Talk:Great Moravia/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

All of the article is a tale from a never existed realm. Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 10:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No indications to support this. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 10:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is a tale being without foundation. Removing the themplate is possible if the article will be withdrawn from the history of Hungary, history of Slovakia, history of Vojvodina, and history of Croatia categories! Do you understand otec Tankred? Nmate (talk • contribs)

There are no "ifs" here, you cannot undermine further actions by removing some page from categories. Also strictly avoid personal attacks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian sources dispute the existence of the realm or it is not possible to define its accurate borders. This article disputes the existence of the realm for example and that Zalavár would have been the part of the realm. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmate (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The source you provide is unreliable, I hope I won't have to translate it for you. Bring reliable sources please.

Also take a look at

this. Squash Racket (talk

) 15:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Other sources:[2][3][4] [5][6]. Nmate (talk)

These are better, you see. Read and learn how to cite sources. You can insert new information into the text preferably with in-line citations if the source is reliable.

Some criticism is valid here, even Slovak historians question Great Moravia having anything to do with today's Slovaks. Squash Racket (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am pasting this text in the Talk, so the info could be used in the article:

(text removed)

Galassi (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the above text, because it is a potential copyright violation to simply paste in someone else's article to Wikipedia. If anyone still wants to read the article, it is available at other locations, such as here and here. --Elonka 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to find any primary sources that mentioned the Principality of Nitria, but I have failed. The Conversio Baoariorum et Carantanorum mentioned that Pribina had a possession, called Nitrava, but it did not refer to any principality. Moreover, Pribina was never mentioned as prince. Could anybody cite any primary source to prove that the Principality of Nitria existed? I would be deeply greatful. Borsoka (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All I may suggest is to wait for user:Tankred, as he can tell more about this. Unfortunately, he is away, and will return in a week's time. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 20:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding footnotes with citations. I think the alternative theory about location (Serbian Morava) and its criticism deserves a separate section. Unfortunately, I am currently taking a Wikibreak due to some real-world circumstances and I should be fully back in Wikipedia in one or two weeks. As the main author of this article, I will be happy to reply to all your comments after I am back. I look forward to our future collaboration at Great Moravia. Tankred (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Tankred. I hope your Wikibreak is funny (or useful). I added some modifications based on primary sources. As you may agree, interpretation is sometimes misleading, and we should give the chance to our coeditors all over the world to decide. I fully agree that the alternative theory and its criticism could be separated. My concern is that the only primary source that mentions "Great" Moravia is the Byzantine Emperor, who locates it to the southern parts of the Carpathian Basin. I am sure we will be able to solve this problem, backed by other Wikimanians as well. I look forward to your return. By the way, I stopped editing the article while you are far away in the real world.213.134.24.189 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am back for a a couple of days. Before I address your points, are you User:Borsoka? I will assume you are, so I apologize if I am wrong. Yesterday, I tried to address your criticism in the article. I created a section on alternative theories (Boba is already there, Eggers should be added) and added a number of references. Your last version (a note about the Emperor referring to a country south of the Danube and the modern historiography using the same name for a country north of the Danube, added to the Name section) seems to be acceptable for me, but I toned it down a bit, reflecting the ongoing debate in the historiography.[7] What would you say? Do you like this version? Perhaps we should also include some secondary sources on interpretation of Constantine's work. Tankred (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Welcome on board. Yes it was me (Borsoka (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)). Thank you for your changes, I think the article became more neutral. Although, personally for me, the article still suggests that Great Moravia was an early Czechoslovakia in the 9th century - e.g., two capitals, two principalities, "unification" of the two principalities (if you read the Conversio, unification is not the perfect description of the process). I suggest that we should begin a discussion of some of the major topics on this page. I understand that Great Moravia is a sensitive issue (I refer to the tone of the "discussions" above), however, a possibly neutral conversation in written form may contribute to the success of Wikipedia. Let's try to summarize some facts:

a) a country of the Slavs existed in the Carpathian Basin in the 9th century (wherever was it located, whatever was its connection to the present day Czech, Slovak, Sloven, Croatian...etc nations);

b) the country usually accepted the overlordship of the Frank Emperors, but sometimes it could succesfully resist them;

c) the country was connected to Methodius;

d) the country was destroyed when the Magyar tribes conquered the Carpathian Basin (or the major part of it).

e) ...

By the way, what are the other p r i m a r y sources you mention in the article that refer to a "Great Moravia" located in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin? Borsoka (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the "other primary sources", I meant especially the two Vitae (The Life of Constantine and The Life of Methodius) and the Life Of St. Clement of Ohrid. But also the chronicles written in East and West Francia give some clues. For example, they mention a campaign against Sorbs (not Serbs), Bohemians, and Moravians and another one against Sorbs, Rastislav, and Svatopluk. Similarly, they describe how the Frankish army was pursued by Moravians in the Frankish territory after crossing the Danube on its retreat from Rastislav's fortress. Identification of Nitrava mentioned in Conversio with Nitra is also generally accepted. Tankred (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. As I read the Vitae, they did not mention "an empire in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin", but they clearly refer to Pannonia in connection with Methodius. Could you give us the sources that mention Sorbs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsoka (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Vistulans (Poland) are mentioned in the Life of Methodius. Regino of Prum wrote that Arnulf ceded Bohemia to Svatopluk. Annales Fuldenses mention a campaign against Moravians, Sorbs, and Bohemians in 869. Tankred (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes Life of Methodius mentions that Methodius sent a letter to a mighty heathen Prince based on the Visla. Yes, Bohemia was ceded to Svatopluk, but e.g. Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor was king of Hungary and Margrave of Brandenburg, but this does not mean that the Kingdom of Hungary existed north of the Carpathian Basin. Yes, Annales Fuldenses clearly mentions that one army was sent against Moravians, one against Abodrites and the third one against Sorbs. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about this topic is also ongoing at Talk:Principality of Nitra and User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. --Elonka 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a lot of categories from the bottom since (if I'm right) those all were superior categories of the remaining Great Moravia category. G.M. category is the sole one I left in the article, however there are two categories on the bottom of the page, wich I can not find anywhere: Czech history | History of Slovakia | Is this a bug, or just have to wait for software refreshing? (page refresh does not do anything, they are still there) --Rembaoud (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

They're probably from the templates in the External links section. --Elonka 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

They are still there. Delete from the templates please, I do not know, how to do it. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The categories are hardcoded into the templates {{

History of the Czech Republic}} and {{History of Slovakia}}. In other words, any article that the template is on, is automatically added to those categories. If it means some category duplication, that's not normally considered a problem. If it is an issue, then simply remove the templates, and the categories will go with them. --Elonka

22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The templates should not be deleted. The article is linked from the templates as one of the periods of the Czech and Slovak history. It is standard to include templates in an article of this kind and there is a long-term consensus between editors of articles on Czech and Slovak history that these templates should be included. Tankred (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any sources for the information in this map? I'm not challenging the titles, but where exactly are these map boundaries from? There's no information in the image file. As I understand it, we have a challenge to the extent of the Principality of Nitra, which is a fair question. If sources cannot be located, and the challenge remains, the map should be fixed, replaced, or removed. Elonka 03:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, of course he does not have info. Pannonia according to Fulda Annals was Frankish territory until 891 when Swatopluk did much destruction as it was not his domain. Further reading The conversion of Carantans and Bavarians, The Royal Frankish Annals, Constantine VII, Regino (less reliable). For the upper part Thietmar of Merseburg, Widukind, etc (here are a lot German sources)Check some Croatian articles, the same territory is Croatian. Actually Liudovit mentioned in RFA located in Siscia, looks Croatian for the layman, like me..., but the SK authors keep strong attention on changes in this and related articles (balaton principality, etc)--Vargatamas (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We've actually set up a page to discuss some of these issues at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Several of the editors who were involved in edit wars are now under editing restrictions, and things seem to have become much more stable now. I encourage anyone who is interested, to join the page and bring up any remaining issues, so that we can help get them resolved. --Elonka 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not the author of that map. But the borders seem to coincide with those usually seen in the literature (incl. Štefanovičová, Tatiana (1989). Osudy starých Slovanov, Bratislava: Osveta; Sommer, Petr, "Bohemia and Moravia", in Berend, Nora, Christianization and the rise of Christian monarchy : Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus' c. 900-1200, Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 214-262.). Tankred (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A new sentence was added by Squash Racket to the lead of the article. I am not sure if the lead is a good place for it because the sentence does not summarize anything from the text. I guess it should be moved to the main body. The claim is very strong: that Great Moravia disappeared without a trace. But the only source is a website. Among other 36 sources cited by this article, only one is a website and the rest are published academic works. The tile of the website can be roughly translated as "Nationalism and archeology – Lukácsi Béla chats with Bálint Csanád régésszel; Interview in: Hungarian Science 2003/6 759-764. o." Is an interview from a website that has no English version reliable enough to be cited in the lead of a GA? If it is, more information would be welcome. Now, the sentence says "according to some other sources", but it would be more precise to say according to Bálint Csanád or Lukácsi Béla. Who are these people? Feedback from other editors in this issue will be appreciated. Tankred (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer:

• the whole paragraph deals with the legacy of Great Moravia, so I don't really understand your first point
• the website of the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences is a reliable source even in FAs until there is not enough English language academic sources for the statement
• "régész" means archaeologist in Hungarian - again, what is the problem?
• the article (even that paragraph) is full of Slovak/Czech sources "that have no English version reliable enough to be cited in the lead of a GA"
• I agree to change it to "according to Csanád Bálint" if we insert "according to a Slovak source" in front of every statement that is only supported by one Slovak/Czech reference and remove all unsourced information (including that paragraph in the lead).

Squash Racket (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you see the difference between an interview on a website and the peer-reviewed academic work. On the one side, you have several books and academic articles (written by different authors, but all of them specialized in Great Moravia) arguing that Great Moravia did not disappear without a trace. On the other hand, we have now a sentence claiming that some "other" sources argue that Great Moravia did disappear without a trace. And we have only one source, which is an interview on a website. If this view is supported by any academic publications, they should be cited instead of that website. If that is a view of the Hungarian historiography, I am sure you can find some reliable sources. If it is a minority view of Csanád Bálint, it should be marked as such in the article. I hope people who are neither Hungarian nor Slovak will express their opinion here, so we can find some reasonable solution. Tankred (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Answer:

• Again: you refer to the website of the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as "a website"
• they use the interview format and the interviewee talks about his decades long experience in the field
• I don't find it shocking that we have now a source that is actually very easy to check
• a lot of references are not properly formatted, no section title, no page number, no ISBN etc.
• about the marking of historical views of one academic see my comment above (again)
• I don't really trust names like Ján Lukacka (since I saw how he made the Pázmány/Pázmán family
  Poznans
  ) but I don't want to start a debate about the reliability of some academics.

Squash Racket (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the above is a debate about the significance of different views, is that correct? Squash Racket, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you are saying that you have a reliable source (the Hungarian Academy of Sciences website) which has an interview with a scholar, in which he says that Great Moravia disappeared without a trace. So you are saying that since this view is properly sourced, that it should be included in the lead of the article. Tankred, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you are saying that since the majority of other peer-reviewed works do not use this description of "disappeared without a trace", that they are the mainstream view, which should be presented in the lead, and not the other view presented by Squash Racket. Do I have this right? If so, the policy that would apply here would be

Undue weight, in that Wikipedia articles should present significant views, in the proper proportion. So I believe the question would be whether the "without a trace" view was significant enough to include in the lead. Am I understanding things correctly? --Elonka

14:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Elonka, you are right. I would not mind having this view in the lead if it is correctly described and sources. I mean, is it a view of Csanad Balint (and is this person qualified by his work on Great Moravia to make such claims) or a view of a larger group of scholars? Are there any published books and peer-reviewed articles supporting this view? If there are, they should be included in this article instead of a website with an interview. Tankred (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Another quote from the same article: "in the 1970s we were watching the southern borders of Great Moravia being pushed more and more south year after year in Slovak publications". He seems to have a decades' long experience in the field as I said above. Squash Racket (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole paragraph belongs in the main text as it's a bit controversial. Perhaps first we should exactly know if Great Moravia lied south or north of Hungary before we talk about "a lasting legacy".
If it remains in the lead, the criticism is also valid there. Squash Racket (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Legacy bit should be moved toward the end.Galassi (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal view is that Great Moravia left a lasting legacy independently of its location. What are your concerns about its legacy? Borsoka (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to urge all editors of this article to use the {{fact}} whenever they see some problematic statement without a source and to support their own statements by citations. This article is listed as one of Wikipedia's good articles and will remain so only if we maintain its quality. This is also the best way how to avoid edit warring. Tankred (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We should add value to the article and avoid destroy it. However, the books based on which the article was written are not the only reliable sources regarding the history of Great Moravia; therefore I hope that the article may be improved.Borsoka (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to introduce more academic sources and more points of views (as you are already doing). Thank you for your contributions. Tankred (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Galassi has tagged a section of this article as {{unbalanced}} and {{limited}}. I see no reason why a properly cited section should be tagged as such if no concrete objections have been raised. I hope Galassi will explain his/her use of these tags here. It is not very helpful to use tags without justifying them on a talk page. Which parts of the history section are unbalanced? Which parts are missing? What are the published sources you based your criticism on? Tankred (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that using the tags is an exaggeration. Although, I think that the article tends to emphasize the positiv features and power of Great Moravia - you remember the "teeth" ::), but the article could be improved based on reliable sources. E.g., it may be questionable that Great Moravia occupied the whole territory of the future Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary and parts of Poland, Romania and Serbia and finally it was easily occupied by some nomadic people (the Magyars) escaping to the Carpathian Basin because they had been catastrophically defeated by the Petchenegs. The article also contains some statements that are not generally accepted views in other countries (e.g., the affect of Great Moravia to the administrative system of the Kingdom of Hungary, the identification of the castles, survival of the local aristocracy). However, I suggest that the tags should be deleted and let's improve the article using reliable sources containing other views. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Borsoka, I see you added two sources disputing Bratislava Castle and Devin as Great Moravian Castle. However, it is not very clear from your edit if Gyula Kristo challenges identification of Brezalauspurc with Bratislava Castle and of Dowina with Devin Castle or he claims that these castles (as physical entities, not names) were not Great Moravian. These two statements are very different. If it is the former (i.e. the names issue), it would be nice to clarify it in the text. If it was the latter (i.e. castles themselves), I would be quite surprised because excavations have proved that both Bratislava Castle and Devin Castle were important centers of political and religious life during the Great Moravian period. Assuming that archaeologists could not falsify their findings of buildings and artifacts, I would be very interested in knowing more about the evidence this claim (if it was actually made) is based on. Thanks in advance for your clarification. Tankred (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream history of in Hungary identifies Brezalauspurc with Bratislava (although some of the historians identifies it with

Blatnograd). However, the fact that the castle was mentioned in contemporary sources, does not mean that it was a Great Moravian castle, pursuant to mainstream history in Hungary, because the name means Braslav's Castle, i.e., the castle of a dignity of East Francia

. As to Dowina, its identification with Dévény is marked with (?) and the article of Dévény does not refer to Dowina, because Dévény was mentioned as a castle only in 1271 in a written document.

As to the archaeological evidence let me cite some sentences from the article of Mr. Vincent Sedlák referred by User:Galassi above: "According to his" (i.e., Martin Egger's) "theory the scarcity of archaeological sources does not support the theory of a significant historical centre. M. Eggers does not know, however, that in the late 14th century there were significant construction activities in this area, the complex of the whole Sigmund castle was constructed, taking up most of the castle hill. During the construction a number of archaeological sources that could have supported the significance of Devín also in the field of archaeology was destroyed. It was allowed to quarry stone and to use it for the purposes of the construction." As I understand, Mr. Sedlák states that there are no significant archaeological evidences, because they were distroyed in the 15th century (I think, the latter is a remarkable statement from scholarly point of view). However, I stopped to carry out "original researches", and I cited reliable (mainstream, academic) sources. If you think that the wording should be changed, please do not refreain from editing it, but we have to accept that a c a d e m i c views different from ours may exist, and we have to refrain from carrying out original researches when challange those views. Borsoka (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava Castle is regarded as Great Moravian by archaeologists. I can add more citations if they are needed. The architecture style (especially the basilica) and artifacts are Great Moravian, not Frankish. I think the statement "Bratislava Castle, whose identification as a Great Moravian Castle is under debate" is a bit too strong in light of archaeological findings. As to Devin Castle, the Great Moravian part (including a church) has been excavated despite the fact that most of it is probably lost due to the later activity. So, it could hardly be built "as a stronghold of the Kings of Hungary". Of course it was rebuilt later, but the 9th-century part has been safely identified. Again, I should perhaps add more citations of these archaeological works. By the way, the chemical analysis of frescoes showed that churches in Bratislava and Devin were painted by the same artist at around the same time in the 9th century (this is already mentioned and referenced in the article). That is why I was surprised by the "debate" you wrote about. Also, thank you for your fine contributions about the Magyar conquest! Tankred (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tankred, I do not understand why should I add more citations. There are two sources mentioning that Devín Castle was built as a frontier fortress of the Kingdom of Hungary, and the castle is first documented in 1271. I am sure that you could cite several sources that state the castles as Great Moravian castles, but Wikipedia is not a war of citations, I presume.Borsoka (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for this little misunderstanding. I did not ask you to provide more citations. I am just looking for neutral wording. Most of the disagreements between the Slovak (or rather Slovak and Czech) and Hungariand historiographies concerns interpretation of facts, not the facts themselves. But now I have impression that the very existence of a castle in Devin before the 13th century is being disputed. That is quite surprising because buildings from the Great Moravian, Roman, and Iron Age eras have been excavated there. I was hoping to find some explanation for this discrepancy and perhaps also some common ground. Tankred (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Another issue. You added the "weasel" templates to the following sections:

"Foreign forms were not just copied; they contributed to the development of a distinctive Great Moravian jewelry style."

Thanks, I did not choose the proper one, I made a second attempt. I just would like to know what the word (distinctive) means. At least some examples.Borsoka (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"The rest of the territory of todays Slovakia was progressively integrated into the Kingdom of Hungary from the end of the 11th century until the 14th century."</nowiki>

Thanks, I did not choose the proper one, I made a second attempt. If you understand what the "progressively integrated into" means, you will probably be able to describe it. I mean, does it mean that the kings of Hungary were not accepted as sovereigns of the territory, or the administrative system of the territory differed from the other parts of the kingdom, or the kings of Hungary did not make donations in the territory? I really do not understand, although the expression sounds perfect.Borsoka (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have chosen the tag that you really wanted to choose. Let me quote from the description of the tag:

This tag is for placement after descriptions of a group of persons, such as "serious scholars / scientists / researchers," "historians / philosophers / scientists," "some / many people," and the like. Use it when no specific examples of identifiable individuals from that group are named who could be used to verify the statements or beliefs attributed to the group. Preferably the offending statement should be made more specific by identifying particular individuals and then either cited or tagged for needing citation. Similarly, the statement should be deleted if the claim about the group is sufficiently vague as to be unsupportable.

Both sentences name their sources. The tag is not appropriate. The distinctive Great Moravian style of jewelry is described by the cited article in World Archeology and the word progressively is described in detail in Marsina's article (again properly cited). I am not sure what you meant by these tags. Could you explain here please and perhaps replace them by something more appropriate? Tankred (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I refer to the questions above. Borsoka (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why the sentence But, in the words of Czech archaeologist Josef Poulík, "these new forms and techniques were not copied passively, but were transformed in the local idiom, establishing in this way the roots of the distinctive Great Moravian jewelery style."<ref name='worldarcheology'/> is tagged by {{weasel-inline}}. It is a direct quotation from a peer-reviewed academic source and attribution to the author is included. A weasel word would be "renowned historians say" or something like that without a corresponding citation. Tankred (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

After all the criticism of an academic source, I would ask for a cleanup of the external links section. For example this and this link do live up to a GA? Squash Racket (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

These links are not cited anywhere in the text. Tankred (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This means low quality links are perfectly fine in the external links section of a GA... Squash Racket (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There are (as far as can remember) two sentences mentioning something similar to the "integration of the territories of present-day Slovakia into the Kingdom of Hungary". One of the sentences refer to the 12-14th centuries during which the process of integration took place "progressively". I really do not understand the meaning of the sentences, but I think it must have some specific significance for other editors. I would like to understand them, and I would be grateful if any of you could fill me in on this subject. Borsoka (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "progressively" means (in this context) that the territory of Slovakia did not become part of Hungary at once. Some parts were conquered right after the arrival of the Magyars. A large part of the territory became part of the Kingdom of Hungary under Stephen I. Some parts in northern and north-eastern Slovakia (especially around

Podolinec) became part of the kingdom in the 14th century. Perhaps we should replace "progressively" by "gradually" or to describe the process in more words. What is your opinion? Does that sentence need a more detailed explanation in the main text? Tankred (talk

) 00:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Galassi has just replaced "progressively" with "gradually". I think this is a good solution. Tankred (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand. The text states that: "In 1000 or 1001, all of present-day Slovakia was taken over by Poland under Boleslaus I, and in 1030, its southern part was again taken over by Hungary. The rest of the territory of today's Slovakia was gradually[1] integrated into the Kingdom of Hungary from the end of the 11th century until the 14th century." My understanding is that although the territory of Slovakia became integral part of Poland for 30 years, but afterwards the kings of Hungary did not occupy the whole territory and they integrated it only step by step into their kingdom. It is a real surprise for me: there were several regions governed separately in the medieval kingdom (e.g., Slavonia, Croatia, Transylvania, Macva) from the 11-13th centuries, but I have never read of a similarly separeted government in the northern parts of the kingdom. The kings of Hungary, from the 12th century on, tried to expand their rule over Halych (a territory outside the Carpathian Basin) and they were struggling with the princes of Poland for this reason, but they (both Hungary and Poland) failed to occupy some significant parts of Slovakia? So, I still do not understand the meaning of the sentence, I suggest it should be explained based on the reliable source. I remember that the territory was scarcely populated untill the end of the 13th century, but it does not mean it was not integrated (I presume). Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The old version was full of unsourced statements that I did not find anywhere. So, I took liberty to rewrite it based on the books I have access to. Please check it if it is now clearer than the previous version. If there is anything unclear, I will be happy to explain it in more detail. Tankred (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)