Talk:Czech/Archive 1

What is the origin of "Cz" sounding as "Ch"? Are there other instances of this phonetic combination, or is it unique to the nationality context?

I can say only that it is not related to czech native spelling. It is not Hungarian either: it would be "cs" for "ch" then, like in csardas. But again, csardas mutated into czardas, which would be a partial answer to your second question. (for more, just open a dictionary at the letter "C") Mikkalai 20:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes it is claimed it came to English from Polish. Sometimes it is claimed it is one of the original spelling in Czech (before the diacritics started to be used exclusively). -- Jirka

As a linguist, I really hate when somebody says that some word is used incorrectly. This is an encyclopedia not a prescriptivist's manual. So, I would say that "Czech" has the same meaning as "Czechia", but that some people (and organizations) object to such use (which is the case of many other words and names). It may sound illogical (adjective = noun), but there are so many illogical things in language ... -- Jirka

That's a nonsense from any point of view and you know that...This is the way I was thinking when I was 10 years old. Of course there are millions of things in any language that are simply not correct and Czech instead of Czechia is a typical example. You can be happy I have not deleted that part completely, which should be done actually. Juro 13:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Are you a fighter for purity of English?) Why is it a nonsense? From which point of view? (I won't comment on the 10 years thing.) Who decides what is correct in a language? You? No, the speakers as a whole and there are more English speakers using "Czech" as the name of the country than there are speakers using "Czechia". So any linguist would tell you that "Czech" is more correct than "Czechia"; it may happen that it won't be so in the future, but currently it is.

BTW I think that the comment about erroneousness should be deleted because such a thing should not be in a encyclopedia, encyclopedia should not judge. --Jirka 16:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ii is not a judge, yes. But as long as the dictionaries don't recognize the usage 'czech' for 'czechia' it is incorrect, i.e., an aberration from the standard language. Mikkalai 19:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not only do the dictionaries not recognize "Czech" as a noun, they also do not recognize the word "Czechia" at all either. NoPuzzleStranger 21:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Czeh Rep./Czechia at all costs...?

Juro and NoPuzzleStranger, please stop this revert war now! While you may take a good care not to break the three-revert rule, for more than three weeks now the history page is cluttered by your endless reverts, often accompanied by personal attacks! That means three weeks of NOT adding any useful information to this page... This refers also to List of Czechs and Moravians (ethnic group) (to mention at least the other two pages in my watchlist). Guys, try to discuss the thing once again and this time, please try to do your best to come to a consensus this time!! Both of you are making the work harder for me and others watching these pages as we loose the direction where the articles are heading to, by your constant and (forgive me to say this) silly changes.

My five cents to the discussion: while I am quite a strong supporter of "Czechia", I can not support it at all costs. I can not agree with it's usage in this article, at least not in a sentence like "Czech Republic or Czechia". All the three terms "Czech Republic" (the modern state), "Czech lands" (historical areas) and "Bohemia" (well, just Bohemia) have an unambiguous and proper meaning when dealing with the word "Czech". Adding "Czechia" just because it is a proper English word is in my opinion irrelevant and useless. "Czechia", though quite a modern word, will gradually be percieved (as it's usage will spread) as a word covering both the modern republic and the historical states (the same way as a one-word name does for other states). On the other hand, in an encyclopedic article such as this, it DOES make a sence to name all the possible forms and their meanings, ie. I would rather use the present NoPuzzleStranger's revert version.

Both of you, please note, that I am not discussing whether in Wikipedia generally we should use Czechia or Czech Republic, this merely relates to a policy or consensus that should be rather discussed at the Czech Republic talk page and then obeyed. Also, please note that while I disagree with Juro, I am NOT reverting the last version of this page, as I want to come to a consensus of all of us first. Matt 08:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(1)See my last contribution at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, here a copy before the page gets deleted: Please ignore any statements made on this topic by NoPuzzleStranger. He is trying to declare his personal ignorance a rule. Czechia is not a neologism, but a normal word and all relevant English language experts have confirmed that it is the only correct version in the English language. The word has been used since the Middle Ages (it is even written in the St. Vit Cathedral in Prague) as what is called by experts the territorial designation for the Czech territory, and an abrreviated name for the Lands of the Bohemian crown/Czech Republik etc. (just like France, Germany, Slovakia, Poland etc.). It is derived from the Latin Czechia (hence the CZ and CH), just like Moravia or Bohemia. Is is nowadays used in some English encyclopaedias (those with better information), on maps, in the offficial UN country list, by Czech authorities, e.g. in the US government analyses of Czechoslovakia of 1987 (-as a proof) and by all those who have basic information in this field. The English "Czechia" is also prescribed by all Czech regulations and norms regarding geographical names. The word is not really disputed in Czechia itself (the article we have here as a link in Czech Republic is just the author's personal opinion), there are only some people who are used to the older names that were relevant in the 1980s – namely Czechoslovakia and Czech (Socialist) Republic (as a constituent republic of Czechoslovakia – hence the "republic"!). Nevertheless the Czech equivalent exists since the Middle Ages as well, it is in the Dictionary of the Czech language (1978) etc and is used in TV news , newspapers, taught in schools etc.. Even if we admitted that the name was disputed in Czechia itself, the problem in Czech is completely different from other languages – the problem is that in Czech the word for Czechia (Česko) is very similar to the word for Bohemia and at the same time identical with "Czecho-". (which sounds like an "unfinished" Czechoslovakia), but that has nothing to do with English or other languages. In sum, there is absolutely no reason for not using Czechiat, it is even ridiculous and an error not to use it (which is unfortunately the case in most English-language media).

(2) NoPuzzleStranger simply started to make edits without any discussion, any arguments and without any basic knowledge of the topic (thus completely changing the meaning of whole sentences refering to historic entities which I had to correct after him). It is obvious from his edits from the beginning that since HE and all uninformed people do not use Czechia, the word cannot 'occur (I am not talking about article titles !)in an encyclopaedia, even if it is fully functional. I have let him change Czechia into various ridiculous names in articles where it was technically possible, but I cannot do that in articles where it is wrong.

Take this article: it is not possible to leave out a fact (i.e. an existing word - namely the form Czechia) just because it is similar to other words - this is absolutely IDIOTIC: Have you ever seen a dictionary or encyclopaedia where the authors said: "A refers B, C", but let's leave out D, because we do not like it and because everybode can somehow think that A refers to it - Are we in a kindergarden?? And actually, in addition, Czechia has a specific meaning, namely covering both Czech lands and Czech Republic and being a territorial designation, and it is the word from which the word Czech, Czechoslovakia and all the other words were derived in the past in the first place (the original name of Czechoslovakia was Czechia-Slovakia), so actually it should be even included as the first one. And actually, it is a shame that I am the only one here to correct such obvious violations of provision of correct information as it is done here by NoPuzzleStranger, and it is another prove that the English Wikipedia is increasingly getting less reliable as it is invaded by a too large number of people editing but having absolutely no idea what they are doing...Juro 19:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, everyone except Juro is "uninformed". The dictionaries, the encyclopedias, pretty much every resource indexed on Google News, all ignorants who just don't know this "fully functional" word "Czechia"... And no, the English name of Czechoslovakia was never "Czechia-Slovakia", it was only at times hyphenated "Czecho-Slovakia". NoPuzzleStranger 21:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is such an incredibly primitive statement that I even hesitate to answer : The actual name of Czechoslovakia in English is Czechiaslovakia (it was supposed to be a "countername" to Austria-Hungary), it only got wrongly translated into English (and other languages) by people like you. If you do not have fundamental knowledge in this field, DO NOT EDIT here!!!

AND I AM STILL WAITING FOR ONE SINGLE CORRECT ARGUMENT! Juro 20:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The actual English name of Czechoslovakia is Czechoslovakia, because that is the name universally used; it doesn't matter one whit if it's an exact translation from the Czech. I never denied that equivalents of "Czechia" are used in Czech and certain other languages, but they are not used in English, whether you like it or not. This is an English encyclopaedia, so the English name matters. And in English there's neither "Czechia" nor "Czechiaslovakia". NoPuzzleStranger 20:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I have only corrected your wrong statement that the English name was never Czechia-Slovakia - it WAS Czechia-Slovakia, right at the beginning, but that has nothing to do with the topic here. 2. The point is, as I have explained it in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, Czechia IS USED and was even used in the past. Czechia is a NORMAL English word, you are not right. And there is no source in the world that would claim the opposite. And... as you can see from various discussions here, I can name at least 3 native English wikipedia users that have claimed here during the last week that they use Czechia themselves. So what you are doing here is enforcing your (wrong) personal language usage into a general encyclopaedia...YOU alone ARE NOT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.Juro 20:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. Czechia-Slovakia was never the English name. Nor is Czechia an English word, otherwise it would be found in serious dictionaries or encyclopaedias. But of course to you the word of "3 native English wikipedia users" outweighs this. NoPuzzleStranger 20:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I am descending to your "level":As you can see from last changes they are 4 WIKIPEDIA users over the last week and O users saying the opposite - the 4 users being all other users interested in the topic besides you. 2. Concerning Czechoslovakia, it's you of course who is wrong, but the initial name of Czechoslovakia is really irrelevant here. 3. I have seen the word in English dictionaries and encyclopaedias; the word is not included in others, because they are not up-to-date, because they make the same wrong assumpations as you make them here and because before 1997 or so the Czechs missed to include the word in UN documents and other lists, so that everybody thought that the word is not to be used. And finally - nobody says that "Czech Republic" is a wrong usage. 3. Still waiting for the "proof" of your lie that Czechia is a neologism. 4. Since the word exists, it MUST be included here whether you personally use it or not...Juro 21:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually I agree it's not a neologism, because it isn't even a word. A "neologism" is a word that only recently came into common use. But "Czechia" has neither been in common English use in the past nor is it now. If you have seen it in serious dictionaries or encyclopaedias, document it. If you search for it on dictionary.com, in Britannica, or in Encarta, you won't get a single hit. NoPuzzleStranger 21:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. First of all, I do not consider any English language encyclopaedia serious - Especially Britannica contains so many errors (including wrong maps) that its almost unbelivable - but that's not an excuse. 2. I repeat, whether YOU know it, is completely irrelevant, because your statements above show that you simply do not know anything in this field. 3. Even if the word was a neologism (which it isn't - GO TO THE ST. VITS CATHEDRAL, READ ENGLISH TEXTS FROM THE 19TH CENTURY...), that would be a good reason to INCLUDE it here - who says that neologisms are not in dictionaries?? 4. For me and others it's such a normal word that I certainly do not read encyclopaedias with a pen and take notes where it appears. There have been several case where encyclopaedia authors have asked authorities in Czechia which name to use and after they have been informed they used Czechia (of course). As I already mentioned, the word is in the UN country list, which WOULD BE REASON ENOUGH TO MENTION IT HERE (maybe its on the web). Since the only source you seem to know - as a typical cranck - is the web , there is also the US governemnt text (Congress Library) on Czechoslovakia of 1987, where the word occurs (I do not remember anymore where, it was a part referring to the period between 1918 - 1938 - you have to find it) 5. Actually I still do not understand why I am talking here to such an obvious vandal and nobody reacts here... Juro 03:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the St. Vitus Cathedral has the English word "Czechia" anywhere, it was obviously written by a Czech, not a native English speaker. You have yet to document original English texts from the 19th century using "Czechia", even though this would not justify using the word now when it is clearly not in current English use. As to the UN, a Google search of UN.org shows 11 hits for "Czechia" (0.04%) against 25,500 for "Czech Republic" (99.96%). A search of the Library of Congress site (loc.gov) is even more decisive: 8,250 hits for "Czech Republic", zero for "Czechia". Maybe the word did occur in one 1987 text that is not indexed on Google, but how is this relevant among the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that shows "Czech Republic" to be the almost exclusively used English term? You "do not consider any English language encyclopaedia serious" yet you cite a single occurrence from a 1987 U.S. government text? NoPuzzleStranger 04:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above implies the following: the word EXISTS (you see that you yourself have to contradict what you were saying before), and is the official, correct and old; since we are not a frequency dictionary and we are not talking about the title of an article, the word MUST be included in this article...It's that simple, otherwise the article is not correct and people could think that the word Czech does not refer to Czechia for what reason ever...If you understand Czech I can name you texts written on this topic by various Czech English, Czech language and history experts...Juro 04:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It implies nothing of the sort. I don't consider a word to come into existence just because someone uses it. Otherwise I could right now make up a new word, let's say "Czechland". There, I used it, therefore it exists and we MUST include it in the article. (And, look, others use it too: [1]!) NoPuzzleStranger 04:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the discussion is going nowhere. I suggest either to ask few English-native experts (on RfC), set up straw vote and failing that to decide upon history of people involved - judging who looks as more valuable contributor. (Here I need to say that Juro contributed a lot of useful stuff in Wikipedia (thanks) while NoPuzzleStranger had shown significant vandal-like behaviour.) Continuing current edit war is pointless and damaging. Pavel Vozenilek 08:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What "English-native experts" do we need to confirm the perfectly clear evidence I have provided? You can do the Google searches for yourself, and they are quite definitive. As to your accusation of "significant vandal-like behaviour" I would ask you to document this or retract it quickly. NoPuzzleStranger 09:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the real life the "perfectly clear evidence" doesn't always win. Wikipedia should use the most known name, not those deemed to be "the only right and always true". And an un-involved English speaker would be the best to pick the most known name. What regards vandalism I really didn't like your rewrite of my post [2], not to mention the {{pseudoprotected}} debacle. Pavel Vozenilek 10:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is more than obvious that the "most known name" is Czech Republic. That is what the evidence of the practice of thousands of "un-involved English speakers" shows, as seen for example through Google News searches. Are you proposing to let a single person pick the name? As to the pseudoprotected debacle: if anything, that was vandalism on your part since you refused to recognize that (a) the pseudoprotected template clearly says that one side in an edit war voluntarily ceased editing, and (b) no one in the edit war had in fact ceased editing, and that the template was therefore out of place. And because I removed that template, you started falsely accusing me of vandalism, so I simply turned the tables in an attempt to make you see the absurdity of your accusation. I think I have the right to remove completely frivolous charges of vandalism from "Vandalism in progress"; I don't mind if you now remove my rewrite too. NoPuzzleStranger 11:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Google is very bad for popularity assesment. Really. RfC is seen by many people and it is likely more than one person will express opinion. Pavel Vozenilek 11:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NoPuzzleStranger, you, I believe accidentally, removed [3] my previous post, please be more careful next time. I put it up again below Matt 13:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :

I see that I started a flood of opinions here (which is good) but did not make the two main warriors to cease firing (which is very bad and disappointing). Since April 20th you guys made 10 reverts, each of you!! Are you, both of you guys, able to discuss a matter, that is, place relevant arguments here at the talk page rather than revert the main article page?? I still hope you are. Both of you are speaking of protecting the Wikipedia from the other's nonsenses or correcting the other's errors, so you probably are trying to make Wikipedia better, at least you say so. However, by constantly reverting a page (and this is not the only page involved), you are harming it by making useless changes adding no real value to the article. What good is a change or revert if you know, and you just MUST KNOW, that it will be reverted back in a matter of hours? What are you fighting for? Wikipedia, I am sure, will certainly live good, even being slightly wrong for a while, one way or the other, especially on such a controversial subject as this apparently is. Please try to come to a consensus here or at some other talk page, I urge you once again. Otherwise, I agree with Pavel V. that there should be a RFC held and, as the last resort, a poll.

BTW, Juro, you are constantly saying that Czechia is official since it is in the official list of UN countries. Can you (or anyone else) place a source of this information? I will try to write an article on the "czechia/cesko" one-word name and the history of its usage, but cannot find what you say anywhere in my sources. Contrary to what you say, my sources state that the Czech authorities have so far been unable / or unwilling to give an official note to the UN requesting the informal name of the country to be changed from Czech Republic to Czechia. Thanks. Matt 11:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the accidental removal. I think I have shown above that I am able to discuss a matter, whereas Juro has resorted to insults ("idiot", "vandal" etc.). As to your question, "what good is a revert if you know it will be reverted back" - well, it's the only alternative to a surrender. If you don't revert, the other user doesn't have to either and his version will stand - not just "for a while". So either you revert, or the Wikipedia is wrong (in your view) indefinitely. And if you didn't care about that, why would you be here in the first place? NoPuzzleStranger 14:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, there is a third alternative - to voluntarily cease edit wars, and "fight" on the talk pages, that's what they are for! If that doesn't get you to a result, make an RFC. If that doesn't either, engage a public voting... But most importantly, stop reverting in the first place! You say, why should you be here when you know he/she "spoils" your work by putting misleading information into the articles? I don't know but I can tell you that IMO an article as unstable as this one, of which the information changes several times a day, is much worse than a slightly wrong article for a number of reasons: (1) a casual reader can just hit your "true" version of the article but the other's as well so you can never be sure that he/she'll see the right version; (2) it clutters the history page and makes chaos in the watchlists, so annoys other editors; (3) it shows Wikipedia from the bad point of view and gives points to those opposers that state that Wikipedia is just a bunch of semi-educated anarchists with the "chit-chat-and-shout-my-opinion-everywhere mania" ; i could go on with this but I think that's enough for now. I have nothing against you personally and all this is directed not only to you but Juro and perhaps others engaged in the "Czechia revert wars" as well. I didn't want to be a mediator at first but should all of you agree I would try to help. My biggest concern now is stopping the silly war. Matt 15:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, as you can see I am using the talk page, but it doesn't appear that Juro and I will come to an agreement. And if I cease reverting, Juro most likely wouldn't even talk. So the reverts are necessary just to keep the issue alive. I grant your point (2), although I don't think it's that big a deal (how is it "chaos" if a page frequently appears at the top of your watchlist? you can easily ignore that). As to (1): if I revert, the reader at least hits the "true" version about half the time; if I don't, the reader will always see the "wrong" version. So what argument are you making here? As to (3): well, unfortunately, there is some truth to those views, and there's no point in trying to hide it; I wish there were some expert editorial committee which could decide such questions, but instead we do have anarchy. I don't mind you trying to mediate, or make an RFC, but I don't expect this to lead to a solution. A poll is difficult, because the turnout is usually insufficient; in this case, this might attract all those people who like to promote the word "Czechia" and comparatively few disinterested users. NoPuzzleStranger 15:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do have 1400 pages on my watch and this silly revert war makes only chaos for me. Pavel Vozenilek 16:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this discussion: I had a run in with Juro as well recently and all I can say is that his attitude is counterproductive and I reminded him of that. I appreciate his contributions, on the other hand I can fully understand NoPuzzleStranger. Juro needs to keep in mind that there is only so much he can do as an individual, by angering and discouraging others from contributing, he'll do much more damage to the project that a vandal would do. I'd expect from people like him to rise above the small stuff and lead by example. Last time I looked, Wikipedia was a community project, not a dog fight.

As to the discussion: "Czechia" is not common use and if Juro insists on keeping it in the article, this needs to be accounted for. It would be also helpful to include some etymology on the term. Wikipedia should have some sort of voting mechanism for issues like this - I'd vote against it.

Jbetak 17:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the type of disclaimer I had in mind, it's currently used in Czech Republic. Perhaps, there could be a separate entry on "Czechia" explaining the situation. However, although notable, the principal question is if Wikipedia should pay disproportionate attention to words that are not in common use or perhaps even promote them.

The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1993 announced that the name Czechia (Czech: Česko) is to be used in all situations other than formal official documents and the full names of government institutions [4], [5], but this is controversial in the Czech Republic [6] and has not caught on in English usage. See also: Czech lands.

Jbetak 02:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jbetak, thanks, but look at the history page of Czech Republic, the version you cite is not pretty much stable there either. Nobody has yet tried to come to a consensus that would stabilize the matter for some time (say at least a few months, after that it could be revisited), a consensus that would give editors the power to revert, put to arbitration, even ban etc. those who constantly break it. Yes, I support a consensus even though some might inevitably see it as enforcing an error, I simply believe that a consensus supported by majority, even though on a sharp edge of the possibility of being slightly wrong, is by far much better than constant revert wars adding NO value to the articles but only creating chaos. I realize that my own position in this matter is quite easy as I will be happy for both variants, as I consider them equal, only with a slight preference of the Czechia option, but with no intention to push this by force. Matt 07:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have engaged in this, because I was an expert in this particular topic and have read a lot of professional stuff on this during the last few years, but I have other things to do than to quarel with someone who even denies that the word even exists - that is such an obvious ignorance that I really wonder why I am discussing here at all. Geographic names are profesional terminology - not phrasal verbs or other "normal" words -, you cannot vote against the use of an official professional term. There are thousands of professional terms you will not even find on the internet, nevertheless they exist and are correct. Voting against Czechia equals voting for 1+1 being 2,5. Do not forget that the point in THIS article is to provide a list of ALL WORDS TO WHICH Czech refers, no part says that Czechia is a very frequent word. Thus, any deletion of the existing, official and correct word Czechia from this article is - by definition - vandalism and wrong.

Whether the article Czech Republic should be moved to Czechia, is another question (and it should be moved there of course). All persons who know something about this, especially the Czechs here, have been trying to do this here for years now, but it always got reverted. This "problem" is a typical example of how a language (English) does not work properly if it is not regulated by people being experts in the particular fields. The whole works like a vicious circle: Initially, it was not sure what the name of the state will be, so English journalists and others called it the Czech Republic. Later on, when it was clear that the correct name is Czechia, people take google and other sources and say: but the frequence of this word is too low - people use Czech Republic, so Czechia is probably wrong, thus let us use on Czech Republic. Then some Englich dictionaries say, since the frequency of Czechia continues to be low, we have to name the article "Czech Republic" , because if we use Czechia, we probably will not be considered "serious" - as a result, an incorrect, inpractical, too long name restricted to its current political meaning is wrongly considered the only correct form and without any reason.

n Germany, for example, where, fortunately, they still have linguists and not only "set-uppers of frequency lists from corpuses", they told in dictionaries immediately around 1993 that the correct name is Tschechien (which is a word very similar to Czechia in the sense that normal people think it is a neologism, which is definitively not true) and there are no problems nowadays.

Finally, one additional remark, Czechia has now requested the use of "Czechia" even twice (which is probably unpredendented in human history, but I am not wondering seeing this discussion) in 1993 and in 1998 or so. The word Czechia was included in the UN list only in 1997 or so (I do not remember the exact years anymore). Juro 17:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is one of those delightfully bonkers arguments that you get on Wikipedia. My 2c? I speak English as my mother tongue and I work as an editor. I have never seen "Czechia" as a word and I would without hesitation correct it if I did see it. I can see though that it's used a lot on the web (lots of googlehits), so it's not quite that cut and dried. I think we should go with the common usage though, which affirmedly is that the nation is called "the Czech Republic" and the territory is "the Czech lands" or "the Czech homeland" or similar. Grace Note 23:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, well, you mighthave just as well learned a new proper English word, that you'll meet more frequently during your editor work! Matt 07:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, Juro, thanks for re-stating your point of view (you revert immediately reverted by NoPuzzleStranger is NOT that appreciated though). Well, you might be an expert in this topic, but you see for yourself where it leads to when there is no consensus reached. I think that we have nothing against you personally (at least I don't) but still - Wikipedia is not a journal of peer-reviewed scientific articles - why should others believe you that you are an expert, and even if you were, does it matter if you are not willing/able to explain your point of view so that others can accept it and thus reach a consensus? Maybe what I just said is an utopia in the WikiWorld (there will always be people willing to revert anything). Yes, but in that case, we will simply have to wait for a stronger authority to propose the usage of Czechia. Such an authority might be the UN list of countries, that has been mentioned here several times. However, in the official list of UN countries [7], although they use the so called 'official short names', there still sits "the Czech Republic"!

If we are not able to reach the consensus (and sorry for this overused word) by debates, we should in my opinion at least collectively choose an authority consensus and hold to it. See the List of countries - there is a certain "policy" for the country names in Wikipedia. I myself am not very happy about Czech Republic (I support Czechia usage). On the other hand, revert wars are much worse than an inconvenient (from my point of view) consensus. Juro, you say that you have no time for discussions but then please realize (same to you, NoPuzzleStranger) that you are behaving like trolls, though maybe not that radical in revert frequency, but annoying for sure, no matter what the truth is! Matt 07:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I repeat for the 1000th time: I am not saing that the term is used frequently and we are not talking about the name of the name of the Czech Republic article. For lack of time - I have offered to you a detailed US government text of 1987 from the internet where you can find it as an example. And then tehre is the UN list (if it is not on it, it's an old list or whatever - I have seen it there), various studies on the issue, and all the requests of the Czechs - which of this selection is not sufficient enough to recognize the term as an existing term???. When I have the time, I will try to find more sources - you must understand that I have more important things to do. But above all: Look at this article and at what it is saying - the term Czechia cannot be left out here, because it "Czech" refers to it - you cannot deny this.Juro 01:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add Czechia

Please do not disambiguate to Czechia. This page itself creates a redirect. It is considered good practice to link directly to the page that is redirected to in these cases. Since we already have a link to Czech Republic on this page, there is no need for Czechia to be mentioned.Grace Note 04:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Czechia is listed here as a word, not as the "page Czech Republic". Juro 23:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are not idiosyncratic dictionaries. They are to help users find pages. Grace Note 23:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is not supposed to have a correct content (you can call it a dictionary-like content), then it should be completely deleted. The current version implies that Czechia has nothing to do with Czech, but Czech Republic has (although it is actually weird to include Czech Republic here, because Czech Republic already includes the "Czech" in itself). It is not usual to have articles on adjectives in encyclopeadias either. If there is no problems in saying that French refers to France (which is the exact equivalent of Czechia, i.e. covering all the historic entities) and there is no need to write a special article on the meaning of "France", the there can be no problem in saying that Czech refers to Czechia without having a special article on Czechia. If the redirect itself is a problem, I will remove the link then...Juro 18:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, read what you have written (literally)...The previous formulation had its purpose. If you see no problem in the current version, then I am really asking myself what I am doing here...Juro 00:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple, Juro. We have an article on France, because it exists in English as an entity. We have no article on Czechia. So it has no place on a dab page. Grace Note 02:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No I mean the current text...It is incredible that you do not see a problem in the wording...Is English your mother language?Juro 22:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to state what you think the problem actually is. Grace Note 04:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Czech does not refer to the adjective, Czech IS the adjective; in addition and from another point view, if you write "refers to" entities of reality for the other points, you cannot interpose "adjective" for one point, as if the point was different Juro 14:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the conventional wording on Wikipedia. What it is taken to mean is "the symbol X refers to symbols Y and Z, which have these significations". The notion is that this word Czech refers to (translates into) homonyms as follows. You want to fix it, fix it. Then spend your time fixing all the other dab pages. At least you'll be doing something useful instead of pursuing this useless argument. Grace Note 00:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had hoped all the time there was a reason for your edit and that you would propose a reasonable change, but I see that this is like being in a kindergarten. This not a convention, because it is wrong. You cannot write "the word big refers to an adjective" because big IS THE ADJECTIVE ITSELF. The word big refers to something of great size, not to itself. Don't you see a difference between "symbol X refers to symbol Y" and "symbol X refers to symbol X"? I will restore the old version then. Juro 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes feel it would be easier to discuss this sort of thing with kindergartners. "Big" is not the adjective itself; it is the title of the page. To what does the title of the page refer? Usually to the subject of the page. But hold on! We have several subjects to which aforesaid title might refer. Oh yes, so we do. The title "big" might refer to "the man called big", or "the adjective big" or "Big, Missouri". Your argument is spurious and not to the point. Consequently, if you push your POV again, I will revert it again. Grace Note 06:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped you would understand a simple example with a basic word (big), but obviously that is too difficult for you, as well. If you say that the expressions TO BE (in the sense be the thing itself) and REFER TO are identical, and in addition see no problem in introducing one item with "an adjective" but leaving analogous information out for the other items, it really makes no sense to discuss any more difficult topics like "Czechia" here. Juro 00:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained to you very carefully why the page is correct as it is. Your version is in no way an improvement. "Refer to" in this instance is rather close in meaning to "be about". I can't really put it more plainly than that. If you don't understand my argument, I can't help you any further. Grace Note 00:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with GraceNote, it's useless and confusing to have two different words link to the same article, one of them redirected. Matt 07:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I think this subject is suitable for an RFC - there must be many disambig pages like this laying around in Wikipedia, so many people (and many native speakers among them) will have something to say about this. Don't you think? Matt ෙ 07:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's plain for a native speaker. It's not my fault that Juro's English is not good enough to grasp my point. He is in any case only pushing this point because he wants to include a reference to "Czechia" on this page. Grace Note 07:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I grasp your point very well, the problem is you do not know what "refer to" really means and apply everyday slang to an encyclopaedia (obviously the only thing you know about "refer to" is that is frequently used). It is simply inacceptable for an encyclopaedia to say "people will somehow get what we want to say, although it is imprecise both linguistically and factually". Unfortunately this is exactly what we you have done to this article. And do not confuse your lack of basic linguistic skills (it seems that you even do not know what an adjective is) with the Czechia problem. Those are two different problems, both of which have been solved wrongly in this article (like always in the English wikipedia, because - quite naturally - if one takes a certain issue, there is always a majority of people who simply know nothing about it, but the majority decides here in the end). Juro 16:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing as your personal attacks are, it's clear who doesn't have the good grasp of English: nothing on this good, green Earth tickles me more than a semiliterate's lecturing me on my mother tongue, which I assure you I understand as well as anyone can say they do (I will be laughing over "inacceptable" for some time). You're not even clear that "Czechia" is not widely used in it.Grace Note 23:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A third opinion request has been added, we'll see who comes... Matt ෙ 18:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have already given a third opinion yourself. I feel you're just shitstirring by encouraging a POV pusher. I'm very annoyed by that. It's clear that Juro, not able to have his way over "Czechia", has tried a fresh tack in attacking my English, which is far superior to his own. He should be censured for that, not given a green light to continue by you. Grace Note 23:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By making personal attacks you will hardly persuade anyone. I have not shown my opinion on this as my English is simply not good enough to judge the matter (to me, both options are equal). I see nothing wrong with requesting a 3rd view to help you reach a consensus and stop the revert war (and I'm sure one of you will definitely feel annoyed by that, unfortunately). On the other hand the dispute seems to slowly calm down just by itself. For me, this would be good as well, whoever wins in the end, as I simply consider most of the dispute a storm in a glass of water. Matt ෙ 07:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said that I am giving up. The result is a wrong article:

the official, correct, old and existing word Czechia has been completely left out due to absolute ignorance of NoPuzzleStranger and Grace Note
the official, existing and correct "Czech Socialist Republic" has been left out
the explicitely auxiliary term "Czech lands" has been wrongly included instead; *a different linguistic approach has been used for the different items of the article
a lingustic non-sense of the type "big refers to an adjective" has been used

The only "arguments" used have been:

the word Czechia does not exist - which is obviously wrong and a lie
"please"
"that is a convention"

But nobody cares...All this just because a user called NoPuzzleStranger decided one day to remove all occurencies of "Czechia" whatsoever from the Wikipedia, but nobody cares, although,in fact, it has been disputed for years whether the whole article Czech Republic should be moved to the "non-existent" word Czechia.... It is always interesting to see here how such a set of huge errors wins and "confirms itself" in the end.Juro 16:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The corrent version of this article for those who are interested in facts

The word Czech may refer to the following:

the Czech people
Czech language and its speakers
Czechia (9th century - present), the Czech Republic(1990/1993-present), the Czech Socialist Republic (1969-1990), the Czech lands (=Czechia and other Lands of the Bohemian Crown) or Bohemia(historical region) (in all cases as an adjective), and to the citizens of these entities
erroneously to the former country Czechoslovakia and its citizens
Praotec (Forefather) Čech, the legendary founder of Bohemia

Juro 00:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic vs Czechoslovakia links in past entries.

I've just fixed the couple hundred or so mainspace links that were pointed to this disambiguation page. I went for Czech Republic instead of Czechoslovakia for most of the links apart from the obviously historical ones. Hope this was how it should have been done, is it? I was born there in 1983 and tell everyone I was born in the Czech Republic for simplicity's sake so I think it makes sense even if it's not in an way technically correct. There must be some guide for such things. If I've messed things up I'll be willing to go back and fix it, just message me. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 14:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]