yes the text is deliberately a secondary source because i and nobody else feels like going through latin medieval texts all over europe to find and compare some titles when all serious secondary sources claim the same thing wikipedia rules require secondary sources and for good and obvious reasons no original research etc in addition we have discussed the duke etc issue already under the stephen article it is not as simple as it seems and my points have been completely ignored by you et al so why should i care in the first place right secondly no normal hungarian academic source calls pribina a chieftain normal hungarian academic sources i e those i know do not differ from slovak czech austrian etc sources for the time period at hand finally i would like to see contemporary sources for calling most of the early arp ds kop ny etc princes etc which you do in this wikipedia and not chieftains lords etc and interestingly in these cases the word chieftain is really used also by academic sources but you are not proposing such a change those who know the circumstances in this wikipedia know the answer it would be also interesting to find contemporary sources for the founding of rome in the mid th century and so on and we could go on like this for many medieval european countries so dont be ridiculous