Jump to content

Talk:Czechs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox

[edit]

Following the new paragraph which was added to the lede I boldly swapped a few pics out of the infobox to add more balance, as it was entirely composed of males and mainly of politicians and statesmen. There could even be another row of pics added IMO. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox - rules

[edit]

Since the pictures of Czechs in the infobox are being changed all the time and people who weren't Czechs are being added, I'd like to put forward several rules, so we could agree of a final version.

  • No people who don't consider themselves Czechs - for example the writer Milan Kundera lives in France and considers himself French.
I'm not saying Kundera is not Czech, but it wouldn't be good to put him in the infobox. And I meant both living and controversial people.--Kohelet (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Václav Havel is fine then. Having some people connected with the contemporary state is a good idea. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Havel is not fine. As I previously said, he's perceived ambivalently by the nation. Plus there already is a picture of Havel further in the article.--Kohelet (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Havel has been dead for two years. If we're excluding anyone who some people find/found controversial then this is going to be very difficult. Right now the 8 pictures we have make the infobox look very thin and like the Czech ethnic history ends during some patriarchic 19th century society. Anyway, that's my 2 h., I'll alert the wikiproject for more... - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also please make sure it's not just men (would suggest adding Božena Němcová for example) - filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the inclusion of women is important. The most significant Czechs have been men.--Kohelet (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Kohelet, we use consensus, not strong words like "must be no people". About Havel - he is without doubts, one of best known Czechs and I dont know any rule of WP about "controversial people", please enlighten us. About Albright - she is Episcopal, christened Catholic, and she "is fluent in French and Czech, with good speaking and reading abilities in Russian and Polish."[2] Nothing about Ivrit, Hebrew or Yiddish..--Yopie (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. According to Brittanica, she is "Czech-born American public official" and "Marie Jana Korbel was the daughter of a Czech diplomat." I hope that you understand meaning of WP:OR.--Yopie (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pretty sure that the meaning of Czech in that Britannica context is of the nationality and not of the " West Slavic ethnic group of Central Europe", which is the necessary context at this article. For what it's worth, I would recommend the top 20 names from Největší Čech, although any "final 8" is going to be unavoidably "biased" in some way. C679 20:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both her parents were ethnic Jews, therefore she can't be Czech. Czech is an ethnicity.--Kohelet (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a) I don't need to prove it's not WP:OR, this discussion is about suitability of some individuals for the infobox
b) Sometimes it's impossible to find a source denying something. There are sources which say she's Jewish, which is mutually exclusive with being Czech. Period.
c) The version of the infobox you're promulgating is demonstrably incorrect, if only for Kafka. Kafka was clearly not a Czech and there's literally no way how to pass him off as one.--Kohelet (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You broke the three reverts rule. In the Wikipedia article about Franz Kafka there are enough sources proving that he wasn't Czech. You are the only one in this discussion opposing my version.--Kohelet (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why you disagree with Havel? Because you personally dislike him? He is well known Czech, his obituary was in all major news. And what about Kundera? He is born Czech.. This looks like arbitrary decision. One can be Czech by born or by "vote", but you use both methods in negative way. --Yopie (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think only the best Czechs should be represented in the infobox. It has nothing to do with being Czech, people can become Czech only by birth, as Czechs are an ethnic group.--Kohelet (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So because you personally dislike him then, or what method are you using to decide who are "the best" Czechs? - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested before, it can be determined from the "Největší Čech" list.--Kohelet (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Dear Kohelet, firstly, may I ask where your 3 rules come from? Rules can't be made up like this. Wikipedia rules are already set. Secondly, the 3 rules are against Wikipedia policies.
To claim that Jews can not be considered Czechs is a genuinely racist 1930s-style statement. For example, Albert Einstein is a Jew and also he is a German, even though he is not of Germanic ancestry.
What the person considers themselves to be; such as Kundera; is irrelevant according to WP:POV. For example if an Icelandic person suddenly claims to be a Pakistani for some reason, it doesnt mean they really are. Friedrich Nietzche claims to be of Polish ancestry in his autobiography, yet he is considered German.
"living or controversial" is irrelevant as Wikipedia Articles are not an advertisment for its tipics.
This article is about a nation and an ethnic group; and such as other articles in the same category, it doesnt limit itself to people who possess a given passport at a given time. It also doesn't exclude people based on genetics or religion. Therefore, Franz Kafka and M.Albright are Czechs.
The WP:WORLDVIEW policy on English Wikipedia aims to achive world-neutral coverage in articles. Kafka and Albright are Czechs of far-reaching importance (with article traffic of 2500 and 1000 daily views respectively), compared to for example to Němcová who has very little historical importance. Therefore, I reassassed the table that now includes Smetana an Čapek. Please keep in mind that some persons might seem important for specific internal reasons of the coutry but are rather unimportant in a broader view and vice versa.--Der Golem (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has been made clear that Jews aren't Czechs, Germans aren't Czechs, Poles aren't Czechs, in short, anyone who isn't Czech isn't Czech. Der Golem's arguments are strongly irrational, it's a gereral knowledge that Kafka wasn't Czech. Such seems to be the conclusion of this discussion, I therefore revert to the previous version, but I would prefer replace the collage with the one in Czech Wikipedia and th other Wikipedias except this one, since when it's accepted in the Czech Wikipedia, it should be neutral. Really a meaningless dispute.--85.70.171.179 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained previously, your made-up rules are against the policies of Wikipedia. So skip referring to them.
If you ignore my replies like the one I just mentioned above and instead keep repeating yourself, then this will be your monologue instead of a discussion and you will be running in circles.
Now I will try to break it down as simple as possible. Ethnic groups are not genetically uniform groups due to historical migrations. Czechs are a ethnic group of multiple ancestries, and a nation. The gene pool of 21st century Czechs consists of predominately Celtic peoples (since prehistory), Slavic peoples (since the 5th century), Germanic peoples (since the 1st century) and also smaller portions of other random peoples. In the 21st century, they are all considered Czechs, because they are all part of the Czech gene pool and because they are a part of the Czech society.
To give you few very simple and obvious examples about minorities: Einstein article says "German-born" because later he was American. Einstein is included in the Germans article infobox as is another Jew, Karl Marx. They both were Germans because the were a part of the German society. Also the African-American Josephine Baker is included in French people. She is a French person, for the same reason why Marx is a German. Their ancestry is not the crucial point as you can see here, so you don't need to repeat the opposite over and over like a tape recorder.
And finally, please explain scientifically how do you determine whether a person is ethnically Czech? Seriously, which one of these three ethnicities/ancestries guarantees that a person is an ethnic Czech? Around 1/3 of Czechs belong to the "Celtic" ancestral Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA), 1/3 of Czechs belong to the "Slavic" ancestral Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) and around 1/4 of Czechs belong to the "Germanic" ancestral Haplogroup I-M253.
Ok, here comes the fun part...
Question: Who is Czech according to you?
Answer A: Only one of those three groups are Czechs? If so, then you are excluding the majority of Czech population form being Czech; and also historical figures, because no one ever checked their DNA. That, indeed, would be a practical joke, sir
Answer B: They are all Czechs? If people with Celtic, Slavic and Germanic ancestries can all be Czechs, why people with Ashkenazi Jews ancestry can not be Czechs? If you want to specifically exclude Jews, can you give a reason? Because if so, then I am afraid that I smell some hitlerism! :)
Jews can indeed be Czechs, Germans and anything else; Czechs are not racially pure Slavic people because of their Slavic language, just like the French people aren't racially pure Romance people because of their Romance language. If you and your friends on Czech Wikipedia are laughing at this as you said, be assured that Mr. Adolf was also laughing when planning the final solution for ethnic minorities. Here on English Wikipedia, everybody is facepalming when you say that Einstein or Marx are not German because they are Jews.
Also please note that you have been blocked from editing and editing under a different username or IP in this manner is not allowed.
Conclusion: Czechs are a nation and an ethnic group of multiple ancestries from multiple ethnic groups. Excluding Jews based on their ancestry is considered racist by the 21st century standards. If you can't accept this, please leave the English Wikipedia. Cheers--Der Golem (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And to tackle your statement "I understand you may have some personal motives"; if my golem-related username is bugging you so much, I can let you know that I am not a Jew. Actually, rather a Nordic-looking Czech. No personal motives here. I just enjoy bashing genuine racists.--Der Golem (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My foregoing reply has been written as an answer to a statement that was deleted by an administrator because of the blocked user's (User:Kohelet) sock puppetry--Der Golem (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is extremely incorrect and rude, but I'll give it a go.
Firstly, the word nation has no firm definition, so it may denote 2 things:
1. all citizens of a given country, which is true in the case of most American countries, as they have the birthright citizenship. Curiously, there is also one European nation which sees itself that way, which is France - they inherited this territorial view from the tines of the French revolution.
2. nation as an ethnic group, which is true with Czechs. That is mentioned in the lead, Czechs are both a nation and an ethnic goup, which is the case with Germans too.
An ethnic group doesn't depend on haplogroups, you have no idea how these work, as there is always a certain specific mix of haplogroups in a given ethnic group. An ethnic group is an amalgamation of some founder populations, which in the Czech case were the Celts, Germans and Slavs. Slavic tribes unified into one, absorbed previous populations, until one homogeneous ethnic group came into being.
Czechs are an ethnic group with their own ancestry, language and culture. Germans are not Czechs, and people here would think went nuts if you claimed anything to the contrary. But you likely don't live here, which is where your toxic opinions come from, am I right?
Kafka wasn't a Czech, because he didn't meet any of those criteria, he wasn't of Czech ancestry, his mother tongue was German, his culture was Jewish, he didn't consider himself a Czech and he wasn't considered a Czech by others. Which holds true to this day, no one, I repeat no one, would ever claim Kafka was a Czech. The idea itself is ridiculous.
With Germans it's the same as with Czechs - Marx's parents converted to Christianity, so he wasn't German, but he was considered German by many. Einstein wasn't German and no one claims he was, he was also included in the collage incorrectly.
So the conclusion here is, educate yourself. Try to think independent on the politically correct brainwashing you're getting, talk to some Czechs, read some history books, and when in doubt, you can always consult Czech Wikipedians, they wil tell you the same thing as me.--72.51.126.55 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Slavic tribes unified into one, absorbed previous populations, until one homogeneous ethnic group came into being." Well, here goes the Soviet-era pan-Slavic propaganda fairy tale. You better ask Josef Mengele if Marx is too Jewish to be a German. I guess the situation is clear here. I'm out, stopping to feed the troll.--Der Golem (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree that Franz Kafka shouldn't be included, because he wasn't Czech. He was from a Jewish family and spoke German in what was then Austria-Hungary, which was a multi-ethnic state. There were Germans and Jews and many other nationalities in Prague back then as well as Czechs. From his article I don't see much evidence that he self-identified as Czech either. I don't see any basis for including him except that he was from Prague, which is inadequate, imo. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely understand what you are saying but I would like to add a few points:
Kafka spoke both Czech and German. He was a bilingual Bohemian Jew in a bilingual Bohemia. He was writing in German, which was very common in Bohemia and many people were bilingual among Czechs, Bohemian Jews and Bohemian Germans, since the 13th century. They married among each other and created a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual state similar to the French-German Switzerland in some ways. Both Czech and German were major languages for 7 centuries in Bohemia, which was federal subject of Austria-Hungary during one part of Kafka's life; but in the first place it was a state, Kingdom of Bohemia, throughout most of the second millennium AD.
In 1945, huge portion of Bohemian Germans were stripped of their Czechoslovak citizenship and deported. But Bohemian Jews remained to be Bohemian Jews until present time, and are now known as Czech Jews.
Kafka is identified as a Bohemian Jew, later Czechoslovak Jew, now a Czech Jew; who was a part of then Bohemian bilingual society. Kafka is not a stateless Jew just because a previously multi-ethnic state has become linguistically and ethnically more uniform through deportation of Germans decades later.
Czech Jews are Czechs just like German Jews (Einstein and Marx) are Germans even though they were not born in Germany, but in the Kingdom of Prussia and Kingdom of Württemberg respectively. The paradigm of nationality has changed after WWII and includes minorities and therefore non-Isreali Jews and other minorities are often considered a part of the society of their origin or activity, just like the numerous European Jews. This is because after WWII, the "Jewishness" of a given historical Jew does not expel them from the given nation state's society, nation, or even an ethnic group's minority; therefore it doesn't exclude them from an article that covers both an ethnic group and a nation, just like this one and others about a nation state's people--Der Golem (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources for these claims? According to the article about him, he demonstrably wasn't Czech. This seems like POV-pushing to me.--Liongrande (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article about him, he is a Bohemian Jew. That means a Czech Jew. Btw, how do you source that for example Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, of House of Luxembourg, is a Czech? His family doesn't seem to be completely Czech either really; so how about removing him too? --Der Golem (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Charles IV is "German king and king of Bohemia" according to Britannica. So how is he "a Czech"?
And btw. how to take your comments any seriously with your random racist edits about gypsies like this? Is there an end to this sock puppetry?--Der Golem (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, provide a source first, or else you will be banned for POV pushing.--Liongrande (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources about him being a Bohemian Jew are all over Franz Kafka article, if you can read. You don't need to attempt to threaten me, I know how users get blocked. If you think that Jews can't be Czechs then please don't try to spread your bigoted ideas here. Also consider to stop sock puppeting to evade block.--Der Golem (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offended by your offensive tone. I have nothing in common with any sock puppet you're talking about, I've never been blocked, I've been using Wikipedia for a long time and I created this account just recently. I suspect this is just an attempt to justify your blatant breaking of the rules. Yes, Kafka was a Bohemian Jew, but not a Czech. Until you find sources he was a Czech, we don't have anything more to talk about. I hope this discussion will end here, because I really don't feel like I want to quarrel with someone who doesn't know basic rules of civility.--Liongrande (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree that Kafka is a Bohemian Jew. And since Bohemian = Czech, he's a Czech Jew.
But racism, bigotry and such delusions that "Czechs are not Jews" are not welcome here. Read that discussion to find out why, if it is not self-evident to you.--Der Golem (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Western European and I don't find this suggestion racist at all. There is a difference between nationals and ethnicities, for example Jewish Americans are often called as such rather than their country of origin. There are multiple ethnicities, autocthonous or new, in the Czech Republic. If there are already articles on Germans in the Czech Republic and Jews amongst others, what pagespace is left for the majority ethnic group of the country, who also exist with similar culture and identity in other countries? I'm not finding the hair-trigger accusations of racism or eugenics to be WP:CIVIL: this is about identities. For all I know, Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor could have been a descendant of King David and only have his ancestors convert or assimilate relatively recently, but still he is clearly of the Czech ethnic group.
I'm also wary of including Kafka. I'm no expert on him, but as he lived in what is now the Czech Republic, and had German as mother tongue at a time of polarisation between Czech- and German-speakers, it hardly seems accurate to call him a Czech. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might have written in a slightly upset tone because previously there was an editor who was sock puppeting here after being blocked for racist edits on multiple articles.
Yes, "There is a difference between nationals and ethnicities", and this article is also about the nation, not just an ethnicity. And as you can read the ethnicity in the Czech lands is not uniform anyway. And yes again, there are articles like History of the Jews in Germany, yet Marx and Einstein can be in the infobox of Germans, or Rita Levi-Montalcini is among the Italians etc. because being an ethnic minority does not exclude them from the nation's heritage. So does not their work exclude them if for example the Hungarian Franz Liszt's works are considered New German School, and the ethnicity is not an issue.
"Kafka" comes from "kavka", a Czech word; and his parents come from Czech towns Osek (Strakonice District) and Poděbrady. He also was billingual and spoke German with Czech accent according to his article. German was an official language in the Czech lands for centuries, and people such as Karel Schwarzenberg are Czechs even if their family speaks German.
I didnt understand this link between "King David" and Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, but as you might know, there is a 800 years history of German language in the Czech lands and there are figures such as Charles IV, who come from German speaking families and according to Britannica they are simply German; and their mother tongue is not Czech, yet they are considered to be Czech. Their genetic ethnicity is not relevant.
If you want to remove every person that has associations with anything German from the history of Bohemia, you need to delete half of the country's history of the second millennium; and I would really like to see a suggestion for the numerous similar cases such as Charles IV, who is a "German king" according to Britannica.
Again, this article is not just about an ethnicity, it is about a nation, so please stop suggesting to exclude people based on their ethnicity if they are a part of the nation's history. Previously, throughout the discussion I gave examples about how Jews and others are treated in articles about nations on Wikipedia.
Kafka is a Bohemian Jew, which is not the a majority in the Czech lands, everyone knows that. But given the examples of Wikipedia standards about Jews or others, I don't see being Jewish is a problem for inclusion in an article about a nation - at least in encyclopedic discourse--Der Golem (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, my reference to "King David" was me saying that even if Charles IV were from a biologically Jewish lineage (David lived 2,000 years before him, so it is hardly impossible) he shouldn't be excluded from being a Czech for such an arbitrary and ever-so-slightly spiteful reason as that. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok; what I ment was rather just about his German origin...--Der Golem (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

First paragraph of first section. I'm not sure whether 1st century also requires "AD" to disambiguate if 6th century is:

The Czech people are the descendants of Celts and the Gallic tribe Boii mixed with West Slavs who settled in Bohemia, Moravia and Austria in the 6th century AD and Germanic Marcomanni and Quadi in the 1st century and later also Germans in the 13th century.

'''tAD''' (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Jews and Czech Jews

[edit]

Someone is seemingly trying to categorically remove all people of Jewish origin from this article. Significant Jews are included in the infoboxes of nations such as Poles, Germans, Italians, Dutch people or Belgians. A Bohemian Jew, or Czech Jew, Franz Kafka, described also as "Czech novelist/author/writer",[1][2][3] one of the most significant figures in modern world literature, declared himself an atheist,[4][5] active in Prague, the capital city of Kingdom of Bohemia (today's Czech Republic), after 1918 capital of Czechoslovakia, he was bilingual and spoke German with a Czech accent,[6] he was a Czechoslovak citizen,[6] his name comes from the Czech word "kavka", meaning "jackdaw", his parents come from Osek and Poděbrady.

I would like to raise the awareness of this issue among the editors of Wikipedia. People of Jewish origin were first deleted by User:Kohelet, who was subsequently blocked from editing. Directly after that, several IPs continued and the article was semi-protected. Subsequently a new account was created (User:Liongrande), dedicated exclusively to delete Jews. From here I would like to leave it up to other editors to express their opinions and discuss. Cheers--Der Golem (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References
  1. ^ "KAFKA, Franz (1883–1924): Czech novelist.": Hutchinson 20th Century Encyclopedia (7th ed, 1986), p. 702.
  2. ^ "KAFKA, FRANZ (1883–1924): Czech author.": The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (fifth ed, 1977, ed. Geoffrey Wigoder), p. 1101.
  3. ^ [1] " Czech writer."
  4. ^ Gilman 2005, p. 31.
  5. ^ Sayer 1996, pp. 164–210.
  6. ^ a b Koelb 2010, p. 12.
  • Gilman, Sander (2005). Franz Kafka. London: Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-881872-64-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Koelb, Clayton (2010). Kafka: A Guide for the Perplexed. Chippenham, Wiltshire: Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-9579-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Sayer, Derek (1996). "The Language of Nationality and the Nationality of Language: Prague 1780–1920 – Czech Republic History". Past and Present. 153 (1). Oxford: 164. doi:10.1093/past/153.1.164. OCLC 394557. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
First, I'm not a sockpuppet of Kohelet, I just created this account on English Wikipedia after noticing this dispute, previously I occassionally edited under my IP. Second, I really don't understand what you're trying to achieve by copying and pasting the exact parts of the article about Franz Kafka which you think support your hypothesis. If you read the whole article, it would be crystal clear to you that Kafka wasn't a Czech. He was a German-speaking Jew, it's in the lead section. I don't know how else I should explain it to you. You've been told that multiple times by several people in this discusion. There doesn't exist a single source which would claim that Kafka was of Czech ethnicity.--Liongrande (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kafka wasn't an ethnic Czech. He was a German-speaking Bohemian Jew. "Czech" refers in common English usage only to ethnic Czechs. "Bohemian" is a wider group, and historically has included ethnic Jews, ethnic Germans, and ethnic Czechs. RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Franz Kafka was an Ashkenazi Jew. He didn't have any Czech ancestry and trying to insert him or any other Jew in the info box is a serious offence of WP:FRINGE. If you choose to that, then I'll leave a note at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard for fringe theories. As for those articles, I'll have to send a report on that considering that the Poles page has a legion of Polish nationalists ready to revert those who change the collage. Khazar (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Czechs as Celts (History sections)

[edit]

Is there a reference source for the claim that the Czech people are primarily descended from the Celts? Most main stream academic views on the subject, state that Czechs are part of the Western Slavs first, with a mixture of Germanic and Celtic influences. If I understand correctly the Czech language has very little if any Gaelic influence, and is very significantly similar to Polish or Slovak, unlike the German language that is very similar to the Irish language phonetically. (Bohemia and Poland. Chapter 20.pp 512-513. [in:] Timothy Reuter. The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 900-c.1024. 2000) Perhaps, the first paragraph in the History section should be changed to more correctly reflect this. At this point, the statement is based on wishful thinking rather then any facts, especially that the "Celtic traits" probably entered the Czech population through the German colonists form western and southern regions of the Holy Roman Empire, not through direct mixing of of Slavic and Celtic tribes. --Bull-SX (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Its nonsense. Quite simply, there were no "Celts" in the region in the 7th century when Slavs colonized the region. In fact, there were no Celts in the 4th century, or the 2nd, as they had all become Germanic. from c. 0 AD Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion

[edit]

A move discussion relating to this article is open at Lech, Čech, and Rus' talk page. Khestwol (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resttschechei

[edit]

An anonymous IP has glossed Resttschechei as "remnants of Czechia"; however, this gloss does not appear in either of the sources currently cited. The URL citation "http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/..." (a search engine result, not a source per se) contains only the term Czechia in isolation but does not gloss Resttschechei and therefore fails verification. The cited RFE/RL source contains the gloss "remnants of the Czech lands". Doremo (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czechia advocacy
Czechia did not exist then. It's lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the content issues instead of making personal attacks.
The region certainly existed then, but the name "Czechia" was not used in English. It may be the English equivalent of what the Nazi's called the area, but I don't see the urgency to push that in the article. There seems to be this ongoing obsession with seeding Wikipedia with the word "Czechia". I just don't get it.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't attack me, please! See up to section 8 Resttschechei: Czechia in English-language press in 1939: http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=search&text=czechia#panel=search&search=1 or here https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Czechia&year_start=1830&year_end=2010&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CCzechia%3B%2Cc0

Why are you interesting about Czechs, when you don't speak Czech?

Sorry about that "Mojo Hand, but I don't understand. In German it was called "Die Tsjechei" at the time and indeed for the purposes of this occurrence "Rest Tsjechei", and although the same area (but then including the Sudeten area) has been historically known in English as Bohemia, that phrase to describe these areas was obsolete from at least 1918. I'm not sure that the dichotomy between "Czech Lands" and "Czechia" is all that meaningful. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the German name is important to the English Wikipedia. "Czechia" redirects to the Czech Republic which certainly did not exist at the time. Obviously this change is controversial, so it is good practice to build consensus here rather than trying to force your change - see WP:BRD.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mojo Hand, I've seen this. There is no need for that as this issue and the differences we have about it can be perfectly discussed by you and me here on this page. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the word Czechia refers to the modern Republic on Wikipedia is not an argument as Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. The sources you and the IP editor provides seem unreadable to me. I think we need an explanation of the situation... I also think that the community needs to know why this is a problem anyway. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The has been a push over many years by a group of IPs and editors to advocate for using Czechia instead of Czech Republic in a variety of article, despite the fact that Czechia is not commonly used in English. So, any time I see edit warring about that phrase, it raises a red flag that this is part of that campaign.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mojo Hand, Doremo, Yopie, Dan Polansky, Mewulwe, Khajidha, -jkb- and Cimmerian praetor are soldiers in the Holy War against the word Czechia. They systematically translate Česko (=Czechia) wrong as "Czech Republic" (=Česká republika) or "Czech lands" (= České země) and they delete every mention about "Czechia". Mojo Hand lie, that this word didn't exist in 1939, because here are sources (http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=search&text=czechia#panel=search&search=1 ; https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Czechia&year_start=1830&year_end=2010&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CCzechia%3B%2Cc0). "remnants of Czechia" is literally translation of "Rest-Tschechei" (See here: Nové Město na Moravě (literally "New Town in Moravia") - no problem). Moreover, Czechia is since July an official English short name in the UNGEGN World Geographical Names (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames/) 62.168.13.98 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ IP 62.168.13.98: don't write shit here. I am not a warrion agains Czechia, for me it is full without any interest. What I don't like user who practize news-tickeritis like many here. -jkb- (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)- - - And your thesis on "Rest-Tschechei" and Czechia is simply bullshit. -jkb- (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And again, how is the registration at the UN relevant to actual English usage? Ivory Coast, East Timor and Cape Verde are not the forms registered at the UN but they ARE the forms most often used in English and what is used in the English Wikipedia. Similarly, Czechia IS registered but is NOT commonly used in English. --Khajidha (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Mojo Hand, this IP is much more likely to be another of Jan Blanicky's socks. He has so many he should change his name to "Hanes".--Khajidha (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-jkb-: Do you have any arguments except shit and bullshit?
to Khajidha: Examples from 1939 are here: http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=search&text=czechia#panel=search&search=1 ( Do you have something against literally translations? Resttschechei - literally "remnants of Czechia" (like Nové Město na Moravě - literally "New Town in Moravia")?? And I am not Blanicky, you have a bad information.
When the translation uses a word that is virtually unknown in English parlance it fails as a translation. I don't know why Czechia has not caught on in English, but the fact remains that it hasn't. Unless and until it does it is inappropriate to use here.--Khajidha (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)PS: Wouldn't resttchechei literally translate to "rest of Czechia"?[reply]
Update you information: "the Czech Republic, also known as Czechia".
Look up the distinction between using a word and mentioning it. --Khajidha (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is this source? http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=search&text=czechia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czechia is not a "virtually unknown word" in the English language. Also we are not debating present general use in the English language here, but a term that was briefly used in an historical situation almost eighty years ago. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are holly warriors against the word Czechia, they don't need any information...
Please calm down everybody. This is after all a minor issue. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps now that our combative IP friend is on a break, we can have a civil conversation. I personally have no problem using "Czechia". However, there seems to be two different uses of the word - the Nazi German translation of "Die Tsjechei" during WWII, and the modern English shortform for Czech Republic, which was recently formally adopted by the Czech government. Some English sources clearly did use "Czechia" during WWII, but it appears the more common English usage was to refer to it as "occupied Czechoslovakia" - see German occupation of Czechoslovakia.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Whatever term is used to translate Resttschechei should be well-attested in reliable published sources. The current solution ("the remainder of the Czech lands") fits that criterion. However, the term "rump Czech state" is attested even better. Doremo (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Rest" of ...

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Czechs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People's origin

[edit]

Czechs are not a hybrid. No nation is 100% pure and assimilation and mixing has taken place among all populations throughout every period in history. By saying "Czechs, Slovaks and Poles descend from Germans and Slavs" but "Belarussians and Ukrainians do not", one is implying that the basis for these nations' existence is precisely their mixed descent. This is as if to imply that if a Czech traces his roots to find he has no German/Hungarian ancestry, that he cannot be a Czech. One is Czech for declaring as Czech; the language is Slavic and the name is Slavic. The fact that certain Germanic people assimilated is only as relevant as Thracians, Avars and Bulgars all becoming assimilated by the Slavic, Hellenic, Illyrian and Romance populations where their last known people were settled. --OJ (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, "West Slavs" settled nowhere. First came the Slavic settlements, only after did the arbitrary classifications based on various schisms come into existence. There is no "south Slavic", "west Slavic" nor "east Slavic" progenitor or parent tribe. --OJ (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless original research in some kind of pseudoscientific racism.--Concus Cretus (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what is original research? That Czechs are West Slavic? That no nation is 100% pure? Or what? I need to know what you contest to show you that there is no original research. In the meantime, if you care to explain why the relationship with Germans and Austrians is non-reciprocal and how the "mixing" is even relevant, then we will discuss whether that makes them intrinsically related. No racism of any sort. Austrians are Austrians and I am happy for them, but as someone from Bosnia, I am not one of their affiliates. But to a Czech, I am, whether that Czech be Pan-European or not. --OJ (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you have written is WP:Original research since it is unsourced speculations (see Wikipedia:Burden of evidence). statements such as "czechs are not hybrid" are plain racial/racist unencyclopedic and off topic nonsense.
Concerning "relatedness", Czech-German/Austrian assimilations ranging from the migration period to the 20th century and long common territorial, political and cultural history, presence and interaction of both languages and a common statehood (1000+ years of the Holy Roman Empire) have unlimited sources all over the article, some of which you tried to partially remove. A nation can barely be more related to Czechs than this, looking at the profound depth of interactions with this neighboring nation, not even mentioning the centuries-long history of cohabitation directly in Czech lands.
Moreover, large proportion of your revert (such as the image of Smetana) is not even mentioned in your unsourced argument, so stay on point and stop reverting what you are not even trying to argue about.--Concus Cretus (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, kindly stop your unsourced attempts to "cleanse" articles such as Poles and Silesians, as those clearly are related to Germans and Austrians too, not only to other West Slavic speaking groups, if you read those articles.--Concus Cretus (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I've read your points and followed your argument, and I find you applying pure original research: you are suggesting that West Slavs are not related to other Slavs - which doesn't make sense. Czechs are Poles have a long history. Yes they have (according to sources) assimilated other nations and yes this includes Germanic people. However, the idea that "mixture with non-Slavs" is how Czech and Polish identity came about is original research at best, and falsehood at worst (I go with the latter). --OJ (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that Czechs are unrelated to Slavic groups, of course they are. I am not proposing any idea about "identity". You are making things up. Relatedness to Germans is sourced,[1] and relatedness is completely different from identity. That infobox section is not about identity. I have included "Slavs" besides "West Slavs" in the infobox now (which should be somewhat self-evident) and sourced the rest fully. Please refrain from removing reliably sourced content.--Concus Cretus (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Ethnic cleansing'? I'm sorry, Concus Cretus, but it seems that it is you who have an agenda of 'ethnic gathering' under the banner of 'Germanic'. Do you actually have reliable sources attesting to your interpretation of ethnicity? While I'm about it, please desist with the battleground behaviour and familiarise yourself with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bohemian tribes assimilated "Celtic and Germanic populations".[1] (different context) "[Besides the Slavic origin group,] there is also another - the second biggest group - and this group contains people who have roots in Western Europe. These origins are typical mainly for people who are now defined as people of the Romance language group and particularly of the Germanic language group. So this is the second biggest group in the Czech Republic."[2] Besides these ethnographic sources, you can find historical ones in the article too. I might source it in the article more explicitly if that is what you prefer. No trying to have "battleground" behaviour, but other other editors seem to have "battleground" tendency to promote POV unsourced pan-slavism and sometimes vandalize other's userpages.-Concus Cretus (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Y-DNA should obviously not be used for judging related ethnic groups in the infobox. Agree that "other West Slavs" suffices. As for the article body, I see no problem in elaboration on genetic and cultural markers, although the former needs to be used with caution (and not in black-and-white) and mirror references fully.--Zoupan 20:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Rick Fawn, Jiří Hochman. Historical Dictionary of the Czech State. Page xix. Rowman & Littlefield. 2010. ISBN 978-0810856486. ISBN 0810856484.
  2. ^ Horáková, Pavla (10 May 2007). "In search of 'Forefather Czech' - DNA tests disclose remote ancestors". Radio Prague. Retrieved 7 December 2016.

(edit conflict)The existing online previews of the Historical Dictionary of the Czech State omit pg.xix, but judging from the context, it represents pre-6th century history. As for the article from Radio Prague, it's from 2007 which, by the standards of our DNA articles (and an interpretation by someone who is not an expert in the field), is extremely dated and not a reliable source. Most certainly, this information is a contravention of WP:NOR, and is misleading per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This article is about an ethnic group, not DNA or distant relatives. If we push it a little further, we may as well add that we're all out of Africa, therefore I'm reverting your inclusion of the content in the infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I agree with Zoupan's observation. The content may be relevant to the body of the article on the proviso that it is better referenced, and reflecting the references sans WP:SYNTH. It is false balance for the infobox and lead. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Czechs (as many Wetsern Slavs) had intensive contacts with Germans, many Germans have become Slavic and Slavs germanized. Many Czechs listed in this article have German last names, Karel Schwarzenberg isn't mentioned.
Czechia had been under Austrian German domination during hundreds years. Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Historical Dictionary of the Czech State (describing the settlement of West Slavs in Czech lands) clearly states that the tribes of Bohemians assimilated Celtic and Germanic people, to form the subsequent Czech population. This is also confirmed by sources in the genetics section from modern day Czechs by large proportions of the Czech population. For example the article about French people does use genetics to clarify the ethnicity and relatedness to ancestral groups of modern French and puts the notable ones into the infobox. For Czechs, even without genetics, there still is the ethnographic source about this. If the Slavic tribes (notably) assimilated Celtic and Germanic groups to "form" what became modern-day Czechs (according to the source), it seems to me as a POV "dumbing it down" to just cherry pick the single biggest group as the only related group. To say that "we're all out of Africa" is completely out of place, as it would make the Slav ancestor of today's Czechs equally irrelevant as the Celtic or Germanic one. If there is a source that an ethnic group came to being by assimilation of one larger group with two other groups, it is a POV to say that the other two major groups are not even "related", in my opinion..
Italians are (per infobox) related to "other Romanic peoples, Greeks, Swiss people, Slovenians and Croatians". According to the logic that is taking hold in this discussion, we should delete Greeks, Slovenians and Croats because they don't speak a Romance language like Italians? Is that infobox secton there just to name the one single largest parental ethnic group and some other of its subgroups, even if there is a written source that the nation has been related to other groups by notable "assimilations"? Is that infobox section there just to say Poles are Slavic, Swedes are Germanic, Spaniards are Romance? That seems like an oversimplification to me. I believe the section is for what sources cite as related groups.--Concus Cretus (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(off-topic mildly) Well I am Croat (per father's origin) and I am not related to or descended from any Italian!!!!! Romanian populations occupy the entire region of southeastern Europe in small numbers (descended from Byzantine people) and the Dalmatian coastline was once home to the extinct Romance Dalmatians. For centuries Venice ruled the same territories and more but the modern concept of Italian means the unified Romance people within the present-day borders. Apart from small numbers of later settled Italians in Istria, and some native Slovenes/Serbs/Molise Croats on Italian territory, there is no history of long-term mixing between Italians and Croats/Slovenes.
(on topic) It seems nobody is disputing facts or sources (now the West Slavs point is clarified). Germans (and Austrians) have a centuries long history of assimilating and being assimilated into Czech (and Polish/Slovak/Ukrainian/Russian) societies - and vice versa (considering so many Germans have Slavic-origin surnames). As is known, I don't generally see this as a reason for two nations to be considered "related" because assimilation is the choice of individuals - I prefer to think of related groups as nations with a common ancestor. In the case of Czechs and Germans, we have two long-standing nations independent of one another. Yes there is cross-influence and lots of mixing. But both groups trace their history to long before the assimilation phase began. In addition, neither bases its existence on being some form of "hybrid". They are just two nations whose citizens should realise that if they trace their roots, they may not all find themselves to be as ethnically pure as they first thought.
(proposal) I suggest we make changes to the infobox. Rather than "related", maybe "associated" may work better. At least this way, there is less dispute. Likewise if the section is problematic, why not just remove them all (not just on Czechs but everywhere). After all, the opening line should give the reader a link to the wider population if there is one, and the first lines of the article should explain where there has been widespread mixing and this is itself should allow the reader to paint their own picture. --OJ (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As occurred with WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES, I would consider an RfC at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. This is a problem that plagues not only the main ethnic group articles, but also the thousands of diasporic ethnic group articles. 'Related' is very much a relative term (pardon the pun), resulting in OR and POV clashes. Is DNA an overriding factor pertaining to something that is rooted in cultural and linguistic ties? There are far too many blurry edges in the equation... and yes, perhaps something like an 'associated groups' parameter should be created and the qualifications delineated in the guidelines. As I see it, this is less of a question of 'what is' than 'what is not'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to the proposals of editors Iryna Harpy and Oranges Juicy to either adjust the infobox section (to give readers non-selective source-based information) or remove it completely (to avoid POV pushes).--Concus Cretus (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to a post by User:Oranges Juicy on my talkpage about this article and a similar conflict that he/she encountered on Azerbaijanis: Yes, the interpretation of what "related" means is not exactly defined in Template:Infobox ethnic group. Therefore, any ethnic group that is related, in a way that sources define as related, can be included, based on the basic policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is no policy, definition or consensus that "related" ethnic groups must belong to the same language family or any kind of single subcategory. Azerbaijanis and French people are examples of consensus that shows that various ethnic groups are related when sources state that.

Arguments from Oranges Juicy's previous post that nations are not "hybrid" and that "citizens should realise that if they trace their roots, they may not all find themselves to be as ethnically pure as they first thought" seem to me completely unsourced POV, if not absurd.

In case editors want to either delete or re-define the parameter of the infobox (for all ethnic groups), it is possible to either open an WP:RFC (as User:Iryna Harpy mentioned above), or its possible to just open a discussion at Template talk:Infobox ethnic group. As for this article, I believe the "related" parameter should be either blanked as in Japanese people or information based on available sources should be included as in French people.--Concus Cretus (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking (per Japanese example) is best for a number of reasons: firstly the interpretation which differs and thus promotes original research, and secondly because a well written article should explain the facts whilst simple blue link clicks will tell the reader everything he needs to know on from whom a nation is descended historically, nominally and with whom there has been extensive assimilation/mixing. I stand by my point that there is no such thing as a hybrid ethnicity and I welcome anybody to prove me wrong (and I don't mean by giving me their own interpolation on what it means to be Irish or French) and I do not believe there is a single race in this world whose members have not mixed with outsiders, again, if someone knows of a pure race or can tell me of a person who has traced his roots to be 100% consistent with his ethnicity for the past millennium then I will gladly retract my remarks. --OJ (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS. On sources: if indeed a source claims that two unrelated nations are "related" because of long-term contact then yes, no editor should apply his own logic (and this places me in a compromising position, I am aware). I do say however, that if the section stays then it really should be reciprocal across the board. In other words, rightly or wrongly if we say that Czechs are related to Italians, then it should be listed on the Italians article as well. Pointless having it on one article and not the other. I suspect that this is where it could all start to look tricky because articles tend to be edited and maintained by various groups of editors and sometimes a "reciprocal" point is not always equally appreciated on the companion article. --OJ (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would also be for blanking the 'related groups' parameter for reasons outlined by OJ and Concus Cretus. Looking at the Jews article, the section is dedicated to reflecting genetic studies and is a breach of WP:NOR in as much as it excludes prominent genetic markers from European and other haplogroups. The concept of 'ethnicity' is not predicated on DNA, therefore conflation of sources and types of sources are misleading to the reader. As with Bulgarians, there is a dedicated article for Genetic studies on Bulgarians. A girlfriend of mine found out that she was adopted, and that both of her biological parents were Greek. She was brought up as a Ukrainian. Forty years on, she is still 'Ukrainian' and accepted as such unconditionally by the community. What, exactly, does 'ethnicity' mean? Did Janissaries consider themselves to be 'other' than Turkish? Information on ethnic intermixing should be in the body of the article where it is properly qualified. DNA should be treated as a summary section of a main article on studies, particularly as it is still in its infancy, and studies from even a couple of years ago are already dated. The average reader does not check citations, therefore they look at the infobox and understand it to be correct without considering what features have been selected as the criteria for these relationships. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regards the lady who has Greek biological parents but identifies as Ukrainian, yes she is Ukrainian and this without scare quotes. Just as a sizable portion of Ukrainian citizens favour Russian identity, one needs to remember that ethnicity is how a human declares himself. The fact that this girl's parents were Greek only suggests that Greek is how they identified. Greeks are native to lands outside of Greece (most notably Cyprus) and Greece has non-Greek minorities all on the same basis. There is a good chance one of these "Greek" parents may just have had non-Greek ancestry even if the pedigree remains on modern-day territory controlled by Athens. I'm born of a Croat father and Bosniak mother and the marriage has worked beautifully because we are all atheist and their own parents played a role in the creation of Communist Yugoslavia. I generally prefer not to comment on how I identify, because it is always going to upset some people (speaking of my region of course). Anyhow, what is the best way to move forward in this circumstance? I take it that such a sweeping change will need views from dozens if not hundreds of editors who contribute across the field of nations. --OJ (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This is a ticklish issue, and has been discussed elsewhere. I'm afraid that I don't have time to search out the discussions on other Slavic ethnic group talk pages as I'm about to log off and probably won't be around for a couple of days.

While I agree with the WP:KISS principle, the difference between keeping it simple and dumbing it down is a large one, and I don't believe it should be applied just in order to avoid POV pushes, or for POV pushing. Being overly simplistic is not informative for the reader. The Slavs are a large related group, just as are 'Germanic' and other groups: see Germans, Dutch people, etc. Simultaneously, articles on the various ethnic groups are not treated homogeneously throughout Wikipedia, so I believe there is good reason for consensus per article to be implemented before the next round of thundering through the infobox takes place. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Czechs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Czechs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

[edit]

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Czechs. Krakkos (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede section, Bohemians and Czechs

[edit]

The lede should give some kind of cursory explanation of how Czechs came to be called Czechs (rather than Bohemians) and why. Or, if they always called themselves Czechs, then why we called them Bohemians. The way the lede is currently written, it sounds as though they just magically turned into Czechs from Bohemians overnight (in 1918 or whenever). Firejuggler86 (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Czechs&oldid=1201310301"