Talk:History of Moravia

March: no!
I hereby suggest to change the headline to Margravate of Moravia. Austria has been a march (German: Mark) thousand years ago. But Moravia in the late Habsburg Empire has been a Margravate (German: Markgrafschaft), not a March. --Johnny3031 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ehm, you should really learn the history, my friend. Yes, Austria was a march as was any other bordering land of Frankish Empire. The Austrian march (called Bavarian Eastern March or East Mark) was created as a german east march - nearly 200 years after Great Moravia. Moravia was titled margraviate by unfortunate Frederick Barbarossa in 1182. But be carefull by writing evident lies like "thousand years ago" on something like this german province (Austria). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingon1 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved for now. However, per some of the comments below, this article should probably be expanded into a more general article on the entire history of Moravia, and then moved to History of Moravia. Aervanath (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

March of Moravia → Margraviate of Moravia – More accurate name used by historians and reliable sources far more (174 vs. 3,650 hits in Google Books). Moreover, Moravia wasn't a march (German borderland established due to defence against the Slavs or Magyars) actually. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC) --Iaroslavvs (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not persuaded. I am even less persuaded by any definition of march which excludes the Earldom of Chester. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you should take into consideration these 3 points:
 * 1. experts' point of view (see literature listed above in the Google Books result)
 * 2. name of this land/administrative unit in Czech (Markrabství moravské not Marka moravská), German (Markgrafschaft Mähren not Mark Mähren) and Latin (Marchionatus Moraviae not Marca Moraviae) – i.e. original languages
 * 3. fact of dissimilarity of Central Europe against British Isles
 * This article should not be wrongly named only because the meaning of word "march" to vary in other part of Europe. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * {|width=100%

March
 * -valign=top
 * width=50%|

1. The border or boundary of a country or an area of land; a frontier. 2. A tract of land bordering on two countries and claimed by both.

[Middle English, from Old French marche, of Germanic origin; see merg- in Indo-European roots.]

 Margraviate (also margravate)
 * width=50%|

The territory governed by a margrave.


 * }
 * I guess you vehemently reveal your own ignorance. :))) --Iaroslavvs (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support (and alter lead to reflect the change). The main difficulty arises from a few sentences regardding the status of the area before their were margraves.  I do not accept the Chester argument, and the Palatinate of Cheshire was not a marcher lordship anyway, but one of a series of palatinate earldoms donw the Welsh border.  These were quite different constitutionally from marcher lordships, as the king's writ did not run in Wales.  Anyway, I do not think it appropriate to use definitions relating specifically to the Welsh border to govern the situation in central Europe.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If this article is moved, I shall dispute the accuracy of the title. It is, and remains, inappropriate nationalism to impose Czech or German definitions on English. I disagree with Peterkingiron's quibble about the Welsh Marches; but neither was any Lord Warden of the Marches sent forth against Slavs or Magyars. It may be worth distinguishing the 10th century lordship with which this article begins from Austro-Hungarian Moravia, if that is the point here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you able to perceive written text properly? Where do you find any trace of nationalism? How "nationalistic" is term "margraviate" against "march"? Both are English!! There is a terminological not nationalistic problem with the name of this article – nomenclature of this entity in original languages mentioned under 2nd point isn't pursuing of any nationalistic agenda. I listed it just to prove difference between both terms in area of Central and Eastern Europe. And such difference is also recognized by authorities in the field of history and historical geography! I repeat my 1st and main argument: take into consideration ... experts' point of view (see literature listed above in the Google Books result) Besides, how "Czech-nationalistic" are such sources as The Catholic Encyclopedia or The EB?? (Both use term margraviate.) --Iaroslavvs (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Two main reasons: Firstly the absence of a link to Google books makes me unable to check or verify the claim made, and secondly the resort to personal attacks makes me think that there's no better rationale available. Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator.--Yopie (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment - Please refactor comments into normal text. Use of serves no purpose and is hard on these old eyes.  Also, keep it civil. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

relisted
I have deleted the "small" to try to get normal format, but there are some remants of this left. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (still) -- Margrave is the normal English usage for that German title.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After rereading Septentrionalis's comment, I would say that the article will need some restructuring after the move, so that the pre-margravate sections, but consider the target to be the appropriate title. I still do not think that analogies with the English borders are helpful.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Procedural note: Mr Anderson is not permitted to contribute to discussions on any technical matter to do with the English language, anywhere on the site (year-long ban). His comments here will sooner or later end up at ANI in an application to block him from the site. But in the meantime, I believe his participation here, now entangled with the responses of others, have rendered this RM invalid. I ask that an admin close this RM, remove the text or at least collapse it, and restart the request. Tony  (talk)  02:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support {Ignore PMA. We can deal with his persistent violating his ban later. And to PMA: your I shall dispute the accuracy of the title demonstrates to me that you really like to test limits. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the community should oblige you and demonstrate where those limits are. You may not like the outcome of that one iota.} This is not about foreign editors trying to change the current true nature of the English language; English already has adopted the German-language term in order to most-accurately describe this political entity. This is same as adopting “didgeridoo” to replace “Australian aboriginal woodwind instrument.” I note this from Encyclopedia Britannica: …Slavs, or Czechs, but they were not directly involved in Bohemia’s struggle with the Habsburg dynasty. Administratively detached from Bohemia, the margraviate of Moravia was merged late in the 18th century with what remained of Austrian Silesia… To paraphrase Johnnie Cochran: Wikipedia should best go with the encyclopedic flow. Greg L (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I created this article some years ago. I cannot figure out what the rationale is for the proposal. The ruler of a march was usually a margrave. In general, "march" and "margraviate" are equivalent terms. If the proposer thinks that "march" means "German borderland", he is mistaken. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with either the current title or the proposed title, so until somebody makes it clearer to me why it should be moved, I oppose. Srnec (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would have been better if you had looked at how Encyclopedia Britannica and the vast majority of books on this subject handle it before striking off to do something a bit on the *unique* side. The job of any good encyclopedia is to educate its readership on a given topic and properly prepare them for their continuing studies elsewhere. Greg L (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE -- I have jusdt restructured the headings slightly to make the article fit better with the proposed title. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Peter. The article is (and will further be) much improved and of better value to our readership as a result of your efforts and the new title. Greg L (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Srnec, I really don't understand your objections. Did you really read my rationale of RM? I don't think so, because otherwise you wouldn't use "arguments" (rather obstructions) that have already been refuted. Once more I repeat main reasons for moving:
 * In case of Moravia a margraviate is far more used by experts than a march – as one can see in the Google Books (3,650 "margraviate" vs. 174 "march"); this result includes such credible sources as The Catholic Encyclopedia or The Encyclopaedia Britannica
 * Both terms are not fully equivalent, see above links to reliable English thesaurus (The Free Dictionary.com) which proves it
 * And last but not least – name of this political entity in its respective languages (i.e. Latin, Czech, German) was Marchionatus/Markrabství/Margrafschaft (= "margraviate") not Marca/Marka/Mark (= "march")
 * Is there still something unclear? --Iaroslavvs (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, just wrong. Dictionaries and thesauruses are not reliable sources for technical or academic matters. The name of this entity in those languages is not relevant. I bristle at this move because you say "Moravia wasn't a march" and then get the definition of march wrong. That said, I don't really care. I'm sure the term "margraviate" is used more often for Moravia from the 12th century onwards, but this article was originally about Moravia in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Maybe we need two articles. Srnec (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree that theauruses are not a satsifactory source as they are liable to provide words with a similar (rather than identical meaning. Dictionaries, particularly the larger ones, are prepared by academic publishers: entries may be brief, but should be reliable.  The same applies to Encyclopaedias.  I suspect that Srnec's real objection is that he created the article and do not like the way it has developed.  However, no one "owns" a WP article, and he does not "own" this one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is not my problem. I explained my problem with the move above: the rationale is wrong. I hate to support a move based on poor reasoning, because it will reinforce the mistake. In this case, the mistake is in thinking that "march" is the wrong term here. In fact, it is a perfectly fine term for Moravia throughout the Middle Ages. Granted, you wouldn't speak of the territory as a "march" in the late 19th century, but would you refer to it as a "margraviate" when it had no margrave in the 11th century? I'd hate to divide this into two articles, so perhaps it is just best to refocus the article and remove the whole "status before margraviate" stuff to the article on Moravia. I reiterate: I have no problem with the move per se, but it is not about "accuracy" or the dictionary definition of a "march". (No scholar would look it up in a dictionary before using it anyway.) Srnec (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * a) First of all, there was no "march" or any state form in Moravia after 907 C.E. (until 1182/1197). So, the sentence about the march which was originally established, like its fellow marches is untruthful and your whole argumentation based on this alleged distinction between the status in the 10th century (a march) and in later times (a margraviate) is absolutely false. This obsolete book and its erroneous information cannot be put against contemporary sources (more precisely, their lack of) and knowledge of modern historical science.
 * b) Secondly, you still refuse to take into consideration the fact the 1st and most important argument for the move is the term "margraviate" is much more often used in relevant literature. Just this unquestioned fact is enough for renaming of the article! (See WP:COMMONNAME) My argument which touches linguistic and factual distinction between the terms "march" and "margraviate" is stated only for support (take notice of word moreover at the beginning of 2nd sentence of my proposal), as less important rationale. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are many references before 1182 to a dux Moraviae, and also to a princeps and a marchio Moraviae (also Maraviae or Moravie). One modern study uses the term "vice-dukes" to describe the rulers of Moravia in the 11th and 12th centuries under Bohemian ducal authority. Srnec (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only known using of term "margrave" before 1182 is from 1179 when Přemysl I Ottokar (then ruler of Olomouc Appanage) is designated as marggravius de Moravia. (Actually, this is first known occurence of the margravian title.) So, there are not "many references to a 'marchio Moraviae'" but only the one.
 * As for duces and principes – of course, there are many mentions of such titles, becuase all members of the Přemyslid family were dukes (knížata)! Not only "of Moravia" but also "of Olomouc", "of Znojmo", "of Brno", "of Břeclav", "of Plzeň" or "of Žatec" (yes, the so-called úděly/appanages were also in Bohemia proper) and so on. These titles not change the fact that in the period between the fall of Great Moravia and the end of the 12th century Moravia was not any distinct political unit (= state) – albeit it was named terra, provincia or even regnum in chronicles and charts – certainly not "a march established like its fellow marches in 10th c." as you falsely claim. You have to know this fact very well, especially when you are Czech-speaking man as your nick indicates.
 * <>By the way, Wolverton's Spěchání ku Praze is a good work, I know it. Unfortunately, she was unable to avoid some inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. The newest work on this theme, (I suppose you read it :), evaluates Wolverton's piece as follows: "... svěží a na domácích stereotypech nezávislý příspěvek Lisy Wolverton, jež české dějiny podřídila jediné výrazné zápletce: nástupnickým půtkám. Odtud autorka promýšlela českou státnost v její středověké podobě a s potřebným nadhledem se vkusně vyrovnala s moravskou otázkou. Škoda jen, že nepřesnosti a nevhodné zkratky podvázaly věrohodnost předpokládaných závěrů." And that is accurate evaluation. Have it in mind when next time you will try to use this book as a source for your assertions! --Iaroslavvs (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PLEASE DO NOT USE in comments. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The problem is that Moravia was a different place in the tenth century, which is covered by the first few paragraphs, and in the nineteenth century, which is what the map shows. One would be reasonably called March, the other reasonably called Margraviate; distinct, if related, terms. On the whole, however, it may be simplest to move this to History of Moravia, an article we do not yet have, and expand it to fit - this would mean including Great Moravia at the beginning, and the Czechoslovak and Czech Republics at the end. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a better article, for readers, but... then we'd lose the infobox(es)!!! Srnec (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't such problem. Because there wasn't any political entity in territory of Moravia after 907. Whole paragraph "Status before Margraviate" is fabricated by Srnec. It is necessary to rewrite it. As for your proposal, I do not see a need to write a special article "History of Moravia". Relevant historical passages should be included in the article Moravia – and that's enough. By the way, cf. the article History of Bohemia (redirected :) and simultaneously think about need of repetition (duplication) of informations... --Iaroslavvs (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dop you have a source for this contention?  (Not that it matters; we have History of Wales, and Wales was not a state for centuries.)   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Source for what? For desirability of the "History of Moravia" article? It is no need any source for it. Just my recommendation. I do not see repetition of information as appropriate. Much more useful would be to extend respective paragraphs in the article "Moravia". If do you mean sources for history of Moravia 906/7–1197 and nonexistence of any "march" – of course, they are. Hundreds. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then do name some; preferably in a language accessible to our readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no reason why we should not have a History of Moravia article, provided it is going to cover rather more than Moravia. This might provide a good solution to the controversy here over naming this article.  WP has a lot of articles that do relatively little more than list the holders of an office or title, in this case the title Margrave of Moravia.  Indeed, one solution to this issue were are dealing with here might be to rename the articles Margraves of Moravia, transferring material on earlier periods to a new history article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at google books (to see the real number of results to need to go to the last page of results in each link):
 * "March of Moravia" (22 results)
 * "Margraviate of Moravia" (300 results)
 * "Margraviate" includes the Catholic Encyclopedia (which doesn't mention any March ). --Enric Naval (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Going to the last page is not a meaningful statistic; that's how many Google has chosen to draw into memory; no matter what you search on, there will be less than a thousand.


 * Nuch more seriously, nobody denies that Moravia was a margraviate in the nineteenth century, as a component of the Empire of Austria. The loud and unsourced contentions above are about what it was is the tenth and eleventh century, before the CE's "immediate margraviate". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 9 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

History of the state in Moravia
Since an editor vehemently insists that this is not the history of the whole land of Moravia, but only of its state, I have found a narrower title. I don't really see the usefulness of the distinction here; most of our History of Place articles are precisely this sort of state-and-rulers history. But I provide a section in case he cares to explain his conduct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I insists! Because ther is substantial difference between history of any land and history of any state created in its territory! Why do you think we have here such articles like Kingdom of Poland X History of Poland, Archduchy of Austria X History of Austria, Russian Empire X History of Russia, Czechoslovak Republic X History of Czechoslovakia or Kingdom of Germany X History of Germany and so on and so on?! If you are not completely stupid you have to know what is the reason of such distinctions.
 * This article is intended as info about Moravian STATE, i.e. margraviate. If you so vehemently want to create an article about history of Moravian LAND who is obstruct you? But nonsensical name (out of Wiki naming standards) which you enforce just reveals a background of this matter: you "lose" in case of renaming to margraviate and reject admit this status. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a non-distinction; the history of Moravia is, first of all, the history of its state forms, such as they are. So is the History of Poland and all your other examples. None of your exclamation points convince me of anything; you are now arguing for the title the article bears. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

History of the state in Moravia → History of Moravia – It's what this page is really about. Or should be about. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support per nom ... btw, what does "the state in Moravia" mean? Is it the Great Moravia or Margraviate of Moravia? This article covers the complete history of the region named Moravia and it should be named accordingly. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, far less clunky title. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - the article can cover all the bases and get split up if it gets too long in due course. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment - I think this warrants a technical request at WP:RM/TR. The current title doesn't make any sense, and removing the "state" bit is really only a technical matter. And, what's more, the current title was enacted without consensus. Perhaps you should do that, rather than a requested move? 128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.