Talk:History of the Czech lands

summary, not a collection of links

Shame on you editors. Pretty horrific. There should be a summary of each historical period as in the case of most countries, not a collection of links.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.74.22 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

A lot of this is about Czechoslovakia not the Czech Republic. And where should stuff on Czech ethnic group go? --rmhermen

Indeed. Please come join Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups -- Jmabel 10:28, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

CIA Factbook

I've put the CIA Factbook stuff on this page - there's no point in having it on two separate pages - but the merging goes beyond my expertise. The CIA info is quite brief; but the more extended article seems to have a lot of problems, and the poor English makes it difficult to decipher. Someone with better historical knowledge should probably look it over and make changes. -- April 11:04 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)

Anachronistic

What are we going to do about this entry title, folks? It's not up to Wikipedia standards-- flexible as they are. Imagine a History of the U.S. in the 17th century! --anachronistic. Is Bohemia receiving a European neo-nationalist cultural punishment or something? Why not follow normal historical conventions, giving the history of each region under its name until regions are unified and sepate histories become irrelevant. Wetman 11:26, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wetman is right. History of Czech Republic makes no sense at all, if you start in year 600. History of Czechia is not perfect, but better. History of Bohemia, limits scope to 1 province of Czech Republic. Cautious 23:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

This is definitely not the history of the Czechs, but the history of Czechia. Since most Americans are not able to accept this correct term, someone had changed into History of the Czech Republic months ago, which is of course slightly strange, but on the other hand, the history of all countries in Europe does not refer to the respective country only - this would mean that there could not be a history of Slovenia, but also e.g. of Poland for several centuries when Poland did not exist. Also, each book on the history of Mexico, for example, deals with the Aztecs , even if they have nothing in common with the modern state of Mexico. The same applies for European countries during Celtic, Roman times and so on. Therefore, History of the Czech Republic is a correct title, but to avoid any problems I will take the equally correct term Czech lands, since for a strange reason Americans seem to have a problem with Czechia.Juro

Czech History

First of all, I live in Australia (check my IP address). I have european parents that include's Czech and English. Personally I have been to over 50 cities in the Czech Republic. And I have taken close to 4000 photo's. Some are of artifacts and and many of historical places. Being of an ex communist country before 1991, the study of history was restricted and more than often prohibited. In my opinion there are very racist people writing things here that are not true. Have you ever been to the Czech Republic?. Has the author of your books ever studied in the Czech republic?(no). This book listed below has extensive information and maps about this subject History of the Czech Lands" 639 pages of text. Main author and editors: Prof PHDr. Jaroslav Panek, DrSc PhDR Oldrich Tuma, Ph.d. And your famous one line quote use from PhDr. Dusan Trestik, CDc he is also an author in this book. The other two authors are American or english names. Nothing listed on pre-history about these subjects lets start with the oldest and please correct me if I have them in the wrong order.: 1.Červený kopec. worked pebble, stone axe blade of more than 800,000 years old have been found at the brickyard 2.Kůlna cave- Moravian Karst - where a part Neanderthal man's skull, about 120 000 years old, was found 2.Beroun. Koněprusy Caves 3.Mladeč caves - 31000 years old radiocarbon dating in Vienna 4.Dolní_Věstonice_(archaeology.) 5.bridgehead at Přerova (Předmostí) 6.Petřkovická Venus. (Dolní Věstonice, Předmostí, Pavlov, Petřkovice) 7.Czech neolithic age 6000-5500 to 4000 BC - Czech farmers came from the "fertile crescent". There culture Liner Pottery. 8.Moravian painted pottery 4700-3700BC. 9.Comb Ceramics 2900-2800-2600BC - referred to as Battle Axe culture. 10.* Corded Ware culture - The grave located in Terronska Street Prague 6. ( Gay Caveman) dated to about 2800 to 2500 BC, so about 4500 years ago. http://www.academia.edu/509494/The_find_of_Corded_Ware_settlement_pottery_at_Bacin_District_Beroun_Central_Bohemia_ 11. Unetice culture named after Unetice near Prague 2400-1550,1550-1200BC. 12.Amber trade route - Romans used to transport amber. 13.Veneti extinct,Italians and celts. Celts in Czech lands also referred to as the Hallstatt Civilalzation 750-400/300BC. 14.* Then the Celtic Boii ( Whose name - Boiohaemum has stuck to this day. http://www.archeolog.cz/encyklopedie/keltove-kelt-keltske/ 15. Then the Celtic La Tene culture. Then the celts where replaced with more primitive Germans. 16.Marcomanni occupied Bohemia led by King Morobudus, Moravia was held by the Quadi under King Tudrus. Morbudus was deposed in the year 19AD. A noteworthy Roman camp located at Musov. 17.* Ptolemy Code, The orginal map is written in ancient latin example Casurgis is the City Prague http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%9Bjiny_%C4%8Ceska Your taking I quote Chronicle of Fredegar as the holy bible of Czech republic's history. Where are your ancient artifacts or maps from the era of the 4th to 7th century showing that the Avars held the Czech lands?( Please upload or show link). Please I want to see with my own eyes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_of_Prague Casurgis has much more to say. How do you upload images to wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.254.48 (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope this information on the Czech lands is useful to everyone.

History of the Czech Lands: Oldest chronological order.

• Červený kopec - Red hill near Brno
• Beroun – Koněprusy Caves, Beroun district many artifacts found 25km south west of Prague
• Kůlna cave- Moravian Karst - where a part Neanderthal man's skull, about 120 000 years old, was found
• Mladeč caves - 31000 years old radiocarbon dating in Vienna, proves to be the oldest cranial, dental and post cranial assemblage of early modern humans in Europe
• The Venus of Dolni Vestonice dated to 29 000 – 25 000 BP (Gravettian industry). Many other artifacts were also found at Dolni Vestonice. And carbon dated in America see the National Geographic October 1988
• Bridgehead at Přerova (Předmostí) is an important archaeological site, especially renowned paleolitickými. Estimated to be 25000 years old.
• Petřkovická Venus , sometimes called Landecká Venus. Estimated to be 23,000 years old
• Czech neolithic age 6000-5500 to 4000 BC - Czech farmers came from the "fertile crescent". There culture Liner Pottery
• The Prague 7 district of Bubeneč - People have been living in the area since at least the 5th millennium BC. Bubence has a burial site from the ancient Corded Ware culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.232.19 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Moravian painted pottery 4700-3700BC
• Comb Ceramics 2900-2800-2600BC - referred to as Battle Axe culture
• Corded Ware culture - The grave located in Terronska Street Prague 6. ( Gay Caveman) dated to about 2800 to 2500 BC, so about 4500 years ago.
• Unetice culture named after Unetice near Prague 2400-1550,1550-1200BC
• Amber trade route - Romans used to transport amber
• Veneti extinct,Italians and celts. Celts in Czech lands also referred to as the Hallstatt Civilalzation 750-400/300BC
• Then the Boii ( Whose name - Boiohaemum has stuck to this day)
• Then the Celtic La Tene culture. Then the celts where replaced with more primitive Germans.
• Marcomanni occupied Bohemia led by King Morobudus, Moravia was held by the Quadi under King Tudrus. Morbudus was deposed in the year 19AD. A noteworthy Roman camp located at Musov
• Ptolemy Code, The orginal map is written in ancient latin example Eburodunum is the City Brno

Thank you for this. I will try my best to make use of it. Martin J. Němeček (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pre-history =

The oldest, The first inhabitants of ancient humans of the country,probably people of the type Homo heidelbergensis, appear in Moravia sporadically 1 million years ago. A worked pebble, stone axe blade of more than 800,000 years old have been found at the brickyard on the Červený kopec hill in Brno. Also Beroun-highway (District Beroun) has many ancient artifacts.

Middle Paleolithic, the period between 300 000 and 400 000 years ago. Moravia was inhabited mostly in the period of 100 000 – 40 000 years ago when Neanderthals occupied several caves and pitched their camps in the open air. In the Kůlna cave, proofs of their repeated stay during some 80 000 years (120 000 – 40 000) have been found. Mladeč caves is an Aurignacian culture archaeological site with directly dated remains of early modern human dating to about 31,000 radiocarbon years. During Upper Paleolithic (40 000 – 10 000 years ago) an extraordinary culture of mammoth hunters (Pavlovian) emerged in Moravia. It is known especially from Dolní Věstonice, Předmostí, Pavlov, Petřkovice and it is famous for its unique works of art. The oldest known carbon dated grave of a female Shaman in the world is located at Dolni Vestonice 26000+ years old. And a mammoth statuette from Předmostí.

In the period of Middle Paleolithic (250 thousand. - 40 thousand.) In the territory of the Czech Republic had many Paleolithic cultures, of which he was the bearer of an earlier stage yet Homo erectus, in the later stage in cultures, probably Homo sapiene. The best known deposits of the Middle Palaeolithic cave Arrow, Shed, Předmostí at Přerova.

Paleolithic 40 thousand. - 12 thousand. BP is connected to the first documented occurrence of the type of man today (Homo sapiens) in the Czech Republic. The oldest carbon dated records show Mladec caves at 31,0000 years old. While in the transient cultures to interface Middle Paleolithic and young Paleolithic is still considered rather of Neanderthals as its owners in other cultures Pavlovian Gravettian, Epigravettian and is a carrier designed [ [person present type]]. Pavlovienská site in Moravia (u Přerova Předmostí, Lower Věstonice, Pavlov, Petřkovice). Became known thanks to the housing estate and findings Sepulchral which indicate unusually developed hunting company that has probably lived that way of life and was able to fire pottery or weave mats of grass, and was characterized by a sophisticated and diverse artistic expression with symbolic overtones ([[Venus statuette ] ], animal sculptures made of burnt clay, jewelry from shells, mammoth ivory and teeth, decorated with carvings from mammoth ivory tools, etc.), which in addition to evidence of ritual burials suggests theworlds oldest known female shaman at Dolni Vestonice which was carbon dated in American at 27000 yers old. ((Nation Geographic 174 Oct 1988)).

Short period at the turn of the Pleistocene u Holocene for it out as Paleolithic (12 thousand. - 10 thousand. BP), in the Czech Republic was based on the findings of the few (which is probably related to the low population density at the time) defined culture epimagdalénien and group curved spikes retouched and ostroměřská group.

Mesolithic (8 to 6 one thousand BC)

In terms of research identified very difficult period, not cultural-chronological breakdown settled, sometimes as separate periods ever questioned, respectively. replaced by the term epipaleolithic​​. Finds from this period is very little, considering the influence of climate change on sparse population of small hunting and gathering groups. A major problem is the relationship of people in order to newcomer agricultural community.

Neolithic

The Czech territory is represented Neolithic Linear Pottery culture, to which through the followed by Stroked Pottery culture. In Moravia, appeared at the end of the Neolithic Culture of the Moravian Painted Ware. The population at that time mainly fed agriculture (different intensity was complemented by hunting, gathering, fishing). People lived in small villages in the long houses. Already at the end of the Linear Pottery culture appear upland settlement, formed at the end of the Neolithic roundel (building): a large, usually circular monumental building whose purpose lead to numerous discussions. A well-studied sites are Bylany in Kutna Hora, Miskovice, Plotiště nad Labem, Březno u Loun or Těšetice-Kyjovice and Vedrovice in Moravia .

Copper Age (4400 - 2000 BC)

Due to the technology changes (discovery wheels, use , use cattle to plow sporadically fields and other related social changes likely, the social division of labour), mark it out late stone Age . In the Czech lands during the times changed or plagued with large quantities Culture Lengyel culture, Funnel Beaker culture, Baden culture, culture globular amphora, culture corded Ware. The well known Corded Ware culture - Includes the grave located in Terronska Street Prague 6 [[Gay Caveman[[ dated to about 2800 to 2500 BC, about 4500 years ago.

Bronze Age (2000 - 800 BC)

In essence, the Bronze age smoothly followed the Bronze Age, when just beginning to apply socially significant metal processing. Very likely this led to the creation of groups of specialists (miners, steelworkers, but also traders, etc.) who were socially divided status. From archaeological findings, it is possible to demonstrate significant stratification of society (rich graves), perhaps the emergence of nobility, which was able to assert its power interests (control significant mineral deposits, junctions or market place). Develops long-distance trade. Archaeological findings also allow, especially when compared with the Aegean Area , speculate about the specific content of religious ideas of contemporary society (solar cult). Again, the Czech identified the large number of cultures: Únětice culture, Nitranská group, culture Chłopice-Happy, věteřovská culture, mohylových complex cultures ( českofalcká, středodunajská), Lusatian Urnfield culture, culture Knovíz and štítarská, [[milavečská culture] ], nynická group, Velatice and Podoli culture.

=== Iron Age - Hallstatt (800-450 BC) ===

For this period was, as its name suggests, the typical widespread use iron, in connection with it, the Central Europe a closer contacts with the Mediterranean areas . And with a company that got them on the level of chieftain ship military , respectively. sometimes it was discussed hypothetically tribal principalities. In contrast to the culturally fragmented Bronze Age. Hallstatt period was culturally united. The Hallstatt culture in the Czech Republic: Hallstatt culture, bylanská culture in Bohemia, linen culture on the north and Horákov culture in southern Moravia. Famous site of extraordinary importance of this time is Bull Rock - caves in the Moravian Karst near Adam.

Younger Iron Age - crates (450-50 BC)

Distribution of Celts in Europe (blue: 1500 to 1000 BC, in pink: 400 BC)]] The Czech territory, perhaps already in the 2nd off the mid-5 century BC got Celtic, the first ethic Race of people here, whose name is known from written sources. Only in the 4 century BC occupied all the usable agricultural area (linked to the new wave of arrivals from about Elbe and upper Rhine or northwest France). Name tribe principal established in Bohemia Boii gave the country the name Boiohaemum. Moravia in the first wave in 5 century came Volková-Tektoságové, who probably occupied only the southern part of Moravia, in the 1st mid-4 century, the expected arrival of another wave of the Danube. The Central European culture Celtic is referred to as La Tene culture . In the periphery (eastern and north eastern Moravia) survived and origin Slovak Púchovská culture.

Time == Roman (50 BC - 350/380 AD) == The Ptolemy Code written in ancient latin shows Eburodunum as the City Brno, And Prague as Casurgis At he time when the Czech territory remained mostly Germanic tribes. They began to penetrate and mix with Celtic with people in the second to mid-1 century BC, the Plaňanská horizon. In northern Bohemia, at that time still remained culturally mixed kobylská group. Shortly before the turn of the era their settled the Marcomanni, after migration period the remnants remained here until about the beginning of the 5 century. From the 2 century onwards from the north they penetrated Przeworski culture (Moravia about this evidence since the beginning of the Roman period) in the 1st mid-3 century came to Bohemia new population of the Elbe. These new groups are in the 2nd mid-3 century spread to Moravia (Kostelec group). At the same time in South Moravia long researched sites that testify about the effects of Roman units in the [Marcomanni wars]] (Mušov) in the Czech Republic, in 2001, the evidence of their presence until Neředín.

Migration time (380/400 - about 568)

At the beginning of 5 century population has decreased dramatically, probably at least part left in 406 with Vandals and Marcomanni | they were thought to have left in the 1st mid-5 century. In the5 century at least in Moravia showed the chaos caused by the Huns invasion under Attila leadership, new people came here from the Danube slavs, probably similar changes occurred in Bohemia, but so far it's not enough for evidence. In southern Moravia, perhaps by some archaeologists settled Heruli East German Slav, who stayed until the beginning of the 6 century, where they were defeated by the Lombards. In the Czech Republic in the 1st third 5 century pushed Vinařická group, considering also the presence of Hun nobility in Moravia(grave with horse harness). At the end of the 5th century upstream Elbe into Bohemia arrived the Lombards they temporarily settled here, but sometimes in the 1st mid-6 century moved to the Danube, and in 568 to Italy.

The beginnings of Slavic settlement

In Moravia, Silesia and Bohemia, the first Slavs appeared probably in the second mid-6 century. The first wave of Slavs (pottery culture Prague type) face via Lesser to Moravia and later along the so called Trstenice trails into Bohemia. In the first half of the 7 century perhaps the second wave could come from the Danube. At that time, this area housed the only remnants of the previous inhabitants of Germanic (Lombards and Durynků). Lombards some Celtic tribes and other barbarians. But before the arrival of the Slavs they went to the Danube, and after a short stay in northern Italy, Durynkové went to the Bavaria , and perhaps contributed to the ethnogenesis Bavarians.

Literature

Jaroslav Panek Olfdrich Tuma Et Alh: "A HISTORY OF THE CZECH LANDS" [From the Neolithic age to the present day. (637 Pages)], 1009 ISBN 978-80-246-1645-2

• http://www.radio.cz/en/section/czech-history/tell-of-bubenec-reveals-oldest-evidence-of-ploughing-in-the-czech-lands
• http://www.cittadella.cz/europarc/index.php?p=index&site=NPP_cerveny_kopec_en
• http://donsmaps.com/dolnivenus.html
• http://www.livescience.com/13620-gay-caveman-story-overblown.html
• http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Casn%C4%9B_slovansk%C3%A9_obdob%C3%AD
• http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html Ptolemy code or Atlas - Shows so many Czech citys name's in Latin and has been taken from the second century AD.
• http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MN9AQ9ZLZ2oC&pg=PA1118&lpg=PA1118&dq=beroun+artifacts&source=bl&ots=PEShMRsVam&sig=oCltfVyiPw-R9usE7RhV40xjpeI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h0S9UJ-pDKmUiAf84oDQCg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=beroun%20artifacts&f=false
• http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 Ptolemy code - Czech writing but translates so many Czech cities to there latin names from second century AD
• http://www.masaryk.info/slovanske-hradiste-mikulcice/
• http://www.pokladymoravy.cz/?page_id=354&lang=en Moravian history but so much information on ancient Czech History.
• http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050520091948.htm
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Karst
• http://www.archeolog.cz/lokalita/ms-stramberk-02/42
• http://www.archeolog.cz/encyklopedie/keltove-kelt-keltske/
• http://www.cesov.wz.cz/
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BD%C4%8D%C3%AD_sk%C3%A1la_Cave
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon%C4%9Bprusy_Caves
• http://www.masaryk.info/slovanske-hradiste-mikulcice/ 8th Century Slavic findings.
• http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C5%99edmost%C3%AD_(archeologick%C3%A1_lokalita)
• http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C5%99edmost%C3%AD_u_P%C5%99erova
• http://www.academia.edu/509494/The_find_of_Corded_Ware_settlement_pottery_at_Bacin_District_Beroun_Central_Bohemia_
• http://www.genetickagenealogie.cz/novinky/populacni-data/rozlozeni-haploskupin-y-chromozomu-/
• http://www.genomac.cz/en/view.php?cisloclanku=2007080003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.12.132 (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I will try my best to make use of it. Martin J. Němeček (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Charlemain note was the first German king in 8th century. The language did not exist until the 8th century but explain Slavic sorbs tribes living there in 6th century!:http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm

Please fix Germania, Germaina Magna it's clearly shown that many Czech towns where part of Germania Magna and please look at the mountain ranges on the maps, Swiss alps, tatra mountains, Sudetes. Even Olomouc over in the North east of the Czech Republic had two different latin names (Iuliomontium,Roman fort (Mons Iulii). Also its a fact the the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno and from a germanic king. Czech cities located in Germanina Magna taken from Ptolemy's maps 2nd century AD located in present day Czech Republic. Furgisatis u České Budějovice, Meliodunum in the sand, Strevinta for Hříměždic to the West of Sedlčany, Casurgis is Prague, Redintuinum u Loun, Nomisterium in Litoměřice, Hegetmatia in Mladá Boleslav, Budorgis in Cologne, Coridorgis in Jihlava, Eburum u Hrádku is Znojmo, Parienna in Breclav, Eburodunum is Brno, Setuia at Komořan near Vyškov, Felicia is Vyškova, Asanca is Kojetína, Carredunum is Rýmařov I have supplyed many links below to verify. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatei%3APtolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3APtolemaios_1467_Scandinavia.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorstengraf_(Blu%C4%8Dina) Also the same type of swords found at two different cities in present day Germany. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleidelsheim http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villingendorf. Atilla the Hun never went through Czech lands. Do your own research he went up the Danube ( Germany, Austria) and the Rhine West Germany, France) and he was killed in France(Gaul) in 454AD. Also its a fact that the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno(Latin:Eburodunum) and was from a Germanic king. Two gold Germanic swords of the same type have been found in present day central Germany located in Pleidelsheim and Villingendorf. Look at the links above and make your own opinion. And then decide if an Americian writer(Note: Americia was and will always be a former British and English colony)who wrote a 20th century book about European history when he or she has never ever been to Europe. Note Americia did not exist in the middle ages only native Indians lived there before 15th century. Casurgis from Australia is watching 12.07.2014 And yes I am part English. The Mythicial Saxons are from here:http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htmand:http://www.sachsen-anhalt.de/lang/english/history-politics/history/ . You still believe that there was a mass migration??. All your old documents from 5th century in Britannia where in Latin and you where mostly Christians. Germania Magna where Pagans as even your Danish vikings were:http://denmark.dk/en/society/history/ to the late 10th century. Remember your King Alfred from the 8th century went to Rome to be crowned king:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/dominicselwood/100255437/king-alfred-was-a-roman-catholic-lets-bury-him-in-westminster-cathedral/ .Forgive me i was not taught this at school but at least I am capable to still learn and educate myself except for my bad grammer and spelling. Thou knows nothing!. Casurgis out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.12.8 (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus against this move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

---

History of the Czech lands → History of the Czech Republic – Virtually all countries have a history page that is "History of <country name>". It is widely understood that the history will go back to before when the country was created, usually starting in Human prehistory when there were no countries. It seems this article is the only exception, so I think it should be moved to the conventional form that is followed by all other history articles. Vpab15 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. As the nom says, almost all countries have a history article that includes history that predates the modern state and borders. Just look at the History of the United States article. It doesn't start with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and creation of the United States as a political entity. It starts with the paleo-Indians and proceeds through the indigenous period, the European colonial period, and the Revolution and pre-Constitution period. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Number 57 20:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion at Talk:History of the Jews in the Czech lands, even if I understand the nominators rationale, but the proposed change could/would possibly narrow scope.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

According to the article, the first Slavic people arrived to the area in the 6th century. So the name "Czech lands" is also technically incorrect for events before that period. Instead of choosing a "random" historic name for the area, the convention is to use the name of the country as it is currently. I don't think this case is any different from any other country history article. History is quite messy: borders change, countries invade other countries, they shrink and grow, are annexed and become independent, etc. There is no name that isn't anachronistic in a way. The convention is to use the current name. Vpab15 (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• The same thing could be said about the History of the United States article. But the scope of that article isn't limited to the political entity that is the United States. The article begins its history thousands of years before the creation of the United States. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The sticking point here is the word "Republic". Although other countries have obviously changed their borders, if we say History of France, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Russia, or whatever, none of these are inaccurate as these are recognised regions as well as modern nation states and pretty much always have been. But "Czech Republic" very obviously refers to a modern nation state. That's why "Czech lands" is more accurate. The only other option is "Czechia", which is simply not common enough for us to use. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

"Republic" is no more of a sticking point than "Czech" when considering the history before the 6th century. See for example History of the Dominican Republic. Also, see History of Myanmar for what used to be Burma until quite recently. Please see WP:CRITERIA, the proposed name is better in at least four of the five points: more recognisable and natural (most people are aware that the Czech Republic is a country, a lot of people won't know if the term "Czech lands" is just an alternative name or a different area altogether), more precise (as precise as all other country history articles at least) and definitely more consistent. Vpab15 (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• How is this any different to the History of the United States article? Doesn't the "United States" necessarily mean the political entity that is the United States? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think the article History of Eswatini shows better than any other the naming convention. When a country name changed, the corresponding history article was changed as well. There are pretty much no English sources that use the name "Eswatini" older than 2018, but the history article was renamed to follow the naming convention. Vpab15 (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Vpab15:That's not quite addressing Necrothesp's point, which is that the term "Republic" refers to a specific political system and implies narrowly the post-1993 polity. I would assume that something with the title "History of the Czech Republic" refers merely to the history from 1993 until now, and if I am looking for pre-1993 history, I should go somewhere else. Eswatini is a not a "new" name, its merely the old Bantu name, nor does it imply a narrow political system. Your comparison is more on point with the "Dominican Republic".

I am very torn here. The term "Czech Republic" certainly seems weird anywhere pre-republican history is referred to. "Czechia" or "Czech lands" certainly seems preferable. On the other hand, I also see your point that it leaves the Czech Republic, uniquely among modern states, without a long "history of" article.

I am not ready to !vote. At this point, I am hoping the Czech government boldly decides to change its name to "Eczechia" before this RM is through. :) Walrasiad (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Necrothesp. This article covers the history across over a million years, while the country has only been a republic for a bit over a century. JIP | Talk 12:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Would support moving it to history of czechia though blindlynx (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It's pretty standard to put the history of a country under its modern name. It's certainly what the Library of Congress does. They have subject headings like "Prague, Battle of, Prague, Czech Republic, 1648" and "Slavic literature, Eastern--Appreciation--Czech Republic--History--19th century." 3K008P9 (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• strong oppose this rename would change the topic of the article entirely. This article is not about one particular country, or any group of countries. This is about a geographical area. Regarding the suggested title, "History of the Czech Republic": we already have History of Czechoslovakia. That History of Czechoslovakia article has "sub articles", which actually are different countries. In historical chronological order: First Czechoslovak Republic → Second Czechoslovak Republic → Third Czechoslovak Republic → Czechoslovak Socialist Republic → Czech and Slovak Federative Republic. In January 1993 Czech Republic, and Slovakia were formed from Czech and Slovak Federative Republic. In short: moving/renaming would change the scope of the article. Currently it is about a geographical area, not about a country. There are multiple articles that currently discuss the scope of suggested article title. If somebody wants an article on "History of the Czech Republic", I recommend editing all the related articles appropriately, and creating a new article with title "History of the Czech Republic", whichever number of republic that may refer to. note: I had relisted the move discussion 7 days ago. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about the history of a geographical area. Like all other countries, the Czech Repulic occupies a geographical area. Like almost all other countries the content of the article predates the foundation of the country and its latest name change. In some cases (Myanmair, Eswatini) the name of the coutry was changed quite recently, which caused the corresponding history article to be moved as well to follow the convention. If this article is not going to follow the convention like all other countries, there has to be something unique to it. It would be good if someone could explain what is so unique about this case. Vpab15 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vpab15: "history of Czech lands", thats the difference; if not the uniqueness. Like, "history of XYZ lands". I am not expert on that country/georaphical land's history. If you think the name is not neutral, you can suggest something like "history of Czech and Slovac" lands. I think we should expand this article up to the events till "formation of Czechoslovakia", we should remove the rest (merge in the new article). We can start the "History of the Czech Republic" with one short paragraph explaining everything from prehistory to current day. The second paragraph can start with formation of Czechoslovakia. Walrasiad as well has quite nicely explained the situation in their comment titled as comment :) Kindly give me 24 hours, and I will respond further, with possible solutions. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This area and scope has nothing to do with "Slovac" lands. We cannot engineer fulls scope articles based on quick territorial changes or artificial state formations, especially which became rapid in the past centuries. The Scope of of the Czech lands/Czech republic is strictly covering the Czech people's living place and history, the naming is irrelevant to this.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disagreement with the 9 February 2021 edit

I disagree with your last edit, User:KIENGIR. The expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia was already mentioned in the paragraph above. I believe it belongs more to the context of World War II then The Rule of the Communist Party. Also, I don't see how reducing the number of major ethnicities from three (Czechs, Germans, Slovaks) to two (Czechs and Slovaks) makes it "almost homogenous". Right now the article repeats almost the same thing twice. Martin J. Němeček (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry did not notice it is mentioned above.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

Requested move 26 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There's a consensus against the proposed name, "Czechia", which is not too common in reliable sources. Opinions are split between "Czech Republic" and the current name, "Czech lands". Proponents of the former argue that other country articles cover the entire history before the country was established as a sovereign state, but those opposing any move argue that "Czech lands" is a more natural and historically accurate name for most of the time period covered in the article, so I'm going to close as no consensus between those two options. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

---

History of the Czech lands → History of Czechia – "Czech lands" is rather anachronistic, unclear, and not in line with current usage - it has practically no usage outside of wikipedia: as can be seen on this google trends graph . Several editors in the previous requested move, of September 2020, to "History of the Czech Republic", argued that "Czech Republic" would not be in line with the content of the article because it only refers to the current form of the Czech state - which I would agree with. Some also suggested that they would not oppose a move to Czechia. While the use of "Czechia" here does breach WP:PLACE, so does the current title of this article. Hentheden (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Move to History of the Czech Republic which already redirects to this article. Czech Republic is the established WP:COMMONNAME rather than Czechia. As noted in the previous move discussion, there are many "History of XYZ" articles which cover history prior to the existence of the current state, I don't see any reason not to follow that precedent. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move to History of the Czech Republic. Oppose History of Czechia. The main article is titled Czech Republic so this article title should be WP:CONSISTENT with that. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move to History of Czechia or stay on History of the Czech lands: Czech Republic means 1993+. There was no republic before 1918. Otherwise you would write nonsenses like Charles IV was king of the republic. Pretty odd, isn't it?! No consistency could justify it, when you insist on political name. Consistency is possible only with geographical names like Czechia, Czech lands and Bohemia. It is like "People's Republic of China" in 1000 BC etc. Google trends graph is completely misleading, of course it is not used no more for current "form of the state". Chrz (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not the way our "History of Country" articles usually work though. For example, the first sentence of the History of the United States article states: "The history of the United States started with the arrival of Native Americans in North America around 15,000 BC." Obviously the political entity known as the United States of America did not exist in 15,000 BC, nevertheless that's where our article on the history of the country starts. Also, "Czechia" is merely the short-form English name of the Czech Republic, so the two terms are interchangeable. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, nonsense too. History of political entity starts with the day of declaration. Or you must use long phrasing like history of "present-day United States" begins... You do really want to write "Czech Republic was a kingdom in 1600s". Really? Does it make any sense at all and does any source dare to write such clear nonsense? Republic was a kingdom? Those crazy Czechs? "Czechia" is merely the short-form English name of the Czech Republic - wrong too, wrong. Short informal geographical names can be used retroactively (and Czechia WAS used before 2000 or even before 1900... Rarely, sure, but at least it is not a complete neologism). Using long ofiicial formal political names before their time - very, veeeery problematic, like here - a name containing "republic" for kingdom era etc. So please stop it. Term "Czech lands" is a bit outdated for present day references, but the article describes mostly past where it was used and still is perfectly OK. Chrz (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, this is how our "history of country" articles are written. History of Canada's first sentence says: "The history of Canada covers the period from the arrival of the Paleo-Indians thousands of years ago to the present day.". And History of Mexico says: "The written history of Mexico spans more than three millennia. First populated more than 13,000 years ago, central and southern Mexico..." Why should this article title be any different than all of our other "history of country" article titles? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, this name and situation is here for ages and it makes sense. What makes more sense in RM to Czechia, not make it the other way round and unify 1000 year old history on present-day political name! Kings of the republic, wikipedia awaits you with open hands and declares it a standard, OMG! Canada and Mexico - so? Are those political names? NO! First understand the difference between Mexico and United States of Mexico, then we can talk. As I can see everything was already discussed previously in RM VCzech Republic and nothing changed only this time it's RM Czechia. Chrz (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Our article on "Mexico" is about the United Mexican States. "Mexico" is just the short-form name of the country officially called the "United Mexican States". And our article on the Czech Republic clearly states that "Czechia" is the short-form name of the country known as the "Czech Republic". And just what is the political name for the country of "Canada" then? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

What changed since last RM? Nothing. Still no sources say Czech Republic was a kingdom in 1800s. Still no sources say Czech Republic became more industrialized in 19th century. Czechia is short name for present day Czech Republic and also short name for everything that preceded, this is how short geographical names work. You act like Czechia is more official and formal. No. The political names are the official formal ones which can't work before they were announced. History of Czech kingdom does not work for now. History of Czech Republic does not work for the past. Other possibility would be "Czech history". Political names are not retroactive. Short names without words like "republic" "kingdom" or "sultanate" are or can be. What changed since last RM? Nothing. So the result should be the same, no new arguments here, same nonsenses about political names beeing OK in the past and kings of republic on the scene again... Still the comments from "11:20, 8 September 2020" sums it nicely. When you choose to use modern day political entity as a name for a country, you can kiss unification goodbye, plain and simple. Other countries work since you don't use political name. United States might work, it is a light form of United States of America, so at least something... And Dominican Republic, it does not have short name at all so.. And eg. German wikipedia starts from 1844. So bad examples and bad practice can't justify doing bad things even more. Imagine it would be called Czech Socialist Republic. Would you really consider to use Czech Socialist Republic for the Middle Ages etc.? Chrz (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Chrz here. Calling this article History of the Czech Republic is unnecessarily confusing to a reader who might well look at that title and not understand that it doesn't only refer to the current political entity known as the Czech Republic, especially when a perfectly good alternative exists. This isn't the same discussion as the one in the main Czech Republic article - there is a reason that most of the articles relating to the geographic area and not the current political entity are called history of or culture of the Czech Lands and not the Czech Republic, and it is the aforementioned reason. Please keep it civil though. Hentheden (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Move to History of Czechia or stay at History of the Czech lands. As per User:Chrz and what I said in the previous move discussion, use of "the Czech Republic" is misleading as the article covers the history over a million years while "the Czech Republic" has only existed for about a century. JIP | Talk 19:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a century but 28 years as an independent state, 31 years if we count member of a federation too and 52 years if we count Czech Socialist Republic (also member state of a federation... but simplifying political names - not a good practise, those are official formal names) Chrz (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Our "history of country" articles include the history of the geographic areas of the present-day countries that predate the political entity itself. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Other countries are named with short names, that's why History of .... work there. Short names are not political entities, dinosaurs walked through Mexico, but surely whey did not live in United States of Mexico. Chrz (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It it is to be moved at all, it should be to History of the Czech Republic. Just as History of the United States and History of the Dominican Republic can include events from before those political units existed, so can this. But I am not averse to leaving it here. --Khajidha (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support move to History of Czechia or stay at History of the Czech lands - to be clear, I am opposed to moving to History of the Czech Republic for all the reasons brought up in the previous RM by others and feel that the status quo is better than History of the Czech Republic (but that moving to History of Czechia would be an improvement on both). Hentheden (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your support is implied by the fact that you opened the RM in the first place. Kahastok talk 14:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Move to History of the Czech Republic (or to History of Czechia if the Czech Republic article has been moved to Czechia by the time this discussion ends). The comments above that relate this question to the duality of the official names (short and long forms) and the fact that the country article is currently titled with the long form are relevant. The corresponding articles History of the United States, History of Canada, and History of Ivory Coast begin millennia before the existence of any of those countries despite the fact that "United States" is a short form (is it even "official"?) for a country that has an official long-form name "United States of America"; Canada has only the one name "Canada"; and "Ivory Coast" is deprecated by the country that, decades ago, declared that even in English it should no longer be called that but "Côte d'Ivoire" instead. We do not have History of the American lands, History of the Canadian lands, History of the Ivorian lands. There's no reason why the article about the history of what is now the Czech Republic/Czechia should be any different. Largoplazo (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Where can you see "republic" in Canada or Ivory Coast. Again, mixing political and geographical names. When you write an article about "a" republic of Czechs, it can start in 1918, no sooner, it was not republic before. Your next step of unification may be this: List of rulers of Czechs. Chrz (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The specific word "Republic" has nothing to do with it. Nothing called "Canada" or "The United States" or "Ivory Coast" existed thousands of years ago. In addition, the land covered by each of those countries has varied considerably over the course of time even since those names did come into existence. Yet we don't have articles called "History of Canadian lands" and so forth.

In addition, in case you weren't aware of it, there were also no such people as Czechs during the earliest periods covered in this article. By your reasoning, either the word "Czech" shouldn't appear in the title, or else the article should mention nothing that happened before the existence of a people known as "Czechs". Largoplazo (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Canadian lands are not a term. Czech lands are a term. Canada existed, Czechia existed, Bohemia existed, Some-piece-of-land-I-just-named-myself existed thousands of years ago, those are geographical names (like Grand Canyon or Mississippi river) with power to substitute political names of states and countries, not the other way round. I can't just name something Bohemian Republic and claim that it existed 10000 BC or 1600 AD.Chrz (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

(1) "Czech lands" was not a term before there was such a thing as Czechs. (2) If that term exists, its existence doesn't magically make it wrong to follow the pattern we use for every other country. There is no general principle saying "Any time one thing in a category gives you an option different from what's available to other items in that category, you should follow that option and it's wrong not to." Largoplazo (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

(1) And? Important thing - it is a term, unlike your Canadian lands. (2) "Czech lands" are able to bear this article about thousand year history. "Czech Republic" can't, it is and always will be 1993+ no matter what you say and wikistandards want to pusj for consistency reason etc. "Czechia" would be even more appropriate, since Czech lands are more like before 1993, Czech Republic after 1993 and Czechia encapsulates both perfectly, that's why this is RM to History of Czechia and not 180° other way. Notice that the article bearly speaks about Czech Republic, last 3 lines maybe and you want to name it after this insignificant drop in a sea of history. Chrz (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Move to History of the Czech Republic or (second choice) leave as-is. Oppose move to History of Czechia per MOS:GEO. The argument that History of the Czech Republic is anachronistic does not tally with what we do everywhere else on Wikipedia. User:Khajidha noted History of the United States and History of the Dominican Republic. There are plenty of others: History of the Republic of the Congo, History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and History of the Central African Republic all chart the history of those regions long before indepedence. You would expect, if the anachronism argument held, that History of the Federated States of Micronesia would start in 1979 - it actually starts over 4000 years ago. You would expect, if the anachronism argument held, that History of Malaysia would start in 1957 and History of Tanzania would start in 1964. They each actually cover over a million years of history. Kahastok talk 14:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to add to this - the kings of the Czech Republic argument is brought up above. No, of course we don't write that. Because they were kings of Bohemia. When we write about former periods, we use the terminology appropriate to the period - which might be Bohemia, Moravia, Czechoslovakia, Austria or something else. Kahastok talk 14:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

But you can easily make article Rulers of Czechia (Czech lands), and kings of Bohemia would fit there without problem. Rulers of Czech Republic start at exact date, same as history of Czech Republic does. Anachronism of geographical names are OK, anachronistic uses of political names are bad practice, using name with "republic" in it for times where it was kingdom or for times before republic governing was invented or homo sapien emerged.Chrz (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Four of the other examples I gave above use the word "Republic", and none of those four was a republic for the entire period covered by the article in question. The Central African Republic was a monarchy as recently as the 1970s. If Czech Republic is a "political name" by your standard, the same applies to every single one of the articles that have been raised by me and others in this RM. And yet this article is the only one that doesn't just use the modern name of the respective country in its title.

And what of Czechia? Is that a "political name"? Well, so far as I can see, yes. It specifically refers to the Czech Republic. If anything its meaning is somewhat narrower than Czech Republic. A geographic name is something like Pannonian Basin or Carpathian Mountains. We use "political names" for most of our history articles. And that's appropriate because that's how historians tend to work. Kahastok talk 18:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Four examples of another articles doing it wrong. So? All bad. Czechia is not a political name because no kingdom, no republic, no other political term in it, OK for using now and in past (or at least as past+now together). "It specifically refers to the Czech Republic." - maybe now, but it CAN be used for past and it WAS used in past in English (both rare, but not a neologism at all). "We use "political names" for most of our history articles" - yes, those no longer existing to differentiate it from present day state with similar name, which was built on the ashes of the previous one. "A geographic name is something like Pannonian Basin or Carpathian Mountains" - if you think this I can see why you write all this. Now it makes sense. You think Mexico is short political name and United States of Mexico is long political name. No :) Mexico, Czechia, Bohemia, all geography... Chrz (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You're starting with "you can" and concluding with "therefore you should/must". I disagree with that conclusion. I also can't imagine what makes you think "Mexico" is "all geography" or, if it is, then why it follows that it does make sense to see it that way—and then include at History of Mexico events from the 16th century and earlier that happened well outside of the single valley in the middle of today's nation to which that name applied. Your reasoning, as you move from one point to another, is about as ad hoc as any I've ever seen. Your position seems to be built entirely on top of special cases and idiosyncratic definitions. Largoplazo (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe moratorium is in place. It was History of Czech lands for ages, now another try to change it after unsuccessful try last year, no new evidence... Mexico is geographical name. United States of Mexico is political name. Geographical names work perfectly retroactively and without need of strict unchangable borders. Political names work in exact time and space. Anachronistic use of geographical name - pretty common thing, nothing to be afraid of, it happens, geography is "vague" and "flexible" this way. Anachronistic use of political names with "kingdom" and "republic" in it - laughable - those are that kings of republic, or article Rulers of Czech Republic including kings because Czech Republic does not necesarilly means "republic" kind of opionions. Of course Czech republic means republic, "Republic" is not some kind of proper noun invented by Czechs, it just means it is a republic and works for time periods it was a republic. It results in articles like Music of the Czech Republic which includes zero Czech-Republic-era musicians. It was called Music of the Czech Lands before and now sneakily one article after another is moved without centralized discussion and magically AFTER short name was introduced and would work (Czech lands works fine in the meantime). Maybe just in spite, IDK. Seems that way. Chrz (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So by "geographical name" you don't mean a geographical name at all. You mean a political name. And by "political name" you also mean a political name.

And you have decided that anyone who disagrees with you is acting "just in spite". OK. I think we're clear where we are. Kahastok talk 20:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Mexico is a geographical name. United States of Mexico is a political name. Simple as that. Czech Republic is a republic and this name will always mean it is a republic and works well only for republican era. It does not have republic in its name just for fun like Banana Republic which is neither a country nor a republic. "Czech Republic was a kingdom in 1900s" is nonsense sentence. And that sudden lust for eliminating "Czech lands" just after Czechia emerged, well, it may be mere coincidence.... In times when Czech lands should be slowly replaced by Czechia, here we have actions against Czech lands in favor of Czech Republic in articles where it never was a problem before... Hmmmmm interesting.... Rulers/Heads of the Czech Republic can't contain Czech (Bohemian) kings, History of the Czech Republic can't contain kingdom era. Apples, oranges, melons, Appple phones... 21:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrz (talk • contribs)

• Strong Oppose, KEEP as it is everybody MISSED the point here -> apart from the boring Czechia naming issue, the Czech Republic covers a lesser territory then the historic Czech Lands, which is a well-established term, there is not reason to omit the history of those part which is not part of the present-day country, even would be really unprofessional. Moreover the Czech Republic is a modern name, not historical, most if the entity's lifespan was not even used. Keep as it is, no need to reinvent the wheel.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC))
  • Either Czech lands is synonymous with Czech Republic for the purpose of this dicussion, or Czech lands refers to the lands of the Bohemian Crown, which ceased to exist in 1918 and cannot be used to refer to any event after that. The fact that it can be both is another reason to change the title to avoid confusion. Vpab15 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Leave it alone. Oppose moves to Czechia and Czech Republic. Srnec (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Having named as "Czechia" is unknown for most English-speaking people. 36.76.234.82 (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move to History of the Czech Republic. Per WP:CRITERIA:

1. It is more recognizable and natural. Contrary to some comments, there would be no difference in the scope of the article. There are no Czech lands outside the Czech Republic unlike the French-speaking areas outside France to give an example. The current title implies there is some difference between the two terms when there isn't any for the purpose of the title. And yes, there have been changes in its borders and form of government, like in every other country in the world.
2. It is consistent with every other history article. To give one more counterexample, the history of Saudi Arabia doesn’t start with the Al Saud dynasty that gives the name to the country.

Regarding the term Czechia, it is not the common name for the country in English sources. If/when that changes, this article and all the other country-specific articles will change. There is nothing unique about the history of the Czech Republic. We have naming conventions for country-specific articles. This article is violating them with no valid reason. Vpab15 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As said before, when you name it History of republic, it should countain history of republic and NOT history of kingdom. Nothing natural in mixing it. If you choose to write articles with form of government in its title, then you are limiting yourself. Other articles like History of France does not imply anything about form of government, therefore it can describe longer history, even history before state formation. It is not justifiable by any other bad examples on Wikipedia, it is headless unification without knowledge of history or geography or common sense (kingdom in republic!). This bad practice has to stop in those, not to unify this article with them. Or give me excellent sources (plural) which dare to include Czech kingdom or Bohemia in "History of Czech Repoublic". "Czech history" is only other solution, or "History of Czech Republic and its predecessors". Chrz (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Chrz, you are bludgeoning the process. Please stop. Kahastok talk 20:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hahaha, my "point of view", point of view. Truth and logic. Truth and logic. Show me sources that it is used like you want it to use. Do not bring original ideas how it could be named for thousand years old history (Wikipedia:No original research), or stop with your WP:this and WP:that. If WP rule allows to insert kings into article about republic, then it is either very bad WP:rule, or very bad interpretation. Also it is RM History of Czechia, it is either that or oppose, "History of the Czech republic" is not on the table so .... Long live the kings of Czech Republic. Bye. Chrz (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the embassy of the Czech Republic in Riyadh good enough for you? https://www.mzv.cz/riyadh/en/information_about_the_czech_republic/brief_history_of_the_czech_republic.html I'm sure I can find others, but if the country itself uses this format, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on. --Khajidha (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

History book preferably. This one uses "Czech history", "the present-day Czech Republic", "Czech state", "kingdom of Bohemia" etc. It aknowledges that Czech Republic means 1993+ and before it was something else which is not Czech Republic.Chrz (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Which is exactly how we use it here so I'm not sure what you are ranting about. The "history of the Czech Republic" includes the Kingdom of Bohemia, but that doesn't mean they were kings of the Czech Republic. If such a ludicrous form is used anywhere on Wikipedia, then change it. But that doesn't mean we can't include those kings in an article called "History of the Czech Republic".--Khajidha (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Rant, hmmm. Nice. Use history books, not unification appetite. Czech lands were OK for ages and now when Czechia is proposed, it must be Czech Republic. Strange development. Embassy in Australia uses Czechia - not interesting for Wikipedia, it is Czech English, go away. Embassy in Saudi Arabia uses Czech Republic - wow, very very important source for Wikipedia, excellent. Next order of unifying business - List of rulers of Czechs, Category:Years of the 20th century in the Czech Republic (add years -1992), Category:History of the Czech Republic merge with Category:History of the Czech lands, unify it into oblivion. Maybe it is OK to unify it senslesly, you will overdo it, more people will see how Wikipedia acts and it will break sooner :P (Not soon enough but sooner.) I was told to stop discussing, so I will have to no matter what, I can't react more even if asked to. Chrz (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose both per the last RM. Czechia is rarely used in English-language sources and the Czech Republic is a modern entity which didn't exist for most of the period covered by this article. The current title is the best. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 15 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Nothing seems to budge on whether "Czech Republic" in the title appropriately fits the article scope. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

---

History of the Czech lands → History of the Czech Republic – Czech Republic is much more more unambiguous and precise, the Czech lands may also refer to the lands of the Bohemian Crown, which included the all Duchies of Silesia, and the two Lusatias as well. Caenus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Czech Republic is just and precisely 1993+, so no real 1000 year history there. Also useless, soon it'll be History of Czechia. Chrz (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course 'History of Czechia' is the best title for this article, but such a move is possible only after the main article (Czech Republic) has been moved. Caenus (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't see why we have to wait. Move it to "History of Czechia" and be done with it. Walrasiad (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Several requested moves in the past. What is different now? Is there a new argument? No. So why start another one? Chrz (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support. As I stated in a previous RM discussion, "look at the History of the United States article. It doesn't start with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and creation of the United States as a political entity. It starts with the paleo-Indians and proceeds through the indigenous period, the European colonial period, and the Revolution and pre-Constitution period." Rreagan007 (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:CRITERIA, the proposed title is more recognisable and natural to the average reader. It is also consistent with all other history of country articles. To the opposers, please look at List of sovereign states by date of formation. The history of a country doesn't start with the formation of said country. There is an exception made for just one country that is totally unjustified. Being ultra pedantic, one could also argue that all history articles should only cover events recorded in writting, events before that should be covered under prehistory. However, that is just not how things work. In any case any opposing argument goes out of the window by just looking at History of the Dominican Republic. Vpab15 (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  "If other broken stuff exists, then fix the other broken stuff, don't make it worse by breaking this article as well."

  Other states are dominantly identified by geographical name, so prehistory in Czechia (Czech lands) is better than "republic in prehistory". Chrz (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  It would also need some reorganization of Category:History of the Czech lands (under Category:History of Europe by former country) v. Category:History of the Czech Republic (under Category:History of Europe by country). Chrz (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per arguments in the last two RMs. There was no such thing as "Czech Republic" before 1993, so this would read as a bad anachronism. I don't buy the consistency argument, since the name "Czech Republic" is not consistent with "Poland", "France" or "Germany" in real life. I'm neutral about "History of Czechia" – while the scope would be clear, Czechia still sounds rather artificial. No such user (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, and there was no such thing as "Thailand" before 1949, but History of Thailand goes well before that date. You could say that even though the word "Thailand" wasn't used, the country did exist. You could say a country by any other name would still be a country with a history, but if that applies to Thailand it should also apply to the Czech Republic. Vpab15 (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Some other reasons to move are WP:CONSUB and WP:CONDESC. There should be a very strong reason to have an exception to the rule for such a high-profile article, but the only thing mentioned so far is about using a supposedly anachronistic term for the history of a country. But that has been shown to also happen for Thailand and other countries (eg. Saudi Arabia in the previous discussion). I'd say it applies to pretty much any other country. The current title is also a violation of WP:ASTONISH and uses a technical term that most readers will not be familiar with. Vpab15 (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thailand - geographical name, "anachronism" not an issue. Czech Republic - political name valid only from 1993. Like Czech Socialist Republic is a political name with clear startdate (and enddate). Czechia, Bohemia, Czech lands, even Czech state are more permanent and suitable for this. Also: discussed before, not a new thing to change the balance. Chrz (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am not aware of any policies or guidelines regarding the geographical/political names of countries and how they should determine the title of their history articles. In that case, the above comment is just the opinion of one editor and nothing else. Vpab15 (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Political name can be a COMMONNAME but is will always cause awkward political anachronisms. Czech Republic is a republic - OK. Czech Republic was a kindom - riiiight.... Chrz (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  A monarchy that becomes a republic is hardly an exceptional event. It has happened in France (three times), in Spain (twice), Portugal, Italy and many many other countries. No reader with a passing knowledge of history would be surprised by that. Vpab15 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  And what would reader expect in "History of French Republic" or "History of French Fifth Republic". Iron Age? Chrz (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  List of rulers of Czechs - do you want to synchronize with others too? Maybe even stuff everything into List of presidents of the Czech Republic, president or king, republic or kingdom - who cares... Chrz (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  WP:PRECISION: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. "History of the Czech lands" - unambigouously defines that the scope approximately starts with the settlement of Slavic tribes in central Europe. "History of Czech Republic" - strongly implies that the scope only pertains to the (shortish) period when the country was a republic. No such user (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  "History of the Czech lands" - unambigouously defines that the scope approhat ximately starts with the settlement of Slavic tribes in central Europe. Except that the article starts with the Stone Age. Which means the current title is also anachronistic. Since we must use an anachronistic title, we should go with the most common one, which is the one readers would expect. Vpab15 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous RMs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:GEO and as the best fit per WP:CRITERIA. The name using Czech Republic is more recognisable, more natural, more precise and more consistent than the status quo, with no meaningful difference in concision. I'd guess the anachronism argument applies to quite a large proportion of parallel articles on Wikipedia, and I find it unconvincing. In the previous RM I cited History of the United States, History of the Dominican Republic, History of the Republic of the Congo, History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, History of the Central African Republic, History of the Federated States of Micronesia, History of Malaysia and History of Tanzania as parallel cases. Each of these articles includes a period long before the entity named in the title was formed. Kahastok talk 19:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, and previous RMs failed with such arguments. Malaysia and Tanzania, also United States not the same thing since those are not political names and does not imply republic in history when it was something different. The rest is broken and should follow Czech lands example, not the other way round ;)

  And also: Liberalism in the Czech lands, List of wars involving the Czech lands, Famines in Czech lands, Deportations of Hungarians to the Czech lands, History of the Jews in the Czech lands

  Czech lands are too obsolete term, Czech Republic is too limited to the present (when used properly and not "king of the Czech Republic" nonsenses from the past), Czechia is too rare but with covering qualities for past and present, kingdoms or republics. Tough choice. Status quo until Czech Republic moves to Czechia is the best option I guess... Chrz (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  You advocate History of the lands of the Democratic Republic of the Congo? I suspect that might be a tough sell.

  Nobody would advocate referring to the King of the Czech Republic, any more than we refer to the Emperor of the Central African Republic or the King of the United States. We use the appropriate names of the era in the context of the era. But calling this article History of Bohemia is less good per WP:CRITERIA because in a modern context it is less recognisable, natural and consistent than History of the Czech Republic.

  I do not accept your argument that it is formally correct to refer to "Tanzania" before the union of Tanganykia and Zanzibar in 1964. Nor that it is formally correct to refer to Malaysia before Malaya was merged with Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo in 1963. Nor that it is formally correct to the United States before the US declaration of independence in 1776. If Tanzania is a "geographic name" and Malaysia is a "geographic name" and the United States is a "geographic name", then Czech Republic is a "geographic name". If Czech Republic is not a "geographic name", then neither is Tanzania, neither is Malaysia and neither is United States. Kahastok talk 17:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  "should follow Czech lands example" does not mean "lands of the Democratic Republic of the Congo"! It means to find some neutral nonpolitical term which covers whole history of the country.

  The "Republic" in the name clearly indicates political name and covers republic phase of history of the country. "State", "land" it is semi-political and it is quite OK.

  Tanzania or Malaysia may not be formally correct, but Czech Republic is utter nonsense. Chrz (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  But Czech lands is not a neutral nonpolitical term. Nor is Tanzania. Nor is Malaysia. If History of the Czech Republic is "utter nonsense" then for the same reason so is History of Malaysia. You can't have one but not the other. Kahastok talk 18:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Czech lands - is it duchy, kingdom, republic, federative republic? You cannot tell from the name, then it is not a political name and it can more or less successfully be used retroactively-

  Here we discuss Czech lands. Malaysia may be broken too, not my problem now and not a political name unlike proposed Czech Republic. How would you split this article if needed? History of the Czech Republic (pre 1993) and History of the Czech Republic (from 1993, this time the real Czech Republic)? Czech history, History of Czechia, History of Czech state - other neutral possibilities. Or History of a Czech republic for Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic phase. Chrz (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  At this stage, you're just repeating yourself. Whether you like it or not, every other article we have in this entire series is named History of [country] - and that applies whether or not the country name includes the word Republic or Kingdom or whatever else. That is as required by the MOS. If you think this naming convention needs changing, then you should propose to change it at the appropriate WikiProject or in the MOS. This "political name" nonsense is just that - nonsense. Nobody has yet given a convincing reason why this article should be an exception to the MOS and the general rule. Kahastok talk 15:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  It is the same RM as before. You repeat yours, I repeat mine, so result should be the same - not moved even though you are not convinced.

  Political formal names is very weak replacement for true geographical names and creates this kind of ruthless unification ideas.

  MOS: "common sense should prevail", "An exception may be made when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context."

  we have in this entire series is named History of [country] - yes and Czech Republic->Czechia Czech lands->Czechia would nicely solve the issue :P But for now status quo would do... Chrz (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Neither Czech lands nor Czechia is a widely-accepted historical English name. Common sense would generally seem to suggest that we shouldn't be trying desperately to come with something - anything - to avoid referring to the Czech Republic by its standard English name, in a way we do not do for any other country on the planet. Kahastok talk 17:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  And why do you now need historical English name while pushing completely modern Czech Republic for history?!

  Is History of the Czech Republic so desperately needed? Create it then and fill it with 1993+ stuff. It won´t contain dinosaurs, early people and kingdoms, but at least something for peace of unification (of article titles) mind.

  - Liberalism in the Czech lands, List of wars involving the Czech lands, Famines in Czech lands, Deportations of Hungarians to the Czech lands, History of the Jews in the Czech lands - not adressed how to solve.

  But as I can see RM for Czech lands is also proposed. Hmmmm so it is pseudocentralized effort to wipe out Czech lands from Wikipedia? Why on two fronts then? Chrz (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have asked this before, but it hasn't really been answered: why not "History of Czechia"? Why exactly must we wait for the Czech Republic article to be renamed Czechia? These are two different articles, I don't see why one should prevent the other. Walrasiad (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  See Requested move 26 February 2021. Per COMMONNAME (how does Czech lands follow COMMONNAME is beyond me :)) and fears that it would spread. Chrz (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

TBH, it seemed a narrow run thing. That said, I didn't see my main question really answered. I am not proposing to rename the "Czech Republic" article. I am simply asking why that article implicates this one. Why not consider them separately, on their own merits? Why the "wait until..." reasoning? Walrasiad (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Separate terminology is not wanted. Unified name for all purposes is desired. Wikipedia policy. Chrz (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

But we don't currently have a unified name... Srnec (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Kahastok's argument is unconvincing. He asserts that the proposed title is more recognisable, more natural, more precise and more consistent. I think it is none of those things, not even consistent. As has been pointed out, there are several other articles with "Czech lands" in the title. Why does consistency with them matter less than consistency with "History of [modern country name]" articles? If you compare History of the United States with History of the United Kingdom, you will see that the consistency is entire superficial. The former begins in prehistory and the latter begins with background in the 18th century. History of Tanzania begins in the stone age, yes, but there is also a History of Zanzibar. There is no reason we couldn't have a History of the Czech Republic article devoted exclusively to the Czech Republic à la History of the United Kingdom while leaving this article as is to cover a longer time horizon. Why demand that every existing country in 2022 have a "History of" article that begins in prehistory? That seems like a foolish consistency to me. Srnec (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why demand that every existing country in 2022 have a "History of" article that begins in prehistory? Because the prehistory is also part of the history of many countries, so it should be covered in their history article. It makes no sense to have a "history of country" article starting from the date of their formation only. If we did, we would have history of Germany or Italy starting in the 19th century for example. For some reason History of the United Kingdom doesn't follow that rule. But that is the only case I am aware of. The rest of 190+ "history of country" articles start before their formation. Vpab15 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - just as History of the United States can include pre-1776 material under that title, so can this one include pre-1993 material under the proposed title. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Funny how in the Czech Republic article, there's a moratorium not to do RM until new arguments or evidence occur, but here, same RM, same arguments, hope for a different outcome!!!

  There's difference between United States and Czech Republic. Or rename it to History of Czech state, if it is not about the republic phase exclusively. Or finally, bow to Czechia; it would solve EVERYTHING, be it premature or not. Chrz (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The history of the Czech Republic starts in 1993 Helveticus96 (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.