This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Former countries GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Middle Ages GA‑class Low‑importance 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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Slovakia GA‑class High‑importance 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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

Perhaps it is worth to mention that establishment of bishopric of Nitra in the Kingdom of Hungary is also "debated" ("early establishment and continuous operation" or "late establishment").[1] Fakirbakir (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the referred text was written in the 1930s or earlier. If there is a 21th-century source (especially if it is written in English) which suggests that the first establishment of the Diocese of Nitra in the late 9th century is dubious, we could mention it. Borsoka (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody denies the "early" establishment, the question is about "continuity". I did read somewhere that some Slovak scholars tend to state that the bishopric did not cease to exist after the Hungarian occupation and they assume a sort of continuity there (they do not accept the latter date of establishment (1105)). The late establishment actually supports that "the region was fully incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary" because regarding the cessation of the diocese the Magyars erased earlier "organizational structures". Fakirbakir (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody tells of me that I am a killer, but I say that I am not a killer, it suggests that I am a killer. :) The article does not refer to the continuity of the Nitra bishopric, because none of the referred sources makes mentione of such a continuity. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the hard work on the article however it is somewhat difficult to follow and read. We get to know a lot of theories, actually we read theories after theories, most of them have not even proven. I am just wondering, is there anything that we could do with this matter? Fakirbakir (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its history in the 10th century is not "universally accepted". Why do we make a list about "10th century princes"? Fakirbakir (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are (mainly Slovak) historians who write of the history of the Principality/Duchy of Nitra in the 10th century, even if they do not agree on the princes/duke of this polity or what it is. The list of the Hungarian grand princes in the same period is also debated: we do not have a complete list of them. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not put equality between the two cases. We have a few written sources about those Hungarian leaders, but we have almost nothing about "princes of Nitra". Fakirbakir (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing or almost nothing? There is a huge difference between the two expressions. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Borsoka, I think Makk accepts Polish occupation of Northern Hungary for a short period. Cited (Magyar külpolitika (896-1196)):

• p. 48 "Boleslaw...az 1015 — 1016-os időszakban a Felvidék nyugati részén a Morva folyó balpartján megszállt egy magyar területsávot."
• p. 49 "Győzelmet aratott István a lengyel fronton is. Megfutamította Gyulát, majd a Morva menti várakat visszafoglalta a lengyelektől. Az 1018- as bautzeni német-lengyel békekötés rendezte a magyar-lengyel viszonyt. " Fakirbakir (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fakirbakir, sorry I have just read your message. Yes, you are right: all Hungarian historians acknowledge that the Poles occupied territories which had up to that time under Hungarian rule. However, there is a significant difference between their view and the view presented mainly by Slovak and Polish historians. Makk and other historians emphasize that Boleslaus only occupied the region of the (northern) Morava river. Slovak and Polish historians say that almost all the lands what now form Slovakia were occupied by the Poles. Borsoka (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we can start a trend within Wikipedia (and throughout the English language) to cease using the phrase "agreed upon", and its cousin, "agreed to". (last line in first paragraph about the Duchy of Nitra) and simply use the much simpler, and more correct "agreed". If you subscribe to the "Economist" or other British publications, you know of what I speak. If not, please consider the above in your everyday correspondence. Thanks. Wordnerd241 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of naming all these non-notable people inline "According to so-and-so..", perhaps it would be better to construct a little bibliography of the works for readers who are interested. If anything is the POV of one primary source, then it does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia reports only the scholarly consensus. This does mean that there will be certain items that will have to be removed from the article. Abductive (reasoning) 04:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If my understanding is correct, you suggest that this article should be deleted, because there is no scholarly consensus on any detail of the history of this polity. However, I think if we follow your approach, 90% of the articles dealing with historical events which happened centuries ago should be deleted, because the interpretation of contradictory and fragmentary sources has always been a subject to scholarly debate. Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that much of the article will have to be removed. In any case, how do you know that there is no scholarly consensus? Did you read that in a secondary source? Abductive (reasoning) 15:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must misunderstand something. In my vocabulary, all books listed under the "Secondary sources" subtitle are secondary sources. In the article, the contradictory views upon almost every detail of the history of this polity are based on these secondary sources. Consequently, I know that there is no scholarly consensus, because I read a number of books in connection with the early medieval history of the Nitra region. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem. According to the WP:No original research WP:Policy, people can not just create their own scholarly work on Wikipedia. You admit there is no consensus, which means you are doing original research. To put it another way, if Scholar A says something about Scholar B, even if he says he's wrong, it can be reported in a Wikipedia article as, "Scholar B says...". If Scholar C says, "there is uncertainty about... because Scholar A and and Scholar B disagree" then Wikipedia can say, "there is uncertainty about ... because Scholar A and and Scholar B disagree". One cannot say, "Scholar C says there is uncertainty" unless there is a Scholar D that says, "Scholar C says, 'there is uncertainty'." Get it? Abductive (reasoning) 00:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand WP:NOR: if scholar A says that "there is uncertainty" in reliable source, than we do not need a scholar B saying that "scholar A says that there is uncertainty" for referring to scholar A's view. Would you be please more specific? Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditinili, please try to be neutral. I know that if a Slovak or Czech historian writes that something is vague or alternative, you accept this view as the general opinion of all historians of the world. However, instead of verifying your claim, you are expanding your edit war to this article. If you cannot substantiate your claim, all reference to "prevailing" or "alternative" theories will be deleted, in accordance with WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not joke.Ditinili (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If my understanding correct, you are unable to prove that there is a "prevailing" theory about the identification of Nitrava. Borsoka (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. Whatever I added to this article was properly sourced.Ditinili (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you say that there are "alternative theories" about the location of Nitra. For there is no "prevailing opinion", we cannot speak of "alternative theories". Furthermore, most historians cited in the article only says that Nitrava was not identical with Nitra, without saying an alternative location. Borsoka (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For now, we have only historians whose academic credit is ehm,... let's say "questionable" and their works are target of a sharp criticism.Ditinili (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ditinili. And we also have a peer reviewed source which does not make such a distinction. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, when we will have more authors whose works are not target of such criticism like Boba, Puspoky Nagy etc, we can return to this discussion.--Ditinili (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you have verified that there is a "prevailing opinion" about the identification of Nitrava with Nitra we can write of alternative theories. Borsoka (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, focus on the current text. The current section contains opinions of historians whose works are ignored, rejected or they are a target of large criticism and their acceptance is limited (like Boba or Puspoky Nagy). I fully respect that these alternative opinions exist. The term is appropriate for the current content.Ditinili (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am always surprised that you are not aware of the fact that criticism is a natural aspect of modern scholarship. Please try to read more books published outside your home country. Your approach and remarks suggest that you have limited knowledge of international literature and you think that the books you have so far read contain the "mainstream" or "prevailing" theory. For instance, Florin Curta (one of the universally known experts of early medieval archaeology and history) is sharply criticized by Slovak and Czech historians, because his "alternative" approach of the Slavs' ethnogenesis contradicts to the "mainstream" theory of Slovak and Czech scholarship ([2]). Several theories of Alexander Ruttkay, a leading Slovak archaeologist, are rejected by other scholars, because they say that those theories are poorly substantiated ([3]). Should we qualify the theories of Curta and Ruttkay as "alternative theories"? As I mentioned Boba and Bowlus are frequently cited scholars in international literature. Of course, we do not need to mention scholars whose opinion is ignored. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing with "my" and "other" countries. Surely, the discussions always exist among the experts, but the statement that theories of Boba, Puspoky Nagy or Bowlus were ignored or rejected by the most of the experts (of course some exceptions exist) can be easily documented (some references are already in the article about the Great Moravia). We can also cite reviews of their works from recognised experts which make these historians at least controvert. For example: relying exclusively on written sources, intentional excluding of the written sources which do not fit their theories, poor knowledge or total ignorance of archaeology. All of this belongs to a standard criticism of these authors. If you speak about Florin Curta he is not an exception: "By contrast, the arguments of Imre Boba were exclusively based on written sources and his understanding of archaeology was at best primitive (even by the standards of the 1960s) and at worst, dismissive".(Curta: The_history_and_archaeology_of_Great_Moravia_an_introduction, 2007)Ditinili (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what Curta wrote of leading Czech and Slovak historians (including Třeštík who is cited in the article to prove that Boba's view is an "alternative theory"): "I have been struck over the years by the obstinate efforts of several Czech historians and archaeologists to make the Slavs appear in those territories as early as the sixth, if not the late fifth century, despite the obvious absence of any solid evidence in support of such views ... Second, I was equally puzzled by the many inconsistencies in the archaeological discourse about the so-called “Prague type” of pottery...". Can we say that Třeštík is an "at least controversial" scholar whose views can be regarded as an "alternative theory"?. I must repeat: read more books published outside Slovakia, because I assume that you are convinced of the existence of "mainstream, generally accepted theories" because of the lack of your knowledge of wider literature. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, if we speak about "other" countries (not Slovakia or the Czech republic) this text was published in the Czech journal Archeologické rozhledy. I am very happy that you are aware that the opponents are leading historians (= recognized experts) what moves this discussion to a little bit different level. Academic discussions are of course a standard way how to make a progress in the research, however I hope you can see the difference between historians who are considered to be a leading experts and historians whose works were mostly ignored or rejected. If we can find reviews according to which the works of Florin Curta or Dušan Třeštík were rejected or ignored by the most of historians, claiming that Curta and Třeštík rely exclusively on the written sources, intentionally and systematically ignores sources not matching their theories and they have rather poor knowledge of the archaeology or completely ignore it, then we can consider them to be equal to Boba, Puspoky-Nagy and Bowlus.Ditinili (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Curta's text again, more carefully: "I have been struck over the years by the obstinate efforts of several Czech historians and archaeologists to make the Slavs appear in those territories as early as the sixth, if not the late fifth century, despite the obvious absence of any solid evidence in support of such views." What is the difference between the refusal of a significant part of the works of Třeštík and other (Czech) historians by a foreign historian, and the refusal of Boba by Třeštík and the Czech historians? Sorry, I have been waiting for a reliable source, substantiating your claim that there is a "prevailing" theory about the location of Pribina's Nitrava for days or even weeks. I cited (several times) a book, published by Cambridge University Press, which verifies a neutral approach in this topic. As I mentioned above ([4]), instead of verifying your claim, you decided to expand an edit war. In the same message, I told you that "If you cannot substantiate your claim, all reference to "prevailing" or "alternative" theories will be deleted, in accordance with WP:NOR". Please stop you edit war, and try to accept that there is no mainstream view about the location of Nitrava. Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not manipulate and lie (I am sorry, but I have to be open). After my last post where I clearly described the difference between Cutra and Trestik on one side and Boba, Nagy and Bowlus on other side, you stopped ANY discussion (until now) and began to modify article pushing the same view as before, without ANY discussion. Thus, statements about edit wars can be addressed more to you and Fakirbakir than to me. This can be easily documented from the article history. Since I had not received any feedback and you obviously ignored any trial to reach consensus, I only restored the content deleted by you (including sourced content). Please, focus on the fact that Boba, Nagy and Bowlus are clearly controvert. Your citation DOES NOT confirm the neutral approach. It does not say that the authors have the same academic credit, it even does not say who they are, it only says that the different opinion exist. The rest is intentional manipulation of the source. I absolutely agree that the other opinion exist. Nothing more is written in your source. Ditinili (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and while I wait for a discussion, both of you commited additional 5 changes. LOL.Ditinili (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not a liar: "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.) I did not manipulate anything, but as I mentioned below ([5]), it is obvious that you already made an attempt to manipulate the source (Boba's work) you allegedly cited. Please read and adopt WP:civility. As I mentioned above Třeštík can easily be qualified as a controversial scholar, who "despite the obvious absence of any solid evidence" tried to prove something, according to an other scholar. And Třeštík is one of the scholars who sharply criticize Boba. Sorry, but WP is not about Ditinili. I told you that ([6]) "If you cannot substantiate your claim, all reference to "prevailing" or "alternative" theories will be deleted, in accordance with WP:NOR" two days ago. Borsoka (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you demonstrably manipulated an interpretation of the source, arguments are above. The difference between Curta and Trestik and Boba, Puspoky-Nagy and Bowlus were well explained.Ditinili (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are making declarations. You have not proved anything for at least a week. Borsoka (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly? That the works of Boba, Puspoky-Nagy and Bowlus were mostly ignored or rejected? Ok, I will add sources for this statement to this article.

What did the onosmatics say? If Nitrava is the secondary form (derriving from Nitra), why not the secondary form was adopted by the Slovaks, Hungarians, Germans? If Nitrava is the primary form, what proves that it could transformed into Nitra also in the Hungarian and German languages? Did they say that Nitra (the primary form) could derrived from Nitrava (the secondary form) - Boba says that Nitra could not derrive from Nitrava. Borsoka (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Nitrava is the secondary form (derriving from Nitra), why not the secondary form was adopted by the Slovaks, Hungarians, Germans?

Because there is not any reason why they should finally adopt secondary and not primary form. More, both forms were recorded already in the 9th century before the arrival of Hungarians or Germans.

If Nitrava is the primary form, what proves that it could transformed into Nitra also in the Hungarian and German languages?

Hungarians frequently removed "-ava" when they adopted local names from Slovaks, this is well documented by numerous examples. E.g. Myslava->Miszla, Tibava->Tiba, etc. From this point of view, the transformation Nitrava->Nitra is non-problematic. Germans are irrelevant, because they came after Slovaks and Hungarians and simply adopted the current version.Ditinili (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists are not so sure about this (IMO). There is nothing "refuted". "To me as a linguist, Nitrava cannot be equated with Nitra unless there is specific evidence. No such evidencehas been adduced, to my knowledge." ([7]p. 98) Fakirbakir (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are already references to 3 newer works published AFTER this statement. More, one is exclusively dedicated to the problem of suffix -"ava", the second to the problem "Nitra vs. Nitrava" and summarizes also all older theories.Ditinili (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditinili, sorry I do not understand. You suggest that there is a secondary form (Nitrava) which was adopted by the Hungarians and developed into Nyitra in the Hungarian language. You also say that the Hungarians, Slovaks and Germans may have adopted the primary form (Nitra). So, if my understanding is correct, there is no evidence that the Slovaks preserved the secondary form. What do your sources say on this issue? Borsoka (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "suggest" that Hungarians adopted word Nitrava and then reduced it to Nitra. I have only answered your questions. The second alternative (adoption directly from the primary form Nitra) is more probable and preferred. However, yes, it is possible as you can see from examples.

Slovaks do not have to preserve the secondary form. Why? Ditinili (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditinili, look, there is no one truth. Many different opinions exist on this matter..... Fakirbakir (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that's why I created section for alternative opinions.Ditinili (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, you have not verified that there is a "prevailing opinion" about the identification of Nitrava with Nitra. Please also clarify, based on the cited sources, the contradictions I mentioned above. Did Hungarian Nyitra derrive from the secondary Nitrava or from the primary Nitra? From which form (Nitrava or Nitra) did the Slovak form develop? Borsoka (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any contradiction. The explanation is above.Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the Hungarian form developed from both the secondary and the primary forms. This is obiously the region of fringe theories with paralel universes. Moreover, a simple question ("From which form did the Slovak version developed?") cannot be answered based on the three cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear manipulation and demagogy from your side. You have asked two questions about two alternatives (see 18:10, 20 July 2015). I did nothing but answered on both. Both of them easily explain the problem (is the name Nitrava compliant with the Nitra = yes it is) and are clearly against the Boba's linguistic speculation "The attested toponym «Nitrava» would have remained in modern Slovak «Nitrava». The town Nitra in Slovakia is known in Hungarian as «Nyitra» and in German as «Neutra». A ninth century form «Nitrava» would have developed in Hungarian into a form «Nyitro», in German into «Nitrau» and in Slovak would have remained «Nitrava». Consequently, the toponym «Nitrava», known from the Conversio, can not be identified with Nitra in Slovakia." We have three sources analysing the problem in details and the result is that it is not only possible, but it can be done in both way. Directly from the primary form Nitra, documented already in the 9th century, but also from transposition through the secondary form Nitrava (SK)-> Nyitra (HU) -> Nitra (SK). The second option is linguistically possible and well documented for other towns (!!!), but not preferred for Nitra because the name Nitra is documented too early (as a location in 9th century, before the Hungarian arrival and as a hydronyme in 1006). Your statements about "parallel universes" are baseless, because you have never asked if both alternatives happened in parallel but separate questions and I have never declared that both alternatives hapenned in parallel.

Of course, I can answer the simple question "from which form Slovak version developed". The sources strongly suggest that Nitra is the primary form. I am removing the tag - it is completely baseless.Ditinili (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditinili, please count my questions above. (1) If Nitrava is the secondary form (derriving from Nitra), why not the secondary form was adopted by the Slovaks, Hungarians, Germans? - it has not been answered yet. (2) If Nitrava is the primary form, what proves that it could transformed into Nitra also in the Hungarian and German languages? - it was answered. (3) Did they [=onosmatics] say that Nitra (the primary form) could derrived from Nitrava (the secondary form)? - it has not been answered yet. Sorry, but your statments are still mystical: do you say that there is a primary form (Nitra) and a secondary form (Nitrava), and the secondary form was adopted by the Hungarians and developed into (Nyitra) which was adopted by the Slovaks [Nitra (unknown?) > Nitrava (local Slav?) > Nyitra (Hungarian) > Nitra (Slovak)]? Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Answered on 18:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC). If the Nitra is the primary form (this is strongly suggested) then Hungarians simply adopted the primary form. Nothing more or less. More, the form with root Nitra and not Nitrava is documented before their arrival. (2) You agree that it was answered. (3) The question is non sense, because the primary form cannot be "derived", because it is the primary form. Read the text again, slow down and do not speculate.Ditinili (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the question what is nonsense, but the text in the article: (1) Boba say that modern Nitra could not derrive from Nitrava (2) Modern onosmatics say that Boba is wrong. (3) Modern onosmatics say that Nitra is the primary form and Nitrava is a secondary form, consequently Nitrava derrived from Nitra - why does this statement contradict to Boba? Please read and think before editing. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. The question if the PRIMARY form can be derived from the SECONDARY is not a non sense? Of course, it is. Please follow: A: Boba says that is not possible. B: Three up to date onomastics works document that it is possible. Your conclusion: B DOES NOT contradict A. No comment.--Ditinili (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You again ignored my question: why does modern scholars' statement that Nitrava was derrived from Nitra contradict to Boba's view that Nitra could not develop from Nitrava? Nevertheless, I changed the text in accordance with your remarks, even if the above theory is quite surprising, but if there are scholars who wrote this, we cannot deny their reliability. Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ignored anything. If A: Boba says that Slovaks could not use the form Nitrava and then the form Nitra B: other works say that they easily could and they did, then A contradicts B.

Ditinili, sorry, but I tend to think that you are manipulating your sources. Above and here ([8]) you wrote that Boba "refused identification of historical Nitrava with modern Nitra. According to Boba, the words "Nitrava" and "Nitra" are different, transposition between them is not possible in Slovak language", although Boba mentioned all modern (German, Hungarian and Slovak) forms of the name of the town and concluded that none of those forms could develop from Nitrava (Boba 1993, p. 23.). Please also read your text in the article, it does not say what you write here. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "changes" were again total non-senses. I have declared repeatedly, that the transformation Nitrava->Nyitra->Nitra is possible but not preferred explanation. However, you made it the primary theory and the main explantation.Ditinili (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refrain from adding the primary theory. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read again, please, slowly and carefully. There are two possible explanations:

a) the preferred: Nitrava is only a derived form from Nitra. The derived (secondary) form disappeared, the primary form persisted. Because the primary form was Nitra, nobody had to adopt any new name.

b) possible, but not preferred: the Hungarians shortened name Nitrava to Nyitra as they did in many other cases. Then, Slovaks adopted new, upgraded name as they did in many other cases

Both alternatives are against the Boba's assumption, that the name "in Slovak would have remained «Nitrava»". Both alternatives explain also Hungarian name Nyitra. In my opinion, this is very clear.

The article already contains the text which properly describes this fact - shorty: contrary to Boba's assumption, modern onomastics can demonstrate that it is possible to have the word Nitra in the modern Slovak language even if another form (Nitrava) was documented in the past. More, it really suggested that the form Nitrava was only derived (a secondary) form of the Nitra. The last sentence is only "bonus", Boba's opinion is more then problematic also without the last argument. Ditinili (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, finally you were able to explain the theories in a proper way. So there are at least three theories. Why do you think that the above two theories are more convincing than Boba's theory? Borsoka (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the other authors are able to document many real and concrete examples of the process which is according to Boba impossible? :-) Ditinili (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand Třeštík's POV. Could we also say that "the Archbishop of Salzburg, in 2015, did not know that the Archbishop of Bratislava was consencrated to a town in Poland, the Czech Republic or Hungary in the 1980s"? According to Třeštík, "Nitra" was an important center in Great Moravia in the 870s. Furthermore, the archbishop of Salzburg were involved in the conflicts with Methodius (the archbishop of Moravia). Do we assume that the same archbishop had no knowledge of the political events of that early medieval realm??? Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course you can. If you remove internet, newspapers, TV, phones and you will travel everywhere by foot or on horse, you can compare information flows in both periods and you can say it.--Ditinili (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we assume that the archbishop of Salzburg was involved in a conflict with Great Moravia without knowing the basic events of its history during his lifetime. And if we accept the testimony of 3 late versions of the 11 extant copies of a document compiled in the Archbishopric of Salzburg against an almost contemporaneous (late 9th-century or early 10th-century) letter, written by the Archbishop of Salzburg. Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can close this topic. It is quite normal that contemporary sources contain inaccuracies. You can have a different opinion.Ditinili (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read again my above remark. The contemporaneous sources do not contradict to each other: 8 copies of the Conversio do not even refer to Nitrava; the reliability of the late 9th-century archbishop's letter would have never been challenged if 3 later versions had not made mention of Nitrava. Sorry, but Třeštík's POV is so superficial. Do you really think that this strange argumentation should be mentioned? Is his argumentation is accepted by other historians? Borsoka (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boroska, I don't care about your personal opinion. Do I really need to explain that you are making the same mistakes as the author of your hypothesis? E.g. relying on the one source which can be easily explained by mistake, the ignorance of the archeology, etc? Just cite the author then we can add also counter arguments and move forward.Ditinili (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easily? You should read many many books of early medieval history. No, you do not need to explain anything, because your personal views and my personal opinion are not important. However, I would like to know whether Třeštík's argumentation is accepted by other historians? Or is this a marginal theory? Borsoka (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. You know well that the most of recognized historians do not support theory that Nitra was annexed around 870 and they know the letter very well.Ditinili (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not know. Do the "most recognized historians" accept Třeštík's theory according to which the archbishop of Salzburg did not know what had happened in his neighborhood because a late version of a document compiled in his diocese may imply that he was wrong? Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how do you define a neighbourhood. For example, I would not say that Bratislava and Zagreb are in the neighbourhood, but they are still closer than Nitra and Salzburg. Please, stop your own speculations.Ditinili (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remain serious: if we deny that clerics in the Archdiocese of Salzburg had knowledge of the neighboring Nitrava, we lost all connection between Pribina and Nitra(va) and we cannot say that Nitra was occupied by Moimir around 830, because the only source of these events is a compilation made by those clerics. By the way, you obviously do not know, but the jurisdiction of the archbishops of Salzburg reached as far as the Danube: that is why the Bavarian bishops captured Methodius who wanted to expand his authority over Kocel's domains in Pannonia. Nevertheless, if my understanding is correct, there are no other historians who accept Třeštík's view. If this is the case, why do we emphasize his view? Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious. You began with the demagogic comparison of the situation in the 9th and 21th century. Please, stop your own speculations how to interpret primary sources, stop your own speculations about opinions of other historians, stop your speculations about what I know or not and feel free to add any text based on reliable sources. Thanks.Ditinili (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are hysterical, that is why you tend to accuse other editors of being liars or manipulators. I am not speculating, I do not interpret primary sources and I must say that your knowledge looks quite provincial. I have only been asking whether other historians' accepted Třeštík's POV about the lack of information of Great Moravia in the neighboring Archbishopric of Salzburg, or it is only a marginal theory. Borsoka (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. What other do you do if you "do not interpret" primary sources? Obviously, you do. You did not reference any historian until now, only described your OWN speculations based on YOUR interpretation of sources.

Of course, Trestik opinion is not unique. Also, his work contains a reference to a similar conclusion of Richard Marsina, it is on p. 115, note number 52, described in more details on p. 279. R. Marsina: Nitrianske biskupstvo a jeho biskupi od 9. do polovice 13. storocia [The dioceze of Nitra and its bishops from the 9th to the half of the 13th century]. Historicky casopis 41, 1993, p 532.

And of course, your own theory explains nothing and definitely does not make the guys in the Salzburg more informed. Because it means, that in their "neighbourhood" (nowadays more than 4 hours by car if you turn it to the highway) grew some independent and relatively strong political unit but nobody registered it until 900 when somebody, who focused on a different problem than analysing domestic Slavic conflicts wrote that it was annexed around 870.

It is simply strange, how you are able to immediately forget what is own research, rules about civility, you are immediately able to decide what is a marginal theory while criticizing other authors, you are willing to remove properly sourced content from recognized authors if it does not match your opinion, etc.--Ditinili (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am glad that you you are now in the phase of laughing. I hope this phase will last long, because you were able to answer my simple question. Now, I understand that Třeštík's interesting theory is widely accepted in Slovakia. If my understanding is correct, Slovakian historians say that (1) Salzburg clerics who completed the Conversio after 900 (to prove their archbishops' claim to jurisdiction in Nitrava) were well informed of events that happened in Nitrava around 830; however, (2) Salzburg clerics who drafted a letter for their archbishop around 900 were wrong when describing events (to prove that their archbishops never had any jurisdiction in Nitra) that happened in Nitra around 870; consequently, (3) the identification of Nitrava with Nitra is possible. I love this theory. It obviously should be mentioned in the article, because it is based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have answered your question. I understand and respect that something can look to be more or less probable from your point of view, based on your own interpretation of the primary sources and knowledge. However, because we agree that the sources are reliable and it is not a marginal view, I will not loose my time and move forward. Ditinili (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing which violates this rule/reccomendation.Ditinili (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account your previous edit summary, please read it more carefully. Borsoka (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing which violates this rule/recommendation.Ditinili (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously do not understand it. Or you was wrong when writing the edit summary for this revert [9]. Borsoka (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, cite the original, cite the article and then cite the rule which was (according to you) violated. Thanks.Ditinili (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy." Your edit summary: "Per source. Quotation word by word. Take a break a think about the meaning." Borsoka (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John: "The sky is blue." The article: "John says that the sky is blue". This is not any copyright violation.Ditinili (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Can you decide whether it is a quote or a summary? Borsoka (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure that there is not any copyright violation.Ditinili (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be sure. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content. Borsoka (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recommendation. There is not any copyright violation. Ditinili (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. You should read texts more carefully. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. OK.

A) "John: "The sky is blue." The article: "John says that the sky is blue". This is NOT any copyright violation, more if it is properly sourced.

B) You are unable to compare whatever with the original, but I am a native speaker. If you have some doubts, please contact some Czech editors here on wikipedia.Ditinili (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the relevant WP policies that I referred to above. Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. There is not any copyright violation and you have never read the original.Ditinili (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is obvious that I must stop the debate here. Please remember that copyvio is a serious issue in our community. Borsoka (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK :-) Ditinili (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditinili, sorry I do not understand. Do you say that Dušan Třeštík and Zbyněk Meřínský say that Pribina, the ruler of Nitrava, was Mojmir of Moravia's official in Nitrava, but the same scholars also say that Nitra was only united with Moravia after Mojmir expelled Pribina from Nitrava? Would you clarify this interesting interpretation? Borsoka (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Scholars who write that Pribina was an independent ruler also say that his principality was united with Moravia after he was exiled from his homeland in around 833". This is a little bit unclear and unfortunate formulation because it can implicate to the reader that the Pribina's position and date of his expulsion are somehow related. Trestik suggests that the territory of the Slovakia was united with Moravia in two phases. The first phase began already during the wars with the Avars when the western Slovakia served as an area where the Slavs organized troops for the attacks (cz: "nástupný prostor"). In 830's the integration of this part of Slovakia was finished.Ditinili (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If only the dating is problematic, please feel free to rewrite it. Borsoka (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to rewrite the section completely. In the meantime, the tag is used appropriately. Ditinili (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not an answer. Please feel free to rewrite the section. Please remember WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is an answer. Template is used in accordance to its expected purpose and description, the text will be improved later. Ditinili (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand that you do not have time. I deleted all reference to dates. Borsoka (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was not the best solution, because by this step, you have also removed references to all authors who date unification of both parts to 830's (contrary to controvert Bowlus). Sorry, I am reverting your change and please, be patient.Ditinili (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am so excited. This must be a new original theory. Are there scholars who say that Pribina was an indenpendent ruler, but Nitrava was only unified with Moravia years after his expulsion? Or are there scholars who say that Pribina was Mojmir of Moravia's official, but Pribina's Nitrava was only united with Moravia when Mojmir expelled Pribina?Borsoka (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to read the original for better understanding.Ditinili (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as you may know, I cannot read those scholars' theories because they only published them for a smaller community. I am not surprised because my experiences with your favorite theories suggest that these theories must be fascinating. I am sure that I will love the theory about a province (Nitrava) which was governed by a monarch's official (Pribina), which was only subjected to the same monarch after he expelled his official from the same province. Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not published for a "smaller community". They are normally published and available in average (non-academic) bookstores. I will not comment your misinterpretation, read the explatation above.Ditinili (talk)

16:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Which explanation? I have not found any above. Sorry, when I wrote of a smaller community, I referred to the language barriers: I am not surprised that they did not want to publish those interesting views in English. Borsoka (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Read the first answer. I will not comment everything what is shocking or fascinating to you.Ditinili (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am totally disturbed: you wrote of Trestik in the first sentence, but Trestik is not cited in the sentence in the article that you have been challenging. You should read before adding templates and starting an edit war. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, read again the first answer and the comment in the template. Ditinili (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Trestik cited in the sentence which was challanged? Does the sentence summerize properly the views of the cited (!) authors? Does Trestik say that Nitrava was independent of Moravia under the rule of Pribina (who was an official of Mojmir of Moravia, according to Trestik)? Borsoka (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

omg, a comedy about a sentence in the section which will be rewritten anyway. What seems that it was clear to you is not clear to you anymore. Salted by various speculations as usually, trials for misinterpretations, etc. I am going to nice gold and cold beer. See you later.Ditinili (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Nobody ever wrote that the sentence is not sourced. There is a difference between a request for sources and request for clarification. That's exactly why there are also two different templates for each case. From this point of view, your objection against the tag is meaningless.

* Since the beginning (what is clear also from the history of the article and the tag) Trestik was used as an example of a historian who has the same dating of the events (830's), but he does not support hypothesis about an independent ruler.

* However, it seems from the article that these two independent things (position vs. dating) are related. There are clearly not.

* The fact that you are not able to understand it only proves that this part needs clarification.

* If you lack a general overview about the topic and everything is surprising, fascinating and new for you, then you should consider if this is compliant with your ambition to edit the article. Especially, if you are not able to read the most of publications about the topic due to the language barrier (as you wrote) and if you do not understand something, you are completely lost and compensate it by your own speculations.Ditinili (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete a debate about the identification of Pribina's Nitrava with present-day Nitra from this article? Borsoka (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. I properly merged the text with the main article (Great Moravia), because the authors and their credibility, the cited works, the arguments and the criticism are the same. Otherwise, we should cite Sklenar in this article, then in the main article, to explain Boba's theory here and also there, to explain his reliability here and also there, etc. Now, it is consistent on one place and properly linked to provide reader whole content without duplications.--Ditinili (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my question? Why do you think that the identification of Nitrava with Nitra depends of the location of Great Moravia? Even if Great Moravia was located in present-day Moravia, Pribina's Nitrava can be different from present-day Nitra. Could you refer to a scholar who says that Nitrava cannot be identical with Nitra because Great Moravia was not located in present-day Moravia? Borsoka (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered, please read your question again.

"Could you refer to a scholar who says that Nitrava cannot be identical with Nitra because Great Moravia was not located in present-day Moravia?" Me? Why? Please, read my explanation above.Ditinili (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not answered. You have not mentioned one single scholar. (If you assume that Bowlus, Boba, etc. say that Nitrava was not identical with Nitra because Great Moravia was located in the south you are wrong. They never made such a statement.) Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? Boroska did you read my explanation?Ditinili (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Would you name a scholar who stated that Nitrava cannot be identified as Nitra because Great Moravia was not located in present-day Moravia? Borsoka (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sklenar, Boba and other (not me) made this statement about Nitra a part of their wider theories. These theories (in the whole context) are properly described in the main article (Great Moravia). Also together with information about a credibility of their authors (in Boba's case pretty low), what is unfortunately concealed in this article and it seriously misguide readers. Particularly in the case of Sklenár, re-location of Nitra is not only dependent on re-location of Great Moravia, but re-location of the whole Great Moravia is a side effect of his trial to move it from the territory form Slovakia for political reasons.

There are two options:

a) we have to repeat whole Sklenar's theory here, we have to repeat here that Boba's is not taken seriously at all by the most of expert historians, we have to repeat here all claims contradicting the current state of knowledge and we have to repeat also counter arguments. We have to repeat all future extensions and criticism, e.g. citation of numerous opponents who accuse Bowlus (and similar authors) for manipulation of the text, etc.

b) we can hold all these duplicated information in one place

The worst thing we can do is to provide partial and misguiding information. (Of course, I can argue that you are not able to document that these theories are independent as much as you say and curiously, all authors cited until to now are for some mysterious reasons advocates of southern thesis, but it is not my goal.) Ditinili (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have to apply WP:summary style: we only have to write of the Principality of Nitra here. If I say that (1) 1+1 = 2; and (2) 2+2=11, consequently (3) 1+1+2=11, you cannot say that because my (2) and (3) statements are wrong, my (1) statement is also wrong. The identification of Nitrava with Nitra is a separate problem, does not depend of the location of Great Moravia. For instance, a work published by the Cambridge University Press (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.) does not state that the identification of the two settlements depends on the location of the Moravian realm. Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:summary style does not mean, that we will conceal criticism, right? If we do not conceal criticism, then we have (unfortunately) repeat Sklenar reasons, Boba's lack of knowledge of archeology, the fact that his work is not taken seriously by the most of historians, etc. "A source not sayig something" is a typical "proof" by "silencio" and means nothing. I also agree that for example Erich von Däniken (like Imre Boba) can be right, but we will not present his work along other non controvert material without a mention.

By the way, you changes in the main article somehow (unfortunately) led to a loss of some information. It's strange how (for example) an information that etymologists provided one of explanation of shortening Nitrava to Nitra already in 30's even if Boba firmly believes that it is not possible. It is strange, that also some other information disappeared, particularly those not fitting your opinion. Strange. Ditinili (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right: WP:summary style does not mean, that we can conceal criticism: we must mention all major views. However, we must summarize them, because WP is an encyclopedia. Otherwise, you are wrong. First of all, you do not know what my views on the location of Great Moravia or on the identification of Nitra are, because I did not share them with you: WP is not a chat room where we can share our views with other editors, but an encyclopedia which can be edited according to consensually approved rules. Secondly, the deletion of a long explanation of the evolution of the name of Nitra, and its relevance in connection with the Principality of Nitra, belongs to the article dedicated either to Nitra or to the Principality of Nitra, but not to the one about Great Moravia. Consequently, what is surprising that you deleted the references to the debate about Nitra's name from this article ([10]). Finally, as I have several times mentioned, you have not referred to a single scholar who says that the identification of Pribina's Nitrava with present-day Nitra depends of the location of Great Moravia. On the other hand, I referred to at least one academic work which does not make a link between the two issues (I refer to Berend et al). Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Boba's views on etymology are completely irrelevant for the general article about Nitra, because he is not an etymologist (more he is not even respected scholar among expert medievalist). Thus, his theory, as well as an explanation how ridiculous it is, belongs exclusively on such place where his theory is described. "Long" explantation was well placed in the note and did not break the main text. However, because it seems that some editors have no idea about etymology and take any non-sense seriously, we can expect the same for readers and so, proper explanation is very welcome.

2. Until now, this theory is represented here exclusively by authors of the southern thesis. Surely, we can argue how "independent" they are. I have clearly demonstrated and it is also properly sourced, that for example in the case of Sklenar, they are not only related, but re-location of Nitra is the primary goal of re-location of GM (how closer can they be related?). So, your statement about "none single academic work" is patently incorrect. From my point of view, YOU and not me have to document somehow that these issues are not related, because people like Boba and other made it an integral part of their hypothesises. Of course, I can also document that these arguments are understood as closely related by experts and also counter arguments are closely related. For example a study of [[Hertwig Wolfram]: Historical sources and the position of the Great Moravia, Historicky caspopis, vol. 43, issue 1, 1995, p. 3-14, where he nicely show how these two geographical things nicely works together.

So now, when we refuted your hypothesis that it is my "original research", I expect serious proposal how do you want to prevent duplications. Shell I really copy and paste here texts about Sklenars, Boba and Bowlus, their reliability, criticism, etc? Ditinili (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]