94 (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but he was still Slovak, his uncle Rastislav was a Slovak ImNotFromHelsinki (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsatisfactory sentence

"Svatopluk dethroned Rastislav, who was a vassal of Louis the German and betrayed him to the Franks in 869 or 870, but in a year he was also imprisoned by them."

This sentence is highly ambiguous, and probably requires another comma. Who "betrayed" who ?Eregli bob (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Class

I think, the quality of this article is much better than 'Start'. The sources seem as credible, usable, valid and reliable. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Hello, I would like to change the articles name to Sventopluk I and write the modern czech (Svatopluk I) and slovak (Svätopluk I) names next to it, as Sventopluk (or Sventopolk) is the neutral science name of this ruler (see also google books). The original old church slavic name of Sventopluk was Svętopъłkъ. Greetings --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for two weeks nobody said anything against the change of the name I did it now. If there are some reasons for somebody for disagree with that please answer. Greetings --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this change is unsourced. In reliable sources, as Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/575959/Svatopluk is named Svatopluk. --Yopie (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yopie! No problem, here are some sources:

http://books.google.at/books?id=LkdzZaebPlwC&pg=PA107&dq=Sventopluk+Moravia&hl=de&sa=X&ei=axKqUfe_OaOm0wWx94HYDQ&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Sventopluk%20Moravia&f=false

http://books.google.at/books?id=2mdIpkJ5QWoC&pg=PA107&dq=Sventopluk+Moravia&hl=de&sa=X&ei=axKqUfe_OaOm0wWx94HYDQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Sventopluk%20Moravia&f=false

http://books.google.at/books?id=bkZITAQ4XbgC&pg=PA267&dq=Sventopluk+Moravia&hl=de&sa=X&ei=axKqUfe_OaOm0wWx94HYDQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sventopluk%20Moravia&f=false

http://books.google.at/books?id=pZAikRi4ROAC&pg=PA166&dq=Sventopluk+Moravia&hl=de&sa=X&ei=axKqUfe_OaOm0wWx94HYDQ&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Sventopluk%20Moravia&f=false

The problem with the Name Svatopluk is that 1) it is not similar to the original name Svętopъłkъ, 2) Svatopluk is just the modern czech name of Svatopluk. But Svatopluk wasn't a czech ruler, Bohemia was just between 890 and 894 under his rule. Svatopluk was mainly the King of the Moravian Slavs (today Moravians and Slovaks) that were difficult from the czech tribes in Bohemia. Also his Empire included polish and old russian territories, so his name in this languages is also relevant.

Sventopluk (or Sventopolk) is the neutral science name for this moravian ruler, thats also a reason why we use it in the German Wikipedia. Greetings --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Hello! Please read WP:TITLE. We use most used name and most common name in the article titles, see for example Bill Clinton (not official William Clinton). For Svatopluk we have 1.680.000 ghits ( [1] ), for Sventopluk only 62 ghits ([2]) and Google suggest "Svatopluk". Reliable sources as The New Cambridge Medieval History: c.500-c.700 and Encyclopedia of the Middle Age use "Svatopluk".--Yopie (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. Than if you have no problem with it I will add the other names like this:

Svatopluk I. (Latin: Zwentibald, Old Church Slavic: Svętopъłkъ, Slovak: Svätopluk I., Czech: Svatopluk I., Polish: Świętopełk, Russian: Святополкъ I.; ...)

--Trimnapaschkan (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - This will be great.--Yopie (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Sloven8,

please don't remove reliable sources, on the other hand that time the Slovak nation did not form yet.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR, the fact that the Slovak nation had not formed yet in the 870 is not mentioned in the article. I think the idea of possible anachronism should be presented more clearly. For a outsider is not obvious why this is an inaccuracy. 82.78.61.12 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak historians agreed on the inaccurate presentation, it would be an anchronism by the erroneus assumption indeed, but we should first check the source for exact wordage.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]