Talk:Principality of Nitra

message: 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"). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Diocese of Nitra 

message: 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)
replies: text: Feel free to edit the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nothing or almost nothing? There is a huge difference between the two expressions. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  lucidity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Makk's statement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wordsmithing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Over-emphasis on names of primary authors 

message: The controvert authors are presented along with opinions of leading historians without any difference.Ditinili (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read below how academic works approach this issue in the 21st century: 
*"Where exactly [Constantine and Methodius] went is subject now to healthy debate. The traditional location of Rastislav's "Great Moravia" grew up, not accidentally, with the multiethnic Habsburg empire and placed it along the Morava river in the territory of present-day Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. A growing numer of scholars argue that ["Great Moravia"] should be situated much further south and east, in the vicinity of Sirmimum." ()
*"According to some, Pribina's seat had been previously in Nitra (today in Slovakia), until 833 when the Moravian ruler Mojmír ... expelled him and conquered his lands, but other disopute this and suggest another Pannonia area as Pribina's previous seat." 
*"The core of Great Moravia could not have been situated anywhere else but north of the middle Danube River, in Moravia, the eastern part of what is now the Czech Republic. Such an unambiguous conclusion is not at all meant to diminish the value of studies seeking to locate Great Moraviaelsewhere within the Carpathian Basin. The serious problems of geographical orientation raised by analysis of the written sources (such as the clear orientation of the Frankish military system towards the south-east), which ultimately led Imre Boba and his followers to question the traditional location of Great Moravia, will have to be explained in some other way." 
Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  As we both know, there is a clear controversy about some authors (e.g. Boba, Bowlus and Eggers), well documented in the GM article. The first citation is from the author, who is a recognized expert in a different area, not in this topic. The second formulation is vague and states nothing about the credit of the authors, only that they exist. The third is citaton of the author, who rejects Boba's and Bowlu's works.Ditinili (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a clear controversy about the location of Great Moravia, because "[t]he serious problems of geographical orientation raised by analysis of the written sources ... will have to be explained ...". Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have already demonstrated in other place how did you manipulated Machacek text. Thx.Ditinili (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You (with whom?) did not demonstrate anything. Would specifically refer to your demonstration? Please remember that it was you who only mentioned his arguments against Boba's views, without citing his final conclusion: there are issues that has not been addressed by scholars who accept the traditional view. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have demonstrated that you conceal a mention that Machacek (who should be used to confirm that e.g. Bowlus) is not controvert, rejects his theory.Ditinili (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have not demonstrated it. If you refer to this remark (), you are obviously wrong. You obviously ignored my corresponding (previous) edit in the article, which emphasizes that he refutes the theory. I did not want to hide and did not hide anything in the article. It was you who did not cite Machácek's final conclusion: Boba and Bowlus drew the attention to issues that had not been addressed by scholars accepting the traditional view. Please try to understand that even if your edits are driven by your bias (), not all other editors are driven by emotions. I strongly suggest that you should change your behaviour and approach. Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL. I am not driven "by emotions". Did Machacek rejected Bowlus theory or he did not? Did you conceal this mention (also here) or you did not?Ditinili (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are driven by bias () and I did not conceal Machacek's rejection (). Please read and apply WP:civility.  Borsoka (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose to close this topic. Publication a) is published by author, whose research is not primarily focused on GM ("he wrote several pages" as you stated in another discussion) b) does not say anything about Boba nor Bowlus, thus cannor reject their controversy c) the author rejected explicitly Bowlus and Eggers. That's all.Ditinili (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

text:  (a) Please read my above remark about our limits: we cannot challange the decision of the editors of Cambridge University Press. (b) He especially mentions Boba, Bowlus and Eggers. If you have not read his book, why have you been making negative remarks of him? (c) Machácek also emphasizes the weakness of the traditional view which drove Boba, Bowlus, etc to search an explanation. Machácek's remarks proves that the traditional view can be challanged. Borsoka (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  a) The main "limit" is that you are not able to cite single McCornic book about GM, except several pages from the book about history of economy. b) cite c) Machacek rejects Boba and Bowlus. Any view can be challenged, that's how scientists makes progress. We are talking about concrete authors, not about general approach.Ditinili (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

text: FYI, I sought community assistance on the relevant notice board to close this never-ending debate (). Borsoka (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV - false balance 

message: I would like to understand the tag. Do you think that any references to princes of Nitra after Pribina should be deleted, because none of the subsequent "princes" are mentioned as princes of Nitra in most works dedicated to them? Borsoka (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a source of this information? Own research? Ditinili (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. If you read works dedicated to the life of most of the alleged princes of Nitra, you will not find a single reference to this title in connection with them. Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean - the works you have read? Ditinili (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. I cannot refer to works read by other editors. Borsoka (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you very much for the clarification. It means that the works you have read (?) do not mention something, but other do. This makes your opinion (at least) very subjective. If you really read it, because it seems that you repeatedly write about various works which you have never read. Ditinili (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you be more specific? I do not know to what cases you are referring. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course. For example, you have tried to edit the article Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia, particularly a part about Eggers's and Trestik's work, without reading any of them.Ditinili (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. I have never stated that I read those works. I wanted to ensure that their views are properly presented, because anybody who reads the article and reads reviews of Eggers' theory still can realize that Eggers' theory is not fairly presented. Borsoka (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You made several edits based exclusively on your own assumptions about the content without reading any of the works. Now, you assume that if you read something it is "most of works". Bad approach. Ditinili (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Could you prove your above statement? Yes, I know that you think that you are an expert of this field because you read some works written by Czechoslovak, Czech and Slovak historians. However, it is obvious that you do not know other literature. You think that my assumptions were invented, because you do not know that scholarly theories that you accept as a dogma are not always accepted outside Slovakia (for instance, the presence of an Onogur Bulgar population in the lowlands along the Middle Danube and its subsidiaries, including the Morava is a common place in Hungarian historiography).  Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shortly, I do not write the articles about the works which I have never read. Ditinili (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shortly, neither do I. End of conversation. Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The history of the article mentioned above proves opposite as can be verified by anybody at anytime. Ditinili (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: , the map is highly controversial. It claims that the so-called "Principality of Nitra" included present-day Slovakia and large parts of Hungary. However, there are scholars who say that Béla and his sons' "Duchy" included only some counties in the northwestern part of the Kingdom of Hungary and some other countries in the eastern territories. For instance, the following map shows the "Duchy" and its northwestern territories are quite small.
Let's forget that the association of Béla and his sons' Duchy with the alleged Principality of Nitra is highly controversial, because no 9th-12th-century sources write of a Principality/Duchy of Nitra or a prince or duke of Nitra. However, we cannot forget WP:NPOV and cannot present a PoV map as a fact. Please also read WP:3RR carefuly, because edit warring may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the Principality of Nitra 

message: What's the reasoning behind replacing the old map with this one?Basserr (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: There was no Hungary in the 9th Century in Pannonia, let alone a Kingdom of Hungary. There were only a few nomadic raiding Magyar squatters taking shelter in Pannonia, chased out of Asia by the Huns for their pillage and plunder lifestyle, like the Scythians and the Avars before them. Pannonia was inhabited by Slovaks. Even today only 5% of the gene pool in Pannonia is Magyar, 40% are Slovak, then the German and other genes. The Magyars continued raiding Westward, all the way to France and Spain. The Bavarians got fed up with it and organized an expedition down the river Danube to wipe them out, like Charlemagne did with the Avars before. They had a green leader, were overconfident, got separated along the Danube, did not post guards and sentries. In July 907 the Magyars jumped the Southern bank group with a hit and run attack, drew them out into a trap and killed them all. Arpad and his sons died in this action. Danube river was very shallow in July. Next night the Magyars crossed the Danube, hit the Northern group camp and killed them in their sleep. Next day they burned the supply fleet on the river with fire arrows and killed the rest. Thereafter the Magyars raided Bavaria for a few decades, trying to take it over. Until Emperor Otto 3 stopped them at Lechfeld near Augsburg, killed the leaders, then hunted down and killed all the survivors, trying to make it back to Pannonia. Then the Magyars accepted Christianity and formed a quasi Western style Kingdom. But they continued their pillage and plunder lifestyle among themselves and everybody else, becoming fragmented and weak. In the 13th Century the Mongol Golden Horde invaded and depopulated the Kingdom of Hungary with genocide even more. With the experienced crusaders from the Holy Land the locals built hundreds of castles and organized the effective heavy cavalry. 60 years later the next Tatar invasion was completely annihilated, aided by the cold winter, starvation and famine. In 1537 the Ottoman Empire wiped out the fragmented Kingdom of Hungary again, at the battle of Mohacs. The green king placed the cobbled Hungarian army in a swamp, where they could not move. The Turks placed many guns on the surrounding hills and completely wiped them out, shooting them like the fish in a barrel, similar to Dien Bien Phu in our times. Jan Zapolsky from Transylvania waited in the wings to join the winner. He then joined the Turks or the Austrians as it suited him, going forward. Whoever could, escaped to the mountains in Northern Slovakia, where Jakob Fugger from a wool merchant family in Augsburg, Bavaria founded and secured the first industrial syndicate, working the Slovak gold silver and copper mines. He invented the military industrial complex that we have to this day. He financed all the wars and politics in Europe. Became the richest man on this Planet, ever. This went on until Napoleon showed up and established a new world order for 20 years, under the banner "Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite". Until he was finished at Waterloo. His ideals flared up again in 1848, all around Europe. The revolution lasted the longest in Hungary, 2 years. Vienna asked Russia for help. The Czar sent 200,000 Cossacks and finished it. Then in 1867 Prussia attacked Austria and weakened it. Hungary demanded and were granted autonomy in 1868. Then they viciously oppressed and persecuted all the other nationalities for the next 50 years. It ended in 1918. Meantime Prussia provoked, attacked and knocked out France. A revolt broke out in Paris commune, with a bloody end, creating the communist movement. This was transplanted to Russia by Germany in 1917, sending Lenin there from Switzerland in a sealed train, to create havoc and take Russia out of the war. You know the rest. It morphed into greed and corruption, that we face today. 38.70.212.105 (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungary