Talk:Name of the Czech Republic/Archive 1

Some example
Here is some example of nonsensical rejecting of using one-word name of the country. See: http://www.last.fm/group/Orchestral+Composer+of+the+Week./forum/1251377/_/2056694 Normal respondent does not know what was the Czech Republic in the past, only knows, that certainly was not "Czech republic". Nobody should want him to have that knowledge. As is proved in the text of the page (link), it arose from unability to call the country in general, then by ONE WORD, NEUTRAL and UNPOLITICAL name !!! Let CZECHIA live and spread !! The results and consequencies of the absence of common name is akward and totally impractical !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neewi (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathesius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vil%C3%A9m_Mathesius I would like to bring up opinions of Mathesius - every cultural act implies a certain discipline that the confusing complexity of the system is necessary to simplify deliberately to get the concept with which is possible to continue in work. Thus, Česko and Czechia also in historical context, it is neutral, not the mess of historical names of the country, that confuses all recipients, that usually don´t care about detailed knowledge, but need basic information. Retarded bureaucrats don´t understand this need. Czech Republic as geographical short name of the country is a perverted nonsense.

Czechia pages and links
http://www.czechia-initiative.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJyAidlfsvU http://www.facebook.com/pages/Czechia/183105765093521?ref=ts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neewi (talk • contribs) 10:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Continual deletion of Czechia article also on discussion page ? !!!!!
Mr. Mewulwe, is that article so dangerous, that you need to delete it also in discussion ?!!

Completely deleted article again:

Czechia
Jan Blanický 17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

Czechia vs. Chechnya fallacy
"Czechia" sounds weird in English. I will be surprised if it comes into common English usage anytime soon. It also sounds like "Chechnya" which can cause confusion. I'm picturing Elizabeth Vargas on World News Tonight saying "riots in Czechia today" and I'm sure about 90% of her viewers will think she said "riots in Chechnya today". Alexander 007 10:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

.....sounds weird probably for you, but not for native English speakers :-), linguistically it is absolutely correct. Maybe Georgia must change its name because of existence of other Georgia, maybe Colombia must change its name because existence of Columbia, maybe Slovakia must change its name because of Slovenia, etc. etc., all the time those silly quasi-arguments......Maybe somebody needs change something because of ignorants, but it is not any rational reason109.80.140.32 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds weird in English? And how about Connecticut and Massachusetts? Completely weird for the English language! And who cares? The names of other 100 countries? Weird in English. Thames (River in London)? Not English. With non-English pronunciation. Who cares that it is "weird" in English? And using an adjective as a name of a country, absolutely weird in English (using Pole instead of Poland) and also in other Indo-European languages. (Harry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.163.95 (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Czechia
In this article are many half-truth predications. The article "Czechia" (one-word name of the Czech Republic)" was deleted without disscussion, however contains all (geographic, linguistic, historical, legislative etc.) relevant proofs, that confirm the correctness of the name Czechia, supported by many references and statements of experts and explains some fallacies like "Chechnya". Jan Blanický 18:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

CZECHIA - one word of the Czech Republic - completely deleted article by Mewulwe censor, what was supported by his other friends from Wikipedia and blank page redirected to this page (that brings only half-truths about the problem). The article is now only on my personal site for the people, that want to know, what the problem really is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neewi
Neewi (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for detailing the history of the name Czechia and its proper use for English speakers. I hope it returns to the Name of the Czech Republic. That would be the perfect place for this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidushaka(talk • contribs) 05:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article is now in short form also in Convozine / Czechia zine - http://convozine.com/952-czechia Jan Blanický 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

Other Czechia page on http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33578494134(talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.80.140.32 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC) === and special article about mechanisms of censorship in Wikipedia was published in Lidové noviny server Neviditelný pes: http://neviditelnypes.lidovky.cz/internet-wikipedistan-0bt-/p_spolecnost.asp?c=A110824_213540_p_spolecnost_wag Jan Blanický 21:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC) ==== ===

I don't understand why somebody deletes good articles with sources. When it's gone, nobody sees it and we cannot even discuss about it. Can't you just correct it and defend your edits? Amdamdes7 (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not a good article, it was a POV essay lecturing people on why they should use the term Czechia. Wikipedia is not the correct forum for that.We already cover the facts in the Name of the Czech Republic article, without inserting a POV. --Khajidha (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Czechomoravia
What about Czechomoravia? Isn't there some debate about using this name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.122 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that would leave out Silesia. The name should be Bomosia. - 70.71.154.237 19:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

BOHEMIA was used for over thousand years (880-1912) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Czech_lands and is the only name worth mentioning. --IEEE 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

--84.42.224.123 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)tady mohu psát,klidně i bez přihlášení?

Czech view from Czech on the name for our country
I'm Czech (to be precise - I'm Moravian) from Czech Republic. Few years passed and things settled down. Here's a short description how we call ourselves now, April 2006.

In Czech language people accepted word "Česko" for a name for our Czech Republic. It took some time but it's settled down. No Czechomoravia or so. "Česko" is used in newspapers or on TV.

We still don't have one word name for Czech Republic in English. Maybe "Czech" will be accepted by people in the future. We don't want to use "Czechia" because it sounds very similar to Czechnya and lot of foreigners can be confused then.

We, people of non-Bohemian parts of the Czech Republic, are proud of our origin, but we accept to be called Czechs and we often call us also Czech. If we would like to point out our origin, we call ourselves Moravian or Sliesian, but there's no fight if somebody calls Moravian to be a Czech ;-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.231.230 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Talking about Czechia one should visit http://www.czechia.com/ and http://www.czechia.cz/ which are nothing but domain names of a private Czech internet provider. Does really anybody belief that Czechia is officially promoted alternative for Czech Republic? Clearly the owner of the domains would do his best to promote them but who else? Cepek 15:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the letter printed in the Czech version of National Geographic (listed under External Links), you can see that some people really have a bee up their bonnet about this. -- Mwalcoff 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read it and much more. If you can read Czech, you can read internal document http://www.mzv.cz/servis/soubor.asp?id=13567 of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Czech Republic. The memo says in brief that the situation is not so simple as some might want it to be. Cepek 07:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Who "we". I use Czechia, it is only correct name for the country. Geographical name for the Czech Republic. "Czech" as the name of the ncountry is absurd nonsense, identical with inhabitant, language and adjective - illiterate, confusing and improper.Aleatorica (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct geographical name of one part of the state is Moravia. The whole areas geographical name is the Czech Republic now, as it was legally stated as the consequence of the disintegration of larger whole in the beginning of current division. After/if the state extends its area, the it could be the name for the new state. And of course, this unimaginable situation could never happen. --90.181.194.203 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

POV
Hi, I have inserted POV because of three things:
 * 1) the external links list only pro-"Česko" articles, not giving balanced view (I do not object the fact that the selection is unbalanced, although it is not good too, but that the articles do not provide correct informations - in other words, you may be pro-Česko advocate without telling lies or half-truths ...)
 * 2) the paragraph starting Many people use the word "Čechy" to refer to the entire Czech Republic ... is misleading, it looks like it was written by some anti-Prague Silesian ... the fact is that the words "Čechy" and "Česko" were always synonyms (if you can speak Czech see ), with "Čechy" meaning the whole republic not only for people from Prague and "Česko" being considered obsolete except the "Československo" usage
 * 3) there is missing information that the word "Česko" has the both meanings (Bohemia and Czech Republic) too, i.e. "Česko" and "Čechy" are full synonyms

Where you took this nonsense ? Czechia (Česko) = Bohemia (Čechy), Moravia (Morava) and Silesia (Slezsko) From the ARTICLE, DELETED BY ADMINS: Jan Blanický 22:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

As the article states correctly, the word "Česko" was reintroduced as a separate word again by media after the 1989 "revolution", together with some fabricated anti-Bohemian movement, which was largely boosted by the politicians making such steps as dividing the country into two republics without support from the people (no plebiscit ...) or introducing officially the "Moravian" nationality.

btw, the word "Česko" is constructed wrongly, it should be "Češsko", but such simplification is allowed in Czech language (or at least it was legalised by the common use)

Sorry, but I do not feel competent to fix the article my self, I am not language expert, but I can see obvious errors - the abovementioned page is maintained by Czech language authority and it clearly states what I say for the second and third objection (and the "btw" note).

... and sorry for any errors in English language ;-) --Kavol 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your English is pretty good. You can always post a proposed addition on the talk page to have it proofread before you put it in the article.


 * The link you mention makes it clear that "Čechy" and "Česko" were originally used interchangably to some extent. However, I had been under the impression that the only "correct" use of "Čechy" today is to mean "Bohemia." The Czech Wikipedia article on "Čechy" begins, "Čechy jsou jednou ze 3 historických zemí v dnešním Česku." -- Mwalcoff 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I did not examine the other articles, maybe more POVs should be inserted ... later on, the article says: "Použití názvu Čechy pro celý stát je nesprávné a na Moravě a ve Slezsku je někdy chápáno urážlivě." The first part (It is incorrect to use "Čechy" describing the whole state) is not true, see above, while the second part (it is understood as offensive in Moravia and Silesia sometimes) gives us the explanation of the whole problem. Some of the Moravian people hate when they are described as Czechs and they want to have clear distinction between Bohemia and Moravia. But then the problem arises again, because some of the Silesian people hate to be described as Moravians and they insist that Moravia has to be divided into Moravia and Silesia. Then some of the Silesian people do not feel enough Silesian and the prefer to be called "Gorol" (living in "Gorolie" - the region where Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland meets) ... and you can imagine that there are many other groups; some of them agree that they are part of the bigger group and some not. Long time ago, this was not a problem since the country is united for eight centuries (not counting such thigs like the Bohemia was ruled by the king and Moravia by his son etc.), and if there were some people unhappy with the second meaning "Čechy" = "Bohemia and the appended lands", nobody listened to them.
 * But then, after 1989 there was some hate propaganda against Bohemia and even against Prague as the capital city which catched well thanks to the grassroots of the peoples' stupidity ("look, they are higher salaries in Prague, it is uneven!" - but nobody added that there are much higher prices too). The well known case is the "war" of the name - the old name "Czechoslovak Socialist Republic" was unwanted because of the word "socialist" but there was a lot of artificial discussion about replacing "Czechoslovak" with "Czech and Slovak" or "Czecho-slovak", because it was said that the Slovaks are unhappy to be the second and "Czechoslovakia" allegedly does not reflect that the republics are equal in rights. That is the time when the lie "Čechy means only Bohemia" emerged and it grows and grows. Again, it was largely supported by the people stupidity, because the term "Česko" was not in common use by that time, so a lot of people did not know what it exactly means and it was easy to tell them that these are not synonyms. Maybe, because of the propaganda, one day the second meaning of "Čechy" will diminish. But since the Czech language is determined by the common use, this day is still far away - you will have to wait until the people used not to use "Česko" outside the compound "Československo" die. (You may compare this partially to the acceptance of the word "Czechia" within the English language ...)
 * btw, as I repeat several times that it is matter of propaganda, you may be wondering why, what is it good for - well, the reason is marketing (once again, the money rule), as you may read for example within the abovementioned document (in Czech, sorry ...)
 * p.s. See the article Bohemia: Note: In the Czech language there is no distinction between adjectives referring to Bohemia and the Czech Republic, i.e. český means both Bohemian and Czech.' - can you imagine that "český" for Bohemian was derived from "Čechy" and the same word "český" for Czech was derived from "Česko" ...? - no, all the words have the same base and the same problem with ambiguousness. Or we may go for an example to sports - the fans are shouting "Češi do toho!" (roughly "Go, Czechs, go!") and nobody is worried that some of the players are actually Moravian or Silesian ... --Kavol 16:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What you are saying above, Kavol, is complete non-sense, you have obviously no idea, so please find another place for your personal campaign. You are free to add any links you deem relevant, the POV tag is definitely out of place. Juro 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, be so kind and provide some real arguments. I have posted a link to Czech Language Institute page - do you have some source proving that their data are wrong? --Kavol 16:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of the facts here is wrong. You are confusing history with present, etymology with usage, personal opinions with codified versions ...that's just an incredible mess that cannot be reacted to, the only thing I can say is that what you are saying is wrong. A proposal: stop playing a philosoper and just write down here the sentences you do not like and offer concrete new versions for each. But as far as I am concerend the article is almost perfect and needs no changes (and I am not the author). Juro 08:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is much more sense in what Kavol has said compared with your reply to his comment. So please, do not offend and try to argue instead. --Cepek 08:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am Czech from Prague so I guess I'm not biased in favour of these 'anti-Prague Silesians'. However, what Kavol said is largely incorrect:


 * "Čechy" and "Česko" were never synonyms. Czechoslovakia comprised "Čechy", "Morava", and "Slovensko"; "Silesia" was sometimes added as the fourth part. Word "Česko" was virtually unknown until 1993.


 * Even before 1989 (I clearly remember it), people in Moravia were slightly offended by using "Čechy" to describe area where they lived. Using term "Čechy" also for Moravia and Silesia was sort of lazyness – similar to phrase 'I went to visit my friends in England. I spend a week in Oxford and a week in Cardiff.' Rootee 14:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bohemia
Bohemia is the only valid name for the region we speak about. All centruries way back to Roman Empire historical maps show Boem, Boheme, Bohemia. The point that Bohemia is only a part of Moravia+Silesia+Bohemia is not valid because all those lands were always refered under one name of Kingdom of Bohemia or Bohemian Crown Lands that consistet of these three regions. Czech was local naming for Czech people in Bohemia and the word Bohemia was always the name for the whole region. Is was so because in early days Bohemia was inhabited by mix of cultures of German, Czech, Hungarian, Bavarian, Saxon etc. origin so there was no dispute about naming of the region. Czech**, that would be never accepted by Germans or other non-Czech inhabitants of that area. In fact today Czech** naming is strongly nacionalistic from that point of view and is not at all nice and well respected at least in informed german/english communities. The phonetical and written form of Czech** is also not a very pleasing one (at least for the English speaker) as someone said it sounds very much like Chechnia and that really is confusing. Also I have to say that all early Bohemian (before WW2) emigrants in NY speak of the country that they came from as of Bohemia (not Czech**) hence the Bohemian House in NY etc. --IEEE 08:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is just plainly and incredibly wrong. Juro 15:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If that is wrong why the Bohemia name was the official name for over a thousand years then? As even you may see for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Czech_lands. 880-1912 Bohemia the official name, that is a very very long time. More interesting point here is why you Juro are so against this idea and also most Czechs are against that idea too. Why you want to trash that name so much ? --IEEE 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Most Bohemians are not against this idea. Most Moravians (and Silesians) are. --Mormegil 14:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Still why have you exchanged Bohemia for Czech Republic? Bohemia was one of the richest European regions in its time and very well respected. Its like trading Porsche brand for Skoda brand. Also if Bohemia name was used for thousand years why trash it then? It makes absolutely no sense. --IEEE 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One question to Mormegil. Are Silesians against the name Poland? If not (presumably), why they are against Bohemia? Otherwise I fully agree with you, Bohemia is out of question because of Czech patriots from Moravia (in contrast to you, I do not know if because of most of them) --Cepek 08:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another question: why Agnes of Bohemia is not named Agnes of Czechia then ? --IEEE 06:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * user:Juro without explaination deleted my Bohemia article. --IEEE 06:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, Bohemia = Czech, what do you think ?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Czech Kingdom of Bohemia and Magraviate of Moravia were historical lands, they existed with strong kings of House of Přemyslid.
 * Official name in Middle Ages was Čechy. In Latin Bohemia--Posp68 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth
In French, "Tchéquie" seems to be accepted by everyone as the standard. It's weird that in english you have to say "the Czech Republic" but in French you can just say "Tchéquie". It probably struggles in English because we don't have any 3 syllable "-ia" names. Slovakia, Croatia, Australia, (Russia!), Albania...maybe Asia is the closest we have. Stevage 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Though if you ask many Australians, Australia is two syllables: /ˈstɹæɪ.jə/ --Xyzzyva 14:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And what about Austria? Russia, too, has two syllables. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "the"
Can someone explain some English grammar to me? Why is it that referring to the Czech Republic, we always need the article "the" in front?


 * Ah, the banes of every Slav learning English -- a, an and the. I guess all country names that include a generic identifier in them require an article: the United States, the Soviet Union, the Czech Republic. Because "states," "union" and "republic" are not themselves names, they require a "the" if they are definite. -- Mwalcoff 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Some vs. Many
Is not there a neutral English expression that would cover both some and many in the article? Otherwise there will be a never ending series of reverts. Cepek 08:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there some statistics? In my personal view some people object to Cesko and many people use Cechy. (If anybody cares: I use both terms, Cechy and Cesko, probably with the roughly the same frequency. In informal talk, I use Cechy probably more often, I never use it in a more formal document. ) --Jirka6 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can find a survey that shows just how many people use each word, that would solve the problem. The word "some" can mean anything from three to 3 billion. So "some" isn't incorrect; it just sounds weak to those who want to say "many." -- Mwalcoff 23:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, but try to explain this to that guy with dynamic IP who still change "some" to "many"... --kokpit | talk 09:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC
I just requested a bot to do a search and replace for instances of "Czechia" outside of Czech Republic and Names of the Czech Republic. I just put in the request because I've stumbled across a few pages written by Germans (in whose language "Tschechien" or "Tschechei" is considered standard). Does everyone feel this is in order? Any comments? samwaltz 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Any history related article should be excluded as well, when Czechia is used as a name for the geographic area, where the Czech Republic is a political entity. --User:Krator (t c) 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, Czechia had Charles IV as its king, Czech Republic did not. Using Czech lands or Bohemia in a historical context is probably better/more common than using Czechia, but using Czech Republic is clearly wrong. --Jirka6 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC) --Jirka6 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm against it. Just because Czechia is not yet widely used does not mean it is wrong, either. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you gentlemen get your information from, but Czechia is very much in use in English academic circles, and in fact preferred, rightfully so in my opinion. Many ministers and politicians continue using the short-form CZECHIA, because it WAS actually adopted and agreed upon after the split with Slovakia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidushaka (talk • contribs) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Czecho"
In English Wikipedia, " [ Czecho] " redirects to Czech Republic. Is Czecho used "FREQUENTLY" by English speakers?


 * PS: In South Korea and Japan, Czecho (Korean Hangul: 체코, RR: Cheko, IPA: ; Japanese: チェコ, Hepburn: Cheko, IPA: ) is used as official short name for Czechia, and Czecho Republic (Korean Hangul: 체코공화국, mixed script of Hangul and Hanja: 체코共和國, RR: Cheko-gonghwaguk, IPA: ; Japanese with Shinjitai: チェコ共和国, with Kyūjitai: チェコ共和國, Hepburn: Cheko-kyōwakoku, IPA: ) is done as official full name for Czech Republic.

― 韓斌 /  Yes0song  (談笑  筆跡  다지모 ) 19:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Languages like Japanese has to use a name like Cheko, because they need a vowel at the end. Orchestra is o-ke-su-tu-ra. They cannot pronounce several consonants like "str". (Harry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.163.95 (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Czechland
I personally would suggest that Czechland be considered as the informal name for the Czech Republic. It sounds a bit less contrived than Czechia. Has anyone else thought of that? It worked for the Thais (Thailand) and the Swazis (Swaziland), so why not the Czechs? Kelisi 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's kind of a German-sounding name for a Slavic-speaking country. In any case, Wikipedia is not really the place to launch proposals.. AnonMoos 03:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth I would think they should use "Bohemia" as a common short form, following the Holland model, and the Czech Republic as a more formal name. Obviously, however, Wikipedia isn't such a place to launch a campaign. YeshuaDavid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

Czechland sounds fine. But can anybody explain what's wrong with Czechia? Why Anglophones oppose it? Hellerick (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should be discussing here what is should be called, as we are not in a position to implement anything beyond what is written in Wikipedia articles. We should be discussing what it is called.  It doesn't matter if you think it should be called Bohemia or Czechia or Czechomoravia or whatever.  The plain fact is it's not--not commonly anyway.  The whole reason the article exists is because there is confusion over what to call the country, and I think that is expressed accurately in the article as it stands.Djob (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite right - it's not about what we should say but what we do. As a native English speaker I always say Czechia. After the split of Czechoslovakia into Slowakia and something else, Czechia was the obvious thing to say. Sounds totally natural and much less clumsy and un-English than longer forms. Which is why many of us like it. It's a mystery to me why so many people seem almost emotionally opposed. Anyway, that's not relevant. All that matters for Wiki purposes is that Czechia is currently the less common form, but is nevertheless quite widely used. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I call it Moravia.--Pavel Fric (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Orthography
Is it true that the orthography of "Czech" comes via Polish?

No. Yopie 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the first use of the word "Czech" in the English language dates only to the 19th century, so its first users either opted for Polish spelling or archaic Czech spelling, which also used the "cz" combination. -- Mwalcoff 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * so, apparently it did come from the Polish spelling 1 2 --200.225.90.10 17:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The first Latin usage of the word Czechia is by the Czech lutheran exulant Pavel Stránský ze Záp, 1634. Diagraphs disappeared from Czech during 15th century but is sure that they were used for transcription of Czech speech sounds to Latin (see e.g. House of Czernin). --ŠJů (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And he meant Bohemia.--Pavel Fric (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Etymology
I'd be interested in knowing the etymology of the word "Czech", where it came from in the first place. J I P &#124; Talk 20:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From List of country name etymologies: "From Čechové (Češi, i.e. Czechs), the name of one of the Slavic tribes on the country's territory, which subdued the neighboring Slavic tribes around 900. The origin of the name of the tribe itself remains unknown. According to a legend, it comes from their leader Čech, who brought them to Bohemia. Most scholarly theories regard Čech as a sort of obscure derivative, e.g. from Četa (military unit)." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Czech word "četa" was borrowed in the 18th or 19th century from South-Slavic languages and is relative to the word "počet" (a number) and "číst" (to read). Surely not the right source of the word "Czech". The word Czech is derived rather from the stem "čel-" which is included also in the word "člověk" (a man, a human beeing) or "čeleď" (an archaic word for the broad family together with house servants). However, also other theories exist. The a bit expressive ending "-ch" was used similarly as "holý" (bare, hairless) → "hoch" (a boy), "bratr" (a brother) → "brach" etc. --ŠJů (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

OR ???
What's "Own Research" on this fact?: "Czechia - this wordfirst documented in 1866 (Latest from Prussia. The Mercury, page 4, Saturday 21 July 1866)"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Askave's edits and why I reverted them.
Askave, the reason I reverted your changes was that your phrasing was completely unintelligible gibberish. Rewrite this section in actual English, please: The traditional name of the country in English is Bohemia. It comes from the Celtic tribe of Boii which inhabited the area from the 4th century BC. The original Latin name Boiohaemum comes from Germanic Boi-heim meaning "home of the Boii." The name survived all the following migrations affecting the area including the arrival of the Slavic tribes and creation of the Czech state. The country was then known officially as the Duchy, and later Kingdom, of Bohemia and from the 14th century as the Crown of Bohemia. The name Bohemia persisted for centuries, however - as well as contemporary Czech state - has consisting of three historical lands, Bohemia in narrower meaning (Čechy), Moravia (Morava) and Czech Silesia (Slezsko), temporarily also of the Upper and Lower Lusatia (from the 14th century until 1635). The reason for it consisted in former higher hierarchical status of Bohemian part of the country (Kingdom of Bohemia / The Moravian Margraviate / The Principality of Silesia). Also, the Czech people and their language were for centuries called "Bohemian" in English. During the rise of national revival in the 19th century did the derivative of the Czech endonym (using antiquated Czech or Polish spelling[7]) appear in English to distinguish between Czech- and German-speaking ethnicities living in the country. The first evidence of the name of the country, containing the same verbal basis - Czechia [ˈtʃɛki.ə] - using by English speakers comes from 1866[8] being identical with original Latin appellation, which has appeared sporadically from the first half of the 17th century[9].

The major change came in 1918 when the Austro-Hungarian monarchy disintegrated, the king of Bohemia was deposed and the new Republic of Czechoslovakia was proclaimed, despite the original proposals[10] for using the traditional name of Bohemia for the new state. The new name reflected the union of Czech and Slovak people and contained officially for the first time in history the English variant "Czech", which was until then employed only to denote ethnic or Czech-speaking Bohemians.

With the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993 the question of the new short-form name of the country appeared. Despite the decision of political representation in the beginning of the new Czech state and promotion of the name "Czechia" by the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport in the nineties[11], it has not been fully adopted by the Czech and foreign authorities or the general public and remains only rarely used, predominantly in media and scholarly circles[12] As "Czechia" remains uncommon, and the long form is unwieldy, uneducated people often resort to the adjective "Czech" (this is similar to "Dominican" used for the Dominican Republic and "Saudi" for Saudi Arabia)[13]. In 2013, the name "Czechia" appeared for the first time in the dictionary of top Czech politicians, commonly used by Czech president Miloš Zeman [14]. --Khajidha (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, but I think the comment about "unintelligible gibberish" was not necessary. The issue is a little bit complicated to explain properly and I already rewrote it.Askave (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

AFD on a related article
Notice of an AFD on a related article: Articles for deletion/Czechia - the name dispute-- Mojo Hand (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Photobucket? Really
Why are several references in this article to a photobucket account and not to the texts the photos depict? --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Latin
Okay, how is the Latin origin of Czechia relevant enough to English usage to be mentioned in the lead paragraph? Yes, it should be (and is) mentioned later in the article but I fail to see how it is important enough to be in the lead. I have removed it from the lead twice and been reverted by 64.134.240.84 both times, so I am bringing this here gauge consensus and try to avoid an edit war. The sentence in question is "The English equivalent "Czechia" /ˈtʃɛki.ə/, though attested as early as 1866,[1] and in 1634 in Latin, is rarely used in the English-speaking world". --Khajidha (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup, I can't see why a name in a rarely-used language needs to be in the lede either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't the reason that English language adopted (borrowed?) this name from Latin, as many other words, especially country names ending "-ia"? --ŠJů (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why it's mentioned in the article, but this was asking about why it would be mentioned in the lead. This was settled over a year ago, with the 1866 date for English usage in the lead and the Latin source mentioned later on. --Khajidha (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Generally, origin (birth) and ending (death) belong to the basic facts about every item, even though they are not so essential as the events in between. Even the specification when Czech lands get definitively together (and formed any unit which can be called Czechia) should be mentioned. 1969 and 1993 are surely not years of origin of Czechia, even though 1969 was established the first Czech republic. Btw. the "lost" lands of the Bohemian Crown are commonly not count to Czechia, i.e. Czechia is defined rather by the Czech language than by the Bohemian Crown or even the recent republic. --ŠJů (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are using origin in two different ways. You are confusing source with first usage in English. Yes, the sequence CZECHIA was first used in Latin. But the origin of the English word (in the sense of first usage) is the first usage in English. --Khajidha (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Origin of the English word is in the Latin word, because English language borrowed this word from Latin. Literally, without any change. With a typical Latin ending. It's not some random homonymy of a "sequence". --ŠJů (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point. Yes, the English word was borrowed from Latin. But before that it was a Latin word. The first usage of Czechia in English is its origin in English and all that needs to be mentioned in the lead. The derivation from Latin is only relevant to the etymology section. --Khajidha (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeless overlap of the article
I think, the article should cover not only the debate revived past 1993, but also the previous history of names of Czechia. One-word geographical names of Czech lands appeared rarely since the 17th century, and more in the 19th century. Around 1938, the word Česko was promoted by František Trávníček, a well-known Moravian linguist, even though Czechia had not its separate republic yet (even the consequent protectorate was not a republic). Paradoxically, in 1960 dictionary, the word "Česko" is characterized as "zastaralé" ("obsolete", "archaic").

Shouldn't be the name of this article rather "Name of Czechia" or "Name of Czech lands" to cover the history before 1993 or even before 1969? I think, "Name of Czechia" would be most timeless and universal name for this article, because "Name of Czech lands" is too focused to the monarchic past. --ŠJů (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about the various names of the country that is best known in English as the Czech Republic. Czechia should not be used in the title of this article any more than it should be used in the name of the country article. --Khajidha (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Czech Republic is a very young political unit, while the country itself (Czechia, Czech lands) existed hundreds years before the republic. That's the basic distinction between geographical name of the country and political name of the state unit. --ŠJů (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And? Nobody is disputing this point. What is being disputed is whether that geographical name has any currency in English. I only came across Czechia a few years ago when people started saying that English usage was wrong. For example, Arthur Conan Doyle didn't write about "A Scandal in Czechia". And if you understand that reference, you will know what the traditional English geographic name for this region is. --Khajidha (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Khajidha, how name English and educated English-language people used for Czechia before 1969, when the country of Czechia had not it's own republic yet but was the west part of the unitary state of Czechoslovakia, as well as Slovakia was the east part? --ŠJů (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How much was it used? This ngram certainly doesn't show it as having general usage: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Czech+Republic%2CCzechoslovakia%2CCzechia%2CBohemia&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CCzech%20Republic%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CCzechoslovakia%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CCzechia%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CBohemia%3B%2Cc0 --Khajidha (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Name Change
Since adoption is becoming more common. I think now is the time to rename this page to Name of Czechia.

Some notable adoptions: Google Maps, CIA World Factbook, US State Dept, Apple system settings, Common Locale Database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetauber (talk • contribs) 09:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The name of ts article should match the name of the country article. If that changes, this one can be changed or (more likely) done away with.--Khajidha (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There is some debate there about what should happen. I think both need to be changed here and there. I think also that this page should be kept since it's an interesting topic. Stevetauber (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is properly referenced text being deleted from the article, including the evidence?
This text that was properly referenced by the original source from 1621 was labeled as vandalism by R9tgokunks and deleted because it updated the obviously much more recent and inaccurate information based on other dictionaries and not original sources. Wikipedia should use original sources where possible. “The current English ethnonym Czech comes from the ethnonym associated with the area, which was used by Peter Heylyn in the form of Czechian in 1621: ‘… the people whereof in their own language call themselves Czechians’. Source: Heylyn, Peter: Mikrokosmos A little description of the great world. Augmented and revised, 1621, p. 298. Retrieved 5. February, 2018. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A03149.0001.001/1:10.7.10?rgn=div3;view=fulltext Please revert these changes back and use the original source as evidence instead of other dictionaries. As evidenced by Peter Heylyn's book from 1621, it is a myth that the spelling of the word Czech comes from 19th century Polish. The spelling originally comes from old Czech. While Czech changed "Cz" to "Č", Polish did not. Unless R9tgokunks has an older original evidence, he or she should not be removing the text and references to original sources.Geog25 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I fully support this statement above Helveticus96 (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the section below. R9tgokunks   ✡  07:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Misleading title, misleading information
I should ask you the same thing that your title asks. In this edit, not only did you delete the information, but you also deleted the sources from Collins Dictionary and American Heritage Dictionary, without explanation, of which they both explain the etymology of Czech in English as coming from Polish; these are neither inaccurate nor not original sources. The sources are both highly respected and established sources used all over Wikipedia. I've added Oxford's etymology of the word to help show consenus amongst English scholars. (Oxford Dictionary is also considered the largest, and most premier English dictionary.) As for your addition, the source you provided does not support the content you added. There is also no context as to why it is the way it is. Your addition amounts to WP:Original research. Not only that, but the text was originally published by... Oxford! Re-adding it would be highly disingenuous. Just because you just don't like it, doesn't mean you can remove that information or the sources. R9tgokunks  ✡  04:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if the word "Czechians" was used by an English speaking author in the publication in 1621, it would mean that the spelling we use in English today did not come from 19th century Polish. Also, there is a plenty of evidence of the use of the term Czechia in Latin in the 15th century. Furthermore, as stated above, old Czech used "cz" but modern Czech is not using it. How referring to original publications amounts to WP:Original research? And I do not understand your point about the fact that Oxford published the 1621 Peter Heylyn's publication and also the dictionary proving the 1621 publication wrong. It is not about liking or disliking because I could not care less about where the current spelling comes from. It is about the accuracy of the information provided by Wikipedia. Geog25 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

...I fully support Geog25 - realiable sources and logic against stubborn repetion of erroneous misinterpretation, however from respected source. Also respected source is not immune from error. They are a lot of historical documents (already presented), that support the stance of Geog25, making your claim incorrect. In addition - instead to discuss the issue in itself - to blame the other of the subjective motives is unfair, moreover, it is suspicious from the strategy how to enforce another subjective motivation ......Heptapolein (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Geog25. The sources provided show that he's right. I don't get this negative fuss from the admins at all. Oasis98 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , check this situation out. We need to be wary of more edits like this. R9tgokunks   ✡  07:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

... who is "WE" ? Some confederacy of "wiki owners of truth" ? And you are that one who has right to judge it ? If your sentence is not POV, what else ? Incredible in encyclopedia, which declares itself free Heptapolein (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Have fun being blocked again, Blanikcy. -  R9tgokunks   ⭕  01:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What about freedom of expression? I am not sure if you have it in your country, but here in Czechia we certainly do and we value freedom greatly. Banning people who express themselves against your views could be considered as a toxic behavior. --EUStudent6 (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Section "Name of the Czech Republic" is way too large.
Aforementioned section has way too many instances of "_____ started using Czechia on ______". Most of these are trivial and are private companies and appear to be added on an almost daily basis by. We don't need to mention every single company or usage of Czechia, only for major U.S./U.K./Australia/Canada governmental organizations and intl. ones such as the United Nations. This section needs to be drastically condensed. R9tgokunks  ⯃  23:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's also misleading because there is no parallel trivial list of statements like "As of June 2, 2018 the New York Times has not started using Czechia", etc., which would be a much longer list. Doremo (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah. Few lines can't hurt. These lines are needed too - to align with high picture of Pilsner Urquell ;) It is a chapter about adoption, not about those who resist, don't undermine it with list of newspaper which hasn't started yet. Don't be scared of growing usage, do not try to silence it :D Well OK, Ottawa Citizen, Edmonton Journal or Buffalo News may not be the most important examples, maybe it could be hidden like: More newspaper jumped aboard in 2018(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref). Chrzwzcz (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They definitely can. It's not encyclopedic and damages the flow and tightness of the article. Also, per the asinine statement "Don't be scared of growing usage, do not try to silence it," Wikipedia is not an advertisement for any kind of view. Wikipedia moves with the world, it doesn't dictate it's direction. That's a fundamentally flawed view of the mission of Wikipedia. R9tgokunks   ⯃  06:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is a "list-type" section, but these also exist in wikiarticles, so what. So show me how you would edit it. "Drastically" - no way, at least 3/4 of the section should stay. Chrzwzcz (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've edited it several times in the past to tighten the prose and make it less "And then blah blah blah. And then blah blah blah. And then blah blah blah." The biggest problem is that each thing gets added individually with no attempt to work it into the flow or combine similar items or items that occur at the same time. --Khajidha (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it does not chronologically appear at the same time. One month new newspaper, next month new organization, next month new social netowork, next month new newspaper... If you want to compress it, it would need to avoid exact dating. Chrzwzcz (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't. "News media in the United Kingdom and Ireland began using Czechia in late 2017 and early 2018, with The Independent,, The Times, and the Daily Mail changing in December 2017, the Financial Times in January 2018,  and The Guardian and The Irish Times in February 2018. " Each of those was added as a single sentence, which I combined (some time ago) into one while maintaining all the dates. --Khajidha (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And in another sentence you would write about maps though 2016 to 2018. And then about other websites from 2016 to 2018. Not chronological but based on type of media but jumping through years back and forth in that paragraph. I thought we want to establish here adoption chronologically in time. Never mind. Also I think R9tgokunks would chop your sentences even more, your proposal just removes unnecessary words but keeps the examples, so I like yours better :) Chrzwzcz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section is long, but the question is what you would want to see removed? All the examples given at the moment seem reasonably important, important enough to warrant a mention anyway. Jdcooper (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave it a go. Again, the main factor in the length is that each of these is being dogpiled on as a single thing. It reads like a child's "What I did on my summer vacation" essay ( "and then...and then...and then...and then...). --Khajidha (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , you need to be taking place in this discussion. Your edits are mostly the reason we had this problem. You can't keep adding every mention to the article. And please do not use promary sources per WP:CITE R9tgokunks   ⯃  18:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The length was your problem. No consensus was made to delete any examples, it was only agreed to delete repeating text and condense examples into enumerations. Czechia was mocked not to be used by the government and when you get facebook proof, you delete it. Really interesting. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy here: Consensus (for how consensus is reached), Article size(for the length of articles), Citing sources/ No_original_research (for citing better sources), What_Wikipedia_is_not (for what WP is not), (Category:Wikipedia guidelines) R9tgokunks   ⯃  19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So sport section violated all these but the rest is OK. You don't say. Just justifying your deleting edits with random rules. There's rules and contradictory rules for everything on wikipedia. There's easiest solution - accept Czechia on Wikipedia and you can delete like most of the article :D Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I have no idea what you just said. Also, please learn to space your comments appropriately. R9tgokunks  ⯃  05:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One "spacing typo" and it has to be mentioned, nice. Simply put: Does the remaining text in "Adoption of Czechia" section follow all those rules? Or you just deleted new text because it got too long for your taste? And second thing was: Czechia used on Wikipedia -> no such long article needed. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing patterns.
As mentioned above we've had many problems with the messy aspect of this section due to the edits of the aforementioned user. This user's recent edits completely ignored the concerns raised in the above section. The edits specifically added Newsweek, but they were quoting a hotel's website. The other addition was a blog post via The Spectator. The obvious issue with the Newsweek inclusion aside, we all need to read What Wikipedia is not and Reliable sources.
 * Blogs are rarely valid sources.
 * Facebook is never a valid source.
 * Compiling things like this amounts to borderline Original research. Just because you see a site use the spelling, doesn't mean you should bring it here.
 * Please refrain from using sites that have hard paywalls and need subscriptions. We can't do a Resource Request for 20-30 sources. It also makes these sources harder to WP:VERIFY.
 * We need valid analytical or governmental sources showing that relevant parties are shifting to this usage en masse.
 * Daily Mail is also not a valid source per this major discussion: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220.
 * Blog posts like this one from Forbes are also discouraged per WP:PUS and WP:BLOGS. The author is a contributor, and is not subject to the full editorial control, nor does he have the necessary qualifications ("I'm an author, nomad, speaker, and consultant; I have a B.A. from Amherst College and an MBA from Harvard Business School.) to make the generalizations he does about the proliferation of Czechia. Forbes blogs are known for being particularly unreliable per WP:PUS.

- R9tgokunks  ⯃  00:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * pinging  R9tgokunks   ⯃  00:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Old links were already reviewed and now you deleted it just like that. Facebook page was government source (facebook can be valid source if you want to know which name the government uses there, isn't it?!) Chrzwzcz (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they weren't reviewed. I only rewrote it so that it wasn't a total pile of crap that sounded like a 4th grader had written it. I made no decision on whether the links themselves belonged. --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You say cr*p, R9t says Czechia is bulls**t and you two gentleman decide how this article should look like. Marvelous.
 * So - OK, you deleted that blog link (filled with valuable verifiable info, but scary BLOG) but kept dated blog-like article from The Guardian with all the nonsenses and its improvised street polls. That article mocks Czech government and companies that they do not use it (so source articles do care if Czechs themselves use it). And you delete facebook page (because FB is not allowed) and government pages (primary sources) which proves otherwise. Also you delete Škoda and Pilsner Urquell, Czech top well known export companies, as uninteresting for "Anglosphere". It is interesting when Czechs do not use it, but not interesting when used? Common! At least someone cared.
 * I guess the other deleted links were not some high profile examples anyway. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am still not taking a position on the value of any of the links. As for "you two gentleman decide how this article should look like", the article should be written in actual English; not inexpertly translated Czech. --Khajidha (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actual English - of course and thanks for that. A lot of that was deleted afterwards, the sentences were in pristine English but contained "toxic" links, so reviewing might be the first step. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * However a factually acquainted user of the "actual English" is able to distinguish the country itself (which existed long time before the Czech Republic) and the present political system (Czech Republic). "Actual English" should be not interpreted as "a speech of the ignorant and uknowing English speakers who heard never about Czechia before the Czech Republic was proclaimed". Czechia and Czech Republic are two different concepts, as well as Germany is not identical with the Bundesrepublik Deutschland and France is not identical with French Fifth Republic official name of which is French Republic (République française). --ŠJů (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The English name for the country as it existed previously is Bohemia.--Khajidha (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Meaning of names are shifting, and Bohemia is since the 19th century only the western part of the country. Here is an excellent summary, just in case you would be interested https://www.radio.cz/en/section/letter/from-bohemia-to-czechia Helveticus96 (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That article is about usage in Czech, in English Bohemia is still the whole thing. --Khajidha (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Name of this article
This article should be about names of Czechia during the whole history, not only about the republic which was founded in 1969 and became independent in 1993. Czechia existed for centuries, under various names and various power structures, and its historical definition and essence of its identity can be disputed, however there existed never any Czech Republic before 1969, while Czechia needed to be named hunderds years before the republic. Even the word Czechia existed hundreds years before Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You're describing a different topic. Whether that topic is worth its own article is debatable, but you are welcome to pursue it. However, the question of the name of the independent nation of Czechia post 1993 is, like, say, Macedonia, one of notable debate and international resolutions and the like. That's why this article is about itself, and not about anything else, such as the name of the Kingdom of Bohemia or photosynthesis. JesseRafe (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Continued listlike-editing is disruptive and unencyclopedic
I have mentioned in many places that the constant inclusion of "___(insert news company)__ started using Czechia" with a primary source included merely showing firsthand usage in one article is unacceptable per WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS, yet a few editors continue form a list-like section which I feel also goes against WP:WWIN, against objections. All instances of this have now been removed. If this continues this article will become nothing but an unencyclopedic "example list" with terrible sourcing. (Example why primary sources aren't used: nowhere in the sources does it say the companies have adopted these names whoelsale, usage in respecitve articles could even suggest that merely the journalist is using their own standard.) This should not be included until a second-hand source or a better source explicitly names that specific comapanies are adopting the name completely.

EDIT:"____ uses Czechia" with a sources linking to the usage without a secondary source to explain the context, also amounts to WP:OR. - R9tgokunks   ⭕  03:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At least Google Maps should be listed. Obviously Google does use it on the map and we do have secondary sources noticing and describing that too. So... Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * R9tgokunks' point is that usage of Czechia in an article in a particular newspaper is not the same as an announcement from that newspaper that all articles referring to that country will from now on use Czechia. In the first case, another article in that paper might use Czech Republic. The examples given were mostly of the first sort, not the second. The changes to things like Mapquest are more likely to be relevant, as future versions of those sites will draw on the previous versions, likely continuing the usage. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Newspaper - that part I get. But on the other hand now it seems like "no newspaper used it EVER!!!". Surely it can be fixed at least somehow.
 * Maps - different thing. As I wrote, for Google maps we do have second-hand sources, although I find it strange that we need it here too (here - meaning map servers) and wait for second-hand sources to notice. Or wait for map server to issue a statement "we switched to Czechia, folks" although I guess it would be considered as primary too. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't find it anymore strange than I find the concept that anyone gives a flying flip about what their country is called in foreign languages. I don't know and don't care what my country is called in Czech. It is of exactly the same importance to me as what the color blue is called in Czech.--Khajidha (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked about a possibility how to write that Czechia occurs in at least some newspaper in at least some articles (which is/may be a progress in adoption of Czechia) and how to return back the part about Google maps using it. As a Czech person maybe I do care if Wikipedia articles about Czech subjects stays up-to-date--- care more and sooner, than English editor would. Is it a reason for mockery? And it is "modrá", not that you cared ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is, if I were to learn to read and speak Czech, my only question would be "what do you call my country?" Just as it would be for any other word in Czech. Unless the Czech word for my country was the Czech equivalent of something like "Shitholia" (that is, that the Czech word was offensive in Czech itself), I can see no reason to care what the name was any more than I would care for any other word. As a different language, I have no right to complain otherwise. My position is that the English wiki IS up to date, as the general English usage hasn't changed and is not subject to change by Czech decree. If my country changed its name tomorrow to "Dobbelpoppustasia", I would have no expectation of that change affecting any language other than my own.--Khajidha (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "English wiki IS up to date" - in evaluating what is most common name, sure. This article aims for more - describing adoption of Czechia, and it seems you would mention it only after fully adopted and replaced Czech Republic?! It is not important who brings news and sources... it was present in English written sources (!! moreover British or American), Wikipedia has an article where this exact topic is described, so it may be included. Czechs may be first to notice new sources and first who wants to contribute and improve and update the article with recent events. And you are saying "Why are Czechs interested what English Wikipedia write about them?" or worse "We will decide when to update it, we want to handle it ourselves." To that I say - Why to discourage army of editors from foreign countries when they know the language? The project benefits from that. Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "We will decide when to update it, we want to handle it ourselves." See, to me that sounds perfectly normal and reasonable. The native speakers of a language make the final decisions about usage in that language. I don't see how anyone could dispute that. You don't ask Russians to set usage for Japanese. As for discussing this topic, as R9tgokunks pointed out, most of the sources given DON'T discuss it. Linking to one article from a newspaper that uses Czechia does not demonstrate that that paper has changed its overall usage. --Khajidha (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh. You are treating this like I'm discussing common name with all your "native speakers of a language make the final decisions about usage in that language". This is not it! This is a discussion about "Adoption of Czechia" paragraph, citing examples of sources that switched already (newspaper - inconclusive, maps - visible and sourcable with secondhand sources). Czechs did not decide for those map servers and newspaper what to use! Czechs are just listing some examples of those (from sources in English into English Wikipedia). Czechs are not tampering with English usage, just monitoring it more frequently and inserting new examples (OK - some good, some bad, I admit). Native speakers have every right to filter those examples as "not interesting enough" and "proving nothing", who says otherwise? But if Google maps are not interesting enough, nothing will be... Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if it isn't about discussing common name, then what's the point? R9tgokunks's edit seems to be sufficient. The article states that 1) the name Czechia has been proposed and 2) it has not reached common usage. All these examples seem like special pleading/whining of the sort "C'mon, guys! Change! Don't you want to be like the cool kids who use Czechia?" If you want to document usage of Czechia in English, you have a sandbox for that. If and when you feel that your collected examples rise to the level of persuasive evidence of a change in usage, you can bring them here for discussion of a change. --Khajidha (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That article is about common name, outdated names, official names and other rare names for the Czech state. With description, when was it used, who used it... So there's only 2 colors? 1) black: proposed name and 2) white: fully adopted common name; nothing in between worth mentioning, no other usage levels exist? No 50 shades of gray? I don't know if you two are "the voice of wikipedia", but a month ago you lost your time reworking this exact section which is now magically not good enough to be included. The "cool kids" comment - no, no no. Change is not in play. Just fair informing about state of things. Not now applied principle: "Czechia is a looser so we will not speak about it untill it wins EVERYTHING".   Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Example list
This is what was deleted because R9tgokunks considered it as disruptive and unencyclopedic. Saved here so that everyone can evaluate, judge, argue...:Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Large Czech brands Škoda Auto and the Pilsner Urquell brewery began using Czechia in 2017.

Other services that have adopted Czechia include Google Maps, Maps.me, OpenStreetMap, National Geographic, TomTom, iOS 11 system settings, Mapchart and Oxford University's Oxford Atlas of the World. ;Media News media that began using Czechia in 2017 and 2018 are The Independent, The Times, Financial Times,  The Guardian, The Irish Times,, and the Irish Examiner, all from the British Isles. Usage in news media outside the British Isles includes Forbes, the Ottawa Citizen, Edmonton Journal and Buffalo News.

...the Federal Foreign Office of Germany and the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland both use Tschechien on their official lists of countries.


 * This Orwellian world of Wikipedia, where a few anonymous overbearing folks consider themselves to be the masters of knowledge and defenders of the truth, deciding what is disruptive and not encyclopedic i.e. what the masses should learn and what is forbidden, censoring the reality to form their preferred picture, makes me really sick. How did you gain this authority? And these recent actions of yours just prove my point. I don't care if you ban me, as you always do to users who disagree with you or say a few honest words about what is this concept really about, because you've completely lost my respect and trust. Oasis98 (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit pattern still occuring
The person who really needs to be here discussing this is. I was not comforable pointing this out initially but now that the user seems to not be aware of this coversation I'm letting them know that these edits aren't acceptable. They are by and large the main culprit behind this. Content such as "_____ uses "Czechia"" and a link to the page where the word is simply mentioned, without context, is not a reliable source (also, primary sources are also not appropiate in and of themselves) and it amounts to original research. This is the last time I will mention it here. This user needs to be offering comments here instead of on the various talk pages where it's hard to keep track of people's words. - R9tgokunks   ⭕  22:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * pinging involved parties:, , -  R9tgokunks   ⭕  22:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , obviously now that the Google content is sourced it is better... but I still don't see the relevance in including a decision by a private company that has no connection to governmental agencies. It's not very stylistical logical to have an entire section devoted to governmental and intergovernmental usage of the word and then thrown in a line at the end about Google using it.


 * The issue with a list is also a danger when including decisions by private companies, which we cannot have, per my prior policy-based statements. Another problem, there is no indication of the word's usage when they make decisions like that. It merely comes across as a neat, and almost irrelevant factoid. Thus, I think there is a problem listing any kind of private company's decision to use it.- R9tgokunks   ⭕  22:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Google - "irrelevant factoid" interesting enough to be included in several secondary sources, so... And pretty the same with The US Department of State and the CIA The World Factbook... It does not make Czechia a common name, but neat factoids properly sourced can't hurt in small numbers :) There was a whole section about map servers, you chopped it so now it may look "not very stylistical logical" and maybe some kind of fix is needed (not by deletion of Google Maps:)). "Newspaper XYZ once used Czechia" and "Newspaper XYZ uses Czechia" are completely different things and I agreed already. But Google Maps or The World Factbook uses Czechia - different thing, it is a database-like system, unlikely to use once this once that, it "switches". You don't look for UNGEGN data in secondary sources, so sometimes it is OK to use the primary source. In conclusion: I am quite happy with the current state of the article, I would add CIA and US department, you would remove Google Maps, let's call it a compromise :^) Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph is called "Adoption of Czechia", so I would expect that examples of usage by one of the leading tech companies of this world should be kept. There are much more examples as www.cldr.org,  (the biggest open source database) and this was deleted already. So are we talking about adoption of Czechia or about anything else? Helveticus96 (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Anachronism
This maybe belongs to "Czech Republic" talk page but anyway: Is there a simple way how to check all infoboxes for this kind of anachronism? Rule: birth_date < 1993 and birth_place containing "Czech Republic" (also death date and place, all kinds of infoboxes about people)? Kings and queens of Czech Republic sounds really silly ;)Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we can delete "(now Czech Republic)" too, or is it a common practise? I do not think so. Here we are:
 * Royalty died and royalty born in Czech*****. Eg. nonsense with Elizabeth of Pomerania.Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Now Czech Republic" and similar constructions are pretty standard usages for when the country of birth is no longer around or no longer controls the place in question. --Khajidha (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to be used quite random (now Czech Republic)/(present-day Czech Republic)/nothing. Anyway some of those examples above have simply "Czech Republic" for < 1993. Please check and fix how you see fit. Chrzwzcz (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed several blatantly incorrect usages of Czech Republic, but left the explanatory notes (such as "now in the Czech Republic") alone. --Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * cool, thanks. It was royalty. We can check other infoboxes too but it is harder to search it, "contains Czech Republic and date<1993" is not complete enough when "now Czech Republic" or "present-day Czech Republic" are OK. Chrzwzcz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

When the word "Czechia" is used
in the texts, usual (and very fast) reaction of admins is "delete" and comment "your edit is not constructive" or something like that. Exactly the opposite!

Tell me about the sense of translation of the Czech geographic name Česko, the main keyword in Czech Wikipedia, into English and some other languages assymetrically by political name, when many other languages logically use translation (geographical equivalent) of the name (see the list below).

Combining the political name of a state with geographical names in other languages appears communicatively unsuitable, stylistically clumsy, mannered and confusing. More, to insist on transient political names of the country in the course of time is also exclusive in the case of Czech thing. It is not possible to assume that common visitor of the page is obliged to know Czech history (Duchy of Bohemia, Kingdom of Bohemia, Lands of Bohemian Crown, terminus technicus Czech Lands, etc). It seems to be absurd. The recipient can be only confused. They are a lot of countries, which particular names were changed in history, sometimes they disappeared from the map, but unifying geographic name bridges all those changes and make the subject clear and apprehensible for somebody who knows nothing about the country (and it is the aim of an encyclopedy - to be readable and useful for everybody).

How to translate all original Czech expressions, using the geographic name? By "The Czech Republic"? No. It is simply wrong, nothing more. The name of the state should meet objective criteria, being intelligible, plain, and clear. It is necessary to subject the language to such simplification that allows further work on it. The Czech Republic DOES NOT meet those basic criteria, because it is a transient political name, historically covering only recent 25 years of the history of the country. To use it as the main keyword is simply wrong and Czechia is already the official geographic name of the country, which is able to define the country in all context and solve all those problems, as mentioned above.

More, this mistake (Cz.R.) as the root of the tree logically only clones and generates more and more particular mistakes. Because Wikipedia serves often as the source for many other media and internet pages, those mistakes are transported into them, making chaos, wrong interpretations and nonsenses. It is like infectious disease. No wonder, there are a lot of absurdities, coming originally from Wikipedia, and transported thoughtlessly into another media, e.g."the king Charles IV was born in the Czech Republic", etc., etc. The current state does the Czech state very bad service, making it messy and non-transparent. Do you consider it constructive? Absolutely NOT!

The list of languages (not all) that use the geographical name of the Czech state:

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cesko  - in Czech

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tschechien  - in German

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%A1ekki - in Finnish

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechy - in Polish

https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cesko - in Slovak

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsjechi%C3%AB - in Dutch

https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%A1ehhi - in Estonian

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tjekkiet - in Danish

https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cechia - in Latin (historically also Czechia)

https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cehija - in Latvian

https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cekija - in Lithuanian

https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Ce%C5%A1ka - in Slovenian

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Csehorsz%C3%A1g - in Hungarian

https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Ce%C5%A1ka - in Croatian

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsjekkia - in Norwegian

https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cehia - in Romanian

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tjeckien - in Swedish

https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0 - in Serbian

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%8F - in Russian

https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%8F - in Bulgarian

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%85%D1%96%D1%8F - in Ukrainian

https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D1%8D%D1%85%D1%96%D1%8F - in Belarussian

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A4%CF%83%CE%B5%CF%87%CE%AF%CE%B1 - in Greek

The use of political names:

in English, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, however translations of geographic names exist (Czechia, Tchéquie, Chequia, Cechia, Chéquia)Heptapolein (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "a lot of absurdities" - That's why I made request in the previous section - to automatically detect Czech Republic for dates <1993 (at least in infoboxes). No help or advice yet ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, your "basic criteria" are simply your POV of how languages should work and are completely irrelevant to how the English language actually does work. --Khajidha (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Heptapolein
Just an FYI for everyone, is now blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:Jan Blanicky. - R9tgokunks   ⭕  07:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * R9tgokunks, are you banning people, because they don't agree to push your Agenda? Why does it matter to you, that people in Czechia don't use the word Czechia that you ban people for it? That is unacceptable. --EUStudent6 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They are being banned for using multiple accounts, not for anything to do with their position on the usage of Czechia. --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification. --EUStudent6 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is/was Czechia related. He spread The Truth about Czechia waaaay ahead of its time (and maybe was too pushy and increasingly bitter), he was blocked, he solved it by a puppet or five and now he is persona non grata. His edits we're not lies, but it was dismissed as uninteresting, WP:this and WP:that rule, back then (2010 maybe?)... IMHO Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What "truth"? HERE is truth, 1) This Wiki is written in English, 2) English usage is defined by native English speakers, 3) Native English speakers have not adopted the usage of "Czechia" to any great degree. That is it. That is all. Therefore, this Wiki does not use Czechia. End of story. --Khajidha (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I also find it odd that you are defending someone who has been banned for breaking the rules. And then banned again for breaking them again. And that you are so dismissive of Wikipedia procedure. Do you think that WP's method of function is subject to the decrees of the Czech government? --Khajidha (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I guess he mainly described the history of the term and gave examples of the rare usage, as I browsed through 2011 edits nows. But it was deleted because the name was so rare that no one was interested in detailed description of such unseen name (similar reasons were given). He said it was censorship, pushed harder, was blocked, tried under another name... And some of those edits would be IMHO very easy to get approved NOW. It does not mean I approve his actions and rules breaking!!! On the contrary. He made Czechia supporters on Wikipedia look bad :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, his writings were full of inappropriate insinuations that English should change and that the lack of usage of "Czechia" was some sort of slight against the Czech people.He also attempted to change the usage in articles, even though he was told again and again that such usage was rare and would not be understood by most English speakers. It's the same thing I've pointed out to you about your own writings in the past. It comes off as an attempt to control the English language. If he had simply written about the history of the word there would have been no problem. --Khajidha (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, as I said, I don't defend his actions on Talk pages, no way. I think in 2011 or so it was quite hard to write just about the history of the word, that "The Truth" I had in mind. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only that but he is a paid editor (see Conflict of interest) and has edited articles of subjects he is close to, or runs the websites of. It's one thing to blatantly disregard warnings and ignore Wikipedia policy, which he had done countless times... it's another to have ulterior motives. Also, for what it's worth, at User_talk:Heptapolein, two administrators implicitly advocate for automatic reverts of any edit going against WP:COMMONNAME in regards to these issues. -  R9tgokunks   ⭕  21:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also not defending that. "Everything where the Czech Republic is changed to Czechia must be reverted on sight." I checked some of his last edits and this one had a point, next Khajidha's edit solved it without reverting to Czech Republic and without use of Czechia, so some thinking is required, Czech Republic can't be used automatically ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Search results tell me that currently there's 1324 pages on enwiki using "Czechia". Mostly hidden - in flagicon and map templates, image filenames, nevertheless. Sometimes it is source title names, then several 'lists of states' articles containing the "2016 renaming issue", ISO, UN and EU list copying the source... and then some cases you would definitely rather see eliminated but they hid between the other cases, so they stay unnoticed, yet...  Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have any disagreements with anything you just said (I think... no offence, but sometimes it's hard to understand you). And the reason there are 1324 pages with that instance of Czechia is because we constantly have IPs and COI editors who change it until it's changed by someone who knows better. It's up to editors to revert it. Also, I'm sure many of those mentions are from sources/links, as well as actual proper contextual discussions of the name's usage. -  R9tgokunks   ⭕  23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My point kinda is: "Remove (that unwanted instances of) Czechia consistently or do not remove it at all" ;) It is not allowed but it IS used in Template:Flagicon, Template:Infobox settlement and others... it is confusing ;) Of that 1324 pages I would say majority is because of those templates and then it is hard to police the rest... or you need to have more sofisticated search query to get only non-template instances of Czechia. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It should not have been added to those templates in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am confused mainly because you two (and others) are solving single instances here and there but there are hundreds of unnoticed "template" instances which can be solved by changing the templates back and make a bot request to change all occurrences. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can only change the things I am aware of. I didn't know these templates were affected. I didn't know to look at the templates or even HOW to view some of them. And I don't know how to fix them. --Khajidha (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was worng and it is centralized and in every template both Czechia and Czech Republic works as synonyms. Or this vs this. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * pushpin_map = Czechia can be changed to pushpin_map = Czech Republic without concern (Czechia is kind of a redirect here). But other values of pushpin_map cannot, redirect is not set yet. Chrzwzcz (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can back me up on Bot requests page if you really want to get rid of plenty of Czechias ;) (even invisible occurences such as in templates and infoboxes) Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)