Talk:Pribina

message: added some  sources to this article, which appeared to be valid reliable sources.   removed them, saying he disagreed with them, but without giving adequate explanation of why he felt they were inappropriate.  I have talked it over with admin , and we agree that Borsoka's removal of the sources was not sufficiently justified.  Therefore I have restored them.  Borsoka is also cautioned that if he wishes to challenge sources, he must give adequate explanation at the talkpage as to why he feels that they are not reliable.  However, Borsoka is  still welcome to add opposing views, with his own sources.  This will help the article to achieve a state of neutrality.  I encourage all editors to proceed with editing this article, towards the goal of improving it. Revert wars, however, must cease.  Thanks, Elonka 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: This article is one of a series of articles that have been affected by disputes between Hungarian and Slovakian editors.  A centralized page has been setup for discussion of these issues, and all interested editors are invited to participate, at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Thanks, --Elonka 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hungarian-Slovakian issues

message: The text of the cited source (Bartl) is the following:
"846
10 January - The East Frankish king, Louis the German, accepted Pribina in his service as a vassal, and granted him a fief in the region of Lake Balaton. There Pribina established Blatnohrad and built several churches. The Principality of Pribina extended through the southern part of Transdanubia and into the area of today's Styria and Slovenia."
*What is gramatically clear that the "several churches" were not built in Blatnohrad, but "in the region of Lake Balaton". What is not so clear, that the date (January 10, 846) refers to the first sentence (Pribina was granted a fief), or to the whole part. If we accept the latter interpretation, we also had to accept that Pribina was a superhero: on a single day he received the grant, and built not only a single fortress but also several churches in a large area stretching from Styria to Transdanubia.
*Moreover, the relevant information ("Pribina built several churches on his estates") had already been provided in the article. Do we need to repeat it? Borsoka (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  When, what, where did happen? 

message: I can accept any modern form (taking into account that neither the Blatnohrad nor the Blatnograd form is based on 9th-century sources, they are purely the modern translations of the documented German name of the town). However, I think we should avoid to add any piece of information to a text which is based on reliable sources, if those sources do not contain that new piece of information.  Borsoka (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatnohrad/Blatnograd 

message: Reference no. 6 to the map presented in the article does not qualify a reliable source. Reference no. 7 is based on  Kirschbaum's work (Kirschbaum, Stanislav J. (1995, 2005). A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival (2nd edition)); this work contains 5 maps, and one of them (No. 2. The Great Moravian Empire, on page xi) could be relevant for the purpose of the map presented in the article. However, the map in Kirschbaum's work does not refer to the Principality of Nitra, moreover it present the "original territory of the Empire of Great Moravia" as bordered on the river Danube from the south. Therefore, the reference to Kirschbaum's work seems to be lack reliability. Reference no. 8. does not contain any map. Therefore, I think the map should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but you should first clarify what you disputing here: existence of principality or borders presented in the map? After you clarify that, you should provide sources on which you based your claims. PANONIAN 08:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the Principality of Nitra has never been mapped in reliable sources with borders as it is presented on the map in the article. Borsoka (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not clarified what exactly you disputing - I added one reference that show borders of principality and two other that show that principality existed (I had impression that you disputing its existence). As for the question of borders of principality, do you have some source that say that principality had different borders? Until proven otherwise, I do not see that source which I used is wrong. PANONIAN 09:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

text: The only source based on which the map in the article was made is not a reliable one. Moreover, it contradicts to reliable sources (including the one written by Kirschbaum and cited above).  Borsoka (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Different sources are showing this principality in different borders, see examples: , , , , , , , , . So, can you say which of those is most accurate according to you and why? PANONIAN 14:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one map presenting this alleged principality with borders to the south of the Danube river, and that map is presented by an unreliable source.  Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see - you disputing that principality of Nitra ruled area in the south of the Danube, right? Regarding source that I used, it actually lists literature that was used - see "Books" link on the bottom left of this page: http://www.consultsas.com/historica/angl/prvaangl.htm Perhaps we should contact authors of that site and ask them from which of these books they took info about extent of Principality. However, my map is obviously not "entirely wrong" - I hope that we can agree that map is mostly correct (regarding other borders) and that it only contains an info related to southern border whose confirmation by multiple sources has not been established. I see no reason that map is removed only because of presentation of southern border of principality, especially because of the fact that borders of Nitra principality are given only approximatively in all other sources and that there are no two sources that showing exactly same borders of principality - in fact all presented sources are showing somewhat different borders of principality and we would need to draw several maps for Wikipedia to reflect different info from all these sources. The purpose of map that I created is only to show approximate borders of principality and I think that such purpose is fulfilled. I think that we can solve this problem by adding description that these borders are only approximate and that other sources are not supporting info about extent of principality to the south of the Danube. PANONIAN 09:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the "Principality of Nitra" 

message: According to Szoke (2013) there is no archaeological evidence of a Carolingian seat in Nitra nor a Carolingian church.  
Are you sure this text from the article is correct?
Fakirbakir (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I fully agree with you that there is no primary source proving that Pribina was prince of Nitra or of any other principality to the north of the Danube. However, MOST reliable sources traditionally refer to him as prince of that town. Moreover, based on the assumption that Pribina was prince of Nitra, MOST archaeologists identified the early medieval fortress excavated in the same town, as his seat. As I mentioned in an other Talk page a day ago, in our region, it is not unusual that historians create historical facts based on their imagination. :) All the same, the above two sentences are based on sources which are deemed to be reliable for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitra as a Carolingian seat?