Talk:Martin of Opava

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Google Books

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

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 Chech, 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)[reply]