Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czechia - the name dispute


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. CFORK arguments have not been addressed and significantly less weight has been given to new or apparently spa accounts Spartaz Humbug! 08:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Czechia - the name dispute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Khajidha, whose rationale follows. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Article is a POV fork of the existing Name of the Czech Republic page. --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This looks to be a textbook example of a POV fork, not to mention a violation of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a publisher of essays or advocacy pieces).-- Mojo Hand (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Mewulwe (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Retain If I want to know a lot more about the naming dispute, this article provides that information. It may not be flawless, but I think it provides information, not merely bias. I advocate keeping it. Peacefully, Pete unseth (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork. There is neutral article Name of the Czech Republic, where "Czechia" can be described, without POV pushing. WP:CFORK forbade POV forking, as they violate consensus building.--Yopie (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Yopie (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as an obvious POV fork. Looking at some of the history, it seems this "dispute" is primarily a Wikipedia dispute, sparked when an editor tried to unilaterally change the name of a country and was reverted. Stalwart 111  23:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork / WP:SYN. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV fork that misstates or invents facts. Removing the unacceptable content would leave us with a short history of the region a century ago, which is already covered in many other articles, so there is nothing here to save. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Short history of the region? ROFL - 1400 years Aleatorica (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I did not mean that the region's history is short. I meant that the historical material in the article is relatively short. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Retain Rework collectively to meet Wikipedia standards and to remove any bias. Alternatively merge with the existing Name of the Czech Republic page which has insufficient information on the term "Czechia". Readers looking for information on the term "Czechia" find almost nothing on Wikipedia.Geog25 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — Geog25 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :
 * The last sentence above summarizes my point. I am not a vigorous partisan in this discussion, but I think the drive to delete this is too narrowly focused. Can we please find a way to keep this information in an accessible way? Pete unseth (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Retain I agree with the above suggestion (Geog25) - rework the article if necessary (e.g. in language and stylistics) and allow the valuable information to be published freely.DaisyXL (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — DaisyXL (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Retain It is beneficial article for all that problem and very good analysis. Aleatorica (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — Aleatorica (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * RetainIf the name dispute had been addressed in the main Czech Republic article, we wouldn't have to create this article. The topic of the country name deserves serious considerationDroidXVID (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — DroidXVID (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note to closing admin - I think all these brand new single-purpose accounts with a similar style mean "keep". Stalwart 111  07:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @DroidXVID: "we wouldn't have to create this article" - Who is "we"? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect and continue working on the article Name of the Czech Republic. There's no need to prevent discussing this topic from various viewpoints, but there's also no need to start separate articles for supporters of different viewpoints. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I considered redirection as an alternative, but it's an unlikely search term, so I'm not sure I see the value.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. This issue is in the public domain and warrants sensible coverage. It could eventually be merged with Name of the Czech Republic once a consensus is reached, but now is not the right time. Bermicourt (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Retain - my reasons were already described many times Askave (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Retain and improve I do not interest about "POV forks, pushes" and similar crap. Wikipedia is an encyklopedia, not Yopie's or Mewulwe's stupid rules, who would rather rename article about France to French Republic. Both are able to guard any changes non-stop from the morning till the evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnypar (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)  — Johnypar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please, watch your language and provide reasonable arguments for or against. This is not helping anyone.Geog25 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what a POV fork is? Do you understand that the rules are not Yopie's or Mewulwe's, but Wikipedia's? Do you understand that no one is arguing that the article for France be moved to the French Republic? Both France and the Czech Republic are at those names because that is what they are normally called in English. --Khajidha (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Retain! You can hardly say "normally called in English" because it is neither normal nor correct if anybody writes or speaks of, say, "the Czech Republic under Charles IV" or "Mozart´s visit to the Czech Republic". The state known as the Czech Republic has only existed since 1993. You simply NEED a geographical name which applies to the area, not to the varying forms of reign or government.DaisyXL 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaisyXL (talk • contribs)
 * This is what the country is normally called in English when discussing current events. When discussing history, I have always seen it called things like "Bohemia" or "the Czechlands". --Khajidha (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is obvious you did not read the article, but you know it should be deleted. Your opinions seem to be an embodiment of the necesity of its publishing. Inter alia, the name "Czechlands" has been never used. It is usually circumvented by Czech lands, where the word "lands" does not represent proper name (ling.). Askave (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read it. It is a POV fork of Name of Czech Republic. Oh wow, I made a slight typo and left out a space. --Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Retain and probably adjust - I wrote similar article few years ago here, but it was unmercifully deleted by the same admin. Czechia seems to be under the supervision of somebody who is interested to hide it. Mean strategy. Then, it is easy to say "the problem does not exist" or "the name is not used". Neewi (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Retain! 1) The article isn't POV fork, the article is an extension of the articles forr example Name of the Czech Republic, Hyphen war, or Civic initiative Czechia. 2) The article is encyclopaedic. 3) The question here above "Where is Czechia - the name dispute" on internet is bad. Czechia - the name dispute is summary of questions like "Czechia sounds weird", "Czechia is a neologism", "Czechia is confused with Chechnya", "Czechia is uncommon", "Czechia is unofficial", "Czechia doesn't exist" etc. For these topics are many links and these questions should be searched. 4) The article is factual and educational. 5) The article is very expedient, because it dispels many myths, half-truths and lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.59.254 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Combine with Name of the Czech Republic.Cobylub (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Retain The never-ending dispute about the Czechia needs this article. Droll CZ (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Droll CZ (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Welcome back after all these years. May I ask about how you heard about this discussion?-- Mojo Hand (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin There is open SPI case Sockpuppet investigations/Askave--Yopie (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Could anyone giving a "keep" opinion please explain what the difference is between the topic of this article and that of "Name of the Czech Republic"? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "Name of the Czech Republic" is an inprecise (better wrong) title, because the content deals with all names (and their origins) of the Czech state in its history. "The Czech Republic" is a political name of the Czech state, which has been existed only for 20 recent years, so, the action potential of this name is only within last 20 years and cannot be applied in connection with its history before 1993.
 * 2) Countries use usually (in overwhelming majority) two names: a) transient political name and b) short-form (geographical) name. Transient name does NOT define the country in its historical context (only in a few cases, when the political system has been never changed), but geographical name does. That's why using only political name is very unpractical and confusing. "Czechia" is a neutral (apolitical) name, which can be applied in general, that is, also in historical context. From 1993, there has been the dispute about using THIS concrete name under way. Therefore, the article represents a special subcategory. But, it is necessary to notice I could not created any solo article a) if the title of original one was proper and b) if its special content was not contiously deleted by opponents of the name "Czechia". Maybe you can read the article, it is the way to understand .....
 * 3) Also the level of the discussion and oppinions in itself can serve as the proof of the necessity of article's publishing....
 * 4) Instead of factual discussion, some admins (opponents) are meanly trying to find the way to discredit supporters of the article to discover the reason for its deletion. In reality, they discredit themselves and harm already not well reputation of Wikipedia. Askave (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I think you are interpreting the name of the article "Name of the Czech Republic" a little too narrowly. That article is about why the Czech Republic article is called that name and not some other name (such as Czechia). 2)See, this is what I have been talking about when I say that you and others are interpreting the lack of use of Czechia as some sort of slight towards the Czech people. "But why aren't we like all these other countries?" Don't know why, doesn't matter why, the fact remains that the term Czechia is rarely used in English sources. Therefor, the usage of that name on Wikipedia should be strictly limited. Say that it is out there, say how it came about, say that such-and-such Czech authority recommends its use; but it is not something that should be used in article titles or most article text (aside from text specifically about it or in quotations). User SoelProkop's assertion that the opposition to the use of the name Czechia in English language text is some sort of attempt to usurp the authority of the Czech government is another example of this "Czechs are being persecuted" argument. As is Neewi's assertion that people are using a "mean strategy" against Czechs. 3) The fact that most of those arguing for this article are single purpose accounts doesn't say much in favor of it. --Khajidha (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All the time, you are out of the heart of matter. I alreadey asked you for reading the article, but OK, I'll try to explain it for the hundredth time.
 * There is no problem in English speakers, the problem was caused by Czechs themselves (I did not write anything you mentioned). There are 50 small countries in Europe and their distinguishing is naturally complicated for the average recipient from other continents. European people also have problems to know all states of the Union. I fully understand it and absolutely do not have any grievance. It would be absurd. After the breakup of communist block, representatives of English speaking countries and UN asked all new countries : "How will you call your country in English ? (it is comprehensible, who should care about names of so many small states, it was simply under distinguishing ability) Let us know and officially include the name into the list of countries of UN. We will respect it". All countries did it, Czech representatives included the name Czechia into the UN list of countries, but simultaneously, in general public, they started to argue about the short name of the country in Czech, and that problem was gradually transported also into English, which was resulted in using only political name by Czech politicians, ambassadors, etc., and (comprehensibly) also by Czech people with some knowledge of English. Therefore, English speaking people (naturally) do know the short name only sporadically, however (! now the point !) its Czech equivalent was finally adopted after years and commonly used. The statement of English speaking countries has not been changed (see again the article). I do not know too much about Central African Republic or Dominican Republic, but enough to say, that comparison with Czech state from historical point of view is hardly possible.
 * So, the short form name of Czech state in Czech is known and used, its translataltion into English is known, but it is not commonly used. Duchy of Bohemia, Kingdom of Bohemia, Lands of Bohemian Crown, Czech lands, Czechoslovakia, Czechia, Bohemia and Moravia, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Czech and Slovak Federation, and Czech Republic - all names of one country in the history. Total mess, however we speak about the same country (nothing like that you can find in Central African Republic :-).
 * What is the sense to call the country by all those names and totally confuse the average recipient, who (comprehensibly) does not know history of the Czech state ?
 * What is the sense to separate articles in Wikipedia (Czech history, culture, etc., etc. - one example for all - simultanous existence of the articles "Music of the Czech lands" and "Music of the Czech Republic"), when we speak about the same country ?
 * I am speaking about common sense now, nothing more. I do not complain in my article, and if I show all those discrepancies, it is not any POV, how you try to claim, they are simply factual and the dispute is factual too. They are opinion from both sides there and the situation is described objectively. Without any pretentiousness, hardly to find something I would not know about that problem, so, I feel to be able to write an objective treatise about it, though, I am a supporter of Czechia. As I already wrote, it is not my fault, that one side arguments are poor, it is their problem, not mine. This is what it is. It is not possible to add a reference to every sentence, but I can, you can be sure.
 * Btw.in Wikipedia, there is a huge article about Macedonia name disputing and nobody wants to delete it. You cannot wonder I feel some strange and unfair tendencies from some admins, moreover, when their activity in Wikipedia is focused predominantly on deleting of every mention of Czechia. In comparison with "single purpose accounts", the score would seem to be balanced, but the power is on the side of admins, so there is not any equilibrium at all. In addition, Wikipedia defines itself a free medium. All people have right to write, though only to the problem that is interesting for them. Those accusations I "clonned" myself into multiple accounts is a funny assumption only one person in the world is interested in the issue :-). Useless to comment something so silly like that.Askave (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All that is completely beside the point. I asked above how this topic differs from the topic of Names of the Czech Republic, and all that you have given in reply is an explanation of how it is the same topic. If you disagree with the title of Names of the Czech Republic then the thing to do is to propose renaming it on its talk page and to accept any consensus that emerges, not to start another article on the precise same topic with a different title. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I explained it sufficiently to understand the reason. Moreover, the title of the article you mention was already renamed from ORIGINAL "Czechia (one-word name of the Czech Republic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechia_(one-word_name_of_the_Czech_Republic), in addition by the same admins, who are trying now to delete my article. So, the topic was originally different and more proper for the content of my treatise. That's why, to try (above that only in talk page) to ask for its redirecting back or ask for some consensus is a naive proposal, it would be like Sisyphus work. Askave (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What you have explained is that you are unwilling to accept consensus based on what English speakers actually call this country rather than on what you would like us to call it. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense. You miss all I am talking about. Consensus of English speakers ? What do you know about it ? Where can I find it ? If you mean admins of Wikipedia, this is not any consensus of English speakers, Wikipedia people are not representative group of English speakers, it is absurd. In addition, the main role in deleting the name in Wikipedia play Czechs, above all Yopie, it is his main "work" in English Wikipedia. I can send you articles in media, where English speakers are wondering, why Czechs do not want to be call by a normal name. I have never seen any "consensus". People call something as they know from media etc. In majority, they know only Czech Republic, so they use it, nothing more, nothing less, but the short name of the country exists. It was natural way, absolutely not "they rather use something". I explained the origin of that problem in my article and I can assure you : if Czech politicians would send officially thier decision to representatives of English speaking countries, the name will be used (again see my article). So, I repeat for million times, the problem is not in English speakers. Is there some conclusion why Lithuania is called Lithuania in English ? Of course, NO. There has never done any consensus of English speakers, they do not care about it. Politicians agreed, spread it, so it is used. You make some conclusions, however your knowlewdge of the issue is insufficient. I inform and analyze some problem, which politicians are unwilling to finally solve, nothing more. This is not about MY using of Czechia or MY unwillingness to respect some non-existent consensus. This discussion is a vitious circle. Askave (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "People call something as they know from media etc. In majority, they know only Czech Republic, so they use it, nothing more, nothing less, but the short name of the country exists." THAT is exactly the consensus you are looking for. English speakers don't generally KNOW the word Czechia, so it is not appropriate for use here in article titles or the majority of text. You seem to want to use Wikipedia to spread the usage of Czechia. That is not what Wikipedia is for. If you really feel strongly about this, you should contact the Czech government and ask them to make more efforts to spread the usage of this word. Changing the name they are seated under at the UN would be a good start.--Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Retain! Retain !! I cannot understand the fact that anonymous Wikipedia-admins let the users vote (!!!) for or against the contents and the purpose of an expert article and thus decide about the short name of a sovereign founding member of the UNO (then under the name Czechoslovakia). They quite forget that only the particular state gives itself its own short name (if necessary, e.g., after splitting up of a former joint state into two), which was fluctuating in the course of history. This follows from the article under discussion.

The complainers (apparently aiming at the name Czechia cancellation or even at a ban on the name Česko/Czechia) can only complain at the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN), which organizes regular UN Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names or, as a lower authority, Regional conferences. So the approach and activities of the "enlightened" wiki-admins are, in my opinion, totalitarian and have a tinge of medieval obscurantism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoelProkop (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC) — SoelProkop (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Retain The article describes a real linguistic controversy. [User:vitnv|vitnvVitnv (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)]
 * But we already have another article about the controversy, Names of the Czech Republic. We don't keep multiple articles on the same topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.