Talk:Masaryk University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Czech Republic (Rated Start-class)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

The Article claims that Brno Uni is SECOND UNIVERSITY. In which sence? Clearly Olomouc Uni is older. Although other Olomouc faculties were closed, the Faculty of Theology was working all the time since 16th century (apart 1618-1621) until 1939.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any source proving the statement that MU was founded as a third Czech university? Source #2 clearly says something different. Masaryk University was founded as a second Czech university, not third (see Czech law 50/1919). The movement was in fact for the second university and the motivation was to elevate competition with Charles University. In my opinion, the original statement was perfectly correct while the current is a bit falsificating history. Nereus124 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I run against the conflict between what the source says ("second") and what had been – falsely – sourced by it here ("third") for over five years and decided to fix it immediately, restoring the information cited by the source. In addition, if the current wording gets disputed again, I can provide more evidence in printed literature and eventually the whole lead could be reformulated to be historically faithful while touching the rather complicated history of the whole "fight for a university in Moravia" only in the article's section on history. --Blahma (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Moravia (recent edits)[edit]

I too don't think Moravia should be stated in the Location. It is a historical region not an official one. No other Wikipedia articles have historical regions in Location. Brno doesn't mention it in the right column either. I suggest removing it, since the common practice in Wikipedia seems to be not to include historical regions in Location. Polaroit (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Simple removal is OK with me, however revert which leads to deleting contributions done to the article over past two weeks is not (there are however articles, where I insist on the Moravia in infobox, usually those, which deal more with history, such as the one about oldest university in Moravia - University of Olomouc).
The person who erased it made a number of similar actions on other pages, erasing either Moravia, or EU in the infoboxes, doing it by reverts leading into loss of contributions in past weeks. I simply went after him and reverted his actions.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"I simply went after him and reverted his actions." Well those changes of Moravia and EU were correct. You should have kept those. Polaroit (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"there are however articles, where I insist on the Moravia in infobox" That is your POV. You're the only one who does that. See articles about other universities. The practice how to write Infoboxes has already been established. Why do you want to reinvent the wheel? Best place for information about history is the History paragraph, not the Infobox. Polaroit (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You are totally missing the point: " doing it by reverts leading into loss of contributions in past weeks" and "Simple removal is OK".
Using EU by the countries of EU seems to be well established practice.
My problem is only in articles which deal with history over 100 years, where statehood or regional division changed numerous times.
Anyway as I said, feel free to change it, but please don't do it by erasing other contributions.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"Using EU by the countries of EU seems to be well established practice." No it's not, see University_of_Paris, University_of_Oxford, Cambridge_University, Vienna_University, University_of_Heidelberg.
"My problem is only in articles which deal with history over 100 year (...)" Again, see for example University_of_Heidelberg, it was founded in the Holy Roman Empire yet the Infobox states "Location: Heidelberg, Germany", because the practice is to state current location of the university. You can write more about history in the History paragraph.
I'm sorry for such a long discusion about these minor changes. I just want as to reach consensus. Polaroit (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not only history, I put it there, where it is a defining element of the article. Heidelberg is the oldest uni in Germany, which is the defining part. The University of Olomouc may be understood as the second-oldest Czech university, or as the second-oldest Austrian University, however at all times it was placed in Moravia. It would be surely wrong to write there into infobox March of Moravia (in which it was established), since it is discontinued entity, however Moravia still exists, despite the fact that it has not a status of administrative unit.
I agree that it is not a defining element when it comes to Masaryk University, or to any other University in Brno (might be different issue with Brno University of Technology, establishment of which was enforced directly by the Moravian nobility, but I am not getting into that). If it would be simply erased from the other articles, I would let it be: but that was not the case.
EU issue - I will reconsider.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)