Talk:Brno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I think the sentence Soon after the industrial revolution, the town became one of the industrial centres of the Czech Republic does not make sense; there was no Czech Republic "soon after the industrial revolution". I changed "Czech Republic" to "Moravia", but perhaps The town is now (and has ben since the industrial revolution) an industrial center of the Czech Republic would be more accurate? Aleph4 23:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gregor Mendel[edit]

As far as I know, Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, lived and worked (if being a munk can be called work) in Brno. Alas my knowledge is very limited about this, but I think it should be mentioned in the article. There is also a Mendel museum somewhere in town. Cheers. 195.190.143.254 07:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Guns[edit]

There is also a line of Czech LMGs called Brno, I believe. Don't know much about Czech weapons, so would someone do it? ;)
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There is the Bren Gun - LMG designed in BRno and manufactured in ENfield Obda 10:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

Well, looks like the "Etymology" section just underwent a major edit.  Sadly, and typically (this is my major complaint with Wikipedia), there is no source information given for the change.  Is there someone out there who really knows what's up with the etymology of Brno?  Does anyone know of sources for either of the opinions that have been part of this article?

Just quickly, my small knowledge of Russian and Czech tells me "brn" has little to do with the words for "clay" in either of those Slavic languages.  Just an observation, though, as I don't really know the answer.

John 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to find more. According in Czech brn means mud in old Slavic dialect and it the place was named after it. It is no scholar publication, though, it is collection of ready-made texts high school students can take instead using their brains.
The document RTF, also in Czech looks as quite reliable overview of history of the areas says: "the etymology of name is disputed, most likely it comes from brniti (to armor or to fortify) or brnie (mud)". I'd updated the page.
I very much agree with need for more support for sources in Wiki. Pavel Vozenilek 00:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the source.  Looks good for now. John 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk - an economist[edit]

So, I read what Wikipedia has to say on this guy and I'm still confused as to how he relates to Brno. Can someone enlighten me?

John 17:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

He was born there, see [1]. Qertis 09:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

External links.[edit]

I got rid of the links to educational institutions. I figured they're not really about Brno, but about the particular educational institutions they link to. They should be on pages about those institutions, not necessarily the city.

John 01:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Category:Brno may be useful for this kind of information. Pavel Vozenilek 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Then links to the other institutions (e.g. museums, galleries) shouldn't be mentioned on this page, as well. The question is - everything or nothing?

Lennonka 22:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Germans after WWII[edit]

Dear Wikipedia content reviewers, this period in history is obviously very emotional. In the interest of credibility sources need to be named and the Reference links need to work. Also there is no need to dispute the fact that both sides have done their crimes against humanity. The texts need to be factual and word s like "however" are not needed. This is an encyclopedia and not there is no room for bias, by content, sentence structure or misleading referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavius70 (talkcontribs) 07:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


Why can't you add what happened to the native German population in 1945-47?

And why can't you add it yourself? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:17, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Němcům se po válce nestalo nic, co by si nezasloužili. Celých 500 let co byli v Brně, tak měli Čechy a Moraváky za sluhy a podřadnou rasu..
J.P.

J.P. wrote this: "After the war nothing was happen to Germans, what they don't deserve. All 500 years, which they spent in Brno, they used Czechs a Moravians as servants and thought of them as inferiror race". Just for your information.

Looks like someone's been trying to talk about the Germans in the post-WWII atmosphere lately.  I guess I don't have a problem with this being in the article, if it really happened.  Some of the stuff added to the article in the last few days has been highly POV, so I've deleted it.  Here, then, are my requirements for the stuff on the Germans being kicked out: write it in a non-POV manner and cite things as it's written.  Otherwise, keep it out until someone can write it correctly.

John 20:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And now, more controversy.  The original paragraph looked like this:
"The Second World War caused serious damage to Brno. During the Nazi occupation many Czech citizens were executed. All the German inhabitants (Brünner-Deutsche) were forced to leave their homeland after the war. About 40,000 Germans were forced to the Austrian border. Thousands of them died on the way (Brünner Todesmarsch, Brünn death march) due to exertion. The communist party came to power in 1948, ushering in the communist era, which ended in 1989 with the Velvet Revolution."
The part about the so-called death march is the controversial part.  User:Tulkolahten made some edits which tried to improve on this, but his source was a Czech source, which is not neutral.  FYI, German sources are also not neutral.  Now, I deleted the paragraph.  I don't know a lot about it, but if it's in there, like I said above, it needs to be POV and needs to cite neutral sources (i.e., some party who has no interest in the affair). — John 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Section still unacceptable[edit]

As of 06 August 07 the article claims that the German-speaking population of Brno was deported "according to law and order" in 1945. I think any reasonably neutral observer would take issue with that claim. Since I am no expert on the subject I made no change but flagged that that assertion is seriously contentious. Wikipedia is no place for nationalists - let's try to keep things sober, yeah? User: dmhaglund 12:23 UTC, 06 August 2007

Article remains unchanged as of 28 August; I am going to rewrite the bit in a more neutral way. Dmhaglund 12:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have now removed the blatantly biased bit. What remains is almost nothing. Perhaps someone can add to this section? There is basically nothing on the city's history after 1939 at this point.Dmhaglund 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mozart Mozart[edit]

I don't know anything about Brno, but surely the first part of the very first sentence of this item cannot be correct - i.e "Constructed entirely by Mr Mozart Mozart (son of Mozart Mozart) on an overnight trip on new year's eve 1857" Pontac 11:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right.  Someone vandalized it.  It's fixed now. — John 12:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Recent edits come from the source www.bruenn.org, but I would rather accept official sources like [2] and [3], first one is University of Brno and second official pages. Regarding the name - Google test (Brno: 36 500 000, Brünn: 1 200 000). Also the Moravia was not driven by a Holy Roman Empire which is a wrong historical term. Holy Roman Empire was an alliance of the catholic states based on the clerical principles and members one by one were completely sovereign. So it is not truth that Holy Roman Empire ruled Moravia. The city was also known as a Brinn, Brünn, Brunan or Brinnum depending on the spelling and used language [4], but using different name in different language should not be confused as an official name in these times. I would propose a compromise when articles about Germans would use Brünn (between 1620-1918) and about Czech Brno. Also building remaining today would not use Brünn but Brno. Brünn in the main article is mentioned in the topic's name and would not be used in the main article. Brünn would not be used after 1918 at all. Please discuss proposed compromise or/and add your comments. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First i would like to mention User:71.137.204.255, as his edits make it seem like it is really me on a sockpuppet account (that is how i see it anyways.) Anyways, the name of Brno before 1918 is "Brunn"(some people might take offense to that, but keep reading, it is mentioned as that in my 2 books; Quote "...both my Barnes and Noble Atlas of World History(circa 2006), and my Parragon Atlas of World History(circa 2005) show it as Brünn until the World War I era."See also the Wikisource 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article: [5].

"Brunn" (The name of Brno before 1918)(it is mentioned as that in my 2 books(shown below; Quote "...both my Barnes and Noble Atlas of World History(circa 2006), and my Parragon Atlas of World History(circa 2005) show it as Brünn until the World War I era."

See also: the Wikisource 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on "Brünn"(below)


  • The facts are:

It was Brünn when it was ruled by the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire, and Austria-Hungary, it was officially Brünn until 1918, and well according to the Czech Republic article it was formed in the 9th century(801-900) and wasn't independent until 1918(WWI), and according to history, the first political entity it was ever a part of was in/as the Holy Roman Empire(circa 1050 AD), From 1477-1490 it was under the rule of Hungary for a short time, and the rest of its history it is under the Holy Roman Empire, Austrian Empire(Hapsburg Monarchy sort), and Austria-Hungary, and believe it or not but it was part of the Austrian Empire during the Napoleonic Era! I myself find it strange that foriegn occupation is the only history the Czech people had until 1918 when they finally formed their own nation, albeit at the obvious expense of Austria-Hungary and the German Empire.

Both my Barnes and Noble Atlas of World History(circa 2006), and my Parragon Atlas of World History(circa 2005) show it as "Brünn" until the World War I era(specifically until 1918, which makes sense, because Czechoslovakia became independent that year), and i have seen it on maps mentioned and linked -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User R9tgokunks wrote: Germanic tribes for 900 years (Boii, Marcomanni, Suevi, Huns) (apprx.500 BC-400 AD)" – It's at least interesting idea to consider Boii and Huns Germanic people. Have you any references for this statement? – Yarp Talk 08:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't know? Many nations they have experience with the Germans behaviour during the wars call them "Huns". Be sure, the sentence of british pilots from ww1 "Beware Hun from the sun!" is on Germans. However, the "German tribe" Boii, surprised me as well... Honzula 19:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"... with the first policital (not power) center in France, so according your logic HRE = France." No, not according to my logic, because you didn't read everything i said out of arrogance anyways, and because you do not want to understand that the Holy Roman Empire WAS Germany. (oh and by the way the major official languages of the Holy Roman Empire were German/Dutch, and Latin and the Legislature of the HRE was always composed of a Hoftag or a Reichstag(oh... wait-THOSE ARE GERMAN WORDS! How strange!).

In his famous 1667 description De statu imperii Germanici, published under the alias Severinus de Monzambano, Samuel Pufendorf wrote: "Nihil ergo aliud restat, quam ut dicamus Germaniam esse irregulare aliquod corpus et monstro simile ..." ("We are therefore left with calling Germany a body that conforms to no rule and resembles a monster").

(If you don't understand English, he's calling HRE GERMANY. Hmm. WONDER WHY.) -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 19:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My Barnes and Noble Historical Atlas shows Warmia/Ermland as not connected to the rest of Royal Prussia. My other American Atlas shows Warsaw as Warschau in XIV century. So there. As far as Britannica, why don't you try some more recent edition? You'll be very surprised. Space Cadet 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I DO HAVE RECENT EDITIONS ....QUOTE:

...my Barnes and Noble Atlas of World History(circa 2006), and my Parragon Atlas of World History(circa 2005) show it as "Brünn" until the World War I era(specifically until 1918, which makes sense, because Czechoslovakia became independent that year)

Next time, READ EVERYTHING IN MY COMMENT -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an Atlas of Europe from 1891 and the name of city si "Brno", in encyclopedia from 1880 is Brno, but I'm sure, in German maps an encyclopedias it is called Brünn to this day.Honzula 23:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC) So the statement "it was officially Brünn until 1918" is not true - the Czech inhabitants called it Brno and German inhabitants called it Brünn. Now, the official name is Brno. --Honzula 23:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My main objection is against "Moravia was ruled by Holy Roman Empire" which is not true. Holy Roman Empire is not Germany. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect, the Holy Roman Empire was Germany(see First Reich, German Empire), as its official name was Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (example:Image:Europe_mainland_d1097.JPG) -- Hrödberäht (gespräch)

Parts of the HRE creates todays Germany, but it is not true that HRE = Germany. Czech lands were never part of Germany, instad of 1938-1945. But never before. Czech Lands were completely sovereign and independent until 1620 and again in 1918 and were not ruled by HRE. You wrongly interpret meaning of the HRE existence.
Golden Bull of Sicily granted no more liabilities of Bohemian Kingdom and other lands under the Czech Crown (Silesia, Moravia) to the Sacrum Romanum imperium, ignorring these facts and claiming that Bohemia was in fact Germany, which you actually do, is not correct.
Sacrum Romanum imperium nationis Germanicae is used since 15th century and Sacrum Romanum imperium since 800 AD, with the first policital (not power) center in France, so according your logic HRE = France. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we dispute "Carlsbad vs. Karlovy Vary", "Brünn vs. Brno" etc.? The Netherlands were the part of Holy Roman Empire as well, Belgium even longer - why don't we dispute their German names, why only the places in Czech Republic must be written with they alternative German names? This article is in English, and the city of Brno is Czech-speaking. It makes sense to use the English name, if there is any English form; and it is essential to state that the official name is Brno. People who want to look for further information in Internet will need that name. But there is no reason to use the German, Italian, Russian or Greek name in English Wikipedia. The inclusion of the German form, even in the first place, might lead people to thinking that this name is today also official, and therefore useful for further research. But Brno is not German-speaking, neither has a German-speaking majority, nor uses German name as its official.Honzula 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice. So I added names in other historical population languages, where different from English 'Brno'. - If the people here REALLY want to be ridicullous :-/ (Hebrew: ברנו‎‎, Latin: Bruna) – Yarp Talk 21:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Very nice! :-) Thanks! --Honzula 05:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

May be of topic: The name of German capital has Slavic origin, but I don't see in the article "Berlin" the original Slavic form, or the Czech form or even the Sorbian form, though the Sorbs are still living in Berlin and sorroundings!Honzula 23:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Space Cadet Hrödberäht wrote: I myself find it strange that foreign occupation is the only history the Czech people had until 1918 when they finally formed their own nation, albeit at the obvious expense of Austria-Hungary and the German Empire.(For the record, I never wrote those words above. Space Cadet 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
I do apologise. It was Hrödberäht aka R9tgokunks. Jan.Kamenicek 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the area of the present Czech Republic has never been part of the German Empire. I do not understand, what expense is meant here.
With some more or less short war periods it had not been occupied very long before 1918. It was definitely not occupied by the Holy Roman Empire, similarly as the area of the present Germany was not. It was a (to a large extent independent) part of the Holy Roman Empire. BTW, Charles IV who ruled Bohemia from 1333 and resided in Prague bore also the title of the Roman Emperor from 1355, and nobody says that Germany was occupied by Bohemia in that time.
Habsburgs were chosen by Bohemian nobility to rule in Bohemia in 1526, nobody can talk about any occupation here as well. Again, Bohemia was one of parts of the multinational Habsburg Monarchy.
In the time of those empires there lived both ethnic Czechs and Germans in the area of the present Czech Republic. They spoke their languages and used their names of the towns. Some towns and villages were founded with a Czech (or let's say Slavic) name, which was later also Gemanized, some with a German name, which was later also Bohemized. But ethnic Germans did not start massive colonizing of some uninhabitted areas of Bohemia and Moravia earlier than in the 12th century and so German variants of Bohemian and Moravian towns could not be spread here before this (and I think that Brno was founded in the 11th century).
There are too many towns and villages in Europe in areas with a very complicated history and I do not find very useful to have long discussions with every single city and village to find out in which period of its history which of several versions of their names were prevailing. Most probably we would have to use a different version almost for every century. As Honzula wrote, this is English wikipedia, so we can use English variants like Prague, but versions used in the countries where the towns are situated nowadays in the rest of the articles. I can see no reason for using versions of other languages, but I consider useful to mention that they existed. Jan.Kamenicek 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This argument is ridiculous. For the past century or so, it has been known as Brno. There is no English name for the city. Formerly the German name was used, however that practice ended a significant time ago. Any respected modern source lists it as Brno. Most atlases use Czech names for EVERY city in Czechia (except for Prague usually). So, please, instead of arguing with sockpuppets and fools just continue improving the article. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If you want Brünn instead of Brno, we should translate every Czech geographical name into German which does not make any sens even if for a long time these towns and places were officially called by the German way. Nowadays only few of Czech geographical names are generally known in their German transcriptions (e.g. Prague/Prag or Pilsen). Brno City or Brno is nowadays better known as Brno, not as Brünn (just "ask" your spell checker or some geographical pages). In this point of view I consider this discussion senseless. --Alaiche 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Well anyways we have a problem with Tulkolahten. A few days ago he searched for articles containing "Brünn" and removed them.

Scurinæ:He did that almost with the speed and indifference of a bot (in one minute he managed four different articles at one point).

I followed that track of deletions and reverted the edits, and resultingly I got blocked.

Scurinæ:In addition to that, in his name-deleting, Tulkolahten wrongly marked many such edits as "minor", accused R9tgokunks of renaming Czech cities in his AN/I report (when in reality it was him who changed the naming), labeling R9tgokunks's reverts of them as vandalism.

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 21:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We were edit warring, both of us, we were blocked, both of us. Now, we are sitting here with the cup of tea discussing about the issue and how to make it better. Why do you bring our previous behavior here please ? You tell me please.≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I see you don't want to try and improve Wikipedia. And no you were edit-warring with other users as well for changing the name of Brunn to Brno in many articles mentioning it. I just showed you a highly experienced users tracking of your actions and this is the article on Brno, the name you reverted to in those articles, obviously its a major problem. Let me show everyone this again for future reference.

Scurinæ:He did that almost with the speed and indifference of a bot (in one minute he managed four different articles at one point).

I followed that track of deletions and reverted the edits, and resultingly I got blocked.

Scurinæ:In addition to that, in his name-deleting, Tulkolahten wrongly marked many such edits as "minor", accused R9tgokunks of renaming Czech cities in his AN/I report (when in reality it was him who changed the naming), labeling R9tgokunks's reverts of them as vandalism.

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't want to discuss, you want to do personal attacks. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolving the usage of "Brno" vs. "Brünn"[edit]

I've pulled my comment below out of "Recent edits" since it was skipped over by folks apparently wanting only to conduct personal attacks, and it was accordingly becoming lost in the muck. I'd like to offer it as a suggested NPOV resolution of the naming dispute. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Jan.Kamenicek and Honzula have pretty much captured the nexus of the problem and how it should be addressed. Precedence on Wikipedia calls for using the city’s current name unless 1) it has a long-held popular version in English (like Prague) or 2) the article is addressing a specific point in time when another form was being used (as it would be anachronistic to substitute “Mexico City” for “Tenochtitlan” in an article on the Aztecs). Where Brno may have been officially called “Brünn” (e.g., while under Nazi control), it should be so noted, but otherwise treated as “Brno”. Where it had a mixed population, noting what each segment called it would be appropriate, but again it should be otherwise presented as “Brno”. While it was a part of the HRE, if it was usually referred to by its German or Latin names, then these should be so mentioned. If nothing else, that would be helpful to readers who are using this article as a reference to understand secondary, non-Wikipedia sources which might employ any of these alternatives. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"We were edit warring, both of us, we were blocked, both of us. Now, we are sitting here with the cup of tea discussing about the issue and how to make it better. Why do you bring our previous behavior here please ? You tell me please.≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)"
The most recent posts in "Recent edits" have been a continuation of the personal attacks. I'd like to leave them behind in the "Recent edits" section. Only those "drinking tea" should post in this topic — and only about resolving the problem. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I cannot imagine better and more elegant resolution than is the appendix in Ethymology made by Yarp&Lysy. As for me, the problem Brno vs. Brünn is solved by this successfully. Honzula 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you share that with us, Honzula? Askari Mark (Talk) 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Askari Mark's logic above. Considering that "Brünn" is frequently used in English text books when referring to the time period before the formation of Czechoslovakia, it makes sense to me that Brünn would at least be mentioned in the introduction (with WP:NC(GN) in mind). My suggested opening is "Brno (German: Brünn, known also by other alternative names) is the second-largest city in the Czech Republic. It was founded in..." Olessi 04:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That works for me! Can we reach a general consensus on that? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If "Brünn" is frequently used in English text books so why "Brno (German: Brünn..." ?? Why not any lang-en form ?? But I can also agree with "Brno (in English also known as German: Brünn..." Honzula 08:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not like Brno or Brünn is a traditional "English" name like "Prague" or "Warsaw". The German name is largely used for pre-1918, while the Czech name is largely used for post-1918. The style I proposed matches the formatting used in hundreds (thousands?) of other European locality articles, a simple listing of the most important of the alternative names available. Clarification about how alternative names are used should be detailed in the body of the text (the Names/Etymology section), while the introduction should be relatively concise. Olessi 14:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The German name for Prague is "Prag" and for Warsaw "Warschau". Moreover, as far as I know, there is no letter "ü" in English. Are you sure the traditional "English" name is Brünn? --Honzula 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm unaware of a traditional English name; few would probably know anything about it. The way such names usually get carried over into English, it would probably be rendered "Brunn" (rather than "Bruenn"). That's what often happens to German words with umlauts (e.g., "Konigsberg" for "Königsberg"), and it is most likely to have entered English usage through the German. Unless we explain it here, I doubt most English-speakers would know that Brünn and Brno are the same place; however, if they were come across the name in an English-language publication (book, map, etc.), a rendering of the Germanic name is the one they most likely would have encountered prior to the Velvet Revolution. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
So, regarding this, I suggest the variant "Brno (English: Brunn, known also by other alternative names)..." Acceptable? --Honzula 19:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that "Brünn" is a traditional "English" name like Prague or Warsaw; rather I specifically stated the counter. As Askari Mark and I have pointed out, "Brünn" is often used to refer to the city when it was under German control, which was a considerable amount of the city's history. It is used in reference to specific time periods, not to the current city, but it is used often enough in texts that it warrants inclusion in the introduction. While "Brunn" has been used in English, it would be odd to include it in the introduction when "Brünn" is used more. If "Brunn" was the standard English name (which it is not), the article should be at Brunn (which I am not advocating). Because of the city's multi-ethnic history and with WP:NC(GN) in mind, it makes sense to include Brünn in the introduction, instead of there being only a single mention of it in the entire article. Olessi 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning current usage in the English language: While the article in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica started with BRÜNN (Czech Brno)..., the article in the current EB starts with Brno, German Brünn, ...
The index distinguishes "Brünn - see Brno" and "Brunn" (a town in Austria).
Looking at examples of three famous people connected with this city before 1918, I find that according to the current EB,

  • Kurt Gödel was born 1906, Brünn, Austria-Hungary (without even mentioning the name Brno)
  • Gregor Mendel died 1884, Brünn, Austria-Hungary [now Brno, Czech Republic]
  • Leoš Janáček (born 1854) was a choirboy at Brno (without even mentioning Brünn)

So it seems that the current EB does use the name Brünn when the context suggest this -- in particular when talking about its German-speaking inhabitants. But EB is not 100% consistent in always pointing out the current name of the city.
--Aleph-4 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not want to suggest that "Brunn" was standard English and I apologize for any confusion. I was trying to show how umlauted words tend to be anglicized; "ü" is often replaced with "u", not the correct "ue" (and, in fact, I can't recall ever seeing it spelled "Bruenn" in English sources — rarely "Brunn", but usually "Brünn"). Let's keep it to Brno (German: Brünn) .... Askari Mark (Talk) 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Czech Manchester[edit]

(Apologies in advance for my ignorance of Wiki etiquette and inability to use the Wikipedia formatting language. I've never contributed before and doubt I will again, so I hesitate to invest time in such learning; please forgive me.)

Although my very limited knowledge of Wikipedia rules suggests that the reference to "Czech Manchester" ("Český Manchester") has no place in Wikipedia at all, because it's not sourced, it is in any case slightly disputable. First off, amusingly, multiple towns claim to have received this nickname, see:

http://cestovani.atlas.cz/clanek.aspx?rubrika=356&clanek=110707 -- hands this title to Dvůr Králové nad Labem

http://www.vyletnik.cz/kalendar/2007/4/21/stredni-cechy/ -- hands it instead to Kolín

www.zahradkari.cz/czs/ur/ur405.htm -- this time, let's hand it to Liberec!

extranet.kr-vysocina.cz/turista/index.php?sekce=6&jazyk=&obec=732 -- and now Humpolec!

But actually, the reason why I jumped into the fray in the first place was my urge to say "No! It's not *Czech* Manchester, but rather *Moravian* Manchester!" That, you see, is the phrase I've always heard used. Sadly, Google does not really seem to agree with me: "Czech Manchester" gets many times as many hits as "Moravian Manchester," and it seems to predominate even after you filter out all the *other* Czech Manchesters. The Czech Wikipedia, however, does somewhat agree with my memory, stating:

"Due to its dominant textile industry, Brno began to be termed the Austrian (or as appropriate Moravian or Czech) Manchester."

(I must say, though, that while "Austrian Manchester" is the most accurate of the three, I've never heard it and can't even imagine having heard it... due to modern Czech anti-Germanic sentiment if nothing else. :-) )

In any case, note how the cited sentence from the Czech version places part of the causality upon the fact that the *textile* industry, not just industry overall, was dominant. That's been in the background of every citing of the "Moravian Manchester" phrase I've heard, and I believe that, if a source to cite can be found, it belongs in the English version as well.

Well, enough belaboring a point. Hopefully I'm signing correctly below... Erik Piper 217.198.112.101 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo brno.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Logo brno.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UNESCO World Heritage Site - small logo.svg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:UNESCO World Heritage Site - small logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was BOLD[edit]

The "Brno today" section was clunky so I was bold and decided to clean it up a bit. I mainly deleted things like the extensive history of one of the bullets and superfluous things like "BRNO COULD BE THE OTHER CAPITAL OF PRAGUE BUT THE CONSTITUTION WON'T LET IT". (I think the entire section looks really stupid in bullets anyway, but I won't get into that.) Cheers 90.178.52.11 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Brno could be capital of Prague? Wow. - filelakeshoe 18:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Age of Brno[edit]

New foundings say that Brno is around 1000 years older than till now thought.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,720513,00.html

Look at Eburodunum! Ptolemy already mapped it 200 AD. And the same holds true for many more towns and early cities...history will have to be rewritten alot in this region! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.216.217 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

edit

History of Brno between 1948 and 2013[edit]

There is scarcely anything about the history of Brno between 1948 and 2013 on the page. I have just added a short mention of the visit of Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. More personalities from abroad came to Brno during those 65 years, including Queen Elizabeth. And a lot of other events took part, of course. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?[edit]

Could we get an English guide to the pronunciation, please? "burno"? "bruno"? "bruhno"? Others? The Czech pronunciation is useless. Red Slash 01:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation is "Burno" but I came here to find any evidence of an Anglicized name. In London multiple times I hear reference (even in written form) for "Bruno" which seems ridiculous to me since the correct pronunciation is so easy. Source: Ryanair ground staff, Ryanair cabin crew, one British office lady. 46.208.183.37 (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brno. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)