Talk:Mojmir I of Moravia

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Mojmir I - This is the most common name in English-language sources. Neelix (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Mojmír I → Moimir I – The suggested spelling would better reflect the name's pronunciation. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mojmír is in literature used more times (892 ghits) than Moimir (179 ghits).--Yopie (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, I know that Mojmír is used more times than the one I suggested (Moimir I), since he is ("by nature") usually mentioned in books dealing with the Czech or Slovak Republics and using the Czech or Slovak ortography. However, experts of the early medieval history of the region (Eric Joseph Goldberg, Walter Pohl, Florin Curta, Victor Spinei, Pál Engel) use the suggested form (Moimir) that better reflects his name's pronunciation. Borsoka (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Re - please read WP:UCN: Wikipedia uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.--Yopie (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
      • In this case, I think that the relevant reliable sources are the ones whose authors are specialized in the specific subject (namely, in the history of this part of Europe in the Middle Ages). And these reliable sources use the "Moimir" form. Just a question, why should not we assist Wikiusers to pronounce his name properly, not in a rather funny form? Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
        • What is funny on the letter í? It tells something about the pronunciation and could help our readers to understand the pronunciation better. No more and no less. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
          • There is nothing funny about the letter "í". But try to pronounce the letter "j" if you are used to English orthography. Borsoka (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't use the unnatural transliteration from Latin-script languages. Also, the current name is used more in academic sources. - Darwinek (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. In his case the "Mojmír" form is also "unnatural" (if any ortography could be qualified as such): he never used this form, his contemporaries never wrote his name in this form (his name was written as "Moimir" in Latin sources in the 9th century). The form with "j" and "í" letters is only "natural" to those WPusers whose "natural" ortography uses (from the 19th century) these letters when writing his name. (A proposito, in my native language I would also use the "Mojmír" form, because it would reflect the proper pronunciation - but it is the Hungarian, and not the English ortography.) Borsoka (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    • What about Sándor Petőfi? Is it the Hungarian or the English ortography? Do you want to start a RM there? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
      • • Sándor Petőfi is a different case: (1) he used his name in this form; (2) is there any reliable source using other orthography? In case of Moimir (1) contemporary sources never referred to him as "Mojmír"; (2) there are several reliable English sources (especially the ones concentrating to the early medieval history of Moravia) that use the "Moimir" form. Borsoka (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rename to Mojmir I. The usual English name appears to be either Moimir (46 hits in English gbooks) or Mojmir (under 320 hits, e.g. A History of Slovakia by Kirschbaum, Encyclopedia Britannica) but google can't distinguish between Mojmir and Mojmír. However if you check them out, Mojmir is commonly used in English sources and Mojmír in non-English sources. Either way it needs a bit more research, but my sense is the diacritic version should be changed. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Google can distinguish between Mojmir and Mojmír, see this link if you want to find out the result for the name containing the accent marks. Do you want to use flawed and imperfect G-search results as the ground for naming an encyclopedic article here on Wikipedia? Counting the G-hits here reminds me of a basketball game: Moimir I. vs. Mojmír I. 176:430. I admit, G-search could be an excellent tool for creating an entirely new and uniform sum of all human (and perfectly English) knowledge. I'm sorry, but I disagree. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Comment. As I mentioned above, I think Czech and Slovakian historians should not be taken into account in this specific case even if their books are published in English. Not because their books are not reliable sources, but because they "naturally" use their own ortography when they refer to a 9th-century Slavic prince. I still suggest that the above referred author's practice should be taken into account: Eric Joseph Goldberg, Walter Pohl, Florin Curta, Victor Spinei, Pál Engel are (or were) excellent medievalist who knew that his name is to be pronunciated in a way that is reflected by the "Moimir" form. Borsoka (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    • "Czech and Slovakian historians should not be taken into account ... because they "naturally" use their own ortography when they refer to a 9th-century Slavic prince". Perhaps it's the time to explain to the Czech and Slovak historians that describing the facts "naturally" and in accordance with the language conventions is inappropriate. They should write the names of the rulers of Bohemia and Slovakia in English. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
      • What about George of Poděbrady, king of Bohemia? Is George a typical Czech name? Borsoka (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
        • No. It is an example of the inconsistency within the Wikipedia's naming conventions, similarly as "Ottokar I of Bohemia". --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments in the discussion. Mojmír is a traditional and established Czech name that has its origin in the names of the ancient rulers. Moimir or Mojmir could serve as a redirect. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • • • What about Ottokar I of Bohemia? Should we change his name to Otakar? Moimir I was a ruler, and ruler's name are traditionally transliterated or translated. Borsoka (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My last comment. I have understood that the "Mojmír" form, probably for emotional reasons, is important for many editors. I usually try to respect emotions, so I can accept this form. (Even if it was never used by him or by his contemporaries, moreover its pronunciation in English does not reflect his real name, and it contradicts to the practise usually followed in case of rulers.) Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support As per evidence above. Indeed we should consider Borsoka's opinion in regard to the practice of experts.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2011 (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.

Henryk Łowmiański's map

Dear ‎Trimnapaschkan, I would like to understand why do you think that I am identical with the late Polish historian Henryk Łowmiański whose views are presented in the map you have been deleting. Yes, I know that his map is only a POV: the POV of a neutral expert of the early medieval history of Central Europe. Yes, I know that there are other POVs: (1) Slovak historians tend to present the "Slovak" "Principality of Nitra" on their maps based on the Bavarian Geographer's reference to the Merehanii; their efforts are really praisworthy taking into account that the Merehanii are located to the south of the Bulgarians in the early medieval text; (2) Czech historians tend to say that the Merehanii were in fact identical with the Marharii, therefore the Bavarian Geographer's remark proves the development of the Moravian state. All the same, I do not understand why should we delete a map designed by a Polish historian which presents the almost verbatim interpretation of the Bavarian Geographer's text (for example, by locating the Merehanii to the south of the Bulgarians). Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bosoka, I am pretty sure that you know exactly what this is all about. The theory that the Merehanii were located south to the Danube has no archeological evidence, Łowmiański died in 1984 so maybe he had not the latest archeological dates from Moravia and Slovakia. Nowadays this view is just represeted by a few individuals (Boba, Eggers, Bowlus, etc.), and even they differ about the exact location of their "South Moravian State" (f.a. Eggers looks for this people in Transylvania, Boba somewhere along the Great Morava River in Serbia). However, since these authors are historians too, I would agree on a map where their viewS are shown beside the other views, but never just one map like this.

PS: I am not a supporter of the "Slovak view" as you described it, although it is not just a Slovak view since for example Alexis P. Vlasto and other western historians mentioned it in their works. All the same, in my opinion the efforts of the "revisionist arguments" of Boba & Co (as which they are marked f.a. by Goldberg) are even more praisworthy by totally ignoring the areological evidence in Moravia and Slovakia, respectively their totally absence in all the areas they suppose to.--Trimnapaschkan (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. That there were "Merehani" to the south of the Bulgarians is mentioned in the Bavarian Geographer. Yes, it is not impossible that in fact the Merehanii inhabited the regions to the north of the Bulgarians. But we can present all POVs. Borsoka (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." Thats all I am talking about. If there is just one map showing just one view, which even just represents a minor view on the topic, than this is in no way a NPOV. Until the other views aren't integrated in the map, it would be just confusing to leave it in the article.--Trimnapaschkan (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)