Talk:Prague

In the Gallery section there is a caption about St. Nicholas church of the Lesser Town/Mala Strana, which is often cited as the best baroque architecture example in Prague (cf. ^[1]). The night time picture, however, is of St. Nicholas Church of the Old Town (Old Town Square). Fine by any means, but a different one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.64.126 (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I kind of agree with this, the infobox shouldn't be too complicated, but shouldn't the answer to the question "when was Prague established?" refer to the city of Prague, not to the castle? The city was established in the 1230s. Before that, there was a castle on the hill, and several sellements along the river, but the city now known as "Prague" did not exist. --dab (𒁳) 08:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I know what you mean, the thing is, the 1230s saw what we now call the Old Town (of Prague) expand (more like gobble up & get bunched up with other settlements), get a royal city charter or whatever it's called in English, and a bunch of walls erected. However, by that time it had already existed for a couple of centuries. What's more, the city of Prague would not exist until 1784 when the various towns of Prague united. Cities which were predated by settlements that have in some form existed for a couple of centuries including well before 1230 (i.e. just like Old Town). I think for the sake of simplicity just listing the initial (and continuous) Prague settlement, the Castle – incidentally not a castle in the high middle ages sense, but a fortified settlement – makes the most sense. Prague as an early "agglomeration" was obviously not founded in 1230, and neither is the granting of city rights to Old Town the establishment of Prague proper. The alternative, listing a whole bunch of frankly useless dates equivalent to 1230 (e.g. founding of constituent parts, royal decrees promoting backwaters to cities etc.), seems rather unnecessary & would clutter up the infobox. Especially as they are discussed in context and detail in the history section – incidentally thanks again for clearing those up! --CCCVCCCC (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

well, as far as I can tell, this is a rather standard situation with medieval cities. The city as an entity is established with its receiving city rights (which happened c. 1230). You are right that there were settlements long before that, but the entire point is that there were several settlements, and no single city of Prague. The "Old Town" is what was known as the city of Prague from 1230 to 1784. After that, it's just a regular case of modern city growth with the incorporation of neighbouring municipalities.

But I am happy with the current revision, it's not a real problem. It is correct that the castle was built in the 9th century, and apparently in the 10th century, there was a market called Praga on the left side of the river (at least if we believe the interpretation of Ibn Yaqub, although I must say I find it slightly dubious to equate fzʾʿʾ (فزاعا) with praga...). It seems that this was later eclipsed by the right-bank settlements and the name was somehow transferred over there, and after 1230, nobody remembered that Mala Strana was actually the place that had earlier been called Praga. I suppose the /g/ in the German name establishes that the name predates c. 1200 (although I would like to know when the name is first recorded outside of the dubious Arabic reference). --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Praga confirmed for the 1110s (Cosmas of Prague, clearly in reference to a "city" (urbs) in Hradčany). The question now becomes, what is the date of the first attestation of Praha (useful to date the /g/ > /h/ shift in Czech)? --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Might be of interest (or not!) – Prague in Latin goes even further back with Widukind of Corvey in Res gestae saxonicae sive annalium libri tres: "Post haec Pragam adiit cum omni exercitu, Boemiorum urbem, regemque eius in deditionem accepit..." I got no idea about how legit the chronicle is, I just remember stumbling upon an article or something saying that it's supposedly one of the first mentions of Prague or whatever. As for the shift in pronunciation, /g/ –> /ɣ/ –> /h/ in Czech is a late 12th/early 13th century thing, at least according to a passing mention in some old 1980s book I got laying around – but some quick googling supports it. Nothing specific about Prague though. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I propose the following additions to the Prague page:

Some traditional dishes: Steak Tartare: Seasoned raw minced beef served with egg and toasted bread.

Kulajda: A creamy potato soup infused with mushrooms, dill, and vinegar and served with a poached egg

Sausages: Served with a side of mustard, assorted sausages are popular at all times throughout the day, including breakfast.

Svickova A combined dish made up of beef sirlion covered with vegetable gravy, and bread dumplings

Kolace Small pastries filled with poppy seeds, cheeses, or flavorful jams

Geography: Prague is located at the heart of Europe and in the Northwestern region of Czech Republic. Rich in nutrients, the fertile soil became an important necessity when first forming the city there.

Music:A favored saying is that everyone from Czech Republic is a musician. Music is an important cultural aspect of Prague.

Antonin Dvorak is famous composer known world-wide. First studying composers such as Mozart and Beetoven, Dvorak wrote symphonies similar to their style before defining his own.

Science: While not born directly in Prague, but a short 3 hours outside in Moravia. Sigmund Freud made several important contributions to science and psychology. He wrote many famous publications including The Interpretation of Dreams and The Ego and the Id. Freud worked toward connecting the conscious and unconscious mind through fear and dream interpretation. He is known as the father of psychoanalysis. His fame is what saved him during the days of Nazi Germany, but his writings were burned during book burnings.

^[1]

Let me know if there are any issues with these additions,

Lsladek (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Lsladek Hey there, I have reverted your edits, although they definitely seem to have been made in good faith! Not only have you started a discussion here, but you have in fact tried to come up with sources, and you were not vandalizing the page in a rude manner – which is great to see! However, to be perfectly frank, it seems a bit too much like a hodgepodge of random trivia at times.

Loads of those sources are not reliable, see WP:RS – just because a website says something doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia. Especially if that website is just used as an advertisement, for example. Sometimes there's no sources at all, which is also a no-no, see WP:OR. And to be honest, some of the additions are pretty unencyclopedic, see WP:MOS. Like Sigmund Freud, you even say he wasn't born in Prague at all, so I have a hard time imagining why he ought to be included.

Now I know all this might sound rather disheartening and maybe it comes across as overly negative, but remember that this is an article that has been around for a long time and loads (hundreds? thousands?) of people have worked on it, some of their work was deleted, some was kept... the point is, it's always going to be pretty hard to really add to an article like this.

I've noticed this is a school assignment and I'm not trying to make life difficult for you or anything – in light of the above, wouldn't focusing on a particular part of the article be better? Because right now you've added a bunch of not particularly groundbreaking and sorta throwaway remarks all over a fairly well constructed and sourced article. Like a bit about geography here, another about music being important there, you get the idea.

How about taking a more specific approach, something that's missing in the article right now? Like post-2000 history. Or expanding something that's only mentioned briefly, maybe write about well-known musicians or artists who have worked in Prague in the Culture section. You know, something with more focus.

But don't take my word as gospel, I'm just an editor like you or basically anyone else. All of this might just be my opinion and someone might come along and disagree with me. Although even if that happens, those problems with sources or original research can't really be argued away easily. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The data on GDP (Nominal) Per capita is very erroneous- it'states €32,300,while the IMF source shows figure €13,494.I wonder how this info could remained in that state for so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carerofyou (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The source cited for GDP gives the following information for Prague for 2015:

• Prague region GPD €40,789m
• Prague region GDP per capita €32,300
• Prague region GPD at Purchasing Power Standard €64,902m
• Prague region GDP per capita at Purchasing Power Standard €51,400

Note that the Purchasing Power Standard figures are in Euro not US dollars; they are calculated relative to the EU as a whole. You can tell this by looking at the top of the table in the source, and seeing that the numbers for the EU as a whole in PPS are the same as the numbers in Euro.

The source is cited for Purchasing Power Parity (in US dollars) is an IMF document, which contains the following:

• Czech Republic national currency per current international dollar 13.494 (for 2015)

A more useful page from the IMF for 2015 might be

• Czech Republic GPD local currency 4,595.783 bn
• Czech Republic GPD US dollars 186.830 bn
• Czech Republic GPD purchasing power parity; international dollars 340.571 bn
• Czech Republic GDP per capita local currency 436,103.916
• Czech Republic GDP per capita US dollars 17,728.702
• Czech Republic GDP per capita purchasing power parity; international dollars 32,317.566
• Czech Republic implied PPP conversion rate national currency per current international dollar 13.494

Note that the local currency was the Czech koruna.

To convert the economic figures for the Prague region from Euro to dollars at purchasing power parity, we need an exchange rate for euros to dollars as well as a PPP conversion rate.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

On 31 December 2015, 1000 US dollars were worth:

• €921.04
• 24,914.6 Czech koruna

An average for the exchange rate for the year would be better, but I do not have a source that provides that figure.

The PPP factor for dollars can be calculated using the GDP in dollars and PPP dollars:

• PPP factor = GDP in PPP dollars / GDP in dollars = 340.571 bn / 186.830 bn = 1.823

• Prague region GPD €40,789m
  • multiply by PPP factor (1.823) and divide by 0.92104 to put into Euro
  • €40,789m * 1.823 / 0.92104 =PPP $80,700m
  • The infobox says €41 billion = PPP $78 billion (presumably a different date's exchange rate)
• Prague region GDP per capita €32,300
  • €32,300 * 1.823 / 0.92104 =PPP $63,900
  • The infobox says €32,300 = PPP $62,400, PPP (presumably a different date's exchange rate)

Conclusion, the PPP figures in the infobox are tolerably accurate, though it would be nice to have citation spelling out the calculation used.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Prague - Metro population is grossly overstated. Metro area (km²) is probably deliberately not published. Information about The Central Bohemian Region is also incorrect, compare info on English and Czech versions Prague = 496 km² Středočeský kraj (The Central Bohemian Region) = 10 929 km2 (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C5%99edo%C4%8Desk%C3%BD_kraj) The Central Bohemian Region (Středočeský kraj) = 11,014 km² (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bohemian_Region) Please correct this misinformation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.63.65 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_English, "within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title". As the article resides at Czech Republic, references to the country should use that term. --Khajidha (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

In the section about Charles IV is written that "He began construction of the Gothic Saint Vitus Cathedral, within the largest of the Prague Castle courtyards, on the site of the Romanesque rotunda there." It is at best inaccurate - his father John of Bohemia was the one who gave the order and laid the foundation stone. Charles IV. was, together with his brother and others, only attending the ceremony... so Charles IV "began the construction" in a sense I shot the movie I watched yesterday. English is not my first language so I would prefer someone else to look at it, please. 88.103.227.42 (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello FromCzech and Sapphorain, maybe there was a misunderstanding between us. So where do you think only nine cities are sourced? I see only one source in this paragraph and it lists 16 cities.Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: It looks like you didn't read mine and Sapphorain's edit summary. The source list all the international relations, not only twin cities twin towns/sister city agreements. For example, you added Guangzhou to the list, but the source states it is only "Memorandum on Development of Cooperation", and nor does Guangzhou consider Prague a sister city; you added Seoul as Seoul is mentioned in the Prague's source, but if you read it further, you will see it marks only a visit of the mayor (and you can check Seoul's international relations to see that Prague is not listed even between Seoul's friendly cities); etc. While this approach encounters some difficulties (differences in translation and perception of the concept of twin towns, Prague's outdated source), I hope you understand now how the list of 10 Prague's twin towns originated. FromCzech (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that these ten cities are based on your own research? This is here on Wikipedia forbidden. And what about the other five cities, they also do not mention Prague on their websites? Anyway, what is on another sites is irrelevant, we are not here to judge which pages are older. But we have to stick to the reliable sources, and that the official website of Prague is. In this case, the paragraph title could be changed to: "Twin and partner cities" or just "Partner cities". Own research is not acceptable. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I just say two things: 1) read carefully Prague's source what is twin town and what's not; 2) don't add any cities which don't list Prague as their twin town, it is illogical and unacceptable to have for example Seoul listed on Prague' page and then click to Seoul#Sister cities and have Prague missing. List of twin towns is an objective thing, not a research. Another sites are not irrelevant, they are references on pages of individual cities (Seoul#Sister cities), where you can go and do a mirror comparison of twin towns list (don't start the madness where every city on the list would have another reference, wikilink to that city is enough). If you don't like the approach, find concensus to change it on all the twin towns lists and cities' pages, and don't deal just with Prague's case. You can start other subsection about other Prague's international relations (I wanted to do it too), but there is not ideal (updated) source to do it in good quality. FromCzech (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

1) Can you better specify how we should determine from Pragues site if it is a sister city, or not? 2) I have to disagree, it is irrelevant what is on other pages, wrong data should not spread (because of this reason).

I do not understand you, for example Phoenix have only agreement between cities and is included, but Shanghai have agreement on Sister City Relationship between Shanghai and the City of Prague - and is not included. Furthermore, the fact that the agreement came just during the visit of a major does not matter, the important thing is that the agreement has been approved. Seriously, we shouldn't judge anything ourselves, let's stick to the source, which list them as partner cities. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The basic academic rule is not to rely on one source and confront sources. The official Prague source is misleading due to its obsolescence (Shanghai still listed as a twin town, although the termination of the partnership was a national cause; promotion of Phoenix (2013) and Taipei (2020) to a sister city not included), inaccurate/misleading translation into English (calling German twin towns agreements "partnerships agreements" because German term for twin town is Partnerstadt and Czech partnerské město, etc.), and you still want to blindly follow what is standing there, which will certainly not lead to an improvement of Wikipedia. Twin towns/sister cities and partner/friendly cities are apples and pears you want to mix, nothing that would be on the site of any other metropolis – people want to know what is what.

I'm pretty exhausted, so if you are still not satisfied with my argument, I will leave the place to others to support or oppose my point of view. FromCzech (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you please answer the 1st question? Secondly, I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in your opinions, on what is controversial or misleading. We have to follow the sources here, and so far we do not have better than the one from official Prague site. Your private opinions here will not change Wikipedia. So for now, I have to insist on returning the text according to the source. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I was convinced you were just a troll so I stopped the conversation. You tried to intimidate me that I can be blocked and referred to my edits as own research. You wrote that I should stick to the reliable sources, and then refused to recognize websites of other cities as reliable sources. You just did not seem interested in a meaningful discussion at all. The only problem could be in missing references, but certainly not in the current list, so for the last time, I'm asking you to stop vandalizing the section. FromCzech (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Vandalizing is adding content that is not sourced. So I'm asking you again not to change the text unless it's properly sourced. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Editing policy, "information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. You are invited to show that content is verifiable by referencing reliable sources." Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material; Wikipedia:No original research discusses the need to remove original research. Wikipedia:Vandalism: "changes not supported by sources or by text elsewhere in the article, particularly without an edit summary, may suggest vandalism".Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, you added content that is not sourced; the source clearly says the are "Joint Declaration of Mayors" not relationship between cities, and you didn't provide any other sources to verify. To make you happy, I added one extra source for every entry and deleted that unreliable source so it does not confuse you anymore. FromCzech (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Although I do not agree that the Prague source is unreliable, this is a certain improvement. The Prague source clearly says "Partner cities" and you don't recognize it, but the Frankfurt source also says "Partnerstädten" (Partner city, in fact: Twin city), and you acknowledge this. It doesn't make sense to me. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what this edit was trying to convey as I can't think of any English accent where "vague" rhymes with "pog". Prague rhymes with pog in US varieties that merge cot-caught and lot-palm, but what this sentence is presumably trying to convey is that in the 19th century Prague was also pronounced "Prayg", like New Prague, Minnesota still is today? I actually can't work this out from the references given (the limerick one contains an audio file of someone pronouncing vague as "vahg", with the PALM vowel) so we might do well with a better source for this... – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As for "vague", I can only find the "vayg" pronunciation (with the FACE vowel) in the sources I have at hand although wikt:vague has an alternative pronunciation with the TRAP vowel - which still wouldn't rhyme with "pog". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

the return to the basics of solidarity and sound mind, enough with frivolity and wimsy. after years of contemplating the who's who and whats what to no discovery or too late to bring solidarity of sound unity through the introduction of the european community and the reverting back to the old mappings of the old glamor of the ballrooms and chandeliers with open arms and straight forward realness of the times reflecting on the history of discovery overthe waters of the oceans and new lands now lost but found again in a new brighter light of the older views. No need to chnge the names and run with the new name but do plan to state each individually in reverse letter order for the new millenium. year 2022 JenniferRoddick (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

To be removed. Xx236 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"In 2017, Prague was listed as the fifth most visited European city" Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn’t it be better to have that be separate? Seeing as it doesn’t hold much value to the page of Prague itself but rather an atrocity that occurred? Maybe create a seperate page dedicated to that? QuantumZazzy (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello I would to ask for a change of text. In the early history of Prague there is stated that it was “Prague was also once home to an important slave market.” With source n.34

After I finally got to the page 417 of the source book the only mention of Prague is in a context of Radhanites and that one of the routes they used ran through Prague.

I may be just over exaggerating, but it feels to me like a great reach to call it “an important slave market” just because some traders, who among other things did trade slaves, used a route through the city. Username8471837 (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the WMO data, I hope not because those temperatures are lower than you personally want? It's ridiculous to want to hide data...

In my opinion, reliable information is necessary, and the first, big climate box raises doubts in me, because I cannot find a valid source, and secondly, the temperatures of the earlier period are higher than the later ones, it is almost always the other way around. It should be checked whether the climate data for 1981-2010 is correct at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vif7vt (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"For most of its history, Prague had been a multi-ethnic city with important Czech, German and (mostly native German-speaking) Jewish populations." This sentence, particularly in this article, which deliberately obscures the fact that Prague was a German populated, and German speaking city for most of its existence, amounts to a lie. Prague was a German populated and German speaking city for many centuries until the 19th century, when Czechs replaced the Germans as the dominant ethnic group.

In the article I see a lot of talk about Jews and Czechs, but this extremely biased website covers up the largely German history of Prague. That colors everything, including the creation of Czechoslovakia against the wishes of much of its popualation, the Sudetenland crisis, and the German incursion into the recently created country Czechoslovakia (1919), which had been part of the Austrian Empire for most of its history. 83.166.57.200 (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

How old is prague 85.254.74.248 (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Read the History section. Ken Gallager (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)