Jump to content

Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Help the truth, Czechs insulted

Dear Friends,

I'm involved in a Dispute on Bulgaria's page, when I give as an example the Czech page, the Great Czech Nation is being insulted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Proposed_compromise

(See below)

There can't be compromise when one of the active parties has arguments that remain unchanged, while the other one consists of one man with no arguments apart from "luk odor country Poland czech republic etc." and lack of common sense. Simple as that. ...... - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 

The other side of the dispute wants to remove the historical dates in the formation of Bulgaria and start with the XIX century. Please, help me as these folks may threaten you next. (Ximhua (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC))

Ximhua, this page in intended for discussions about possible improvements to the article Czech Republic. Also, when reading your post, I have to remind you to read WP:CANVAS and WP:FORUMSHOP. Comments of this kind are highly inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thank you Vejvančický! Well noted. (Ximhua (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC))

Contact lenses

I have some observations about the photograph of the contact lenses in the "Science" section.

1. The caption of the contact lenses photograph states: "The modern contact lens was invented by Otto Wichterle and Drahoslav Lím." While this may be true, according to the cited source: "Dr. Wichterle's work later resulted in the introduction of the first commercially available soft contact lenses by Bausch & Lomb in 1971." It doesn't say that those lenses are the basis for all the currently available lenses, though this is obviously an important step along the way, maybe even a milestone, in the history of soft lenses. The source also presents a time-line that states: "1956 Czech chemist Otto Wichterle begins making contact lenses with a soft, water-absorbing plastic he helped create." He is not credited with "inventing the modern contact lens", but is one scientist, along with Lim, in a decades-long string of scientists who developed various lenses utilizing various processes and materials.

2. The photograph's title is "contact lenses Confortissimo". I imagine that means "soft contact lenses" in Italian or is perhaps a brand name. There's no mention of Wichterle and Lim in the photo description. The caption applied to it in the Czech Republic article leads one to believe that the Czech scientists had some direct hand in these particular lenses, but instead, it seems that it's is a generic image of random soft lenses.

Thanks for corrections if these are aggrandized statements or for finding proof of their validity if true. Wordreader (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

prehistoric settlement

I miss the information about paleolithic human settlement in what is now the Czech Republic. At least findings from the upper paleolithic (late stone age) are important and should be mentioned. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Paleolithic. The oldest known ceramic in the world is from Dolni Vestonice (Venus of Dolni Vestonice, ca 29000 BCE), one of the oldest textile is from that area too. One of the prehistoric European cultures (Pavlovian, contemporary with Aurignacian) is named after archeological site Pavlov in the Czech Republic, and is ca 20000 BCE. The opening of the chapter History, Prehistory: 'Archaeologists have found evidence of prehistoric human settlements in the area, dating back to the Neolithic era.' is incorrect in that evidence for much older human settlements has been found!!! 90.176.141.38 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Marijuana for medical purposes

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Czech parliament has approved marijuana as a legitimate means of treating people suffering from some serious illness and needed just a signature president to decree entered into force, according to AFP. With that decision provided that the marijuana prescribed prescription able to treat people with cancer, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and psoriasis. Marijuana for medical purposes will be initially imported from Israel or the Netherlands, and the latter will be given license to domestic farmers for cultivation.78.2.127.231 (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Heads Up

Just a heads up - CNN and a couple of other media outlets replayed an interview featuring a former CIA agent mistakingly referring to the "Islamic Czech Republic" and how one of the Boston Marathon Bombings suspects was named after the first president of the Czech Islamic Republic. As such there might be some need for a little extra attention in case of vandals or misguided users.

Just an FYI TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have been noticed much outside of Czech news websites comment threads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.91.79 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

First sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section

Virtually every country is divided into "historical territories" and the Czech Republic is no exception here. This internal division is thoroughly elaborated elsewhere in the article. The point of the first sentence of this paragraph is to briefly introduce the beginning of the Czech statehood including the peculiar and extremely important fact that the country was for over a millennium known under a different name in English. Qertis (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is somewhat troublesome issue, as I have observed so many times on the cs: version. It has an analogy in the Great Britain and England (I have been in Scotland for few months and they would have kill me there if I would make a remark of myself being in England back there). And as the sentence currently reads, it implies that the Moravian part of Czech state, is in the Bohemia or that it had ever in time been. But it never had been part of Bohemia. I think, the sentence might become true, if "Bohemia" is replaced with "Bohemian Kingdom", althought I clearly see that it would undermine your goal (and You have a point there!). We are so unlucky to have such meddlesome country-name-history, I feel like if we are the only European nation not having proper one-word name (If Britain would be acceptable one-word label for UK) and that is highlighted by the the peculiar and extremely important fact you have mentioned.
It even gave birth to some extravagant misconception, as I have witnessed when I had been in Britain few years back. For example in some atlas I had been reading about my country, - in the history section, that it's history started with year 1918 as part of Czechoslovakia - completely missing the link to the Bohemia of the past. And I saw it quit few times in the same style afterwards. (In striking contrast to the history of other European countries in those same sources). The name Bohemia itself, I deem, creates that misconception. So You do have a good point, but nevertheless, umm technically ... to equal Bohemia with Bohemian Kingdom is not right in the same way as Equaling England and Great Britain is wrong.
I myself am from Bohemia not Moravia - just to clarify myself :)), but I understand those sensitivities a little :). Reo + 21:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for your response, I am also flabbergasted seeing those unorthodox renditions of our nation's history. The Czech what-is-the-name-of-my-home malaise actually started in 1918 when some bright mind invented the tongue-twister "Czechoslovakia". It may have appeased Slovaks but it stripped us from our 1000 years old name for good (as it seems now). If it wasn't for the Slovaks the newly independent Czech state would have been without any doubt named Bohemia (Republic of Bohemia). What would be then the most suitable short, one-word name for the Duchy of Bohemia, Kingdom of Bohemia, the Crown of the Bohemian Kingdom (Corona regni Bohemiae) or Republic of Bohemia? What about..hmmm...Bohemia? I am pretty sure no one (even hard core Moravians) would have questioned it now.
As for your comparison, I wouldn't travel that far seeking useful (and, perhaps, much better) parallels. Lets have a look at our southern neighbors. "Austria" used to label the vast Habsburg empire, now its just a tiny alpine republic and back at the dawn of the ages it was even much smaller duchy in what is now Lower Austria (sic!). I am pretty sure that there are some Styrians, Carinthians or Tyroleans who have the same feeling as those rebellious Scots (and Moravians):), but it seems to me that most of them are well accustomed to the fact that they are, next to their regional identities, also Austrians. BTW, Scotland is part of Britain for some 300 years, it used to be a kingdom on its own with its own legal system, language etc. Moravia, on the other hand, is part of the Bohemian/Czech state for some 1000 years and while being distinct in many respects (just like any other region) its fully integrated without any serious separatist movement, AFAIK. :) Qertis (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I've restored the info on historical territories in the lead section per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. You are right, the internal division is elaborated later in the article, however, I consider the fact that CR consists of three historical regions important enough to be mentioned also in the lead section. Please do not revert if you disagree, we can ask for third opinion from uninvolved editors at WP:CZECH or via WP:RfC. I'll notify WP:CZECH about this discussion. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


Agree, Moravia was since 11th century a colony of Bohemia, where junior brothers of Bohemian dukes ruled. As the Whales vs England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.78.5 (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Czech history 2013 update

http://geolib.geology.cz/cgi-bin/gw?ST=03&SID=0039F9ACDA&L=02&KDE=037&RET=Raman+spectroscopic+provenance+determination+of+garnets+from+the+scramasaxe+scabbard+%28The+treasure+of+Barbarian+Prince+from+C%C3%A9zavy%2DBlu%C4%8Dina%2C+Czech+Republic%2C+late+5th+century%29%2E+%5C%5CRIV%2F00023272%3A%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2F09%3A%230000893%5C http://templ.net/english/texts-sword_from_blucina.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial Good day, my written English is not the best. So can someone please update this czech Republic history. This is the only artifact known that dates from Atilla the Hun, and the AVAR period 5th to 8th Century (Blucina Sword note German man). It is located 8km from Brno Moravia. No aritfacts have ever been found on Bohemian soil to my knowledge. But maybe someone should read history more carefully. Because I am far from an expert. But didn't Atilla the Hun and the later Avar's first entered Europe through the Silk road to raid the Roman Empire. Documents at the time were written in Latin and Greek and many citie's and rivers were named. None of these are on todays Czech Republic's Lands. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html , http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 . The rivers named are the Volga, Rhina, Danube. Also the "Chronicle of Fredegar" "slavic" "Befulci" can mean many things page 149 here: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/fredegar_paul.pdf :https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1955&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF or even google:define:Benfulci. If anyone can help in updating I will be greatful. Casurgis from Sydney 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.0.254 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Population data in the Administrative section

Dear Editors! Could you please update the table at the Administrative divisions section with the data from 2012 as it is listed in the article List of cities in the Czech Republic? A lot of thanks in advance. --Ksanyi (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Czech King & Czech Kingdom

Sorry to disturb you but could someone please explain to me what was "Czech King"? I thought that the Czech state comprises of former Kingdom of Bohemia, Margraviate of Moravia, and Duchy of Silesia; and that most of the Kings of Bohemia ruled also over Moravia because they were also Margarves of Moravia at the same time, not because they were "Czech Kings", including "Czech King" Charles I (Charles IV as King of the Holy Roman Empire, later Emperor) which was Margave of Moravia before he become "Czech King". Thanks... --Millenium187 (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And I have one more question, if I may, which German states exactly were part of this Czech state in middle ages and early modern era? I was wondering, if "Czech King" Charles IV was also the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire then maybe the entire HRE (≈Germany) was the Czech state, why should we limit it only to Bohemia, Moravia, and a part of Silesia??? (BTW, I have no intention of starting a flame war, I am just asking.) --Millenium187 (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

HRE was not a state but an union of territories, Kingdoms and Duchies. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
It is a semantic issue. While many historical sources refer to the kingdom as Bohemian one (as opposed to Bohemia proper), following the first mentions of it in the Roman-Latin sources (after early dwellers - Boii), other refer to it after what the people called themselves later on - Češi, Čechy, anglicized Czechs, therefore Czech kingdom.
Indeed, depending on what part of history you are referring to, the Czech kingdom would comprise larger areas, e.g. most of Silesia before the Habsburgs lost it in the 18th century. The latest borders of the Czech kingdom may be seen in any 1918 map of Austria-Hungary; within these borders the Czech part of Czechoslovakia was established (apart from some losses, such as Cieszyn area). Unless specified to other historical period, when talking about Czech kingdom, this is the area that is being referred to. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Draft:Czechia

Is this a legitimate subject or should it remain a redirect? Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Czech Republic current History!.

I hope this information on the Czech lands is useful to everyone.[edit] The history of Czech Republic starts in 1993.Helveticus96 (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

History of the Czech Lands: Oldest chronological order. Červený kopec - Red hill near Brno Beroun – Koněprusy Caves, Beroun district many artifacts found 25km south west of Prague Kůlna cave- Moravian Karst - where a part Neanderthal man's skull, about 120 000 years old, was found Mladeč caves - 31000 years old radiocarbon dating in Vienna, proves to be the oldest cranial, dental and post cranial assemblage of early modern humans in Europe The Venus of Dolni Vestonice dated to 29 000 – 25 000 BP (Gravettian industry). Many other artifacts were also found at Dolni Vestonice. And carbon dated in America see the National Geographic October 1988 Bridgehead at Přerova (Předmostí) is an important archaeological site, especially renowned paleolitickými. Estimated to be 25000 years old. Petřkovická Venus , sometimes called Landecká Venus. Estimated to be 23,000 years old Czech neolithic age 6000-5500 to 4000 BC - Czech farmers came from the "fertile crescent". There culture Liner Pottery The Prague 7 district of Bubeneč - People have been living in the area since at least the 5th millennium BC. Bubence has a burial site from the ancient Corded Ware culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.232.19 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Moravian painted pottery 4700-3700BC Comb Ceramics 2900-2800-2600BC - referred to as Battle Axe culture Corded Ware culture - The grave located in Terronska Street Prague 6. ( Gay Caveman) dated to about 2800 to 2500 BC, so about 4500 years ago. Unetice culture named after Unetice near Prague 2400-1550,1550-1200BC Amber trade route - Romans used to transport amber Veneti extinct,Italians and celts. Celts in Czech lands also referred to as the Hallstatt Civilalzation 750-400/300BC Then the Boii ( Whose name - Boiohaemum has stuck to this day) Then the Celtic La Tene culture. Then the celts where replaced with more primitive Germans. Marcomanni occupied Bohemia led by King Morobudus, Moravia was held by the Quadi under King Tudrus. Morbudus was deposed in the year 19AD. A noteworthy Roman camp located at Musov Ptolemy Code, The orginal map is written in ancient latin example Eburodunum is the City Brno Pre-history =[edit]

The oldest, The first inhabitants of ancient humans of the country,probably people of the type Homo heidelbergensis, appear in Moravia sporadically 1 million years ago. A worked pebble, stone axe blade of more than 800,000 years old have been found at the brickyard on the Červený kopec hill in Brno. Also Beroun-highway (District Beroun) has many ancient artifacts. Middle Paleolithic, the period between 300 000 and 400 000 years ago. Moravia was inhabited mostly in the period of 100 000 – 40 000 years ago when Neanderthals occupied several caves and pitched their camps in the open air. In the Kůlna cave, proofs of their repeated stay during some 80 000 years (120 000 – 40 000) have been found. Mladeč caves is an Aurignacian culture archaeological site with directly dated remains of early modern human dating to about 31,000 radiocarbon years. During Upper Paleolithic (40 000 – 10 000 years ago) an extraordinary culture of mammoth hunters (Pavlovian) emerged in Moravia. It is known especially from Dolní Věstonice, Předmostí, Pavlov, Petřkovice and it is famous for its unique works of art. The oldest known carbon dated grave of a female Shaman in the world is located at Dolni Vestonice 26000+ years old. And a mammoth statuette from Předmostí. In the period of Middle Paleolithic (250 thousand. - 40 thousand.) In the territory of the Czech Republic had many Paleolithic cultures, of which he was the bearer of an earlier stage yet Homo erectus, in the later stage in cultures, probably Homo sapiene. The best known deposits of the Middle Palaeolithic cave Arrow, Shed, Předmostí at Přerova. Paleolithic 40 thousand. - 12 thousand. BP is connected to the first documented occurrence of the type of man today (Homo sapiens) in the Czech Republic. The oldest carbon dated records show Mladec caves at 31,0000 years old. While in the transient cultures to interface Middle Paleolithic and young Paleolithic is still considered rather of Neanderthals as its owners in other cultures Pavlovian Gravettian, Epigravettian and is a carrier designed [ [person present type]]. Pavlovienská site in Moravia (u Přerova Předmostí, Lower Věstonice, Pavlov, Petřkovice). Became known thanks to the housing estate and findings Sepulchral which indicate unusually developed hunting company that has probably lived that way of life and was able to fire pottery or weave mats of grass, and was characterized by a sophisticated and diverse artistic expression with symbolic overtones ([[Venus statuette ] ], animal sculptures made of burnt clay, jewelry from shells, mammoth ivory and teeth, decorated with carvings from mammoth ivory tools, etc.), which in addition to evidence of ritual burials suggests theworlds oldest known female shaman at Dolni Vestonice which was carbon dated in American at 27000 yers old. ((Nation Geographic 174 Oct 1988)). Short period at the turn of the Pleistocene u Holocene for it out as Paleolithic (12 thousand. - 10 thousand. BP), in the Czech Republic was based on the findings of the few (which is probably related to the low population density at the time) defined culture epimagdalénien and group curved spikes retouched and ostroměřská group. Mesolithic (8 to 6 one thousand BC)[edit] In terms of research identified very difficult period, not cultural-chronological breakdown settled, sometimes as separate periods ever questioned, respectively. replaced by the term epipaleolithic​​. Finds from this period is very little, considering the influence of climate change on sparse population of small hunting and gathering groups. A major problem is the relationship of people in order to newcomer agricultural community. Neolithic[edit] The Czech territory is represented Neolithic Linear Pottery culture, to which through the followed by Stroked Pottery culture. In Moravia, appeared at the end of the Neolithic Culture of the Moravian Painted Ware. The population at that time mainly fed agriculture (different intensity was complemented by hunting, gathering, fishing). People lived in small villages in the long houses. Already at the end of the Linear Pottery culture appear upland settlement, formed at the end of the Neolithic roundel (building): a large, usually circular monumental building whose purpose lead to numerous discussions. A well-studied sites are Bylany in Kutna Hora, Miskovice, Plotiště nad Labem, Březno u Loun or Těšetice-Kyjovice and Vedrovice in Moravia . Copper Age (4400 - 2000 BC)[edit] Due to the technology changes (discovery wheels, use , use cattle to plow sporadically fields and other related social changes likely, the social division of labour), mark it out late stone Age . In the Czech lands during the times changed or plagued with large quantities Culture Lengyel culture, Funnel Beaker culture, Baden culture, culture globular amphora, culture corded Ware. The well known Corded Ware culture - Includes the grave located in Terronska Street Prague 6 [[Gay Caveman[[ dated to about 2800 to 2500 BC, about 4500 years ago. Bronze Age (2000 - 800 BC)[edit] In essence, the Bronze age smoothly followed the Bronze Age, when just beginning to apply socially significant metal processing. Very likely this led to the creation of groups of specialists (miners, steelworkers, but also traders, etc.) who were socially divided status. From archaeological findings, it is possible to demonstrate significant stratification of society (rich graves), perhaps the emergence of nobility, which was able to assert its power interests (control significant mineral deposits, junctions or market place). Develops long-distance trade. Archaeological findings also allow, especially when compared with the Aegean Area , speculate about the specific content of religious ideas of contemporary society (solar cult). Again, the Czech identified the large number of cultures: Únětice culture, Nitranská group, culture Chłopice-Happy, věteřovská culture, mohylových complex cultures ( českofalcká, středodunajská), Lusatian Urnfield culture, culture Knovíz and štítarská, [[milavečská culture] ], nynická group, Velatice and Podoli culture.

Iron Age - Hallstatt (800-450 BC)

For this period was, as its name suggests, the typical widespread use iron, in connection with it, the Central Europe a closer contacts with the Mediterranean areas . And with a company that got them on the level of chieftain ship military , respectively. sometimes it was discussed hypothetically tribal principalities. In contrast to the culturally fragmented Bronze Age. Hallstatt period was culturally united. The Hallstatt culture in the Czech Republic: Hallstatt culture, bylanská culture in Bohemia, linen culture on the north and Horákov culture in southern Moravia. Famous site of extraordinary importance of this time is Bull Rock - caves in the Moravian Karst near Adam. Younger Iron Age - crates (450-50 BC)[edit] Distribution of Celts in Europe (blue: 1500 to 1000 BC, in pink: 400 BC)]] The Czech territory, perhaps already in the 2nd off the mid-5 century BC got Celtic, the first ethic Race of people here, whose name is known from written sources. Only in the 4 century BC occupied all the usable agricultural area (linked to the new wave of arrivals from about Elbe and upper Rhine or northwest France). Name tribe principal established in Bohemia Boii gave the country the name Boiohaemum. Moravia in the first wave in 5 century came Volková-Tektoságové, who probably occupied only the southern part of Moravia, in the 1st mid-4 century, the expected arrival of another wave of the Danube. The Central European culture Celtic is referred to as La Tene culture . In the periphery (eastern and north eastern Moravia) survived and origin Slovak Púchovská culture. Time == Roman (50 BC - 350/380 AD) == The Ptolemy Code written in ancient latin shows Eburodunum as the City Brno, And Prague as Casurgis At he time when the Czech territory remained mostly Germanic tribes. They began to penetrate and mix with Celtic with people in the second to mid-1 century BC, the Plaňanská horizon. In northern Bohemia, at that time still remained culturally mixed kobylská group. Shortly before the turn of the era their settled the Marcomanni, after migration period the remnants remained here until about the beginning of the 5 century. From the 2 century onwards from the north they penetrated Przeworski culture (Moravia about this evidence since the beginning of the Roman period) in the 1st mid-3 century came to Bohemia new population of the Elbe. These new groups are in the 2nd mid-3 century spread to Moravia (Kostelec group). At the same time in South Moravia long researched sites that testify about the effects of Roman units in the [Marcomanni wars]] (Mušov) in the Czech Republic, in 2001, the evidence of their presence until Neředín.

Migration time (380/400 - about 568)[edit] At the beginning of 5 century population has decreased dramatically, probably at least part left in 406 with Vandals and Marcomanni | they were thought to have left in the 1st mid-5 century. In the5 century at least in Moravia showed the chaos caused by the Huns invasion under Attila leadership, new people came here from the Danube slavs, probably similar changes occurred in Bohemia, but so far it's not enough for evidence. In southern Moravia, perhaps by some archaeologists settled Heruli East German Slav, who stayed until the beginning of the 6 century, where they were defeated by the Lombards. In the Czech Republic in the 1st third 5 century pushed Vinařická group, considering also the presence of Hun nobility in Moravia(grave with horse harness). At the end of the 5th century upstream Elbe into Bohemia arrived the Lombards they temporarily settled here, but sometimes in the 1st mid-6 century moved to the Danube, and in 568 to Italy. The beginnings of Slavic settlement[edit] In Moravia, Silesia and Bohemia, the first Slavs appeared probably in the second mid-6 century. The first wave of Slavs (pottery culture Prague type) face via Lesser to Moravia and later along the so called Trstenice trails into Bohemia. In the first half of the 7 century perhaps the second wave could come from the Danube. At that time, this area housed the only remnants of the previous inhabitants of Germanic (Lombards and Durynků). Lombards some Celtic tribes and other barbarians. But before the arrival of the Slavs they went to the Danube, and after a short stay in northern Italy, Durynkové went to the Bavaria , and perhaps contributed to the ethnogenesis Bavarians.

The questions I am still waiting to answered are: Why has no Avar, grave or a single artifact ever been found on Bohemian soil in over 1500 years. No evidence hey! 2. Where is the German DNA project to prove they do not have Slavic blood?. Or is it best just look at the whole thing as a point of view of linguistics ?. http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm Please read the links below there is a lot of information: Literature Jaroslav Panek Olfdrich Tuma Et Alh: "A HISTORY OF THE CZECH LANDS" [From the Neolithic age to the present day. (637 Pages)], 1009 ISBN 978-80-246-1645-2

Casurgis from Australia

Dispute cities/region when Czechoslovakia was divided in Czechia Czech Republic and Slovakia?

Where there any and how was this solved? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Czechia was a name of the Czech Republic proposed by the Ministry of Foreign affairs in 1990s. Czechoslovakia was divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Czechia is a fringe word with next to no use in English.
You forgot that the first name of Czechoslovakia was Česko-Slovensko and Cesko is Czechia, there is no other translation, which is grammaticaly correct, just get used to it!Helveticus96 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Please be so kind and read the previous communication carefully before answering. Czechoslovakia/Československo was divided in 1992/3, not in 1920. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
There were no important disputes, since the border between the two countries was set more or less in the middle ages. The largest disputes pertained to:
  • cs:Šance (Vrbovce) - originally Moravian, due to the factual situation (connected to Slovak infrastructure) given to Slovakia
  • cs:Sidonie - originally Slovak, given to the Czech Republic in exchange for the above mentioned
  • cs:Kasárna (Makov) - Slovak recreation area with almost all real estate (weekend cottages, etc.) owned by Czechs. Given to Slovakia, issue has arisen when Slovakia closed the only direct road from the Czech Republic to the place (border crossing). Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

forced Germanization?

In the introduction there is written that Czechs were subject of forced recatholization and Germanization. However, the latter is doubtful. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanization > 'Among the Bohemian lords who were punished and had their lands expropriated after Frederick's defeat in 1620 were German- and Czech-speaking landowners. Thus, this conflict was feudal in nature, not national. Although the Czech language lost its significance as a written language in the aftermath of the events, it is doubtful that this was intended by the Habsburg rulers, whose aims were of a feudal and religious character'. Hence the term FORCED Germanization may not be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.141.38 (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Czech people who wanted to make business contracts, communicate with authorities, attend a school or become an official had to speak German, as German was the only official language. So, essentially, any Czech who wanted anything more than work someone's land was forced to learn German. Sounds pretty forced to me; perhaps not by law, but certainly by necessity. 212.67.80.130 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


NOT TRUE, both, Czech and German languages, were official languages of the kingdom through the 17th/18th century (with some exception during the late 18th century). Forced Germanization imposes situation known from Ireland, where Gaelic was forbidden - Czech language was not forbidden and German language was lingua franca. Do we experience forced anglicization? Yet these pages are written in English and if you want to become a scientist, you must learn how to write texts in English to sell your work in the international community. Exactly what happened with German language in the kingdom of Bohemia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.77.165.40 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


It was not feudal in nature, but religious. Czech was the main language of reformation until Luther has introduced these ideas to Germans. The main issue behind the uprising was the refusal of Habsburgs to provide freedom of religion as secured in the Rudolph II. patent of toleration. Both Czech and German Protestant inhabitants of the Czech Crown lands fought the German-Vatican Catholic forces.
  • Before the war, there were many dozens, if not hundreds (only Jihlava had six), of schools providing universal education (i.e. notwithstanding the status or gender) around the country, initially Czech, after Luther also in German - these were all closed and to a small degree replaced by Latin Catholic schools with very limited access.
  • Most importantly, for Protestants there were three options: leave the country, convert or be killed for heresy (burning alive, stoning, etc.). Over 90% of inhabitants were Protestant, the proportion was higher for Czechs and lower for Germans.
  • Vacated estates and houses in cities were filled with Catholic German immigrants.
  • While high education was possible only in Latin (until 1770s), there was no chance of social and economical success without use of German in the country until ca. 1830s (even for fluently Latin speaking Czechs).
If such a process is not a forced one, then I don't know what is. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Presumably one could convert to Catholicism while still knowing Czech and Latin but not German - whether it happened is another question. Would you say today's Czech Republic reflects a process of forced Anglicization? It is pretty much impossible to obtain a certain degree of success without being able to speak English. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Today, English is necessary for success only in fields with direct international connection, and in many areas with international connection other languages will do instead of English, especially German or Russian. It is not like that you have to know English to address state bodies in the Czech Republic, conduct business on national level or read any literature.
I am not disputing that one could convert while knowing only Czech and being willing to repeat Latin mantras in the church (which most of the peasants probably did not understand at all), otherwise there would be no Czech speaking population left. However the whole process was set in the way which would inevitably lead to complete eradication of Czech, if not for the changes in the 1770s-80s. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I would say important is: Was German language FORCED by the law, or was it not? Both languages were official in the Bohemian kingdom, but German language was lingua franca in business and education, the same way as English is in science, business etc today. Are we FORCED to speak English? No, but if you do not speak English, your career in some fields is impossible (you cannot be scientist, for example). The same was might have been with German language in CZ, I would say. Perhaps the only period of state organized FORCE of German language in all Austria (including Hungary) was the period of Josef II in the end of 18th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.78.5 (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It was FORCED by the fact, that the only official language of the Czech kingdom was made German (especially during the reign of Joseph II, although majority population was still Czech.

Ceplm (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

During the Thirty Years' War the „Revised Ordinance of the Land" (1627) declared by the Habsburgs, made German language equal to the Czech language in Bohemian Kingdom and this does not change until the formation of Czechoslovakia. So both languages were official. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it was not FORCED by law, there was no such law in Bohemia both languages were used in official documents (in Moravia situation deferred, Czechs were less powerful than in Bohemia). Look at pages 148-154 in Belina et al. 2001 Velke Dejiny Zemi Koruny Ceske X. (1740-1792), ISBN 80-7185-384-4 (only in Czech, I am afraid...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.78.5 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Czechia (again)

There's currently an ongoing edit war on this article regarding mention of the term "Czechia" as a short name for the Czech Republic. Personally, I would prefer mentioning of "Czechia". It isn't so widely used as the "Czech Republic", but it is in use, at least according to English news articles and books - [1] [2]. But I would like to see what do others think and what is the concensus instead of reverts. Thank you for your opinions. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with mention it as a short name, because it is really truth. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Less than 1% on Google, not even the Czech government uses it much, already mentioned as needed in Etymology section. Mewulwe (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Mewulwe, i think you have to stop to be against the word "Czechia". Don't be the same like Yopie who does not live in Bohemia, but in Bohemian Republic. It is a nonsense. Nobody cares of state form. One word name of the Czech Republic is Czechia. The president uses this short name commonly. It is neccesary, because word "Czech" does not mean "Česko".Johnypar (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not about what the president uses, but what is commonly used in English. Czechia is not commonly used. Maybe someone can start a Czenlish Wikipedia with article on Czechia. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

To Cimmerian praetor: If there is something "Czenglish", it is silly use of incorrect adjectival form "Czech" as the name of the country. But, it arose from natural need of informal name of the country in English, whose correct form "Czechia" has not been spread, however, the name Czechia was included in UN List of states and geographic names in early 1993 and it was several time recommended by Ministry of foreing affairs (1993, 1997) and Ministry of education and sports (1997) of the Czech Republic for general use. Czechia is a correct name with the oprigin in Latin (1634), with first record in English in 1866 in Australian newspaper "The Mercury" and the name was commonly used in American press (New York Times, Herald Tribune) from 1918 to 1939 to distinguish western and eastern part of Czechoslovakia. The use of informal (short, geographic) name of the country is common and necessary. Using only political name of the country leads to its limitation only for the period of actual state-political formation in the area and makes impossible to understand the country in historical context with undesirable aftermath. It leads to using political name of the country in historical connotations, which is absurd, but many times found also here: one example for all "Bořivoj I, duke of Bohemia, was born in the Czech Republic", that was spread into other sources of "knowledge", drawing it from Wikipedia. Askave (talk)Askave (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


So, word "Czech" is commonly used for "Česko" in English. Do you agree? Let's write the sentence "short form Czech...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnypar (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have no problem with a short mention of this term in the intro, but it should not be used for the page title or in running text (aside from discussion of the term itself). --Khajidha (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely with your proposal, Khajidha. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The fundamental issue is that there is no common short form in English for the Czech Republic; "Czech" and "Czechia" are rarely used.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it should not be bad write up at Etymology that the public today use as a short form word "Czech". I mean it is not rarely used unlike Czechia, but it is grammatically wrong. Someone will indeed remember on the designation "Czech - Spain" at Davis Cup. :-) Johnypar (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Problem is, that there is not commonly used short form. "Czech" is incorrect, but used, "Czechia" is maybe correct, but unused. By the way, personal slurs are not good way for consensus.--Yopie (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Czechia is correct for sure, but you hypocracy is striking! You are erasing Czechia everywhere you find it Yopie! How coould something being used, when it gots erased by you at all times? Helveticus96 (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You confuse "Czechia" (total nonsense) for Bohemia (only a part of the Czech Republic). However, the official form is the Czech Republic.--89.177.42.147 (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to Yopie, I just do not understand what you have against the word "Česko" in Czech. Otherwise I probably agree with Yopie and Khajidha. I also have to say something to the someone who hides behind 89.177.42.147 and comes from the Czech Republic, probably from Prague. The official form is Czech Republic as the official form of France is the French Republic. Or perhaps Portugal, it is also officially the Portuguese Republic. Johnypar (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It is very inconvinient to always use a "long form" or a "formal name" for a country. Nobody talks about travelling to "the French Republic" - even if it is the formal name of the state in English. It is always "France". The long form is mostly used in very formal contexts such as treaties &c. In most other languages it is the same with Czechia when it comes to Wp articles: Tjeckien (Swedish), Tjekkiet (Danish), Tsjekkia (Norwegian), Tšekki (Finnish), Tschechien (German), Tsjechië (Dutch), Czechy (Polish), Csehország (Hungarian), Чехия (Russian) . But English (and many of the romanesque languages) prefers the long form. Why, really? --Muniswede (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason, it simply is that way. This isn't a problem, this isn't something that needs to be fixed, this isn't an insult to the Czech peoples, it is simply an irregularity of the English language. If you are at all familiar with the English language you will know that it is full to bursting with irregularities. --Khajidha (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that someone put short form czech, instead of Czechia. This must be a mistake. Czech is an adjective, which is grammatically incorrect. Why not use Czechia? What's the problem? 193.85.237.18 (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)grammar teacher

For the same reason that we don't use Czecha. I think the discussion above covers it pretty well.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
-ia is a common suffix: -Russia, Virginia, Austr(al)ia. And it does not matter, if Czechia is used in English. Was Eritrea used in English? No, and nobody cares that it uses Italian orthography instead of more correct Erythrea. They said we are Eritrea and that's it. Now it is used. The same case Myanmar. Never used before. Now it is used. --Wikista(talk) 11:23, 06 May 2014 (UTC)
Myanmar is still not fully accepted. Every time I see Myanmar in the media it is immediately clarified as being Burma. But the name Burma is often used with nary a Myanmar in sight. As for your Eritrea example, that involved a new country announcing its name to the world. Eritrea had not been used before because there was no need for the term before. The Czech Republic announced itself to the world as the Czech Republic. If you really want Czechia to be accepted for use here, you need to first get the Czech government to actually use it. Say by having their nameplate at the UN changed. Then you need to have the news media start to use it. Once it is in common use there, it will become used here.--Khajidha (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The entire opposition against Czechia arises from neglecting the Czech word Česko. People forgot, that Czechoslovakia was called Česko-Slovensko until 1920! There is no other alternative for translating Česko into English than Czechia, like Croatia, Austria, Latvia, Slovenia, Slovakia, absolutely correct latin ending - ia. I would like to see other proposals, it is nonsense to translate Česko as Czech Republic and having a short name "Czech republic (the)". Česko is the official short name in Czech and as such registrated with the UNO UNGEGN list. It is logical, that Czechia is not used widely, when all the time the word gots erased by the Czech administrators Yopie and Mewulwe, just to name the two most active.Helveticus96 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Your entire post is based on misunderstanding all the above written. You have yourself written that Czechia is not used widely. That sums it up. Wiki is not here to push use of new words, it is encyclopedia and as such it reflects the real state of things. And the reality is that Czechia is a fringe word, hardly ever used in English language. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Aside from Cimmerian praetor's point, part of the problem is that this insistence that English speakers change the way they do things seems rather arrogant on the part of those making the demand. Why do you even care what the English language calls your country? Or, more to the point, what makes you think you have the right to object to how the English language names things? It seems as silly as saying, "You shouldn't use the word 'blue', you should use the word 'modrý' because that's what MY language calls it'." I would never tell a Czech speaker what he SHOULD call my country. I don't care what he calls my country. It is, in fact, NONE OF MY BUSINESS what he calls my country. --Khajidha (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Why on earth is this such a big issue in English?? In most other languages they use a short form in most cases and a long form in very formal cases. Just like France for Republique française &c. In Sweden, where I come from this country is almost always called Tjeckien, which is the Swedish form for Czechia. Long forms are very "clumsy" for everyday use. --Muniswede (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Except for the Ivory Coast, Dominican Republic, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Papua New Guinea... I could go on. Swedish is not English. Go ahead and say "Czechia" in English if you think it's easier, but until most of the native English speaking population do this, we won't prescribe it on Wikipedia. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 22:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The big deal, Muniswede, is that this is the ENGLISH wiki. It is written in ENGLISH, as usage in that language is determined by the native speaking population. It is not written how the Czechs (or anyone else, for that matter) wish it to be written. For them to come here and say "Your language is wrong, you should change it to this" is massively offensive. --Khajidha (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Strange argument. I do not think that the the "native speaking poulation"s of all English speaking countries unanimously have decided the the "long form" should always be used for this very country, and that most other "populations" have decided otherwise. The long form "Czech Republic" may still be the most commonly used in English, but it is almost absurd that the short form "Czechia" is not even mentioned in the lead. Even if it is not "widely used" it not inexistant. I think there are some users here whith an agenda to prevent the proliferation of the short form. --Muniswede (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Consciously decided? No. But that is the effect. General English usage is the long form, with the short form all but unknown. I neither know nor care what other languages do, it is none of my business. As I said before, this insistence from outsiders that common English usage must change is as strange to me as you say my argument is to you. --Khajidha (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Charlemain note was the first German king in 8th century. The language did not exist until the 8th century but explain Slavic sorbs tribes living there in 6th century!:http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm

Please fix Germania, Germaina Magna it's clearly shown that many Czech towns where part of Germania Magna and please look at the mountain ranges on the maps, Swiss alps, tatra mountains, Sudetes. Even Olomouc over in the North east of the Czech Republic had two different latin names (Iuliomontium,Roman fort (Mons Iulii). Also its a fact the the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno and from a germanic king. Czech cities located in Germanina Magna taken from Ptolemy's maps 2nd century AD located in present day Czech Republic. Furgisatis u České Budějovice, Meliodunum in the sand, Strevinta for Hříměždic to the West of Sedlčany, Casurgis is Prague, Redintuinum u Loun, Nomisterium in Litoměřice, Hegetmatia in Mladá Boleslav, Budorgis in Cologne, Coridorgis in Jihlava, Eburum u Hrádku is Znojmo, Parienna in Breclav, Eburodunum is Brno, Setuia at Komořan near Vyškov, Felicia is Vyškova, Asanca is Kojetína, Carredunum is Rýmařov I have supplyed many links below to verify. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatei%3APtolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3APtolemaios_1467_Scandinavia.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorstengraf_(Blu%C4%8Dina) Also the same type of swords found at two different cities in present day Germany. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleidelsheim http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villingendorf. Atilla the Hun never went through Czech lands. Do your own research he went up the Danube ( Germany, Austria) and the Rhine West Germany, France) and he was killed in France(Gaul) in 454AD. Also its a fact that the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno(Latin:Eburodunum) and was from a Germanic king. Two gold Germanic swords of the same type have been found in present day central Germany located in Pleidelsheim and Villingendorf. Look at the links above and make your own opinion. And then decide if an Americian writer(Note: Americia was and will always be a former British and English colony)who wrote a 20th century book about European history when he or she has never ever been to Europe. Note Americia did not exist in the middle ages only native Indians lived there before 15th century. Casurgis from Australia is watching 12.07.2014 And yes I am part English. The Mythicial Saxons are from here:http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htmand:http://www.sachsen-anhalt.de/lang/english/history-politics/history/ . You still believe that there was a mass migration??. All your old documents from 5th century in Britannia where in Latin and you where mostly Christians. Germania Magna where Pagans as even your Danish vikings were:http://denmark.dk/en/society/history/ to the late 10th century. Remember your King Alfred from the 8th century went to Rome to be crowned king:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/dominicselwood/100255437/king-alfred-was-a-roman-catholic-lets-bury-him-in-westminster-cathedral/ .Forgive me i was not taught this at school but at least I am capable to still learn and educate myself except for my bad grammer and spelling. Thou knows nothing!. Casurgis out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.12.8 (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"The research based on cooperation between universities, Academy of Sciences and specialised research centers brings new inventions and impulses in this area." What are these "new...impulses"? Is it supposed to be referring to new ideas? What is meant by "this area", is it a particular area of science (if so, which one) or is it referring to the country? --Khajidha (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia was divided in Czechia Czech Republic and Slovakia

Or, the Czechoslovak Republic was divided in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. It is clear, Czechia is geographical name as well as Slovakia. Czech or Slovak Republic are political names, describing contemporary state system in the countries, nothing more. To mix political and geographical name is confusing, wrong and inappropriate. The history of the Czech state is much more longer than republican system in the country. Using only political name complicates time and space definition of the state, limiting it only to recent 21 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.24.162 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that "Czechia" is a virtually unknown usage in the English language. While this may be considered "confusing, wrong and inappropriate" by you, it is the usual English language usage. And THAT is all that matters. --Khajidha (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (from April 1990 until 31 December 1992) was divided in the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic. The older names are used according to the appropriate times and senses.--90.181.194.203 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Aged hostility and desinformations

Continual deletion of correct geographical name Czechia, unprecendent erasing official documents, recommendations of Ministry of foreing affairs of the Czech Republic and texts from Collection of Laws in this direction by Wikipedia admins (Yopie, Khajida, Mojo...., etc.) was officially announced to the Ministry of foreign affairs (minister Lubomír Zaorálek) 31st March 2015. Diggindir (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't being deleted, it is simply not being promoted. The situation is covered in the section Czech Republic#Etymology and the article Name of the Czech Republic. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of the usage of an uncommon word (or anything else). --Khajidha (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a question. In the section Czech Republic#Etymology Diggindir's edit was reverted by Khajidha and I do not understand WHY. Compare the both version:

Khajidha: Following the dissolution of Czechoslovakia at the end of 1992, the Czech part of the former nation found itself without a common single-word name in English. In 1993, the Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs Jozef Zieleniec suggested referring to the new country in less formal contexts as Czechland, singling it out as a traditional name of the dominion of the Czechs.[23] He also offered the alternative Czechia /ˈtʃɛkiə/ (Česko Czech pronunciation: [ˈtʃɛsko] in Czech), the use of which has not become widespread in English.[24] Note that in official documents and the full names of government institutions the term Czech Republic is always used.
Diggindir: Following the dissolution of Czechoslovakia at the end of 1992, the Czech part of the former nation found itself without a common single-word name in English. Following the dissolution of Czechoslovakia at the end of 1992, the Czech part of the former nation found itself without a common single-word name in English. In the beginning of the new Czech state in 1993, the appropriate institutions of English speaking lands agreed and conveyed, that they will respect any proposal of the name in English from the Czech side. The decree of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic in its memorandum to all Czech embassies and diplomatic missions in 1993, recommended to use the full name "Czech Republic" only in official documents and titles of official institutions and recommended to use geographical name Czechia /ˈtʃɛkiə/ (Česko Czech pronunciation: [ˈtʃɛsko] in Czech): "In all other cases, the one-word name Czechia should be preferred"[23].

I think that the version by Diggindir looks much more like an "encyklopedic" text. It is what I would expect in Wikipedia. The version reverted by Khajidha is not professional, it looks inexpert. The both versions are based on different sources. The "Khajidha's version" cites two journalistic articles (The Prague Post, Los Angeles Times), no reliable official sources! The sentence that "the use of which has not become widespread in English" is not even based on those more than 20 years old texts. The Diggindir's version cites an official instruction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Therefore Diggindir's version should be preferred. Not because of any ideology, but just because of the preservation of the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia. The user Diggindir should prove that such instruction really exists. There should be also added that the official government institutions prefer the name "Czech Republic" (except the president). On the other hand the fact that "in official documents and the full names of government institutions the term Czech Republic is always used" is not surprising. Every state uses its official name in official documents (a treaty between France and Germany is always a treaty between the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany see). Therefore it cannot be considered to be an argument against using the name "Czechia". --Packare (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Diggindir's text is overly florid and wordy ("In the beginning of the new Czech state...") and ungrammatical ("conveyed, that they will respect"), hardly what I would consider "encyklopedic" [sic]. As the section is about the usage in English and not about the laws of the Czech Republic, I fail to see what sort of "reliable official sources" you expect us to use. "The use of which has not become widespread in English" is based on the Prague Post article ("the term has never caught on, despite having a long history, with one Australian newspaper, the Mercury, using it in an article from 1866"), and that Prague Post article is from 2013 - not over twenty years ago. I am finding it hard to understand why you say that Diggindir's text saying "use the full name "Czech Republic" only in official documents and titles of official institutions" should be in the article to preserve the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia, while the text I reverted to saying "that in official documents and the full names of government institutions the term Czech Republic is always used" is so blatantly obvious as to not need stating. They are saying the same thing! The only real difference is that Diggindir includes the decree of the Czech government that Czechia should be used. But that's the real problem. Neither you, nor Diggindir, nor any of the other POV pushers here care about what the English language actually does, but only what the Czech government says it should. This section (and the full article it links to) is about actual English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry, I wrote this post too quickly. You are right with the Prague Post – I overlooked it. My mistake. Of course, I am not an English native speaker and I really cannot say what is natural in English. Nevertheless I think that the article should cite also some official statements of the Czech government. The journalistic articles are not enough in my opinion. --Packare (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Name of this country in history studies

While it may be the case that Czech Republic is the usual name of this country when referring to the current situation, I can't imagine that any professional historian would speak of the history of the Czech Republic while talking about the entire history starting in prehistory and all the way through middle ages etc. That would be utterly anachronistic. I would therefore recommend to split the article in two articles, namely one about Czechia which is about its history and one about the Czech Republic which is about the current country. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A course or text on the history of this region could quite easily be titled "History of the Czech Republic", just as a course or text could be titled "History of the United States" even if it covered events before 4 July 1776. What couldn't be done is using the term Czech Republic when speaking of the region pre-1993. When discussing such times, the names that were used then would be used (such as "Lands of the Bohemian Crown") or constructions such as "the Czech lands" or "the territory of the current Czech Republic". This is what is done here. When general English usage outside of Wikipedia changes to use Czechia, we will follow suit. --Khajidha (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedic quality images

Regarding the images in the article, I would like to ask editors to look at featured articles such as United States, Japan or Germany, to see how images on Wikipedia serve their purpose. These articles have a limited amount of high quality images that directly illustrate the most important aspects and major, history changing political events of the country. As you can see none of the aforementioned featured articles include pictures of very indirect description of minor events such as massacre memorials (like this File:Memorial lidice children (2007)-commons.JPG), and they also don't include extremely low quality images (like this File:Pilsner Urquell 2.JPG), neither do these featured articles include galleries illustrating random content about tourism or culture. So please respect Wikipedia's quality standards and try to maintain the quality of the article on a possibly encyclopedic level, with necessary amount of specific, relevant images, instead of an overflow of randomly picked, low quality clutter.--Der Golem (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Der Golem, I have spent so much time on this article, then you came and turned it upside down. You talking about the most important aspects of Czech Republic - why have you removed image of Jaroslav Heyrovský, the only recipient of the Nobel Prize - it is not enough important Czech person? You have removed image of Urquell - it is not enough important? as was there stated, it was the first "pilsner" type beer in the world, thats why it is famous and is much better known internationally, your argument was wrong. But I agree with you that image could of better quality, I cloud find a better one, also I do not insist on Lidice memorial, despite that I do not consider Lidice massacre and other massacres in Czechia as a minor event as you do:( Regarding the gallery, I also do not insist on it so much, however, I do not see an argument that because some other articles do not include it, it is forbiden to put it here. This gallery illustrate above paragraph about Tourism. If I will describe all the images in text, is it going to be more acceptable for you? Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW Do you think it is necessary to have here the low-quality picture about the Treaty of Lisbon? --Packare (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Good point, Packare. -Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
If you have spent a so much time on this and it is still a C-class article, maybe you haven't done such a good job. If you don't understand why featured article criteria are the standard of high quality article on Wikipedia, then I can only recommend you to accept Wikipedia policies and rules. If you want to establish a reason why some images are important, you should provide reliable sources, but in no way is there an excuse for using low quality images.--Der Golem (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Der Golem, please do not consider my answer as offensive, I am sure we both want the best for this article. Please answer my questions and proposals above. Thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but the beer picture was just of horrendous quality. I don't care how famous or important that brand of beer is, you should not be trying to illustrate it with that useless piece of crap photo. It should not be anywhere near this encyclopedia. Having no picture of any beer at all is preferable to having that one used on the page. --Khajidha (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I totally agree with you (which you would saw if you have read my comment above), maybe this image would be deleted at all. Now, what about the rest? Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Erb Jižní Moravy

Could someone redraw the bunch of grapes in the lower-left quadrant of the South Moravian coat of arms / flag? I originally drew that like a decade ago, assuming someone would fix it, and it still looks awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Ethnic groups (2

NOroma,RILI?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.246.178.190 (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? —Itsyoungrapper (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The ethnic groups listed in the infobox are the ones who self-identified in the source linked. I would guess that the 26% unspecified includes the Roma population of the country. The estimated 250,000 Romani people in the Czech Republic ARE mentioned in the section on demographics. --Khajidha (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Czech Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

May 2, 2016: CZECHIA IS AN OFFICIAL GEOGRAPHIC NAME OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Today, the government of the Czech Republic confirmed CZECHIA AS OFFICIAL GEOGRAPHIC NAME of the Czech Republic http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/cz/udalosti_a_media/tiskove_zpravy/x_2016_05_02_vlada_schvalila_czechia.htmlJan Blanický 15:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Mobile site is broken

Sorry, I don't know how to fix it, but thought it was worth mentioning.

Protected edit request on 15 April 2016

Please rename the page to „Czechia“. It is finally the official short-form name of our country (since yesterday), just like „France“ or „Germany“. Carvin (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done A discussion on this question is ongoing. Please see the section #Requested move 15 April 2016 to offer your opinion. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If this page name is changed what about others?

Hi, I would like to open a discussion about changing other Wikipedia articles of Czechia/Czech Republic If this one is moved and renamed as Czechia. Would we need to move articles like Government of the Czech Republic to Government of Czechia or Demographics of the Czech Republic → Demographics of Czechia, Religion in the Czech Republic → Religion in Czechia, Flag of the Czech Republic → Flag of Czechia etc.. What's your opinion on this matter? Thanks! Itsyoungrapper (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

We could do all sorts of irregular things if there's consensus for it, but if this article is moved, almost all of the other articles like that would be too. There is a specific section of a naming convention that spells this out, but I can't remember it. Anyway, this would entail a lot of work. While I do oppose the move right now, that's not necessarily a reason to avoid doing so. Many subordinate pages were moved when we settled on titles like China, Myanmar, and Taiwan. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's going to be moved, so moot. BTW and FWIW I found when writing a recent article that most articles about Czechoslovakian stuff are titled "Czechoslovak thing" but some are "Czechoslovakian thing". This actually doesn't bother me very much -- consistency, hobgoblins, and all -- provided the title is clear and there are redirects in place. Same deal here. Herostratus (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlike Herostratus, I think that the renaming of the page is likely, either next week or later. Many other pages related to Czechia may be renamed as well. However, it's also important to realize that the Czech Republic will *not* cease to be the correct official name of the country. So all the pages that are tightly associated with the particular current political arrangement in Czechia – for example the Flag of the Czech Republic – could very reasonably remain with "the Czech Republic". It's really the point of Czechia that while it territorially agrees with the Czech Republic now, it's meant to be more general in the temporal sense and cover the territory even when it was a part of the Czechoslovak (Socialist) Republic, Czech or Slovak Federal Republic, the Third Reich (as the Protectorate plus the fully annexed Sudetenland), Austria-Hungary, the Austrian Empire, or the Holy Roman Empire. So the flag is different for the different state entities on the territory; but the topic of religion in Czechia clearly transcends the particular regimes, and so on. What's happening now isn't a "full renaming process" of the country. Nothing is really changing officially because both names have been officially recommended by the government since the very beginning in 1993. The problem was that the correctness of Czechia has never become well-known to most of the world, and it's being changed by some assertive activity of the politicians who should also file a verbal note at the U.N. etc. if the government votes Yes. With the two "nearly" equivalent names, people should get some sensitivity to distinguish which contexts make it natural to keep on using the long political name. Lumidek (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


Czechia / Czech Republic : While the political name is only applicable in official documents, such as international treaties, passports etc., the geographical name has its clearly defined natural function in all other cases. In the said "all other cases", the political name can never replace the geographical name because, unlike the latter, it has a temporary character ignoring the historical continuity of the state, and so its function is limited to the current state subject. Using it without time limits is wrong, confusing and inappropriate. The name Česko in Czech, Czechia in English, fulfils the requirement of to be the keyword, because it bridges and welds together various forms of the Czech state in the course of time. To call the main page "Czech Republic" is wrong, it limits its content only to the time of existence of THIS political formation in the state, thus, since 1993 until today. I cannot write "Music of the Czech Republic" with the content about all history of it. Or, it is not possible to say that “..at the beginning of the 15th century, the Hussite revolution broke out in the Czech Republic”. The book called "History of Czechia" can treat the whole historic period, the book called "History of the Czech Republic" only the history of Czechia since 1993 (with some tolerance from 1968, when Czech and Slovak republics federation were established, however not as independent units. These facts as well shows the need of an abbreviated one-word name of the state, which is universal in time and in space. The political name of the Czech state was changed six times (!!!) in 20th century. Thus, the substantial is following: The name "Czech Republic", is the administratively-political name of the state, while "Czechia," is the denomination for the geographical and settlement-historical unit, which is independent of actual political regimes and is therefore neutral, and naturally applicable with universal use Blanicky 07:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Itsyoungrapper, I think the Czech Republic name is stupid. It was always Czechia. Czech Republic even sounds artificial. Who chose Czech Republic over Czechia in the first place, I wonder? No one calls England as English Monarchy or Switzerland as Swiss Confederation in normal speech. The Wikipedia "Commonname" policy that many Wikipedia users use to argue this case makes no sense whatsoever. If it is common name, the name Czechia just does not get any commoner. And there should be no problem to move its respective articles. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Czechia is demonstrably NOT the common name. Pick up newspapers, magazines, and books written by native English speakers and published in English. If they mention the country at all it is as "the Czech Republic". Watch movies and television shows that originate in English. Again, if they mention the country at all it is as "the Czech Republic". Go to New York City, London, Toronto, Dublin, Auckland, or Sydney and ask pedestrians what country Prague is in. If they know at all, they will say "the Czech Republic". Maybe this seems weird if you are a native speaker of a language that has a standardized form for all country names, but English doesn't have such a thing. And, to be perfectly honest and blunt about it, I find people telling me that the way my language does things is wrong to be massively rude. I would NEVER imagine telling a Czech person what he should call my country in his language. The arrogance needed to do so is astounding. As long as the English name is not something that is directly insulting in English (like "Moronia" or "Shithole"), no one has the right to object. --Khajidha (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Folks, when you write an article about such official items like Government of ... or Flag of ... so you should take the official Name of the state - now something from B-newspapers. And official is Czech rebublic. The same Parliament of..., Foreign Minister of... etc. etc. -jkb- (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 April 2016 (2)

When not referring to the official long name change "Czech Republic" to "Czechia" because that's what it's called now. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36048186 Ezrabuo (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Strong consensus that that's not a common English-language name to use. DMacks (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
There's absolutely NOT any "strong" consencus for this, not even a consensus. If the page is to stay as Czech Republic, it is because there is no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:801:218:e24f:3417:a111:15bb:bcf5 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 April 2016
Wikipedia is so weird sometimes. "We're not going to use the official name of countries like Côte d'Ivoire or Czechia, but on Aluminium we'll use the official name no matter how many English-language searches prefer Aluminum."--T. Anthony (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The chemistry project here on Wikipedia settled on using the IUPAC spellings in chemical articles. There is no such consensus to utilize the UN registered names in country articles. --Khajidha (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
That's a WP:ENGVAR issue, since only America calls it aluminum. Everyone else calls it aluminium. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 April 2016

Is now called Czechia 77.101.39.192 (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Czechia directs to this page, and the lead for this already says a/k/a Czechia - If you want to actually rename the entire page (move it) to Czechia, a consensus will need to be established here. Please also see Name of the Czech Republic (which is not protected) - if you have new sources you may want to add them there first. — xaosflux Talk 15:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Czechia once again

Hi, I wouldn't have had wrote about it again but because of new circumstances I think I'm obligated to do so. The reason why I'm opening new thread is because the official request to call the Czech Republic unofficially as Czechia has been sent to the United Nations, according to the spokeswoman of the Czech government Běla Hejná (for links you can check out the history of the Article page). The second thing is that Swedish embassy uses one-word name Czechia on its Twitter (https://twitter.com/SwedeninCZ). President and Prime Minister of the Czech Republic as well as Institute of the Czech language accepted the unofficial English name Czechia (could be used as America - means both Czech Republic and Czechia are possible to use). I think it would be appropriate that we will mention Czechia as often known name for the Czech Republic in the lead of the article. Wikipedia is about to educate people and personally I think we should mention it in the lead.

Like this

The Czech Republic (/ˈtʃɛk rɪˈpʌblɪk/ ⓘ CHEK-rə-PUB-lik; Czech: Česká republika [ˈt͡ʃɛskaː ˈrɛpuˌblɪka] ⓘ), commonly referred to as Czechia, is a landlocked country in Central Europe bordered by Germany to the west, Austria to the south, Slovakia to the east and Poland to the northeast.

Thank you for taking time to read this and I would like to open again a discussion about this.

Sincerely, Itsyoungrapper (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly how does a Czech request to the UN and the usage of a Swedish embassy relate to English language usage? Does the man on the street in London or New York or Auckland or Toronto or Melbourne know what Czechia is? Does CNN or the BBC use the term? Do atlases published in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc label the country that way? Yes, please do add the request to the section specifically devoted to the name and to the dedicated article Name of the Czech Republic, but until the usage is common in English it doesn't belong in the lead. --Khajidha (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the media use it or not neither matter if people in Britain use it. Everything depends on if government officials and United Nations accept the name in official way. Wikipedia is directed by official reports and statements not If people use it or not. Read the whole article even former President of Israel uses the name --> http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/10/09/the-czech-president-would-like-you-to-call-his-country-by-a-new-name/. I'm not pro nor against the name Czechia but now I have to raise my hand and oppose your argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsyoungrapper (talk • contribs) 12:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Umm, no. Wikipedia is NOT "directed by official reports and statements". See WP:COMMONNAME.--Khajidha (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright, you have opposed me with people in London, Auckland, New York don't use it but on CNN iReports people call it Czechia --> https://www.google.com/search?q=Czechia+site:cnn.com&hl=en&as_qdr=all&biw=1209&bih=608&ei=ZQPGVYb1K8yRsAGS05zgBg&start=0&sa=N Itsyoungrapper (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
You did see the notice at the top of the page "Not verified by CNN". And you did notice that those articles were written in rather broken English. Not exactly an indication of usage by CNN or in native English language media in general. --Khajidha (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
When UN request will be sent and accepted, then the article about Czech Republic will have to recognize it at least somehow. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
As I said before: "Yes, please do add the request to the section specifically devoted to the name and to the dedicated article Name of the Czech Republic, but until the usage is common in English it doesn't belong in the lead." --Khajidha (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not from the country with the "forbidden" short name and not from any English-speaking country either. But I think this is almost absurd. The short form does exist, even if the long form for some strange reasons is more used in English, than in most other languages. But not even mentioning the short form is really very odd. There must be some very "anti-Czechia" (perhaps not agaist the country itself, but against the short name) feelings behind this. --Vedum (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Some other larger languages (as Italian, Portuguese and Spanish) also have the the articles about this country under its long form name. That is quite O.K., because they mention that there also is a short form. The English article is unique by trying to supress this fact. --Vedum (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't get it either, even Czech leaders DO use it as well as Israeli president. I think it should be mentioned in the lead. And btw. even Czech article on Czech wikipedia has primary name Česko though country's official name is Česká republika in Czech and Česko is not mentioned in any government or official document. --- http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Česko Itsyoungrapper (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
What I don't get is the obsession to include a name that is virtually unknown in common usage. I do live in an English speaking country and I have never heard the word "Czechia" outside of these conversations on Wikipedia. Saying that Czechia is in common usage is simply wrong. Other than that, I have no objection to the name.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but you probably haven't heard a word selfie in 2011 for example. I think if Czech officials want to have another short name for their country it should be in the lead. I'm not pro-Czechia nor anti-Czechia. There's a lot of anger about this word. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The word is not suppressed. There's a section in this article and a whole separate article about it. The point is, that "Czechia" is so rarely used in actual English language sources that it might as well NOT be English. As far as the general English speaking populace is concerned, the name of this country is "the Czech Republic" and ONLY "the Czech Republic". It thus seems as weird to put Czechia in the lead as it would to put "Oz" in the lead on the Australia page. If the Czech people want people to use Czechia, they need to start using it themselves. In their name at the UN, on their official websites, etc. Then, they should get other sources to use it. After it becomes common OUTSIDE of Wikipedia, then it will become common ON Wikipedia. Trying to force the change here is putting the cart before the horse.--Khajidha (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What about this exaggerated scenario: Let's say Czechoslovakia dissolved not in 1993 but January 1 2015. How quickly would Wiki react? January 1 2015 - already existing new pages for new states. Or August 12 2015 - common English people does not know about this, it is known under Czechoslovakia, so let's keep it still under Czechoslovakia and maybe write new paragraph somewhere to the middle of the article but god forbid the lead. But let's monitor English sources, maybe in a year or two we will change it. Chrzwzcz (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all the same. Calling this country the Czech Republic is not wrong, calling it Czechoslovakia is. When Czechoslovakia broke up, the new resulting states were immediately recognized under the names we were told to use: Slovakia and the Czech Republic. If the country wanted to be called Czechia, why didn't they say so THEN? And, again, if the country wants to be known as Czechia now, why doesn't it sit under that name at the UN? Why doesn't it use that name for its official website? Why doesn't it market itself as a vacation destination under that name? Why does it seem that they only want to change WP? --Khajidha (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
They do not want to rename the country's name, they just want to include unofficial one for sport (example). I think that is same as United States, United States of America, USA or America. United States of America is used in official documents and laws and America is not.Itsyoungrapper (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Then they should have their sports teams use that name. The point you keep missing is that Wikipedia reflects usage, it does not set it. The change needs to occur outside Wikipedia first. --Khajidha (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It was intentionally exaggerated to understand your principles and set/get the precedence.

I get it why you are reluctant to include Czechia NOW. And I am pleased to hear that only strong will of the country to be known under new (well not new but alternative short) name is sufficient to be recognized on Wiki (at least on the lead), no need for mandatory testing period among English speaking world. Wiki does not want to be "Wiki knows first", but it would be wrong to be "Wiki knows what it is commonly known". You do not want Wiki to be propagator/pusher. But if you wait with publishing too long, people may start to think "if it is not on Wiki it is simply not true". Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And if we put it in the lead NOW it would seem like we're making it up.--Khajidha (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
If Czech Republic participate at Olympic Games under name Czechia, people are wondering what Czechia is, trying to ask Wikipedia but Wiki is silent, wouldn't it be strange? Chrzwzcz (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
If they use it, we will change it.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that NO ONE should give this website that much power over reality. There are many, many, MANY things that aren't on Wikipedia that are, nonetheless, true. And, again, Wikipedia is NOT silent on the name, it's on the page along with a discussion of its lack of use and a link to an article for further information.--Khajidha (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia should educate people and make them smarter. As previously was said If Czech Olympic team will participate at Olympic Games under name Czechia it will be mentioned in the lead.Itsyoungrapper (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
How does the current format where "Czechia" is explained in the etymology section of this article and in a separate, dedicated article fail to educate people?--Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
"If they use it, we will change it." - OK, it's a promise :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Is really the LA times article as pivotal? It even has bad spelling of Czech Foreign Minister's surname, so... :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here. --Khajidha (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Česko

Information about single-word Czech name of Czech Republic - Česko - is BURRIED in 3rd sentence of linked article (!) Name of the Czech Republic. Is this really how encyclopedia should work? Should not we hide capital city into linked article too? (Yes, I consider it equally important.)

Other states have one-word name in their native language stated in first sentence.

Other language versions of Czech Republic have it in first sentence.

I added it, it was deleted by Khajidha with "consensus is against having this in the lead. Take to talk page to discuss", so here I am.

It is fairly used name which is recognized by Czech and other language versions of the article. So why the exception for this article and language only?

This article contains only vague info about Česko, one may read it between lines as "name Česko was considered in 1993 but never used".


Keep in mind this post is about Česko, not Czechia (whole different story). Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Other languages have this in the lead to parallel the one word name in that language. English doesn't use a one word name for the Czech Republic, therefore there is no reason to list a Czech language one in the lead either. This is covered in the section on etymology. It is handled differently here than in other languages because English usage is different than other languages. --Khajidha (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


No commonly used translation to English, so let's hide it for symmetry reasons... Am I reading it right? THIS is the consensus you were talking about? Is it up to debate, or is it non-negotiable? Pretty weak reason to me.
Covered in Etymology. You mean link to article Name of Czech Republic? Or sentence:
He also offered the alternative Czechia /ˈtʃɛkiə/ (Česko Czech pronunciation: [ˈtʃɛsko] in Czech), the use of which has not become widespread in English.
Tell me that it implies that "Česko" has become known and used in Czech. It does not. Can at least this be clarified in article?
Article is full of prehistoric events, but current used single-word name is hidden somewhere, I don't get it.
Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you are pushing to including the Czech language short form name in the lead sentence (conceding there is no widely known English equivalent)? I don't think English readers much care what the Czech language short form name is. I am more interested in prehistoric events.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly did you start a new sub-thread on an issue that has been discussed at length above? Anyway, there is no place for that in the lead, although I agree it may be appropriate to add it to the etymology section in some meaningful way.

The most important thing is, as was pointed out, that this is Czech language issue, which has not really that much place on English Wikipedia article. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

All right, Česko in lead is denied. I don't like it, I don't find reasons satisfying but at least Khajidha's last edit shows some understanding and at least something was achieved. For that I am truly thankful.

For me, term Czechland, in bold even, is waaaaay too overstressed. The Minister's 'quote' is (not really, but you know what I mean) the last time anyone said Czechland loud, why to waste reader's time, it is not some kind of famous speech, so why to read about some never used suggestion? (And I think there were more which are not listed in article.) My proposition:

Following the dissolution of Czechoslovakia at the end of 1992, the Czech part of the former nation found itself without a common single-word name in English. In 1993, the Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs Jozef Zieleniec suggested referring to the new country in less formal contexts as Czechland, singling it out as a traditional name of the dominion of the Czechs.[23] He also offered the alternative (among other suggestions) as Czechia /ˈtʃɛkiə/ (Česko Czech pronunciation: [ˈtʃɛsko] in Czech); while the Czech form has gained usage, the English version is still rare.

Current version 'the English version is still rare' - does it mean Czechia, Czechland, any English term including the two from previous sentences? You may find it pedantic that I want to differentiate between Czechland (not used at all) and Czechia (used at least rarely) but again, we might find some compromise ;)

Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I un-bolded both variants. I'm not sure why they were bolded in the first place.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Rather than un-bolding I was hoping for removing part about Czechland as proposed above. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Truthfully speaking, Chrwzcz, about the only time an English speaker comes across EITHER Czechland or Czechia (or Bomosia or any other proposed name) is when some one is complaining that the English language doesn't have a one word name for the Czech Republic. --Khajidha (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Current agreement between Czech authorities is: if any, Czechia it is. No Czechland, no Bomosia (actually never heard of this one before), no Czecho. If properly sourced, where's the problem? The fact that this current ("not loud enough") Czech statement not heard by English speaker is not reason to have old dated obsoleted statement from interview with one minister from ages ago on English wiki, right? Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Chrzwzcz but we need to find more recent official Czech statements to this topic. Back to the original Chrzwzcz's proposal: The widely used Czech name of the country "Česko" has to be mentioned in the introduction (e. g. Česká televize uses the official "Česká republika" rather rarely). Either it should be mentioned in the first sentence: "The Czech Republic (/ˈtʃɛk rɪˈpʌblɪk/ ⓘ CHEK-rə-PUB-lik; Czech: Česká republika, pronounced [ˈt͡ʃɛskaː ˈrɛpuˌblɪka] ⓘ, shortly Česko, pronounced [ˈtʃɛsko]) ..." or we could replace the name "Česká republika" with "Česko" in the infobox.--Packare (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see your reasoning. The word used in English is Czech Republic, which translates to Czech as Česká republika. What Czech TV uses or doesn't use has no impact on that. Why would it be in the lead?
Czechland should be there alongside Czechia, since neither of them got widespread use despite both having been proposed. Whether the Ministry is pushing for Czechland or Czechia is a trivia, similarly as what has been named after Kim in North Korea. This is encyclopedia, not a place for pushing political (or political-etymological) agenda. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ministry proposed in past - Wiki informs. Ministry says today - Wiki can't say, it would be pushing. Where's the line? 5 years? Or after new elections Wiki finally can say what previous political representation promoted?
This - Liberland - is not pushing because it informs about non-existing state. that is the difference between informing and pushing, right?
Chrzwzcz (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
We should mention any proposals from the ministry, but we should not be seen to be favoring any of them. We should state that the Ministry had proposed both Czechland and Czechia and had later made the determination to use only Czechia, but we should not do so in such a manner to suggest that English usage is incorrect or MUST change. --Khajidha (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"We should state that the Ministry ... had later made the determination to use only Czechia" - but article does not state this at all. You may think that English readers do not care about this. I say - when you started with info about Ministry point of view in past, you should inform properly about current development; or erase Ministry point of view completelly.
I am glad that article does not say anything about most popular (but incorrect) single-word name - "Czech". I guess it is only "CzechEnglish" usage, not EnglishEnglish :)
Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't this sentence cover it?: "He also offered the alternative "Czechia" /ˈtʃɛkiə/ (Česko Czech pronunciation: [ˈtʃɛsko] in Czech); while the Czech form has gained usage, the English version is still rare." What exactly would you have it say? Remember that this is just a summary paragraph and that more details are available in the Name of the Czech Republic article. --Khajidha (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
More detailed Name of the Czech Republic article says nothing about Czechland, summary paragraph does.
More detailed article says nothing about suggestions, but recommendations (which I more important I guess).
I don't get why does summary paragraph contain pieces of information which are not (worthy enough to be) present in source article of this summary. Summary by definition is "a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements". Or is it summary of more detailed articles which are not listed?
Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It should be in the detailed article. If it isn't, it needs to be added there. --Khajidha (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I should stop suggesting corrections, it ends up being changed elsewhere against my original suggestion. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Back to the word "Česko". It is correct that "the word used in English is Czech Republic, which translates to Czech as Česká republika." BUT: I think it belongs to an article in Wikipedia to mention the one-word name of the country in the local language although it has no official English translation. I always expect to find also the local names in English Wikipedia articles. "Russian Federation" is "Rossiyskaya Federatsiya". If there was no English word for "Russia", I would still be interested to know how the Russians usually call their country, not only officialy – I would like to find the word "Rossiya". Why would be the following solution not acceptable? "The Czech Republic (/ˈtʃɛk rɪˈpʌblɪk/ ⓘ CHEK-rə-PUB-lik; Czech: Česká republika, pronounced [ˈt͡ʃɛskaː ˈrɛpuˌblɪka] ⓘ, shortly Česko, pronounced [ˈtʃɛsko])" --Packare (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

They already answered this. It is not acceptable because there would be 1 English name, 2 Czech names and it would be unbalanced. There would be no English short name to connect with Czech short name and it would be too confusing, apparently. And that it is covered in section Etymology - for "linguistic enthusiasts" as you described. It does not matter that other language version of this article usually have it in lead section (and Czech version in title), because there does not occur that imbalance 1:2 like in English. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
As I browsed through ~15 articles about countries, I can tell, there is no common template how the 1st sentence should look like (eg. Slovakia, Greece, Serbia, Belarus each having different approach with something missing in different order). Pretty common is this template - simplified without pronounciations -
ShortInEnglish (NameOfNativeLanguage: ShortItNativeLanguage), officially LongInEnglish (NameofNativeLanguage: LongInNativeLanguage). Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A very important information is missing in the article – the common name of the country in the local language (Česko). This has NOTHING to the with the controversial English name "Czechia" and this is not only an issue of the Czech language – then you could freely delete the translation Česká republika as well. We have to accept the fact that some names do not have any appropriate English equivalents (therefore there will be always something "unbalanced"), but an encyclopedia should not ignore it. Are there any reasonable objections against the use of the country's name in the local language in the lead of the article? My proposal is: "The Czech Republic (/ˈtʃɛk rɪˈpʌblɪk/ ⓘ CHEK-rə-PUB-lik; Czech: Česká republika, pronounced [ˈt͡ʃɛskaː ˈrɛpuˌblɪka] ⓘ, shortly Česko, pronounced [ˈtʃɛsko])..." --Packare (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The short name Česko is a common abbreviation/shortcut, in the CR it is used frequently enough (see Czech G-News search) and it should be mentioned in the lead as you suggest. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 19:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
How is the usage of a Czech word in the Czech Republic relevant to the ENGLISH Wikipedia? --Khajidha (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
How is the usage of a Czech word like Česká republika relevant to the English Wikipedia? Why not to delete all foreign words in Wikipedia? --Packare (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, let me clarify, since things I assumed would be self evident don't seem to have been that way. The standard for country articles is to give the commonly used English name(s) and the equivalent form(s) in the country's own language(s) in the intro. The commonly used English term is the "Czech Republic" which translates to Česká republika, which are both listed as per this standard. The question is "how is a Czech word with no common English equivalent relevant enough to the English language Wikipedia that it must be mentioned in the lead of this article?" --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Because the English word "Czech Republic" does not have just one equivalent in Czech, but two – either "Česká republika" or "Česko", depending on context. If the English word "Czech Republic" is used in official documents or describes the country as a political entity (e. g. "the president of the French Republic and the president of the Czech Republic declare..."), it should be translated as "Česká republika". But if the English word is used in a different context, if it describes just the country as it is, then it should be rather translated as "Česko" (e. g. football match "France vs. Czech Republic" would be always translated as "Francie vs. Česko").--Packare (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Somewhere on this page you'll find another "strong" excuse why it is not included - because short English name is not common, and it would be unbalanced in the lead (2 Czech names, only 1 English). Sadly it is still better explanation/excuse than "2 Czech names are not relevant for English wikipedie". Slovakia has both Slovak names, so please be consistent! Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
We are being consistent. Consistent with English usage. Slovakia has two commonly used forms in English, so both are listed and both are given a Slovak equivalent. The Czech Republic has only one commonly used name in English, so only one is listed and only one Czech equivalent is given. --Khajidha (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
"How is the usage of a Czech word in the Czech Republic relevant to the ENGLISH Wikipedia?" It can easily be (and clearly was) misundestood as: Czech names are not relevant at all. And you meant: Czech names are relevant only when they do have (well-known) English equivalent. It is also rude, but less. Chrzwzcz (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Nothing was misunderstood. I just want to inform you that the Czech word Česko has a well-known equivalent in English – Czech Republic (assuming that the word "Czechia" cannot be used in English)! The English appellation Czech Republic has therefore two possible equivalents in the official language of the Czech Republic – Česká republika and Česko – both are fully appropriate translations depending on context. One of the equivalents is totally ignored in the article, even though in many cases it is much more appropriate translation than the other.--Packare (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
That's funny, because every other Czechia booster I've come across has insisted that Česko does not translate to "Czech Republic", that Česko refers to the nation as an entity throughout history regardless of the form of state it existed under at the time. English doesn't have a single word used for that. English history texts speak of "Bohemia" or "the Czech lands" or "the territory of the present-day Czech Republic" or of "the Czech peoples". --Khajidha (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It is correct that the word Česko can describe something more than Česká republika or Czech Republic because the word "republika/Republic" is pretty limiting, especially in the historical context. But in current Czech usage, the word Česko is nearly always used as a synonym for Česká republika because it is mostly used in modern context (for the historical context the expressions like české země, Česká koruna, České království, Čechy a Morava... are used, which is similar to English). The differences between the words Česká republika and Česko are stylistic depending on context. The word Česká republika is always used in official documents (like e. g. République française in France) and in the names of national institutions, but in the common, spoken usage and in the newspapers, TV and media generally, the word Česko is rather preferred. If you are a translator, you always have to think how to translate the English word Czech Republic to Czech because there are two options: Česká republika or Česko. Google also offers both translations and offers "Czech Republic" as the only English equivalent to "Česko" (see).--Packare (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Czechia: April 2016

Along with the Czech Republic long name, Czechia has been the official short geographic name in English since the birth of the separate country in 1993. No politicians have ever worked hard to promote the alternative short name, and the republican long phrase has therefore become the only one that the public in the world widely knows to be correct.

Meanwhile, a similar problem existed in the Czech language, but the newly coined short name Česko became widespread in recent 20 years or so. Now, the top Czech politicians gathered and will probably ask the U.N. to change the name to "Czechia" in all situations where "France" is used instead of the long term "French Republic". It is obviously a controversial change and about 70% of Czechs in polls say that they "dislike" Czechia. But I think that Wikipedia should respect some official protocols, so if some activity at the U.N. takes place, the main page with this content should be called Czechia. Czech Republic should be a redirect, and the article should start "Czechia, officially the Czech Republic, is..." For a much more detailed background on the name of the country, the history and political aspects and other languages, see:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/04/czech-political-elite-trf-beg-un-world.html?m=1

I have no doubt that this proposal of mine will be controversial here as well but maybe it must be debated again to avoid edit wars. Lumidek (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I would let the current name of the article - Czech Republic, but highlighted that short name is Czechia. My proposal is just to edit headline. Preview would look like this.
The Czech Republic (/ˈtʃɛk rɪˈpʌblɪk/ ⓘ CHEK-rə-PUB-lik;[1] Czech: Česká republika [ˈt͡ʃɛskaː ˈrɛpuˌblɪka] ⓘ), commonly referred to as Czechia’’, is a landlocked country in Central Europe [.........] Itsyoungrapper (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I reiterate my remarks from the section above "Czechia once again", when we had this same conversation several months ago.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Our foreign minister enforced validity of name "Czechia". Consequently UN databases was changed. Reference of the information is here: http://zpravy.idnes.cz/cesko-nazev-zaoralek-prazsky-hrad-dr4-/domaci.aspx?c=A160414_193856_domaci_kha or here: http://www.novinky.cz/domaci/400542-cesko-se-chce-prezentovat-jako-czechia-bude-v-mapach-i-na-dresech-sportovcu.html, do not blind please. Most important are facts. No assumptions. You are from USA, what you can know about Czechia? ehm? 85.71.202.81 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to entertain the mention of this name form somewhere in the lead, but it would have to be rephrased - "commonly reffered to as Czechia" is objectively untrue.Chuborno (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Information in the lead would be premature (strict admins would not allow it) but info about latest development could be added into Etymology paragraph because English sources can be found (~ Czech Republic to adopt short name Czechia) and wait until made UN-official. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Oxford English Dictionary". Retrieved 13 September 2014.

Requested move 15 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). SSTflyer 16:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


Czech Republic → Czechia – The Czech president, government and parliament has recently decided upon an official short version of the country's name. In English, this is Czechia. Dammråtta (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree. Previously, the government had asked for a name to be used. It wasn't, so it made sense to retain the old name. This isn't a request, though, any more - it's an instruction accepted by the UN from an organ of Government - it is, essentially, the official name of the country. It reminds me a little of the fights over Ireland v Éire, Myanmar v Burma, Kampuchea v Cambodia and Ukraine v The Ukraine. In all cases, it was (reluctantly) conceded that the name of the country in the English language is what the state/country itself set it out to be. I know one of the writers above thinks Czechia is "foolish-sounding". With respect, that's utterly irrelevant. The test isn't which name you find pleasing to the ear, but which name is factually correct. and the Irish and Ukrainian cases suggest clearly that that decision lies with the state involved. This isn't Macedonia - there isn't an actual serious 'naming dispute'. there's simply a state decision on the proper name for their own country in English, and a group of wikipedians irritated by that new name - with respect, that irritation doesn't deserve protection. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That would be a valid point, IF it was true. Wikipedia changed Burma to Myanmar against these principles. Czechia is used in English and has so far not been used at Wikipedia because of a lack of officiality which is now no longer valid. Skogsvandraren (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't know if people will ever start saying Czechia more commonly than Czech Republic in English, but they certainly don't at the moment. And for Mpjmcevoybeta and Skogsvandraren, Myanmar is a perfect example of how we would *not* change this yet. For years, the government was telling us to call it Myanmar, but we retained Burma, because that was what a majority of reliable sources continued to call it. We are certainly under no obligation to follow an "instruction accepted by the UN from an organ of Government", WP:OFFICIALNAME tells us that. The move to Myanmar was finally made just a year or two ago, because after decades of saying Burma, reliable sources such as the BBC, newspapers, etc, finally started saying Myanmar, and there was no longer any reason for us not to move. If that ever happens with "Czechia", then this move can go ahead then. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree. The name Czechia has been official according to ministry of foreign affairs documents since 1993 but no one has ever worked hard to promote anything beyond one official name, "Czech Republic", in English. Meanwhile, in Czech, the translation of Czechia, Česko, has become widespread and perhaps the most frequent name used for the country. Top politicians and language institutes have finally agreed to do something about it in the U.N. etc., and these steps should be imminent. Hundreds of articles in the world media have informed about the plan and looming steps. So even though I am sure that in the world, like in Czechia, some 70% may dislike the name, they should still respect the official views about the question and the right of the fans of the word to use the short name. In the case of Burma/Myanmar, Peking/Beijing, Bengalore/Bangaluru, Ceylon/Sri Lanka etc., much less was needed to "convince" the Westerner to adopt whatever the third-world country politicians wanted. I think that the top Czech politicians should be admitted to have (at least) the same status. Lumidek (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolute support the name Czechia became official and it is usual to call country by informal name. The Czech Republic is denomination of actual political system in the country, nothing more, absolutely impractical in common use, cannot be used in historical context, but Czechia bridges every state a political chanmges in the country. Finally !!!!!!!!!!! Malsovicka (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait, there's no rush, WP:NOTNEWS. When it catches, then fine. If not, treat it like Ivory Coast. 75.172.185.114 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Yopie (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. For goodness sakes, take a look at this chart. I think that that seals the argument once and for all. The arguments against -- which devolve to "we should be complete poodles for whatever some government bureaucracy decides, and to hell with titling our articles in such a way as our readers will understand what they are about" -- are so weak, and so overwhelmed by that graph, that its time to close this one down. This is not a vote. You have to have some argument beyond "yes everyone uses term X, but I personally find this illogical and unpleasing". See you back here in a few years. Herostratus (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Herostratus: it's not quite as slam dunk as that... your ngram only goes up to 2008, and obviously the "official" name change announced by the Czech government means that the common usage may (or may not) change from now henceforward. Per WP:NAMECHANGES we should give extra weight to usage in reliable sources after that date. However, right now, with the change just announced, it remains way too early to make that determination. There is no rush on this, and as I said in my !vote above we should not move this now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
While I'm against changing now. I agree with this comment. If every newspaper for the next two months and other organisations start using 'Cezchia' then even though evidence like this would still suggest that CR has been the common name for a long time, there'd be clear evidence of movement. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah it only goes to 2008, but 1) it'd take hella amazing impossible to bend that curve anywhere near was much as you'd need in seven years, and 2) it's the total area under each curve that matters (I exaggerate some, but only some); if all the book publishers in the world woke up on January 1 2009 with a chip implant that told them to only use Czechia, you still have the weight of all the existing books on all the shelves in the world, and all the existing terminology habits of all the people in the world. Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, move to Czechia is OK. Other countries are listed under their geographical names, too. You can find, say, Germany under "Germany", not perhaps under "Federal Republic of G." etc. There are no rational reasons why the name Czechia should be discriminated. It is as "official" as its partner "Czech Republic". Each of them has its own function: when Austria, Poland, Spain - - - then Czechia! When Kingdom of... Federal Republic of ... --- then Czech Repubic. DaisyXL 11:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC) DaisyXL 12:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The name should be included in order to inform Wikipedia users. It is currently barely mentioned, which is problematic. As the government has reached a consensus, there is no reason in delaying the change. Wikipedia titles should be consistent - in this case it means using the short name. If this doesn't pass, we should still include Czechia in the first paragraph of the article. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, not yet common in English. If "Czechia" catches on (in the media, in books, etc., in real language use), then we should move. But it hasn't caught on yet. Qorilla (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree - Other countries are also listed under their geographic names. Agree with Skogsvandraren that Wikipedia should treat all countries the same way. Czechia will spread quickly once it is included in UN databases.Geog25 (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This proposal is so early. Why not wait a couple of months if the whole thing goes trough and see how UN, governments and media call the country. --Killuminator (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    Mentioning it as an alternative name in the lead seems uncontroversial enough. I have gone ahead and done that.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no evidence that Czechia is used in English, aside from discussions about the country's name. Fitnr 13:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Everyone can look up the evidence to see that you are wrong. It has been used in books, articles etc. Not as much as the Czech Republic of course but not at all? Please, be reasonable and do not lie.Geog25 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Amakuru. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.—Emil J. 14:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it has not yet been submitted to the U. N. and neither has it already established itself as the common way to call the country in English. --Blahma (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Move Minorca first... while I expect we will be moving Czechia within six months, maybe three, it is odd to move this first while Menorca is still at the spelling used by Britain's Royal Navy in 1708 "Minorca"... despite Lonely Planet, airlines and so on, having been using Menorca for decades. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now as TOOEARLY. I'll come out in support of the move as soon as it is established that more and more English-language news outlets are switching to "Czechia", or as soon as there is some measurable use of "Czechia" by official, English-language sources. As of now, even Miloš Zeman's presidential website exclusively uses "Czech Republic", not just if referring to governmental institutions, but also when referring to the country in general, see for example the country profile on his page. Though I hate assigning "homework" to other sovereign nations, if Zeman and others want others to call their country "Czechia", then they clearly need to do their domestic homework first. --PanchoS (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - "Czechia" is not the common name yet; while it's the official name and may well catch on, I think it's too early to move the article. Czechia is already mentioned in the lede as an alternative name; that's good enough for now. Can think about moving the article in a few years' time. Chessrat (talk,contributions) 19:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, too early to call. This is a clear WP:COMMONNAME case.  ONR  (talk)  20:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:UE. Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too soon. Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - The name is an objectively and linguistically perfect translation of the Czech short name for the country "Česko" which has been in common use within Czechia for a long time now. Translations of the short name have been and are actively used in many languages around the world as we speak. There wasn't an *official* English translation up until now but now that there is and now that it's been popularized by this becoming matter for discussion, the prevalent, non-native anglophone population of the internet will very happily shift to it to better fit what they are used to. If it's not the most commonly used name right now, it's only because the change was agreed on just yesterday but it's only a matter of time. Avenflight (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ...But the time is not yet. Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Listing Czechia as an alternative name in the LEDE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nearly all agreed and it's already mentioned in the lead. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


There's some dispute over whether the name Czechia should appear in the lead. I've put it in a couple of times (as I also mentioned in the RM above, against a proposal to do just that), but RGloucester feels that it should not be there. Per MOS:BOLDSYN above, Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold. Although I am clear (as my vote above says) that Czechia is not yet the common name for this, I think yesterday's decision, and the fact that this name has been in minority use for many years, means it should be included as an alternative secondary title in the opening sentence. What do people think?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose – No significant usage. Until it is adopted by an English-using organisation, I do not believe it can be tolerated in the lead. Political creation of place names is always a rough subject. RGloucester — ☎ 13:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree - It is information that wikipedia users should be able to find, as the short name has been codified.77.240.103.249 (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – If nothing else, it will stop people trying to change the article itself to that title. I don't see any harm being done by including this. Smurrayinchester 13:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree - It has been proposed above. The Czech Republic or Czechia, is a landlocked country in Central Europe [...] Itsyoungrapper (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree and support. The name exists, and the lead is the obvious place for it. Rothorpe (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree, in fact required. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support listing "Czechia" as an alternative name in the lead. It's nowhere near the common name in English, but it is an alternative name being promoted by the government of the country, and Czechia is a redirect to this article. It should be noted as an alternative name in the lead, just as the Czech term "Česko" should be. Moreover, as Smurrayinchester notes, it is the best possible inoculation against silly claims that Wikipedia is "suppressing" this name. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support While I came out opposing immediately renaming the whole article, there is clearly a case to mention the sought for, and partly already established shortname in the first sentence of the lead. --PanchoS (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment of current status I've fully protected the article to quench the edit-warring over using this as the main (first) term during the currently-open page-move request in an above section. This should not be taken as a blessing of the current state of if/how the lede should mention the alternative name as a secondary/synonym of sorts. I welcome any admin to evaluate and implement whatever consensus arises from this alt-name discussion here. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm against changing the name of the article, but the alternate name should be in lede. IMO it might have belonged there before, but under the new circumstances, definitely. Herostratus (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support- it's a co-official name, and while it's not as widely-used as "Czech Republic" it's common enough to be mentioned in the lede IMO. Chessrat (talk,contributions) 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I hope that this vote doesn't contradict my support for the renaming of the page to Czechia. It's vital for the page to at least mention Czechia early on especially because a very large percentage of the visitors are currently visiting the page because they have heard something about the name change and Wikipedia should assure them that those reports weren't practical jokes. Czechia is obviously much less widespread among the native speakers right now but the idea is that the word should get a chance and is expected to become much more widespread, much like the counterpart in Czech, Česko, did. (Czechia has been used since 1634 in Latin and 1841 in English; Česko was a genuine neologism of the 1990s.) Lumidek (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, should be included in the lead, but not be the title of the article. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support yes it should be there. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the short name is notable and helps explain why Czechia redirects here. Pburka (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, it is the title used by its own government. --Kaihsu (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pronunciation

I disagree with the suggested pronunciation (/tʃɛkiə/ ⓘ che-kee-y-ə; I think that in English the stress will naturally fall on the first syllable (/ˈtʃɛkiə/ chek-ee-ə) regardless of what a Czech native speaker might say. One-syllable country names in -ia are usually stressed on the first syllable: Austria, Bosnia, Gambia, Georgia, India, Latvia, Serbia, Syria, Zambia. Exceptions are only Russia /ˈrʌʃə/ and St Lucia /ˈluːʃə/. -- Evertype·✆ 17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I had noticed this too, and will change it when the protection is lifted. It's only the respelling that needs changing, to chek-ee-ə, as you say. Rothorpe (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Does the audio file I attached after "Czechia" (click at the speaker icon) sound OK to you? I actually meant what you wrote, I think, although for a while, cze-KEE-yah sounded pretty cool, too. Just to be sure, the stress in Czech is always on the first syllable, and somewhat weaker stresses on third and other odd syllables, so what you say sounds rather "Czech". English is much more likely to have stress on the second syllable (sloVAkia, dePOsit etc.), it seems to me, a feature that makes the Czechs' accent sound alien. Lumidek (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I support changing the English pronunciation to chek-ee-ə and also changing the audio file. Kaldari (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Czech_Republic/Archive_4&oldid=1256754595"