Talk:Duchy of Münsterberg

Name
Duchy of Münsterberg is used in two publications; but duchy of Ziębice is used in none. I wonder if there is a better name? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo. Example: The Polish city of Gdańsk was called Danzig for many years. The name "Danzig" is not the definitive term today, but it is correctly used in historical contexts (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). Note that it is not always necessary to use a contemporary name to refer to a historical place. For example, there are two distinct articles Edo and Tokyo, even though the two are essentially the same geographic entity." Naming conflict: Dealing with historical contexts
 * Also read this discussion, which covers a similar case.
 * The term Duchy of Ziębice isn't historical accurate and shouldn't be used. Karasek (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed above, the term "Duchy of Münsterberg" is hardly more popular. And there was no fragmentation of Silesia, only fragmentation of Poland .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The naming conventions clearly state that names have to be "used in an historically accurate context". Münsterberg is historically accurate, Ziębice is not. Are these naming conventions not valid when it comes to Silesia? And just because the term fragmentation of Silesia" isn't common he isn't wrong. How do you call it when a region of 2/3 duchies splits into more than 10 duchies? Isn't this fragmenation too? Karasek (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And how is German the "historically accurate context"? As for fragmentation, you are welcome to write and publish works introducing the term "fragmentation of Silesia" - but currently such a term is not used by scholars, so it is pure WP:OR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not the one who has to prove the historical accuracy, since this article was started as "Duchy of Ziębice". Please provide a source that Ziębice is historical accurate. But since you asked... the first document of the duchy, published 22.11.1321 by the duke, starts with these words: "Wir Bolco herczog in Slesien herre von Monsterberg tun kunt, das wir mit unserm lieben bruder dem edelen fursten hern Bernharde..." Source: Lehns- und Besitzurkunden Schlesiens und seiner einzelnen Fürstenthümer im Mittelalter, Zweiter Theil, Publicationen aus den k. Preussischen Staatsarchiven, Sechszehnter Band, Leipzig, 1883.
 * The old Slavic name of the town Münsterberg, or better the previous settlement, was also not Ziębice but Sambice, but this was 100 years earlier. When the duchy was created this part of Silesia was already Germanized and part of the German/Bohemian culture area. Karasek (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out above, both terms are roughly as popular, in other words, none is. Ziębica is used in the historical context of the Duchy, ex. "Karol and Albert Ziębice-Oleśnica Dukes" so please stop removing Ziębica from the lead. Nobody is denying that German language existed in the Duchy, but so did Polish (and probably, Czech-Bohemian). All of those names are relevant - please remember this is de wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's not how I understand WP:NCON. The naming conventions clearly state that names should be historically accurate. They don't state that we should count how often a term is used in Polish books at Google. This is the English Wikipedia. All documents by the duchy use Münsterberg, not a single document uses the Polish term. The duchy was not part of Poland but of Bohemia, and of German character until its end.
 * I don't think we have to repeat the discussion from duchies of Pomerania. And I don't know how you as a admin can accept this inconsistent naming. Karasek (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since most of the population was Polish till XVIII/XIX century the Polish names should be used mainly, with slight passing note that in legal documentation German was instead due to lack of Polish legal language.--Molobo (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Which name to use?
Does the policy on name conflicts in a historical context apply for this Silesian duchy, and which name should be used? The Polish one, which was adopted by the town in 1945, or the German one, which was used by the duchy during its existence? Karasek (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Polish one is a historical name as well. Just an example: the rulers of the Duchy, Silesian Piasts, were a branch of the Polish Piast dynasty. "Silesia was German till 1945" is a line used only by German nationalists, and not by any respected historians (Polish, German or otherwise). Silesia has a shared German-Polish history - that's a gray historical truth, even if some Germans (and Poles) would prefer to see the history as purely black and white. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And again: all Silesian duchies became independent when Poland abolished the seniorate in 1202. No Silesian duchy joined reunited Poland in 1320. This duchy, Münsterberg (Ziębice), was created after Polands reunification outside of Poland as a independent duchy. For the longest time it was part of Bohemia and the HRE. The Silesian Piasts were of Polish ancestry, but Germanized like their duchies. The town was called Münsterberg until 1945. These are the facts. Please let us wait what others think. Oh, and please no insults! Karasek (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since most of the population was Polish till XVIII/XIX century the Polish names should be used mainly, with slight passing note that in legal documentation German was instead due to lack of Polish legal language.Silesia btw was never independent-that's a very fringe historic view not accepted by mainstream history. The town was very rarely named by the Germanised name, since it was restricted to legal use and urban folk, not the dominant rural population which spoke Polish.
 * "No Silesian duchy joined reunited Poland in 1320"
 * Silesia though was rejoined with restored Poland after 1918 and fully recovered by 1945.
 * --Molobo (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Germanization doesn't mean that Polish was replaced by German; it only meant that both languages were used - just as we are using both in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the early XIV century, most of Silesia was under Bohemian rule, and technically speaking, German name of this duchy should not be used at all, only Polish, as the predominant langugae of the area back then, and Czech, as the langugage of Kingdom of Bohemia. Besides, Karasek, during the partitions of Poland, Silesian rulers were actively engaged in Polish politics, because they considered their province to be part of the divided country. Just look at Henry IV Probus. Tymek (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Case for WP:UE and WP:NCON. WP:NCON states: "Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo." The historically accurate context can be found out by official documents of that time:


 * "Wir Bolco herczog in Slesien herre von Monsterberg tun kunt, das wir mit unserm lieben bruder dem edelen fursten hern Bernharde..." (22.11.1321)
 * "Hine est, quod, cum nos Bolko dei gracia Slezie dux dominus in Munsterberch..." (29.8.1336)
 * "Nos Bolko dei gracia dux SIesie et dominus in Furstenberch et in Munsterberch..." (7.1.1337)
 * "Nos Nicolaus dei gracia dux Slezie et dominus in Monstirberg..." (14.10.1343)
 * "Karolus domini regis Boemie primogenitus marchio Moravie notum facimus universis, quod quia illustris princeps dominus Nycolaus dux Slezie et dominus in Munsterberg " (14.10.1343)
 * "Wir Carl von gottes gnaden Römischer könig zu allen zeiten mehrer des reichs und könig zu Behrnen vorjehen und thun khundt offentlich mit diesem briffe allen,... die er von dem hochgebornen Niclas hertzog zu Munsterbergk unserem lieben schwoger und fursten empfangen hatt." (14.11.1348)
 * "Wir Sigmund von gotes gnaden Romischer kunig zu allen tzeiten merer des reichs und zu Hungern zu Behem Dalmatien Croatien... so haben wir im und seinen erben unser land und furstentum zu Munsterberg. das nach tod unsers lieben oheims hertzog Hansens von Munsterberg..." (13.8.1429)
 * "Ladislaus dei gracia Hungarie Bohemie Dalmacie Croacie etc. rex Austrie dux marchio Moravie etc.... pertinencium ad ducatum nostrum Münsterhergk a ducibus Münsterbergensibus..." (19.1.1456)
 * "Wir Wladislaus von gots gnaden kunig zue Behem marggrave zu Merhern herczog zue Luczemburg unde Slesien marggrave zue Lusicz... die uns der hochgeborne Gindrzich herczog zu Munsterberg grave zue Glacz..." (16.11.1477)
 * "Wir Ludwigk von gots gnaden zu Hungern Behem etc. konigk, marggraff zu Mehrern. herczog zu Luczemburgk und in SIesien, marggraff zu Lausicz etc. bekennen und thun kunth vor allermenniglich, das vor uns erschienen ist der hochgeborne unser ohm furst und lieber getrewer Karl in Slesien herczogk zu Munsterbergk" (25.7.1522)

(source: Lehns- und Besitzurkunden Schlesiens und seiner einzelnen Fürstenthümer im Mittelalter, Zweiter Theil, Publicationen aus den k. Preussischen Staatsarchiven, Sechszehnter Band, Leipzig, 1883)
 * Both parts available for download at http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Lehns-%20und%20Besitzurkunden -- Matthead Discuß   12:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In similar cases, when a town (from which the state derived its name) later changed its name, Wikipedia always sticks to the historical name (exacty what WP:NCON asks for). For instance: Duchy of Neopatria, marquisate of Bodonitsa, lordship of Negroponte, empire of Trebizond, empire of Nicaea, duchy of Philippopolis

The examples also don't show the modern name in brackets or something like this. This article should follow their example. The Gdansk vote doesn't apply here, since this duchy (the duchy, not the town) was never part of Poland and isn't a person or a location. Karasek (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is German; it is possible that the documents you cite are translations. Is there an English language source, using German documents with the Duchy's name? Or Polish? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith, as usual? You had created the article, using Polish names, without any sources, and despite me asking for them, nothing was provided save a Czech book. And now you question the veracity of German documents, and even ask for Polish sources? I suggest to you to have a look at this article discussing the languages used in old Silesian documents: In the tables giving the quantity of documents, L stands for Latin, P for Polish, D(eutsch) for German, T(schechisch) for Czech. Enjoy. -- Matthead Discuß   12:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Karasek, this is already answered in Molobo's comment above. In some cases German was used as the legal language - but this does not make the name anachronistic since most of the inhabitants of the Duchy were Poles and Czechs who used a different name.radek (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence of contemporary use is the base for WP:NCON. Provide evidence that Ziębice was used during the existence of the duchy. Karasek (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the usage should be based on English usage among historians. German is a language commonly known among English speakers and particularly historians.  They are thus more likely to have used a German version of the name, as would the German-speaking rulers.  Accordinbgly I would suggest that the article should be called "Duchy of Münsterberg", with any alternative names existing as redirects.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not mere conjecture. There are two books on Google books for "Duchy of Münsterberg"; none for "Duchy of Ziębice". Furthermore the sources here are two German and two Czech books; do any of them use Polish names consistently, as opposed to mentioning them? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The German books use German names, Czech books are most likely as inconsistent as many English sources. But as I already said: to me WP:NCON is unambiguous. If we use Edo or Empire of Nicaea it's a matter of principle not to define special rules for Silesias duchies. Karasek (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the American Numismatic Society also uses Duchy of Ziebice radek (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And we don't seem to mention this Elizabeth-Mary and her fragment of Ziebice. (And if we called it Ziebice, we'd have all the diacritic fans outraged.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Map
I agree with Karasek that in the map the duchy does look purple.radek (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Too many colors either way, but I am not sure what to do with it; other then to create a version of the map were all the duchies but this one are in the same colors (keeping borders) - something like was done for the administrative division of the PLC (see for example Image:WileńskieIRP.png). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Duchy of Münsterberg (Ziębice) → Duchy of Münsterberg – There is no other duchy of that name and therefore no ambiguity. No parenthetical is needed. See also previous discussion above. —  AjaxSmack  04:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support, per WP:NCDAB. If a parenthetical disambiguator is needed, it should be a "generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible)" or a "subject or context". It should not be an alternative name, and certainly not the name of the subject in another language. Kauffner (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, the disambiguator seems neither needed nor commonly used. FactStraight (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Google Books search now (2012) shows four positions using the Duchy of Ziębice, and only two for Münsterberg. So, I oppose move to Münsterberg, but would support a move to Duchy of Ziębice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That n is a little low. Google Books gives 744 hits for "Duchy/Duke of Münsterberg" versus only 11 results for "Duchy/Duke of Ziębice".  —  AjaxSmack   01:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That does seem convincing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * 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.