Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Czech Republic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semiprotecting article

There are several vandal edits a day, wouldn't it be desirable to semi-protecting the page? Jirka6 20:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed yesterday, but declined. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Using Bohemia for the Czech Republic

I guess whether using Bohemia as the short form for the Czech Republic would be exactly the same mistake as using e.g. "Prussia" for "Germany", "Holland" for "the Netherlands", "England" for the "UK of those many countries", etc.; or there is a slight difference? Please feel free to discuss this;) — Yarp^Talk 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think someone needs to clarify the official name of the nation before 1918.Printguy 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no legislative body presiding solely over the lands today comprising the CR, and there would be no reason to give these territories a collective name as they were rarely grouped (except on ethnic maps and the like). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Prior to 1918 the territory was divided between the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Margraveship of Moravia and the duchy of Silesia (the southermost part still belonged to the Austro Hungarian Empire). All of these were parts of the Austrian part of the Empire. [Zelvik]

Česko

An anonymous IP user with address starting 71.99.* has removed the following ~~five~~ fifteen times,

short form in Czech: Česko IPA: [ʧεsko])

without leaving any comments. Anyone have any idea? The change keeps getting reverted, and without a reason otherwise it will continue to. Shenme 05:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC) April 2007 (UTC)

short term CESK0 is not common in use. And is not important for english wiki. 71.99.120.132 05:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, changed fifteen times! It must be important somehow. I guess we'll see what other people think. (wow) Shenme 05:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

yes indeed. few "czechs" trying to do same propaganda as they did in Czech Wiki. 71.99.120.132 06:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

71.99.… again? (Special:Contributions/71.99.109.96) — Yarp^Talk 08:53, 15

Yes, check his other edits as well. Similar removals and personal attacks. Every day the same from different ip. I will try to resolve it with admins tomorrow. It can be discussed whether Česko is so important to have it here but it's in common use and it is official short form.--Pethr 06:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

never herad of dynamic IP address? Well that is your problem. MY opinion stays the same regardles IP address. And YES indeed, SAME removal of yours and others propaganda. 71.99.120.132 06:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that you've got dynamic ip, I haven't asked if you're the same prson, there's no doubt. Suply some source saying that this is propaganda. This is just tiring. Česko is standard name, no insult to anybody, used in media on daily basis [1]. Please stop.--Pethr 06:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

once again YOURE wrong! google shows czech wiki as first? why? propaganda done well. Other examples following are forms of Cesko-slovensko. Your lies can not withstand with wiki comunity. Just like "Czechia" bastard name is gone forever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.99.120.132 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Check advanced searches:

site:idnes.cz - internet version of most readed daily newspaper MF Dnes [2]
site:blesk.cz - internet version of most readed daily tabloid Blesk [3]
site:ihned.cz - daily newpapers Hospodářské noviny [4]
site:lidovky.zpravy.cz - daily newspapars Lidové noviny [5]
site:rozhlas.cz - publicly funded radio broadcaster [6]
site:ct24.cz - news portal of Česká televize [7]

--Li-sung 08:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the guy or guys are obsessed wit getting rid of Cesko. I think it is appropriate. Article about France lists 4 names - short and long nae in both French and English. For Czech Republic, it seems reasonable to omit the short English name, since it is not widely used (it is nearly not used at all). The local short name is used quite often. It is true that some people object to it, but that's not the point here. And there are other people objecting to Czech Republic (I think a user called Juro was one of them). Should we vote about this? I am biased since 71.99.120.132 did not write the most cleverest thing to my user page.Jirka6 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No we should not. It's a single user who is removing it over and over again without giving source for his allegations of propaganda and whatver and the person usually accompanies those edits with personal attacks. This is not a matter for a vote, there is clear consensus on this and there is not even a discussion about changing this. Sources were given by me and Li-sung which are entirely satisfactory and at the moment there are no valid reasons for removing it.--Pethr 17:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, he is not just a single user. Most of the opponents of Česko has simply given up (including me). The Czech language is being heavily spoiled by Czech mass media nowadays, so why to lose time and fight against Česko, which used to be a synonym to Bohemia and still is used in this meaning. Li-sung is one of those doing their best to promote Česko and Czechia whenever possible. Some people are clearly happy to coin a brand new "Czechspeak" and Wikipedi{a|e} is an excellent playground. BTW there would be no "Česko" without Vladimir Zelezny and his TV NOVA, thank you Vladimír, we really do owe you much! Cepek

The thing is that this is not the place for changing reality but discussing things that are. However you may disagree this term is official, widely used and generally accepted (not universally but still). The difference between Čechy (Bohemia) and Česko (Czechia) is obvious. I understand that some people hate to see the similarity but I find it insulting only when the term Čechy is used.--Pethr 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You all need to do a bit of further research. This debate has been going on for many years now, and previous consensus has always agreed that the term hasn't gained sufficient acceptance to be used as the primary term on Wikipedia. Don't think that two users debating on a talk page is sufficient to override this long-standing consensus. You'd need large scale debate for this kind of change, it isn't every day an encyclopaedia renames a country, and as long as WP:NC(CN) and WP:NC(UE) policies are in effect the Czech Republic won't become Czechia any time soon. Making note of the debates regarding the name is acceptable though (like the Name section presently does), so let's leave it at that for the time being. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for suming up the consensus but i don't think that anyone wants Czech Republic to become Czechia. You probably read between the lines or something? The whole section is about Česko nothing less nothing more...--Pethr 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, how would you use Česko without using Czechia? If one used it in an article, one would be obliged to translate it to Czechia, as one can't say Česko means the Czech Republic because it doesn't. Česko equals Czechia when it comes to use on Wikipedia. For convenience's sake I use the two interchangeably. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

While Czechia may be disputed since it really isn't used very much, Česko is....... The thing is that nobody is arguing for the change of the article. If you reread this section it started because of ip removing Česko every day. I think we got over it now. I don't understand what's your point - you don't want to change anything in the article do you? So what are we talking about?--Pethr 16:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in terms of the English Wikipedia they are one and the same. You were discussing the potential usage of Česko and voicing support and opposition. I'm here to merely note there _is_ already an established consensus at this time, and Česko shouldn't be mentioned anywhere except the "Name" section as a note of the new term. When the consensus changes, and hopefully it will, we can begin use of the terms Česko and Czechia on a larger-scale. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I must laught..cause this is very very frequent topic in czech discussions:-D but there is National Geographic ČESKO. Most of people prefer česko=czech rep. I think, it is in OSN list of states like shortform. I´m czech from southczech region.--88.101.129.209 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

But the vandal is not only removing Česko, but he is replacing it with Čechy even though each refers to a different entity. Česko is the short form of the Czech Republic, while Čechy is the name of Bohemia in the Czech language.--Svetovid 12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this page should be protected from vandalism, similar to some other pages where you can't change unless you are properly logged in and your account could be traced. --Atitarev (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This person has a dynamic IP address and has been vandalising a while, a few days back I made sure the IP range was blocked, so we should be good now.--The Dominator (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Major cities

The list of the major cities at the beginning is growing a little bit too much. For example, C. Krumlov has about 20K inhabitants. I think we should establish some guidelines - size (say everything above 100K or top 10), all regional capitals, or something. We may include another list of major touristic attractions (Kutna Hora, C. Krumlov, K. Vary?, etc.). What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirka6 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right and you are not. It depends on the point of view. Český Krumlov is surely not a big city but it is absurd not to mention it when introducing the Czech Republic (similarly Tabor). From this point of view Krumlov is more important than Zlin, for example. When talking about cultural heritage and/or tourism, Krumlov can be compared with Prague. There is a table of regional capitals, so not all of them need to be mentioned in the introduction. Cepek 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it's really absurd to list Czech cities in the intro. I couldn't find any other article which has similar list in intro. That's probably because introduction is summary of the article not list of tourist destinations... At this point it's also very short.--Pethr 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We can include only the major cities (as noted in the text) – e.g. "top five" (Praha, Brno, Ostrava, Plzeň and Olomouc). Or none at all (w/ capital Prague reduced of those "advertisement" adjectives) and create special sub-section as a part of the article. – Yarp^Talk 15:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that a special sub-section would do better. Cepek 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cepek: a new section or sub-section, below "Geography" or "Administrative divisions", would be better. A simple box with two columns of cities, 10 to 16 in total, indicating population in each case, that would include both the biggest cities and the most "historically or culturally significative" small ones. - Best regards, Evv 22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I had in my eye. – Yarp^Talk 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently nobody opposes the idea. Go ahead with it :-) Ev 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The United States article doesn't list Anaheim, California as a major city, just because Disneyland makes it a major tourist destination. - TheMightyQuill 00:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We shall discuss definition of the major city. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sport

Why is there no heading in the article about sport? Especially football which is big in the Czech Republic, they are a vey good team. Is this linked to why there is never a Czech Republic team on FIFA Football? Never is probably a bit harsh I cannot back that up but certainly for the past few years there has not been a Czech side, also Holland and Japan with Holland finally being included *I am aware that I am going completely away from the point* D. BULL 12:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board

You are invited to join Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Flat tax

Can somone please tell me about the flat tax situation in the czech republic? --J intela 04:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No such a thing in Czech Republic, Slovak Republic has flat tax.

71.99.117.147

Its in parliament discussion.

The government’s fiscal reform package has passed the vote in the lower house, and given the ODS’ majority in the upper house should sail through there. It’ll see personal income tax falling to 15.9% in 2008 and then to 12.5% in 2009 (although it’ll be calculated from super gross pay). Corporate income tax will fall to 21.0% in 2008 and then to 19.0% in 2009. Laurie vb 08:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Official language

User:Cepek wrote in a revert comment the language of the Roma is not an official language of the CZ, please learn what "official language" means. While I do not think Roma lg should be where the anonymous user put it, I also think there is no official language of Cz. Rep. It is just self-understood that Czech is used for all practical purposes. (Similarly as English in USA, etc.) Is this right? --Jirka6 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I am no sure if we are both talking about the same thing. My first google search led me to the Informational service of the Office of the President of the Czech Republic

http://www.hrad.cz/cz/ceska_republika/index.shtml

where Czech language is given as the official language of the Czech Republic.

But let's make it more general, explanation what "official language" is is given at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_language

and if you are interested namely in Czech, you can read the list of official languagues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages

Am I missing something? --Cepek 07:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well cs:Úřední jazyk says there is not general definitions, but there are links to specific laws about government agencies, that solve this. --Li-sung 08:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but in what language is writen the Constitution of the Czech Republic? Why it is not written in English to be more widely understood? The Czech language is the official languague of the Czech Republic even though it is not explicitly defined in a special language law. This means that you can use Czech in all situations when communicationg with Czech institutions (official communication). Can you use similarly the Roma language as suggested? --Cepek 08:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have answered to question given by Jirka6 about official language. I didnt mention anything to do with Roma language. --Li-sung 08:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but all this discussion started with somebody adding Roma as the second official language of the Czech Republic. --Cepek 09:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Look above, discussion started with somebody saying "I also think there is no official language of Cz. Rep." and compared to situation in USA. There in no need to discuss "Roma as the second official language" because that was as unsourced statement removed according Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is not obligation to prove, something unsourced is not right. --Li-sung 10:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. There are several good reasons why Czech language is not codified by a law as the official language (for example we avoid discussions on Moravian language). Does it mean, that there is no official language in the CR? Should this entry be removed from the article? --Cepek 10:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above, languages (czech and slovak) are mentioned in some laws about goverment offices [8] and other institutions require communication and documents in czech (like Chamber of Deputies). So in my view there is no doubt about Czech as official language.--Li-sung 11:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't a legally defined official language, then the article should read: "Official language: Czech (de facto)" per the style established at articles like USA. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot compare the Czech Republic with the USA and you cannot compare Czech and English languages in this context. There is no minority in the CR compared with the US Spanish speaking citizens. There are no regions in the CR where Czech language is not dominant. If you say that "Official language: Czech (de facto)" then you would create a false ilusion that there are regions where Czech is not spoken exclusively. My Vietnamese neighbours clearly don't speak Czech at their home, but this does not mean that Czech is infirmed where I live. --Cepek 14:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to read the definition of de facto, I think you're confusing it with something else. De facto means that despite something not being codified, it is in very widespread use, almost to the point where it's codification would have no effect on its use by the population. That is essentially the situation you describe above. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Formally you are absolutely right, but this is not a juridical text. My opinion is that adding "(de facto)" comment is not needed here. If added, it should be clearly explained in the text, a single bracketed expression might be misleading at least to some readers, but I am not a native English speaker so I cannot comment the style. --Cepek 06:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. De facto should be included as there is no law in the Czech Republic that says it's official, therefore it's only a de facto official language. It doesn't imply that Wikipedia is a judicial document, however we should strive to be an accurate one. The use would not be misleading, as the use here would be exactly the use intended. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just told you what my opinion was, I am not going to fight for it. To me it simply sounds strange and disturbing. There is no law saying that Czech citizens may breathe --- does it mean that we should say that Czech citizens de facto may breathe? --a.c. 13:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If that were the established norm then certainly. However it isn't, as no countries have this law. But a lot of countries do have an official languages legislation. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is at least one law that says Czech is offical language (úřední jazyk). [9]. So it is de iure. --Li-sung 12:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For paying taxes, that is! :) It also includes Slovak, for that matter, and including it as an official language will cause some big controversy. It doesn't say it Czech an official language of the Republic, merely that taxes can be paid using documents in the language (along with Slovak). So, still largely de facto. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Slovak language is not only accepted as an alterantive to Czech when paying taxes but also in the field of education, namely concerning universities. It is a general rule. But you surely know that Slovak and Czech languages are so close that can be passively understood without significant problems. Thus I still personally cannot accept your reasoning. But live is short ... please, add your "de facto" note to the article if you feel that it would make Wikipedia a better source of information (then I expect you to change the Slovakia article as well, because Czech is accepted there the same way). --a.c. 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, dont distribute your images. Check sources. Slovakia has special law about offical language (štátny jazyk) [10] --Li-sung 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa! I do apologise. --a.c. 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you adamantly refuse to understand the definition of de facto? I won't be continuing discussion until you can prove you understand the term we are talking about. What you're saying is the exact definition of de facto, widespread use despite no legal codification. As Li-sung shows, the language is codified in Slovakia. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Did not I say "please, add your "de facto" note to the article..."? --a.c. 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Zákon o státním jazyce České republiky" (Law about the official language of the Czech Republic) clearly states in the paragraph No.1 that official language is Czech. Thus "de facto" is out of the topic. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do you read any such law has pass? --Li-sung 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It did not passed? I've found proposal on vlada.cz and no other details. I tried to google but didn't find anything other. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it has ever come close to being passed. It's on the agenda of nationalistic parties and generally considered undesirable. Here you can find old government decree elaborating on why it is so useless. While Czech language isn't codified as state language there are many acts where it is given exclusive treatment (f.e. getting a citizenship requires some knowledge of Czech language, etc.). I believe that "de facto" is pretty accurate but can be confusing to some readers and may be doesn't add so much to the article to outweigh this. However I propose adding a note explaining that there is no legislation explicitly instituting Czech as state language. What do you think about this compromise? Feel free to draft the language here. Thank you.--Pethr 19:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a note in the Demographics>Population section? Something to the effect of: "While by far the majority of the population speaks the Czech language, and all government functions are carried out in it, there is no 'language legislation' to codify it as an official language. Such a law is being pushed by nationalist parties however faces opposition from the mainstream." +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to add there explicitly "de facto"?! That's absolutely ridiculous. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Refer above. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"An official language is a language that is given a unique legal status in the countries, states, and other territories. It is typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well." There is no other language used to produce laws and government documents. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That article also mentions that the language is as specified in legislation, and it lacks sources. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's really ridiculous, you can't speak Swedish while talking with authorities and you don't have any law translated into any other languages. Definition of official language says it is language of government and authorities. I disagree with "de facto" in this article, it is depreciating of own language and shameful. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there is nothing shameful about stating that Czech is de facto official languiage of the Czech Republic. It's only exaggerated nationalism that makes you think that. It's funny that you mentioned Sweden because Swedish is de facto official language there too. Article on official language states: "A few states, such as Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, have no official language, although there may be a single de facto main language (Swedish in Sweden, English in the US), as well as a range of government regulations and practices on which languages are expected to be used in various circumstances." And although uncited I think it's pretty accurate.

Hexagon1 proposed "While by far the majority of the population speaks the Czech language, and all government functions are carried out in it, there is no 'language legislation' to codify it as an official language. Such a law is being pushed by nationalist parties however faces opposition from the mainstream." I don't think it's accurate or notable to mention nationalist parties. While some of those parties really did I believe it was a member of KDU-CSL who proposed such law back in 1990s. I think we need to work toward closing this disscusion since it's geting out of proportion. Seeing articles on Sweden and United States I came to believe that we need to add de facto (De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice" but not spelled out by law.) and note explaining that Czech is widely spoken and language of law. Something along the lines: While Czech language isn't codified as official language it is required by law in some situations and is spoken by great majority of Czech population. Slovak and Polish languages are officially recognized as minority languages in regions with significant minorities. Source Current version is inaccurate and we must address this issue. I think my wording is accurate but feel free to propose something else. Thank you.--Pethr 18:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Should here be 'de facto' status of the official language, why 'de iure' is not used in other cases/articles? --a.c. 11:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

De jure is like default value - if not specified otherwise, official language is that required by law and codified in constitution or other law. Please see articles on Sweden and United States for similar situations.--Pethr 20:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pethr's proposal, seems to very accurately describe the linguistic situation and is sourced. Good work! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For me the implicit value is de facto, normal state is when no legislation is needed and not vice versa (only when there is a problem a law is needed). This is why I oppose Hexagon1. Slovak language has a different position compared with Polish language (for example) in the Czech republic. In this point you are not accurate. --a.c. 08:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I sound arrogant but what is your meaning of de facto is irrelevant. The fact is that the actual meaning applies exactly, and is being used at articles such as USA and Sweden at this moment in exactly that fashion. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe me or not but I do not take it personally. To me, you do not sound arrogant but angry. If you could read again what I really wrote, when you possibly calm down, you realise that I was not talking about what de facto means, but what was my opinion on the implicit value. From your reaction I understand that de iure is the implicit value for you. --a.c. 11:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion is fine, but would you please read the article on Official language to find out what the default value is? It's very hard to reach any concensus if people refuse to do their homework. Most states have official language codified in constitution or other law. I don't believe it is the case with Czech Republic. Please feel free to propose different wording of Slovak and Polish languages. However I don't think note in Infobox is place for elaborating in greater detail on this. Thank you.--Pethr 16:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

After our long dispute there is still one question I do not understand. In United_Kingdom article I read that official language is English, use established by precedent (footnote number 4). Does this mean that English is de iure official language in UK or not? --a.c. 11:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Languages of the United Kingdom: "The United Kingdom does not have a constitutionally defined official language. English is the main language (being spoken monolingually by more than 70% of the UK population) and is thus the de facto official language."--Pethr 16:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If English is the de facto official language of the UK, I must ask why this catchphrase is not used in the info-box? Of course, there is a footnote. This footnote explains the situation in clean plain language. Are you going to replace it with the de facto expression?

I may try to introduce de facto there too but I'm not sure if I'm willing to discuss it as much as here:) In my opinion the situation is clear – either you have constitution or special law codifying official language or you don't. People tend to think about this as some weakness but it's quite a contrary – there is no doubt about main language in practice and for various reasons Czech lanuage is established as required in certain situations (= is de facto official language). May be there is so much discussion about this because it would make very little or no difference in practice did we have such law.--Pethr 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may suggest, you need not to open this issue in United Kingdom article ;-) --a.c. 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To your wording I would add just one more sentence like: Slovak language is officially accepted as an alternative to Czech without the need of translation. (this clearly does not hold true for Polish language) --a.c. 17:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Pethr 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

May be it's worth pointing out that some 94.2% of population has Czech or equivalent nationality (PDF) and 98.8% of people has the same native language and nationality (PDF). Some 94.24 % of population has Czech as a native language (language spoken by mother or other guardian in childhood). Data on current language or current household language are not available so actual numbers may vary slightly.--Pethr 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --a.c. 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No Official Government for 6 Months

http://www.comics.com/comics/ripleys/archive/ripleys-20070603.html States that there was no official government for 6 months. Can somebody check on this.

It is not true statement. Well, it depends what you mean by "official". We always had a government, just the goverment was in "developing state" for extraordinary long time. That probably is what they mean.--Paxik 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Really it depends on meaning of "official" goverment. In my view the goverment was allways official, because it was officialy (in consistent with the Constitution) delegated by president, although it had only " temporary" madate, because it was not approved by Chamber of Deputies. --Li-sung 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your view is right. Government delegated according to Constitution by president according all conditions in Constitution is always official, there is no doubt. --Jklamo 13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Short name

Is there really no short name for the country in English?? In French it's "Tchechie", in German "Tschechien"... I can't imagine the English always say "Czech Republic", do they?

There are long discussions about this in other places (see the page about the name of the country). But here in U.S., they usually say "Czech" (He is from Czech., How do the universities look like in Czech?) or "Czechoslovakia". I usually say "I am from Europe." I have never heard "Czechia", except from other Czechs. Once I wrote "Czechia" on a package and the mail-man corrected that to "Czech". --Jirka6 20:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In Australia it's always the Czech Republic. I dislike the term czechia as it sounds weird to both a native English speaker and a native Czech speaker. I'm bilingual :)

I've been using the words "Czechia" and "Czechian" to describe, well, Czechia and Czechians. Everybody seems to be quite happy to use this around me, and they understand it right away. To be honest, I feel that there is a need for a short informal name for every country, and there seems to be one for Czechia in every language I've come across. Czechia... hmmm... doesn't sound bad at all, if it's pronounced with a proper, British accent... :)George Adam Horváth 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

... to describe, well, Czechia and Czechians; until now I have thought that I am Czech, thank you very much for explaining me that it was a silly mistake and that I am a Czechian. --a.c. 08:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, this website says that "Czech" is still used as the noun when referring to people from the Czech Republic/Czechia. It's not official or anything, but I'm just pointing it out. On a personal note, I like that there is a short name for the Czech Republic, but I'm surprised at how difficult it is to say. While names like Slovakia, Slovenia, Serbia, Romania, and Lithuania (to name a few) seem to roll off the tongue, "Czechia" feels like it requires some extra effort to say. It would be interesting to know why. -Nameneko 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Whatever could be the short or the long name of the country, as a Frenchman (excuse my English, please), I have a pertinent question, if I can take the liberty... Why do you write, for so many decades, the names Czechoslovakia, Czechia or Czech Republic, nevertheless the adjective czech, with a polish orthography ? In polish, the sound [tch] or [ch] is written |cz|, but this is not at all the case of the country which we are talking about. It's true that the letter |Č| does not exist in our alphabet, and if my opinion is to keep it in personal proper names because we ca'nt translate them, in the case of geography, we have to transliterate. So, why don't you write the name of this country with a group of letters which would correspond to the English pronunciation ? I know that you have some homophones, like the noun cheque or the verb check but is that a good reason ? Czech is not an English way of writing, it's a Polish one ! So, when will you finally write Che(c)koslovakia, Che(c)kia or Che(c)k Republic ? Can somebody explain me why such an error can survive so many time ? Thank you. --Cyril-83 12:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This spelling has been used in English for centuries. The English simply adopted the Polish spelling because they didn't want to introduce additional diacritics in their writing. Before Gutenberg, little to no attention was paid to consistency in spelling. When printed books appeared, the spelling which happened to be prevalent at the time (or, quite often, the one which was easier to print) was quickly fossilized. That plus the unwillingness of English academic institutions to undertake reform explains why English spelling is so quirky nowadays. By the way, the same applies to French. Those two languages are arguably the ones with the most convoluted spelling of any languages using the Latin alphabet. --Targeman 12:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It had been even Czech spelling before Hus introduced diacritics to Czech language in 15th century. Honza Záruba 13:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought diacritics were in use in Czechia before Hus... Well, you learn every day :-) --Targeman 13:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

International Rankings

The main article claims the Economist in 2006 has ranked CZ top in alcohol consumption per capita. I wasn't able to find any references for that. A recent Economist article rates it the 5th. Anyone cares to find a reference or possibly modify that line? http://economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9325487 Aleš aka Wikiak 03:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am almost certain it was in the world statistics booklet thing for 2006 which is an authoritative source but I can't find any copies online, any help? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The only internationl ranking I found is http://www2.czso.cz/csu/redakce.nsf/i/spotreba_alkoholu_v_hodnote_cisteho_lihu_na_osobu_2001 but statistic of alcohol consumption of Czech statistic office and WHO differs. But according CSO the alcohol consumption (in pure alcohol) is since 2003 decreasing http://www.czso.cz/csu/2006edicniplan.nsf/t/340038A8EC/$File/3004rr_02.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.208.17.59 (talk) 22:57, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Czech Economy

I think GDP 13 000 USD per capita is a little bit old. Today the Czech Republic has about 21 000 USD. Check it. Zik2 (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)