Talk:History of Slovakia

message: The article contains the following text under the subtitle "Rise of Slavic polities": "Some historians say that Pribina's original seat was identical with Nitra in present-day Slovakia, from where he was expelled by Mojmir I around 833. .... Other historians write that Pribina's Nitrava cannot be identified with Nitra." The two sentences are based on  which contains, on pages 56-57, the following: "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." According to , the latter theory is marginal and should not be mentioned in the article. Could the theory which says that "Pribina's Nitrava cannot be identified with Nitra" be mentioned in the article or it should be deleted? Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, we should follow recommendation "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Identification of medieval Nitra from the times of Pribina or Great Moravia  with the present-day Nitra is simply supported by the overwhelming majority of historians and fully supported by archeological research. It should be clear for any reader which theory is mainstream and what is an alternative, marginal opinion.Ditinili (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, Bela Miklos Szoke (he is the leading archaeologist at the Mosapurc excavations) disputes that Pribina's (and Wiching's) seat was situated in Nitra. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It could be interesting, but it changes nothing  on the fact that straightforward identification of Nitra remains non-problematic for the overwhelming majority of historians who deal with the history of the Great Moravia and it is supported also by the research on the place. Short overview of the archeological research in Nitra in English: Archaelogical sites of Nitra.Ditinili (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Given the ostensible reliability of at least one of the opponents of the most common hypothesis, we probably should mention the alternative, but clearly indicate that it's a minority viewpoint. Hiding the fact that there is reasonable doubt in the minds of some subject-matter experts would do a disservice to our readers. In archaeology, it's actually fairly often the case that mainstream assumptions about the identification of specific digs with certain historically attested places turn out to be mistaken. This has, for example, happened multiple times with proposed locations of Camelot, in my adult lifetime.  Anyway, the extant wording borders on WP:WEASEL-wording. While the original source was itself weasely, we don't have to repeat its poor use of vague "some [like who?] say this, others [such as?] say that" presentation. It would be better to simply state outright that the predominant theory is this one, and cite Wiszewski for it as well as some other reliable source indicating this is the most accepted (or only presented) view, and that an alternative, minority hypothesis is that other one, and cite both Wiszewski (as the source that it's a minority viewpoint) and Szoke (for the details of what the viewpoint is and who propounds it).  Unless it wanders into WP:FRINGE territory, more information is generally better than less, especially when avoiding mention of something may raise WP:NPOV concerns.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody speaks here about hiding the fact that there are other opinions. However, I fully agree that it must be clear what is the most accepted view and what is hypothesis of small group of historians to prevent "false balance".Ditinili (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Nitra 

message: I clean up random citation errors and this article has some difficult examples due to badly malformed citation templates and incorrect use of named reference tags.
* This diff  introduced an error on May 12, 2008 (7 years old!).  The citation used was  which produced:
::
:I assume the citation should have been completed as follows.  I've added a  parameter to allow use of the  shortened footnote template, used like this to create an abbreviated reference which links to the full citation (which needs to be placed into the Secondary Sources section for the  template to function properly).  Note that there are no  tags placed around a  template. 
::
::
* This diff  introduced an error on November 15, 2012.  There are eight different malformed citation templates all using the same named reference 'Történeti Kronológia' but each shows different page numbers.  Because they all use the same named reference, they all show up as a single citation like this - my assumed correction is below (intended for use with the  template).
::
:::
* This diff  introduced an error on May 16, 2015.  A malformed citation template using the named reference 'Europe' produced the following, which I assume would be correct as shown below (again, intended for use with the  template).
::
:::
Apart from the 11 examples shown above, I see 41 more in the code for this article, none of which properly show the page number in their citations (and each of which will cause an error if the full citation gets deleted).  For now, I've fixed the unrecognized parameter error - I'll leave the others for an interested editor who wants to clean up the entire reference section. Stamptrader (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malformed citations need repair 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on History of Slovakia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621042920/http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/panslavism/panslavism.pdf to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/panslavism/panslavism.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060331043808/http://www.foreign.gov.sk/En/files/add.php3?text=Slovakia&file=file556.shtml to http://www.foreign.gov.sk/En/files/add.php3?text=Slovakia&file=file556.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030817234636/http://www.slovak.sk/magazin_slovakia/496_Slovakia/history/history5.htm to http://www.slovak.sk/magazin_slovakia/496_Slovakia/history/history5.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304063926/http://www.eml.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/member/person/Roman.d/history/slhist.html to http://www.eml.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/member/person/Roman.d/history/slhist.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005170954/http://www2.sbg.ac.at/chc/FRE_DOWNLOADS/FRE_BROCHURE_SK.pdf to http://www2.sbg.ac.at/chc/FRE_DOWNLOADS/FRE_BROCHURE_SK.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion