Talk:Battle of Pressburg

References, name

Please someone add the references for this article. We don't know by what name these battles are mentioned in reliable English language literature. Probably Battle(s) of Pressburg, or Battles of Posonium? or battle of Pozsony Squash Racket (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The name of Pozsony in a Frankish chronicle was Poson, meaning Poson's town. This root is also reflected in the modern name Pozsony. The modern name Bratislava did not exist at that time. The battle is referred to under various names ("of Pzsony", "under Posony Castle", "near Pozsony", etc.) in Slovak sources. If you are inclined so, you are welcome to survey English sources, but I am afraid you will not find much. Tankred (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

hey, I don't think it is possible to find a name for these battles that will be equally accepted by everyone. I think it is agreeable to say that 'Battle of Bratislava' is anachronistic. English scholarly works almost invariably use 'Pressburg' to refer to the pre-WWI history of the city. Also, since you mentioned 'Brezalauspurc' it is worth noting that 'Pressburg' itself is a variant/derivation of that name. The first mention of the Hungarian name (as Poson) is from 1002, around hundred years later, but might have been in use earlier. The German name refers back to Breslav who under the Franks established a fort at the city's present site, the Slovakian name erroneously refers to Bratislav II(?) who was a Moravian ruler, the Hungarian name refers to Poson, the first ispan of the castle.

All in all I think the least controversial choice would be "Battle of Pressburg" since it is the only one that refers to Breslav. But more importantly because it goes along with the convention of using "Pressburg" in English texts in the field of history. - Best 02:28, 07 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.167.127 (talk • contribs)

Pressburg is as anachronistic for 907 as Bratislava is. If anyone wants to rename this article, please present your evidence for the widespread use of your preferred name in English sources. Tankred (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I just tried Google Books (searching for Luitpold, Hungarians and Bavarians [1]): Bratislava, Pozsony (Bratislava), east of Vienna, Pressburg, Pressburg. Doesn't make things much clearer I guess. Markussep ^Talk 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Brezalauspurc?

If any book is going to shed light on the events close to this battle, it is possibly this one:

• Charles Bowlus (1995). Franks, Moravians and Magyars: the struggle for the middle Danube, 788-907. Univ of Pennsylvania Press. p. 420..

Bowlus has a good section on the difficulty of finding sources about the battle, pointing out the unfortunate gaps in the otherwise helpful chronicles. He says there was a 16th century writer named Aventinus who filled in many details about the battle, but either he was using sources that are now lost, or he was making things up. I wonder if anyone besides Bowlus calls it the Battle of Brezalauspurc? A limited preview of Bowlus's book is available on line.

Another website (not a reliable source) was of the opinion that 'Brezalauspurc' and what is now Bratislava may not be the same thing. There is a work called the Salzburg Chronicles, or Annales Iuvavenses, which is where 'Brezalauspurc' seems to be found. But these chronicles were a centuries-later recontruction of earlier documents, so it is not certain how much they can be trusted.

Incidentally, there are enough sources available (even online) to write a much better article on this battle than what we have now! It's just a small matter of time and patience. I imagine that "the Battle of Brezelauspurc" could be a better title, since it avoids deciding the equivalence between this name and later names. More reading would be required before deciding that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think also :The Battle of Brezalauspurc is the best soultion . I favour EdJohnston' opinion.Nmate (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The name "battle of brezalauspurc" does not exist, iow. such a title is original research and a violation of any rules. The fact that Brezalauspurc=Bratislava is as sure as the fact that Vindobona=Vienna. There is a lot of literature on this, unfortunately like always, not in English, and what Ed...writes above was solved some 200 years ago, if he was able to read other sources than English ones. For the rest a copy from the summary: the "battle of brezalauspurc" yields exactly 0 google hits or hits in literatue, "battle of pressburg" or of "pozsony" are anachronims just like battle of bratislava, but battle of bratislava has higher frequency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.233.106 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See my 30 May's edit above: several names are used in English literature for the battle site, but Brezalauspurc wasn't one of them (maybe Google Books didn't scan EdJohnstons book yet). It's usual to use contemporary names for battles, e.g. Battle of Alesia, Battle of Gergovia, Battle of Eylau (battle of Bagrationovsk would be very silly in this case). In this case it might be less clear. I lean towards Pressburg, because it's seems the least "bad" option (Brezalauspurc is obscure and unfamiliar, Bratislava is anachronistic, Pozsony probably also). Markussep ^Talk 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The correct reasoning should go like this: For the year 907, Pressburg is just as anachronistic as Pozsony or Bratislava, because the town was called Brezalauspurc in German and Preslava in Slavic at that time, there were no other names. The Pozsony variant is thus wrong in any respect. The Brezalauspurc variant WOULD be logical, but it simply is not used. The next logical choice therefore is to use the current name. The Pressburg variant (being neither the correct historical name, nor the current name) could be only used if despite what I have said say 90 % of English (not German) sources would use this wrong name, but I dont think that it is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.233.106 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Britannica uses Battle of Pressburg and mentions Bratislava in parentheses, so I also think Battle of Pressburg would be the best choice. Squash Racket (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

POV language

The battle is considered the symbolic end of central power in Great Moravia. This is perhaps too strong. The Hungarians were doing well at that time, and they beat the Bavarians. And Great Moravia is already a hypothetical construct, meaning something like 'farther away Moravia.' ("Μεγάλη Μοραβία"). To assume that there really was a central power in Great Moravia is to make a tower of hypotheticals. It would be better to stick to the data. (Our article on Great Moravia is pretty good in admitting the uncertainties).

..a decisive victory at the Battle of Lechfeld, which brought internal stability to German lands. In actuality, the Germans were better organized at that time and they beat the Hungarians. The latter probably didn't think the battle improved stability. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Move

According to the history of this page, it was moved on June 7th without any discussion. However, much discussion has been sparked about the name since then. Would it be okay with everyone here if I moved it back and then users could have a real discussion and poll about the naming? --DerRichter (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just leave it where it is please, at least the title has one battle in it (not battles as before) and this name is not anachronistic. BTW Battle of Pressburg seems to be the accepted form, Britannica uses it for the battle. Squash Racket (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have to do a revert because Svetovid's recent edits is vandalism. Nmate (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I restored a reference and you inserted an unsourced statement against the opinion of two editors. Prove that Battle of Pozsony is a name used in English if you want to use it.--Svetovid (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid, please read the talk page before launching revert wars. Squash Racket (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Svetovid! Calm down!I did not do any personal attacks.I have to restore this article's Hungarian name. --Nmate (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nmate's account access has been blocked for two weeks. Svetovid, if you would like to remove any of the attacks on you from this page, you have permission to do so. --Elonka 04:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of the battle

We shouldn't link to Pozsony, parts of article titles are rarely, in justified cases linked anyway. This is not one of those cases, here it is rather misleading, falsely suggesting that Pozsony existed and played a role in the battle.
The battle is widely known by the names Battle of Pressburg (for example in Britannica) and Battle of Bratislava in English historiography, although the exact spot where it was fought is unknown. ("East of Vienna" is the best description that I've found.) Squash Racket (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that linking to the name gives impression of anything but the fact that the reader can have the name explained. If the battle is called battle of Bratislava, then the reader deserves to know where the hell did that word come from.

And to the Brezalauspurc issue - the thing is, that the name Brezalaupurc is what can be found in the chronicles, it is not 100% certain that it was Bratislava, but there is a general agreement among the scholars. In other words, we know it happened at a place called Brezalauspurc, we are not sure, if it and Bratislava are one and the same thing. Therefore Brezalauspurc should definitely stay. It is not an invention, reliable sources confirm it and you keep deleting it because of WP:OR.

And one more thing - Magyars is a standard term used in English historiography to describe the nomadic tribes that arrived in Panonia in late 9th century, it is not a translation and your use of "Slovak wiki" is out of place. Moreover, to link directly modern Hungarians with those nomads is a stretch worth labeling POV. Some english sources use it, however, therefore I kept it. Some, however, use Magyars and you should not delete that. Wladthemlat (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Linking parts of article titles is rare and only in justified cases acceptable. Here, it would be rather misleading. I can only repeat myself. (The reader can still check it himself, but drawing attention to it in the middle of the bolded article title even though nobody exactly knows where the battle took place IS misleading, not helpful.) Even if some settlement existed close to where the battle was fought, it definitely didn't play any role in the battle itself. This is just about the naming of the battle, we do not want to intentionally highlight that city in the intro.

I don't really care about the Brezalauspurc issue (which is already controversial on it's own right), because we talk about the battle's, NOT the city's name here. English historiography widely uses only two names for this battle and we try to avoid multiple names in the lead whenever possible anyway. Including 4(!) names is simply confusing and absolutely unnecessary here.

Any reference to Hungarians always redirects to Hungarian people (don't see your problem with that), and English historiography uses Hungarians most of the time, and only rarely Magyars. Again: intelligibility and wide usage.

I think it's confusing enough for an uninvolved party that this battle involving Germans and Hungarians is named after a city in today's Slovakia, let's not further burden the readers with other issues. Squash Racket (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, Brezalauspurc is not controversial, it's a historical fact. [2]

Your problem with wikilinking Bratislava is completely virtual, I don't see how this manipulates anything, it just gives better geographic reference.

Any reference to Hungarians redirects to Hungarian people? So what, I don't see your point. English historiography uses the term regularly [3] so it should be included. Wladthemlat (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wlad is right here, Brezalauspurc is historical name, we can´t just ignore the fact, however as Squash rocket says we don´t have to include that in the beginning. The battle section in this case would do just fine and we´d avoid the mess in the beginning (3 or 4 names in bold is way too much). --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Battle of Brezalauspurc" is virtually unheard of. We are talking about the battle, not the city. Secondary, English sources simply don't use it as the battle's name.

Wikilinking Pozsony as a part of the bolded article title is misleading here. Both Pressburg and Bratislava lead the reader to the same article, but highlighting it in a German-Hungarian battle article is unencyclopedic. Linking a word of the article title is rare anyway. (Repeating myself.)

Hungarians is used by English historiography more regularly, that is what matters here.

Shall we call residents of Northern Hungary in most of the articles "Upper Hungarians"? You are OK with that? It is used by English historiography. Squash Racket (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That is non-sense - we do call Bratislava Pressburg or Pozsony in main article and when someone tried to remove all non-Slovak names edit war occured. Secondly nothing like Upper Hungarians ever existed, nor was ever used in history - it´s your invention, Upper Hungary was never an official name in all history while Brezalauspurc was (and even so it mentioned on wiki quite a few times [4]), at least according to Annales Iuvavenses maximi (Bellum pessimum fuit ad Brezalauspurc IIII nonas Iulii) also it is mentioned in Bratislava article and you, or anyone else, doesn´t seem to have a problem with it. Also I don´t care about some wikilinking, be it as it is, it´s not important anyway. And in the end I´m not quite sure if you did take a look on my edit since I did NOT added anything like Battle of Brezalauspurc, although it would be right anyway - I just added the name Brezalauspurc to the Battle section after the mention of Pressburg/Bratislava Castle and you deleted it and I really can´t say why. What do you have against that name? I did not added it to the beginning, only thing I´ve done was adding one single mention of that name to the one section - that´s it, historical name which is bytheway the first ever written mention of the city itself. So once again - what do you have against that name? --EllsworthSK (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, it wasn´t you who deleted it - it was Nmate and I, somehow, missed it. Sorry --EllsworthSK (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I see racket's point, what about rewriting the first sentence to read something like: "a battle that occured at Brezalauspurc, which is believed to had been located in the area of present-day Bratislava". Wikilinking would be merited here (as it would clearly point to the explanation of the location, Vienna is wikilinked even though it has nothing to do with the battle).

To the Hungarians / Magyars. Hungarians is used after Hungary was established, before, it is common to use Magyars when referencing the nomadic tribes. The fact that it condtradicts your opinion doesn't change it a bit.

Upper Hungarians would be fine, if it was used by the authors, but in the link you posted it is almost exclusively quoting old writings or describing the contemporary nomenclature, which is a completely different case. Besides, your link has two pages, the list of the uses of the word Magyar in the specified context is much, much longer. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is non-sense — I provided the link for some of the "Upper Hungarians" references.
W., your suggestion on the first sentence is a perfect example of original research.
Brezaluspurc was or wasn't equal to Pozsony. It's a controversial issue, primary sources are interpreted differently by different scholars. The Salzburg Annales are a reconstruction of earlier texts, it's only an assumption that Brez. probably was Pozsony.
Before Trianon, "Slovakia" should be constantly referred to as Upper Hungary. The fact that it contradicts the opinion of some Slovak editors doesn't change this a bit.
Hungarians is perfectly right and as this article is about Hungarians and Germans, I don't even understand why Slovaks constantly show up here. I guess it wouldn't be a problem if I rewrote Slovakia-related articles according to my taste in a perfectly encyclopedic way, right? Squash Racket (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You provided nothing, read that again - not even saying that you or anyone else can´t say what the hell are those "Upper Hungarians". Hungarians which lived in the Upper Hungary? And what is that than? Till 19th century it was area of nowday eastern Slovakia, after the fall of monarchy Hungarians started using that as acronym for Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus or just a souther areas of Slovakia where Hungarians live. If I were you I´d stop with this analogy, it´s ridiculous. Also I suggest you to read at least the article Upper Hungary and find out what was ment under this name till 19th century, it´ll show you few things since Upper Hungary was never an official name that suprise, surprise it isn´t used as acronym for Slovakia, such as Delvidek isn´t used as acronym for Vojvodina. Looks at article Slovaks, it´s whole core was written by Bexter9 who is, as far as I know, Hungarian and no one seem to have a problem with it, so maybe you should stop with this "Hungarian articles for Hungarians" thing, wikipedia is free encyclopedia so even Klingons can edit this article if they want to. Also we could now return to original point and that beeing Brezalauspurc - it is widely accepted by scholars that it is nowday Bratislava as, bytheway, the article says - . The German army, consisting of three battle groups, was crushed below Pressburg Castle - and you don´t seem to have a single problem with it, yet you have problem with original name from Salzburg annales. Why is that? --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I removed the castle's name, NOBODY knows for sure where this battle was fought. If there's a reliable, possibly English reference for it, only then add it back. Squash Racket (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[5]Wladthemlat (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Racket, let's get things straight. You provided 18 books referencing Upper Hungarians, I provided 1052 books mentioning Magyars in the context of this battle (and that's just this single battle). I also provided 453 book referencing Brezalauspurc. What are you trying to debate here exactly?

Moreover, to quote one of the books: "Assuming that Brezalauspurc was modern Bratislava," - your interpretations is simply wrong. The annales mention a place called Brezalauspurc, this place is then believed to be Bratislava. The thing is, that the Annales mention a big battle between Magyars and Franks at Brezalauspurc in 907, which is the battle this article is about. So either you don't agree it was at Bratislava but you'd have to rename the article to the actual historic name of the place and leave the speculations about its exact location to be mere speculations. The other option is to agree with the majority of researchers and accept that it probably was near modern Bratislava. But that does override the fact, that it happened at Brezalauspurc.

To put it in other words - the Hungarian editors are meticulous to name places in slovakia in Hugarian when reference pre-1918. This is the same case. It was not Pressburg, nor Bratislava, Pozsony or Vienna. It was Brezalauspurc and that's a fact. It therefore must be mentioned in the article.

Symptomatic of this debate is a comparison of these two edits [6] vs [7]. Nmate first moved the article to battle of brezalauspurc, now he keeps deleting every single reference to it. What should I make of it? Wladthemlat (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You still mix the place name and the battle's name. The battle is widely mentioned by the names "Battle of Pressburg" and "Battle of Bratislava" in English, but we only know in reality it was fought somewhere east of Vienna. Whether Brezalauspurc existed or not, belongs in the city's article. Repeating myself AGAIN: The Salzburg Annales are a reconstruction of earlier texts, it's only an assumption that Brez. probably was Pozsony. Nobody knows for sure, so we won't present it as a fact. Squash Racket (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You are being illogical. We know from the Annales that what is called "Battle of Pressburg" today was fought at Brezalauspurc. It may or may not be correct, but that's no reason for deletion, rather for a careful wording. Why aren't the annales mentioned at all? all the discrepancies can be entered into the article, the current version is blatantly misleading.

And by the way, how come the battle is described at such detail? Where does that information come from other than Iuvavenses? Why is it not challenged and deleted, actually why is this whole article not deleted when Iuvavenses are so unreliable? We can't even know it actually happened by your logic. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"You are being illogical" - talking to yourself? I won't repeat myself 10 times. Please only talk if you really have something to say. Squash Racket (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeating because you obviously don't get it. I posted you reliable sources. Please debate to the point and argument, these empty attacks are utterly counter-productive. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Racket. I see your point but this is childlish. --EllsworthSK (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Location

Racket, could you please explain how the discussion about the location of THIS BATTLE belongs into article about Bratislava? The section clearly stated that the location is not known and that there are varying opinions among the scholars. Who are you to censor it altogether? Reliable sources state something and you keep deleting it and pushing your POV. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the location of the battle remains UNKNOWN, you want to force in a debate on the location of Brezalauspurc although it belongs into Pozsony, not here. We already added what most scholars assume about the location of the battle.

Further speculation based on an unreliable primary source compiled centuries after the battle won't give any new info on the facts, and overemphasizes something that has little to do with this article's topic.

I won't repeat myself twenty times in case you try with the above trick again. Squash Racket (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

First off - you are not the one who decides whether a primary source is reliable or not, it's the experts. And even if they concur you opinion, you have to include it into the article. Your exclusion is WP:OR, pure and simple.

Second - why does Brezalauspurc belong to article about Bratislava?! Brezalauspurc MAYBE was Bratislava and maybe something else. But it was DEFINITELY the location of the battle. That we do not know where to place is another story, but we KNOW that the battle happened at SOMETHING called Brezalauspurc then, WHEREVER it may have been. You are turning the whole thing upside down. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Experts decided that the Annals of Salzburg (compiled centuries after the battle) wasn't reliable, not me.

Only the unreliable primary source claims the battle took place in Brezalauspurc, but what counts here is what the majority of TODAY'S SECONDARY REFERENCE WORKS say:

• the exact location is unknown
• most scholars think it was east of Vienna, somewhere near where Pozsony is.

Whatever you would add, wouldn't clarify this anymore.

Info on Br. belongs into the Pozsony article while basically ALL sources deal with it in their Pozsony-related material. You deny that? The Transdanubia sentence in Bowlus' work is referenced to Imre Boba, whose views go well beyond the scope of this article. Squash Racket (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the LOCATION is unknown, that doesn't mean that the NAME of that location is unknown as well. It happened at Brezalauspurc, wherever the hell it was. Boba is disputing the claims, that Bratislava and Brezalauspurc are one and the same place, that's a discussion that at length belongs to a different article. The section, however, only sums up different views on where the battle actually took place and that's vital, not redundant in this article.

What is more, TODAY'S SECONDARY REFERENCE WORKS claim that:

• it happened at brezalauspurc
• we don't know where brezalauspurc was, it may have been bratislava or that balaton place. (see bowlus) Wladthemlat (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

According to most secondary works the battle happened somewhere east of Vienna, close to today's Pozsony. They don't mention Brez. at all when talking about the battle. Squash Racket (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please paste a quotation that proves your opinion, a quote from a book that sums it all like you just have. Otherwise its a WP:OR. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You realize that´s not truth, do you? Salzburg Annales are the only primary source we have and all secondary sources are drawing their informations from there and in Salzburg Annales is written that battle was fought at Brezalsupurc. I really don´t know what´s there to discuss. --EllsworthSK (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

According to most secondary works the battle happened somewhere east of Vienna, close to today's Pozsony. They don't mention Brez. at all when talking about the battle. (Repeat myself only when forced to.) Squash Racket (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please paste a quotation that proves your opinion, a quote from a book that sums it all like you just have. Otherwise its a WP:OR.Wladthemlat (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We check what most secondary works say, don't cite them one by one. According to most secondary works the battle happened somewhere east of Vienna, close to today's Pozsony. They don't mention Brez. at all when talking about the battle. As you very well know. Squash Racket (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources are in conflict, the wording "some claim this, some claim that" is standardly used. That's exactly how the section was worded. That some sources do not mention Brezalauspurc is no legitimate reason for deleting citations from other reliable sources that do mention it. To censor a significant amount of reliable sources based on your own research is WP:OR. Again - find me a reliable source that claims that majority of scholars ignore Brezalauspurc because the primary source is unreliable.Wladthemlat (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

But you only use Bowlus' work, who is referring to Imre Boba and his theory and that topic won't be covered in this article for sure. The majority of secondary works don't mention Brez. at all when talking about the battle. As you very well know.

It's a controversial topic tied to Pozsony, not this battle. Squash Racket (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please prove that majority of sources do not mention Brezalauspurc. Please prove, that they do so due to the unreliability of the primary source as you claim. Please find a wikipedia policy that legitimizes deletion of reliable source because some other sources do not reference the same places.

Brezalauspurc is connected with this battle only, that Boba disputes something is unrelated, Brezalauspurc is mentioned only once in primary sources - in connection with this battle, thus its place is here not in other articles. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You only use C. Bowlus' work, who is referring to Imre Boba and his theory and that topic won't be covered in this article for sure. The majority of secondary works don't mention Brez. at all when talking about the battle. As you very well know. (Tried Google Books for example?)

The primary source Annals of Salzburg was compiled two centuries after the battle based on who knows what. Controversial assumptions based on this unreliable source are dealt with in works/articles dealing with Pozsony, not this battle. Squash Racket (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, Annales of Salzburg are our only source claiming that this battle happened. So if you don't trust them that much, let's delete the whole article.

You are not the one who decides what is reliable or not, you have yet to provide a reliable source disputing the claims in Annales.

And for the last time - the battle was mentioned only once in primary sources and according to those sources it happened at Brezalauspurc. You simply have no rational argument supporting the exclusion of that information from this article.

And by the way - Bowlus uses Boba only partially. He operates with the term Brezalauspurc and then presents several theories that try to lacate it. He cites people supporting the claim that it was Bratislava, he cites Boba who disagrees. But the main reference is Brezalauspurc.

If I were to include Boba's claims only, you would be right, that would belong to the Bratislava article. However, I am including Bowlus's work, it's focus is on the battle, so you have no grounds. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP or any encyclopedia uses secondary works, NOT primary sources (like you do). If secondary works generally don't trust the Annals of Salzburg enough to mention Brez. (or the Annals themselves), then we will neither. Simple as that.
Boba's theory and its criticism doesn't belong in this article at all. This article has to present what the majority of secondary works say about this battle, and they say it was east of Vienna, somewhere where today Pozsony lies. The controversial issue of Brez. is generally being discussed in Pozsony-related material, probably because it belongs there. As you very well know. Squash Racket (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the whole debate right now. It's YOU who uses primary sources and the allusion to their unreliability, you have yet to provide a SINGLE secondary source that disregards Brezalauspurc due to the reasons you list.

Brezalauspurc is generally used in the context of this battle, see [8]

Bowlus's work is ABOUT THIS BATTLE not about Boba's theory, I don't know why you keep repeating absurd and unrelated claims. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP or any encyclopedia uses secondary works, NOT primary sources (like you do). If secondary works generally don't trust the Annals of Salzburg enough to mention Brez. (or the Annals themselves), then we will neither. Simple as that.
Boba's theory and its criticism doesn't belong in this article at all. This article has to present what the majority of secondary works say about this battle, and they say it was somewhere where today Pozsony lies. The controversial issue of Brez. is generally being discussed in Pozsony-related material, probably because it belongs there.
Your above link on Brez. shows Pozsony-related material (as I said above) mostly. Do you realize that even Bowlus states in the very same book that "in 907 Luitpold led his Bavarian contingents on to the vast landscape EAST OF VIENNA" as a FACT without any further explanation and without footnotes referring to Boba or anybody else? Squash Racket (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet he uses Brezalauspurc as the name of the place and the link provides plenty of sources that do just the same. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He cites Imre Boba and another work when mentioning Brez. Do you realize that even Bowlus states in the very same book that "in 907 Luitpold led his Bavarian contingents on to the vast landscape EAST OF VIENNA" as a FACT without any further explanation and without footnotes referring to Boba, primary sources compiled centuries after the battle or anybody else? Squash Racket (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He uses Brezalausprc as the name of the place as a FACT, he only disputes its exact location. I am fine with wording 'east of Vienna' being included, why do you delete the Brezalauspurc part? And you still have yet to provide a reliable source that disregards Brezalauspurc or Annales for the reasons you list. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, he mentions the controversial issue of Brez. citing other authors (see footnotes at those sentences).

Do you realize that even Bowlus states in the very same book that "in 907 Luitpold led his Bavarian contingents on to the vast landscape EAST OF VIENNA" as a FACT without any further explanation and without footnotes referring to Boba, primary sources compiled centuries after the battle or anybody else? Squash Racket (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He mentions Brezalauspurc referencing directly the Annales, the only controversial issue is its location. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He mentions Brez. directly referencing Imre Boba, he mentions "east of Vienna" without footnotes, as a FACT. Squash Racket (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just lying. Quote directly from Bowlus:

In 907 the Bavarian exercitus suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of the Hungarians. Unfortunately, the few sources roughly contemporary with this event contain no details which might give us a clue concerning the purpose of the campaign or the nature of the battle. 96 The source that is considered most reliable, the Annales Iuvavenses maximi, was discovered by Klebel in 1921, after there had already been much speculation concerning this encounter. 97 It reports tersely that there was a disastrous battle (bellum pessimum) near Brezalauspure on July 4, 907.

No Boba mentioned. Please note that he uses 'the source that is considered most reliable, the Annales Iuvavenses maximi,. What are you trying to argue here?Wladthemlat (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you just keep on lying and misleading. What exactly is that "97" at the end of the sentence? Do you realize that in his other book he similarly cited the Annales Iuvavenses from a work of Klebel? He didn't say a word on the Annals' reliability on Brez., a clearly controversial topic that has nothing to do in the article of this battle.

I don't care whether he cites Boba or Klebel or whoever on controversial topics, what still matters is what most secondary reference works say about this battle, not about Brez., a topic basically always discussed in Pozsony-related material, not in an article on a battle between Hungarians and Germans.

What Bowlus himself says is very clear: "in 907 Luitpold led his Bavarian contingents on to the vast landscape EAST OF VIENNA". No footnotes afterwards, no citation from others. Squash Racket (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He regards Iuvavenses as most reliable, and operates with the term accordingly. He references Klebel in the context of finding the annales, so it's you who's misleading. And even if he referenced anything on the topic it wouldn't make a difference. He regards Iuvavenses most reliable and Iuvavenses reference Brezalauspurc. Yes, he also describes the area as east of vienna, feel free to include it, just don't delete properly referenced expert work. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is you who is misleading. You cited a sentence with a footnote at the end claiming it has no footnote (a "direct quote"). And in the middle of that lie accused me of lying.

What still matters is what most secondary reference works say about this battle, not about Brez., a controversial topic basically always discussed in Pozsony-related material, not in an article on a battle between Hungarians and Germans.

What Bowlus himself says is very clear: "in 907 Luitpold led his Bavarian contingents on to the vast landscape EAST OF VIENNA". No footnotes afterwards, no citation from others, no controversy etc. Squash Racket (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never claimed he used no references, because that is a standard practice in the scientific circles and I really do not understand you demanding no references. It was a direct quote in the sense of "copied verbatim from his book". You claimed he references Boba, it's not true as you can see.

Moreover, I have provided you with a reliable source that considers the Annales Iuvavenses to be the most reliable source on the subject of this battle. You are claiming that they are unreliable but fail to provide any sources supporting your claims. Your position is WP:OR just as I claimed before. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Bowlus cites someone claiming it is considered to be most reliable, even though we only know two things in reality:

• it was compiled centuries after the battle
• it contains a controversial half-sentence on the whole battle

You claimed: "Quote directly from Bowlus", which is a lie (your harsh words come back to haunt you). I didn't demand "no references", please stop with the lying.

I did demand removing controversial material that needs to be discussed at Pozsony to really be discussed there. Brez., a controversial topic is basically always discussed in Pozsony-related material, not in an article on a battle between Hungarians and Germans. Squash Racket (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained what "Quote directly from Bowlus" means. You have provided no sources, just your opinions and OR. You keep claiming that the Annales are unreliable due to this, that and whatnot, but the experts disagree. And the expert opinion is what matters. There's really not much more to discuss here.Wladthemlat (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bowlus cites someone claiming it is considered to be most reliable, even though we only know two things in reality:

• it was compiled centuries after the battle
• it contains a controversial half-sentence on the whole battle

The majority of experts only say the battle was fought somewhere near where today Pozsony lies. As you very well know.

You claimed: "Quote directly from Bowlus". Not true.

I only demand removing controversial material that needs to be discussed at Pozsony to really be discussed there. Brez., a controversial topic is basically always discussed in Pozsony-related material, not in an article on a battle between Hungarians and Germans. Squash Racket (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection

This article has become the subject of a two-person edit war. Instead of blocking both parties, i've opted for a month of full protection. Please open a WP:Request for comment or post at a Wikiproject if anyone believes the issues here are so important that they justify edit-warring. It may be that there is simply no good solution for the name of the battle, but editors are expected to search for consensus, and not just keep reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Location pt.II

To sum the dispute up, I am for the inclusion of this section:

The precise location of this battle is not known.[3] The only contemporary source mentioning a location of the battle are the Annales Iuvavenses maximi (Annals of Salzburg), however, the reliability of these scripts is questionable as they only survived in fragments copied in 12th century.[4] They state that the battle took place in the vicinity of Brezalauspurc, the castle of Duke Brazlavo, located west of Lake Balaton.[5] Some interpretations equal Brezalauspurc with modern-day Bratislava while others claim that it was Urbs Paludarum - Brazlavo's burg near Lake Balaton in Pannonia.[6]'

into the article. It's a properly referenced, almost a verbatim copy from an expert book on the issue. You, Racket, are advocating its removal. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You said just above there wasn't much to discuss here AND you started a new section on the very same topic?

My suggestion:

The precise location of this battle is not known. Most sources say it was fought east of Vienna, somewhere where today Pozsony/Pressburg lies.

Anything more than this is Imre Boba's theory, short history of Pozsony, controversial half-sentence analysis, whatever.. In short: doesn't belong into this article on a battle fought between Hungarians and Germans. Squash Racket (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please prove that most sources use this formulation, please show where the reference to Annales Iuvavenses is in any way reference to some Imre Boba. I repeat the quote from the work by Bowlus - Franks, Moravians, and Magyars: The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788-907.

The source that is considered most reliable, the Annales Iuvavenses maximi, was discovered by Klebel in 1921, after there had already been much speculation concerning this encounter. 97 It reports tersely that there was a disastrous battle (bellum pessimum) near Brezalauspure on July 4, 907, in which Archbishop Theotmar of Salzburg, and his suffragans Uto of Freising and Zachary of Säben, died That is all. Although from other contemporary sources we learn that the margrave Liutpold and many other Bavarians also fell, the site of the battle is not mentioned in any of them. 98 Thus, Klebel's discovery seemed to settle the question of the location of the encounter.

[...] But did this decisive encounter between Hungarians and Bavarians really take place at Bratislava? Although Klebel was convinced that it did, he noted, "the name must have come from Brazlavo, a prince in Slavonia with whom Arnulf had been allied" 101 Thus, the name of this fortress was derived from the Frankish client on the Sava to whom Arnulf later gave the task of defending Pannonia cum urbe Paludarum (Moosburg/Zalavár). 102 Did this Slavonian prince also exercise command responsibilities north of the Danube, responsibilities that resulted in a burg being named after him? Another possibility is that Brezalauspurc was not Bratislava after all, but the urbs Paludarum, Brazlavo's burg near Lake Balaton in Pannonia."

97. Klebel, "Eine neuaufgefundene Salzburger Geschichtsquelle"136.

98. Reindel, Die bayerischen Liutpoldinger5960.

99. Klebel, "Eine neuaufgefundene Salzburger Geschichtsquelle"136 n. 115. For other arguments see Boba, "Braslavespurc", 10.

100. Wolfram, Die Geburt. 308.

101. Klebel, "Eine neuaufgefundene Salzburger Geschichtsquelle", 136.

102. Annales Fuldenses, a. 884, p. 113; a. 896, p. 130.

Wladthemlat (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't "prove" what most sources say, because I'm not talking to a bot, but to a human editor who has checked enough references himself (or at least Google Books).

Why exactly did you start a new section when you keep repeating the same as above only more hysterically?

The "most reliable" Annals of Salzburg:

• it was compiled centuries after the battle, it can be hardly seen as contemporary
• it contains a controversial half-sentence on the whole battle

If we go into any details on Brez., we have Imre Boba's theory (with whom I don't have a single problem, but whose theory does NOT belong into this article at all).

Details about the battle of 907 are known from a five hundred word description by historian Aventinus (1477-1534) in his Latin Annales Boiorum (written 1517-1521). The Annals of Salzburg praised by you contains a controversial half-sentence on this battle AND it isn't an important source of info on this battle.

So regarding the location of the battle we will simply follow the usage of most secondary works, who mostly say east of Vienna, somewhere near Pressburg/Pozsony/Bratislava. Probably they don't mention the Annals of Salzburg, because their conclusions regarding the location are simply not based on it. Again: WP uses relevant, secondary works, not primary sources. We won't include Brez. stuff, because it belongs into Pozsony article and goes well beyond the scope of this article. Squash Racket (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between references not using a certain word (with the reasons not being clarified) and references disregarding a certain primary source because of the reasons you present. The burden of proof lies on you, I did my part. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

One more small little thing: "Another possibility is that Brezalauspurc was not Bratislava after all, but the urbs Paludarum, Brazlavo's burg near Lake Balaton in Pannonia." Isn't it a great source of fun that the exact same key piece of info is referenced to Imre Boba in Bowlus' other book? You know, whose theory we definitely don't want to include in this article with all its arguments? Did you or Bowlus forget the footnote this time? Squash Racket (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

For crying out loud, Racket I suggest you to re-read what you wrote on this page and if you won´t feel stupid than I have no words for you. You are attempting to remove sourced material - Brezlaspurch - of the location of the battle which is accepted by most of the modern-day scholars because you cannot comprehend such thing as that there is more than one source and one theory regarding the place of the battle. This is beyond man comprehension and I suggest to use such a wonderful tool as WP:3O because this is clearly getting nowhere. --EllsworthSK (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

For crying out loud, Ellsworth, if you already feel stupid (your words) just by reading, then please don't participate.

In a nutshell:

• Brezalauspurc (or Braslavespruch?) with all its controversy belongs into the article about Pozsony as secondary works generally cover this topic there
• Imre Boba's theory belongs either into Pozsony or rather Great Moravia, not here

My suggestion regarding this article is simple:

The precise location of this battle is not known. Most sources say it was fought east of Vienna, somewhere where today Pozsony/Pressburg/Bratislava lies.

That's it. Squash Racket (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Your Third Opinion Request

Hello. This is a response to your recent request for a third opinion. The opinion offered here is not one that has any authority greater or more special than any participant's opinion here; it should not be considered a tiebreaker and does not count towards creating a sense of consensus; its purpose is merely to offer a fresh opinion from someone new to the situation.

Opinion. Technically, I shouldn't be providing a third opinion, as it's solely for disputes between two editors, and it looks like EllsworthSK makes three. But since the dispute's mostly between two singular points of view and mostly between two editors, I'll go ahead. Basically, my outsider non-expert take on this leans at the moment towards accepting Wladthemlat's leanings on this issue, if only because both of Squash Racket's suggested wordings are unspecific ("most sources" and "most secondary sources") whereas Wladthemlat's suggested wordings are apparently cited out the wazoo. For elaboration on this point, see Wikipedia:Words to watch#Unsupported attributions. In all honesty, though, given the nature of the knowledge required, I think the best way to resolve this would be to expand the scope of your dispute. Why not post to the main talk pages of any one of the three WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page, and/or establish a request for comment? I provide a link below that will help you set up such a RfC. Finally, as the final point of this outsider's opinion, if you want to achieve a consensus on this issue, you both need to talk a lot more kindly to one another. Looking over the history of this dispute, you started out sniping at each other and it hasn't improved over the course of this discussion thus far. Stop the trend in its tracks and try getting this discussion oriented in a direction that's more helpful to you both. Anyway, that's my 2¢.

Next up. The purpose of a third opinion is to provide a single third opinion from an objective outsider who has no investment in an existing disagreement between two users; it is not meant to provide an ongoing mediation process. Mediation is available on Wikipedia from volunteer mediators, but not from third opinion volunteers.

Hopefully, my opinion has been of use. However, if the parties are still unable to resolve their differences, I suggest you proceed further into the dispute resolution process. Your options include a request for comment, noticeboard post, WikiProject post, wikiquette alert, or a request for either informal or formal mediation. Each of the links in that sentence should take you to a place where you can begin said process, although I suggest you begin small and work upwards.

If, despite this response and despite the limited role of a third-opinion provider, you feel further assistance is still needed, please indicate here your concerns, and then alert me to the need for further follow-up by clicking here to notify me on my talk page. (I may not have this page on my watchlist.) I will then post the requested follow-up here on this page. I suggest it be done this way to avoid ex parte discussions, or, more candidly, to prevent disagreements from migrating to my talk page. :) WCityMike 00:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: Talk ⇨ Editor assistance ⇨ Third opinion ⇨ Request for comment ⇨ Wikiquette ⇨ Mediation (informal) ⇨ Mediation (formal) ⇨ Arbitration

Copied here:
I used in my wording "most sources", because apparently that's the truth. (How many citations do you need for my version?)
W. tries to bring in a theory by Imre Boba, but it goes well beyond the scope of this article on a battle. The reference he uses doesn't really represent the general concensus on the topic (regarding the location of this battle). Most secondary sources do simply say it was fought somewhere near where the city of Pozsony lies.
The topic "Brezalauspurc" is generally covered in articles/books/studies on Pozsony, not on the Battle of Pressburg. Especially if you also want to explain the theory of Imre Boba which is at this point covered in Great Moravia in a detailed way and we certainly don't want to repeat it in this article again. Squash Racket (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a mediator that needs to be convinced of your side for an ongoing discussion. It's a one-shot opinion from a neutral editor that doesn't even count towards consensus. If you find it of no value, then you move onwards in the dispute resolution process. Not to be unfriendly, but did you not see the part about keeping it off my talk page? WCityMike 14:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Myself, I have no problems with you transplanting this here, but for future wikiquette reference it's not a bad idea to ask someone first before transplanting something from their talk page. Editing the conversation, even to the point of removing things you might think inapplicable, is generally a fairly big-sized no-no, though. I've fixed that. WCityMike 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I removed only the last sentence of your comment adding a "(...)" sign to indicate that off-topic part was removed, because it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread here. I removed again my answer on that off-topic question, because it's similarly irrelevant here. Squash Racket (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of intentions, and I agree they seem to be good faith intentions, I'd repeat my suggestion that in the future you ask before transplanting something out of someone's user talk page, and especially that you not edit someone else's comments in the act of transplanting it. The former would be an act of courtesy, the latter has a stronger weight of expectation behind it. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. Thanks. WCityMike 19:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Did I really feel the need to ask for your permission after you had seemed to be irritated by having it on your talk page? Luckily I didn't cut&paste the relevant part, only copy&pasted it. Squash Racket (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, to have asked would've been a courtesy; it is not a policy or guideline. I don't really see the need to discuss this issue further. Do you? WCityMike 20:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Need for technical correction of the article's language

The article is full of linguistic inaccuracies and faulty grammar. For example, the author does not seem to be able to construct verb-tenses correctly. The linguistic inaccuracies lead to a lack of clarity in the narrative which obscures or confuses the sequence of the events described. Surely this should have been resolved before any attempt to interpret the content by those who are critiquing the article? Geoff Powers (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Strength of armies

60.000 on east Francian / German side? Isn´t it too high? Most armies of that time had been much smaller - escp. if it was mainly the bavarian army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.6.154.106 (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - a majority of editors would prefer to keep the article in the present location, with the understanding that the actual location of the battle can be discussed in the article and may not be Pressburg. I suspect that if a consensus of experts can be demonstrated then this may sway editors in a future discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Battle of Pressburg → Battle of Brezalauspurc – There are specialists of the history of the period who do not associate Brezalauspurc (as the venue of the battle mentioned in the primary source) with Pressburg, but with Mosaburg, consequently the present name contradicts WP:NPOV. (For further details, I refer to Bowlus, Charles R. (1994). Franks, Moravians and Magyars: The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788–907. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3276-3., and to Szőke, Béla Miklós (2014). The Carolingian Age in the Carpathian Basin. Hungarian National Museum. ISBN 978-615-5209-17-8.) Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NPOV. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Srnec (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, "Battle of Pressburg" is a more frequent variant. The vast majority of Hungarian, German and Slovak etc. historians identify the battle location with Pressburg/Pozsony, present-day Bratislava. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that specialists of this era (e.g. Bela Miklos Szoke) are very skeptical about the exact location of the battle. WP:COMMONNAME should NOT be applied in this case because it may be highly misleading. Instead, WP:NPOV should be the primary decision method. Anyway this battle is quite unknown in Western historiography. Contemporary or nearly contemporary sources state that the battle was fought at Brezalauspurc and do not mention Pressburg. The !modern! name of the battle is based on Aventinus's chronicle which was written about 600 years later. Aventinus's identification of Pressburg as the exact place of the battle is dubious.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose google search "battle of pressburg" "about 21,600 results" vs. "battle of Brezalauspurc" about 464 results. Use the common EN name. See also WP:NPOVTITLE, Non-neutral but common names.--Ditinili (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. If we search specifically for the historical event which is the subject of this article in books, the difference is not so huge: Battle of Pressburg: [9], and Battle of Brezalauspurc: [10]. Consequently, WP:NPOVTITLE does not contradict the proposal. Furthermore, we should not decide where the battle was fought if specialists cannot decide it. Borsoka (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your second query ([11]) returned me only 5 results. Only 2 are English (1. "Heritage of Scribes: The Relation of Rovas Scripts to Eurasian Writing System" - there is a short note/reference to Szoke, 2. "Reflecting on America's First Black President" (???), 3. "Magyar államalapítások a IX - XI. században:...", 4. Levedi törzsszövetségétől Szent István államáig 5. A Magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról: kortársak és krónikások ...). --Ditinili (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

And the first query is quite similar. A book dedicated to the history of the region in the period, which writes of Battle of "Pressburg" (between apostrophes!), two books dedicated to the history of Hungary and many Wikipedia publications. We can still conclude that the name of the battle is not so clear in recently published reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka, if you mean your first query, I got a little bit different result (6 vs. 2). Google ""battle of pressburg" -wikipedia (excluding wikipedia): 14,8000, "battle of brezalauspurc" -wikipedia: 454. Google books: 165 vs 35, curiously "Battle of Bratislava in 907" is more frequent term (73). --Ditinili (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe, because the "battle", "of" and "Pressburg" words can quite frequently be used in the same books, without referring to this event. Borsoka (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No, because the whole string is in quotation marks.--Ditinili (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• If my understanding is correct, you say that there are almost 15,000 books published in English mentioning this specific battle. Are you kidding? Borsoka (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid that your understanding is not correct. You do not distinguish between google and google books hits.--Ditinili (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I see, you have not referred to reliable sources. Sorry, but in this case your query is not relevant. Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka (talk), the test is relevant. The terms "the battle of pressburg", "the battle of bratislava", "the battle of brezalauspurc" are used in EN sources, including scientific works. The last one (your proposal) is used the least frequently according to search engine test - both for google search and for google books search (excluding wikipedia).--Ditinili (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Please, read my proposal. I proposed the new name, because it is neutral (and it is also frequently used, especially in books dedicated to the history of the region in the period). Sorry, I think our conversation reached a point that there is no point in continuing it. We should allow other editors to understand the issue and to decide without reading lengthy and boring discussions. Borsoka (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm just hoping that our decision won't be based on "Google search" or "Google Books hits". Fakirbakir (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka, I read your proposal. I simply suggest to use the most common EN name. Unfortunatelly, the "battle of brezalauspurc" is the least common name. You suggested to use the least common EN name, because there is a group of historians who suggested alternative localization. However, you did not mention that this alternative opinion (i.e. Boba, Bowlus, Szoke) is opposed by most of historians (incuding HU histotorians, what is mentioned also by HU WP). It means that the current lead violates WP:WEIGHT and should be fixed. Similarly, all other wikipedias use simply "battle of pressburg" or "battle of bratislava", including HU WP.

Fakirbakir, it´s a standard quick test how to compare and evaluate frequency in sources and repeatedly used also in other discussions. Surely, not perfect but better than personal opinions about frequency.--Ditinili (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support as the historiography in this period are often raise debates of accuracy - the term Pannonia and exactly what territory it would entirely cover then, or Svatopluk's original name or identity I recall instantly - so if it serves neutrality, yes...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC))

• Oppose per Ditinili's sources. The name of a battle is only that - a name, it isn't necessarily "accurate". The article can discuss that the battle might have occurred nowhere near Pressburg/Bratislava. Classic example: the Battle of Tannenberg did not take place particularly close to Tannenberg, but it was named that anyway. Very little of the Battle of Bunker Hill took place on Bunker Hill. And so forth. Nevertheless, they're the names that stuck. SnowFire (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral Support, for mainly for reasons that have already been stated above (especially NPOV). "Pressburg" sounds to me like what some English-speaking person heard when they were told "Brezalauspurc". Didn't read the German name. Anyway, I think anyone trying to invoke WP:COMMONNAME should also consider that the battle isn't as important to English-speaking countries as to others. Iamnotabunny (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Iamnotabunny: FWIW, it sounds like there's some confusion about the argument here. If we decided that Slovakian sources or Austrian sources or Hungarian sources should be used, then the move request would probably be to Battle of... {Bratislava / Pressburg / Pozsony}. This request is suggesting a move to the "more accurate" Brezalauspurc despite not always being how the battle is referred to in the sources. (Note that in fairness, the two sources the nominator mentions in the opening argument do appear to preferentially use just Brezalauspurc, but I don't get the impression they're the majority personally.) SnowFire (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't know enough about this battle to make a judgement, therefore I am withdrawing my vote. Iamnotabunny (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@SnowFire:, I think you also misunderstand the issue, because there is no clear majority in specialized works. Please read my lists above. Borsoka (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(de-indent) Fair, but if there's no clear majority, then article title stability says to just keep it here, or use the "popular" name as a tiebreaker, IMO. SnowFire (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ditinili:, would you show your lists verifying that specialized literature predominantly use the present name? Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAMES. If there is debate about the location of the battle, that can be dealt with in the text of the article, not by moving the article to an uncommon, even astonishing title. "Pressburg" has not been used for a city in English for a century, so it's not like the title is particularly evocative of any modern place. —  AjaxSmack  03:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.