Talk:Lands of the Bohemian Crown

End?

When did the subjugation to the Crown of Bohemia cease to exist? СЛУЖБА (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That`s not so easy to answer, but it was propably in 1749 when by the administrative reforms of Maria Theresa they were de facto abolished, or in 1804 when Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia became parts of the Austrian Empire. But Bohemian Kingdom ceased to exist by transfomating into Czechoslovakia in 1918. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Crown of Bohemia - better name?

I have a question. Could this article be renamed the "Crown of Bohemia"? I think it sounds better. Its shorter and easier to say than the "Lands of the Bohemian Crown". Moreover, it would correspond with the original Latin name "Corona (regni) Bohemiae" (and the Czech: "Koruna česká", "Česká koruna", "Koruna království českého"). I understand the "lands" in the expression "lands of the Bohemian Crown" just as an area which belongs to the "Bohemian Crown". We call the area under the rule of the King of Bohemia by the name "Crown of Bohemia" (it doesn't include only Kingdom of Bohemia but also other lands under his rule - therefore it is called a "Crown", not a "Kingdom").

I understand that the articles's name "Země Koruny české" is in Czech more convenient than "Koruna česká" because it cannot be confused with the currency Czech koruna (Koruna česká). But this is not the case of English. English distinguishes "Czech" from "Bohemian", therefore there cannot be a misunderstanding. I consider the word "Lands" in the article's name to be redundant. It is not an article about the lands of the Bohemian Crown (Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia... their geography, languages, people, culture, history, the present etc.), but about the Crown of Bohemia itself as a state-like structure under the rule of Bohemian king.

The name "Crown of Bohemia" would also correspond to the articles' names of other such "union" "states" with a common ruler as the Crown of Castile (lands of the Castilian Crown were: Kingdom of Castile, Kingdom of León, Kingdom of Granada, New Spain etc.), Crown of the Kingdom of Poland (its provinces: Greater and Lesser Poland) or the Crown of Aragon (lands of the Crown of Aragon: Kingdom of Aragon, County of Barcelona, Kingdom of Valencia etc.). Similarly there could be an article about the Crown of Bohemia (its lands: Kingdom of Bohemia, Margraviate of Moravia etc.). --Packare (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources in the English language for "Crown of Bohemia" as pertaining to the lands, and not the crown itself. I prefer "lands", as it provides a more WP:PRECISE title that makes it clear to the reader what one is reading about. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I stand behind what RGloucester said. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are some book sources for "Crown of Bohemia" (sorry for delay, I forgot):

• John Rushworth: Mr. Rushworth's Historical Collections: Abridg'd and Improv'd. From The Year 1628 to the Year 1638, Vol. II. London 1706, p. 89 (Silesia being united to the Crown of Bohemia) Google books

• Paul de Rapin-Thoyras, Thomas Rymer, Jean Le Clerc, Stephen Whatley, Michael Van der Gucht: Acta regia, vol. IV. London, 1727, p. 257 (Matthias succeeding to the Empire and to the Crown of Bohemia) Google books

• Anton Friedrich Büsching, Patrick Murdoch: A New System of Geography: Part of Germany. London: A. Millar, 1762, pp. 63 (The Prince made Silesian princes vassals to the crown of Bohemia), 103 (remained annexed to the crown of Bohemia), 116 (independence on the crown of Bohemia), 122 (incorporated with the crown of Bohemia), 151 (Silesia was solemnly and for ever united to the crown of Bohemia) Google books

• Jackson Spielvogel: Western Civilization. Cengage Learning, 2011, p. 463 (Crown of Bohemia on the map of the "Growth of the Austrian Empire") Google books

• Nancy Meriwether Wingfield: Creating the Other: Ethnic Conflict and Nationalism in Habsburg Central Europe. Berghahn Books, 2003, p. 66 (He included all the lands that once belonged to the Crown of Bohemia...) Google books

• Robert John Weston Evans, T. V. Thomas: Crown, Church and Estates: Central European Politics in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. MacMillan, 1991, p. 151 (the weakness of estate structure of the whole Crown of Bohemia) Google books

• August Dimitz: History of Carniola, Volume II. Xlibris Corporation, 2013, pp. 89 (to persuade the Crown of Bohemia and its dependencies), 107 (permission to send envoy with him to the crown of Bohemia), 111 (The crown of Bohemia could not be included to participate in this assembly), 116 (delegations to the crown of Bohemia and the Emperor) Google books

and for "Bohemian Crown":

• Robert A. Kann: A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1526-1918. University of California Press, 1980, pp. 23 (relations between the hereditary land and the Bohemian crown), 32 (relationship between empire and Bohemian crown), 34 (closer link between empire and Bohemian crown), 51 (the Habsburg hereditary lands and those of the Bohemian crown) 54 (In regard to the Bohemian crown, Ferdinand II had fully succeded in 1627), 56 (in regard to the Bohemian crown after the battle of the White mountain), 626 (Bohemian crown, lands of). Google books

• Janusz Bugajski (1995): Ethnic Politics in Eastern Europe: A Guide to Nationality Policies, Organizations, and Parties. p. 309 (Moravian Margraviate as a state unit that was not always part of the Bohemian crown) Google books

• Jennifer A. Yoder: Crafting Democracy: Regional Politics in Post-Communist Europe. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2013, p. 32 (the regions of the Bohemian Crown) Google books

• Vít Vlnas, Lenka Stolárová: Silesia - a Pearl in the Bohemian Crown. Prague: National Gallery, 2006.

• Nancy Meriwether Wingfield: Creating the Other: Ethnic Conflict and Nationalism in Habsburg Central Europe. Berghahn Books, 2003, p. 66 (based on the traditional states rights of the Bohemian crown) Google books

To call this article (about a historical state Corona Bohemiae) "Lands of the Bohemian Crown" is just as weird as if we had an article called "States of the United States of America" instead of USA, "Countries, territories and dependencies of the United Kingdom" instead of UK or "States of Germany" instead of Germany. About the lands of the Bohemian crown we already have the article Czech lands where can be mentioned that before 1918 they were also called "lands of the Bohemian crown" because they were part of the Crown of Bohemia. —Packare (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Must of your sources are using "crown" in a metaphorical sense, not referring to the lands. There is nothing confusing about the present naming. It is precise, and informs that reader instantly that one is reading about lands, and not about the Crown of Saint Wenceslas. RGloucester — ☎ 23:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is the same metaphorical meaning as it is for example in the case of the Crown of Aragon or Crown of Castile, isn't it? The area ruled by the king of Aragon even outside of the Kingdom of Aragon itself was called Crown of Aragon...´it is the same case as with the Kingdom of Bohemia and Crown of Bohemia. --Packare (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that the name Crown of Bohemia had two meanings in the middle ages (and later). The first was the gold diadem itself (Crown of Saint Wenceslas), the second was all the area which belonged to the crown - it means the state itself. This second meaning was not usual only in Bohemia but also in other countries (see The Crown). Yes, originally it was only "crown" in a metaphorical sense, but then it ment also something more.

The reason why I am not content with the current name of the article is simple - the article does describe the lands of the Bohemian crown. The article is not about these lands. We already have an article about the lands (Czech lands). This article is about a historical state which existed between 1348 and 1918, about its history, extent and about its inner and external relations. This article does not describe the lands of the Crown of Bohemia, it describes the Crown of Bohemia itself. —Packare (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't describe the "crown", it describes the state (lands) that were ruled by the person that held the crown. RGloucester — ☎ 02:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

German place names

There is not need for second German place names, because according to WP:PLACE "Other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information." In mediaeval Bohemia was official language Czech and Latin, German was second after 1620 (but after 1620 Lands of the Bohemian Crown were de facto dissolved). I cannot find significant English books with German names for mediaeval district in Bohemia, but of course, we must find consensus. —Yopie (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

They are not "second". In English, the German place names were always primary. The Czech names were essentially unknown. In a historical context, German place names are near universally used. Not to mention, of course, that there were large amounts of Germans in these particular areas. The WP:Danzig principle establishes that cross-naming should be used in cases where there is more than one significant name. That applies here. Your removal of the names is disruptive. "De facto" dissolution is not dissolution. The lands remained with the Crown until the Crown was eliminated. RGloucester — ☎ 01:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As Yopie stated, German was second language only after 1620, he asked for English historical books with German names for mediaeval districts in Bohemian Crown. Bohemian Crown was de facto dissolved soon within Habsburg rule and cotinued its existence as Bohemian Kingdom, before that, only Czech and Latin names were used. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in English. In English, we've always referred to them by the German names, until after the Second World War. RGloucester — ☎ 14:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Source? Could be only for a later kingdom. For example on maps i can see just Prague, Praga or Praha, but not Prag. Public Schools Historical Atlas, 1905 Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Prague" is an exception, as it is the only traditional English-language Bohemian place name that is rendered differently from the German. Here is a reference which notes cities and dates, based on their importance.[1] Notice "Reichenberg", among others. The contention that the Lands of Bohemian Crown were "dissolved" is incorrect. They existed in law until after the Great War, and remained with the Crown. Regardless of that, the WP:Danzig principle demands that we use alternative names of significance in cross-naming. That means, regardless of when the name is used, we should always provide cross-naming. RGloucester — ☎ 15:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

But on image is not Prague, but Praga. As for Crown Lands, they really not later existed, as Moravia and other lands were separated from Bohemia. Bohemian Kingdom then existed until 1918. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As for your source, it is from 1841, that time Czech Crown Lands pretty sure doesnt exist. So if you apply newer names, you could apply English names used during Czechoslovakia. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

They were separate administratively, but they were still held by the Bohemian crown, meaning that they still existed. The map does not say "Praga", and English never uses "Praga". It says "Prague". If you'd like to rename Prague, go over there. Are you going to rename Siege of Pilsen next? In English, we traditionally use the German names. No one doubts the Czech is now dominant. However, in a historical context, the cities use their traditional English names, and always have done. The Danzig principle establishes the cross-naming should always be used in instances where there is another significant name. We can and do apply English names during Czechoslovakia, as the secondary name in parentheses, per "cross-naming". This is one of those instances. RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but i can clearly see "Praga" (propably latin name). You still do not understand, Crown Lands could not exist anymore as there was only one land held by Bohemian Crown and it was Bohemian Kingdom, i do think that in later years, Czech Crown Lands or Lands of the Bohemian Crown was not used. Best could be to find English source from the period it does exist.Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you deny that the Kings of Bohemia during the Hapsburg period held the title of Margrave of Moravia? RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say that they were crowned Kings of Bohemia, but other margraviates (including Moravia) were were held under Habsburgs, because in 1749 Marie Therese wanted rational administration of her empire, which led to a administrative reforms, what remains of the Czech Crown lands, merged with the Austrian provinces of the monarchy. But let's return to names. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, that these are two different subjects, thats why they have two different articles. Please provide sources, so we could finish this:) Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

How did you make up all that about which language was first or second at a certain point in time? Its all unsourced OR. You should provide sources for that in the first place. There was a notable German minority population since the 13th century and the lands were governed by German dynasties since the Luxembourgs (14th century) - just that constitutes the notability of mentioning another language (for example Britannica: "Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor = German king"source). At that point the nobility was becoming predominantly German. Deleting such alternative language names from the article body is a violation of the Danzig principle. So please provide sources for your statements that the language in the entire Bohemian Crown was purely monolingual during the entire duration of its existence please, "so we could finish this :)"--Der Golem (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You might want to read some of this to get sources about the notability of the German language in the lands at that time: Sudeten Germans#Middle Ages and early modern period--Der Golem (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not mean second, it was made equal to Czech after 1620. Charles IV was Bohemian king in the first place. Nobodoby doesnt say it was monolingual lands, same as other countries. On the other hand, even German was not equal during all the Crown Land history, they could be important during later period, so maybe they could be used if the principles are not against and when sources provide that English used German names for cities during existence of the Bohemian Crown Lands. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if it was made equal after 1620; its more than enough that it was the second and a major language of the population before as explained in the link I provided, and that is what Gdansk principle is about. That Charles IV was a Bohemian is what you learn in the school in the Czech Republic, but according to every other source (like Brittanica), he was a German, so no need to try to contradict a sourced fact. Given that the lands were governed by German aristocracy since the 13 century, would you mind to provide a source that English used Czech names for cities during existence of the Bohemian Crown Lands?--Der Golem (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Brittanica does not state he was German. At these times the nationality was not so important and all royal houses were interwined (including Přemyslids and Habsburgs). OT. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Administration is not "title". They held the titles to the lands, and hence, the lands existed, even if not administratively. Regardless, I don't know what sources you want me to provide. The German names are significant historically, and no one denies that. Hence, per the WP:Danzig principle, they must be included. RGloucester — ☎ 17:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is anybody bringing up some titles into this discussion? The country was bilingual since the 13th century until WWII and so Wikipedia policy demands alternative names in brackets. Simple as that. Lets please stick focused on the topic in the discussion--Der Golem (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that when is coutry bilingual, there should be allways used all languages used there? What about to use language of Sorbs, who used to be significant minority in Germany? Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Sorbs have never been one third of German population and Sorbian dynasties never governed Germany and Sorbs did not constitute 80% of the students in the first university in Germany and Sorbian was never made equal to German in Germany. I am talking about minorities like Bohemian Germans.--Der Golem (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As you mentioned, WP:PLACE says about significant names in other languages that they "should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information". Mentioning them in a list is the least we can do. Lands of the Bohemian Crown and the Kingdom of Bohemia were both a part of Holy Roman Empire and later Austrian Empire, which were largely German-centered entities. There was a substantial German minority and many ruling German dynasties in the Czech lands. German was a major language in the Czech lands until WWII. The discussion about Gdansk is about the title of the article, but still the German name is mentioned in the article body as encyclopedic information. You are trying to delete here the alternative names from the article body completely. That is groundless and disruptive violation of English Wikipedia customs.—Der Golem (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the WP:Danzig principle, established in the debate on the title of the Danzig/Gdansk article, specifically notes that "cross-naming" must be used. Hence, note at Free City of Danzig that it says in the lead "Baltic port of Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland)". In the same manner, one must note both significant names here. The Danzig vote does nothing to support Yopie's actions, but only undermines them. RGloucester — ☎ 03:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment:

• Officially, the Lands of the Bohemian Crown were dissolved in 1918.
• According to the Yopie and Jirka.24, the languages Czech and German were made equal in the lands since 1620.

Therefore, in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, Czech and German languages were officialy equal for 298 years from 1620 to 1918. And in such case, the English Wikipedia policy requires cross-naming.--Der Golem (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Besides all of that, the "German: Böhmische Kronländer" in the lead section has been there since 2010, so the original, initial consensus in this article is in accordance to the Danzig principle: to use cross-naming, not to delete scross-naming. So deleting it would potentially need a new consensus, not vice versa.—Der Golem (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No, officially the Bohemian Kingdom (Königreich Böhmen) was dissolved in 1918. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not just the Kingdom, but also the crown. All of the crown lands were dissolved as well, as the crown ceased to exist. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, defacto earlier but formally in 1918. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

We can ignore the question of whether German was "official" or not, because that's not relevant here. What is relevant, however, is that the Lands of the Bohemian Crown were multi-ethnic, and had a large German population. Some of the cities mentioned were primarily inhabited by Germans for most of their existence. The German names have historical significance, if only for this reason, and therefore, must be included. This is before we even go into the matter of how the names in German were used in English. Removal is pure whitewashing. RGloucester — ☎ 19:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, multi-ethnic country means nothing, with such policy - almost all of the countries around the world had/have differently speaking minority. Maybe could be used for cities with provable German majority, as should be for Sorbs. However, what i would agree is if the English people largely used German names for the CROWN LANDS, then they should be mentioned in English wiki. That's why i asked for sources. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I gave sources, you didn't like them. Your false definition of "Crown Lands" isn't in line with this article's scope. RGloucester — ☎ 20:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Both languages were officially equal in the entire lands for 298 years - that is a direct basis for Danzig principle policy of cross-naming for the entire country, not just some towns that you would randomly pick up. If you have nothing to say to that, then the consensus remains as before (2010-present): use cross-naming per Danzig principle.--Der Golem (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As i see, to find reliable significant English books with names for medieval districts in Bohemia is too hard mission for us. But ok, i give up, keep the names for now, until we find relible source. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

All right, consensus reached: Lands of the Bohemian Crown will use cross-naming per Danzig principle with Czech names as primary and German names as alternative (and eventually Latin if relevant - such as the lead section) in brackets.--Der Golem (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned just before, no matter what facts are supporting the cross-naming, the article was using cross-naming permanently since 2010 until the present and there is no consensus to stop using cross-naming in this article (i.e. to delete German and Latin alternative titles (in brackets) from the lead section or any other section).--Der Golem (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)