Talk:Great Moravia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Survival of the Great Moravian nobility?

The survival of the Great Moravian nobility is a fact in the current version of the article. As far as I know, none of the early noble families preserved a tradition that it descended from Moravians, although each of them had its on tradition documented in medieval chronicles in the 13-15th centuries. Some of them remembered their descence from Magyar chieftains, while others (e.g., the descendants of the brothers Hont and Pázmány) immigrated from the Holy Roman Empire. What are the sources we use when stating that the Great Moravian nobility survived the fall of the empire? Just for clarification, I do not deny that plenty of the members of the nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary spoke the proto-Slovak as native speaker. I only express my doubts about the survival of the Great Moravian nobility. Borsoka (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Two academic sources are cited in that sentence. Havlik's chapter in an edited volume is in English; Lukacka's book is unfortunately available only in Slovak, as far as I know. The evidence ranges from an analysis of names (early Hunts and Poznans has almost exclusively Slavic first names) to archaeological evidence (no trace of violent conquest in many regional centers around the time when they were incorporated into the new Hungarian state). Tankred (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on this rather old comment by an uninvolved editor at the relevant talk page it seems possible that Lukacka mixed a Slavic family called Poznans with the Patzmann/Pázmány nobles from the Holy Roman Empire. Squash Racket (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the evidence (analysis of the names) should be mentioned in the text. Remember that several members of the Árpád dynasty also had Slavic names (Béla, László). As far as I can remember, famous members of the gens Hont-Pázmány were Patzmann (German name), Lampert (German name) and Alexander (Greek name). Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have some disagreement in the literature here. In the article on Poznans, all the relevant points of view are mentioned. If there are any reliable academic sources arguing that no Great Moravian aristocracy survived the fall of the empire, they should be added to this article along with the ones arguing the opposite. Tankred (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some examples should be mentioned in the text, otherwise it does not provide information ("some"). Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

For example:

Bratislava Castle, whose identification as a Great Moravian Castle is under debate The contemporary name (Brezalauspurc) of the castle literally means "Braslav's Castle" and Braslav of Pannonia was a count appointed by King Arnulf of East Francia not by any ruler of Great Moravia.

Why were these removed? Squash Racket (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sclavonia was also the Latin designation for generally Slavic lands." Can't find this information now.

Therefore, it is not surprising that many Slavic words related to politics, law, and agriculture were taken into the Hungarian language. The words in italics are original research or the reference actually said that?
We can find this sentence twice in the text BTW. Squash Racket (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit is "clarification"? The part was quite easy to understand before it.
The rest remained under the rule of the local Slavic aristocracy? Really? The (Slavic?) aristocracy was under the rule of the King, weren't they? Squash Racket (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava: It was not removed. I will quote from the present version: "The castle's name was first recorded in 907, during the fall of Great Moravia, as ''Brezalauspurc''.<ref name='Kristó'>{{cite book | last = Kristó | first = Gyula (editor)| authorlink = | coauthors = | title = A Kárpát-medence és a magyarság régmultja (1301-ig) | publisher = Szegedi Középkorász Műhely | date = 1993 | location = Szeged | pages = | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 963 04 2914 4}}</ref> This name literally means "Braslav's Castle" and [[Braslav of Pannonia]] was a count appointed by King [[Arnulf of Carinthia|Arnulf]] of East Francia.<ref name='Kristó'/>" As far as I understood the discussion on this talk page, the apparent disagreement between the cited sources is illusory because Bratislava could well be a Great Moravian castle under Svatopluk I and then Braslav's castle in 907.

Sclavonia is already discussed several times in the article. Let me quote again: 'Great Moravia was often mentioned as Sclavonia in the primary sources and this denomination may have survived the fall of the empire in the name of Slavonia (a territory south of the Danube) till the 20th century. But the same Latin name also referred to Slovakia and those parts of northern Hungary that were inhabited by Slavs.' 'The inhabitants of Great Moravia were designated Slovene, which is an old Slavic word meaning the "Slavs". The same name was used by the ancestors of Slovaks, Slovenes and Slavonians at that time and the present-day native names of these nations (for example Slovensko, the Slovak name of Slovakia) are still derived from the root Slovene.'

The words that you highlighted is a paraphrase of what the two cited sources really say. It is no original research. Loanwords are put in those text into a broader context in the same way as in this article.

If you follow our discussion with Borsoka, you will find that the linked edit is really a clarification of the previously problematic wording.

As to the aristocracy, no they were not under the rule of a king yet.

Cheers. Tankred (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava Castle, whose identification as a Great Moravian Castle is under debate Well, that info was removed, it is not in the cited parts in your comment.

"Sclavonia was also the Latin designation for generally Slavic lands." Sclavonia is mentioned in the cited parts of the text, but this general definition is missing now.

"Therefore it is not surprising" regarding loanwords is a pretty strong statement for such a vague theory, so some other sources should be cited to balance it a bit. But that's not your problem.

The aristocracy rebelled against the King sometimes, that doesn't mean they were independent rulers. But also for that references needed of course. Squash Racket (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

Two academic sources say the name was actually "Megale Moravia" meaning Old Moravia, not Great Moravia. I think this is worth mentioning. Squash Racket (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in two reliable references at least, one of them is an English language, academic reference from Medieval Academy of America available online, so I added it. Squash Racket (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finding these two citations. I hope you would not mind that I moved them into the Names section, where there already was another citation for the same statement. The Name section discusses different interpretations of the name in detail, so the citations belong there. I also think the lead should just list the most common names in English sources. Otherwise, we would create a clutter in the first sentence of the article. Moreover, it is difficult to choose which of three well-sourced interpretations from the Name section should be mentioned in the lead. Tankred (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are both doing great, and I am very pleased with how this article is growing and everyone is working together in (relative) harmony.  :) Also, just as a suggestion, you don't necessarily have to follow the WP:NCGN guideline to the letter if you have consensus that another solution is better. For an example, see Jogaila, where the man had so many names that it caused endless wrangling. The solution that those editors came up with was to use a footnote on the main article, and link to a separate page: Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiello): names and titles. Which doesn't mean that you have to do it that way, but I am pointing it out to indicate that you are free to come up with a creative solution, if that is what you think works best. --Elonka 18:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Appanage system

In connection of the appanage system, the article contains the following statements:

• "During Rastislav's reign, the Principality of Nitra was given to his nephew Svatopluk as an appanage"
• "The heir of the dynasty resided in Nitra, ruling the Principality of Nitra as an appanage."
• "Nitra, the second center of the Empire, was ruled autonomously by the heir of the dynasty as an appanage."
• "These territories were ruled autonomously by members of the Árpád dynasty residing in Nitra - a practice reminiscent of the Great Moravian appanage system, but also similar to that of some other dynasties in the Early Middle Ages (e.g., the Ruriks in the Kievan Rus')."

In the article Principality of Nitra, one can find the following remarks:

• "The "Principality of Nitra" also became part of Great Moravia, but was usually conceded in appanage to the heir to the throne"
• "During the reign of Rastislav, Svätopluk I appears as the "Prince of Nitra" (c. 850-870) and as the appanage prince of Nitra from 867 until 870"
• "This system of establishing a "secondary" ruler in Nitra (turned into an appanage system by 867) was devised to make defense against Frankish incursions more efficient."

My understanding is that, the only heir to the Great Moravian throne who ruled Nitra in appanage was Svatopluk I. One of the other presumed prince of Nitra (Mojmír I) was, at the same time, prince of Moravia (therefore, he was not the heir to the throne), the other (Svatopluk II) was brother of the king of Moravia (therefore, he may have heir to the throen), while Moimír II (heir presumptive of Svatopluk I) is not mentioned as Prince of Nitra. If my understanding is correct, can we presume an appanage system under which Nitra was conceded in appanage to the heir to the throne?

The article Principality of Nitra differentiate between prince of Nitra and appanage prince of Nitra, and it states that the system of a second ruler in Nitra turned into an appanage system. I really do no understand the meaning of the sentences (even before edition). Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations are provided in the text. My personal opinion is that you are right and this standard interpretation makes a couple of assumptions that can hardly be confirmed or falsified. Svatopluk I and Svatopluk II are mentioned as princes of Nitra and they were heirs to the throne. Rastislav and Mojmir II were also heirs, but I do not know any primary source calling them princes of Nitra. On the other hand, the number of the surviving primary sources on Great Moravia is low and they were mostly written by foreigners, far from Great Moravia. The appanage system was interesting to Frankish chroniclers only when a heir revolted against the ruler (the case of Svatopluk I and Svatopluk II). There are large gaps in primary sources and historians fill them by archaeological findings (proving Nitra as the second center of Great Moravia) and comparison to other elements of written sources (Nitra as the only bishopric known by name). In order to avoid original research (i.e. our own interpretation of primary sources), the article reflects the way how the primary sources are interpreted by the cited mainstream secondary sources. I also know secondary sources claiming that Nitra was the capital of Great Moravia, but I do not wish to cite them in this article because it is considered to be fringe science by mainstream historians. If you know reliable academic sources arguing that no appanage system existed in Great Moravia, please bring them forward. Tankred (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that it cannot be understood. The situation is familiar for me; therefore, I accept it as a fact proving that facts of history are changing by nature. Borsoka (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this diletantism, both of you. You obviously do not have enough knowledge, the fact that YOU cannot find the primary sources, is no proof for anything. Just copy down what secondary souces claim and do not destroy this article even more; it is a huge mess already now. As for the appanage system: actually the principality of Nitra was far more than that, under Svatopluk it was more or less an independent state, but probably a vasal to Moravia. A good proof are papal letters addressed to this region, which the pope writes to Rastislav, Svatoluk and Kocel, treating them as three equal rulers. There are many such subtle things you just cannot know, especially when I look at the sources stated in the article which are mostly outdated and not the primary scholarly books that should be used nowadays. So please just stop these ridiculous guesses, speculations, fillings of gaps (which are your personal gaps as a result of lacking knowledge) and original research. The article has no value in this form, it would make more sense to make it much shorter, if you are unable to acquire and cite the relevant sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.12.89 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the above anon has been blocked for one week. --Elonka 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Romantic nationalism

Try to use the right expressions; romantic nationalism can occur only in existing countries not amongst ethnic groups without a state. Amonst them, it is called nationalism and separatism. Slovak separatist movement was fueled by the Pan-Slavism wich itself had a boosting impact on slavic nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.134.179 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anon, your remark looks like original researches. I think you should finde a reliable source to support it. Ez a szabály (this is the rule). Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

82.131.134.179, I do not know why you confound the romantic nationalism with the state nationalism, but I am afraid you are wrong. Other prominent examples of romantic nationalism of groups without a state was Norway, Scotland, and Finland. The most prominent example of romantic nationalism was the German one before the unification - at the period when Germany was divided into a great number of small states that were not nation-states. Your claim that pan-Slavism somehow used Great Moravia is unsourced and surprising. I am really interested in reading any reliable academic sources you can cite in this context. Tankred (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Name in the lead

As the correct name itself is disputed by scholars I left there only the most widely used version and a link to the Name section. To avoid the clutter, and also to avoid overemphasizing a possibly wrong name. Squash Racket (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. Tankred (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't "feel free" to start reverting over that, but the name section describes the controversies too, not just the origin and the meaning of the name Great Moravia (as the text in parentheses now suggests). In fact, the correctness of the phrase Great Moravia itself is also questioned there. Squash Racket (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought it would make sense for a reader to know why there is a link to the name section. But I do not insist on my wording. I am fine with returning to your shorter version (but with "Great" instead of "Great(er)" for aesthetic reasons and also because the "Greater" variant is now mentioned in the name section). Tankred (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would makes sense to explain why there is a link, but if you mention all the reasons (including controversy over the name itself) it would create another clutter. Squash Racket (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I think that the article is not bad at all, but it may be problematic to use mainly the Frankish and Byzantinese sources, because chronicles of this two states (empires) were partly propaganda (especially Franks as the enemies of all surrounding nations were not interested in writing objective facts).

From the sources of this article I would recommend Lubomir Havlik (Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici I.-V., Kronika o Velke Morave)- who is real historician and objective author.

Some of the facts written in this article are little bit controversial, for example- the capital of the Great Moravia was called Veligrad (nowaday's Velehrad), it's located in southern Moravia and it's the most important pilgrimage destination in Moravia. The theory about the Magna Slovakia was invented in 20th century to rise the self-confidence of Slovak people (even there were no 'Slovaks' in 9th century). But I think that they don't need to conceive some fabricated history to be proud on themselves. The fact that they saved their slavic language for one thousand years under the Hungarian rule is (for me) extraordinary thing.

Despite the fact there are mistakes unpleasant for historians (who doesn't make them) this article is quite good piece of work. Thank's for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medricak (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks

Reading that the Czech, the Moravian and the Slovak languages are the same is really interesting, because other articles of Wikipedia contains reference to the distinctive features of the Slovak language already in the 8th century, but I think proper citations should be made, otherwise the sentences would qualify original research. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lukacka

Lukacka's theories of the survival of the Great Moravian nobility are cited several times in the article, but the following two statements he made have not been mentioned:

• "The process of feudalization in Great Moravia was obviously not a general fenomenon but it cannot be denied especially during its highest flourishment during the reign of King Svätopluk."
• "Although no relevant historical source has been retained which would prove the existence of the so called hereditary aristocracy from the period of Great Moravia, but written sources suggest the existence of duke's retinue and aristocracy, the members of which were the most important dignitaries and administrators (representatives) of the castle organization."

I think the two above sentences are remarkable from the point of the survival of the (seemingly never-existing) Great Moravian aristocracy - without the two sentences the article would be misleading. Unfortunatelly I cannot read Slovakian and therefore, I have to use sources available in English. Summarizing, I think the two sentences (written by the "father" of the Great Moravian aristocracy) are useful and necessary. Borsoka (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"I can't read Slovak" and "I think they are remarkable" are not good enough reasons to use a throwaway website in a GA as a reliable source. You don't have to use sources available in English, you have to use reliable ones.

I added the proper tags, please don't delete them or present real references. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, it is fully in line with our policies if Lukacka's sentences mentioning the survival of the Great Moravian nobility are copied into the article, provided that a book is referred, but no reference can be made to his views that there is no reliable source of his theory if these views are expressed in one of his articles. My concern is that at an earlier stage, the article qualified GA although it mentioned that the Bavarian Geographer (not later historians based on his work!) referred to 30 cities in Slovakia; or that Constantinos Porphyrogennetos located Great Moravia to the northern parts of the Carpathian Basian (which looks a false statement). If the article refers to the survival of the Great Moravian nobility based on Lukacka's work, I think that it should also refer to the fact that Lukacka has not found any relevant historical source on which his theory is based. Nevertheless, the tag is OK for me, I hope that he mentioned his views also in his books.Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The website doesn't take responsibility for the material. You seem to take it for granted that the author actually wrote that. The other weak references of the article are no excuse. Squash Racket (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because Slovakian editors referred to this website when editing other articles (e.g., earlier versions of Hunt family). 213.134.24.197 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unification of Moravia and Nitria

Having read some books on the subject, I feel that the theory that "Great" Moravia was created by the unification of the "Principality of Moravia" and the "Principality of Nitra" is followed exclusively by Czech and Slovak authors. Other authors (Bradford, Kristó) describes the formation of "Great" Moravia as a continouos expansion of Moravia among the smaller Slavic tribes living on the adjacent territories. I think that the article still follows the Czechoslovak idea (two states, two capitals), may be it needs some modification. Borsoka (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The only certain thing for this issue that nothing is sure. 180 grade turn is always in. GM was even in mid Austria. Politically the whole topic is misused. Try to follow the original sources (Fulda Annals, Royal Frankish Annals, Conversion of Bavarians and Carantans, Fredegar Chapter IV, etc). Further the Slavs were that time much less different, Slovaks were also unified some 200 years ago (refer to their strongly watched article history of Slovak from at least 3 languages. I would also curious, why Szepes county was settled by Germans/Zipsers and why you have in Amjou diplomas (Szeged I-23 volumes) you have (Hungarian!) and German but no Slavic names. It does not refer to dense population. Further there were Vlachs/Romanians also in the today SK till 16th century. It seems that tax free settlement was needed. Very far more Hungarian "honfoglalas" also suspicious, with lots of Turkish names (Arpad, Almos, Cupa(n), Toksun/Taksony, etc, maybe 895 a Turkish nomad group entered as ruling class on Finno-Ugric population existing alsready there (like Bulgaria, Lombardia, Francia, Rus, Normans). Slavs on the other hand were also in Transylvania (names Tarnava=Küküllü, Krakko-village like Cracow, Hortobagy, Bistrica/Beszterce, and the famous Dacian cities Gradistea, Belgrad/Gyulafehervar where the Latin name somehow continued into Slavic in the today Romanian) where you have no reference for them in diplomas of Hungary. More, see census of 1920, 48% of SK was non-Slovene (apart HU, Russin - close language, also without distinct history easy to assimilate). So I think there is a lot ground to new theories, do not belive historians...

--Vargatamas (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is probably important for readers interested in serious scholarship that in reality, the situation of (Great) Moravia is not disputed among serious scholars in any country of the world, including in my country Hungary. There are virtually ten thousands of articles/books treating Great Moravia as situated around the Morava river in what is today the Czech Republic, Austria and Slovakia, and only around maybe 6 (3 of which copied from 3 initial authors) - compared to thousand other authors - have invented new localisations, all of which however have been (easily) refuted many time on many grounds, e.g.

• by looking at the written sources (attacks on Moravia are usually mentioned to be conducted through Bohemia, to name one simple example of many)
• by looking at the fact that the cities mentioned by name are Brezalauspurc (i.e. Pressburg, today Bratislava), Dowina (today Devín) and Nitra (Nitra is guess what today - Nitra !) in the region and maybe Uzhorod - all of which happen to be exactly among most important castles in the history after 900 and look at any map where those settlements are situated
• most importantly: archaelogy - there is no archaelogical support for a localisation of the core of the state in Hungary or Serbia and by contrast archeological finds perfectly confirm the centers around Nitra and Mikulčice
• the fact that history of the southern Morava region is known for that time from other sources and the persons there have nothing to do with those described for Great Morava.

In addition, all the 3 authors have been proven to be ignorant of fundamental rules of Slavic linguistics, Slavic sources and one of them has been even proven not to know Latin properly. For Hungarian authors, the issue is also complicated by our "tradition" to try to diminish Romanian, Slovak and generally Slavic history, a tradition which has seen a renaissance after 1990. The fact that some contributor here above claims that a 1920 census has something to do with the 9th century shows, what kind of "experts" are editing this article. And I wonder, why no other than Hungarian editors are editing or discussing about an article not concering Hungary, which itself shows that the intents are more political than encyclopedic.

In sum, the aricle in its current state creates the wrong impression that there are opinions that could be considered as serious alternatives for the localisation of Great Moravia, which is definitely wrong. That would be like claiming that alien abductions are a serious alternative for the explanation of population decreases in some regions. Those three authors are only worth a footnote, at best. Therefore for those interested in the topic I recommend not to read this article, but any standard European, including Hungarian, reference. And when looking at the last contributions in the discussion, it is also advidable to ignore this discussion. I guess the problem of this article is that it is a rare topic, which attracts various representatives of fring opinions, I do not know how such problems are handled in this project - probably not at all. Farkasgyörgy (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are really Hungarian and as you seem to be an expert on that topic, you probably know the Hungarian Academy of Sciences criticizes many things regarding the "situation of Great Moravia", starting with the name, but also its importance, its size etc. Squash Racket (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that he/she is Slovakian (Uzhgorod) and he/she cannot read the works of Hungarian academic scholars written in Hungarian. Otherwise, she/he would have realised that there is no tendency in Hungarian scholarly works to diminish the role Slavic peoples played in our history. Interestingly, the latest edits he/she plausibly claim to be diminishing the role of "Great" Moravia were based exclusivelly on works written by an English and a Roumanian author. But his/her effort is really funny, Dear "Farkasgyörgy" (or Juro?), welcome to the community of Hungarian editors. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most of the modern scholars follow the theory that Great Moravia was situated on the northern territories of the Carpathian Basian. However, several of them (Florin Curta, P. M. Barford) mention the alternative theory even they do not follow it; therefore, I think the theory should be mentioned. An interesting issue, that e.g., Curta admits that the Annals of Fulda describes a Moravia south of the Danube, but he think that the author of the primary source lived far away from the country. It is also interesting that the only primary source that mentions "Great" Moravia or Svatopluk's Moravia (i.e., De administrando imperio) clearly locates it to the southern part of the Carpathian Basin (and its author wrote his work only 50 years after the collapse of the country). Moreover, if a modern scholar is cited, the citation should not be misleading. E.g., Curta only mentions one of the sources Boba used, and the former text of the article suggested that he disproved all the statements of Boba. If one reads the literature regarding "Great" Moravia, he/she will find that "Nitra", "Devin" and "Bratislava" were not mentioned in the primary sources, because they used "Nitrava", "Dowina" and "Bretaslauspurc"; and there are more than 3 scholars who think that following lingustic rules the latter's modern name would not be "Nitra" or "Devin". Therefore, I think facts are not so clear in history as we tend to accept. However, I agree that mainstream history should be followed at its latest phase. Borsoka (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Farkasgyörgy, this article is quite jumbled, it is not a "good article". Check some basic printed reference for better information about Great Moravia. Before these Hungarian guys this article was a playground for Slovak nationalists...I guess that is a fate of obscure topics on Wikipedia.--213.220.211.183 (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are those problems still there? It is obvious, that Hungarian nationalists want to destroy any evidence of possible pre-slovak state. And is normal, that Slovak nationalist want to create this state. I don't realy trust Hungarians in there. Their nationalism is too great to make any good interpretations. It is something like global warning, they wish and change the facts to make it happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.154.1 (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Dear IP, would you explain what did you refer to? I think there is nothing to do with Hungarian or Slovak nationalists, and nothing is a case of faith or trust. I think we all should follow our community's policies (reliable sources, neutrality, etc.), and in this way we all could avoid that even the 'greatest Hungarian nationalists' destroy an article. Nevertheless, all the relevant facts can and should be presented in an article - for example, if there is no primary source mentioning a certain "Principality of Nitra" and therefore there is no record of this principality's unification with the "Principality of Moravia" (which is claimed to have resulted in the creation of "Great Moravia"), this is a relevant fact, and it is not a fact of nationalism, chauvinism or something similar approach. Borsoka (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)