Talk:Principality of Nitra/Archive 1

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: 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 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)