Talk:Czechs/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Czechs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There are at least 1,000 Czech citizen living in Luxembourg (source: Statec Luxembourg). Why mentionning Bulgaria (less than 500) and not Luxembourg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.82.253 (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that Charles I of Austria belongs on the list of Bohemian saints. Firstly, he is not saint, he is just blessed. Secondly, although he, as a monarch of the Habsburg empire, was also the king of Bohemia (despite the fact he had never been crowned), he was not Bohemian. Similarly, we would not include Queen Elisabeth II on the list of Scots, or George W. Bush on the list of Hawaiians. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, but as for St. Vitus, I realize he's not Bohemian, but he does have an extremely prominent cathedral named after him in Prague, so I suppose a mention couldn't hurt. I'd definitely remove Charles I though.--The Dominator (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove him.

Yes, St. Vitus Cathedral is really prominent, sort of "national treasury", but despite this, St. Vitus was not Bohemian. We would probably not mention Paul the Apostle among English saints, no matter how prominent St. Paul's Cathedral is. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, do you have any suggestions for general cleanup of this page? Because I managed to expand it but at the moment it is more like a categorized list of famous Czechs, we need some factual info.--The Dominator (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article would need more information about history and development of Czech ethnicity. I have some ideas for partial improvement, but I will have to find some sources. I have not had much time for any systematic work on Wikipedia, but if I find something, I'll try to write it as soon as possible. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to document that there is an anonymous editor who makes abusive edits to several Czech related pages, most notably this one and the Czech Republic article. On this article, he or she refuses to acknowledge that "Čechové" is the archaic Czech word for Czech people. In the Czech Republic page, the anonymous editor insists on stating that "Čechy" is the correct Czech name for the country. This is not a legitimate good faith content dispute at this point. The anon editor has repeatedly violated 3RR (see the article history), uses false edit summaries[1] [2], and personal attacks [3] [4] [5] [6] (the Czech translations are definitely personal attacks). Indefinite blocking would be clearly warranted, but for the fact that the editor uses changing IP addresses. Note that the problematic IP addresses have started with 71.99... .--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See here for a full list of sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/71.x.x.x, the editor has had a long past of these types of edits.--The Dominator (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

71.122.... is also quite possibly the same individual.--The Dominator (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Any source for your use of word "archaic"? No? None? Really none? Then stop abusing your admin privileges and lok for one first instead! 71.99.101.129 (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that it's a stretch to include the word "Čechové" in the first place, the Czech Wikipedia doesn't include it and it's titled "Češi", if we have to include it though, it is under archaic as it is not used at all. "Češi" is commonly used in the Czech Republic by Czechs, I welcome any thoughts on this, and thank you for actually discussing, we get further this way than by you making personal attacks and false edit summaries and also the thing with reverting my edits just for the sake of undoing my edits, if you dispute one of my edits, feel free to discuss, but reverting my fixing of spelling and grammar mistakes is not helpful and will only get more IP addresses blocked. Again feel free to explain why you believe it's inappropriate to label "Čechové" archaic, but for the moment it seems to be consensus.--The Dominator (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at 10 or so Czech English dictionaries, and none of them even list "Čechové"; they all use Češi as the word for Czech people. Also, to follow up on Dominik's point, you really need to stop edit-warring, stalking, and making personal attacks before your comments become welcome here.--Kubigula (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that "Čechové" refers to the tribe that the Czechs were developed from, they were also referred to as "Češi". The former was quite common in medieval times and was still possibly in use in the early 19th century, but 19th is the latest that it could possibly have been used so archaic is most likely the correct term and simply saying "Cesi or Cechove" is incorrect as it makes it seem that they are both commonly used, what if a person reading this article under anon.'s version would see "Cechove" and decide to use that instead of Cesi, than the reader just gained false information, as for a source, there probably is one somewhere, but it's pointless as I have never heard anybody say "Cechove" and the only Google hits are to articles about the history of Czechs or books about the history of the Czechs (using the word as archaic). Also as Kubigula has pointed out, Czechs is simply not translated into "Cechove" therefore it's not official either.--The Dominator (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And resourcers are where? Still nowhere to be find? Thats what i thougt. No one cares here about two kids forcing their view on spoken Czech language. BTW it seems to be really wierd books printed in last 5 years using word Cechove? How about that.

You too need to stop ASSUMING. No ones cares about your assuming. Show some references. You are young. ok but there is no excuse for being ignorant. 71.99.95.29 (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Books printed in the last five years use the word on purpose since they are referring to the ancient Czech tribes. You seem to be very emotional about this, relax man :) We're just discussing a Wikipedia article.--The Dominator (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And can you please stop reverting my edits at Reservoir Dogs (video game) [7] and Socialism with a human face, the first is just a grammar correction and the second is an edit made by consensus.--The Dominator (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm actually a Czech guy studying anthropology and this seems to me quite funny, to read about this struggle about "Češi" vs. "Čechové". Actually it's a difference in declination. In czech language, when speaking in plural about living things, in some times you can use ending -i, and the letter before comes "soft" (Čechy - the country, Češi - the people), or in other times you can end it with -ové (still used in contemporary czech, like for example "Indové" for people from India or "Navahové", the north american indian tribe). Contemporary use for people from Czech Republic is "Češi" (as you find on any czech web page). The word Čechové is really archaic, as you suggest. For a source you can refer for example "Kronika Zbraslavská, Melantrich, Praha: 1952", which is one of the oldest chronicles of Czech history, written by two authors (Ota, Petr Žitavský) in 14th century. I'm only curious if it can be found anywhere outside of Czech Republic and I'm quite sure there won't be any translations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.152.7 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I often see Czech people who don't look typically slavic, even those who look quite germanic (including many blondes). Is this from mixing with Germans, are they German, or is this simply what czechs typically look alike? - PietervHuis (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that in slavic population are many blonde people. Of course typical German (from eastern regions) is blonde, nordic, type and there are many of Czech looking bit like that. But even if there are some German influences in the look of Czech people, its not actually genuine German looking what they have. I personally easily recognise German people when they are as tourists in Prague for exapmle. On the other hand, Czechs dont have what I find typical slavic look often. I mean look of Russians or Ukrainians, round faces, mostly dark-haired. So in my opinion Czech look is mix of several influences, but the German one doesnt dominate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.80.64.138 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no proto-typic Germanic or Slavic look. The ancient SLavic and Germanic tribes were themselves ethnically mixed, although Carleton Coon states that both Slavs and northern Germans are Nordic Hxseek (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The origin can hardly be judged from the hair color, it's what the Nazis thought, but we live in the 21th century. Yes, they are some Germanic mixtures in the Czech population, of course. But according to the new researches (made in 2007), Czechs have more Romanic mixtures than the Germanic ones. All nations are mixed. But this debate starts to be off-topic...;-) --Zik2 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to introduce you to an international genetic project called Family Tree DNA. I could be said, according to few thousands of samples given by the Czech folks, that three major groups of their forefathers were with 28.8% share Celts; second are Slavs with 28.4%, third group are those with Germanic blood (13.0%). They are followed with Caucasians (7.7%), Middle Easterners (7.2%), East Africans (4.8%), Balkans (4.3%), Finnish (2.4%), and finally Central Asians (1.7%). Daniel, 07/03/2012 [Source: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Czech/default.aspx?section=results] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.224.32 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, there is a lot other known Czechs, but I don't think I can speak English enough to rewrite the article. A lot of Czech scientors - like Otto Wichterle (contact lenses), Johann Gregor Mendel (the genetics), Josef Ressel (the screw propeller), Jaroslav Heyrovský (polarography), Bedřich Hrozný (hittitology), Jan Janský (blood groups), František Křižík (arc-lamp), or Prokop Diviš (the lighting rod). You can find a lot of informations on the offical website of the Czech Republic - www.czech.cz. Thank you. --Zik2 (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a section on Czech science, I'll write it eventually. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the sentence The Czechs are descended from ancient Slavic tribes, with some Celtic and Germanic admixtures is correct, do we not have a better source than the "human interest" article from CNN ? It is hardly WP:RS, nor does it mention anything about Germanic roots Hxseek (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean this BBC one [8]? I think it's a relatively reliable source from a reputable station. It discusses (albeit very briefly) Celtic roots for the Czechs and briefly mentions the Germanic tribes although it does not explicitly state that the Czech people are descended from the Germanic tribes. Feel free to add another reference to confirm it, but I'd leave the old one there, personally. Try searching the Google News archives and Google Books, great places for finding easily accessible references. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 15:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

i don't doubt that it communicates the truth, but its a BBC article ! Barely a hard-hitting anthropological survey Hxseek (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I realise that, but it's a reliable source that confirms the information in the article which is all it needs to do. Trust me, I've seen much much worse sources used in Wikipedia- blogs, hate sites and the such. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 15:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

JackofOz, as with “Australian”, the fact that “Czech” can function as a adjective doesn't mean that it cannot function as a singular noun. “He is a Czech” is perfectly sound English. Please do not again move this page contrary to Wikipedia titling conventions, as you did on 21 August. —SlamDiego_←T 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia titling convention for ethnic groups is to use plural noun, without any disambiguator: cf. Germans, Russians, Italians. See WP:PLURAL#Grammatical nicety. Accordingly, the name of this article should be Czechs, as it indeed was until mid July. — Emil J. 12:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Per precedent and for consistency, the article should be moved back to "Czechs". As it is, the content of the article still reads as though the article were called "Czechs".--Kubigula (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've declined to speedy-move this as at least one editor evidently feels differently. Recommend you list this at WP:RM and barring any further objections an admin will be along to complete it. Cheers,  Skomorokh  12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the one editor is the one who unilaterally moved it without any consensus in July. Czechs is the original name of the article, not the other way around. Anyway, I've initiated a WP:RM below. — Emil J. 13:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)