text:
Talk:Bohemia

2002 talk
To JHK Please take a look at Gdingen and Gdynia and see how Larry Sanger handled the two name situation. I agree with that completely.

The history of most of the places I am referring to, started with the current names in 1945 and some in 1919/1920 -Period.

What you are doing is whiping out a 1000 year of history by taking away the proper names and replacing it with the 1920/1945 and thereafter communist military take-over names. Not only the land is stolen, but that amounts to stealing the history too. And please do not tell me again that it is ok for the land to be stolen, because it is ok to militarily occupy, it is illegal to oust the inhabitants, replace them with others and keep the land.- Period. user:H.J.

 * H.J., "Bohemia" has been used as the name of this place in writing longer than Boehmen for the simple fact that it IS the Latin name. The Czechs were there by 600.  The Boii (whoever they were, Celt or German) were gone.  The name stuck to the place, not to a group of people who have lived there continuously.  Oh, and I think that Larry was wrong.  He's not always right.  We should have entries under the modern name of a place with a section labelled "history of {whatever}" to cover the previous history.--MichaelTinkler

 * H.J., You are absolutely right about that. The name "Bohemia" is the valid name, because it is the original latin name of the region, used by many famous cartographers of the middle ages like Mercator for example. It is correct to all sides involved (Czechs, Germans etc.) And you are right, its about the thousand years of mostly glorious history stolen. Unfortunatelly majority of undereducated Czechs don't even know the facts and still rely on biased communist history books, what a shame. Also, this is not some fairytale country it is very precisely defined by Ore Mountains, Bohemian forest and other mountain ranges so this is not only region with deep history but also with a well defined geographical boundary. Also "Talks with T. G. Masaryk" by Karel Čapek uses Bohemia, just to remind Czechs that insist on Czechia usage.--IEEE 07:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

-- I had put all the earlier ways of writing the name/s in my early Boii=Boier, Baier, Bajuvaren = modern Bayern and Boii= Boemi=Boehmen entrances. People keep taking it out. But Bohemia = Boemi as it was written on old maps. (That is why I love to look at old maps). user:H.J.

 * HJ, we keep taking it out because the majority of scholars in the 20th century, and almost ALL scholars in the late 20th century, agree that the Bajuvaren are not ETYMOLOGICALLY the same as the Boii. Let me give you another examples - the entry at Huns says that they are the same as the 'Hiung-nu' in the Chinese sources.  The majority of scholars in the late 20th century disagree, including the great Otto Maenchen-Helfen, whose book on the Huns I'm plowing through right now in order to straighten out that entry.  He was one of the few scholars with the linguistic expertise in Chinese, Mongolian, Turkish and Turkic dialects, etc., etc., etc. (he was a GREAT linguist) to sort it out, and he says 'most likely not.'  JHK, in fact, is probably among the 10 or 15 best informed  Americans on the subject of the origins of the Bavarii, given her graduate training and what she wrote her dissertation about.  There really are only 2 or 3 people in America I know personally and about 10 others who I don't know personally but whose work I respect who I would defer to more than to her on this topic.  The study of names in the 19th century depended on an early state of philology;  the linguistic research has changed a LOT in the last 100 years, and relying on comparison of sounds as spelled by Romans or Greeks is not taken very seriously any more.
 * now on to another topic about which you certainly know more than I - is there any reason to suspect one of Mieszko's wives than the others as the parent of Boleslav I? And is the woman you put in as 'Oda, princess of Ostmark' the daughter of Thietrich (Theoderic)?  If so, I wonder about the title 'princess.'  What were the March-lords' wives and daughters called?
 * Thanks, Michael -- Personally, I'd like to know a bit more about this, too. Princess is definitely anachronistic if this was before about the 11th c. (I haven't seen the quote, so I'm not sure what date was given).  As for the other titles and names, I'm a bit confused.  There seem to be a lot of them -- especially known last names.  At the time in question, there were still an awful lot of people out there who didn't have more than one name, or went by x, son (or daughter) of x.  One of the toughest things about studying the period is the absence of any clear indication of kinship for many of the people we sudy.  This is compounded by reiteration of leading names, i.e., names that re-occur in one family and, in some cases, pretty much "belong" to a family if it's an important one.  Also, there is a HUGE difference between title and office.  One could be a dux (translated into modern duke, but not really the same) and lose the title and office (and the lands associated therewith) to someone else after a few years.  Relationships certainly were more regular and titles more heritable by the end of the 10th c, but the rules described above are little more than a wish-list based on the few consistencies historians have found.  Please see the wiki article on feudalism to better understand why we cannot and should not make such assumptions.

As for the "how Larry handled it" matter, please note my response. If we were to create a new article every time a war cased political boundaries to change, whether right or wrong, we would have 5 or 6 entries for many cities. Think of Strasbourg, or any of the cities that changed hands after the 30 years war, and with the Spanish Succession, Austrian Succession, 7 Years' war, Napoleonic Wars, and WWI. doubtful that any one city suffered all those changes, but dead stupid to have separate articles for each era -- the people living there didn't change entirely. I can perhaps see valid reasons for three entires for Constantinople, Byzantium, and Istanbul, but only because the cultures were so different. And even then, I would argue that it be one article under Istanbul, with redirected pages for Constantinople and Byzantium.JHK -- To MichaelTinkler and JHK About the titles, I found : Otto I the Great king, emperor, he became emperor after he was born. Otto II emperor ,Otto III emperor, They were born as a son of an emperor. They were emperor from the day of their birth. Otto III, born 980,was already crowned emperor by his father. Otto II died in 983. Otto III was emperor.But since he did not have the age (with Frankish it was 14), his mother Theophanu (Byzantium) reigned for him. When she died, the grandmother Adelheid (Adelaide) (St) of Italy reigned for Otto III. When a person was born a son of a duke, the baby was born :duke so-and-so. These titles meant, that they were the son of a ..whatever and they had the lawful right to become the same title so-and-so. These royal titles with European (perhaps international)registries of titles and positions are kept up. The person later on in live was not always able to actually keep the position ,after the fathers death, because other inheriters also attempted to get the same position. - Now back to the other matter, people in the 20th/21st century cannot possibly have all the information that earlier people had. For example in Germany, there were many destructions.Take Hamburg. In circa 845 AD 600 Viking ships came sailing on the Elbe river and destroyed Hamburg. Hamburg at that time had 500 inhabitants. It was the reason that archbishopric Hamburg and Bremen were then combined. The 30 years war slashed and burned a very large part. There were many destructions over and over again. Even without wars there were many fires, that destroyed towns, cities, many times over. There was not even an English translation of Ptolemy's Geography until 1932. The first bible in America was not in English language. These are just a few examples .Therefore I believe that people today can only judge by what is left and what is available to them now. They cannot get a true picture today as the people of that time did. user:H.J.

 * H.J. NO.  To start with, one word: ARCHAEOLOGY.  Archaeology has proven many things right and many things wrong.  If you go on reading old history books you might beleive that Homer was a myth and that the Trojan war never happened.  Schliemann in the 19th century began changing our attitudes toward that.  Modern archaeology has taught us a LOT about the ancient Germans that Tacitus and Ptolemy never knew.  Let me tell you something about Ptolemy, too.  The reason no one had translated Ptolemy's Geography into English until 1932 is that anyone who wanted to read it before the 17th century was already a person who could read Greek and Latin.  By  the 17th century, by which point the translations into the vernacular languages became popular, no one believed that the ancient Greeks knew more about the geography of the world than modern explorers.  And they didn't.  Ptolemy had odd ideas about a lot of geography - look at what he thought about the location of Ireland relative to England!  And given that he was wrong about a lot of things, why should his THIRD hand reports of what tribe lived where and what ethnicity THEY were be accepted today?  He was not an anthropologist or  a linguist, so he didn't have any reliable way to tell a Celt from a German except by believing what someone else told him.  Since the 17th century the only people who read Ptolemy were also usually able to read Latin and Greek, and didn't need an english translation  very much!  Gosh!  The 30 years war didn't destroy knowledge - it destroyed books and people.  Lots and lots of books survived - cetainly enough to cast doubt on the IDENTITY of the Boii and the Bavarii. --MichaelTinkler

 * I must also dispute what who think you know about the passage of titles, H.J. Your example is very specific and not representative.  It also doesn't prove your point.  After all, Otto did not become Emperor by inheriting the title -- His father wasn't emperor.  Henry the Fowler was elected king after the Carolingian house had pretty much died out in the east.  His election was according to normal Frankish custom -- if a ruler cold not rule, the leading men (not nobles, that doesn't really fit the time period, although it is more true in the 10thc than the 8th) had the right to choose another leader.  This was not based of any type of vassalage (vassals don't get to overthrow a king), but on the principle that the king was the best leader in war and would provide them with the most plunder.  Otto was succeeded by his son and grandson, but only because he was a good enough leader to keep build loyalty to his family.  NONE of these people were Emperor from the day of their birth -- that's just silly.  That's like saying that Prince Charles has been King of England from the day of his birth.  Otto may have had them crowned co-emperor as teenagers (I haven't re-read anything specific on the Ottonians in a while, so I couldn't say when tthey received the imperium)-- the Carolingians certainly did this, as a way to ensure succession and consolidate power.

 * Your other example of dukes being born dukes, etc, just doesn't fly. Whether or not you like to hear it, modern scholarship (and here I mean Scholars like Prinz, Störmer, Schwind, Riché Wallace-Hadrill, and Semmler -- mostly Germans) does not support that theory.  I've spent a lot of time working with the land transaction records from Fulda and Lorsch.  Titles are not used, except for royalty, and in the cases of a very few well-known leading men.  We can corroborate some of these titles by reading some of the Annals for the time -- Annales fuldensis, Annales vedastini, Annales Laureshaimensis and Annales bertiniani are some I've used.  They are interesting because they tell us that so-and-so was dux or comes of the Ostmark, or somewhere else.  They also tell us when these guys were transferred or demoted -- which means those offices were not inheritable. That said, they were often held by members of one family.  Now, if you are reading edited versions of these documents, there is often commentary that names the people as Duke of such and such, or Count of X -- but these are later additions by (usually) 19th c. historians.   For the Ottonian period, more titles were "set" but there was still a lot of fluidity that must be taken into account. JHK

First, I think we should all agree to call Vaclav Wencelas (or Wenceslaus) -- that's his most common name in English, and if someone wants to know who "Good King Wenceslas" was, they should be able to find him.

Re-wrote for accuracy -- removed anachronisms, removed statement about Charlemagne and the four gaues because I've read almost every primary source on the Carolingian East and a fairly large number of the secondary sources, and I can't recall ever seeing this mentioned. If someone can show me a valid, non-web source for this, I'll be happy to see it returned. JHK - To JHK Do you want to call him: Saint Wenceslas, Chech Vaclav -? that seems alright to me user:H.J.

 * let me suggest: "Wenceslas (Czech, Vaclav, later canonized)"  By the way, Vaclav is my fault - Collins seems to be Frankophobic, in his Hispanophilia, and so he's very sympathetic to Slavic names in reaction, I guess. --MichaelTinkler.

I must say, as someone who knows nothing about Bohemia, this article is not particularly useful. It gives me no approximation of its location in any of the historical eras discussed, nor does it do a very good job of explaining, for example, who the heck a Carolignan is and why this mattered to Bohemia. I certainly know enough about recent European history to be well aware that national/regional borders can vary (sometimes significantly, viz. Poland). Perhaps defining Bohemia as "located primarily in present-day East|West|North|South [insert country here]", or discussing how the passing back-and-forth of various dukedoms, princedoms, etc, affected the geopolitical boundaries would also provide some sociopolitical context. As it is, I have to infer that Bohemia was located somewhere in the present-day Czech Republic (by scrolling down to the end of the article), possibly bordering on or near Bavaria, and that it has been associated with least 3 separate policital and/or cultural groups that don't really have much to do with each other aside from that they all called Bohemia "home". Not being a historian, I am woefully unqualified to make useful contributions other than the above criticism, but I'd appreciated if the committee of authors would consider this feedback. --A WikiRoulettist

 * You're absolutely right, and it's clear unfortunately that the article was begun (or substantially rewritten at an earlier stage) by someone who didn't give a damn about Bohemia, couldn't be bothered to find out where it was and didn't even know enough to realise that its frontiers are among the oldest in Europe (a millennium apart from an extremely unfortunate interval in 1938-45). Of course it was all originally someone's effort to show that ten million Czechs show everything they've achieved to the greater German fatherland of which they're an organic part. It sometimes takes time to excise the remnants of this drivel, but it'll go. Thanks for raising the problem. User:David Parker.

Lovely re-write, David! you're right, you know -- this was initially an HJ article to which actual history was quickly added. BTW, added Carolingian to East Frankish kingdom -- I think it's important. JHK

On Bohemianism
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)

yeah, ditto! all fine and dandy to have it as a seperate page, but at least give it heavy mention in the intro. e.g. "...region...known primarily for it's artsy-fartsy culture, poetry, drugs, and ragdoll clothing". or w/e.

also a note on the distinctions betw "bohemian", "gypsy", "roma", and "cyndi lauper" would be nice....

4.154.249.215 (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag
Does anyone have any information on the history of the flag and why it's the same as the Polish flag? --Aramգուտանգa|  19:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the flag pictured here seems to be wrong. See CIA World Factbook. --MarkSweep 09:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * I support a change back to the red and white, see also: . --Aramգուտանգa|  03:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Right, I've changed it back to the red and white flag. --Fwb22 13:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Explanation
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)

 * 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)

Map Moved
I moved the Historic Map down and to the right, and also changed it's annotation to reflect the data on the image record. This was tested against my browser in fine (smallest) text, and largest; as the prior arrangement had some 'inconvieniently located wrapped' text displayed while in the same display ranges. In other words, the edit is purely cosmetic. Fra nkB  7 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)

Current Map - Identification of Geographic Sub-Areasmap and areas where Bohemiia
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)

See - the summary names each of the districts.--Jirka6 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jirka6 ! You're the Man!

Russian Bogemiya
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)

 * 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)

On Boleslav I
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)

Czech Wikipedian's notice board
You are invited to join 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)

Twenty seven Protestant noblemen excuted
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)

The communist regime is completely ignored
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)
 * 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)
 * What?! James xeno (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Why such a detailed history?
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)

 * 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)

Bold in lead
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)

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

Ancient Bohemia
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)

Current first sentence makes no sense either. I would fix it if the intended meaning were clearer. Freeman (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Austria post WWII occupation
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)
 * I agree, so I implemented the suggestion into the text.  R eo   ON   |   + + +  17:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Charvat
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)

Doughnut Days 2009
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)

Assistance needed with the Eastern Europe article
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)

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

sense?
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)

Please...
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)

Čechy vs Bohemia
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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

¤ Prague never had a German majority. During the Habsburg misrule of the Czech Lands, the Czech language was removed from public administration and higher education. So do not make the mistake of equating language, ethnicity, and nationality. Apropos culture: Nazi ideology came from "Sudetenland", see Rudolf Jung and the Jihlava party program of 1913 --Posp68 (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Native native
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)

 * Official name in Middle Ages was Čechy, later were used Czech and German names, but both were official. Official languages were both, not only German. Bohemia exist till today and only official name and language is Czech. Name in English was from Latin Bohemia, see any dictionary.--Yopie (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Before you start edit warring
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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * Was it or was it not an illegal act? It was an illegal act.--Posp68 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 * 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 "regions which don't follow borders of the historical lands of Bohemia and Moravia" sounds partisan to me. Maybe it's true; I don't know. You didn't cite a source. Saying that the "three Czech lands are mentioned also in the first sentence of the preamble" 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)

 * 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)
 * Your claim that "it's not a sufficient reason" 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)
 * What do you think ? Does this seem fair to you? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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) See Cisleithania, I see no "province" in the list. --ŠJů (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Lead & 20th century
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link 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)

Kladsko/Kłodzko/Glatz
Since Kłodzko has been de facto part of Poland since the post-WWII border changes promulgated at the Potsdam Conference in 1945, and eventually recognized de jure by all European states, I very seriously question whether the Kladsko section is appropriate in this article on the historic kingdom/province/region of Bohemia. It seems to me that it would be more appropriate in the article on Poland, especially since Czech inhabitants were (apparently) always a minority there. Its inclusion in Bohemia seems very POV. – Sca (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 * — Moved to Poland, condensed and NPOV'd. Sca (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi, I believe it'd be more appropriate to indeed move it but summarise it in the WWII section in once sentence rather than a separate section. The topic is quite insignificant in Polish history. Oliszydlowski, 15:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, then, Oli. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * ⇒ So, Yopie reverted my removal of this section from Bohemia, and Oliszydlowski removed my NPOV version of it from Poland, which read as follows:

 * Kłodzko
 * The area around Kłodzko (Glatz; ) in southwestern Poland had been a part of Lower Silesia since its conquest by the Kingdom of Prussia in 1763. Referred to as "Little Prague" (Klein-Prag) by the Czechs, the Kłodzko Valley region on the eastern Nysa River (German: Glatzer Neisse) was the focus of several attempts to incorporate the area into Czechoslovakia.
 * The last attempt occurred in May 1945 when Czechoslovakia sought to annex the area on behalf of the Czech minority present in the western part of the Kłodzko Valley and known to them as the "Czech Corner." Pressure by the Soviet Union led to a ceasing of military operations, with the Czech minority being expelled to Czechoslovakia. However, the area remained part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Prague until 1972.
 * Before 1945 Kłodzko was German/Prussian/Austrian (Glatz) and had been so for four centuries. After 1945 it was (and remains) Polish. The fact that the RC church was slow to recognize the post-1945 changes, as it was with respect to various other Potsdam border decrees, is irrelevant to what had happened on the ground. Wikipedia should strive for historical transparency. Sca (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Before 1763 Klodsko was Czech Crown Lands. Prussia was not Austria, and 1945 - 1763 is not four centuries, not even two centuries.--Posp68 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bohemia


text:
Björn Borg

Björn Rune Borg (born 6 June 1956) is a Swedish former world No. 1 tennis player. Between 1974 and 1981, he became the first man in the Open Era to win 11 Grand Slam singles titles with six at the French Open and five consecutively at Wimbledon.

Borg won four consecutive French Open titles (1978–81) and is 6–0 in French Open finals. He was the first man since 1886 to contest six consecutive Wimbledon finals, a record surpassed by Roger Federer's seven consecutive finals (2003–09). He is the only man to achieve the Channel Slam three times. Borg contested the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open finals in the same year three times (1978, 1980–81). He won three major titles without dropping a set during those tournaments. However, he never won the US Open despite four runner-up finishes.

Borg also won three year-end championships and 16 Grand Prix Super Series titles. Overall, he set numerous records that still stand. He was ATP Player of the Year from 1976 to 1980, and was the year-end world No. 1 in the ATP rankings in 1979 and 1980 and ITF World Champion from 1978 to 1980. Borg is the only Swede, male or female, to win over 10 majors. Borg unexpectedly retired from tennis in 1981, at the age of 25. He made a brief and unsuccessful comeback in 1991.

Borg is widely considered one of the all-time greats of the sport. He was ranked by Tennis magazine as the sixth-greatest male player of the Open Era. His rivalry with John McEnroe is considered one of the best in the sport's history, and their meeting in the 1980 Wimbledon final is considered one of the greatest matches ever played. A teenage sensation at the start of his career, Borg experienced unprecedented stardom and consistent success that helped propel the rising popularity of tennis during the 1970s. As a result, the professional tour became more lucrative, and in 1979, Borg became the first player to earn more than US$1 million in prize money in a single season.

Early life
Björn Borg was born in Stockholm, Sweden, on 6 June 1956, the only child of Rune (1932–2008), an electrician, and Margaretha Borg (b. 1934). He grew up in nearby Södertälje. As a child, Borg became fascinated with a golden tennis racket that his father won at a table-tennis tournament. His father gave him the racket, beginning his tennis career.

A player of great athleticism and endurance, he had a distinctive style and appearance—bowlegged and very fast. His muscularity allowed him to put heavy topspin on both his forehand and two-handed backhand. He followed Jimmy Connors in using the two-handed backhand. By the time he was 13, he was beating the best of Sweden's under-18 players, and Davis Cup captain Lennart Bergelin (who served as Borg's primary coach throughout his professional career) cautioned against anyone trying to change Borg's rough-looking, jerky strokes.

1972–73 – Davis Cup debut and first year on the tour
At the age of 15, Borg represented Sweden in the 1972 Davis Cup and won his debut singles rubber in five sets against veteran Onny Parun of New Zealand. Later that year, he won the Wimbledon junior singles title, recovering from a 5–2 deficit in the final set to overcome Britain's Buster Mottram. Then in December, he won the Orange Bowl Junior Championship for boys 18 and under after a straight-sets victory in the final over Vitas Gerulaitis. Borg joined the professional circuit in 1973, and reached his first singles final in April at the Monte Carlo Open, which he lost to Ilie Năstase. He was unseeded at his first French Open and reached the fourth round where he lost in four sets to eighth-seeded Adriano Panatta. Borg was seeded sixth at his first Wimbledon Championships, in large part due to a boycott by the ATP, and reached the quarterfinal, where he was defeated in a five-set match by Roger Taylor. In the second half of 1973, he was runner-up in San Francisco, Stockholm and Buenos Aires and finished the year ranked No. 18.

1974 – First French Open title
Borg made his only appearance at the Australian Open at the age of 17, and reached the third round, where he lost in straight sets to eventual finalist Phil Dent. In January, he won his first career singles title at the New Zealand Open, followed by titles in London and São Paulo in February and March respectively. Just before his 18th birthday in June 1974, Borg won his first top-level singles title at the Italian Open, defeating defending champion and top-seeded Ilie Năstase in the final and becoming its youngest winner. Two weeks later, he won the singles title at the French Open, his first Grand Slam tournament title, defeating Manuel Orantes in the final in five sets. Barely 18, Borg was the youngest-ever male French Open champion up to that point.

1975 – Retained French Open title
In early 1975, Borg defeated Rod Laver, then 36 years old, in a semifinal of the World Championship Tennis (WCT) finals in Dallas, Texas, in five sets. Borg subsequently lost to Arthur Ashe in the final. Borg retained his French Open title in 1975, beating Guillermo Vilas in the final in straight sets. Borg then reached the Wimbledon quarterfinals, where he lost to eventual champion Ashe. Borg did not lose another match at Wimbledon until 1981. Borg won two singles and one doubles rubber in the 1975 Davis Cup final, as Sweden beat Czechoslovakia 3–2. With these singles wins, Borg had won 19 consecutive Davis Cup singles rubbers since 1973. That was already a record at the time. However, Borg never lost another Davis Cup singles rubber, and, by the end of his career, he had stretched that winning streak to 33.

1976 – First Wimbledon title
In early 1976, Borg won the World Championship Tennis year-end WCT Finals in Dallas, Texas, with a four-set victory over Guillermo Vilas in the final. At the 1976 French Open, Borg lost to the Italian Adriano Panatta, who remains the only player to defeat Borg at this tournament. Panatta did it twice: in the fourth round in 1973, and in the 1976 quarterfinals. Borg won Wimbledon in 1976 without losing a set, defeating the favored Ilie Năstase in the final. Borg became the youngest male Wimbledon champion of the modern era at 20 years and 1 month (a record subsequently broken by Boris Becker, who won Wimbledon aged 17 in 1985). Năstase later said, "We're playing tennis, he's playing something else." Borg also reached the final of the 1976 U.S. Open, which was then being played on clay courts. Borg lost in four sets to world no. 1 Jimmy Connors. Borg was awarded the ATP Player of the Year award and ranked world No. 1 by Tennis Magazine (France).

1977 – Second Wimbledon title and world No.1 ranking
In February 1977 World Championship Tennis (WCT) sued Borg and his management company IMG claiming that Borg had committed a breach of contract by electing to participate in the competing 1977 Grand Prix circuit instead of the WCT circuit. Borg eventually played, and won, a single WCT event, the Monte Carlo WCT. An out-of-court settlement was reached whereby Borg committed to play six or eight WCT events in 1978 which were then part of the Grand Prix circuit.

Borg skipped the French Open in 1977 because he was under contract with WTT, but he repeated his Wimbledon triumph, although this time he was pushed much harder. He defeated his good friend Vitas Gerulaitis in a semifinal in five sets. His match with Gerulaitis was deemed by Wimbledon itself as "probably the greatest gentlemen's singles match played at Wimbledon". In the 1977 final Borg was pushed to five sets for the third time in the tournament, this time by Connors. The win propelled Borg to the No. 1 ranking in the ATP point system, albeit for just one week in August. Prior to the 1977 US Open, Borg aggravated a shoulder injury while waterskiing with Vitas Gerulaitis. This injury ultimately forced him to retire from the Open during a Round of 16 match vs Dick Stockton. Borg was rated number one for 1977 by Tennis Magazine (France), Tennis Magazine (U.S.), Barry Lorge, Lance Tingay, Rino Tommasi, Judith Elian and Rod Laver. Borg was also named "ATP Player of the Year". Through 1977, he had never lost to a player younger than himself.

1978 – French and Wimbledon titles
Borg was at the height of his career from 1978 through 1980, completing the French Open-Wimbledon double all three years. In 1978, Borg won the French Open with a win over Vilas in the final. Borg did not drop a set during the tournament, a feat only he, Năstase (in 1973), and Rafael Nadal (in 2008, 2010, 2017 and 2020) have accomplished at the French Open during the open era. Borg defeated Connors in straight sets in the 1978 Wimbledon final. At the 1978 US Open, now held on hard courts in Flushing Meadow, New York, he lost the final in straight sets to Connors. Borg was suffering from a bad blister on his thumb that required pre-match injections. That autumn, Borg faced John McEnroe for the first time in a semifinal of the Stockholm Open, and lost. Borg was named ATP Player of the Year and was the first ITF World Champion.

1979 – French and Wimbledon titles and year-end No. 1 ranking
Borg lost to McEnroe again in four sets in the final of the 1979 WCT Finals but was now overtaking Connors for the top ranking. Borg established himself firmly in the top spot with his fourth French Open singles title and fourth straight Wimbledon singles title, defeating Connors in a straight-set semifinal at the latter tournament. At the 1979 French Open, Borg defeated big-serving Víctor Pecci in a four-set final, and in the 1979 Wimbledon final Borg came from behind to overcome an even bigger server, Roscoe Tanner. Borg was upset by Tanner at the US Open, in a four-set quarterfinal played under the lights. At the season-ending Masters tournament in January 1980, Borg survived a close semifinal against McEnroe. He then beat Gerulaitis in straight sets, winning his first Masters and first title in New York. Borg finished the year at No. 1 in the ATP Point rankings and was considered the No. 1 player in the world by most authorities.

1980 – French and fifth consecutive Wimbledon title
In June, Borg overcame Gerulaitis, again in straight sets, for his fifth French Open title. Again, he did not drop a set during the tournament.

Borg then won his fifth consecutive Wimbledon singles title, defeating McEnroe in a five-set final, often cited as the best Wimbledon final ever played. Having lost the opening set to an all-out McEnroe assault, Borg took the next two and had two championship points at 5–4 in the fourth. However, McEnroe averted disaster and went on to level the match in Wimbledon's most memorable tiebreaker, which McEnroe won 18–16. In the fourth-set tiebreak, McEnroe saved five match points, and Borg six set points, before McEnroe won the set. Björn served first to begin the 5th set and fell behind 0–30. Borg then won 19 straight points on serve in the deciding set and prevailed after 3 hours, 53 minutes. Borg himself commented years later that this was the first time that he was afraid that he would lose, as well as feeling that it was the beginning of the end of his dominance.

In September, 1980 Borg reached the final of the U.S. Open for the third time, losing to John McEnroe in five sets in a match that cemented what had become the greatest contemporary rivalry, albeit short-lived, in men's tennis.

He defeated McEnroe in the final of the 1980 Stockholm Open, and faced him one more time that year, in the round-robin portion of the year-end Masters, actually played in January 1981. With 19,103 fans in attendance, Borg won a deciding third-set tie-break for the second year in a row. Borg then defeated Ivan Lendl for his second Masters title. Borg again finished the year at No. 1 in the ATP Point Rankings and was considered the No. 1 player in the world by most tennis authorities.

1981 – Sixth and final French Open title
Borg won his last Grand Slam title at the French Open in 1981, defeating Lendl in a five-set final. Borg's six French Open Grand Slam titles was a record bettered only by Rafael Nadal in 2012.

In reaching the Wimbledon final in 1981, Borg stretched his winning streak at the All England Club to a record 41 matches. In a semifinal, Borg was down to Connors by two sets to love, before coming back to win the match. However, Borg's streak was brought to an end by McEnroe, who defeated him in four sets. Years afterward, Borg remarked "And when I lost what shocked me was I wasn't even upset. That was not me: losing a Wimbledon final and not upset. I hate to lose." Borg around that time felt that his desire to play was gone, despite McEnroe's desperate efforts to persuade him not to retire and continue their rivalry.

Borg went on to lose to McEnroe at the 1981 US Open. After that defeat, Borg walked off the court and out of the stadium before the ceremonies and press conference had begun, and headed straight for the airport. There are reports that Borg received threats after his semifinal win over Connors. In later years, Borg apologized to McEnroe. The 1981 US Open would be the Swede's last Grand Slam final. Major tournaments and tour organizers were enforcing a new rule; by 1982, that players had to play at least 10 official tournaments per year. However, Borg wanted to curtail his schedule after many years of winning so often. Although he felt in good condition physically, he recognized that the relentless drive to win and defy tour organizers had begun to fade.

Borg failed to win the US Open in nine tries, losing four finals, 1976 (the surface was clay that year) and 1978 to Jimmy Connors, and 1980 and 1981 to John McEnroe. The surface was hard court from 1978 onward and Borg reached the final there on hard court on three occasions, in 1978, 1980 and 1981. He led 3–2 in the fifth set of the 1980 final, before losing. That match followed Borg's classic encounter with McEnroe at the 1980 Wimbledon. In 1978, 1979 and 1980, Borg was halfway to a Grand Slam after victories at the French and Wimbledon (the Australian Open being the last Grand Slam tournament of each year at the time) only to falter at Flushing Meadows, the left-handed Roscoe Tanner being his conqueror in 1979.

1982–91 – Retirement
In 1982, Borg played only two tournaments. He lost to Yannick Noah in the quarterfinals of Monte Carlo in April and in the same month he lost to Dick Stockton in the second round of qualifying at the Alan King Tennis Classic in Las Vegas. Nevertheless, Borg's announcement in January 1983 that he was retiring from the game at the age of 26 was a shock to the tennis world. McEnroe tried unsuccessfully to persuade Borg to continue. He did, however, play Monte Carlo again in March 1983, reaching the second round, and Stuttgart in July 1984, losing to Henri Leconte in both occasions.

Upon retirement, Borg had three residences: a penthouse in Monte Carlo, not far from his pro shop; a mansion on Long Island, New York and a small island off the Swedish coast.

Borg later bounced back as the owner of the Björn Borg fashion label. In Sweden, his label has become very successful, second only to Calvin Klein.

Attempted comeback
In 1991–1993, Borg attempted a comeback on the men's professional tennis tour, coached by Welsh karate expert Ron Thatcher. Before his 1991 return, Borg grew his hair out as it had been during his previous professional tennis career and he returned to using a wooden racket; he had kept his hair cut and used modern graphite rackets in exhibitions he played during the late 1980s. Borg, however, failed to win a single match. He faced Jordi Arrese in his first match back, again at Monte Carlo but without practising or playing any exhibition matches and lost in two sets. In his first nine matches, played in 1991 and 1992, Borg failed to win a single set. He fared slightly better in 1993, taking a set off his opponent in each of the three matches he played. He came closest to getting a win in what turned out to be his final tour match, falling to second seed Alexander Volkov 6–4, 3–6, 6–7(7–9) at the 1993 Kremlin Cup in Moscow.

In 1992 Borg, aged 35, using a graphite racket, defeated John Lloyd, 37, at the Inglewood Forum Tennis Challenge. Borg later joined the Champions tour, using modern rackets.

Playing style
Borg had one of the most distinctive playing styles in the Open Era. He played from the baseline, with powerful ground-strokes. His highly unorthodox backhand involved taking his racket back with both hands but actually generating his power with his dominant right hand, letting go of the grip with his left hand around point of contact, and following through with his swing as a one-hander. He hit the ball hard and high from the back of the court and brought it down with considerable topspin, which made his ground strokes very consistent. There had been other players, particularly Rod Laver and Arthur Ashe, who played with topspin on both the forehand and backhand, yet Laver and Ashe used topspin only as a way to mix up their shots to pass their opponents at the net easily. Borg was one of the first top players to use heavy topspin on his shots consistently.

Complementing his consistent ground-strokes was his fitness. Both of these factors allowed Borg to be dominant at the French Open.

One of the factors that made Borg unique was his dominance on the grass courts of Wimbledon, where, since World War II, baseliners did not usually succeed. Some experts attributed his dominance on this surface to his consistency, an underrated serve, equally underrated volleys, and his adaptation to grass courts. Against the best players, he almost always served-and-volleyed on his first serves, while he naturally played from the baseline after his second serves.

Another trait usually associated with Borg was his grace under pressure. His calm court demeanor earned him the nickname of the "Ice Man" or "Ice-Borg".

Borg's physical conditioning was unrivalled by contemporaries. He could outlast most of his opponents under the most grueling conditions. Contrary to popular belief, however, this was not due to his exceptionally low resting heart rate, often reported to be near 35 beats per minute. In his introduction to Borg's autobiography My Life and Game, Eugene Scott relates that this rumor arose from a medical exam the 18-year-old Borg once took for military service, where his pulse was recorded as 38. Scott goes on to reveal Borg's true pulse rate as "about 50 when he wakes up and around 60 in the afternoon". Borg is credited with helping to develop the style of play that has come to dominate the game today.

Mental approach
Borg's first wife has said that he was "always very placid and calm, except if he lost a match – he wouldn't talk for at least three days. He couldn't stand losing." This mental approach changed by 1981, when he has said that when he lost the Wimbledon final "what shocked me was I wasn't even upset".

Personal life
Borg and Romanian tennis pro Mariana Simionescu began their relationship in 1976 and married in Bucharest on 24 July 1980. The marriage ended in divorce in 1984. He fathered a son named Robin in 1985 with the Swedish model Jannike Björling; Robin had a daughter in 2014. Borg was married to the Italian singer Loredana Bertè from 1989 to 1993. On 8 June 2002, he married his third wife, Patricia Östfeld. Together they have a son, Leo, born in 2003, who is also a professional tennis player.

He narrowly avoided personal bankruptcy when business ventures failed. After selling his mansion Astaholm at Ingarö in the Stockholm archipelago in 2019, Björn moved to an apartment in Norrmalm, central Stockholm.

Film
In 2017, Borg vs McEnroe, a biographical film focusing on the rivalry between Borg and McEnroe and the 1980 Wimbledon final, was released. In 2022, interviews about this friendship and rivalry were also featured in "McEnroe," a Showtime documentary.

Memorabilia preserved
In March 2006, Bonhams Auction House in London announced that it would auction Borg's Wimbledon trophies and two of his winning rackets on 21 June 2006. Several players then called Borg in an attempt to make him reconsider, including Jimmy Connors and Andre Agassi, who volunteered to buy them to keep them together. According to Dagens Nyheter – who had talked to Borg – McEnroe called Borg from New York and asked, "What's up? Have you gone mad?" and said "What the hell are you doing?" The conversation with McEnroe, paired with pleas from Connors and Agassi, eventually persuaded Borg to buy out the trophies from Bonhams for an undisclosed amount.

Distinctions and honors

 * Borg was ranked by the ATP rankings world no. 1 in six stretches between 1977 and 1981, totaling 109 weeks.
 * During his career, he won a total of 77 (64 listed on the Association of Tennis Professionals website) top-level singles and four doubles titles.
 * Borg won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Overseas Personality Award in 1979.
 * Borg was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1987.
 * On 10 December 2006, the British Broadcasting Corporation gave Borg a Lifetime Achievement Award, which was presented by Boris Becker.
 * In December 2014 he was elected Sweden's top sportsperson of all time by the newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

Recognition
With 11 Grand Slam titles, Borg ranks sixth in the list of male tennis players who have won the most Grand Slam singles titles behind Novak Djokovic (24), Rafael Nadal (22), Roger Federer (20), Pete Sampras (14) and Roy Emerson (12). The French Open—Wimbledon double he achieved three times consecutively was described by Wimbledon officials as "the most difficult double in tennis". Only Nadal (in 2008 and 2010), Federer (in 2009), and Djokovic (in 2021) have managed to achieve this double since, and Agassi, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Carlos Alcaraz are the only male players since Borg to have won the French Open and Wimbledon men's singles titles over their career. Ilie Năstase once said about Borg, "We're playing tennis, and he's playing something else". Borg is widely considered to be one of the greatest players in the history of the sport. In his 1979 autobiography, Jack Kramer, the long-time tennis promoter and great player himself, had already included Borg in his list of the 21 greatest players of all time. And in 2003, Bud Collins chose Borg as one of his top-five male players of all time. In 1983 Fred Perry listed his greatest male players of all time and listed them in two categories, before World War 2 and after. Perry's modern best behind Laver: "Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Hoad, Jack Kramer, John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Manuel Santana". In 1988, a panel consisting of Bud Collins, Cliff Drysdale, and Butch Buchholz ranked their top five male tennis players of all time. Buchholz and Drysdale both listed Borg number two on their lists, behind Rod Laver. Collins listed Borg number five behind Laver, McEnroe, Rosewall and Gonzales.

In 2008, ESPN.com asked tennis analysts, writers, and former players to build the perfect open-era player. Borg was the only player mentioned in four categories: defense, footwork, intangibles, and mental toughness—with his mental game and footwork singled out as the best in open-era history.

Borg never won the US Open, losing in the final four times. Borg also did not win the Australian Open, which he only played once in 1974 as a 17-year-old. The only players to defeat Borg in a Grand Slam final were fellow World No. 1 tennis players John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. Even though it was then played on grass, a surface where he enjoyed much success, Borg chose to play the Australian Open only once, in 1974, where he lost in the third round. Phil Dent, a contemporary of Borg, has pointed out that skipping Grand Slam tournaments—especially the Australian Open—was not unusual then, before counting Grand Slam titles became the norm. Additionally, another contemporary Arthur Ashe told Sports Illustrated, "I think Bjorn could have won the US Open. I think he could have won the Grand Slam, but by the time he left, the historical challenge didn't mean anything. He was bigger than the game. He was like Elvis or Liz Taylor or somebody."

Laver Cup
From 22 to 24 September 2017, Borg was the victorious captain of Team Europe in the first-ever edition of the Laver Cup, held in Prague, Czech Republic. Borg's Team Europe defeated a rest of the world team, known as Team World, who were coached by Borg's old rival, John McEnroe. Europe won the contest 15 points to 9, with Roger Federer achieving a narrow vital victory over Nick Kyrgios in the last match played.

Borg returned as the coach of Team Europe for the second edition in Chicago, Illinois from 21 to 23 September 2018. McEnroe also returned as the coach for Team World. Borg again led Europe to victory as Alexander Zverev defeated Kevin Anderson to secure the title 13–8, after trailing Anderson in the match tiebreak until the last few points.

In the tournament's third edition, held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 20 to 22 September 2019, Borg captained Team Europe to a third consecutive victory, defeating McEnroe's Team World 13 points to 11, with Zverev again winning the deciding match.

The fourth edition was held in Boston from 24 to 26 September 2021, having had its original September 2020 date postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Borg once again returned as captain of Team Europe, which had a resounding win over Team World, defeating McEnroe's players 14 to 1.

Singles performance timeline

 * The Australian Open was held twice in 1977, in January and December. Borg did not play in either.
 * The 1972 US Open had a special preliminary round before the main 128 player draw began.

Records

 * These records were attained in the entire period of tennis from 1877.
 * Records in bold indicate peer-less achievements.
 * ^ Denotes consecutive streak.

Open Era records

 * These records were attained in the Open Era period of tennis from 1968.
 * Records in bold indicate peer-less achievements.
 * ^ Denotes consecutive streak.

Professional awards

 * ITF World Champion: 1978, 1979, 1980
 * ATP Player of the Year: 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980

Video

 * The Wimbledon Collection – Legends of Wimbledon – Björn Borg Standing Room Only, DVD Release Date: 21 September 2004, Run Time: 52 minutes, ASIN: B0002HODA4.
 * The Wimbledon Collection – The Classic Match – Borg vs. McEnroe 1981 Final Standing Room Only, DVD Release Date: 21 September 2004, Run Time: 210 minutes, ASIN: B0002HODAE.
 * The Wimbledon Collection – The Classic Match – Borg vs. McEnroe 1980 Final Standing Room Only, DVD Release Date: 21 September 2004, Run Time: 240 minutes; ASIN: B0002HOEK8.
 * Wimbledon Classic Match: Gerulaitis vs Borg Standing Room Only, DVD Release Date: 31 October 2006, Run Time: 180 minutes, ASIN: B000ICLR8O.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Björn Borg


text:
Talk:Boleslaus I, Duke of Bohemia

Untitled
the use of a leading comma (a comman out in front) to indicate another name is not a good idea in an encylopedia aimed at a general reader. Not many people are familiar with that convention. On the point of multiple names (especially when they're just translations into other languages), it might be best to simply list them at the BOTTOM of the entry where the long list of names doesn't interfere with the prose of the article. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. --- Ok, that is a good idea user:H.J.

Name Discussion
Anyone have any opinions on what the proper naming conventions for Boleslav I, Boleslav II, and Boleslav III should be? The Naming Conventions Project indicates that the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name should be used- this would presumably be the Latin Boleslaus. It was suggested at Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers that pre-royal names should be local in name while royal names should be English/Latin in name, but I do not know if that was ever accepted.

I personally prefer "Boleslaus I the Cruel (Czech: Boleslav I. Ukrutný)" with the article name Boleslaus I of Bohemia, but want to see what other people think before I propose a move. Olessi 21:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sister or daughter married Mieszko?
This article states Boleslav "arranged for his sister Doubravka to marry the Piast prince Mieszko I in 965". However other sources, including the articles on his daughter, Doubravka, and Mieszko I say that Boleslav I was the father, not brother, of Doubravka (also called Dobrawa) who married Mieszko I in 965.
 * One Boleslav (I) was her father, the other one Boleslav (II) was her brother. Where is the problem? There were mane bearers of that name - Boleslav. --Franta Oashi (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Margrave of the Ostmark
"...presumably consisting of border raids ... between Boleslav on one side and the margrave of the Ostmark on the other, reached its conclusion in 950 when Boleslav signed a peace..." -- however: the Ostmark / Austrian March wasn't created until 955 (see History of Austria). So who was this margrave of the Ostmark? Chl 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the Saxon Eastern March. The Ostarrichi-to-be, can be more precisely referred to as the Bavarian Eastern March. --Karel Kocourek 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Death date discrepancy
Both 967 and 972 are given as death dates; any firm information?; no help from LC--FeanorStar7 21:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect illustration
The second illustration picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boleslav_of_Bohemia_and_Jewish_slave_trader.jpg) is incorrectly pasted to the article about Boleslaus I. In fact it depicts St. Vojtěch/Adalbert while trying to persuade the duke Boleslaus II, son of Boleslaus I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boleslaus_II,_Duke_of_Bohemia) not to allow selling christian slaves to pagan lands. By the way, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boleslav-II-Bohemian.jpg) is a pen drawing after the disputed picture.

If there is desirable to append more than one illustration picture, than it could be this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ermordung_Wenzels.jpg This is undoubtedly the most contemporaneous depiction of Boleslaus I, although as a very young man. Naturally it would need some commentary for the reader, to help them distinguish between the two dukes. Karel Kocourek 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Boleslaus I, Duke of Bohemia


text:
Booch method

The Booch method is a method for object-oriented software development. It is composed of an object modeling language, an iterative object-oriented development process, and a set of recommended practices.

The method was authored by Grady Booch when he was working for Rational Software (acquired by IBM), published in 1992 and revised in 1994. It was widely used in software engineering for object-oriented analysis and design and benefited from ample documentation and support tools.

The notation aspect of the Booch methodology was superseded by the Unified Modeling Language (UML), which features graphical elements from the Booch method along with elements from the object-modeling technique (OMT) and object-oriented software engineering (OOSE). Methodological aspects of the Booch method have been incorporated into several methodologies and processes, the primary such methodology being the Rational Unified Process (RUP).

Content of the method
The Booch notation is characterized by cloud shapes to represent classes and distinguishes the following diagrams:

The process is organized around a macro and a micro process.

The macro process identifies the following activities cycle:
 * Conceptualization : establish core requirements
 * Analysis : develop a model of the desired behavior
 * Design : create an architecture
 * Evolution: for the implementation
 * Maintenance : for evolution after the delivery

The micro process is applied to new classes, structures or behaviors that emerge during the macro process. It is made of the following cycle:
 * Identification of classes and objects
 * Identification of their semantics
 * Identification of their relationships
 * Specification of their interfaces and implementation

title: Booch method