Talk:Vogt

Further information

"Further information: Grafschaft " where? did the links get mixed up?64.129.127.5 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff maybe needed

(I've deleted the "Grafschaft" link (see above comment) because I can't tell, either, what its relevance is in the article, and because the link leads to a disambig. page -- and because no one's answered the above question since June.)

But more importantly: To what language does this word belong? And what does it mean, specifically? Is there a literal English translation, or (if that's not possible, which isn't stated) at least a clear, concise definition at the beginning of the article (in front of all the different non-English variations)? Is it a proper or a common noun? Is it nobility? Is it a military title? Government office? Plural or singular? Is it fuzzy? Can I crush ice with it? Can I tie it in a knot? Can I tie it in a bow? Can we have an example in a sentence, maybe? Or something?

I would give it a whirl, myself, but Googling it isn't making it much clearer for me -- I'd much rather give first dibs to someone who's actually fluent in the language and/or familiar w/the term. Anybody? Sugarbat (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article commences;

"Vogt (German, also Voigt; plural Vögte; Dutch voogd; Danish foged; Polish: Wójt; equivalent in Latin advocatus) is probably derived from Old High German vogeten, "to protect". Originally, it referred in medieval German-speaking areas to the guardianship or military protection executed by an overlord over ecclesiastical institutions and their territory. The Vogt would likely be one of the sovereign's ministeriales, and likely a noble. The territory or area of responsibility of a Vogt is called a Vogtei. In addition to his protective military function, the Vogt dispensed secular justice."

It then continues by giving specific historical contexts. --Wetman (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why you pasted the beginning of the article here -- it sort of implies that I didn't read it, or don't understand the words that are there, neither of which is the case. I did read the whole article -- but that isn't related to my concern, so I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't ask for a context -- specifically, I think there's too much context and not enough definition/translation in/to English of the actual word, itself. Could you help with that? Because that would be great! Sugarbat (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Before you freak out: Yes, I did see that there's a "plural" form (but in what language?) of the word, which makes me assume that "Vogt" is probably singular (but in what language??). I wanted to point out that my "fuzzy" question, too, was an attempt at humor, which might serve as a distraction instead of an amusement here. My bad. (not "bath"!) SB —Preceding comment was added at 02:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be useful to have the opening text right here, where we can work on it. "Too much context and not enough definition" would be hard to satisfy, for Vogt is a historical term, used in certain regions in certain times. With many historical terms, the context is the definition: here's a badly-written example at Wikipedia: Patricius. It's not the same thing in the 3rd century BCE as in the fifth century CE. That article doesn't give the career of the category patricius, which is needed. So, I've inserted "German" into the opening sentence above, as "German-speaking" wasn't a strong enough statement. "Is it nobility?" Well, the text says "overlord" because it's the position not the nobility that counts. The European idea of a nobility was being formed about the same time as that of Vogtei, "vogt-ship". Well, I've inserted this: "The Vogt would likely be one of the sovereign's ministeriales, and likely a noble." Yes, the text tells you that's it's a military title. A "government office" would be a misleadingly late idea, an element of a more developed feudal bureaucracy.

How does the re-edited text above look to you now? And how about the rest of you lurkers! What still needs saying?--Wetman (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and my own issue: the text reads "...is probably derived from Old High German vogeten, "to protect"." Hmm. Isn't it just the converse? Isn't the verb vogeten derived from advocatus=>vogt, "to protect, to act like a vogt or advocate". Doesn't the first use of vogeten actually imply that vogt already exists? That's my issue.--Wetman (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are right. It wasn't referenced anyway. Such confident statements without any trace of a source are problematic, and should at least be tagged as {{dubious}} on sight. --dab (𒁳) 12:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is vogt an English word?

An editor is changing wojt to vogt over Wikipedia, claiming that vogt is an English word. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Near impenetrable language

The language of large sections this article would benefit greatly from the editorial attention of someone who not only understands the subject but can also can write lucidly.

Take, for example, the 110-word-long (!) sentence in the section headed "Church vogt". It opens with this clause:

» The three-way struggle for control of the Vogtei of the more important abbacies, played out among the central monarchy, the Church and the territorial nobility, was pretty well established as a prorogative of the nobility «

1) I don't believe there is any such noun as "prorogative" in English.
2) Even if the writer meant "prerogative", it is hard to see in what way a struggle between three parties could be, or become, an exclusive right or privilege, let alone be established as the prerogative of just one of them.

-- Picapica (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreadable mess

The one-paragraph lede is an unreadable mess. All too often Wikipedia is not very user-friendly. --Lubiesque (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge proposal: advocatus

seems like 100% overlap. I think advocatus is the more international name, and the better name to keep?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There are some similarities but should have their own articles. They aren't the same. Oranjelo100 (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please name any difference? Vogt is just the German word for Advocatus. The French word already links to advocatus. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These positions weren't the same. Advocatus was a noble title. Vogt much less so. Oranjelo100 (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are incorrect. Vogt is literally the modern German word which is an "advocatus" in medieval documents. There were several types, and none were definitely hereditary in the earliest phases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In favour: Advocatus, avoué, Vogt was a function, not a nobility title, despite the fact that it often became hereditary. Advocatus is the generic word for all those national functions. The fact that Vogt has a separate article is probably due to the fact that in the Holy Roman Empire, the Church Vogt (advocatus ecclesiae) played a much greater role than the avoué in France. Currently, the article Advocatus does not deal adequately with the Church Vogt, by a very long stretch the the most important, controversial and divisive Vogt in Germany/HRE. Same situation with the article Vogt which spreads in all directions and deals too much with trivia (use of word Vogt in the Netherlands today, etc). Whether there is a merge or not, Advocatus will need to be rewritten and include an elaborate sub-section on the HRE Church Vogt. --Lubiesque (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the basic point. But there is also an evolution over time. In any case, to make the best article possible we really should get one article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of a merge, per Lubiesque. We could retain a separate page just for the HRE, but that would mean paring down this page and probably moving it to a more specific title. In any case, advocatus and Vogt name the same office, found in many countries. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need anymore discussion on this or should we merge. I count 3 in favour and one against. (I do feel the 1 against is based on a misunderstanding.) While I certainly agree that these terms encompass a wide range of meanings which developed over time, any attempt to split those would have to be done chronologically, but I think this would lead to a web of closely related articles with confusing names, and each of them would have to refer to each other to explain what they evolved from and into. I suppose a logical structure within one article would be better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have starting making a merge draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/Advocatus As far as I am concerned, please feel free to either work on it, comment on it, or already use it to go ahead with a merge. It is not a great article, because neither article was really perfect to begin with. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have done the merge.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheriff

The closest English equivalent both in function and responsibility is the sheriff, so it is surprising why it is not linked - ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.114.6 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is a a simple equivalence, and there are many types of "manager" which would be equally close. The position of vogt or advocatus evolved into many different variants in different areas. Maybe some particular vogts came close to a sheriff, but I don't think that is what unites all the vogts under one term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]