Talk:Principality of Nitra/Archive 2

References (continued)
I would like to suggest a compromise: "The Principality of Nitra or Nitrian Principality (Nitrianske kniežatstvo, Nitriansko, Nitrava) is the modern denomination for a polity located in what is today Slovakia and some adjacent territories in present-day Hungary in the Middle Ages. Although its existence is not documented by contemporary sources, archaeological researches dated several fortresses built in the region to the beginning of the 9th century." The suggested text would summarize the facts Tankred revealed in his remarkes in the above discussion, i.e., (i) the "Principality of Nitra" is a modern denomination (ii) its existence is not documented by contemporary written sources, and (iii) reference to archaeological researches is made. I think the text is neutral, it is fully in line with the facts and it does not deny the existence of the political entity in question. Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Borsoka, do you have a source, in any language, which says "the existence is not documented by contemporary sources"? Otherwise that's pretty clearly a violation of no original research.  Just because we haven't found such documentation, does not mean we could make such a statement. Or another way of looking at it, is that I'm hearing the Hungarians doubt the existence of the Principality.  Can anyone provide a source for that?  Even if "tabloid" sources?  It doesn't mean that we'd necessarily use them in the article, but I'd like to hear the exact wording that the Hungarian press (or academics) are using. If, for example, Hungarian tabloids routinely say "the supposed" Principality, then we could add a section to the article like, "In Hungarian popular culture" and say something like, "Some Hungarian popular sources such as (sources) express doubt about the existence of the Principality, and say (quotes)". That would satisfy Wikipedia's neutrality policy, as it would present significant views (regardless of whether they were right or wrong) in a very neutral way, and be sticking just to the sources, rather than requiring us to make judgments. --Elonka 07:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, thank you for your comments. As I mentioned in one of my former remarks, the existence of the Principality of Nitra is not part of the popular culture in Hungary (unfortunatelly, because, in this case, my favourite question must have been answered). However, I understand that parts of my proposed wording would not fully in line with our principles; therefore, I have to "see my librarian" before suggesting wording for the article. Nevertheless, I am a curious man and I cannot help raising my question: what is the (nearly) contemporary written source that mention the "Principality of Nitra" or "Prince" Pribina? Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that continuing to ask that question here is going to do much good, as I think that everyone who is reading this page, heard you the first couple of times you asked. :) You may wish to post your question at the Reference desk/Humanities, or at one of the relevant WikiProjects. --Elonka 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I realised that my favourite question (what is the contemporary written source proving that contemporaries realised that the "Principality of Nitra" existed) may not be answered in a short time, although the existence of the "Principality" is part of popular culture. Actually, it was not me who realised the lack of sources, because any of the scholarly works I have read on this topic forgot to refer to the (nearly) contemporary written source. I hoped that the secondary sources used by other editors when writing this article contained a reference and my question could be easily answered. Unfortunatelly, this is not the case, so let's circulate my question at other portals. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a "bit" harder to prove that something did not existed, than that it has existed. Positive claims must and can be proved. It would be pretty funny if I would claim that for example Michael Jackson is gay (and there are plenty of "sources" to prove this), and you could not delete that untill you prove that he is not. Wich is easier to prove? The claim or its denial? What do Wikipedia rules say in this case? We should do that too here. --Rembaoud (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The rules of our community, Elon refers to, prescribes that each sentences have to be based on reliable sources. As the secondary sources used by other editors may not contain reference to primary written sources proving the existence of the "Principality of Nitra", but they qualify reliable sources under the rules of our community, the ones who want to state that primary sources does not prove the existence of the "Principality of Nitra" have to find a reliable source that can be referred. Nevertheless, I will raise the question (what is the primary written source that proves the existence of the "Principality of Nitra) at other community portals. Maybe some members of the community will answer it. What about your above reference ("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")? As I understand its title refers to the myths of the history of Slovakia. You may cite it. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That book confirms the existence of the Principality of Nitra. It speculates about its location and borders. The archaeologist, Eduard Krekovič, says that the principality probably encompassed the south-west part of present-day Slovakia, and there were other smaller principalities all over Slovakia, as confirmed by archaeological finds.--Svetovid (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your remark. Therefore, there is a new secondary source that confirms the existence of Principality of Nitra based on archeaological reserches. If my understanding is correct, the new source may also prove the existence of a bunch of principalities.  Borsoka (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is more than ridiculous now. The existence of any smaller early medieval entity or event could be disputed using such "arguments" (nobody here is going to check medieval chronicles for you). There are plenty of primary and literally thousand of secondary sources referring to a principality centered in Nitra (hence it is called "Principality of Nitra"), the name itself does not matter. The current standard academic peer-reviewed book on the topis is "Nitrianske kniežatstvo" [literally "Principality f Nitra] by J. Steinhübel, in which you can find 1000 pages of text on this "non-existing" entity. The book is really standard literature now, used at universities and cited by all relevant scholars....And above all, the permanent requests for primary research and sources here are ridiculous, because you all are simply diletants and have no idea where to look for things, how reliable the texts are, and how to interprete the texts, how they fit with other sources and above all what archeological findings imply....And Mýty naše slovenské is basically popular literature, a completely irrelevant POV book with a clear aim, as the title itself suggests. Anonymous  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.243.194 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anon, please try to make your comments more civil in the future. --Elonka 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Anon! First of all, I promise that I do not want to deny or prove the existence of the "Principality of Nitra", and I do not know whether it was a large entity or (as you mentioned) a small one, I am only a curious soul. If my understanding is correct, you know "plenty of primary (...) sources referring to a principality centered in Nitra". Could you, please, name some of them? I would be really greatful. You are right: many of us (like me) are diletant, but if my understanding is correct even diletant people are entitled to raise silly questions in our community. As I raised my question ("what is the (nearly) contemporary written source that proved that contemporaries realised the existence of the <>") long time ago and it has not been answered yet, you will be the first who can help me to stop being ridicuolos. Yes, I really feel myself ridicuolos, because I thought that my silly question will be answered soon, as plenty of secondary sources describe the history of the "Principality". Borsoka (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple: Get the book and, if possible, all other elementary literature on Slovak history, such as Dejiny Slovenska 1-6, Včasnostredoveké osídlenie Slovenska, collections of medieval documents referring to the territory of Slovakia etc. and you will find the answers. I am not going to waste my time to prove things described in thousands of books, or play the "we are the young would-be historians rediscovering history"-game (while in reality we are playing the traditional Hungarian "lets deny the pure existence of Slovaks and Romanians in the Carpathian basin before the 9th century"-game, arent we?) Anonymous    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.243.194 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank for your suggestion. Unfortunatelly, I cannot read Slovakian. Actually, I am not young and I am not a historian, I am a diletant as you (I presume) mentioned above. Moreover, I do not deny the existence of Slovaks and Romanians in the Carpathian Basin before the 9th century. Does your answer mean that you will not answer my simple question ("What is the nearly contemporary written source that mention "Prince" Pribina or the existence of the "Principality of Nitra")? My hope for the answer was based on your reference that plenty of primary sources could be cited. Sorry, I did not want to upset you and did not want you to waste your time to prove elementary things. I am pretty sure that there will be a historian or a child who will finally answer the question. Borsoka (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to get and read basic literature, i.e. to get access to basic data, on the topic you pretend to be trying to discuss, then do not discuss the topic and do not change any articles referring to Slovak history, above all specific articles like this one. Since you are unable to get access to basic data (which is only available in Slovak), the logical implication is that texts edited by you contain wrong information, which in turn implies that you should be prohibited from any edits in Slovakia-related articles, in other words you should be blocked, if you refuse to refrain from such edits. That, however, will not happen, instead the completely uninformed admins (who for lack of knowledge seem to judge people according to the tone of their statements instead of reading the content of what they say) will continue to block all upset Slovak, Romanian or Serbian editors, just like some Hungarian sockpuppets here wish and have planned, and nobody cares.
 * Dear Anon, I think the fact that I cannot read Slovakian should not mean that I cannot add value to Slovak-related articles. If you read the Hungarian-related articles, you will find that there are several Slovak, German, Croat, etc. editors contributing to the text, and I presume most of them cannot read Hungarian. But they are welcome, because I am pretty sure that they have access to literature that a man-of-the street in Hungary cannot read; therefore they can add suplementary information. I agree that the 90% of the secondary sources is available only in Slovak, but beleive me there are some sources available in other languages (English, Hungarian, Latin, German) as well. If you think that the articles edited by me contain unreliable information you are more than welcome to challange them based on reliable sources. My only purpose (even it may be surprising for you) is contributing to the success of a project aiming at the collection of the present status of the knowledge of mankind. Moreover, personally I have never initiated the blocking of any of the Slovak, Romanian or Serbian editors, because they work (even if it is sometimes driven by emotion) provides us information. Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(replying to Rembaoud) The Michael Jackson situation is a bit different, because his article falls under our Biographies of living people policy. For those, anything negative is to be removed, immediately and aggressively. In terms of an article about an entity from a thousand years ago though, things are not as urgent. Now, it is true that per WP:V, anything that is unsourced can be removed immediately, and then it is the responsibility of those who wish to put it back, to include a reliable source. However in actual practice, it can be considered disruptive to simply remove every unsourced statement without giving people a chance to find sources. So the best thing to do is usually to add cn (citation-needed) tags and give people a chance to come up with a source, before removing something. --Elonka 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Steinhübel is a contemporary Slovak historian who is "pretty gallant" with Slovaks; wherever "Slavs" were in the sources he read, he "gallantly" changed it to "proto-Slovaks", and describes them as a distinct tribe within Great Moravia. Hmm...this "gallant act" and the description connected to it is sooooooooooo familiar from somewhere... --Rembaoud (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. The topic is a principality and not ethnicity.
 * 2. What you claim is a plain technical lie, because Steinhübel claims just the opposite. (Tough luck for you once again). And, just for the record, you admit that your are unable to read Slovak, but at the same time, “interestingly”, you have no problems with claim about the content of Slovak-language books; you have made only two concrete statements in this discussion (about Mýty naše slovenské and about Steinhubel) and in both cases it turned out that you are openly lying and nobody cares. Any serious discussion with any person being able to lie this way is a priori senseless.
 * Dear Anon, "just for the record", it is me (Borsoka (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)) who admited that I cannot read Slovakian and the above remak was signed by Rembaoud.
 * 3. Your personal opinion on one of the most prominent current Slovak historians and on a standard academic book is completely irrelevant, it would be irrelevant if you were a professor, and it is all the more irrelevant given the fact that you are an obvious (to put it politely, because the Americans have no idea about Hungarian politics and history) „biased“ diletant (and 100th sockpuppet, btw). But even IF he was a nationally orientated author (which he isnt), using the same logic, virtually everybody in Hungary‘s neighbouring countries considers 50% of Hungarian (even academic) historical literature biased and nationalist etc., but nobody starts to delete the corresponding information from the articles on the grounds that he does not like the author’s opinion.
 * 4. That‘s all on my part. Looking forward to further articles in this Hungaropaedia and have fun upsetting all editors from the neigbouring countriesm, renaming all towns and persons to Hungarian names and all inhabitants from the former kingdom into Hungarians, insulting everybody from Prague to the Black Sea in article summaries, deleting references you simply do not like from articles, and denying the pure existence of Romanians, Slovaks or Serbs, nobody cares, nobody notices what you have been doing for years here, so go on, and the admins here seem to be repeatedly happy to support you. Don’t forget to play the polite guy in discussions and to accuse everybody of exactly the things YOU are doing here, because that works here perfectly (when you are the first one to accuse people nobody comes to the idea that its you who does these things, right?). What a balanced and wonderful work this wikipedia (one huge joke). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.243.194 (talk • contribs) May 1
 * Dear Anon, I am really sorry that my silly question ("what is the (nearly) contemporary written source that proves the existence of the <>?") that has not been answered for cca. four months made you upset. Personally, I would like to ask you to continue your work, because - as I mentioned above - even editors with motions (that is a human feature) can add value and provide important information to the users of Wikipedia. However, we have to accept (all of us) that there are rules to be followed when editing and those rules are obligatory not only to me but also to other editors. If you read the discussion above, you will realise that some of my suggestions for the wording of the article were rejected, because they were not in line with the rules of editing. Just for clarificatin, I have never mentioned that I deny the existence of Romanians, Slovaks and Serbs even in the 9th century in the Carpathian Basin, because I do not deny it (I only have doubts about it, but I also have doubts about some favourite Hungarian theories).Borsoka (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As to your remark to Hungarian a c a d e m i c historians, I have not found any book during my life that insults Slovakian, Romanian or Serbian people. Mainstream historians in Hungary unanimously agree that the Carpathian Basin was inhabited by Slavic, German and Avar people when the nomadic (or semi-nomadic) Magyar tribes occupied it. Although, the Hungarian academic views sometimes differ from the Slovakian, Romanian, Serbian, German, Russian, American, British, etc. academic views, but, in itself, I presume it does not mean that members of the Academy of the Hungarian Science are narrow-minded nationalists; actually, it means that they are autonomous scientists. Moreover, all the books I have read from a c a d e m i c sources contains a detailed description of the opposite theories and a reference to their pros and cos. E.g., mainstream Hungarian historians do not deny the existence of a Slavic polity in the north part of the Carpathian Basin, but they express their doubts about (among other things) its frontiers (i.e., sometimes they are surprised that the frontiers of Great Moravia more or less follow the frontiers of the countries of the region in the 20th century). Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Borsoka. The anon has been blocked.  It's unfortunate, because whoever it is does seem to have some knowledge of history.  But if they are unable to present their views in a civil manner, we are going to ask them to leave.  Does anyone have any preference on whether or not we should give the anon another chance, or just block indefinitely? --Elonka 15:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another chance. :)213.134.25.95 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) It was me Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (I am absent-minded).

If you have blocked it to indefinite, than lift it immediately. If for a day or some, then let it expire, so "Anon" can calm down during that time. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted an offer to User talk:195.168.243.194, that if they gave their word to participate in a more constructive manner, I would lift the block. So far I have not heard back. --Elonka 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research?
This entire article is one huge joke now. Every second sentence is original researche, archeaology is completely ignored, Slovak sources are completely ignored, standard literature is compeletely ignored; the article contains failed attempts to read carefully selected Latin sources by a certain Borsoka, who as each of his sentences here showa has absolutely no idea what he is doing. This is a good example of what wikipedia should not be and this article should be put on the main page as a warning to everybody. Incredible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.12.89 (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Anon, just for clarification. Each edits (I presume) you qualify as "original research" are based on reliable (academic) sources referred in the text. If you think that the cited academic source that states that the only information we have on the independent "Principality of Nitra" is based on two references of a 9th century written source, you are welcome to challange it (based on reliable sources). If you think that archaeological researches are completely ignore, you are welcome to refer to those researches (based on reliable sources). The Latin sources are not selected, those are the only text referring to Pribina and its connection with Nitra (statement based on reliable secondary sources). If you think their translation is misleading (the Hungarian version was used, but my few Latin knowledge does not contradict to it), please feel free to challange them. I understand that it is difficult, for all of us, to accept that there are plenty of people whose views differs from ours, but we may accept and enjoy this diversity of approaches. I would be really happy if this page could be put on the main page as a warning (although I think that the article's message may differ from yours), although the article should be significantly developed and improved. Please, start to read your books and do not hesitate to challange any sentence of the article. Borsoka (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the obvious original research and hope Borsoka will finally let it go.--Svetovid (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Svetovid, would you, please, list what are the sentences you qualify "obvious original research"? I think there are plenty of sentences without reference in the text, maybe their sources should be added sooner or later. Borsoka (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We still don't have verified translations of your Hungarian sources. However, it's good to see that you seem to have given up on inclusion of at least some of your personal information, even though you continue to do so in History of Slovakia.--Svetovid (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please find the citation in Hungarian and its translation in the footnote. Please, try to understand that it is not my personal information, it is based on reliable sources. Moreover, I am sure that the Czech translation of the primary source (Conversio) is available for editors, because the primary sources and their translation were published in Prague from 1966 (Magnae Moraviae fontes historici. I-IV; Havlík, Lubomir (editor); Praha, 1966-). As I mentioned before, you are welcome to challenge any edits I made, but all of us have to use reliable sources when challenging any sentence in an article of Wikipedia. I would be really happy, if we could develop a good article (with the assistance of other editors who will probably join to us). Borsoka (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for information. As I understand, Johannes Aventinus was the first historian who referred to "Prince Brynno" who ruled over Bratislava, Brno and Nitra and who died in 861. Later, his "Prince Brynno" became identified with the Conversio's "Priwina", because the Conversion mentions that "Priwina" died in 861 and he had a possession in "Nitrava". My understanding is that this identification is the basis of "Prince Pribina's" birth. Please note that Aventinus lived in the 15-16th centuries, 600-650 years after Pribina (but his work is a primary source). Borsoka (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Appologies
Dear Slovak (and other) editors, I must appologise but I was bold and finally (after three weeks) deleted plenty of unsourced statements in the article. Therefore, I am sure that the article does not represent the Slovakian academics' mainstream view, but without citations the users of Wikipedia were not in the position to check the factual accuracy of the deleted statements. I hope that you will expand the article with several sentences based on reliable sources. I also experienced that most of you accept that there are multiple interpretations of the primary sources and therefore, we can agree that a unilateral presentation of historical presumptions would lead to the impoverishment of Wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Map of the Principality?
I noticed that this article does not have a map of this principality. Since I make maps, I can draw a map of this principality that would be free for usage in Wikipedia. However, I am not able to find some good external source with map on which I can base my own. So far, I founded only this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qNwtg5trdGo/TdUTswI7EUI/AAAAAAAAAa0/zYo1RsbRc3M/s1600/Nitra+Neutra+Nyitra+Nitriansko.jpg However, info in that map is unclear. I cannot distinguish what were borders of the principality there. Or more exactly: can someone clarify which border show what in that map? What represents shaded area with lines (in left part of the map) and what represents area without lines (in the right part of the map)? Or perhaps somebody have another map that I can use as a source? PANONIAN 18:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Independent state?
I think Principality of Nitra was a vassal state of the Frankish Empire. It was 'hardly' independent. An autonomous ?state? or territory within Kingdom of Hungary? About Tercia pars regni. It was not independent, it belonged to Kingdom of Hungary. It was controlled by the Hungarian Kings and their relatives. Tercia pars regni was not a state either. It was rather a 'domain of the king's relatives '.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I found sources about subject of its independence. According to the sources between 805 and 833 it was independent.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no continuity after 902 or 906. Tercia pars regni appeared in the middle of the 11th century (1048). We can do nothing with 150 years (from 902 (906) to 1048). No sources about it. Moreover we do not know its exact 'borders'. It could have been in south Hungary or East Hungary as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the Avar Khaganate or the Hunnic Empire will change their names to Hungarian Khaganate/Empire If Principality of Nitra can be called Slovak Principality. It is anachronism.Fakirbakir (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * it was a separate polity (not independant durring the kingdom of hungary and great moravia, but still separate) it has a own princes - slovak(slavic, moravian), polish, hungarian. hungarian kingdom lost a continuity between 1526 and 1867 - it was a integral part of habsburg empire. term "Slovak principality" is sourced by a reliable sources. Principality of Hungary is anachronism, its no old chronicle (from the 895-1000) which speaks about Principality of Hungary. This term is good. --Samofi (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a theory that a polity ("Principality of Nitra") existed continously from the 9th century till the beginning of the 12th century. However, it is only a theory which is not substantiated by any primary source (no early medieval or medieval sources refer to a "Principality of Nitra" or to a "prince of Nitra"). Similarly strange is the expression "Principality of Hungary". Is there any reliable source that uses the latter expression? Borsoka (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Byzantine sources exist about Tourkia or Western Tourkia in connection with Principality of Hungary. Duchy of Hungary (English source exists about it from 18th century) or Principality of Hungary are latter expressions like Principality of Nitra as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Western Tourkia is connection with Magyar tribes and Hungarians and not connected with the Principality of Hungary what is a construction of the late 20th century. --Samofi (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As form of Principality of Nitra as well. Principality of Nitra is a latter expression. Duchy of Hungary was used in English sources from 18th century. Moreover, tribal union does not mean territory, It means a kind of organization. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Slovak Principality and Old Slovaks
It would be great if the person who inserted these terms into the article would show up with neutral, reliable third party sources, because these designations are historically incorrect (the inhabitants of this realm were slavs, not Slovaks). BTW: ''In the formation of modern Slovakia, history playe a key role: the record of a "glorious past" became a key instrument of national agitation. This history was, however, often simply invented and mythological (using inadequate terms such as "Ol Slovaks" for the period of the eight and ninth centuries, renaming Great Moravia as Great Slovakia, giving a Slovak identity to the rulers of the region in the Middle Ages and so on.)''
 * Your personal point of view is really irrelevant here. Old Slovaks or Slovak tribes (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22slovak+tribes%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk) are normal therms for a Slavic tribes in the present Slovak territory in 8-9th century. 32 important Slovak linguists and historians use this term. Here are the names: (http://www.voltaire.netkosice.sk/archive/slovensko/Stanovisko%20slovenskych%20historikov,%20archeologov%20a%20jazykovedcov.doc) If you have a problem with reliability of the sources try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
 * Would you, please, specify what of the sources cited above uses the term "Old Slovak" (I found the terms "Proto-Slovak" and "Slovak tribes", but I have not found any reference to "Old Slovaks"). Nevertheless, these terms needs to be clarified, because it is not clear whether the three terms have the same meaning (the fact that three different terms are used itself suggests that their meaning is different). Moreover they seem to be ignored in secondary sources at international level (terciary sources may use them, but secondary reliable sources are always preferred for WP purposes). Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nitra Sloviens are old Slovaks, see this: http://books.google.com/books?id=DI7qAAAAMAAJ&q=%22old+slovaks%22&dq=%22old+slovaks%22&hl=sk&ei=ZTt6TpKpL8jOsgb8rcnhDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA Its a significant minor opinion from the Slovak sciencist. List of them I have add above. Its more sources about that, add "old sovaks" in google books. --Samofi (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your above source. I accept the fact that there is one source referring to "Old Slovaks". However, many other sources refer to "proto-Slovaks" or "Slovak tribes" when narrating the history of the same period. I think until scholars engaged themselves with the early medieval history of the territory cannot decide which one is the proper term we should not use them. What is clear that these historians refer to the existence of a Slavic population in the territory of modern Slovakia in the 9th century. Borsoka (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was Slavic population. But its a linguistic question also (they are Slavic ancestors of Slovaks):

a) some sources talks about Slovak tribes or Old Slovaks in 6-7th century when the Slavs came into territory of modern Slovakia and it was "period after migration" b) other speaks about Slovak tribes or Old Slovaks in 8-9th century   when the language of the Slavic tribes were separated in to different groups and proto-Slovak language had components from the western and eastern slavic languages it was "period of integration" c) other talk about them in 10-11th century when Slovak language was was formed as a independent Slavic language - "period of constitution"

(periods are from the book of eminent Slovak linguist Rudolf Krajčovič (http://www.osobnosti.sk/index.php?os=zivotopis&ID=59411) p. 15. Pôvod a vývin slovenského jazyka. 1981) --Samofi (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that exactly the above described diversity in using suggests that the terms "Slovak tribes", "Old Slovak" or "Proto-Slovak" have not yet received an exact meaning, therefore their use in the article should be avoided. The term "Slavic" could hardly be challenged in the context of the article. Borsoka (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I cannot agree. All 3 terms are synonyms - so we should to use the most preffered word. These tribes were separated from the other Slavic tribes in 6th century, linguisticaly were separated in 8-9 century so only these (Slovak) tribes were speaking mixture of western and eastern slavic language and in 10-11 century were created Slovak dialects. So in 700-800AD were these tribes lingusticaly separated from the other Slavs. --Samofi (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you please add a reliable source proving that the terms "Old Slovak", "Slovak" and "Proto-Slovak" are synonyms. Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say that "slovak" and "proto-slovak" and "old slovak" are synonyms. read properly --Samofi (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * arved grebert uses terms old slovaks and slovak tribes in the same context: --Samofi (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Tercia pars regni = Duchy of Nitra
I redirected tercia pars regni here, coz it was a duchy of nitra: http://ekonyvtar.zrinyimedia.hu/container/files/attachments/25695/for_the_homeland_unto_death_1100_years-chapter_ii.pdf - p. 106 http://www.eac.sk/docs/slovensko_europe.pdf p. 32

From the talkpage of tercia pars regni: article has no references and tercia part regni is a latin rare name for a principality of nitra. so iam going to redirect it to the Principality fo Nitra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Principality of Nitra has nothing to do with Tercia Pars Regni. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It has to do, its the Nitra appanage duchy: http://books.google.com/books?id=3orG2yZ9mBkC&pg=PA278&dq=nitra+appanage+duchy&hl=sk&ei=f2GBTtnjNYTCswaL6sSRDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nitra%20appanage%20duchy&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=4Je2AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Nitra,+ako+jedno+zo+stred%C3%ADsk+rozpoltenej+Ve%C4%BEkej+Moravy+si+aj+v+ranouhorskom+%C5%A1t%C3%A1te+ponech%C3%A1va+funkciu+vojvodstva+(ducatus)+a+prezentuje+sa+ako+tertia+pars+regni.%22&dq=%22Nitra,+ako+jedno+zo+stred%C3%ADsk+rozpoltenej+Ve%C4%BEkej+Moravy+si+aj+v+ranouhorskom+%C5%A1t%C3%A1te+ponech%C3%A1va+funkciu+vojvodstva+(ducatus)+a+prezentuje+sa+ako+tertia+pars+regni.%22&hl=sk&ei=DWGBTt7bEIzesgbEtN2ODg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA: "Nitra, ako jedno zo stredísk rozpoltenej Veľkej Moravy si aj v ranouhorskom štáte ponecháva funkciu vojvodstva (ducatus) a prezentuje sa ako tertia pars regni." Nitra like a one from the centers of the Great Moravia has a function as a ducatus like a tertia pars regni. --Samofi (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

hungarian and slovak sources support this --Samofi (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The introduction is incorrect
"The expression of "Slovak" is problematic in relation of the medieval period, because they are essentially the product of the modern nationalism as it emerged after the 18th century." The History of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. According to this source we can not use the form of "Slovak Principality". Fakirbakir (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its same kind of kind of neologism like "Principality of Hungary" or calling "Hungarians" the ethnicaly mixed tribes from 9th century (btw named Tourks, Huns, Ougrians, Avars, Uhri, Wengry...). Hungarian nationality - Natio Hungarica was connected with Hungarian kingdom, only in the 19th century was political nation "Hungarian" connected with ethnic Magyar. Look: http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no15_ses/09_nakazawa.pdf (Štúr initiated the formation of a Hungarian political nation consisting of many nationalities, which was different from the Hungarian nation formed only by Magyars through magyarisation. Lajos Kossuth had already identified the historical-political rights of king and corporations in the Kingdom of Hungary with the national rights of the Magyars) Present nations of Magyars and Slovaks are descendants of Natio Hungarica(Hungarians). Hungarian revolution was not magyar revolution. Slovaks fought for a Hungarian political nation and that for a Slovak nation. Magyars wanted to make a Hungarian nation connected only with Magyars. Hungarian nation before the 19th century does not mean present Hungarian nation (Magyars). Look this: Die Bezeichnung „Ungar“ kann sich, insbesondere in Geschichtstexten, auch allgemein auf die Bewohner des historischen Königreichs Ungarn und die des heutigen Staates Ungarn beziehen. In wissenschaftlichen Texten werden sie daher meist als „Magyaren“ bezeichnet(Joachim von Puttkamer: Schulalltag und nationale Integration in Ungarn. Slowaken, Rumänen und Siebenbürger Sachsen in der Auseinandersetzung mit der ungarischen Staatsidee 1867–1914. (=Südosteuropäische Arbeiten Band 115, Verlag Oldenbourg, München 2003, ISBN 3-486-56741-1, S. 11.) --Samofi (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Samofi, about a formation of "Principality of Hungary" talks even later traditions. And the credibility of them is questionable, nevertheless international community (including Slovak) accept it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Stajdl (talk • contribs) 17:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC) I think the scholarly sources cited in the article substantiate the use of the expression of "Slovak Principality". Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)