Talk:Czech Republic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
Archive 1 - Archive 2 |
[edit] Czech territory in Germany
The article currently states: "The Czech Republic also possesses a 30,000-square-metre (7.4-acre) exclave in the middle of the Hamburg Docks, which was awarded to Czechoslovakia by Article 363 of the Treaty of Versailles to allow the landlocked country a place where goods transported downriver could be transferred to seagoing ships. The territory reverts to Germany in 2018."
Is the above true? While it may have been in the Versaille Treaty, is this still legally the position? Can any one provide a source for this? It is not on the list of exclaves so if it can be properly shown that it is true, it should presumably be added to the list. Redking7 (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is still officially valid (the treaty was never cancelled) but is de facto ignored by both sides. Try Google, I'm sure there's an article there somewhere I read recently about ex/enclaves in general that mentioned the 'strange example' of the CS enclave. And I'd be curious why the exclave passed to CR and not SR (well, de facto it is obvious but I'd be interested how they de jure implemented that). +Hexagon1 (t) 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Interesting, don't we have an exclave in Holland? Or do I have it wrong, I remember reading something about a piece of token land dedicated to Comenius. The Dominator (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thank you Hexagon1. I had researched the question on the Internet and had found one article referring to the exclave. However, I could find no other references and I don't think an unreferenced article would be enough. I think unless reliable sources for the claim to the territory can be found and put in the article, the reference to the exclave should be deleted as it may well be inaccurate. Maybe some one else will know more.Redking7 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- On a basic Google search I found this article: [1], not sure how reliable it is. The Dominator (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thank you The Dominator but that is indeed the only article I could find as well and I really would not consider it a reliable source at all. Certainly it provides no sources etc. The search goes on. Can any one find any proof that the Czech Republic (still) has an exclave in Germany? To be honest, it seems unlikely to me but lets give it some more time. Redking7 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'll keep looking, for know I agree with the template you put in, I don't think it's that unlikely but this is the first time I've ever heard about it. The Dominator (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This may be a little too old fashioned for y'all fancy scholar types, but how about using your eyes? You know, load up a satellite image of Hamburg docks and chances are that a contiguous massive block of undeveloped unnamed land will be it. That's how mah mamma would do it, so it ought to be good enough for you too. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 04:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually I assume scholarly records existed before satellites... :) The Dominator (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blasphemy! Any more comments like that and I'll have the Kansas school board deal with you and your ignorant views. Next you'll be advocating a heliocentric solar system and giving the vote to gays... (kidding, don't lynch me)
- So, has anyone had a look? I'm over limit so basically on dial-up speeds, Google Earth isn't exactly dial-up's best mate. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have dial-up, but I do have a very slow modem and it won't load properly and only shows parts, possibly suggesting that the earth is flat?. I think that it might qualify as WP:OR though, unless the map explicitly stated that the territory is Czech until 2018. The Dominator (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I assume scholarly records existed before satellites... :) The Dominator (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We could ask the four elephants? We technically have a source, though it is not a very good one. And visual confirmation would be in the interests of the article. I can't really research this, and I don't think Dominik can either, could anyone inside the Republic have a look somewhere, a library or ministry or something? +Hexagon1 (t) 00:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ok - Its been over a week on and no one has anything approaching a reliable source for the claim the Czech Republic has an exclave in Germany. I searched and found nothing. This is an encyclopedia so accuracy is important - its time to delete the piece. Redking7 (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, we found a source and there is nothing that says it is unreliable (even though it probably is), also a week is hardly enough time to do anything, I just came back from vacation! The Dominator (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I try to make my contributions to WP accurate and verifiable. You say yourself that the one source (a magazine article) found is not reliable. My view would be to delete it and if it can be verified later, to put it back up - not mislead people in the interim (or indefinitely). I won't get into an edit-war with you. If you are content to leave something on the main page which isn't verifiable, that's a pity and WP is the looser. I won't have anything more to say on this and will leave it to you, The Dominator, to do as you see fit. Redking7 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I never said to keep inaccurate or unverifiable information, I'm just saying to leave it there for now, if it isn't there, how will people know to look for sources? In this case it's better to leave it with a {{fact}} tag and see if anyone finds a source. I'll also try to ask at the wikiproject. The Dominator (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
I decided to look at this again and asked for help on the Talk:Germany page where it is under discussion. With the help of a response I got there, I have located two sources that verify some of what was said in the Czech article. Here are are the relevant statements and links:
"Hamburg contains a 30,000 m² area of land in the middle of the docks called Moldauhafen ("Vltava port") which is leased to the Czech Republic. The land has extraterritoriality and therefore is exempt from the laws of Germany and Hamburg. The lease was awarded to Czechoslovakia by Article 363 of the Treaty of Versailles to allow the landlocked country a place where goods transported downriver could be transferred to seagoing ships and is set to expire in 2027." Bremen Airport Article
"The Moldauhafen is a 30,000 square meter large part Hamburg port, which signed Versailler of contract due to 1919 in the year 1928 for 99 years to Czechoslovakia was leased. 1993 began the Czech Republic of the Rechtsnacholge. The Elbe is for the inland Tschechien the only navigable connection to the Weltmeeren." Tourism Article
As initial comments on Talk:Germany indicate, it may however be incorrect to describe it as an exclave as it may be more akin to non-sovereign territory such as an embassy. I'll leave it to you to make any changes to the article as you see fit. I would encourage you to keep an eye on the Talk:Germany page as it may provide useful information. Redking7 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, this is a link to the area in question on Google Maps. [2] Note the denomination "Moldauhafen" ("Vltava Port") in the basin, as well as the street names "Prager Ufer" ("Shore of Prague") at the docks and "Am Moldauhafen" ("At the Vltava Port") nearby. --91.7.68.153 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Czechia
Why does Wikipedia not name the article about Germany "Federal Republic of Germany" and the article about France "French Republic", while the article about Czechia is named Czech Republic? Why do you use the official name in this single case?? - Miroslav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.109.6 (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you read the long discussions in the archives and come back when you have something original to say and some new evidence to share. The DominatorTalkEdits 14:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- And if you're interested in a short version: Wikipedia uses common names. If and when Czechia becomes widely used in English, this article will be uncontroversially moved, but that is very far from the present reality. (By the way, it's not a "single" case; for instance we have Republic of Macedonia and even Republic of Ireland, which isn't even the official long form.) -- Jao (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is very simple, Miroslav: the Czech Republic is one of those rare cases in which the country's common name in English language is the "X Republic" form. The other two examples that immediately come to mind are the Dominican Republic and the Central African Republic.
Regards, Ev (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, what is geographical name in English for official geographical name Česko? political Česká republika = Czech Republic; short Česko = Czech Republic; geographical Česko = ? Droll CZ (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Droll, there's no direct English equivalent to that "geographical" Česko (in the sense of region, not political entity, if I understood you correctly). If you don't want to name the country, the usual way of referring specifically to the territory is by mentioning the well-known historic regions of Bohemia and/or Moravia – especially the former, which in everyday conversation is almost synonymous with the whole Czech Republic.
Regards, Ev (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
When I speak about modern Czech Republic, It's OK. But when I speak about history, I miss short form name of states in "Czech Republic" region. I can speak in czech "Dějiny Česka" = "History of Česko" and I mean history of all czech states on this region (Samo Empire, Dukedom of Bohemia, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Czecho-Slovak Republic, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic etc.). But when I speak "History of Czech Republic", I mean history since 1993 only. Droll CZ (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you could say, "history of the Czech lands" (we even have an article titled that). The DominatorTalkEdits 14:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well Droll, perhaps in Czech, that has the word Česko, the phrase "history of the Czech Republic" means the history since 1993 only. But in English, that lacks this specific word, the same phrase can also mean the history of the territory of today's Czech Republic. It may be ambiguous, yes, but language sometimes is... and a good introduction would explain with clarity the precise scope you have in mind :-)
- Of course, if you feel the need for further precision or disambiguation, you can head Dominik (The Dominator)'s suggestion and use "history of the Czech lands" (currently, our own "History of the Czech Republic" redirects to it). Or you can speak of the "history of Bohemia and Moravia". — As I mentioned before, in everyday conversation "history of Bohemia" would be almost synonymous with "history of the territory of today's Czech Republic".
- Notice however that your description, leaving aside the period before the 6th century AD, and starting only after the arrival of the Slavs to the region, would probably be best described as "history of the Czechs", or "of the Czech people".
- And who knows ? Perhaps two decades from now the word Czechia may have been fully embraced by English-language publications. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)