Talk:Bohemia

message: Should someone talk about what bohemian (small "b") means? (Arty, etc.)--firepink —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.237.47 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 7 Mar 2002 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Bohemianism]] 

message: Does anyone have any information on the history of the flag and why it's the same as the Polish flag? --Aramգուտանգ 19:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the flag pictured here seems to be wrong.  See CIA World Factbook. --MarkSweep 09:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The flag is derived from the Czech coat of arms showing silver lion on the red field, that means white strip above the red one. Poland has silver eagle on the red field and therefore the same flag. When both countries regained their independence in 1918, Czechoslovakia adjusted its flag with blue triangle to avoid confusion. Since than the white/red flag represents "Bohemia proper" only, but officially isn't used any more. Qertis 09:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Well the flag of Bohemia proper is, I think, more appropriate for this page than the flag of the Czech Republic, even though it's unofficial. Also the Czech Wikipedia article uses the red-and-white flag. So I suggest we change it back. --Fwb22 14:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a change back to the red and white, see also: . --Aramգուտանգ 03:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've changed it back to the red and white flag. --Fwb22 13:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: As the previous editor wrote, the reason why present-day flag of Czech rep. differs from that original one is: to avoid the confusion with the polish one. (And for that was natural, to choose the czechoslovakian one). Before the constitution of Czechoslovakia the Czech lands was for 3 centuries under the rule of Habsburg Monarchy and Czechs couldn't use the flag by any oficial way in that time. The Poland readopted the colors as their own meanwhile. (as far as I know)--Reo On 22:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: To the history of the flag - that blue triangle originally represents the blue hills from the coat of arms of Slovakia. After the Czechoslovakia ceased to exist in 1993, the Slovak blue triangle remained in the Czech flag for two reasons  1. because people were just used to it, 2. to avoid confusion with Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmort (talk • contribs) 05:26, 3 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the previous editor wrote, the reason why present-day flag of Czech rep. differs from that original one is: to avoid the confusion with the polish one. (And for that was natural, to choose the czechoslovakian one). Before the constitution of Czechoslovakia the Czech lands was for 3 centuries under the rule of Habsburg Monarchy and Czechs couldn't use the flag by any oficial way in that time. The Poland readopted the colors as their own meanwhile. (as far as I know)--Reo On 22:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: Who can identify by name the 10 geographic areas shown in the currently displayed map of Bohemia
file "Image:CZ-cleneni-Cechy-wl.png"
Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.92.214 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Map - Identification of Geographic Sub-Areasmap and areas where Bohemiia 

message: Is there a need to have the Russian Bogemiya in the intro? I can understand listing Bohemia, Čechy, and Böhmen, but the territory was never administered or heavily populated by Russians, nor is Bogemiya a term used in English. It is already listed at List of European regions with alternative names as well. Olessi 03:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just wondering about the same. As there were no replies for three months, I'll delete it. It is wrong anyway, the real Russian name is written in Cyrillics. -- EJ 20:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Bogemiya 

message: Hi, I am a history student at the Charles University in Prague. I was quite surprised to read that Boleslav I. is considered to be the first king of Bohemia. It may be possible that he was referred to as "rex" in the contemporary (or somewhat later) writings but he had never been crowned (as Vratislav II. and Vladislav II. were). There is no evidence, as far as I know, that he considered himself to be a king and he is frequently referred to as a duke by Czech historians.
--Grw 16:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Boleslav I 

message: You are invited to join Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board]]

message: A question to Aecis: I cannot understand why you are revereting the given number to few, could you explain? The exact number might not be important on its own, but the public execution of Bohemian noblemen cannot be described as a few Protestants were executed. If you cannot accept the number then the wording should be at least something like selected noblemen or so. Saying few is like saying unimportant number of protestant noblemen were executed which is absurd. --Cepek 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twenty seven Protestant noblemen excuted 

message: Is there a reason that the communist regime as a Soviet satellite, from the end of WWII until the fall of communism in eastern Europe, is completely ignored in this article?  The 1968 Soviet invasion was a significant event and should at least be mentioned.  
Dwood202 18:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you even know what Communism is? Has there ever been a anarchic utopia? Don't use that term.
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What?! James xeno (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The communist regime is completely ignored 

message: In most part, the history is in fact the history of the Czech Lands. I added the link. I do not think it makes sense to duplicate the information. I would suggest to shorten the history significantly, maybe only describing the differences between the history of Bohemia proper and the history of the whole Czech Lands. But maybe event that is not necessary, since the difference is or should be described in the article about the history of Czech Lands. What do you think? Jirka6 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the detailed history here (and at History of Bohemia) could instead be moved to expand Kingdom of Bohemia. Olessi (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why such a detailed history? 

message: So this term keeps getting bolded: it is often used the refer to the whole country Our readers are capable of figuring out that this is an important detail by themselves, without having it emphasised for them. The Manual of Style recommends not over-doing markup, and we're perfectly fine without here. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold in lead 

message: I, of course, wanted to revert to Lightmouse's version. Sorry about that.--Svetovid (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Twinkle failed me

message: What does this mean? It was caused because they kept strategical central cult in their territory. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bohemia#Ancient Bohemia|Ancient Bohemia]]  

message: The 3rd paragraph under Twentieth century, starting with "Beginning in 1949, ..." has this:
"(interestingly enough, surrounding countries including Austria were occupied by the Red Army) ..."
Actually, only Eastern Austria was under Russian occupation. While this may not seem overly important, it is NOT TRUE and should be corrected like this:
"(interestingly enough, surrounding countries including Eastern Austria were occupied by the Red Army)"
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied-occupied_Austria
I would have edited this myself but am new to this and don't want to make a mess of a page without learning more before. Absatzneu (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so I implemented the suggestion into the text. Reo ON  |  +++ 17:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austria post WWII occupation 

message: Quote: "Charvat" is of Turkic origin
What's the basis of this claim? The most commonly accepted derivation is from the Sarmatian, thus Iranian Choroatos or White Croats. See also Name of Croatia. Although the exact etymology is disputed, a Turkic origin is new to me. (See also Guldescu, A History of Medieval Croatia).--Joostik (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Charvat

message: What is a listy? Is it a particular type of doughnut or just the Bohemian word for doughnut? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Grundle2600/Doughnut Days 2009|Doughnut Days 2009]]

message: The Eastern Europe article is fraught with errors, mislabels and slanted facts as if much of it was written by ultraconservatives during the Cold War from an ethnocentric position. If you agree with that Poland Czech r. Slovakia Hungary are Central European states rather than a Soviet satellite, please assist in rewording/correcting the article lead and body. It is un-encycopedic! (just read English Britannica and German Brockhaus) Gregorik (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.88.240 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance needed with the [[Eastern Europe]] article 

message: Rich Farmbrough, 03:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: In Our Time

message: I have no comment as to the contents of this article, but it appears to me that "fled north across of Slavic immigration is a subject of debate" is hardly a well-formed English sentence - and clearly does not belong here, since Slavs are not to be mentioned for a few centuries. I ask the author to kindly put matters aright.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.207.8 (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  sense? 

message: The great tribes of Dudleb, Lemuz and Charvat are missing from this list, which shows a linguistic and cultural shift from Sarmatian in favor of Slavonic dialects, a common occurrence in nomadic immigrations. 
Croats may have had Iranian roots, but it was a long time ago and speaking about Sarmatians in Bohemia is somehow far-fetched. Wikipedia should have a higher standard and shouldn't accept contributions from every fantasist. 89.235.44.18 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please... 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Flag of Czechoslovakia.png Nominated for Deletion

message: I understand that the Czech term has a broader meaning, (or a dual meaning, I guess), and the German term a more specific one, but we could always continue to use the English term 'Czech Republic' for the state and use the native Czech term, 'Čechy', for the region. In a sense, there's even more reason to use the native Czech term rather than the German one, since it is so important, since its name is associated with the entire state, and since it is the region where the capital is located. In that sense it would actually make less sense to use the borrowed German word. And using the, well, German-sounding German name, "Bohemia"-- I don't know how else to say it but at any rate I suppose that you know what I mean-- might make one think that it were a sorta Germanic region, but it actually isn't, which could be misleading. I mean, it is literally where Prague, Praha, and everything is-- so that's about as Czech as Czech can be, isn't it.
And that is actually what the Czech and Polish versions of the article do-- they do not use the "Bohemia" name, and, it is actually their part of the world. 
I know that generally we try to use 'native' sorts of English names for things, but, I think that it's worth considering, at least.   
Kwiataprilensis (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Bohemia" has nothing to do with the German language, but is actually from Latin. English, just like German, incorporated the word based on Latin. Quite terribly, you've touched on a sensitive issue. Prague and much of Bohemia formerly had a very large indigenous German population. In fact, Prague had a German majority until the mid-late 19th century. Germans remained prominent in Bohemia until they were expelled, at the end of the Second World War. So, Prague and Bohemia are not really as "Czech" as can be. They have a very large German heritage, and even if the people have been removed, the culture still shows their influence. RGloucester  — 📬 18:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: German speakers were inportant part of Prague and (central) Bohemia, but for most of history definitely not majority. Under the influence of Austrian Empire, German become more and more common until Czech language disappear in central Bohemia, but it's not most of our history - more like 2-3 centuries. Think of Hus's speeches in the centre of Prague - which language did he use for people to understand? JanaKometaDušková (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Also, after WWII Germans were in fact expel, but "only" from Sudetenland - this wasn't nice and there were a lot of them, but it's really not most of Bohemia. So yeah, German speakers were definitely imporatant here (I'm central Bohemian) but not majority. Prague and central Bohemia really is Czech as can be. JanaKometaDušková (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Čechy vs Bohemia 

message: The official name of the multiethnic Kingdom of Bohemia was Königreich Böhmen, known as Böhmen for short. The state of Bohemia ceased existing in 1918 with the end of Austria-Hungary. The official language of the kingdom as of 1918 was German. The English name is derived from Böhmen, not from Čechy (a term which might not necessarily even have the same meaning as Bohemia/Böhmen). All this makes Böhmen the primary native form of the name of the subject of this article, but just to be fair we can have the two native names in use mentioned alphabetically. Mocctur (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Native native

message: You seem to be editing in a partisan manner. Wikipedia did not ask for your opinion on the subject. We write based on independent reliable secondary sources. The next reversion you make is going to result in an immediate 3EW warning. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "in partisan manner" on reverts of vandalism? Well-konwn basic facts are not "my opinion". --ŠJů (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do not have consensus here on English-language Wikipedia that your "well-known basic facts" are true. You didn't heed my advice and now you've been warned. Revert again and I'll be taking you to a noticeboard. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   Do you really mean that e.g. the citation of the Constution of the Czech Republic needs "secondary sources"? The misleading information from the reverted version (about a "province" etc.) need not sources? --ŠJů (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it or was it not an administrative division within the Austrian Empire? If it was, then it meets the definition of province. --Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Was it or was it not an illegal act? It was an illegal act.--Posp68 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can always use better sources. If the content can be improved, it should be.  isn't neutral despite the fact that you believe it to be true. Claiming that  sounds partisan to me. Maybe it's true; I don't know. You didn't cite a source. Saying that the  is perhaps misquoting that document (since you provided no source) and are attempting to make an original research claim via inference. Just because those lands are mentioned in that document has no real bearing on the subject itself. Furthermore, per WP:LEDE, anything in the lede should represent and summarize what's already in the body of the article. You didn't make changes in the body of the article probably because you're out to right great wrongs and that's very transparent. This may seem silly to you but I revert partisans and POV pushers on a regular basis. I seriously recommend you stick to editing topics you don't care about. Editing here requires objectivity and I'm disappointed that someone who has been editing for ten years can't learn basic lessons like that. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   The fact that regions don't follow the borders of historical lands is generally well-known, obvious from whatever map or description of the regions, and nobody can cast doubts about the fact reasonably. No need to fantasize any controversy or doubt about the fact. Maybe, we can add more and better and more detailed sources, but there is absolutely no reason for the claim that the fact is not "neutral". It's not an opinion about suitability of the reforms, it's a pure description of the obvious fact. It's possible that this article as well as all linked related articles can be better sourced, but it's not a sufficient reason to return obvious nonsenses, inaccuracies, hlaf-truths and distortions to it and remove obvious and well-verifiable information (as citation of the Constutution). --ŠJů (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your claim that  is false. The fact that you don't have consensus now prohibits you from edit warring. You have to convince me. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

text:  What do you think ? Does this seem fair to you? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

text:   Suggest ARV looking at recent edits. Sorry I am unable to comment further due to off-Wiki matters. C679 22:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  As symptomatic. The less able to know and factually comment and discusse, the more active in edit wars and reverts. --ŠJů (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   My God, don't create problems where none exists :-) Of course, the whole article is insufficiently sourced, as well as most of the related linked articles. That's a reason why it is not so easy to borrow sources for the most basic and well-known facts from the linked articles. However, try to focus to claims which can be really POV or tendentious. Not to indisputable and obvious facts which are questioned by nobody who have a basic knowledge about the item. :-) Yes, there exist dogged conservative fans of land system and pragmatic fans of modern regional system(s). I belong to none of them and don't favour any of them. Both systems are historic facts and both coexist in the present reality, as described in the article. Although the land items are accented by Moravian patriots, the existention of historic lands and their borders itself is generally not perceived as controversial. Really, you need not to guard it. :-) If there exists any controversy, its deprectiating of region system as a "communist despotism" (really, the motives was rather pragmatic than "communist") or the mentioned nostalgic or patriotic tendentions to restore lands as administrative and autonomous units. However, I favour none of the tendentions, you are on the false lead in your alertness :-). You could rather remove the unsourced nonsense claim that Bohemia was a "province" of Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austro-Hungarian Emperors respected allways a peculiarity of the included lands and manifested their respect to them in every their act, even though they governed them firmly. Every can know that the Bohemian Kingdom existed indisputably until creation of the Czechoslovac Republic, even though the last two emperors were not crowned by the Bohemian crown. --ŠJů (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  If your intent was to get me to back down, your response was the wrong choice to get that outcome. Please get your sources together to make a more cogent argument for those of us that know nothing about Bohemia. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   Please, focus on constructive work instead of these strange fights. Yes, all related articles are in wretched condition, if we want apply so strict requirements on sources. I heartily support your desires to improve them. We surelly can find many tendentious or confusing or questionable formulations or big gaps in the articles. Howerer, to assault obvious, well-known and uncontroversial facts is really not the appropriate accent for such a work. The objections above are rather ridiculous than serious. Nevertheless I added sources, even though the basio facts are described in the linked detailed articles. Why bother you me stil? --ŠJů (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before you start edit warring 

message: I was bold and have pruned the extremely bloated lead section and moved the bits about administrative units and Pithart into the 20th century. I have also tweaked the intro sentences and restructured the lead slightly so that we got four neat paragraphs w/ definition, history, current status and geography. I did notice you guys arguing, but I don't believe I have removed any significant content – although I did often paraphrase or shorten some passages – so I went ahead with it. To be perfectly honest, some of the legislation bits seemed to me as bordering on the bizarre & not worthy of including but I have kept them in some way or another. If any of you feel I've overlooked/removed something important, just yell. --CCCVCCCC (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead & 20th century 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bohemia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030062054/http://www.cirkev.cz:80/en/dioceses/province-of-bohemia to http://www.cirkev.cz/en/dioceses/province-of-bohemia/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified