From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Czech Republic (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article it's a stub. It's indeed a performance to talk a lot about Moravia without any mention of the Romanians or Vlachs from it! Just some links: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Industry / Guns[edit]

wouldn't it be better to move industry to the bottom of the page? it looks weird, when you look up Moravia on Wiki and the first thing you see is pictures of guns — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote most of the Industry section (because the wine story alone was even worse) and I think that the History section should be moved above the Economy section, after all, the share of Moravia's history on the common history of the czech lands may be even greater that Moravia's share on wine or arms production (some Moravians even say that Moravia's share on the common history constitutes more than 100%...). However, I don't really think that "no guns" or "guns at the very bottom only" policies are appropriate here, wikipedia describes a lot of guns and gun-related stuff.
The current version looks much better. I have no problems with guns, I just disliked that the gun pictures were covering like half of the page's height and width. Good job on the reorganisation. -Uzifix (forgot to sign last time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzifix (talkcontribs) 18:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On Samo[edit]

however, modern historians and archaeologists debate this, citing the probable Slavic origins of the name Samo among other supporting factors.

Samo is derived from Germanic language :same = M.E. (Old Saxon), O.N. samr,sami Goth. sama. German language Samen (Semen)= English seeds.
Other samples; Samland , Prussia, Sami or Lapps in northern Europe etc.
That is one theory. Since at least the 1970s, there has been a lot of scholarly debate on this. There may be no relation at all to the German Samen. Sometimes words in different languages are identical, but may not be related. One of the leaders of the "Samo was a Slav" argument is in fact a German scholar.
The Slavs who came into Germania also took over many German/ic words and often adapted them.
Krol for example means king in Slavic. It is derived from Karol(us) ,king/emperor Karl der Grosse or Charlemagne, who ruled over the land. user:H.J.
Samo ruled teritories probably more south from Moravia, some say that he ruled Pannonia.
However it would worth mentioning later state of Great Moravia, which was destroyed by Hungarians, and which destrouction allowed to creating states of Poland and Czech szopen

Nothing of above is true. Samo was trully primarily a Frankish merchant in a province Senonago, as it is mentioned in the article (Fredegarii Chronicon circa 658), but he had no Frankish roots. He was indeed a Slav. Moreover, according to some sources (well known Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum) he was a Karantanian and therefore he was a Slovene. Although this source is some 200 years subsequent than Fredegar's chronicle but it is epitomized from an older records in Solnograd (circa 873), we should nevertheless infer that this is better source than a faraway Frankish one. So Samo (623 - 658) was a king of one of the earliest Slavic states. (See more in Karantania article). Because Samo had hindered Frankish merchants or Frankish influence a war striked out with a Frankish king Dagobert I, Merovingian (603 - 639), who went over Samo's army with all powers of Austrasia (Avstrazia). But in 631 at Wogastisburg (probably Forchheim in Frankish territory) he lost the final battle. This union of states under Samo's goverment is the most important state formation of Slavs at that time. Best regard. -- XJamRastafire 18:53 Sep 4, 2002 (UTC)

LINGUISTICALLY it's 4 to 1 in favor of Slavianophils:
The word-root 'SOMO-' is Indoeuropean \See 'A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages' by Carl Darling Buck\ and not just 'Germanic'. The meaning of this root (C.D.Buck) is "itself related to others for 'together'".
The ending '-O' is the standard vocative ending for the first names in modern Ukrainian (a Slavic language).
The most popular Ukrainian word of all times is 'SAMOSTIYNOST' ("Independence") as opposed to Russian 'SAMOSTOYATELNOST' ("independence"), both having the connotation "self-standing".
So, linggguistically speaking, it's 4 to 1 in favor of the Slavianophils.
And also take into account that the "Germans" and the "Slavs" in the 7th century were less apart from each other in their languages and in all other aspects of everyday life than it has been depicted in the course of recent 800 years.
So much for the "Frankish merchant" who could be just a Slavic 'merchant trading with Franks' as well as the treacherous Frank committing treason of his country and the king.
Blahspeak by G.N.Boiko-Slasten
on this 29 day of November 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:21, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moravian language, wait & see[edit]

"The Moravians speak Czech dialects..." ---Judging from the way dialects mysteriously become languages the next day, expect to see a Moravian language article in the future. Alexander 007 23:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll look it up for you.-- 04:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation from de:Mähren[edit]

As per Wikipedia:German-English translation requests

  • Article: de:Mähren
  • Corresponding English-language article: Moravia
  • Worth doing because: German has more info, esp history and geography
  • Originally Requested by: --Tydaj 18:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Status: In progress - Valiantis 20:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Other notes:
  • Supported:

I've now completed the translation. I've also added some additional info in the section People from de:Mährer re: those who consider themselves to be of Moravian nationality. I have removed the comments re: the Moravians (religion) as this group is already referred to via the disambiguation marker at the head of the page and although they originated in Moravia they do not live there now. Valiantis 17:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

On the Sources section[edit]

Added as a new reference - the Constantine Porphyrogenitus treatise - not touching the paragraph talking about Moravia's history. Later, maybe, I'll be back in order to add a sentence or two, based on this reference, trying not to damage the existing text which looks great to me already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Can we really say that Tomas Masaryk, was born in Moravia to a Slovak father ...? (mater semper certa est) Cepek 21:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Czech language spoken in Moravia[edit]

I have undone the last edit by User:Juro ... because Literary Czech is closer to older Czech and Moravian dialects have preserved more of older Czech language than Bohemian Czech. This is not true. Typical Czech endings like mlejn (for mlýn) can be traced to medieval times so you cannot claim Moravian dialects to preserve more of older Czech. Talking about Moravian and Bohemian dialects we can say, that common Czech as spoken in Bohemia is more or less homogeneous today but there is still a larger variety of Moravian dialects. To claim, that Moravian dialects are closer to literary Czech is naive. Anyway, such a discussion belongs to the excellent article Czech language. --Cepek 07:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not naive, but a well-known scientific fact. But write what you want, as far as I remember (I am sorry if I am wrong) you are one of those "name-of-the-Czech-Republic-ists", so any discussion is pointless. Juro 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Czech names in English[edit]

Last edit by Qertis changes (apart from others) Thaya to Dyje. Whatever I do not like the German name of the river (because the Czech name sounds better to me), we cannot force usage of Czech names in the English language. It seems that the name Thaya has been accepted already.

Also I cannot understand why Jewish-Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist Sigmund Freud ... was changed to Viennese neurologist and psychiatrist.... Freud vas a Jew, he was an Astrian, his books were not burned by Nazis because he was Viennese neurologist. --Cepek 13:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board[edit]

You are invited to join Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Informations to the "Lager Hodolein" near Olomouc ("Olmütz") in 1946[edit]

For an article in the german Wikipedia I'm looking for informations to the Hodolein-camp near Olomouc (in this time called too Olmütz). Which persons where in the camp? Normal members of the german "Wehrmacht", normal people called "Sudetendeutsche", or members of organisations of Konrad Henlein oder NSDAP-members? Any information is warmly welcomed. Please inform me in the german" Wikipedia, under member "Nup". Thanks!

Nup (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


We are as Moravians nation and we are not speaking Czech dialects, but Slav and German dialects. R —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Camp Hodolein 1945-46 We are ethnic Germans lived near Prostejov. My family and I were kicked out of our home and send to Camp Hodolein. I was four years old when my family and I were at Camp Hodolein. After Hodolein we were detailed to work on a farm in Tucapy. Adolf Minaschek — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Doncsecz's efforts to promote anywhere your own article and political opinion[edit]

Doncsecz, this and this edits stubbornly promoting the so-called "Moravian language" could be viewed as highly doubtful and unfair edits which remind political propaganda rather than effort to create meaningful, neutral and unbiased encyclopaedia.
Here are the serious objections:

  1. you insert information about the marginal (to a large extent artificial) phenomenon where it does not belong
  2. you quote from a source that you didn't read and which you don't understand, because you don't speak Czech (so don't even know that the article is about something else)
  3. everywhere here on Wikipedia you insert links to your article whilst your motivation is clearly propagandistic, not informational (as can be easily proved by your activity elsewhere on the internet ([[1]], [[2]] and so on)

I know you from times of edit war about the article Battle on the Marchfeld and remember your curious mix of Hungarian and Prekmurian nationalism and regionalism. To some extent I am willing to understand such attitudes, but you probably do not understand that here at Wikipedia we will give not space for political propaganda neither to retreat to various local-patriotic fanatics – "¡No pasarán!" --Iaroslavvs (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Iaroslaw's opinion about the Battle of Marchfeld is very nationalistic and biased, not my contributions. This outrageous statement: your curious mix of Hungarian and Prekmurian nationalism, also shows the bias of Iaroslaw. For Iaroslaw the sources from Hungary are outset nationalists, but the Weiszhár brothers is significant specialists of the military history and objective historians. Iaroslaw watches out what ethnicity! Doncsecztalk 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Iaroslaw's position in doubt[edit]

Sorry Iaroslaw, but your opinion is the political propaganda: also near the Battle of Marchfeld, in many cases is anti-Hungarian standpoint. In the same way against the Moravians: a biased, nationalistic, Czech propaganda. I'm Slovene Student in Slavistika of University Szombathely and not Hungarian propagandist. Iaroslaw probably is a Czechslovak nationalist. Doncsecztalk 07:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It is regrettable, that the Czech attacked against the article of Moravian language. Doncsecztalk 07:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Template:Off

Moravia and the Moravian language[edit]

The sources from the Slavistic Studies of Szombathely University:

  • before the 19th century the Moravians and Moravian language was distinctive nation and language, not ethnic group of Bohemians or Czech dialect
  • The Moravians never said, that his language is the Czech
  • The Czech standpoints is very-very one-sided, compare the Moravian texts and the Old-Czech language, as the Moravian is primitive compared to the Czech language, in this case every Slavic language (Czech, Slovene, Slovak, Croatian) is the dialects of the Great-Russian language, as this is the Father of Slavic era.
  • I can not deny, i supported the Moravians and the Moravian language, but not from individual nationalism, chauvinism, but this facts is authoritative things.

Iaroslaw personality is very biased. Doncsecztalk 08:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I've ever heard of a "great Russian" language, sure you don't mean Old Church Slavonic? What "some Moravians assert" is irrelevant, what linguists assert however is so if you have sources which back up the existence of a Moravian literary standard.. - filelakeshoe 08:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
No comment, what is the Great Russian (otherwise it just came), the question now the Moravian. Although there is no Moravian literary language (is not yet), but can still Moravian language. In addition, the statements in the article is neutral, not at all, now that dialect or language, but in question. Doncsecztalk 12:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Your "sources" (if they exist) from Szombathely University were probably written by something who don't understand this matter. Bellow my reaction:
  • Before the 19th century there were no nations in modern sense, only groups of people with regional identity (e.g. Dalmatians, Slavonians, Croatians, Bohemians, Moravians, Silesians, Poles, Mazovians, Kashubians, Austrians, Tyrolians, Styrians, Bavarians, Franconians, Saxonians, Prussians, Lithuanians, Samogitians, Latvians, Livonians, Latgalians, Karelians, Finns, Bretonians, Gascognians, Lothringians, Occitanians, Alsatians, Gheghs, Tosks, Wallachians, Moldavians, Transylvanians, Szeklers, Hungarians etc. etc. etc. – tens of examples only for territory of Europe); modern European nations were created during the era of the so-called "National Revival" and "Spring of the Nations" (since 1840's onward) just from such ethnic (sub)groups – and this is also a case of the Czechs. Talking about some special, distinctive "nation" of the Moravians (or Bohemians or whoever else) in earlier periods is absolute nonsense.
  • As for language: "Moravian language" never existed – not only in terms of literary standard but even not as unified vernacular, some kind of a "Common Moravian". But it's true that Czech language was in Moravia often (but not always) called "Moravian", especially by nobility and peasants; on the contrary, scholars mostly (also not always) called it "Bohemian" (lingua Bohemica, jazyk český). In this context is quite interesting my previous discussion with Cimmerian praetor; I cite:

... P.S. You are contradicting yourself a little. Speaking about the 19th century English, the so called Moravian language is nothing but an antiquated designation of the Czech language (or its dialects) spoken in Moravia. Qertis (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That is what I meant, it is antiquated designation of the Czech language, however Bohemian was not used to describe languages of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, despite the fact that Bohemia was used to describe the Lands themselves. What I wanted to say is that Moravian language falls within Czech, but not within Bohemian.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Bohemian was also spoken in Moravia and Upper Silesia

Praetor, do you know, for example, that protest letter of Bohemo-Moravian aristocracy to the Council of Constance was signed as Protestatio Bohemorum? That Hussitic Diet of Čáslav (1421), visited both by Bohemian and Moravian nobility, has approved, among other things, aby sě obecné dobré ... jazyku Českému dálo? Did you ever heard about Comenius's Linguae Bohemicae thesaurus? About Jan Blahoslav's Gramatika česká (Grammatica Bohemica) or Nový zákon (z jazyku řeckého) vnově do češtiny přeložený? (Both were Moravians.) Do you know that Silesian Jiří Třanovský translated Augsburg Confession into Bohemian? (Konfessí Augšpurská: buďto vyznání víry svaté evangelistské ... Z pravých originálních exemplářů ... do řeči české věrně a upřímně přeložil...) Do you know that so-called zemská zřízení (German: Landesordnung) for Upper Silesian duchies Opole and Teschen were issued in Bohemian language? (In 1563 & 1573.) And so on, and so on. Yes, the so-called "Moravian" was sometimes (especially under the Habsburg rule from 1627/28 onward) and somewhere (it depends) designation for language of Moravia or parts of Upper Silesia. But for significant era local language was also named "Bohemian"! Without any problem for Mor./Sil. native speakers.
Really, sometimes I'm not sure if you, separatists, are so ignorant or deliberately lying and telling half-truths...--Iaroslavvs (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No separatist intentions. I just noted, that prior to establishment of Czechoslovakia, the language taught at my area of Silesia was officially Moravian. Also, as I worked on Josef Vratislav Monse, at all times there were notions of Moravian language (for example Odkryté Tagnosti Cžarodegnjckých Kunsstů k Weystraze a Wyvčowánj obecnjho Lidu o Powěrách a sskodliwých Bludech Sepsané w německé Ržeči od Pána z Eckartshausen. Do morawskýho Gazyka přeložil Vpřjmný Milownjk swé Wlasti; please note that I summed it up as "Czech" in the article, without any chauvinism), never of Czech/Bohemian language (similarly when I worked on history of cs:Právnická fakulta Univerzity Palackého and Palacký University of Olomouc and Academy of Nobility). I am no linguist-historian, I just summed up my observations. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, we eventually agree in substantial things. What an irony... But you omit one my important sentence: Yes, the so-called "Moravian" was sometimes (especially under the Habsburg rule from 1627/28 onward) and somewhere (it depends) designation for language of Moravia or parts of Upper Silesia. But for significant era local language was also named "Bohemian"! Moreover, at the turn of the 19th and 20th century, Slavonic language of Moravia and Silesia was named "Tschechisch" too. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Your assertion "The Moravians never said, that his language is the Czech" is confusing and utruthful (see my citations of sources above). If you aren't able to distinguish between Bohemian and Czech and even if you confuse the historical epochs, how dare you to discuss here?
  • I don't understand your 3rd point. The "Great Russian language" is your own invention or what? ;))
  • Of course, You cannot deny your support of extreme Moravian regionalism, how could you? But the author of such stupid cries like: "Boug naj dá, da bi stenderdizírali morávski jezík i (či leko) bi dáo Boug sloboudno Morávsko!" ([3]) hardly can asserts that his only motivation in this matter is respect for "authoritative facts" and not "individual nationalism/chauvinism"...
This is incredible and outrageous! This is my personal opinion in other internet page. Shame on you! We got to do with Wikipedia? I HAVE THE RIGHT ELSEWHERE PROCLAIM MY OPINION! Doncsecztalk 08:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
--Iaroslavvs (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Your allegations very doubtful. In many Slavic Faculty can be read about the Moravians. In Czech course denied these things, so i do not believe your claim. Ludovit Štur beginning did not want the Czech and Slovak units, but Moravian and Slovak unity. Between Moravia and Bohemia is a great gap in language, identity and culture, Moravia did not support the Hussites in Upper Hungary also Hungarian-Moravian-Serbian army fought againts the Hussites. Iaroslav will now accuse me, that i contesting the territorial integrity of the Czech Republic. Doncsecztalk 07:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@Doncsecz, Iaroslavvs and Cimmerian praetor: Please, could you stop reverting and discuss the article (BLÁHA, Ondřej. Moravský jazykový separatismus: zdroje, cíle, slovanský kontext. In Studia Moravica. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis Facultas Philosophica - Moravica. Olomouc : UP v Olomouci, 2005. ISSN 1801-7061. Svazek III) here? Has anyone of you read this article before? I'm not opposed to mention Moravian separatism and the alleged "Moravian language" in this article, as it was discussed in the media, i.e. [4], [5], [6], [7]. The concept of Moravian language may be nonsensical, however, it is entirely legitimate to claim that "some Moravians assert that the Moravian is a distinct language." What's wrong with that? Do you disagree with the short mention in a section of this article? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Blaha opposed the Moravian language, but mentioned the targets.And there is no other sources, just Blaha. The article does not claim, that the Moravian is a language. However please present to the other opinions about the Moravian language! Doncsecztalk 14:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
As I wrote above, it is possible to claim that "some Moravians assert that the Moravian is a distinct language", (and I would add: "however, their efforts are not widely supported by academics and the public"). Please, read the links mentioned in my post above, all the sources question establishing of such an 'official' language. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The attempts to create the 'Moravian language' obviously date far earlier. The sources linked above refer mostly to an isolated attempt from the late 2008 (Mr Kozohorský and his Ústav jazyka moravského (Institute of Moravian Language)). It is possible to outline the history of the topic/develop the idea in the article Moravian language, but here we should restrict ourselves to a brief mention. Just my opinion. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Where to get proper sources on Moravian economy[edit]

Trying to improve the economy section, however it's quite hard to get some sources about modern (20th century+) Moravian economy, as Moravias has unfortunately been "a historical region" and as such it was not being targeted by official economical reports/studies during major part of its economic history.

The quite long-term "historical region with border far away from any official region" status quo also propably means that any such source can be marked as non-objective because anyone who tries to sum up the information on modern economy in the borders of historical region is of course also a suspected separatist guerilla member.

Is there some wikipolicy on describing such regions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


It's not the Moravian flag, what we can see on the page (yellow and red), The bicolor with the colors red and yellow was used in 2. half of 19. century and at the beginning of 20. century mostly by the German language speaking part of the Moravian inhabitants (up to 1918; the colors of the eagle of the shield (coat of arms) were changed in 1915; and in 1917 was recommended by higher places after the question concerning the order of colors on the flag was put, the right order of colors used on the flag - according to the common praxis: first red and then yellow). Also Moravia never had the flag, that would be assigned legally by higher authority; but had and has its symbol - Moravian eagle (heraldry). But after 1848 two rising nationalities with somehow different goals used different colors (the difference was in 1) German speaking Moravians: red and yellow versus 2) Czech speaking Moravians: white and red combinations) to express their national feelings and the relation to the history of the land. Also today the provincial colors would be, when used on decorations, white and red, the same combination as used in the Moravian eagle from the times of Middle Age up to the half of the 19. century, and then by Moravian (Czech/Moravian language speaking) part of the inhabitants to 1918, resp. up to now, and the suggestion of "flag-bicolor" would derive from it, or rather to say would use the principles of vexilology - would take the Moravian eagle and give it on the blue field of the flag. Today (especially last years) the usage of other color combinations or symbols comes as the political effort of some parties. These prefer the usage of yellow and red bicolor with the small shield (coat of arms) laid in the middle (gold and red chequered eagle) as the symbol of the party. But the colors of the Moravian eagle are different as written (silver and red chequered eagle). (Pavel Fric (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC))

So? The flag of Bohemia is still on it's respective page, yet it's not publicly used (maybe when it's mistaken for the Bohemian flag when it's actually the Polish flag). It is important to have the flag on it's page for historic reasons. Even the separatists Moravané and MNC use it!! But I'd suggest using the version with the version with the arms in the middle instead. Sorry if you're still not convinced. McLennonSon (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but red-yellow flag with eagle is flag of mentioned separatists, not of Moravia. --Yopie (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)