Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Czech territory in Germany

The article currently states: "The Czech Republic also possesses a 30,000-square-metre (7.4-acre) exclave in the middle of the Hamburg Docks, which was awarded to Czechoslovakia by Article 363 of the Treaty of Versailles to allow the landlocked country a place where goods transported downriver could be transferred to seagoing ships. The territory reverts to Germany in 2018."

Is the above true? While it may have been in the Versaille Treaty, is this still legally the position? Can any one provide a source for this? It is not on the list of exclaves so if it can be properly shown that it is true, it should presumably be added to the list. Redking7 (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is still officially valid (the treaty was never cancelled) but is de facto ignored by both sides. Try Google, I'm sure there's an article there somewhere I read recently about ex/enclaves in general that mentioned the 'strange example' of the CS enclave. And I'd be curious why the exclave passed to CR and not SR (well, de facto it is obvious but I'd be interested how they de jure implemented that). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, don't we have an exclave in Holland? Or do I have it wrong, I remember reading something about a piece of token land dedicated to Comenius. The Dominator (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading something like that too, but I thought it was only for the duration of something or another, though Benelux and France seem to enjoy granting cemeteries and graves extra-territoriality... +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Hexagon1. I had researched the question on the Internet and had found one article referring to the exclave. However, I could find no other references and I don't think an unreferenced article would be enough. I think unless reliable sources for the claim to the territory can be found and put in the article, the reference to the exclave should be deleted as it may well be inaccurate. Maybe some one else will know more.Redking7 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On a basic Google search I found this article: [1], not sure how reliable it is. The Dominator (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you The Dominator but that is indeed the only article I could find as well and I really would not consider it a reliable source at all. Certainly it provides no sources etc. The search goes on. Can any one find any proof that the Czech Republic (still) has an exclave in Germany? To be honest, it seems unlikely to me but lets give it some more time. Redking7 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep looking, for know I agree with the template you put in, I don't think it's that unlikely but this is the first time I've ever heard about it. The Dominator (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be a little too old fashioned for y'all fancy scholar types, but how about using your eyes? You know, load up a satellite image of Hamburg docks and chances are that a contiguous massive block of undeveloped unnamed land will be it. That's how mah mamma would do it, so it ought to be good enough for you too. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I assume scholarly records existed before satellites... :) The Dominator (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Blasphemy! Any more comments like that and I'll have the Kansas school board deal with you and your ignorant views. Next you'll be advocating a heliocentric solar system and giving the vote to gays... (kidding, don't lynch me)

So, has anyone had a look? I'm over limit so basically on dial-up speeds, Google Earth isn't exactly dial-up's best mate. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have dial-up, but I do have a very slow modem and it won't load properly and only shows parts, possibly suggesting that the earth is flat?. I think that it might qualify as WP:OR though, unless the map explicitly stated that the territory is Czech until 2018. The Dominator (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We could ask the four elephants? We technically have a source, though it is not a very good one. And visual confirmation would be in the interests of the article. I can't really research this, and I don't think Dominik can either, could anyone inside the Republic have a look somewhere, a library or ministry or something? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok - Its been over a week on and no one has anything approaching a reliable source for the claim the Czech Republic has an exclave in Germany. I searched and found nothing. This is an encyclopedia so accuracy is important - its time to delete the piece. Redking7 (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, we found a source and there is nothing that says it is unreliable (even though it probably is), also a week is hardly enough time to do anything, I just came back from vacation! The Dominator (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I try to make my contributions to WP accurate and verifiable. You say yourself that the one source (a magazine article) found is not reliable. My view would be to delete it and if it can be verified later, to put it back up - not mislead people in the interim (or indefinitely). I won't get into an edit-war with you. If you are content to leave something on the main page which isn't verifiable, that's a pity and WP is the looser. I won't have anything more to say on this and will leave it to you, The Dominator, to do as you see fit. Redking7 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said to keep inaccurate or unverifiable information, I'm just saying to leave it there for now, if it isn't there, how will people know to look for sources? In this case it's better to leave it with a {{fact}} tag and see if anyone finds a source. I'll also try to ask at the wikiproject. The Dominator (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I decided to look at this again and asked for help on the Talk:Germany page where it is under discussion. With the help of a response I got there, I have located two sources that verify some of what was said in the Czech article. Here are are the relevant statements and links:

"Hamburg contains a 30,000 m² area of land in the middle of the docks called Moldauhafen ("Vltava port") which is leased to the Czech Republic. The land has extraterritoriality and therefore is exempt from the laws of Germany and Hamburg. The lease was awarded to Czechoslovakia by Article 363 of the Treaty of Versailles to allow the landlocked country a place where goods transported downriver could be transferred to seagoing ships and is set to expire in 2027." Bremen Airport Article

"The Moldauhafen is a 30,000 square meter large part Hamburg port, which signed Versailler of contract due to 1919 in the year 1928 for 99 years to Czechoslovakia was leased. 1993 began the Czech Republic of the Rechtsnacholge. The Elbe is for the inland Tschechien the only navigable connection to the Weltmeeren." Tourism Article

As initial comments on Talk:Germany indicate, it may however be incorrect to describe it as an exclave as it may be more akin to non-sovereign territory such as an embassy. I'll leave it to you to make any changes to the article as you see fit. I would encourage you to keep an eye on the Talk:Germany page as it may provide useful information. Redking7 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this is a link to the area in question on Google Maps. [2] Note the denomination "Moldauhafen" ("Vltava Port") in the basin, as well as the street names "Prager Ufer" ("Shore of Prague") at the docks and "Am Moldauhafen" ("At the Vltava Port") nearby. --91.7.68.153 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about Czech land in Hamburg. But here in the Czech Republic is quite known, that our state had small fleet on a sea. But it was stolen by Viktor Kožený during our famous Voucher privatization in 90s. I excuse for bat english. --Dr. Killer (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Czechia

• Velíšek Z.: What’s in a Name? Identity Politics in "Czechia" What’s in a Name? Identity Politics in "Czechia"

Simply we need Czechia !Jan Blanický 19:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

Why does Wikipedia not name the article about Germany "Federal Republic of Germany" and the article about France "French Republic", while the article about Czechia is named Czech Republic? Why do you use the official name in this single case?? - Miroslav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.109.6 (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the long discussions in the archives and come back when you have something original to say and some new evidence to share. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you're interested in a short version: Wikipedia uses common names. If and when Czechia becomes widely used in English, this article will be uncontroversially moved, but that is very far from the present reality. (By the way, it's not a "single" case; for instance we have Republic of Macedonia and even Republic of Ireland, which isn't even the official long form.) -- Jao (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you well, we are discussing SHORT names, their meaning and use. Česká republika/Česko are two different names, they are the two present-time official and standardized names of the Czech state whose history has lasted 1000 years. The discussion as a whole is rather odd, the most participants seem to be Czechs. It is embarassing that they repeat ad nauseam the same old pieces of misinformation like "Chechnya-Czechia" --Ilaned (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Please note that – according to the UNO rules of geographical names (not only those of states) - every state has a right to call itself as it wants or needs.

In spite of this, from 1993, the Foreign Ministry of the Czech Republic did not see to it that the name Czechia be included in the list of geographical (short) names published by the UNO cartographic service on their websites. The service waited to 1995 but the Foreign Minister at that time, Josef Zieleniec, did not send any relevant information. Then the empty column was completed with the political name of this country. That means, the "short (geographical)" name is represented by "Czech Republic"! Our state of a thousand-years history should only have one name, as a kind of "unsteady novelty" on the political map of Slovakia. Apparently, this is the conviction of all the "no-Czechia" speakers in this talk.

The UNO cartographic service cannot "invent" or "confirm" geographical names of the member states. They only include in their list of "short names" those that they are given by individual states. As our state did not give them the information, the service had to fill in the gap with the political name. (This fact can also be seen in a few other states.)

You (or: we) can only discuss the names from a linguistic, historic, or other professional points of view. If any state has objections to the name(s) of another state, such as Greece to Macedonia, it has a right to submit its opinion to regional or global negotiations. To the best of my knowledge, no UNO member state, not excepting the United Kingdom, has ever raised an objection to the short name Czechia. --Ilaned (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is very simple, Miroslav: the Czech Republic is one of those rare cases in which the country's common name in English language is the "X Republic" form. The other two examples that immediately come to mind are the Dominican Republic and the Central African Republic.
Regards, Ev (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The states you cite, which (for the time being!) do not have short names, are mostly new, young, undefined states... Certainly, Česká republika-Česko (not to mention its previous political and short names) is not a state of this type, believe me.

Czech language easily forms short names of states (Polák, polský, Polsko etc.), so it is no problem to call in Czech Dominican Republic "Dominikánsko", C.A.R. "Středoafricko" etc.--Ilaned (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha, this is really awkward to defend political name against geographic name. It is incredibly shorsighted. It looks, that Czechs want to decide, how native english speakers will name their land. From that reason arose all stupid mistakes lile !I am from Czech". CZECHIA is absolutely OK, only continuously erased from here by vandalizing fossil bureaucrats (Cimmerian praetor et al.), that also erases refferences and other information - it looks, they are in fear from Czechia, preferring political, unstable name against stable geographic name. However relatively new, all would to use to it without any problems. Nobody cares about some historical problems and blahblahblah, other lands also don´t solve how was the name of their land in 16th century. Stupidity. Czech, Dominican and Central African Repuiblic - good trio :-))))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neewi (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what is geographical name in English for official geographical name Česko? political Česká republika = Czech Republic; short Česko = Czech Republic; geographical Česko = ? Droll CZ (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Droll, there's no direct English equivalent to that "geographical" Česko (in the sense of region, not political entity, if I understood you correctly). If you don't want to name the country, the usual way of referring specifically to the territory is by mentioning the well-known historic regions of Bohemia and/or Moravia – especially the former, which in everyday conversation is almost synonymous with the whole Czech Republic.
Regards, Ev (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

When I speak about modern Czech Republic, It's OK. But when I speak about history, I miss short form name of states in "Czech Republic" region. I can speak in czech "Dějiny Česka" = "History of Česko" and I mean history of all czech states on this region (Samo Empire, Dukedom of Bohemia, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Czecho-Slovak Republic, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic etc.). But when I speak "History of Czech Republic", I mean history since 1993 only. Droll CZ (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong: the notions “geographical” and “short” are synonyms. Both are correct. The first one is used mainly by geographers and other scientists and professionals, the other (short) e.g. in UNO legislative. Both define the political entity “state” which has its boundary, political system, statehood etc. UNO calls the political names of states “conventional".--Ilaned (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess you could say, "history of the Czech lands" (we even have an article titled that). The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not “History of Czechia”? It is just a name of this type that makes it possible for us to write the history of the Czech state from the beginning to the present time. Similarly, short names make it possible to understand the history of other states so definitely. Any problem? You must have seen in the bookshops some parts of the numerous edition "Dějiny států" published by Nakladatelství LN – the titles of all of them include only short, geographical names. Because there is no alternative. --Ilaned (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ilaned, many states came into being later, however everybody undestand them unified in all consequencies of historical context. E.g.Germany was found in 1871, but nobody doubts, that J.S.Bach was born in Germany, however exactly in Kingdom of Saxony, because in 1685. So, why not Czechia ?! Nobody would have problem with it. Only bureaucrats (Cimmerian Praetor - nomen omen :-) etc.) here want to be "exact" in their mess and discontinuity of the Czech state. In their deviated logic, there is no state, that can use short-name, because "it does not correspond" with historical development. Actually, some lands (if we will think in that paralogic) don´t have any right for it, because they have not existing at all for some time, e.g. Poland. Hey, Poles, change the name for Polish Republic !, hah Jan Blanický 18:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well Droll, perhaps in Czech, that has the word Česko, the phrase "history of the Czech Republic" means the history since 1993 only. But in English, that lacks this specific word, the same phrase can also mean the history of the territory of today's Czech Republic. It may be ambiguous, yes, but language sometimes is... and a good introduction would explain with clarity the precise scope you have in mind :-)

Of course, if you feel the need for further precision or disambiguation, you can head Dominik (The Dominator)'s suggestion and use "history of the Czech lands" (currently, our own "History of the Czech Republic" redirects to it). Or you can speak of the "history of Bohemia and Moravia". — As I mentioned before, in everyday conversation "history of Bohemia" would be almost synonymous with "history of the territory of today's Czech Republic".

Notice however that your description, leaving aside the period before the 6th century AD, and starting only after the arrival of the Slavs to the region, would probably be best described as "history of the Czechs", or "of the Czech people".

And who knows ? Perhaps two decades from now the word Czechia may have been fully embraced by English-language publications. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• We should immediately move this article to Czechia and make Czech Republic a redirect. This is how the Czech people and the Czech government want the world to call their country. Please respect Czechia and call it by the name it prefers itself. NerdyNSK (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The country is not called "Czechia" in English by any Czech people I know, myself included. Anyway, that's irrelevant, as our naming conventions require articles to be called by their most commonly used English name, irrespective of preferences of the object it denotes. — Emil J. 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What is used, becomes accepted usage. It is not possible to base one´s arguments on the exchange of cause and effect – saying that we cannot use Czechia because "nobody knows that name". Who knew, after 1918, the name Czechoslovakia? --Ilaned (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If the Czech government wanted to change the name of the country to "Czechia" or "Czechland" or anything else, they would inform the UN and the EU of this, and probably the world would make a change. -- Evertype·✆ 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

About Czechia from Czechia: http://www.klaudyan.cz/dwnl/200801/01_krejci.pdf Droll CZ (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Czechia is the grammatically correct English short geographic name for the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic is the political name for the country such as the Federal Republic of Germany for Germany or the Republic of Poland for Poland. It is true that the vast majority of Czechs do not use it because they never heard it before and they simply do not know it. The Czech politicians do not use it because they got used to the Czech Republic early on. Most of them do not speak English well or at all to make the case for Czechia. It is simply convenient for them not to change it and start using Czechia. They do not understand the issue and they are unable and unwilling to argue for it. They have always viewed it as an insignificant issue since there have always been much more pressing problems to deal with. This is a typical example of the hegemonic discourse combined with incompetency. Unless those in power (including Wikipedia!) change their wrong opinion about Czechia nothing will ever change. However, there are Czechs using Czechia despite what Wikipedia keeps to argue. To argue otherwise is simply not true. For example, a number of Czech geographers are using Czechia in their English-language publications. Recent examples which all could be verified one by one include:

1. Blažek, J., Netrdová P. (2009) Can Development Axes Be Identified by Socio-Economic Variables? The Case of Czechia. Geografie, Vol. 114, No. 4, pp. 245–262.
2. Drbohlav, D., Medová, L., Čermák, Z., Čermáková, Janská, E (2010) Czechia as a New Immigration Country? Mitteilungen der Osterreichischen geographischen gesellschaft.
3. Štych, P. (2011) Comparative analysis of the impact of slope inclination and altitude on long-term land use changes in Czechia. AUC – Geographica (In print).
4. Fialová, D., Chromý, P., Kučera, Z., Spilková, J., Štych, P., Vágner, J. (2010) The forming of regional identity and identity of regions in Czechia – introduction to the research on the impact of second housing and tourism. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Geographica, Vol. 45, No. 1-2, pp. 49-60.
5. Janský, B., Schulte, A., Česák, J., Escobar Rios, V. (2010) The Mladotice Lake, western Czechia: The unique genesis and evolution of the lake basin. Geografie, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 247–265.
6. Pavlínek, P. and J. Ženka (2010) The 2008-2009 automotive industry crisis and regional unemployment in Central Europe, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 349-365.
7. Pavlínek, P. and J. Ženka (2010) Upgrading in the automotive industry: Firm-level evidence from Central Europe, Journal of Economic Geography, doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbq023, pp. 1-28.
8. Pavlínek, P., Domański, B. and R. Guzik (2009) Industrial Upgrading Through Foreign Direct Investment in Central European Automotive Manufacturing. European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 43-63.
9. Sýkora, L. (2009) New socio-spatial formations: places of residential segregation and separation in Czechia. TESG Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie (Journal of Economic & Social Geography), Vol. 100, No. 4, pp. 417-435.

And the list could go on and on.

There are also books written by the Czechs and published in English that use Czechia, such as:

1. Pavlínek, P. (2008) A Successful Transformation? Restructuring of the Czech Automobile Industry. Heidelberg and New York: Physica Verlag, ISBN 978-3-7908-2039-3.

There are also examples of U.S. university geographic textbooks using Czechia instead of the Czech Republic. Here are two recent examples:

1. Sallie A. Marston, Paul. L. Knox, Diana M. Liverman, Vincent J. Del Casino, Jr. and Paul F. Robbins (2010) World Regions in Global Context: Peoples, Places, and Environments. Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall, ISBN: 0-321-65185-5.
2. Alexander B. Murphy, Terry G. Jordan-Bychkov, Bella Bychkova Jordan (2008) The European Culture Area: A Systematic Geography, Fifth Edition, ISBN: 9780742556713

Therefore, please, stop arguing that you know of no Czechs using Czechia and that no one is using Czechia. The greater use of Czechia is basically prevented by the Czechs themselves, who, however, are not native English speakers. Czechia is grammatically correct, convenient and it makes sense as a short version of the official political name of the country: the Czech Republic. Gate keepers such as people controlling Wikipedia should at least acknowledge it given the evidence above. You should not continue to live in this denial and argue that no one is using it. This is simply not right and it is against the spirit of Wikipedia.Geograf25 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Geograg25, feel invited to put it into reference mark by the word Czechia in part "etymology". These are very fine examples, however as you are writing, the use of word Czechia remains fringe compared to the "Czech Republic". Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so if we named every country by the name of it's government (e.g. "French Republic" "Kingdom of the Netherlands") that wouldn't be "consistent." And if we named every country by it's correct geographical name ("France" "Dutch Netherlands") that wouldn't be consistent either. Only by conforming to popular ignorance can we be consistent — I see. So, instead of attempting to expunge ingnorance, Wikipedia is there to perpetuate it. Now I understand ... ˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchman Schultz (talk • contribs) 02:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

To Dutchman Schultz– Excellent response. This is the heart of the matter. But why all this excitement? For ignorance, for malicious intent, in the employ of somebody or something against the name of a state which was and still is questioned (at least in terms of its territory)? The reason may be that the short/geograhical name of the state expresses its continuity in space and time, in culture, etc. How often were, for example, the territories of France, Austria, Germany (existing not more that 140 years) subject to changes? --Ilaned (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

To Cimmerian praetor – There is nothing to deal with even in the field of etymology. Let us leave it to the linguists. The following is a universal rule: What is used, becomes accepted usage. I think you do not want to talk to the point, your purpose seems to be negation and provoking. This is undignified for a professional debate.--Ilaned (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning Czechia in the Lead

I'm sorry if a consensus has been reached on this, I skimmed through the archives and it was a bit unclear. I think we can safely say that "Czechia" should be mentioned in the "Names" section, but not in the lead- is that where consensus is sitting at? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 04:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To Dominator: I do not understand why and what are your reasons for that. I think

you do not want to talk to the point, your purpose seems to be negation and provoking. This is undignified for a professional debate.--Ilaned (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Czechia 2

Don´t delete CZECHIA from main site ! Czech republic is the name of only political form of contemporary state, not name of the land and the state in its general correlation! There is not history of Czech republic before 1993. This is uncomprehensibl nonsense to write articles about Czech history with the name "History of Czech Republic". Respect UN protocol from 1993 - Czechia is correct and legitimate name of the land. No matter if somebody likes it or not ! Wikipedia writers don´t decide what will be used or not ! Czechia is the bridge between history and presence, historical, cultural, national richness of more than 1000 years tradition of the state. However, it was not used in the past, it can represent the CONTINUITY of the state, land and nation, that Czech Republic cannot absolutely substitute. That short sighted and stubborn adhesion to CR is some kind of narrow sight of consequencies and inability of to understand deeper sense of necessity to use one word form. In addition, it leads to the garbles like "I am from Czech", that is linguistic nonsense. Compare e.g. those silly familar and undignified "Czech team" with "Team Czechia" etc. and attitude of other countries, that realize the meaning of using one form, not distorted and ridiculous substitutions, apparently expressed some kind of puzzleness. Jan Blanický 07:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

You might be interested in finding out, that the Czech (Socialist) Republic was introduced not in 1993, but in the Federative Constitution of 1960. As regards time before that, and especially before 1918, the English speaking historians often use term Czech Crown lands, which is very accurate and solves your problem as well as issue of distinction of Bohemia within narrow and wide sense. Talking about Czechia in historical sense is stupidity, and talking about Czechia in contemporary sence only denies reality - the term did not catch on, and today even the state authorities don't pursue it any more in English.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

To Cimmerian Praetor: Another error, sir. The Czechoslovak Federation came into being in October 1968. The term "Czech Crown lands", even if (as you say) used by English-speaking historians, is professionally wrong: from the period of Charles IV the political name of the country was "The Lands of Crown of Bohemia". Not the lands (i.e., Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Lusitania U. et. L. …), not Crown of Czechs (people, nation), but the crown of one land called Bohemia (Čechy), that is, the Kingdom of Bohemia. It is difficult to find a polite word for your pseudo-professional invectives. Whenever the most political representatives behave in a similar way, showing their ignorance (even sabotage) in this field, I never hesitate to call them stupid.In the past, in agreement with the principle "divide et impera", the Habsburg monarchy was not interested in a unifying name for the Czech state. Symptomatically, not even during the 2nd World War was the Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren called by the unifying name "Tschechei". Never has any Hitler invented it as "pejorative"! It was first used as early as 1917 by a tradesman in an advertisment in Vienna. In the edition of 1922 it was included in the Brockhaus encyclopaedia as a name of the western part of Czechoslovakia.--Ilaned (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It is stupid to not use it at all. There is no discussion, in addtion with the person, that miss the point, sense and the heart of the matter. Simply, respect official documents, e.g. "U.N. Lists of geographic names / Names of States and their Territorial Parts", official documents of Foreign Ministry of the Czech Republic and Czech Collection of Laws, 160/2003 or reliable sources, such as are "The European Culture Area" (page XV), " World Regions in Global Context", etc.

Btw, there is not chance to chatch anything on, if somebody has been erased it on purpose from documents by reason of "the term did not catch on". Jan Blanický 21:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

What are you talking about?? I have many Czech friends that moved here, and every one of them calls their homeland the Czech Republic. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

What you cite is no proof, it is only information, an individual fact.

Czechia is absolutely correct common name of the land, registered by Czech foreign ministry in UN in 1993. It is commonly used in geography, but many Czechs don't know about its existence, because some Czech politicians boycott this expression from various idiotic reasons, however linguists and geographers highly recommend it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neewi (talk • contribs) 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is that it's not the common name. If it were the common name people would be using it. If this were a case similar to Holland/the Netherlands, where the common name (Holland) implies excluding certain parts of the sovereign territory then I would agree, but it doesn't, Czech Republic and Czechia refer to the same area, and the former is more commonly used. Arguments about history are a bit of a moot point, since the boundaries of the "Czech lands" were undefined before the Czechoslovak state was founded. No such territory as "Czechia" existed in Austria-Hungary. Places such as Český Těšín which you probably believe to be part of the "Czech lands" would not have been considered anything of the sort in the 19th century. Arguments about linguistics are also a moot point, "I am from Czech" is a simple Czenglish mistake, most Czech people can't use "Germany" and "German" the right way round either. Wikipedia should be descriptive and the commonly used name is clearly the Czech Republic. - filelakeshoe 09:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no question of "either Czech Republic, or Czechia". The question is when, where, on what occasion to use the political name of the state, and when, where, on what occasion to use the short, geographical name. Each of them has its own function and should be used accordingly. To your incredibly confusing historical opinions which concern the Czech state territory: have a look please, in any historical atlas with maps showing development of territory of states within history: e.g. GURŇÁK, D. (2007): Vývoj politickej mapy stredovýchodnej a juhovýchodnej Európy: historickogeografická analýza. Kartprint, Bratislava, 208 s. + mapy na CD ROM, ISBN 978-80-88870-62-3, or MAGOCSI, P. R. (1993): Historical Atlas of East Central Europe. A History of East Central Europe. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 218 p. --Ilaned (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On history: you are missing the point, that the Habsburgs ruled as Bohemian kings (in recent history books referred to also as Czech kings), and that boundaries of the Bohemian Crown within the Habsburg Monarchy were well defined. As regards Cieszyn area, it was part of the Bohemian/Czech Crown for some 600 years (including the part which is now in Poland).

Otherwise you are right about the common usage point.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I got my Cieszyn facts mixed up, for some reason I thought that Silesia was historically outside of the Czech lands. But still what I meant was, if you're talking retrospectively you have to say when you're talking about to be clear what area you mean. The lands of the Bohemian Crown could have several meanings without a time reference. "Czechia" would definitely need clarification in a historical context. - filelakeshoe 12:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, for many Czechs Silesia is outside of the Czech Republic even today (it is just a place of 1 milion of people with Czech citizenship somewhere far east of Prague but not yet in Slovakia). And for most Silesians: it is nice to be in EU without the moot borders dividing the place between Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Czechia is the proper name with historical evidence. The first historical record of using the word Czechia in English is from 1925 in The New York Times. The name is used there for the Czech state in a historical context and apparently means Czech land in its timeless national and geographical continuity. This fact supports the assertion of specialists to use this name for the Czech state in general, regardless of historical period or momentary political system: Czechia can stand for this country in any historical period and in any social and political conditions, Just like Germany is used in common speech, in place of The German Federal Republic !!! Just because the majority repeats the same fallacy for a decade, doesn't mean they are right, that is to confuse the geographical name with the political name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidushaka (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? You have made an Wikipedia account just to repeat here what was already said, what was already taken into consideration, and what was not the majority view not so long ago? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how one could equate, what the majority (in this case, it seems subjective) of unqualified Wiki bloggers believes, as facts. I hate to beat a dead horse, but during Nazi Germany the majority of people believed Jews were deported, not exterminated. Of course those in the know, knew otherwise. Wikipedia standards are based on objective provable facts, and in the case of Czechia, it is undeniable that historical records with its use have simply been forgotten and currently, the name is used in academic and other spheres. Simply satisfy your own curiosity and search "Czechia" in google books, where clearly the writers are more qualified than most of the commentators on this discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidushaka (talk • contribs) 09:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Be aware that it's difficult to take your arguments seriously when you attack other editors and resort to reductio ad Hitlerum. Nobody is disputing that the name is used; the question is whether "Czechia" is a widely used or accepted short form for the Czech Republic. Have you come across any source that asserts that it is?--Kubigula (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There are countless uses of Czechia, granted not as widely used as The Czech Republic, amongst publications. As I've said above, all it takes is to google Czechia inside google books or see it being tossed around on English websites. Plus, there are a few contemporary maps in textbooks that designate the area as CZECHIA. http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=czechia&num=10&lr=lang_en http://convozine.com/neewi/c/20229 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidushaka (talk • contribs) 07:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Google spits some 2.800.000 results as regards Czechia. A lot? Widely used? No way - there are some 455.000.000 results of the Czech Republic. That is ratio 162,5 : 1. I am sorry, but Czechia is simply not widely used.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" has 8 210 000 results, "United Kingdom" has 1 640 000 000 results, ratio is 199,8. Maybe "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" should by deleted... Droll CZ (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

---

There is no "ratio" in your thinking, Cimmerian. It is not about ratio "Czech Republic vs. Czechia", but about natural need of short name and the necessity to use it, also about the need to use the CORRECT name, otherwise everybody will use that undignified nonsense "Czech". Well educated people use it, what is proved by all those books, geographers, linguists etc. The name of the land cannot be a subject of some plebeian customary law, it is too important issue, in additon, for such small land as Czechia is. There has not been normal chance for its spreading, because appropriate institutions have not cared about it - not from sophisticated reasons, only from their ignorance and personal opinions. This is only one from many true statements, that are continously erased from pages, dealing with Czech statehood. There is erased all, what speaks for Czechia, every fact, every reference. Everybody can see it in the history of those pages.

What do you defend ? The mess ? Discontinuity ? Don´t try to convince me, that you have some honest and deeper reason for that rigidness, except bureaucratism, that you denominate historical accuracy, but i can assure you, it can be more likely considered (euphemistically) as the lack of sense for wider context, if it is not some bad faith.Jan Blanický 18:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

SUMMARY: This talk shows clearly that many aggressive "no-Česko" experts have a great problem with the easy equation which suggests the relationship between the Czech state and the historic lands it consists of: Česko = Čechy + Morava + Slezsko.They are not aware of the specific character of Czech languge, which "is to blame". They do not understand that the relationship Česko vs. Čechy, that is, the state vs. a historic land, is expressed quite precisely and unambiguously in western languages: Czechia vs. Bohemia, Tschechien vs. Böhmen, Tchéquie vs. Bohème etc. The adjective český (and the noun Čech) is translated into these languages in two different ways: 1) Czech, tschechisch, tchéque, if it applies to the whole of Česko, 2) Bohemian, böhmisch, bohèmien, if it applies only to Čechy.Consequently, it is not possible to publish a CD with the title "Czech, Moravian and Silesian folk songs" but "Bohemian, Moravian and Silesian…."

Therefore, please help to spread the name Česko and its most important foreign-language equivalent Czechia. (What about "Made in Czechia" as a successor to "Made in Czechoslovakia" ? An idea for business people who command billions of CZK). It is highly important that our state is denominated in a way that is usual in international organizations, so that the knowledge about the existence of the EU-member Česko is not weakened but strengthened. Messieurs "No-Česko" support the weakening very hard and lordly. It is worth thinking about - why? --Ilaned (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

With the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993 the question of the new short-form name appeared since the word "Czech" has been used only as an adjective or the name of the people and language but not the country itself. Instead of returning to the traditional "Bohemia" the newly coined name "Czechia" was officially adopted. This name, however, despite the initial promotion by the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has not been widespread by the Czech authorities and remains as of 2010 less used. As "Czechia" remains uncommon in colloquial speech (but used in books , works of specialized literature and can be found among many sources on the internet ), and the long form is unwieldy, people often resort to the gramatically incorrect adjective "Czech" In 1997 was founded the Civic initiative Czechia with the aim to spread, insitutionalize and practically adopt the geographic one-word name of the Czech Republic .--Ilaned (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to another Czechia page: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33578494134 109.80.140.32 (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"also about the need to use the CORRECT name, otherwise everybody will use that undignified nonsense "Czech" - that undignified nonsense is the result of Czech people not knowing how to speak proper English, the same reason that causes them to say things like "my father is from German" or "we are going to Greek for our wacation". No native or decent English speaker would ever say "I am from Czech", or "I am from Dominican" or "I am from Central African". - filelakeshoe 12:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just read through this again with some dismay. So much of the argumentation in this section is silly and irrelevant. It's not Wikipedia's place to decide what the country SHOULD be called, so all arguments about what is "right" or about what has the best historical precedents are quite beside the point. My dismay is mainly about the emotionality of all this. I can slightly understand the pro-"Czechia" people feeling strongly, because the short form makes for better marketing which is believed to have potential economic benefits, and a refusal to allow it when almost all other countries are allowed a short form might seem discriminatory. But I doubt if it really makes as much difference as all that. On the other hand, I am completely mystified by those who seem almost emotionally anti-"Czechia", as though the word was offensive to them. Duh???

All that matters is actual use. Why is it so hard to accept the obvious: both forms are used, but the long form is overwhelmingly more common. I know that "Czechia" is used because (without having any agenda or any axe to grind - I'm British and have no Czech connections) I use it myself and I hear it around me. It is found in publications, including in the title of one book referenced in our article. So it is totally out there. But the Google test gives the clearest possible evidence that it is nowhere near as common as "Czech Republic". SO: the long form must remain the title of our article, but we really should not be so dismissive of the short form.

Why not rejoice if there is an extra little bit of richness in our language. It would be quite unacceptable for anyone to go through Wikipedia changing all occurrences of "Czech Republic" to "Czechia", but the other way around, if some 'Pedian adds a sentence which contains the word "Czechia", it is rather sad if people get upset about it. Why not have a compromise a bit like the British/American spelling compromise - if a user adds new text, the form which that user puts in is the one that stays? It's better than fighting, honest. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot agree more. Those Czechs who continuously delete Czechia should become more flexible and more tolerant. There is room for both the political and short geographic name of the country that could be used appropriately in different situations. At least, we should agree that there are (quite a few) people who use Czechia. By the way, two quite popular mass produced student atlases published in the United States switched from using the Czech Republic to Czechia in their latest 2011 editions: Student Atlas of World Politics, 9th Edition by Allen, John; Sutton, Christopher, ISBN-13: 978-0-07-340148-5 and Student Atlas of World Politics, 9th Edition ISBN-13: 978-0-07-340148-5 by the same authors. These atlases will reach thousands of college students across the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geograf25 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion and proposal sounds very reasonable! Would you be willing to help enforce your proposal (if a user adds new text, the form which that user puts in is the one that stays) in the poll? It is necessary finally stop eternal quarrels and reverting... --Iaroslavvs (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronun.

Is it really /ˈtʃɛk riˈpʌblɨk/? I've always thought the beginning of the second word was more rə than ri. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That must be some strange dialect. All dictionaries I've seen give it with /rɪ-/, e.g., [3][4][5][6], and that's what I've heard in practice as well. /ri-/ is incorrect, though. — Emil J. 12:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The pronunciation of the word "republic" as a single word would be /rɪ-/, but when used in a sentence the sound will often be changed to /rə-/. Vowels often change in these situations.97.82.155.14 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the general rules of English pronunciation, "e" should be in this case pronunced as /ɪ/, but that usually happens only when the word is singled out, because in a normal speech the vowels in a syllable before the stressed syllable tend to end up sounding like /ə/. So the general rule for transcribing "republic" would be /rɪˈpʌblɪk/, but if you transcribed a whole speech exactely as it sounded, /rəˈpʌblɪk/ would probably be the correct version. - Jade; 17:08, 8 August 2011 (CET)

Religion

What is the intended meaning of the statement "the lowest rate of EU countries after Estonia with 16%"? Something seems not to match the rest of the paragraph. Richard David Ramsey 02:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reformulated the sentence to what I believe was the intended message. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 10:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Motto

Anthem: Kde domov můj? (in English: Where th'home of mine?)

Changed it to "Where is my home?" 220.239.254.106 (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not right, either. Should be something like "Where my home is", since the lyrics are "Where my home is, water bubbles across the meadows, pinewoods rustle... etc.". It is not a question, it does not indicate confusion about the location of "my home". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.214.167 (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point.—Emil J. 10:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, wait, it isn't. In Tyl's lyrics, the repeated kde domov můj is a sentence on its own, ending with a question mark. It is indeed a (rhetorical) question. It does not indicate "confusion about the location", but rather homesickness.—Emil J. 10:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Policemen and flowers.jpg

The image Image:Policemen and flowers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Prague 1939 occupation.jpg
• Image:Praga1968MolotovCoctail.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

i hate wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.207.240 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Poor tourist service in Czech republic

The notoriously poor Czech tourist services are well known and there should be some mention of this problem. Prague mayor himself was overcharged in a taxi, and problem is taken seriously in Czech republic. It seems to me that people who try to remove this paragraph are hiding the truth. Even more seriously, it seems that there are some Czech admins that are involved in censorship here, and that is quite troubling. 78.30.163.113 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The content you are attempting to add is personal commentary and in clear violation of the WP:NPOV policy; the spin you put on it is not even close to being supported by the links you provide. You have edit warred over this before and continuing to try to insert this diatribe is tendentious and disruptive.--Kubigula (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer the questions about references, mayor case in particular. Rather than blanking the entire section, adress the points asked. The references also mention petty crime, and that is certainly of interest too. 78.30.163.113 (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources do not support the entirely POV tone of the lead to that paragraph, and it cannot be allowed to stand. Mayalld (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the sources? If you dislike the tone that is one issue, but the facts are plain there, and supported by references: A Prague mayor posed incognito as a tourist and was ripped off by a taxi driver (he used english accent - why do you think he would do that in the first place). The exchange boots use 30% lower rate than that in big print in front of them. The restaurant staff is habitually rude and often try to add high surcharges, that tourists are advised to complain about - its all in the sources. Plus the dip in the tourist numbers is attributed to poor service. Now what of these claims do you dispute? 78.30.163.113 (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let us take it apart, step by step.

• They have a saying - Do they? None of your sources say so.
• They "milk" tourists - The source doesn't say that
• Exchange rates - That isn't a reliable source
• Restaurants - The source mentions overcharging (but most sources on eating our anywhere abroad say much the same), but the source does not support the claim that this is "many"
• Taxi - yes, this is sourced, but the sources don't say that everybody is ripped off, merely that there have been cases (and from a more neutral POV would be better presented with balance to state that there is a problem, but that the authorities are taking action, and why did you have to add it twice
• falling tourist numbers. The sources gives two reasons, and singling out only one to further your POW is WP:UNDUE
• Sources. You need to add sources properly, noy just dump a load of external links into the text.

Finally, read WP:BRD. If you add content, and it is reverted, you don't keep adding it repeatedly, you go to the talk page and discuss it.

Mayalld (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to add some stuff in based on the two apparently reliable sources out of the four that were put forward. Hopefully it's accurate and balanced. GDallimore (Talk) 12:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks balanced and encyclopedic - that's the right way to add critical content.--Kubigula (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sciences

I do not consider the article on website czech.cz to be sufficient source for claims about Czech scientists. I suggest to put there a template stating that the citations are not sufficient. JanSuchy (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"the world owes much of its scientific insight to prominent Czech scientists"

There is a very prominent bias in this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.56.93 (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.215.33 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Václav Klaus takes a private elevator at Prague Castle

Well nobody is talking about this, are they?

The irony is that the "Velvet Revolution" was about getting rid of the Communists and their phoney privileges ( 'everybody is equal ... except that some are more equal than others' ). Yet here today we have Václav Klaus using his own private elevator each morning in the Prague Castle? Separate from the unwashed masses, the rest of the "rabble"? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Nothing ever changes. Can talk about "fresh start" and democracy and equality, but -- whether communist or capitalist -- everything boils down to privileges for the privileged. It will never change.

Well who cares, as long as well all get nice fat pensions and can retire early and watch TV all day. --Atikokan (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You maybe do not realise that not everybody are communists and socialists to talk about how president is not living as some low-grade bank clerk as you might want him to. What you have posted is a childish stupidity talk that does not belong to wikipedia, thats all.

--Achilem (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sudetenland

I think this section needs to be expanded, more has to be said about this. The Sudetenland doesn't exist for Czechs; it is a construct of Nazi Germany. There are only 2 minor references to Sudetenland in this article; there needs to be more discussion of this.

I grew up with a Mother who was of German origin, who grew up in Nazi Germany. She spoke often of the Sudetenland, because she lived there for a while as a teenager, and loved the area.

However, the concept of the Sudetenland -- to a Czech -- is a concept of theft. My Mother would angrily disagree with me on this but I don't care (I loved making my parents angry; I'm a child of the 60s). The word "Sudetenland" is like the words "white-supremacy". It is a concept of how Nazi Germany created an artificial idea that they had a right to carve off part of the Czech Republic for their own benefit -- regardless of what the Czechs thought.

This would be like, oh, the United States suddenly carving off the BC Lower Mainland to become part of Washington state, just because a lot of Americans live in the Vancouver area.

Hitler was, of course, very astute: the Sudetenland had coal and steel-making. Just as Silesia did in Poland. Hitler was like: "Oh, how beautiful, Sudetenland and Silesia are fantastic areas and have so many Germans". Well it didn't hurt that they also had the vast energy and steel fabricating resources that he needed for war!

So I would like to see somebody make a reference here as to how the people of the Czech Republic had a piece of their country stolen from them (yes, theft) and rename " Sudetenland", which is an artificial terminology.

--Atikokan (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are right, there has never been a province called "Sudetenland" before 1939. So it could be considered as an artificial subject. Nevertheless - and that should also be mentioned - there was a 80%-majority of Germans in that area. And this is exactly what was written in the Nazi ideology: to unify all regions with German population in their "Reich". Of course there were also strong economic reasons. -- j.budissin (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that the term "Sudetenland" is not historic. It came in use mainly, after the first world war, to name the regions predominantly inhabitated by Germans. That regions were part of the Bohemian crown before the war, but their inhabitants did not want to join the new formed country Czechoslovakia after the war. Before the first world war that regions were mostly referred to as German-Bohemia German-Moravia. More than 30% of Bohemia was settled by Germans at this time. What happened to the inhabitants of that regions should maybe mentionend a bit more directly in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.196.118 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Name

Bohemia & Moravia wasn't possible because 1) it isn't single-word and 2) it doesn't include Silesia, the third constituent "historical land". There were actually plenty of suggestions as part of the public debate (many of them quite ridiculous) and this was one of them, but it was never a serious candidate. It could be mentioned here but not in the main article. Qertis (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to mention this particular proposal, but for what it's worth, the main reason why (any variation of) Bohemia and Moravia was considered unsuitable was indeed the bad connotations it had to the name of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia as James Frankcom wrote, as far as I am aware. Not being a single word could hardly be an argument in a constituent country of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, let alone other examples (Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Kitts and Nevis, ...), and anyway it surely wouldn't be difficult to combine them into a single word if needed with a bit of creativity. — Emil J. 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that Nazi-era connotation was without any doubt another major drawback of this proposal. As for the single word name and your examples, CSFR was a federation and those island nations differ from the landlocked country in Central Europe in so many ways that they really cannot set an example for it. And what about those poor Silesians? :) Qertis (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about them? We (or rather Maria Theresia) lost Silesia in the 18th century, the residual tiny strip of Silesian land controlled by the Czech Republic is not worth making a fuss over :) — Emil J. 10:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Making fuss over? One milion people live in Czech Silesia, that is 10% of population. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Glass industry?

As a button collector I have frequently read here and there mentions of Czech glass buttons. Perhaps some info on this could be added. (I am also in the process of creating a 'Button Collecting' article which could link to any article on Czech glass or Czech glass buttons.) Thanks.--TyrS (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, the Czech Republic has a very well-known glass and crystal industry (Bohemia crystal). It is quite odd that it isn't mentioned on the article itself, feel free to be bold and add the information. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with the Eastern Europe article

The Eastern Europe article is fraught with errors, mislabels and slanted facts as if much of it was written by ultraconservatives during the Cold War from an ethnocentric position. If you agree with that Poland Czech r. Slovakia Hungary are Central European states rather than a Soviet satellite, please assist in rewording/correcting the article lead and body. Gregorik (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.88.240 (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Gregor Mendel

I'm a little curious about the inclusion of Gregor Mendel on the list of famous Czech scientists. The preceding paragraph introduces him as a Czech scientist, but this is not correct. He was born into an ethnically German family in the Austrian Empire. To my understanding, that doesn't make him Czech.Atwardow (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That part is about important scientists of Czech Republic, including the historical predecessors of the Czech Republic. Austrian Empire consisted of Archduchy of Austria, Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Bohemia. March of Moravia and Silesian estates (former Duchy of Silesia) were conjoined with Kingdom of Bohemia. Silesia was conjoined with Bohemian throne since 14th century, and as Habsburgs lost most of its part, what was left was later called as Austrian Silesia. This was part of Austrian Empire, part of the Bohemian Crown, but not of Archduchy of Austria. The last Bohemian king was crowned in 1916; when describing the conjoined lands of Bohemia, Moravia and the so called "Austrian Silesia" the term "Czech king" is used.

Mendel was born in Austrian/Czech Silesia, studied highschool in Opava, studied University of Olomouc in Moravia, and did his research in Brno, Moravia. These all not only are part of the Czech Republic, but also historical Czech lands (unlike for example Valtice, which are today part of the Czech Republic, but are not considered as historical Czech land, or Hlučín which is part of the Czech Republic, may be considered within wider definition of the Czech lands which cover whole of Silesia and Lusatia, but is generally not considered as such within the narrow definition covering only Austrian Silesia). There is no other current state, by which Mendel's name should be written (apart from historical article about Austrian-Hungarian empire).

The discussion at the Mendel's page confuses nationality and citizenship and clearly doesn't bring any light to the issue, whether he considered himself Silesian, Czech (unprobable) or Czech German (ethnic German living within Czech lands). There are references to Encyclopedia Brittanica, but Austrian is clearly nonsence, since his life was not connected with Archduchy of Austria; Austrian-Hungarian, as it stands in the article's infobox is however right.

I suggest that the lead sentence is changed, so that there is no confusion, that it is about scientists of the Czech Republic (+historical predecessors), not about Czech scientists (which would be in article Czechs. (IMHO the issue should be re-addressed also in the Mendel article). I invite you Awardow to change that sentence, you will probably do it better than I could, since you are native speaker.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The confusion in fact arises from the different English (and German etc.) name of the country before 1918 and today. The Czech Republic is actually the only country in Europe that has deliberately changed its names (exonyms) in other languages to sound more like the domestic one (endonym) (non-European examples: Siam->Thailand, Persia->Iran). Thus Bohemia became part of "Czechoslovakia", not "Bohemoslovakia", and after its dissolution is called Czech Republic, not Bohemia again. Because of this its quite understandable that calling German-speaking Bohemians "Czechs" is somehow awkward. Its like calling Slovak- or Romanian-speaking citizens of the former Hungarian kingdom "Magyars". On the other hand while Hungary is still Hungary and not Magyaria, Bohemia is now Czech Republic (or Czechia) and therefore the word Czech is no longer reserved for ethnic Czechs/Bohemians. The question is whether this could be applied retrospectively in cases like this one. Qertis (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing Lands of the Bohemian Crown and Bohemia. Saying that "Bohemia is now the Czech Republic" is a nice nationalist stunt, however the 4 milions of people living in Moravia and Silesia would probably not agree.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, no I am not. Bohemia can be obviously used in both meanings and there is absolutely nothing nationalistic about this. Just like the word Austria describes both Upper and Lower Austria as well as the Austrian republic as a whole and I really doubt that millions of Styrians, Carinthians or Tyroleans feel offended in any way. Qertis (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's obviously a flawed conclusion. Lower Austria is not Upper Austria and neither of them is Austria, these terms are only similar but not the same, on the other hand I can understand why some people (in my opinion chauvinists) naturally might not agree. According to your (flawed) logic, we could also use term Moravia rather that Czech republic and there would be nothing nationalist about it either. And it would be also doubtful whether millions of Bohemians and a few hundreds of thousands Czech Silesians would feel offended in any way. Nationalist stunt :) well put and so true. --Millenium187 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Cimmerian praetor, for your helpful and insightful comments. I think I understand the issue more clearly now.Atwardow (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope that my edit is agreeable. Please let me know if it could be improved.Atwardow (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bohemia <> Czech Republic

CZ regions

Bohemia in CZ

Bohemia and the Czech Republic are not the same thing. Just look at this: Regions_of_the_Czech_Republic. The western half of CZ is Bohemian but not the eastern part! I edited the lead to reflect this fact and removed the bold on Bohemia because it is NOT an alternate name for CZ. --Hutcher (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Crazy, read this: Czech lands. Moravia and Silesia make up the remainder of CZ--Hutcher (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Its way more complicated (well, actually it isn't). Bohemia is a name of the Czech state used in English since "time immemorial" (i.e. since the creation of the state in the 9th century and even before as a land of the Celtic Boii tribe). The Czechs were called Bohemians, the Czech language was Bohemian language etc. well until the late 19th century when the word "Czech" started to replace the older "Bohemian" for ethnic (Czech-speaking) Bohemians. Moravia was conquered by Bohemia in the early 11th century and remained part of the Bohemian (Czech) state ever after. So, while the word Bohemia is indeed used today primarily for the western "core" of the state or "Bohemia proper", it is nevertheless also the traditional name of the Czech state as a whole known officially as the Bohemian Crown until 1918. In a very similar way Austria bears the name of the former archduchy of Austria which forms only a portion of present-day Austrian territory (Upper and Lower Austria). Qertis (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bohemian language was used in Bohemia. Up until establishmen of Czechoslovakia the language in Moravia was Moravian. There was even Moravian law and history course at University of Olomouc Faculty of Law from late 1770s. The schools at the area used to be either German-language, or Moravian-language, not Bohemian. And as Habsburgs lost most of Silesia, the Moravian was also language of many grammar schools in the Austrian/Czech Silesia. Today it is referred to as mere dialect of Czech, but it doesn't mean that it was ever Bohemian.

Bohemia was often used to describe whole of the Czech Crown lands (contemporary term used i.e. in Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History) before the term Czech came to use, however Wikipedia is not using 19th century English.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't say that present-day Czech Republic should be called Bohemia (it obviously isn't the official name in English any more). But it should certainly be mentioned as a historical name of the country. 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)

GDP

"–Total $258,959 billion[4]
–Per capita $24,832[4] "

billion (Short Scale) = 1,000,000,000
258,959,000,000,000 : 24,832 = 10,428,439,111
There is 10,428,439,111 of people in Czech Republic ? I don't think so.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzeeg (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

History

The article suggests neolitic farmers as the oldest inhabitants in the area. However, evidence for much older human inhabitants in what is now Czech republic is available - the Cro-magnon type of people inhabited Moravia some 30000 years BC and they belong to first modern humans known from Europe (also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon, localities Predmosti and Mladec). Before, the area has been inhabited by Neanderthals (unlike northern Europe, the continental ice-sheet has not covered CZ during the Pleistocene) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.141.38 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Official language

Definition as in wikipedia: An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other jurisdiction.

Special legal status is given not only the the Czech language, but also to 12 other languages in the Czech Republic. Please see the enactments cited in the reference provided in the text. Should it be changed here, then the definition needs to be changed too. See also for example Austria, where not only German is listed too.

Please note also the difference between the Official language, de:Amtssprache and cs:Úřední jazyk. I am not disputing that Czech is predominant and that neither of the other 12 languages has the same status as Czech, however they do have special legal status too, although on different level. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• You just dont realize - that in INFOBOX should be only the Official (cs.úřední) language. Infobox is not to inform about thousands of legal exceptions! Czech is the only official language of the Czech Republic, and it is spoken by about 96% of the population. SOURCE. In the Infobox should be just Czech language - otherwhise it is stupid and confusing. Szalas

Having the other languages is wikipedia's standard, see Austria, Slovenia, United Kingdom, Spain, etc. In the Czech Republic the situation is a bit special, because the rights connected with the 12 other languages are not connected with special region, but with persons, therefore can be claimed within the whole territory (hence a Czech Pole can request hearing in Polish not only in Cieszyn Silesia, but anywhere in the country). I don't see anything confusing about it - it is very well described in the reference.

You have still not addressed the issue, that all the languages are conforming with the wikipedia's definition of Official language.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You are comparing uncomparable. You mention Spain and United Kingdom but LOOK AT THE LANGUAGES!!!! In Spain it is Catalan, Basque and so on. In UK it is Irish, Scotish, Welsh, and so on. That languages are PART OF SPAIN AND UK). It is the same like if you would put as an official language in Czech Republic i.e. Moravian language (and that´s OK!!!). Realize that in almost every country in the world there are (some legal) exceptions when it is possible to use other than the MAIN language (but is absurd to put it in the main infobox on Wiki to confuse people (they come to Czech article on Wiki and they see that official language of CR is Russian!!!?)

Regarding the Wikipedia definition of official langue - that article is editable as anything on Wiki - so please dont link to Wiki (as a source).

I haven no problem linking to wiki, as far as the wiki article is well researched. The definition as used in wiki comes from Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, Ed. Tom McArthur, Oxford University Press, 1998, which seems as reliable source.

I think my SOURCE is much more relevant than yours

The status of the 12 languages is not an exception, it is legal reality. I don't understand your point about Catalan or Welsh. What is the difference between Catalan in Spain and Polish in the Czech Republic (other than Catalan may be used in Catalonia, and Polish in the whole territory of the Czech Republic).

I don´t agree with you in this. Even I understand how you mean it - it IS an exception and it is not what is generally considered as official language and in the basic infobox about Czech rep. should be just Czech lang. (the other languages can be mentioned and explained in the "Czech_language" article).

The fact is, that the laws of the Czech Republic confer special status to Czech language, Slovak and another 11 languages. In no way I try to say that the status of these is on the same level (in fact Slovak is somewhere between Czech and the other 11). I must re-state, that it is well described in the reference. The people come to the wikipage of the Czech Republic and see, that the Russian language is a language of recognized minority, and they can read in reference what that means. And yes, within the definition of "official language", Russian is one of the official languages of the Czech Republic.

and thats confusing. Similar "special statuses" to other languages are confered in other countries as well (France, Germany, etc.) but in the "official language part" is just French and German.... because it would be confusing to write all that specialities to the MAIN BASIC infobox.

Many times some IP users added Vietnamese there (which is definitely spoken more often than perhaps 8 of those listed), but I always erased it, as it has no legal status in the Czech Republic. Please don't confuse the number of speakers with its official status, these are two different things.

It seems we two won't move anywhere, I invite other users to comment on the issue. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

it seems we two are the only ones who care about this article:) sad

PS.sorry for that expletives from me.

You are not right about France - the minority languages don't have any official status (enactment is not ratified yet), hence French is only in the infobox. Article about Germany states, that the other languages are protected by ECRML, but nothing about its internal legal recognition. The page you found is interesting, but the codified laws are a bit more convincing source.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Szalas. Cimm. praetor's casuistry is false and wrong. It is simply absurd to state 13 languages (!) in infobox as official languages of Czechia! This country isn't multilingual (or multinational) in similar manner to, e.g., India, China, South Africa etc. Praetor, stop playing here role of interpreter of the Czech law and follow the official source and common sense. And, please, don't bore us with "Wiki definitions". Wiki is just Wiki – a mirror of reality, not its creator. Moreover, as you certainly well know, everybody can edit local definitions and rules...

Yes, of course, the other minority languages with certain degree of official recognition must be noticed in references (via link in infobox) but official language (i.e. internal language of state administration, laguage of laws, public inscriptions and medias) of Czechia is undoubtedly Czech!!! Similar protection of minorities and their languages have other EU states too, but it not deny the central, exclusive role of their official languages.

P.S. I remind that we are still talking about the INFOBOX. Naturally, informations in the article and references section should be more exhaustive. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no denial of central nor exclusive role of the Czech language taking place. You talk a lot but you don't address the fact, that other states, which I named, do have it similarly as it was in the Czech Republic article. The source is tourist-aimed page, you can't compare this source with Acts of Law. I was citing wikipedia only as far as the source was Oxford dictionary.

I have put the minority languages into infobox reference. dedicated part of infobox in accordance with wikipages of other countries. I hope that this solves the issue. Still, it is funny to me, that from Spain to Austria and Slovenia, all the wikipages can have minority languages, but the Czech/Czechoslovak chauvinists cannot accept that. Nevertheless, I accept being in minority. I do hope that the current solution ends this debate.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm Czech native citizen. I was born here and since then I've been living here. But I've never heard about Slovak to be our second official language. Of course a lot of people speak Slovak, but it is NOT official language.--78.102.166.100 (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the official website of the Prague Castle claims that the official language is Czech, however, an article published by 'Ekonom' (March 2010, available at the official website of the Czech government) has different information: Czech constitution does not know the term "official language". The current explanation in the article is a bit misleading, as the references provided state that Slovak can be considered an official language in the Czech Republic under certain circumstances (in tax administration etc). It surely doesn't mean that Slovak is another official language (in a general sense of the word). In my opinion it should be clarified. But I'm not an expert in this field. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If the Czech constitution does not recognise an "official language", couldn't we adopt a similar take to what's used on the United States article? Because the US constitution doesn't either. - filelakeshoe 21:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not in the constitution, but in a number of other enactments, foremost Správní řád §16 Jednací jazyk Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the clarification. Let's follow the link (Správní řád §16 Jednací jazyk): "V řízení se jedná a písemnosti se vyhotovují v českém jazyce. Účastníci řízení mohou jednat a písemnosti mohou být předkládány i v jazyce slovenském", which is roughly translated as "The procedure is conducted and documents are made in the Czech language. The parties may negotiate and documents may be submitted in the Slovak language". Does it fit with the definition of the "official language"? I think that the information (on using Slovak language) would be more suitable in a footnote rather than in the infobox. The current arrangement gives an impression that the Czech and Slovak are equally important official languages in the Czech Republic, which is not what the document says. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(follow-up) The official website of the Czech Republic (the page is administered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic) states that "Czech is the only official language of the Czech Republic..." I would take this information as decisive. It is possible to explain the details and complications in a footnote or in a special section of the article Czech language, but the infobox as it is now is misleading. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, following the discussion here, I have put Slovak among the other minority languages, when I made special place for them in the infobox. I think it is clear that Slovak has a special treatment unlike the other minority languages, but it does not receive the same level of appreciation as the Czech language. I don't care, if Slovak is there with Czech or with the 11 others, I only strongly recommend against making 3rd category covering only the Slovak. As for the footnote, it is already there, although it might need some clarification. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Principal parts"

... the Kingdom of Bohemia was integrated into the Habsburg monarchy as one of its three principal parts[citation needed] alongside Austria and Hungary.

This is not accurate historically. Organizationally, the Czech lands were provinces of Austria. Let me quote from the 1913 Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbook entry on Austria-Hungary: "Its component parts, Austria, Hungary, and Bosnia-Herzegovina (annexed in 1908) are separately dealt with below...." Later, the separate section on Austria lists 14 "provinces" thereof, including Bohemia (pop.: 6,774,309) and Moravia (pop.: 2,620,914).

Prior to WWI, great deal of bitter poltical debate took place in the Austrian Parliament over language rights and autonomy for the Czech-speaking regions of Bohemia and Moravia, fueling historic Czech resentment of domination by German-speaking Austria. The result, of course, was the creation in 1919 of multinational Czechoslovakia, which included some 3.2 million German speakers within its borders. Thus, in Bohemia and Moravia, the ethnic/language tables were turned, with the German-speakers now the minority. This contributed to the reluctance of Britain and France to defend Czechoslovakia in 1938 from Hitler's aggression, cloaked as it was in the guise of "self-determination." But when the Nazis occupied the remainder of the Czech lands in 1939, the scales fell from the eyes of the Brits, who feverishly began to rearm.

But I digress. The Kingdom of Bohemia had a long history, but ceased to exist when the Czech lands were subsummed into Austria as constituent provinces.

Sca (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is accurate historically. While you are right that prior to WWI Bohemia was divided into three provinces which were completely integrated into the centralized "Austrian" or Cisleithanian state, this was certainly not the case of the 16th century Habsburg monarchy. Bohemia was by far the largest and most populous monarchies of the three (Austria, Bohemia, Hungary) which were coalesced in 1526 in the hands of the Habsburgs and it wasn't by any mean an "Austrian" province at least until the Maria Theresa centralization reforms in the 18th century. The Bohemian royal dignity was superior to the Austrian ducal one and the first three Habsburg rulers of this large Danube monarchy were buried in St Vitus cathedral in Prague, the third of them, Rudolf II, even made Prague his residence and de-facto capital. Guess why. The Kingdom of Bohemia had indeed a long history. It ended in 1918 when the last king, blessed Karl I, was deposed. Qertis (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is one problem, dear coeditor Sca: you mix together two different periods:

1. The so-called Czech lands (officially Corona Regni Bohemiae, "Crown of Bohemia") were one of the constituent parts of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1526 when Ferdinand I was elected as Bohemian king. This status lasted until the 1620 when Bohemian Crown (more precisely Bohemian Confederation, Confoederatio Bohemica at the time) lost its independence at the Battle of White Mountain. Subsequently, victorious Habsburgs issued their Verneuerte Landesordnung ("Renewed Land's Constitution") which fully subjugated Bohemia to Austria. Nevertheless, the Crown (then composed from 5 lands) was still recognized as special administrative unit. Even after 1749 when Maria Theresa de facto dissolved the Bohemian Crown these countries were constantly seen as a whole. This situation lasted until 1848.
2. As late as after 1848 – when big administrative reform (forced by the Revolution) took place – Czech lands have become mutually unrelated Kronländer, only provinces of one great empire. Despite great efforts, repeated petitions to the emperor and parliament obstructions, Czech politicians were unable to reverse this unfavourable (from Czech national point of view) situation until the end of WWI. Finally, a response to a Habsburg policy divide et impera was secession from the Austria-Hungary and creation of Czechoslovakia (1918)...

So, that's it. Your words and citation are valid only in the latter case (i.e. era 1848–1918). --Iaroslavvs (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, perhaps all that needs to be explained in a bit more detail, then — including the fact that by the 19th century, at least, the Czech lands were, administratively speaking, provinces of Austria.

Cisleithanian — What's that? Sca (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The term Cisleithania was quite a popular "nickname" of the Austrian part of A-H because the official name of this part of the monarchy was indeed cumbersome ("Die im Reichsrat vertretenen Königreiche und Länder") and the very term "Austria" was in many ways ambiguous. Qertis (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ach, so! Well, the so-called dual monarchy was was an odd beast at best. Aber, willkommen in Osteuropa, der Raum den merkwürdigen Biester! Sca (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Czechia (one-word name of the Czech Republic)

This article has been censored by Wikipedia administrators. Repeatedly over the course of one day, the article disappeared and a blank page was inserted instead. The objective response in the discussion, "this article is nonsense" , was surprising to say the least, considering the 41 references to experts in various fields supporting the legality of CZECHIA as an official name for the Czech Republic. Help bring "Czechia (one-word name of the Czech Republic)" back by voicing your support in the discussion. Czechia (one-word name of the Czech Republic)
My new article, recommended to all, that
1) don´t know where that name "comes from" (history)
2) don´t know why is that name linguistically correct
3) don´t know that it is used
4) don´t know that it is legally correct
5) don´t know, that their personal opinion is not substantial for the heart of the matter

and however don´t know it, erase the name stentatiously from the main page of the Czech RepublicNeewi (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted (!). Deletion of this article, that brings obviously very valuable information, proving the correctness of the name „Czechia“, is suspicious from subjectivity and bias of Wikipedia. It is necessary to inform about this abuse other media.

If the truth is a subject of some „consensus“, acquired by plebiscit (of anonymous, professionally unconfirmed „experts“), the absurdity became a king of the world. As Wikipedia creators commonly invoke this mechanism and this encoclopedy is the most visited source of information, there is no more, than regret them with sarcastic smile for their philosophy and honest compassion with its victims. According to that „logic“ is necessary to vote not only about Czechia, but undoubtedly also about the shape of the Earth.

For Wikipedists like Mewulwe the deletion is only „argument“.... Jan Blanický 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

Blocking of main side of the Czech Republic is only confirmation of all i said. My article about this problem on: http://convozine.com/13935-critical-eyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs) 16:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Neewi

CZECHIA - one word of the Czech Republic - completely deleted article by Mewulwe censor, what was supported by other their friends from Wikipedia - is now only on my personal site for the people, that want to know, what the problem really is. Neewi (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice article but in my opinion it's more a promotion of the word ("Czechia") than a serious and objective article. And it's based on flawed synthesis of information, however nicely written. --Millenium187 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Continual deletion of Czechia article also on discussion page?!!

Mr. Mewulwe, is that article so dangerous, that you need to delete it also in discussion ?!!
Completely deleted article again: Czechia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.80.140.32 (talk • contribs)

NPOV: Bohemia &/× Moravia &/× Silesia

This article should be about European state known as Czech Republic and Bohemia alone is not the Czech Republic. In the history section there is almost no mention of Moravia nor Silesia despite the fact that previous versions were much more objective. So the section is among other things clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. And I must also admit that I am really curios whether there are some strange motives involved, maybe even of political nature but maybe I am just too distrustful. --Millenium187 (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are too mistrustful. Nobody wants to conceal history of Moravia or Silesia from readers. These lands have their respective articles here. Quite comprehensive, I think. But Bohemia was historically the biggest, richest and most powerful, central Czech land - a seat of the rulers, "Head of the Crown". Main events of Czech history took place right here, in Bohemia. (Cf. relations of England vs. Britain, Holland vs. Netherlands, Croatia proper vs. Croatia, Moscovia vs. Russia, Lesser Poland vs. Poland, Lithuania proper vs. Lithuania etc. etc.) Other Czech lands (especially Moravia and Opavia/Upper Silesia) were in Europe perceived through Bohemian optics and farther from Bohemia, the less people were (and are) able to distinguish between domestic differences.

If you want to add some another relevant informations about Moravia, Silesia or both Lusatias, go on! But don't scream your irritated allegations here. Thanks. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you surprised me a bit, really. I must admit that I expected much more tense :). Don't worry I won't scream my "irritated allegations" again (or at least until something make my blood boil again but that's I hope unlikely to happen :). I just wanted to state my opinion and that happened so I am satisfied. Thank you for polite and reasonable responses! But anyway, in my opinion the history section should still be expanded or generalized to "display more respect" to the Moravian history. I really think it should focus a little bit more on Moravia at least as a gesture of a good will and mutual respect between both nations (yes, there are two nations, officially). By the way I realize that what I wrote here might sound somewhat strange or something like that and I apologize if I offended anyone but you must understand that I am a Moravian patriot or at least I consider myself to be one. And many other people feel the same way so this (history of the Czech republic) is naturally a bit sensitive issue, not only for me but also for at least hundreds of thousands other people too. But as I said you don't need to worried about me I am usually a calm person and I won't raise such heavy accusations again unless I have really a very good reason, I promise. Is that ok with you? --Millenium187 (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The article should provide relevant facts about the history of Moravia and Silesia, the regions are part of the Czech Republic, even though probably not "the biggest, richest and most powerful" ones :)) Feel free to add the facts and don't forget to cite reliable sources. There's really no need to turn this debate into a battle of patriotic standpoints. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, it seems to me that the people here are more reasonable than I anticipated. I wrote this because I expected somewhat primitive behaviour as I know it from the Czech Wikipedia. Likely I will attempt to improve the article and extend the history section to include more relevant data concerning Moravia but fairly. And by the way Moravia once was the biggest, richest and most powerful and we cannot say it wasn't just because it isn't not now. Silesia lies in the Czech Republic only partially, it's a topic mainly related to Poland. Anyway I am still convinced that the history section still requires certain modification. Bye and thanks! --Millenium187 (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thought Millenium187. For Bohemians, Moravia is supposed to be in article about Moravia and should not be here, because it is simply far too east from Prague, which is anyway the only place worth mentioning in the Bohemian/Czech Republic. For Moravians (as it seems from what you have written), Silesia is anyway far too north, and if anything, it should be part of article about Poland, because anyway nobody in Moravia understands any of the dialects spoken by the 1 million people living in Czech Silesia. Talk about chauvinism.

Maybe you are right but a great part that "Silesians" still comes from Moravia and Bohemia due to the industrial revolution and the rapid growth of the cities there, not to mention that the major part of the current Czech Silesia is former Moravian territory. But I still respect the Czech Silesia I just said that it's not so important as Moravia, naturally as well as Moravia is now not so important part of the republic as Bohemia. And I think that you missing the point here, the crucial difference between Moravia and Silesia in the relation to the Czech Republic is that the entire Moravia is in CR but Silesia is mostly in Poland. What exactly are you trying to say, that I am a chauvinist or what? :) No offence, but if I am then I am obviously not the only one here, as you said: "For Bohemians, Moravia is supposed to be in article about Moravia and should not be here, because it is simply far too east from Prague". I agree and I take it as your confession. :D --Millenium187 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There is actually larger proportion of people living in Silesia, who come from Poland and Slovakia/Upper Hungary, than from Moravia/Bohemia. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And since you have introduced this line of argumentation, I would like to remind you, that Silesia was for 400 years the biggest part of the Czech Crown (yes I know, only small part of it remains with the current Czech Republic). Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, it was, I know, and the Great Moravia once was the most powerful empire in the Central Europe, and what does it mean now? --Millenium187 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, you are the one who introduced this line of thought into the debate. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is whether you and the others "approve" addition of more data focused possibly solely on Moravia into the article or not. In another words do you honestly consider me to be a shallow minded person or a chauvinist when I merely want to put a bit more emphasis of the Moravian history? Even Bohemians used to consider the Margaviate to be a "feudum nobile" (a noble fee), Moravia used to a rich and proud land with a high level of autonomy, the great history of being once a powerful empire, a cradle of the Slavic culture and education, can you doubt it? Am I asking really so much? --Millenium187 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I just found it amusing that you basically have the same line of thought regarding Silesia as Bohemians do when it comes to Moravia. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate your Moravian patriotism, you seem to be missing the point here. "Bohemia" is a term with at least two slightly different meanings. Due to historical reasons, namely the fact that the country was part of the Habsburg monarchy for such a long time (especially during the era of nation-forming in the 19th century) and subsequently became part of Czechoslovakia, we tend to omit the broader meaning of the term Bohemia, which is the Czech/Bohemian state as a whole, including Moravia. In short, while Moravia has never been part of Bohemia proper, it is still part of Bohemia, now called Czech Republic in English. Its fairly common phenomenon in this part of the world actually. Styria is not part of Austria proper, yet it undoubtedly is part of Austria. The same goes for Poland and its regions/lands. Qertis (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if Moravia really is a part of Bohemia then it will be very easy to prove it so may I ask you to do so please. --Millenium187 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So you are basically ignoring or denying the fact that Moravia was conquered by the Bohemian duke Oldrich in the early 11th century and has remained within the Bohemian state ever since. That's interesting but you are going to have a hard time finding a single reliable source supporting your point of view. Qertis (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not ignoring it. I could also say that you are simply ignoring history of the Margraviate and history of the Empire. Maybe you we should say: "The Czech Republic, formerly known as Austria ...", for example Mendel wasn't Bohemia, he was Austrian. In my opinion maybe you are so focused on the Bohemian history that it blinds you a bit. Please define that "broader meaning of the term Bohemia" and delimit when and where it way used, excluding nationalism stunts from 19. century of course. --Millenium187 (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Bohemian history I am so focused on is the history of the whole Czech/Bohemian state, not just its western portion without Moravia as you seem to imply. I have no special interest in any of the regions of the country be it in the west or east. You, on the other hand, are obviously keen on the history of Moravia, which is perfectly OK to me but it should not lead you to ignore the facts. And the fact is, again, that Moravia has been for centuries part of the state which was called Duchy of Bohemia, Kingdom of Bohemia, Crown of the Kingdom of Bohemia, ... and finally the Czech Republic. "Bohemia" is therefore the unique label which identifies the Czech statehood throughout centuries, just like "Poland", "Hungary" or "Austria" identify the respective statehoods of our neighbors. See [7] and many others. Qertis (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's admirable that you are focused not only on Bohemia but also on the other lands of the state, and you are right I am focused almost only on Moravia but as you said there should be nothing wrong about it. Ignoring the facts, oh no, that's the last think I want to do, really. Please correct if I am wrong:

• "Moravia has been for centuries part of the state which was called Duchy of Bohemia", part of the Duchy, yes but only in years 1029-1182 (someone could also say to 1200) after that it was a direct fief of the Holy Roman Empire, not Bohemia, but often ruled by Bohemian Kings.
• "part of the Kingdom of Bohemia", I am convinced that it was never a part of the Kingdom of Bohemia, can you prove otherwise?
• "part of the Crown of the Kingdom of Bohemia", I am not sure what you mean but if you mean "Lands of the Bohemian Crown" not the crown as a jewel itself then it was since the reign of Charles IV. who declared Moravia as a fief of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown by his authority of the Holy Roman Emperor, not the Bohemian King. That happened in 1348 but in year 1349 former Moravian Margrave the Charles renounced his rule in Moravia and gave it to his brother John Henry of Luxembourg and he ruled Moravia ever after until his death in 1375, then his son Jobs of Moravia inherited his title and so continued to rule in the Moravian Margaviate (but he never was the King of Bohemia!), in 1411 he was even elected the King of the Romans and so ruled in the entire empire and before that he was for example the Elector of Brandenburg (ruler of Brandenburg). But he died the same year he was elected the King, so then Bohemian Kings ruled in the Margaviate until 1419 (so in 1411-1419) and then again in 1458-1469 (In 1464 the King of Bohemia declared Moravian Magraviate as equal to the Bohemian Kingdom, in 1469-1490 Moravians rejected the Bohemian King and elected their own Matthias Corvinus) and again in 1490-1526 (but it was Jagiellon dynasty) and then since 1526 Moravia was, together with Bohemia but not as a part of Bohemia, one of the crownlands of the Hapsburg Empire (1526–1918) but 1608-1611 Matthias of Austria ruled the estate of Moravia so not the same man as the Bohemian King (because Moravia rejected the Bohemian King again), so Moravia had again a different ruler than Bohemia. Moravia had its own diet, law, courts, constitution, territory, army, etc. independent on Bohemia until 1749 (reign of Maria Theresia, Moravia and Bohemia de facto ceased to exist) and again but this time only partially since 1790 until 1918. Then in 1918 Moravia together with Bohemia, Slovakia, etc. formed the first Czechoslovakia but it remained a separate land from Bohemia, with its own capital city, president and so on (subdued to the Czechoslovakia, not Bohemia). And as far as I know Moravia had to accept the King of Bohemia as a ruler, he couldn't just rule without the land (Moravia) accepting him. (I am sorry I wrote this in haste.) So Moravia was a long time ago a part of the Terra Bohemiae but only in 1029-1182 as well as Bohemia once was part of the Moravian Empire. And Lands of the Bohemian Crown was a confederation. But I am not a histoprian, so please correct me if I am wrong. It doesn't have to be exact, just tell me when and why exactly was Moravia a part of Bohemia. I tried to find something supporting your thesis on the internet but I didn't find anything on the contrary I found sources which claim the same as do I, like [8] or [9] but they don't have to exactly accurate, they are just someone's websites. And a book with title "The Reformation 1520–1559" is also just a one book, but still can you write what exactly it says concerning this issue? :) And by the way that someone conquered Moravia a millennium ago doesn't mean so much, Moravia was conquered many times before and many times after as well as many other land in Europe. But I really don't want to turn this into a irrelevant discussion. I just wan you to provide a good prove that Moravia was a part of Bohemia and delimit when exactly, until that I am sorry but must refuse to accept this and you could also define precisely that "brother meaning" of the term Bohemia and also support it with a reliable sources and delimit when exactly it was valid. That's all I want, thank you! --Millenium187 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Only two brief remarks, Millenium187:

1. Nationalist fervor is not the best mentor – in nothing, not even in writing encyclopedic entries
2. If you will promote these confused dates and distorted informations here in Wiki, I will be one of your strong adversaries; I am a historian and I don't like ignorance and demagogy – history cannot be violated in favor of one's national agitation, inferiority complex or umbrage

First of all, start to read good and trustworthy historical publications. For example: Pánek, Jaroslav (2009). A History of the Czech lands. Prague: Karolinum. ISBN 978-80-246-1645-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Then you can return here and you will be able to edit/discuss with proper knowledge. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, well, I am not a historian. But could you please at least add some sources to the term Bohemia providing a trustworthy verification of the claim that it could be used as a synonym from the Czech Republic? Nationalist fervour? :) Well, I don't think so but it surely depends on the point of view. About promotion of confused dates and distorted informations as I said I am not a historian so I won't edit articles related to matters beyond my scope of knowledge. You wrote: "history cannot be violated in favor of one's national agitation, inferiority complex or umbrage", perhaps it shouldn't be but certainly it is, maybe not here, but generally it is, I think even you can't doubt it. And please don't imply that I have an inferiority complex, you have basically no idea who I am and you cannot judge me based upon a few sentences I wrote, that would probably be a bit shallow minded conclusion. Ok, if have no objections I will consider this matter closed from my side, thanks your your time! --Millenium187 (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I just don't understand your point. To my knowledge, all important events mentioned in the article, such as the reigns of Premysl Otakar II or Charles IV, Hussite Wars, Thirty Years War, World War II, Prague Spring etc. had taken place in both Bohemia and Moravia, ie the historic Czech lands (today's Czech Republic). Tobby72 (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Czechia again

I understand that Czechia is one of the 2 official English names for this country, endorsed by the Czech government. In practice it is not all that common, but is nevertheless valid. However, when I tried to insert a good faith edit into the lede adding Czechia as a short form of the name, it was reverted within about 3 nanoseconds. Surely if it's officially recognised, it should be mentioned in the lede, even if it's not the most commonly used name? Is there some Wikipedia campaign against it that I've accidentally walked into? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)