This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
All of the article is a tale from a never existed realm. Nmate ( talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 10:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole article is a tale being without foundation. Removing the themplate is possible if the article will be withdrawn from the history of Hungary, history of Slovakia, history of Vojvodina, and history of Croatia categories! Do you understand otec Tankred? Nmate ( talk • contribs)
Hungarian sources dispute the existence of the realm or it is not possible to define its accurate borders. This article disputes the existence of the realm for example and that Zalavár would have been the part of the realm. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmate ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to find any primary sources that mentioned the Principality of Nitria, but I have failed. The Conversio Baoariorum et Carantanorum mentioned that Pribina had a possession, called Nitrava, but it did not refer to any principality. Moreover, Pribina was never mentioned as prince. Could anybody cite any primary source to prove that the Principality of Nitria existed? I would be deeply greatful. Borsoka ( talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussion about this topic is also ongoing at Talk:Principality of Nitra and User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. -- El on ka 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a lot of categories from the bottom since (if I'm right) those all were superior categories of the remaining Great Moravia category. G.M. category is the sole one I left in the article, however there are two categories on the bottom of the page, wich I can not find anywhere: Czech history | History of Slovakia | Is this a bug, or just have to wait for software refreshing? (page refresh does not do anything, they are still there) -- Rembaoud ( talk) 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any sources for the information in this map? I'm not challenging the titles, but where exactly are these map boundaries from? There's no information in the image file. As I understand it, we have a challenge to the extent of the Principality of Nitra, which is a fair question. If sources cannot be located, and the challenge remains, the map should be fixed, replaced, or removed. El on ka 03:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A new sentence was added by Squash Racket to the lead of the article. I am not sure if the lead is a good place for it because the sentence does not summarize anything from the text. I guess it should be moved to the main body. The claim is very strong: that Great Moravia disappeared without a trace. But the only source is a website. Among other 36 sources cited by this article, only one is a website and the rest are published academic works. The tile of the website can be roughly translated as "Nationalism and archeology – Lukácsi Béla chats with Bálint Csanád régésszel; Interview in: Hungarian Science 2003/6 759-764. o." Is an interview from a website that has no English version reliable enough to be cited in the lead of a GA? If it is, more information would be welcome. Now, the sentence says "according to some other sources", but it would be more precise to say according to Bálint Csanád or Lukácsi Béla. Who are these people? Feedback from other editors in this issue will be appreciated. Tankred ( talk) 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the whole paragraph belongs in the main text as it's a bit controversial. Perhaps first we should exactly know if Great Moravia lied south or north of Hungary before we talk about "a lasting legacy".
If it remains in the lead, the criticism is also valid there.
Squash Racket (
talk) 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to urge all editors of this article to use the {{fact}} whenever they see some problematic statement without a source and to support their own statements by citations. This article is listed as one of Wikipedia's good articles and will remain so only if we maintain its quality. This is also the best way how to avoid edit warring. Tankred ( talk) 02:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Galassi has tagged a section of this article as {{unbalanced}} and {{limited}}. I see no reason why a properly cited section should be tagged as such if no concrete objections have been raised. I hope Galassi will explain his/her use of these tags here. It is not very helpful to use tags without justifying them on a talk page. Which parts of the history section are unbalanced? Which parts are missing? What are the published sources you based your criticism on? Tankred ( talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Borsoka, I see you added two sources disputing Bratislava Castle and Devin as Great Moravian Castle. However, it is not very clear from your edit if Gyula Kristo challenges identification of Brezalauspurc with Bratislava Castle and of Dowina with Devin Castle or he claims that these castles (as physical entities, not names) were not Great Moravian. These two statements are very different. If it is the former (i.e. the names issue), it would be nice to clarify it in the text. If it was the latter (i.e. castles themselves), I would be quite surprised because excavations have proved that both Bratislava Castle and Devin Castle were important centers of political and religious life during the Great Moravian period. Assuming that archaeologists could not falsify their findings of buildings and artifacts, I would be very interested in knowing more about the evidence this claim (if it was actually made) is based on. Thanks in advance for your clarification. Tankred ( talk) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
As to the archaeological evidence let me cite some sentences from the article of Mr. Vincent Sedlák referred by User:Galassi above: "According to his" (i.e., Martin Egger's) "theory the scarcity of archaeological sources does not support the theory of a significant historical centre. M. Eggers does not know, however, that in the late 14th century there were significant construction activities in this area, the complex of the whole Sigmund castle was constructed, taking up most of the castle hill. During the construction a number of archaeological sources that could have supported the significance of Devín also in the field of archaeology was destroyed. It was allowed to quarry stone and to use it for the purposes of the construction." As I understand, Mr. Sedlák states that there are no significant archaeological evidences, because they were distroyed in the 15th century (I think, the latter is a remarkable statement from scholarly point of view). However, I stopped to carry out "original researches", and I cited reliable (mainstream, academic) sources. If you think that the wording should be changed, please do not refreain from editing it, but we have to accept that a c a d e m i c views different from ours may exist, and we have to refrain from carrying out original researches when challange those views. Borsoka ( talk) 09:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Another issue. You added the "weasel" templates to the following sections:
I am not sure if you have chosen the tag that you really wanted to choose. Let me quote from the description of the tag:
This tag is for placement after descriptions of a group of persons, such as "serious scholars / scientists / researchers," "historians / philosophers / scientists," "some / many people," and the like. Use it when no specific examples of identifiable individuals from that group are named who could be used to verify the statements or beliefs attributed to the group. Preferably the offending statement should be made more specific by identifying particular individuals and then either cited or tagged for needing citation. Similarly, the statement should be deleted if the claim about the group is sufficiently vague as to be unsupportable.
Both sentences name their sources. The tag is not appropriate. The distinctive Great Moravian style of jewelry is described by the cited article in World Archeology and the word progressively is described in detail in Marsina's article (again properly cited). I am not sure what you meant by these tags. Could you explain here please and perhaps replace them by something more appropriate? Tankred ( talk) 16:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand why the sentence But, in the words of Czech archaeologist Josef Poulík, "these new forms and techniques were not copied passively, but were transformed in the local idiom, establishing in this way the roots of the distinctive Great Moravian jewelery style."<ref name='worldarcheology'/> is tagged by {{weasel-inline}}. It is a direct quotation from a peer-reviewed academic source and attribution to the author is included. A weasel word would be "renowned historians say" or something like that without a corresponding citation. Tankred ( talk) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
After all the criticism of an academic source, I would ask for a cleanup of the external links section. For example this and this link do live up to a GA? Squash Racket ( talk) 15:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There are (as far as can remember) two sentences mentioning something similar to the "integration of the territories of present-day Slovakia into the Kingdom of Hungary". One of the sentences refer to the 12-14th centuries during which the process of integration took place "progressively". I really do not understand the meaning of the sentences, but I think it must have some specific significance for other editors. I would like to understand them, and I would be grateful if any of you could fill me in on this subject. Borsoka ( talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
All of the article is a tale from a never existed realm. Nmate ( talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 10:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole article is a tale being without foundation. Removing the themplate is possible if the article will be withdrawn from the history of Hungary, history of Slovakia, history of Vojvodina, and history of Croatia categories! Do you understand otec Tankred? Nmate ( talk • contribs)
Hungarian sources dispute the existence of the realm or it is not possible to define its accurate borders. This article disputes the existence of the realm for example and that Zalavár would have been the part of the realm. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmate ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to find any primary sources that mentioned the Principality of Nitria, but I have failed. The Conversio Baoariorum et Carantanorum mentioned that Pribina had a possession, called Nitrava, but it did not refer to any principality. Moreover, Pribina was never mentioned as prince. Could anybody cite any primary source to prove that the Principality of Nitria existed? I would be deeply greatful. Borsoka ( talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussion about this topic is also ongoing at Talk:Principality of Nitra and User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. -- El on ka 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a lot of categories from the bottom since (if I'm right) those all were superior categories of the remaining Great Moravia category. G.M. category is the sole one I left in the article, however there are two categories on the bottom of the page, wich I can not find anywhere: Czech history | History of Slovakia | Is this a bug, or just have to wait for software refreshing? (page refresh does not do anything, they are still there) -- Rembaoud ( talk) 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any sources for the information in this map? I'm not challenging the titles, but where exactly are these map boundaries from? There's no information in the image file. As I understand it, we have a challenge to the extent of the Principality of Nitra, which is a fair question. If sources cannot be located, and the challenge remains, the map should be fixed, replaced, or removed. El on ka 03:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A new sentence was added by Squash Racket to the lead of the article. I am not sure if the lead is a good place for it because the sentence does not summarize anything from the text. I guess it should be moved to the main body. The claim is very strong: that Great Moravia disappeared without a trace. But the only source is a website. Among other 36 sources cited by this article, only one is a website and the rest are published academic works. The tile of the website can be roughly translated as "Nationalism and archeology – Lukácsi Béla chats with Bálint Csanád régésszel; Interview in: Hungarian Science 2003/6 759-764. o." Is an interview from a website that has no English version reliable enough to be cited in the lead of a GA? If it is, more information would be welcome. Now, the sentence says "according to some other sources", but it would be more precise to say according to Bálint Csanád or Lukácsi Béla. Who are these people? Feedback from other editors in this issue will be appreciated. Tankred ( talk) 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the whole paragraph belongs in the main text as it's a bit controversial. Perhaps first we should exactly know if Great Moravia lied south or north of Hungary before we talk about "a lasting legacy".
If it remains in the lead, the criticism is also valid there.
Squash Racket (
talk) 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to urge all editors of this article to use the {{fact}} whenever they see some problematic statement without a source and to support their own statements by citations. This article is listed as one of Wikipedia's good articles and will remain so only if we maintain its quality. This is also the best way how to avoid edit warring. Tankred ( talk) 02:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Galassi has tagged a section of this article as {{unbalanced}} and {{limited}}. I see no reason why a properly cited section should be tagged as such if no concrete objections have been raised. I hope Galassi will explain his/her use of these tags here. It is not very helpful to use tags without justifying them on a talk page. Which parts of the history section are unbalanced? Which parts are missing? What are the published sources you based your criticism on? Tankred ( talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Borsoka, I see you added two sources disputing Bratislava Castle and Devin as Great Moravian Castle. However, it is not very clear from your edit if Gyula Kristo challenges identification of Brezalauspurc with Bratislava Castle and of Dowina with Devin Castle or he claims that these castles (as physical entities, not names) were not Great Moravian. These two statements are very different. If it is the former (i.e. the names issue), it would be nice to clarify it in the text. If it was the latter (i.e. castles themselves), I would be quite surprised because excavations have proved that both Bratislava Castle and Devin Castle were important centers of political and religious life during the Great Moravian period. Assuming that archaeologists could not falsify their findings of buildings and artifacts, I would be very interested in knowing more about the evidence this claim (if it was actually made) is based on. Thanks in advance for your clarification. Tankred ( talk) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
As to the archaeological evidence let me cite some sentences from the article of Mr. Vincent Sedlák referred by User:Galassi above: "According to his" (i.e., Martin Egger's) "theory the scarcity of archaeological sources does not support the theory of a significant historical centre. M. Eggers does not know, however, that in the late 14th century there were significant construction activities in this area, the complex of the whole Sigmund castle was constructed, taking up most of the castle hill. During the construction a number of archaeological sources that could have supported the significance of Devín also in the field of archaeology was destroyed. It was allowed to quarry stone and to use it for the purposes of the construction." As I understand, Mr. Sedlák states that there are no significant archaeological evidences, because they were distroyed in the 15th century (I think, the latter is a remarkable statement from scholarly point of view). However, I stopped to carry out "original researches", and I cited reliable (mainstream, academic) sources. If you think that the wording should be changed, please do not refreain from editing it, but we have to accept that a c a d e m i c views different from ours may exist, and we have to refrain from carrying out original researches when challange those views. Borsoka ( talk) 09:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Another issue. You added the "weasel" templates to the following sections:
I am not sure if you have chosen the tag that you really wanted to choose. Let me quote from the description of the tag:
This tag is for placement after descriptions of a group of persons, such as "serious scholars / scientists / researchers," "historians / philosophers / scientists," "some / many people," and the like. Use it when no specific examples of identifiable individuals from that group are named who could be used to verify the statements or beliefs attributed to the group. Preferably the offending statement should be made more specific by identifying particular individuals and then either cited or tagged for needing citation. Similarly, the statement should be deleted if the claim about the group is sufficiently vague as to be unsupportable.
Both sentences name their sources. The tag is not appropriate. The distinctive Great Moravian style of jewelry is described by the cited article in World Archeology and the word progressively is described in detail in Marsina's article (again properly cited). I am not sure what you meant by these tags. Could you explain here please and perhaps replace them by something more appropriate? Tankred ( talk) 16:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand why the sentence But, in the words of Czech archaeologist Josef Poulík, "these new forms and techniques were not copied passively, but were transformed in the local idiom, establishing in this way the roots of the distinctive Great Moravian jewelery style."<ref name='worldarcheology'/> is tagged by {{weasel-inline}}. It is a direct quotation from a peer-reviewed academic source and attribution to the author is included. A weasel word would be "renowned historians say" or something like that without a corresponding citation. Tankred ( talk) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
After all the criticism of an academic source, I would ask for a cleanup of the external links section. For example this and this link do live up to a GA? Squash Racket ( talk) 15:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There are (as far as can remember) two sentences mentioning something similar to the "integration of the territories of present-day Slovakia into the Kingdom of Hungary". One of the sentences refer to the 12-14th centuries during which the process of integration took place "progressively". I really do not understand the meaning of the sentences, but I think it must have some specific significance for other editors. I would like to understand them, and I would be grateful if any of you could fill me in on this subject. Borsoka ( talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)