Talk:Martin of Opava

Untitled

Another tedious round of WP:RM with predictable outcome, or is anyone willing to move to the by far most common English name, without much further ado? Thanks in advance. -- Matthead  DisOuß   12:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand this comment. Martin of Opava is the name found in the most recent literature. Martin of Poland is indeed more common, but the trend away from it is a logical response to the insight that he didn't come from Poland. Opava is in Bohemia. He was given a diocese in Poland, but died before he could visit it. I suppose I could live with renaming the article "Martin of Poland", if that's what you are after, but it would go against the trend. He is also sometimes cited by Latin or German or mixed German/English forms of the same two names. If you are wanting to move to one of those, I would resist it vigorously. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For related naming disputes, you may look at "Duchy of Opava/Duchy of Troppau", and the currently protected Duchies of Silesia.-- Matthead  DisOuß   19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a rather clear-cut case of WP:COMMONNAME.

• Martin of Opava: 5 publications
• Martin of Poland: 39 publications
• Martin of Troppau: 168 publications

Doric Loon mentioned the "most recent literature". Regarding texts published since 1990, Google Books gives me 1 for Martin of Opava, 12 for Martin of Poland, and 58 for Martin of Troppau. Olessi (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind. I would like a (neutral) Latin name as for most vintage scholars, but often those were rejected for Latin being not English, so I guess we need the most common combination containing "of". Also, its helpful to enforce at least "+1278" to include the year of death, a minimum for a bio. A lot of books seem to deal with that "Pope Joan myth" anyway. -- Matthead  DisOuß   19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Martinus Polonus gets many more hits in the recent literature than the options above (207) and 700 all-time hits, give or take. If it's used in English language texts, then it's English enough to me. The current name seems unsatisfactory, as any of the names proposed seems more common, but this seems the most common so far (though there may be an even more frequently used name). Thoughts? Knepflerle (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Martinus Polonus does seem to be the most common name. Barring any other suggestions, that seems to be the ideal title to me. Olessi (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Martinus Polonus, seems a good choice.--Molobo (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, oldest trick/mistake in the Google book. A ""Martinus Polonus" date:1990-2008" search includes hits in any language, not only English, unlike searches for "X of Y". When English is enforced with let's say "+archbishop", Polonus hits are down to 17 [1], which compares to "of Troppau" with 13 [2], so hardly conclusive -- Matthead  DisOuß   20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the absolute expert on Martin is Frau von den Brincken. I have on my desk a copy of the first piece she has written in English, which has not yet been published, and it uses Martin of Opava. The tendency in medieval studies is to move away from Latin name forms, so if you do prefer Poland, I would be happier with Martin of Poland than Martinus Polonus, which just sounds like it's not cutting-edge. But PLEASE not Martin of Troppau, which is half English and half German, and makes no sense for a Latin-speaking Czech. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is dazzling. First, if that is the case, v. d. Brincken using "Martin of Opava" in an upcoming english publication, it will raise the total post-1990 Google book count to 2: [3], and the all-time Google scholar count to 1 [4]. Then, why calling a Latin-speaking "Czech" (rather Bohemian/Moravian/Silesian) "Martin of Poland"? He has never been there, as far as we know, and as you pointed out before. Nearly the same can be said of "Opava", which is the name of the modern day city, since 1919, virtually unknown in pre-1800 books [5], unlike Troppau, which is known in even in pre-1700 books in English or French [6]. See also river Oppa [7]. "Oppaviensis" uses "pp", which is quite unusual in Slavic names, frequent in German. Regarding "Martinus Polonus", it is popular, yet it is Latin, which I remember as having been rejected in disputes about the English naming of old scholars. BTW, here's a weird one: Laȝamon.

Anyway, in a showdown between the two most common names in English use, with English enforced by "+chronicle", and "+1278" to make sure at least the year of death is included, limited to post 1990 era:

Google Scholar

• "Martin of Troppau" +1278 +chronicle 4
• "Martinus Polonus" +1278 +chronicle 4

Google Books

• "Martin of Troppau" +1278 +chronicle 3
• "Martinus Polonus" +1278 +chronicle 10

So, English or Latin? -- Matthead  DisOuß   20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Matthead, watch the personal tone! Dazzling or not, my logic is logical. Googling for stats is part of the story, and if you want to take time out from your motorsports to contribute that, then thanks, it's very helpful. But actually having read the literature is also part of the story, and it would be nice if you didn't sneer because I can contribute THAT.

Opava is NOT a modern form - you yourself cited Oppaviensis as medieval Latin. It is the German adaptation with the unetymological Tr- which is anachronistic for Martin, and particularly odd in English.

We have at least eight forms to choose from:

• Latin: Oppaviensis or Polonus
• English: of Opava or of Poland or the Pole.
• German: von Troppau (bzw. half-German of Troppau)

I think you are right that we want one of the English ones.

When I said Czech, BTW, I meant that Martin's native language was Czech. And I didn't say he had never visited Poland - he did spend some time in a Dominican establishment there. What's weird about Laȝamon? --Doric Loon (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird about Laȝamon is ȝ. Do I understand correctly: You consider of Opava as English, but of Troppau as half-German? If you got evidence of his whereabouts, feel free to expand the article. -- Matthead  DisOuß   20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of "the unetymological Tr- which is anachronistic for Martin, and particularly odd in English", the List_of_United_Kingdom_locations:_Tri-Tz#Tro fills two pages on my monitor with places beginning with Tro, while List_of_United_Kingdom_locations:_On-Oz#Op has three - not pages, but entries: Openshaw, Openwoodgate, Opinan, none of them beginning with Opa. Names like Tropp or Tropper can be found on English Wikipedia, unlike Opav. -- Matthead  DisOuß   00:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Our article on the town is called Opava, which is the original Czech form. That is also what the town is called in English. German calls it Troppau, which is the same name with a Tr- added for no obvious reason and the Slavic ending replaced with a German one. There is nothing unenglish (or unetymological) about placenames starting with Tr- per se, just with this one. (Laȝamon on the other hand is quintessentially English - you obviously are not at home with medieval authors!) --Doric Loon (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that articles should be titled according to how the topic is most commonly known in English, not necessarily what the most accurate title is. The various names used for this individual can certainly be discussed within the article, however. Olessi (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes definitely. But if two forms are both very common, I don't think a Google search need clinch it. In this case, given the choice between some form of Opava and some form of Poland, both of which are widespread, other considerations can come into it too. And if there is a wikipedia policy to go for English rather than Latin forms of medieval names, that overrides on the language question. (I don't know if there is such a policy, but I understood Matthead to say there is.) --Doric Loon (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that there is a policy, just that I remember people rejecting Latin namings. Can't bring up examples from the top of my head, though, except that Nicolaus Copernicus is accepted, even though some argue for Nicholas. -- Matthead  DisOuß   20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we need a general policy. I have started a discussion of this on the Middle Ages project page, though maybe you can suggest a better place to conduct it. Maybe we should hold fire on Martin until that comes to a conclusion. If I can just make one point here, though, in a medieval designation like Martinus Oppaviensis, the name is Martin(us), and the other word, which can be called a toponym, is the adjective from a place. Unlike modern names which might have a similar format (Otto von Bismarck) it really does mean "Martin who comes from Opava". So the "Oppaviensis" bit is not a name, it is a WORD. That's why so many different forms occur. And that's why different rules are needed than apply to modern names, and we ought to work those out wiki-wide. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose to the move of this article, I think it is good to stay with the current name. There is not any reason to move to latin name. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin of Opava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041227161054/http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/helios/fachinfo/www/kunst/digi/lauber/cpg137.html to http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/helios/fachinfo/www/kunst/digi/lauber/cpg137.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Popular Culture

An IP user has just added a popular culture section, saying that Martin's chronicle is mentioned in Peep Show. I am not certain that this is notable, especially as our article on Peep Show doesn't mention Martin, so it is apparently not even terribly important for Peep Show. It might be interesting if we were told more about the plot device and how it works, but just the information that Martin gets a mention there does not add anything to our knowledge of Martin. I suggest deleting this section. Other opinions? --Doric Loon (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)