Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
What arguments for keeping Czech Republic as the name - still stands strong today?
More and more, the country is referred to as Czechia. I myself was a part of the RM discussion, which rejected the move. I am interested in whether we could have some comments surrounding the page name arguing for why it should be not be changed. If not, I think it's in it's place to once again reconsider the page name.
Bests, thomediter Thomediter (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Please see the above discussion, #Rename to Czechia as Germany, France, Slovakia or Poland, and all the previous discussions in this talk page's archives before suggesting a move, and, if you do suggest a move, have evidence that the situation has evolved since this was last discussed here only 8 months ago. Please do not antagonize everyone with this article on their watchlist by rehashing old arguments without consideration as to whether there are new developments that would warrant a different outcome. Largoplazo (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Fwiw, Google trends hasn't changed much since last discussion. Consider checking and considering again 6-12 months after the 2024 Summer Olympics, since the last Eurovision obviously didn't do the trick [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- And the Czechia still lives! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång It has died today. Today I wrote there, today they solved it. Often, it is better to try to correct mistakes and alert the person making them rather than mocking them. But it was still just a false problem, why not allow Czechia on Wikipedia because someone random used it with "the", another false problem will appear right away >:| Chrz (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Still funny that it was the about-page of that org. Oh well, there's always memorials like [2]. Fwiw, I don't consider me mentioning a typo at their website "mocking" the Czech Olympic Committee. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Consider writing the EU next, there are 4 "the Czechia" at [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Change "Czech Republic" to "Czechia". And they did. The word "The" is not used on signs and plates even for countries with "the," right?! I don't know what's so special about "that" org. It's as if this one subpage is supposed to be more important only when it's wrong. Now that it's right, it's OBVIOUSLY insignificant and secondary >:/ I also wrote to the EU, now we'll see the differences in communication with institutions. Although again, if (when) the EU page gets it right, it will miraculously become insignificant. Chrz (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree a lot with what Chrz is saying Thomediter (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I am not trying to restart RM, I just wish the practice would end where insignificant obstacles are put in the way, meaning sources that have a miraculous power "against" but then have no weight "for". Either they are important for any party in the dispute or they are not important at all and it's not worth discussing them here. Chrz (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree a lot with what Chrz is saying Thomediter (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Change "Czech Republic" to "Czechia". And they did. The word "The" is not used on signs and plates even for countries with "the," right?! I don't know what's so special about "that" org. It's as if this one subpage is supposed to be more important only when it's wrong. Now that it's right, it's OBVIOUSLY insignificant and secondary >:/ I also wrote to the EU, now we'll see the differences in communication with institutions. Although again, if (when) the EU page gets it right, it will miraculously become insignificant. Chrz (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång It has died today. Today I wrote there, today they solved it. Often, it is better to try to correct mistakes and alert the person making them rather than mocking them. But it was still just a false problem, why not allow Czechia on Wikipedia because someone random used it with "the", another false problem will appear right away >:| Chrz (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Eventually, the page will be re-named Czechia. Remember it took quite a few RMs (and years) to finally get Burma re-named Myanmar. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Racism. I'm completely serious. There are no reasons to deliberately use an old and rejected name now that the proper name is widely used and accepted everywhere. Except if you have a sense of superiority over the people of Czechia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.223.41 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Then you're completely serious about something ridiculous. To the best of my knowledge, Czechs are white. Charges of racism usually arise in situations involving white people actually or reportedly discriminating against non-white people. If that's not the case here, which race of Wikipedia editors do you think are discriminating against them?
- Where did you get the idea that "Czech Republic" has been rejected? It remains the country's official long-form name! The only change is that they adopted an official short-form name as well.
- I'm looking at the web page of the Czech Convention Bureau. They refer to the country as "Czech Republic". Are they self-racist?
- When you say "There are no reasons", the reasons have already been explained at nauseating length in previous discussions on this matter. They don't disappear just because one person declares them not to exist.
- None of the points you've made here have any connection to reality. Largoplazo (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's an official page of the country's state tourism agency, and it uses the term "Czech Republic" all over.[4] — kashmīrī TALK 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Throwing around words like "racism" is not the way to make friends and influence people on Wikipedia. This discussion has gone on for a very long while, and it's not going to go away soon, and sometimes it is annoying, but at least we can say that the main contributors on both sides are acting in good faith and with mutual respect. We will change the name when a majority of voices on this page are convinced by the facts. Doric Loon (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023
 | This edit request to Czech Republic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Central Europe to Eastern Europe 89.24.32.30 (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Assuming you mean as in "Czech Republic is in Central Europe." According Central Europe, that seems good enough, though like with "how many continents are there?", there are other definitions. Why would it be better for this WP-article to change like you suggest? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Calling Czechoslovakia "Eastern European" was cold war thinking, when the iron curtain traced a simplistic political divide between east and west. But both before and since the Warsaw Pact era, the West Slavic peoples have thought of themselves as Central European. Because Europe goes much further East than you maybe think it does. Doric Loon (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- It depends on 1) whether Russia (in whole or in part) is accounted for in the various _____ Europe regions, 2) how many such regions you are using, 3) which regions they are, and 4) where you draw the lines. I can conceive of definitions for the Czech Republic to be in eastern, central, or western Europe.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Both Russia and Czech are Eastern European. Undashing (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. These named regions do not necessarily correspond to literal geographic chunks of particular continents. I have seen geography text books that separate Russia into its own section and then divide the remainder of Europe into various regions. In these systems, the Eastern European region DOES NOT include Russia. Even though, technically, Russia IS (partially) in the eastern portion of the generally accepted continent of Europe. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 05:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Partially my ass. Russia is the largest country in Europe.
- And Ethnic Russians are Slavs, native to Europe. Undashing (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Um... only part of Russia is in Europe. Thus it is PARTIALLY in Europe. I don't know how you misinterpreted what I said or why it seems to make you so mad. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. These named regions do not necessarily correspond to literal geographic chunks of particular continents. I have seen geography text books that separate Russia into its own section and then divide the remainder of Europe into various regions. In these systems, the Eastern European region DOES NOT include Russia. Even though, technically, Russia IS (partially) in the eastern portion of the generally accepted continent of Europe. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 05:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Both Russia and Czech are Eastern European. Undashing (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- It depends on 1) whether Russia (in whole or in part) is accounted for in the various _____ Europe regions, 2) how many such regions you are using, 3) which regions they are, and 4) where you draw the lines. I can conceive of definitions for the Czech Republic to be in eastern, central, or western Europe.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Calling Czechoslovakia "Eastern European" was cold war thinking, when the iron curtain traced a simplistic political divide between east and west. But both before and since the Warsaw Pact era, the West Slavic peoples have thought of themselves as Central European. Because Europe goes much further East than you maybe think it does. Doric Loon (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Fun fact: Prague is further west than some parts of Germany, Austria, Italy and Sweden. It is two degrees west of Vienna, and four west of Stockholm. Moscow, on the other hand, is a full 23 degrees east of Prague, while Kyiv and Minsk are 16 and 13 respectively. The distance from Prague to Moscow is almost twice the distance from Prague to Paris or London.
- So, while everyone is entitled to their own analysis, the idea that Czechia is central European is certainly a plausible one.
- Can we just agree that these terms have various definitions that may all be legitimate, and our articles on Central Europe and Eastern Europe are the place to discuss them? Doric Loon (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Russia is the largest country in Europe
, yet, neverthless, Russia is only partly in Europe. Surely you don't think Vladivostok is in Europe! And where Slavs originate is irrelevant, just as the majority European heritage of today's populations of Australia and the United States doesn't put those countries in Europe. Largoplazo (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Expanding the infobox with additional data
Can I have another opinion regarding the current expansion of the infobox with additional historical data? In my opinion, for the need of the infobox, this item should be brief and really only contain Establishment data, not turning point battles etc. FromCzech (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree, although it seems the infoboxes of other countries are also getting bloated with those additional historical events. In any case, I have reverted the changes back to the status quo until there is a consensus of what to include there. Vpab15 (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @FeldmarschallGneisenau, who introduced the changes. Vpab15 (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- White Mountain wasn't just "a turning point battle." It pretty much obliterated the very existence of the Czech language until the 19th century, when it was artificially revived by German-speaking people with German names and/or surnames. Everything else I explained briefly in the edit reason. Establishment of Habsburg rule over Bohemia in 1526 is an Establishment event. By the way, dis-establishment events are marked in other articles also, such as the Partitions of Poland. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Czech language was never "obliterated" and/or "artificially revived". Not after the White Mountain, not ever. Where is this nonsense coming from? Czech-speakers have always formed at least 2/3 majority of the population of Czechia until the end of WWII. Habsburgs were just another dynasty on the Czech throne. Qertis (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Czech-speakers were driven out into the countryside, and then German settlement began in the countryside also. Czech was dying out by the 19th century and was revived. Dictionaries were published and words entirely made up to counter German dominance. Hence why Czech has uniquely many archaic words, phrases or, e.g. chemical or engineering terms which are completely Slavic, because there was an effort to retrace, recreate (and in some cases completely create anew) a pure Czech Slavic language. Charles University opened a Czech section only in the 2nd half of the 19th century FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Noone was driven into the countryside; there was a significant emigration, but it was both Czech- and German-speaking. Czech was not dying out and/or revived. You are severely overestimating the impact purists had on the language. 17th or 18th century Czech is almost indistinguishable from the modern language. Sure, there are new words and words no longer used, but that applies to any language. There are several hundred words intentionally borrowed from other Slavic languages or recreated from older Czech words but they form only a tiny fraction of the Czech vocabulary. And mind you, this was not a Czech-specific thing. Replacing foreign words with domestic (or domestic-sounding) ones was very popular at that time throughout Europe. Qertis (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's just the fact that the purists had German names and German was their first language... FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Noone was driven into the countryside; there was a significant emigration, but it was both Czech- and German-speaking. Czech was not dying out and/or revived. You are severely overestimating the impact purists had on the language. 17th or 18th century Czech is almost indistinguishable from the modern language. Sure, there are new words and words no longer used, but that applies to any language. There are several hundred words intentionally borrowed from other Slavic languages or recreated from older Czech words but they form only a tiny fraction of the Czech vocabulary. And mind you, this was not a Czech-specific thing. Replacing foreign words with domestic (or domestic-sounding) ones was very popular at that time throughout Europe. Qertis (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Czech-speakers were driven out into the countryside, and then German settlement began in the countryside also. Czech was dying out by the 19th century and was revived. Dictionaries were published and words entirely made up to counter German dominance. Hence why Czech has uniquely many archaic words, phrases or, e.g. chemical or engineering terms which are completely Slavic, because there was an effort to retrace, recreate (and in some cases completely create anew) a pure Czech Slavic language. Charles University opened a Czech section only in the 2nd half of the 19th century FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Czech language was never "obliterated" and/or "artificially revived". Not after the White Mountain, not ever. Where is this nonsense coming from? Czech-speakers have always formed at least 2/3 majority of the population of Czechia until the end of WWII. Habsburgs were just another dynasty on the Czech throne. Qertis (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- The fewer the events, the clearer the purpose. The infobox was really designed to have one date, independence (date of sovereignty), although that clearly breaks down in some situations. CMD (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- According to who? FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. (That is, an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below.) The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''(talk|contribs) 01:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)- You are free to check out how it looks in the infoboxes of the United States, France, Russia, Poland, Romania and basically any other. That was the intention behind my edits, to bring the Czechia page closer to what every other country page looks like. Currently it looks like the infobox is deliberately omitting key events from Czech history.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The articles you linked all contain infoboxes with establishment history and changes in the country's rule. None of them contain battles, even if it was a "turning point".
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''(talk|contribs) 02:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)- Serbia does, just phrased differently. Just look around. Anyhow, I hope there's no debate about including the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the subsequent establishment of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in the infobox. I don't understand why the infobox is so poor right now.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any battles in Serbia's infobox. However, the inclusion of the Protectorate can be discussed with other editors.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''(talk|contribs) 02:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)- Fine. And the inclusion of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic too. I concede your point on not featuring the Battle in the infobox. However I still think the Hussite Wars and Habsburg suzerainty should be included.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Info box not the place for military accomplishments Moxy🍁 03:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a military accomplishment. The Hussite Wars started in reaction to increasing German-language domination over Czech lands and resulted in an outburst and flourishing of Czech national culture, albeit as a sort of swan song when Czech culture began being curbed after the fall of the Hussite period, establishment of Habsburg suzerainty and then after the Battle of the White Mountain when Czech culture started to be actively suppressed and the lands re-Catholicized and Germanized. Similar events interwoven with military engagements are described in the infoboxes of Serbia etc.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because of this the country was formed? Moxy🍁 03:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is no such very strict criteria, it's just a list of key events in the history of a country. See: infoboxes on any other country pages.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The fields in question are to support the |sovereignty_type = field, they are not for listing all historical events. CMD (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm far from listing all historical events Czechia was involved in. At the very least however, establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, as well as the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and Habsburg overlordship, should be highlighted.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The fields in question are to support the |sovereignty_type = field, they are not for listing all historical events. CMD (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is no such very strict criteria, it's just a list of key events in the history of a country. See: infoboxes on any other country pages.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because of this the country was formed? Moxy🍁 03:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a military accomplishment. The Hussite Wars started in reaction to increasing German-language domination over Czech lands and resulted in an outburst and flourishing of Czech national culture, albeit as a sort of swan song when Czech culture began being curbed after the fall of the Hussite period, establishment of Habsburg suzerainty and then after the Battle of the White Mountain when Czech culture started to be actively suppressed and the lands re-Catholicized and Germanized. Similar events interwoven with military engagements are described in the infoboxes of Serbia etc.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Info box not the place for military accomplishments Moxy🍁 03:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fine. And the inclusion of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic too. I concede your point on not featuring the Battle in the infobox. However I still think the Hussite Wars and Habsburg suzerainty should be included.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any battles in Serbia's infobox. However, the inclusion of the Protectorate can be discussed with other editors.
- Serbia does, just phrased differently. Just look around. Anyhow, I hope there's no debate about including the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the subsequent establishment of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in the infobox. I don't understand why the infobox is so poor right now.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The articles you linked all contain infoboxes with establishment history and changes in the country's rule. None of them contain battles, even if it was a "turning point".
- You are free to check out how it looks in the infoboxes of the United States, France, Russia, Poland, Romania and basically any other. That was the intention behind my edits, to bring the Czechia page closer to what every other country page looks like. Currently it looks like the infobox is deliberately omitting key events from Czech history.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. (That is, an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below.) The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.
- According to who? FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Infobox establishment events - the Protectorate and the CSSR
For there to truly be no consensus against including the states of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in the history of established states on Czech soil, there must be good arguments against including these omitted events from the current page's infobox. I think the case for including these is self-evident, so I wonder who can be against and why. If, apparently, it turns out everyone is for it, it means there is consensus and this urgent change will be re-applied swiftly. Please state your case. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing how satellite States are related to the formation of the current country? Moxy🍁 22:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a "sovereign established states" list though. Just what states were established on Czech territory since what date. The Czech Republic is a direct continuator and successor of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, of the Czech portion specifically.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly, how they are related? What I wrote at the beginning of the first discussion about expanding the infobox applies. Even you did not consider these events important during the first batch of your attempts to expand the infobox. FromCzech (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not Czech. It's not my job to be cognizant of every important fact about this country immediately. But I remembered these 2 important events anyhow.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone? No arguments? FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- How is being a puppet of Nazi Germany an important step in developing sovereignty? It seems rather the reverse.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a sovereignty list, only establishment list. List of established states on Czech soil. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is a sovereignty list, it's specifically a list of events that established sovereignty. CMD (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are we really just spouting our opinions as facts set in stone now? Let's be serious. A cursory look over other country pages show that within the Czech page, some major whitewashing of history is brewing. The Czechs got divvied up by Western Europe in 1938. And became the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in 1939 and supplied Adolf's army until 1945 and was the last stand of the German army. Then the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic was established. The current Czech Republic is a direct legal successor of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, specifically its Czech part. Direct continuation, same state really, only with a name change. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is a sovereignty list, it's specifically a list of events that established sovereignty. CMD (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a sovereignty list, only establishment list. List of established states on Czech soil. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- How is being a puppet of Nazi Germany an important step in developing sovereignty? It seems rather the reverse.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The description of article
why is changed the article description? There could be "Country in Central Europe", same like other neighbor countries or different language versions of the article (for example German) 2A00:11B1:1014:9338:93E3:E743:76DF:B190 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Bohemia is not Czechia
Frequent mistake is present in the English text, claimimg that ...[Czechia is] historically known as Bohemia... In fact, the territory of Czechia is composed of Bohemia, Moravia and part of Silesia. These are historical countries, nowadays without any authonomy nor reflected in recent administrative borders. Still, they maintain some cultural and language specifics, and many people feel strong affiliation to "their" country. Particularly the inhabitians of Bohemia sometimes call the whole country as Bohemia (Čechy), which is often felt as haughty by Moravians and Silesians. On the other hand, some people refuse using the newly established term "Czechia" (in Czech: Česko), as they incorrectly consider it as an English translation of "Čechy" (correctly: Bohemia). 81.19.4.195 (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- The keyword is "historically" - before the 20th century the whole Czech lands were known in English as "Bohemia", as it explains in the reference. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Even more important than "historically" is that this is talking about ENGLISH usage, not Czech. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe this issue should be mentioned in the FAQ? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am absolutely dumbfounded that this question keeps coming up. I would think that the obvious fact that English and Czech are different languages would be enough to explain it. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe this issue should be mentioned in the FAQ? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Even more important than "historically" is that this is talking about ENGLISH usage, not Czech. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Many countries have different historical names. By this kind of logic we should write "historically known as Ruthenia" in Ukraine article and "historically known as Muscovy" in Russia article. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- If that "historically" has already surpassed the psychological threshold of 100 years (1918 Czechoslovakia), I guess it is acceptable to omit this information from the introduction and include it in later sections. Chrz (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, that's not unreasonable. I don't see a lot about Bohemia in the article.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)- The country was known as Bohemia for more than 1000 years until 1918. If we have Persia or Siam in the lead sections of Iran and Thailand, Bohemia should be in the lead section here. Qertis (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERCONTENT only means so much, but those are not unreasonable comparisons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Both Iran and Thailand were renamed as existed states. Bohemia before 1918 and Czechoslovakia after are completely different state units. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that argue against the idea of Czechia as a "timeless name", then? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- "timeless name"?! UA0Volodymyr (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's an argument that proponents of using Czechia in Englsh often make. That Czechia applies equally to the entire past of the country.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- "timeless name"?! UA0Volodymyr (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Bohemia and Czechia are two names of the same country. Both were used interchangeably for centuries. It is explained in the source article. Qertis (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- But it's not used currently. A bunch of the names were used for Ukraine, along with just "Ukraine" until 1945, when the UkSSR was completely recognized by its UN membership: Little Russia, Ruthenia, Malorossiya etc. etc. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to bring it up and discuss here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukraine, this is not the place. Qertis (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- No. I just don't think that this kind of old name should be mentioned in lead at all. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- From here: "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." Qertis (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway that's not a name of Czechia as a current country, just of the historical state on this territory and the part of the Austro-Hungary. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's the same country. If it hadn't changed its name and still was called Bohemia/Bohemian Republic (translated into Czech literally as "Česká republika"), you wouldn't even think to question it. Qertis (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway that's not a name of Czechia as a current country, just of the historical state on this territory and the part of the Austro-Hungary. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- From here: "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." Qertis (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- No. I just don't think that this kind of old name should be mentioned in lead at all. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to bring it up and discuss here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukraine, this is not the place. Qertis (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- But it's not used currently. A bunch of the names were used for Ukraine, along with just "Ukraine" until 1945, when the UkSSR was completely recognized by its UN membership: Little Russia, Ruthenia, Malorossiya etc. etc. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that argue against the idea of Czechia as a "timeless name", then? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Siam 1939, Iran 1935. Ancient too... Chrz (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The country was known as Bohemia for more than 1000 years until 1918. If we have Persia or Siam in the lead sections of Iran and Thailand, Bohemia should be in the lead section here. Qertis (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's an article about the current country, not a part of the Austro-Hungary before 1918. Ukrainians in the Western Ukraine controlled by Austro-Hungary also were called Ruthenians before 1918. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand that revert. Among today's readers, few will seek this state under the name Bohemia, which has not been known for over 100 years and thus practically no one could have recorded it under that name. One can learn about its historical name in a different chapter rather than immediately in the introduction. Particularly if it's not relevant to the article's text. Chrz (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Before the 1918-1945 and creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and second's UN membership the land of Ukraine were called by a variety of names, from "Ruthenia" to "Little Russia". UA0Volodymyr (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Basically, every article here on Wikipedia and elsewhere concerning the history of Czechia/Czech Republic uses the name, including the entire History section in this article titled Bohemia covering those 1000 years of the country's history. Anyone interested in the Czech Republic, even briefly touching upon its history, will encounter this name. However, Bohemia and Czechia/Czech Republic do not share an etymological connection or similarity, so for someone unfamiliar, this can be confusing, and therefore, it is appropriate to clarify this connection right in the lead section. Qertis (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand that revert. Among today's readers, few will seek this state under the name Bohemia, which has not been known for over 100 years and thus practically no one could have recorded it under that name. One can learn about its historical name in a different chapter rather than immediately in the introduction. Particularly if it's not relevant to the article's text. Chrz (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- In the context of the comparison with Persia and Siam on one hand and Muscovy and Ruthenia on the other, one consideration is that there are still a reasonable number of people alive who knew of the former two as Persia and Siam whereas everyone who ever knew the latter two as Muscovy and Ruthenia is dead. The situation with Bohemia today is nearly the same as that of the latter two. So if the purpose of mentioning an earlier name in the lead is to indicate "this might be the name you know it by", no one, or virtually no one, alive today knows the Czech Republic as Bohemia. Largoplazo (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we might have read A Scandal in Bohemia. Though TBH, at the time I read it, I don't think I gave any thought to that Böhmen was something like Tjeckoslovakien. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- That story illustrates a difference between Bohemia and Muscovy. The name Bohemia (like Siam and Persia) has a presence in Anglophone culture that Muscovy (and Ruthenia) lacks. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Siam
- is gonna be the witness
- to the ultimate test
- of cerebral fitness." Anglophone culture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- That story illustrates a difference between Bohemia and Muscovy. The name Bohemia (like Siam and Persia) has a presence in Anglophone culture that Muscovy (and Ruthenia) lacks. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we might have read A Scandal in Bohemia. Though TBH, at the time I read it, I don't think I gave any thought to that Böhmen was something like Tjeckoslovakien. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have reverted this, user Qertis still trying to reinforce his claim. Literally no one in English thinks about Bohemia speaking about Czechia. Historically Bohemia is inaccurate. Beshogur (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Qertis (talk · contribs) you must be convincing yourself with your "strong arguments" putting blog like source from 2016. I don't see anyone supporting your claim. Beshogur (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- [5] Qertis:
Every country in Europe is divided into historical regions. Not a single article mentions them in the lead. Plus it is already in the "Name" section
- how come you changed your mind?
- also reverting other users since 2021 keeping this page hostage.
- [6] 2021
rv, sourced
- [7] 2021
partial rv. Properly sourced and of utmost historical significance and prominence.
- [8] 2022
Undid revision 1073575089 by 2003:D8:8F26:7E00:A4E2:3416:DF74:6391 (talk)
- [9] 2022
Undid revision 1074975954 by Itsyoungrapper (talk) After a week of no response to my arguments in talk I am restoring the lede.
- [10] 2023
Undid revision 1207644279 by UA0Volodymyr (talk) Bohemia was renamed only a 100 years ago. Muscovy or Ruthenia are very different cases. Bohemia/Czechia is more similar to the renamings of Iran/Persia or Thailand/Siam
- So stop edit warring. Beshogur (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- [5] Qertis:
- Qertis (talk · contribs) you must be convincing yourself with your "strong arguments" putting blog like source from 2016. I don't see anyone supporting your claim. Beshogur (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- That Czechia was historically called Bohemia is a well sourced fact, not a "far fetched idea", which is obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the history of this coutnry. This: [11] is not a "blog like" source, its an article by a noted Czech historian and diplomat who specializes in this topic. Here is another, even more comprehensive source (in Czech): https://www.pressreader.com/czech-republic/lidove-noviny/20170701/281973197671948 And yes, stop edit warring. Qertis (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't even copy the text to translate. Anyways how come a country consisting of three regions (incl. one Bohemia) is known historically as Bohemia. This does not makes sense. It's like calling Spain, historically known as Castilla. Yes, vast majority of this area might be called Bohemia, but Czechia being Bohemia is far fetched, and does not makes sense. Persia and Iran were interchangeable. Even your source "Czech Radio" says
While Bohemia would have been a historically sound option, it doesn´t correspond with the formal name, and moreover, it is now commonly used only in the narrow sense, as the name of Bohemia proper, not including Moravia and Silesia.
Beshogur (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)- Right click and copy. It makes perfect sense. That's how many other European countries were named as well (Austria, Poland, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, etc.). Almost any large enough country in Europe consists of historical regions. Often the most important (core) one gave name to the whole country. Czechia was for centuries called Bohemia (officially "the Crown of the Kingdom of Bohemia"), while the region was sometimes called Bohemia proper to distinguish it from the country. The last sentence merely says that "Bohemia" and the "Czech Republic" (the current formal name) do not correspond to each other ethymologically so "Czechia" is the better short name of the country today. Qertis (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Kingdom of Bohemia 
Lands of Bohemian Crown - That's not true. That sentence has nothing to do with etymology, it says it doesn't correspond with formal name
- I'm not very into HRE history but "Lands of the Bohemian Crown" means lands belonging to Bohemian crown, located in Bohemia, which includes other two regions. Beshogur (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is true and has everything to do with etymology. One name derives from the Celtic tribe of the Boii (Bohemia), the other from the Slavic tribe of the Czechs. The author says that it would have been odd (and, frankly, unprecedented) to have formal and short name with different roots ("it doesn´t correspond with the formal NAME"). Please, read the sources, it is explained there in detail with references to the primary sources, if you are interested. I will just add here that Czechs were historically called Bohemians and the Czech language was called the Bohemian language until the early 20th century. Also, Bohemia and Czechia were used as synonyms for centuries (in Latin and later in English), as the names of both the region (Bohemia/Czechia proper) and the country. It is all there. Qertis (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- While you are correct overall, you are incorrect on one point. Having formal and short names from different roots would not be entirely unprecedented. Greece is formally the Hellenic Republic. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, true. Thanks for the correction. Qertis (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I seem to remember that Switzerland used to be formally called the Helvetic Confederation in English as well, but Swiss Confederation seems to be the current usage. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, true. Thanks for the correction. Qertis (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- While you are correct overall, you are incorrect on one point. Having formal and short names from different roots would not be entirely unprecedented. Greece is formally the Hellenic Republic. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is true and has everything to do with etymology. One name derives from the Celtic tribe of the Boii (Bohemia), the other from the Slavic tribe of the Czechs. The author says that it would have been odd (and, frankly, unprecedented) to have formal and short name with different roots ("it doesn´t correspond with the formal NAME"). Please, read the sources, it is explained there in detail with references to the primary sources, if you are interested. I will just add here that Czechs were historically called Bohemians and the Czech language was called the Bohemian language until the early 20th century. Also, Bohemia and Czechia were used as synonyms for centuries (in Latin and later in English), as the names of both the region (Bohemia/Czechia proper) and the country. It is all there. Qertis (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Right click and copy. It makes perfect sense. That's how many other European countries were named as well (Austria, Poland, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, etc.). Almost any large enough country in Europe consists of historical regions. Often the most important (core) one gave name to the whole country. Czechia was for centuries called Bohemia (officially "the Crown of the Kingdom of Bohemia"), while the region was sometimes called Bohemia proper to distinguish it from the country. The last sentence merely says that "Bohemia" and the "Czech Republic" (the current formal name) do not correspond to each other ethymologically so "Czechia" is the better short name of the country today. Qertis (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't even copy the text to translate. Anyways how come a country consisting of three regions (incl. one Bohemia) is known historically as Bohemia. This does not makes sense. It's like calling Spain, historically known as Castilla. Yes, vast majority of this area might be called Bohemia, but Czechia being Bohemia is far fetched, and does not makes sense. Persia and Iran were interchangeable. Even your source "Czech Radio" says
- That Czechia was historically called Bohemia is a well sourced fact, not a "far fetched idea", which is obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the history of this coutnry. This: [11] is not a "blog like" source, its an article by a noted Czech historian and diplomat who specializes in this topic. Here is another, even more comprehensive source (in Czech): https://www.pressreader.com/czech-republic/lidove-noviny/20170701/281973197671948 And yes, stop edit warring. Qertis (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
.svg)
.svg)
Requested Move 11 Jul 2024
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.
There's been a spirited debate over the course of several months, and it's been over a year since the last move request. Czechia is increasingly becoming the common name in reliable sources: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/czechia/
If we don't move it now we will probably move it eventually, much like the Kyiv/Kiev debate. So I say we get it over with and rename the article. SVeach94 (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The proposal's claim that "Czechia" has become increasingly common is presented without evidence beyond one source (CIA), which adopted it, IIRC, early on—it isn't a new development. Also, it's a weaker claim than is required to justify the move, which is that "Czechia" has become more common than "Czech Republic". Finally, "getting it over with" isn't a thing. There's no reason to do something before it's time to do it. In short, the proposal as given doesn't justify the move and places the burden entirely on others to do so. Largoplazo (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: Some have requested we wait until after the Olympic Games, and this discussion will likely last until after they are over, so it seems like a good time.
Discussion
- Move per above. SVeach94 (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Whatever the outcome, I suggest the closer adds a one-year WP:MORATORIUM on the issue. Interestingly, Czechia did have a recent spike on Google trends. I have to say that the Note: above doesn't make much sense to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Whatever the outcome"? Are you concerned that if the proposal succeeds this time, it will be followed by repeated requests to move it back? Largoplazo (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can see that happening. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. If you look at the interest over the past 30 days, you’ll see the recent spike was actually three individual (progressively smaller) spikes on the 18, 22, and 26 June, the days “Czechia” played at the UEFA Euro 2024. The trends after the 26th, however, look pretty much the same as before the 18th. The spikes were, no doubt, the result of the country being referred to as “Czechia” throughout the tournament. We’ll almost certainly see a similar spike during the Olympics (where the country will also be referred to as “Czechia”), the question is whether or not that trend continues after they are over. I certainly think we should wait at least two months before making a decision. Brainiac242 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Whatever the outcome"? Are you concerned that if the proposal succeeds this time, it will be followed by repeated requests to move it back? Largoplazo (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Move - The IIHF has been using Czechia, since 2022. GoodDay (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Move - We've just had the European Cup, and Czechia was used by preference there (see UEFA website). Czechia has always been the better title in terms of the five key article naming criteria, especially "concision" and "consistency with other articles", but so far it has failed to achieve consensus because of the equally important (though never "sole") threshold of Common Name. This is changing so fast now that I see no point in continuing to play Canute and order the tide back.Doric Loon (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see the general consensus above to see the impact of the Olympics was ignored. That seems a shame, it was a good idea. CMD (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis Indeed, we had actually agreed to wait till the autumn. Doric Loon (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, let's just shut this conversation down. It goes against what we already agreed on. Chrz (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it actually hasn't been listed ad a formal RM yet anyway... The necessary templates aren't at the top of this section. So we could just archive it and reconvene in a few months... — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- No objection, but the OP should probably voice an opinion first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but something has to change one way or the other. Either this needs to be closed, or the OP needs to open it as a real RM discussion for a full 7+ days. One thing that cannot happen is for an "informal" discussion such as this one, only visible to those who watch the page, to result in the move of a long-term controversial page. — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- If @SVeach94 didn't start this WP:RM#CM correctly, they need to fix that, sure. Per comments in this thread, I think they should also consider withdrawing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but something has to change one way or the other. Either this needs to be closed, or the OP needs to open it as a real RM discussion for a full 7+ days. One thing that cannot happen is for an "informal" discussion such as this one, only visible to those who watch the page, to result in the move of a long-term controversial page. — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- No objection, but the OP should probably voice an opinion first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it actually hasn't been listed ad a formal RM yet anyway... The necessary templates aren't at the top of this section. So we could just archive it and reconvene in a few months... — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, let's just shut this conversation down. It goes against what we already agreed on. Chrz (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis Indeed, we had actually agreed to wait till the autumn. Doric Loon (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - while it might be that some sea change would follow the Olympics, and it would certainly have been better to wait at least until then, but in any case this request is entirely lacking in any sort of evidence, sourcing or other things which are essential if a long-term title is to be changed. Anyway, on the substance of the question, when we assess ngram evidence up until 2019, the common name was overwhelmingly in favour of the current title, Czech Republic.[12] There's a slight uptick from when the name Czechia first started being recommended, around 10 years ago, but nothing substantial enough to suggest that five years on Czechia might have overtaken Czech Republic. That's not to say that some sources don't use Czechia, of course they do. But a much larger volume use Czech Republic. Or at least they did at the last RM, and no evidence has been given here to suggest otherwise. When WP:COMMONNAME is met by a large margin, that's the only policy we need assess, as it follows from the policy page that this offers the best evidence of the other criteria being met. — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- "They" may have persuaded the Czech Olympic Committee and CIA Factbook, but how much does that matter compared to [13]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait Your impatience may have just ruined it for the whole next year. >:( Edit: Since the proposal was not formally submitted and it ignores previous agreements, I suggest ending the discussion and resuming it no sooner than September 2024. Alternatively, we could formalize the discussion about the move and keep it open until September. I am not happy that the proposer put the entire burden of proof on the supporters, while himself only brought such a non-argument that was never enough in a previous RM. >:-| Chrz (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Move - We will move it sooner or later anyway, the scales seem to be tipped already. Though I would suggest to wait at least until the end of the Olympics as was proposed earlier. Qertis (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Close this informal discussion and wait +-2 months. Due to the unofficial nature of the request, there is no point in commenting further. Apparently, waiting has its supporters both among opponents and supporters of the move. The gentleman's agreement to wait until after the OG should be followed. FromCzech (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- As @FromCzech put it, we had a gentleman's agreement and should stick to it. I think in fact we have a consensus about that. I am going to add a "close discussion" tag, because otherwise this will drag on. Let's say we'll revisit it in October. Doric Loon (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2024 (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.