Talk:Slovenia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:39 (UTC)

New Disambiguation

I'm curious what others think about the recently added disambiguation line:

Not to be confused with Slavonia, a region in nearby Croatia.

If Slavonia were a country, I would understand the need for this line, but it is only a region in Croatia which isn't really that well-known outside a strictly Croatian context. Does Slovenia, and independent country and a EU member, really need to be disambiguated like this from a non-autonomous region whose status is not much different from that of, say, Gorenjska in Slovenia? After all, we are not disambiguating Slovenia from Slovakia even though A.) Slovakia, unlike Slavonia, is an independent country, B.) both Slovakia and Slavonia are exactly two letters removed from Slovenia and C.) Slovenia/Slovakia mix-ups are infinitely more common in the media than Slovenia/Slavonia mix-ups (and are probably more likely to confuse Wikipedia users).

Your thoughts? WorldWide Update 08:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the disambiguation line. I was reading about Slavonia and thought "people must get this confused with Slovenia alot", and so added disambig. on tha tpage. Then I added a similar one here as well, mostly as force of habit. For what it's worth, Slovenia and Slavonia only have different vowels, which at least to me, seems much more likely to cause confusion than Slovakia, which has a hard k sound to differentiate itself. Brianski 09:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

People mix all three names more often than one would be happy with, so dab links could actually be useful. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Slovenia during World War II

What exactly became of Slovenia during World War II? I know the Croatia became the Independent State of Croatia, Montenegro became the Independent State of Montenegro, Serbia was under Mr. Nedic and became known as Nedic's Serbia. What about Slovenia? I remember reading an old vintage Yugo tourist guide from the '80s a couple of weeks ago regarding this, and they did mention that Slovenia had a dictator of some sort, but I forgot the name, and I unfortunately do not have access to the book right now. 38.98.88.9 00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was no dictator or anything like that. It was split up among Nazi Germany, Italy and Hungary. edolen1 20:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Walid point, we shod close this information gap as soon as posibile MaticMan 17:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In 1941, when the second world war started for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the western parts of today's Slovenia were already a part of the Kingdom of Italia (according to the London Pact, Peace Treaty with Austria-Hungary and Treaty of Rapallo 1920). After the occupation in 1941 the Upper Carniola and Styria were included into a German Zone, intended to be as soon as possible annexed to the Third Reich. This never really took place due to the strong resistant movement as Germans did not want to annex troublesome territories. The Prekmurje region was occupied (with exception to some small western part, once part of Styria) by Hungarinas. The central and southern part of Slovenia (parts of Inner Carniola, Lower Carniola and Ljubljana) were occupied by Italy. It is not widely known that some 20 km² of Slovenia (villages Slovenska vas near Bregana, Nova vas near Mokrice, Jesenice in Dolenjsko, Obrežje and Čedem)were occupied (annexed) by the "Independent State od Croatia - NDH". Only in Italian occupation Zone there was some autonomy left to the local authorities (Province of Ljubljana) but without any real power or symbols of statehood. No puppet state or dictator were installed on these territories. --Slovenin 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Please if you put references for any new information you add, for the credibility and verifiability of information. And also please insert references for all existing information. With that action we are helping that article will be rated for higher class. --Jonson22 13:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

not slovakia

Is this distinction really necessary at the top of the page? I can't imagine very many people confusing the two. --NEMT 23:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I can;-) But agree: distinction is not necessary.--AndrejJ 08:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Someone felt the need to distingush to distingush Slovenia from Slavonia a while back. I felt that was unnecessary, so I pointed out that Slovenia and Slovakia weren't disambiguated either. In the end, we ended up with a double disambiguation. Australia and Austria are also confused, yet they aren't disambiguated either. Disambiguations can be useful to get people on the right track, but I think a line should be drawn with independent countries, as they really aren't that obscure. Slovenia and Slovakia are confused all the time, no doubt about it, but that's a problem Wikipedia can't solve, especially because the burden falls on users to know what country they need information about before they look it up on Wikipedia. WorldWide Update 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Omann

Has anyone heard the last name Omann in Slovenia?

I don't think this is the right place for your question, but Oman (one "n") is a common last name in Slovenia. WorldWide Update 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankolovo

Can anybody write an article about the city "Frankolovo"? Siyavash 19:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankolovo is hardly a city, it's a village in the municipality of Vojnik. I don't know, I'm not sure it's markant enough to merit its own Wiki article. edolen1 20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankolovo is probably the most renown for the "Frankolovo crime" committed by Nazis during the second world war. There is a Wiki stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankolovo_crime about this. --Slovenin 19:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Two editors have been edit warring over this article for last two days. I have temporally returned the old version with correct population statistics, population clock is just an estimation as it clearly says at the website. Therefore it cannot be a reliable source. The edits to the rest of the text are mostly improvement to the article but I want to have the dispute resolved before the edit war continues. Both users, please reach the agreement here and stop calling each other troll or vandal because it is counterproductive. --Tone 12:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Map caption

The caption of the map should be changed to reflect that Slovenia is reflected in RED, not ORANGE on the map. Cruzin07 (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Slovenia is too small for that. Please remove it from the map completely. 83.230.251.200 (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you witty? Cruzin07 (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. Jake Witty. Who are you? 83.230.251.200 (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Orange is fine, the other colour seems to be called camel. Also possible is to change the colouring to the way Austria has it. --Tone 10:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Or the way Luxengarnia has it. 83.230.251.200 (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the coloring is fine, it's just that the color used to depict the country on the map is red, not orange, whereas the "camel" color is more orange-ish. Cruzin07 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Having a look at the coursecode, this colouring is a part of the {{Map caption}}template. You can propose a change there since a change would affect many articles. --Tone 11:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see that. Thanks, I'll take it up there. Cruzin07 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC) And after all that, I looked at the map using a different computer, and sure enough, it's orange, not red. So never mind. Cruzin07 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

i have removed the category italian-speaking countries, since slovenia clearly isn't an italian speaking country. Rokp (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrative regions

The article states that Slovenia: "As given by Encyclopedia of Slovenia, traditional Slovenian regions, based on the former division of Slovenia into four Habsburg crown lands (Carniola, Carinthia, Styria, and the Littoral)". Though it may be (very arguable, because a number of other traditional divisions are given, the above mentioned is based upon a substantially different teritory) a traditional division, it makes no sense to nominate such traditional view as a administrative division or it would at least be expected that the unitarian nature of the state was clearly stated before any historical and/or subjective divisions were mentioned.

Slovenia is a unitarian state as written in article 4 of the constitution: "Slovenia is a territorially unified and indivisible state." and no administrative divisions have been decided upon yet. In addition this statement can be verified in number of other sources pravniški državni izpit, Državna ureditev Slovenije - Janja Žlogar Piano

Irrespective of the fact that description of the historical (or traditional) administrative divisions may be insteresting and relevant addition to country description, the place where it is mantioned suggests that some administrative division (besides municipalities) exists, which is absolutely not the case. I would judge an error like that as a major flaw in understanding of government and written legslative. I hope you do as well. -- rokche123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokche123 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

History (invasion in the 6th century?)

Hi! Your editions (in favour of a supposed invasion of slavs in the 6th century are erasing or treating in a despective way the "Veneti Theory".

1.- there are no proofs of the "Carpatian Theory" you show as an undisputed historical fact

2.- PhD Charles Bryant-Abraham, is an important Linguist and presented a favourable point of view to the "Veneti Theory", so not all the supporters of the Veneti Theory are "Amateur" or "ignorant" in this point. http://www.angelfire.com/country/veneti/Bryant-AbrahamVenetiReview.html

3.- Genetics are demostrating slovenes descendant o indigenous people of Europe http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/skulj/origin_of_the_slavs.html

I am getting tired of this. I am new in Wikipedia, but this nostalgic yugoslavism is really showing only one side of the coin. A NPOV must show the Veneti Teory without any pejorative quotatios.

Greetings from Argentina --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I aggree with this and I see there is a mention of the venetic theory, which is great. The whole theory actually began at the time slavs settled here. Yep. You read it right, when we supposedly came here. The historian that first mentioned slavs(don't remember which one) stated that the Veneti were "Sclaveni et Anti", so Sloveni(western slavs) and Anti(an extinct branch of southern slavs). Most slovene historians simply regard this as a mistake, so the historical credibility would be lost. However, based on this, they still conclude that this is when we settled here. Correct me if I'm wrong in any way.

BTW, I don't see why the history section should be marked as "disputed" as long as both theories are mentioned. 86.61.40.91 (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

nvm, I now see it's "disputed" because of the article below. 86.61.40.91 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

Carantania

The claim that Carantania was established in the 6th century is wrong. Carantania was established after the dissolution of Samo's Tribal Union in 658 and is mentioned in historical sources no earlier than 660. --Jalen (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a copy of an article of Dr. Šavli, ...yes a doctor, And many other academics have taken the side of the Veneti Theory instead your "Invasion Theory":

Veneti Theory

"...595 AD is the date that the Slovenian State, the later Carantania, also called Slovenia, appears for the very first time in historical records. The mentioning of "provincia Sclaborum" in "The history of Lombards" by the lombard historian Paulus Diaconus, is one of the first books to bear witness of its existence. He explains that in this year Tassilo I, the Bavarian duke, made an incursion into Slovenian territory, defeated them, and returned home with great booty. He quotes: Qui mox cum exercitu in Slaborum provinciam introiens, patrata Victoria, ad solum proprium cum maxima praeda remeavit. ("Historia Langobardorum" IV, 7). Particularly eye-catching is the denomination "provincia. Today it means the basic administrative unit of a State and not the State itself. Anyway, we have to take into consideration that the author was a Lombard, and that the Lombards called their own kingdom in Italy a provincia. Thus, the mention made by Paulus Diaconus refers to an independent State at the level of a kingdom, which belonged to the Slovenian (Sclaborum) people. In Europe only a few nations, as for example the Irish, Bavarians, Basques… can refer to a State tradition of such an early period in history. This alone was very likely reason for envy toward the Slovenians. Their neighbours (Austrians, Bavarians, Croats, Serbs, Friulians), it is true, concealed the historical identity of the Slovenian people. Perhaps their more distant Slav "brethren" like the Czechs or Russians simply ignored the date 595 AD, the historical mention of Carantania. In Czechia, for example, Great Moravia, which appears as late as ca. 830 AD, is quoted as the "first" historical State of the Slavs.

The ancient- new distortions

The 19th century in Europe was the period of the awakening of nations. It was a Question d'honneur for each nation to present itself individually in its earliest stage of historical origin. For this purpose, a so-called scientific explanation of history was often formulated and perhaps forged to fit national and nationalistic aims. Yet, there is not one European State were historical forgeries were so widely extended and fateful as in the one-time Austrian Monarchy, a multinational historical formation, of which Slovenians were part of.

In fact, Austria to a close extent was the historical origin and core land of the later Monarchy. But seen in historical and political perspective, it was only a continuation of the previous Carantania, a Slovenian State (mentioned 595 AD). In spite of this historical fact, within the Monarchy Slovenians were declared a "non historical" people, who never had a proper State and never achieved a proper statehood in their history. Moreover, Slovenians had to be Germanized in order to create the German bridge from the North Sea to the Adriatic. To achieve this purpose a campaign of denigration and disdain for the Slovenian language and culture was set in motion.

The chief role in this campaign played the University of Graz. In the second part of the 19th century, studies were done on a "scientific" level of shameless chauvinistic interpretation of "history for inferior Slavs", Slovenians were targeted in particular. Regretfully, in modern Austria the ancient forgeries from Graz are still in circulation. So, the early Slovenian State of Carantania, the predecessor of Austria, is strictly concealed. The present-day Austrian academic world shamelessly continues to call Slovenians "Alpine Slavs" (Alpenslawen) as to deny them their historical identity. At the same time, for example, Austrian academicians do not call Bavarians "Pre-Alpine Germans", or Croats "Adriatic Slavs", and so on.

These and other examples demonstrate an evidently chauvinistic orientation precisely directed against Slovenians. Not by chance! Such a standpoint of the Austrian academic world towards Slovenians is not only chauvinistic but also completely abnormal. Therefore, one must conclude that such orientation is the primary mechanism of the not clearly defined (pan-German?) circles. It is about the background circles, who influence directly the financing of Austrian academic institutions, formally carried out through the Ministry of Education in Vienna. Evidently, still today, this financing influences in a negative way the approach of the Austrian academic world towards Slovenians. It is evident, that for these undefined circles the historical identity of Slovenians, clearly attested by their early Medieval State Carantania, continues to be disturbing.

In this connection it is interesting to know in a concrete way, to what extent the Austrian academic world is forced to falsify the historical data about Carantania. They quote for example: The "Alpine Slavs" populated the Eastern Alps (the area of today's Austria) with the help of their masters, the wild Avars, who settled in Pannonia at that time. After the Avars were driven out, the Franks (they identify them with Germans) became the new masters of the "Alpine Slavs" (Slovenians). - In this way, Slovenian history is presented as an endless yoke. In reality there are no corresponding historical records to confirm such an explanation. It is all an invention, a lie. Anyway, that lie is supported by a number of irresponsible statements and made credible by the academic prestige. Therefore, this type of history is generally found in Austrian schoolbooks and in the mass media, leaving an imprint in the Austrian public mind.

Still before the WW1, it is true that the present-day Austria (the Habsburg Hereditary Lands) was very frequently called "South-Eastern Germany" (Südostdeutschland). The Austrians, who in majority are Germanized people of ancient Carantania, consider themselves to be descendants of the famed Germans (Bavarians), like they were told. This makes them feel superior to the non historic »Alpine Slavs« (Slovenians), whom they tend to look down upon. Until today the Austrian mind has not changed. Of course, it is not about spontaneous sentiments of the otherwise gentle Austrian people. The image of the "inferior" Slavs is carefully maintained by the above mentioned undefined circles. The question remains open as to whether or not they are members of Cobra, the Austrian secret service.

Manipulation of the Public Mind

In 1976, Carinthia, a federal province of Austria, celebrated with great pomp the "1000 - anniversary" of the country. Thus, in 976 AD a separate duke was appointed in Carinthia (Carantania). Some decades before that time, Bavaria and Carantania shared a common duke, a Dux Baiuvariorum et Carentanorum. However, Carinthia (Carantania), according to historical records, existed already in 595 AD! Thus, the aforesaid pomp was aimed to celebrate the millenary of "German" Carinthia. An evident forgery, but no one commented on it in Austria.

Further more it is true, that the citizens of present-day Carinthia (and Austria) do not know much about the Princes Stone (Knežji kamen, Fürstenstein), on which the installation of the Carantanian (Carinthian) dukes took place. Why? Because the entire rite was carried out in Slovenian language, and the duke was called Slovenian Lord (Slovenski gospod, Windischer Herr). His title did not refer to his ethnical appurtenance but to the fact, that he was the head of the Slovenian State. Thus, »Slovenian« meant in the first line a political and not a close ethnical formation. But any publication of these facts could be embarrassing to the Carinthian and Austrian authorities and would make liars out of public opinion makers. The easy way out was to omit the issue entirely.

Instead, the symbol of the Dukes Throne (Vojvodski stol, Herzogstuhl) is widely spread throughout Carinthia. School programs and the mass media present the symbol in an untrue way as the »oldest German judicial monument«. Why »German«? One considers that it had its origin in the Carantanian feudal time (but it is only a supposition). The feudal order, as it is known, was spread by the Franks throughout Western Europe, who in the time of the great-German movement simply were recognized as Germans. Therefore, the feudal class in Carantania was automatically »German«, and so was the Dukes Throne. Very simply, isn't it?

But there is more to it! Further forgeries and lies were discovered in connection with the Franks. One of them is, that after Christianization (after 750 AD) Carantania became a »Bavarian March«. This lie is constantly propagated without being questioned by Bavarian and Austrian historians. What's the matter?

Around 745 AD, Carantania was seriously menaced by the Avars, who had settled in nearby Pannonia. To secure the country, the Carantanian duke turned to the friendly Bavarians for help. But Carantania's request for Bavarian assistance had to be approved by the Frankish king, the recognized supremacy of the kingdom. The approval was granted under one condition, that the Carantanians, at that time still a pagan people, accepted the Christendom and recognized the supremacy of the Frankish king, the protector of the Christendom in Europe. The Carantanian duke Borut agreed, and with help of the Bavarian military the Avars were defeated. Missionaries arrived from Salzburg (Bavaria) and from Aquileia, and thereafter Christianization began in Carantania.

Evidently, the idea of the »Bavarian March« has been connected with the following historical fact: in 791 AD the Frankish army finally defeated the Avars in Pannonia, and then a unique military district (a march) was established for Bavaria, Carantania (north of the Drava River) and Pannonia. A further military district was formed for Friuli, Carniola and Slavonia (south of the Drava River). The military commanders were called »confinii comites« (margraves). Sometimes their administration was also entrusted to the dukes. But the civilian (duchy) and the military authority (march) always were diverse offices. The anti-Slovenian circles stress the fact that Carantania lost its independence after Christianization. In fact, Carantania associated with the then European Christian community frequently called imperium Cristianum, which was under the political and military protection of the Frankish king.

In spite of the fact, that both duchies were under a common military commander, Bavaria and Carantania continued to be two dukedoms (states) of the same kingdom with equal rights. The imperium Cristianum, that Carantania associated with after Christianization, was a confederation, later called Sacrum Imperium Romanum (Holy Roman Empire). It united European kingdoms and dukedoms in defence against Islamic expansionism, and was not dissolved until 1806 AD. The word Romanum meant, that this Christian community had its centre with the Pope in Rome. Carantania and its follower Austria belonged to this confederation as an independent nation. These circumstances have been continuously suppressed by the Austrian and Bavarian historians.

Yugoslav unitarism

In 1918, at the end of the WW1, the majority of Slovenians associated with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The kingdom, with the centre in Belgrade, had a centralistic regime. The Serbian part was predominant over other nations. Moreover, if Yugoslavia already exited, then, through gradual unitarism a Yugoslav (Serbian) nation should be formed, too. One of the main obstacles to this end presented the Slovenian historical tradition, language and culture, because it is so very different from that of other southern Slav nations.

Therefore, in 1920 AD, Belgrade sent their confidant Prof. Nikola Radojcic to the University of Lublana, where he was given the cathedra for Yugoslav history (a non-exiting scientific branch). He did not know Slovenian; therefore he simply gave lectures in Serbian. The cathedra should substantiate the Yugoslav ideology, which was needed to execute Belgrade's centralism and unitarism. The ideology was constructed on the premise that, at one time, all Southern Slavs (Yugoslavs) formed a unique nation, which later the »hostile neighbours« divided into several peoples. Consequently, this primordial »Yugoslav« nation should be restored anew.

In this connection, the Yugoslav unitarism should not mean denationalization of the Slovenians, but rather a »return to their origin«. Such ideological line was elaborated by the Serbian Academy and propagated by Belgrade's regime apparatus. The regime financed the academic institutions and, in this way, it conditioned their publications, including those of the University of Lublana. It is true that the Yugoslav unitaristic line did not appear openly in these publications, in order not to provoke a determined resistance of Slovenia. However, the image of Slovenians in capacity of historical »servants« had to be presented. Their salvation from the supposed historical yoke could be realized only through a unique strong political formation with the Southern Slavs.

In such a »project« the Slovenian historical identity has not been individuated. Slovenians were simply shown as »Slavs«. Like in the Austrian example, the Slovenian State tradition in particular, which contrary to the one-time »unique« Southern Slav nations presents a diametrically opposed historical picture, was ignored. Not only were the advocates of the Slovenian State tradition discriminated, but in some cases perhaps even persecuted. In its ideological approach against Slovenians, the Belgrade regime had the University of Lublana play the key role. Thus, the picture of their own history, explained in an unfair way, had to be made credible to the Slovenian people. This task was carried out in a »scientific« way by Slovenia's leading academic authority, the University of Lublana. Moreover, as to humiliate the public more effectively, the same Slovenian academicians were forced to teach their Slovenian fellow-citizens, that they were nothing more but »servants« throughout history.

The Belgrade regime soon found adherents at the University of Lublana, who were supportive. The most visible among them was Prof. Ludomil Hauptmann, a historian and a convinced Yugoslav unitarist. He was a deserved empirical researcher, but his conclusions were wholly contestable. He repeated falsified Austrian (German) interpretations, according to which the entire history of the »Alpine Slavs« (Slovenians) should have been under the »German yoke«. Moreover, he fulfilled his duty with the following words: Firstly, Slovenians were subjected to the Avars, who later were replaced by combative Croats, then followed by Germans. According to him, Serbia was the most perspective nation in the Balkans.

Under the Communist regime After the WW2, Yugoslavia formally became a federative republic of nations. But it was a totalitarian Communist State under the dictatorship of Tito. The Yugoslav (in fact Serbian) army and the secret service ruled the state behind his image. In this way, even though hidden away, the old unitaristic policy continued. The University of Lublana, it is true, could no longer deny the historical Slovenian State of Carantania. However, Carantania was presented as a formation, which lasted only for a »very short period«. One acknowledged the historical date of 595 AD, but Carantania should have lost its »exterior« independence with Christianization, carried out after 750 AD. Thereafter, Carantanians (truthfully, only part of them) and Carniolians joined Prince Liudevit of Slavonia in his rebellion against the Franks. In 820 AD, the rebellion was defeated. But because of the way the event was twisted by B. Grafenauer, Carantania should have lost also its »interior« independence at that time. Carantania should have become a »common Frankish county« (B. Grafenauer). Nevertheless, such explanation is completely lacking of corresponding historical documentation.

After the WW2, Prof. Bogo Grafenauer was the leading historian in Slovenia (Yugoslavia). Of course, in the then Communist and centralistic regime, his interpretation of Slovenian history could only have been conditioned by Belgrade. Anyway, in his works he also treated the Installation of the dukes of Carantania (Carinthia). But he did not take into consideration the existence of the Slovenian law (State tradition), the institutio Slavenica. He explained the historical tradition in this way: (after the supposed loss of Carantanian independence, in 820 AD) the installation rite was no more than a symbol of an ancient »custom« without political base. The new elected dukes, in particular those of the House of Habsburg, used this rite to make themselves popular among the Carantanian people

Evidently, by denying the continuation of Carantania in the following Austria, where the rite still remained preserved, Prof. Bogo Grafenauer was forced to follow the corresponding directives of Belgrade. Anyway, his knowledge of political history, as I think, was somewhat vague. He evidently understood the contents of the »electio« (election) of the new dukes in the pre-feudal period of Carantania. But in the feudal period (and in the later Austria), the duke was not elected any more. In sense of the dynastic law, he was appointed by the Royal Court. Anyway, the institutio Sclavenica still had to be taken into account. In the sense of this law, the duke had to be confirmed by the Carantanian people to hold office. It was the »collaudatio« (confirmation) of the people or their representatives (today's parliament). On this occasion he had to swear under oath that he would be a righteous ruler and practice the Christian Faith. After fulfilling these requirements to the satisfaction of the people the executive power was vested in him and the duke became the official ruler of the country.

The enthronement of the duke is clearly evident from events, which occurred in the 11th century. In 1036 AD, Duke Adalbero, the beginner of the Dynasty of Carantania (first house), was deposed. He was not replaced, and the King and Emperor Henry III decided to »administrate Carantania himself«. In fact, Markvart, Adalbero's son, ruled Carantania. In 1047 AD, the Royal Court appointed the noble Wolf of Bavaria as duke of Carantanian. But he was rejected by the people and could not assume office. When in 1057 AD the noble Conrad III of Franconia was appointed to this office, the Carantanian army prevented him and his suite from entering the country. In 1061 AD, the Royal Court appointed another ruler, Berthold of Svabia, who was also prevented from crossing the border. Thus, all these dukes were not cognates of Carantanian noble families, as it was customary in the sense of the institutio Sclavenica. - These events, which are sharply in contrast to that what official historiography presents, have been omitted in the papers of Slovenian (Yugoslav) historians until this very day.

Undermining the scientific level Thus, not only in Austria but also in Yugoslavia the Slovenian State tradition suffered a tremendous blow. Through its secret service, the Belgrade regime applied severe control measures, in particular over the University of Lublana. When advocating the Slovenian historical statehood it was interpreted as Slovenian »nationalism« and suspected of separatism from Yugoslavia. Anyway, this was only one of the reasons why the Belgrade regime was downsizing the scientific level of the University of Lublana. In the period after the WW2 approximately 90 outstanding professionals were dismissed from the university. Belgrade's general aim was to decrease the scientific level of this institution.

Moreover, in order to realize this goal, the obligatory Communist (Marxist) ideology has been applied, too. The university was, perhaps, forced to change its name to University of Edvard Kardelj. It should be named after the leading ideologist of Yugoslav Communism and its »self-management«. Following the secret directives of Belgrade, Kardelj had perhaps planned the rising of a (Yugoslav) »socialist« nation, into which Slovenia should be amalgamated. For this purpose, the Slovenian historical identity had to be denied. The basic premise survived both, the Communist regime and Yugoslavia, and has continued into independent Slovenia. Therefore, the year 595 AD is still not found in Slovenian schoolbooks. In my opinion, the present-day Minister for Education, Milan Zver, must be aware of the situation.

Under the Yugoslav Communist regime, the University of Lublana was exposed to ideological terror. Consequently, its scientific level wen gradually down. After the declaration of independence of Slovenia, this situation did not improve. Today, the University of Lublana did not make the list of the top 500 most serious academic institutions, quoted in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. Thus, it is high time that the prevailing ideological line of this university changes into a scientific one! To this purpose, the underground Yugoslav ideological control must cease. The freedom of scientific research must be secured. Not at least, the freedom of recognising the Slovenian State (595 AD) and its historical tradition."

By by Dr. Jožko Šavli. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of caution to anyone who read this wall of text - the views and opinions expressed herein are considered fringe and are often used in nationalistic discourse. Same for the website linked to in the topic below this one. Some caution is advised when handling both. Thank you. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of caution to anyone who has read, is reading, or will read anything - the views and opinions expressed anywhere by anyone are considered fringe, since the definition of "fringe" is very subjective and unreliable. Besides, nobody in the world is capable of being completely objective. Everything relating to the history of a nation is often used in nationalistic discourse. Thank you. Nerby (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theory. Pseudoscience. Junk science. Read these, educate yourself. Thank you. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian history

Real slovenian history lies on this page.

http://www.carantha.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankee mb (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Carantha is a very nice page with lots of useful data, but you should really be critical while reading it(as with everything else), because you probably won't find the parts describing the so-called serbian conspiracy and similar very believable. It is however a very nice page. 195.210.248.41 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe

Hello Slovenia/Archive 2! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

Are all the external links really necessary? I'll take a look later to see which ones we can get rid of. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A banner on the talk page of France says: "Only external links pertaining to France as a whole, or official government of France links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles." This seems reasonable to me for Slovenia too. External links should be kept to a minimum according to WP:EL. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have taken several links out. Feel free to say if you think a particular link should be readded. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for editing the Slovenia article

I have added some guidelines for editing the Slovenia article (copied from Talk:France) to the top. Any comment is welcome. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Two map optional display

Infobox Country

Scotland  (English / Scots) Alba  (Gaelic)
Flag Royal Coat of Arms
Motto: [Nemo me impune lacessit] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)  (Latin) "No one provokes me with impunity" "Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh"   (Scottish Gaelic) '"Wha daur meddle wi me?"'  (Scots)1
Anthem: (Multiple unofficial anthems)
Location of Slovenia/Archive 2 (orange) in the United Kingdom (camel)
Location of Slovenia/Archive 2 (orange) in the European Union (camel)
Capital	Edinburgh 55°57′N 3°12′W
Largest city	Glasgow
Official languages	English
Recognised regional languages	Gaelic, Scots1
Demonym(s)	Scot, Scots and Scottish²
Government	Constitutional monarchy
ISO 3166 code	GB-SCT

Hello Slovenia!!! I have something that may interest contributers for this page. In a nut shell, it allows the option to display two maps in your info box, one could be a close up of Slovenia, and another would be Slovenia in a wider European or Balks context. This is an example that was being discussed on Scotland's talk page (though I think they have rejected a two map option). Prior to now no one knew that you could have two maps displayed in the info box. For 'smallish' counties the benifits are easy to graps, an up-close view of the country, and a wider contextual visualisation of the country. Dydd da!!

PS: This is an example from the Scotland page, please do not be offended that I display the Scotland info box here. It is only ment as an example.

I think this is a very good idea. Rokpok (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate to have a close-up map in the geography section. I believe this is standard practice already. --Tone 19:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Early History section, the map label says that the item is shown in periwinkle - could someone clarify this? Wouldn't it just be better to say "blue" or "purple?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benno130 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

External links again

So User:MaNeMeBasat "cleaned up the mess" in this section by re-adding subheaders and an external link to GeaBios.

1. GeaBios, if relevant, belongs in the see also section. It should not be externally linked.
2. Subheaders aren't necessary when there are only six or so links. It's easy to consider them discretely already.
3. Official links should still go first.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about subheaders. About relevancy, we discussed about that, see: Archive 1. About Official links, from my point of view, the Government link is more important then the geographical overview, and the landmarks disappeared (that's why I used the word mess), maybe I'm wrong. But I don't know what's going on with the Scottish box nearby (subtitled Slovenia). --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've hidden the template in question. I'm now going to remove the subheaders and move GeaBios back into the "see also" list. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think GeaBios is relevant enough for this article to be listed in the 'See also' section. The article describing it does not deepen the reader's understanding of this article's subject (Slovenia) as imo the items listed in the 'see also' section should. I'll remove it till a consensus about its inclusion is formed.

On the other side, I think one of the interactive online collections of maps of Slovenia should be listed in the 'External links' section as it provides the ability to explore Slovenia. That's why I left GeaBios there when cleaning this section up some months ago. If it's not specific enough, I propose some other map collection is used (e.g. Geopedia.si) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eleasar that geabios goes to external links (not see also). I suppose that GeaBios (in english language) is more usefull than Geopedia in slovenian language for this article. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence in intro

The 'only former communist country' sentence will need to be modified 1 January 2009 when Slovakia joins the Eurozone. Just an early heads-up. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate intro

From the intro: "Slovenia is the only country once to have formed a part of a socialist state to be at the same time a member of the European Union, the Eurozone, the Schengen area, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and NATO."

This is no longer true, is it? Romania and Bulgaria were also socialist states, for example - not to mention the DDR. Of course this does say "part of a socialist state," which the first two don't meet as they were in entirety, and the last doesn't as it was only part of a current state. This, to me, calls into question whether the distinction is significant enough to warrant a paragraph in the intro. Further, it's been pointed out that this is about to change regardless with the accession of Slovakia.

So the question is whether this paragraph is worth keeping. To me it seems trivial, not worthy of the very intro of the article. Even if it is technically true for now, it is only because of very narrow definitions. I propose striking it.--96.242.156.9 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, the only ex-socialist country that is a member of the Eurozone (in other words: uses the euro) is Slovenia. Slovakia will be the second one when they join next year, but until then the paragraph you mentioned is correct. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph mentions more than just the Eurozone, though. I quote again: "the European Union, the Eurozone, the Schengen area, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and NATO."

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia already meet some of these criteria alone - all are members of OSCE, for example. So, it is only technically accurate because the definition is so narrow, and because it sidesteps the issue of East Germany. That's why I question whether this paragraph is notable enough for the intro.--96.242.156.9 (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the information that Slovenia was formerly a socialist republic, but is now part of these western organizations and has adopted euro is notable enough to be included in the lead section. These are its defining characteristics much more than the many facts listed in the second paragraph. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's significant enough to warrant inclusion, in light of Slovenia being the 'front runner' of all the European post-socialist states and usually being the first or among the first to be accepted to various organizations or to reach certain development goals. However, as pretty much all of the other states have more or less caught up with it in many aspects, this paragraph should be removed after 1. January 2009. 80.95.238.95 (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Economy

The European Union flag image and its caption regarding the Eurozone has been introduced to the section. The image has a higher representational value than a single Commemorative coin and signifies the degree of importance for the Slovenian economy. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is at least four editors that have been constantly reverting your change, so the obvious mayority disagree with you. We do not need to have the same image on every article. Just my opinion ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the flag is redundant and has nothing with the topic (the photo could be taken anywhere). --Tone 22:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Geographical dispute with Croatia

There should be a reference in the Geography section to the ongoing dispute with Croatia over a small portion of land and sea that connects the two countries. Like many recently created states, Slovenia's borders have not been definitively established in some places. The dispute is part of the reason that Slovenia rejects Croatia's bid to join the EU. Pavlovscat567 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

With the section as it is now, putting details about the border conflict would be undue weight. However, some articles should indeed be updated, such as Foreign relations of Croatia#Slovenia and Foreign relations of Slovenia#Croatia. Gulf of Piran describes the situation quite well but because this is not the only point of the dispute, I suppose it would be relevant to start thinking about a separate article for the border dispute. --Tone 21:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

United Slovenia map

Map shows only claimes of ethnic majority. Some parts never had Slovenian majority (not even small minority) like Rijeka and Kvarner. Also there is no period in wich assumed ethnical state happened. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thin blue line on river Dragonja is not clearly shown? Some refraising to underline it? --Čeha (razgovor) 12:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Slavic countries vs. Category:Slovenia

Category:Slovenia is itself a category within Category:Slavic countries. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's standard with main articles of categories, to be within containing category as well. --Yerpo (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Lipizzan

Hello, editors! Since this article mentions the Lipizzan horse, some you may be interested in the discussion regarding the article on the Lipizzans (Talk:Lipizzan). Does the breed originate in Slovenia? Some editors don't think so. They are surprised that "we periodically have people discussing that the Lipizzan is really from Slovenia" and insist on having just "Central Europe" listed as the origin of the breed in the article's infobox (Lipizzan). They say that Lipica was just one of many stud farms where the breed was established, and therefore cannot possibly be called "the place of origin". Do you agree? Can you contribute to the discussion? Can you provide credible sources that mention Lipica as the source of the breed? Any help would be greatly appreciated! --WorldWide Update (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Economy section has ideological-driven paragraph

The paragraph is the Economy section that reads:

"Despite economic success, Slovenia faces some challenges. A big portion of the economy remains in state hands and foreign direct investment (FDI) in Slovenia is one of the lowest in the EU per capita. Taxes are relatively high, the labor market is seen as inflexible, and industries are losing sales to China, India, and elsewhere.[10]"

Is highly ideological. Different economic theorists say different things about state ownership, about levels of taxation, about labour market flexibility and even levels of FDI being either beneficial or not for an economy. I think this paragraph should be removed from this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.160.30 (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand, you only consider the second sentence problematic, not the whole paragraph. The rest (at least) should stay, because it's quite on the mark (IMO and according to the source). --Yerpo (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole paragraph is problematical. The first sentence says nothing at all, it is filler. The last sentence is linked to the first sentence by being in the same paragraph, so by saying things such as 'the labor market is seen as inflexible' and 'taxes are relatively high' it is not just making statements without value judgements attached. Further 'labour market inflexibility' in and of itself is a term associated with economics that favour free markets, this isn't universally accepted. I'm not saying these things shouldn't be in wikipedia, but it should be clear that they are an opinion. Further this being the case they belong in the article specifically on the economy of Slovenia rather than on the homepage of the Slovenia entry.

129.67.160.30 (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

but it should be clear that they are an opinion.

I don't know of any fact that is universally accepted (not even that the Earth is round) and I think the phrase "is seen as" states clearly enough that it is an opinion. I see what you mean with the first sentence and I agree that it should be removed or rephrased, but the rest is actually more than just an opinion. It is an opinion of the world's most important economy's government, and even if you argue that the US economy is a global disaster, the truth of those statements is obvious every day for the people that live in Slovenia (regardless of any fancy theories) - high taxes habe a visibly limiting effect on the economy, almost 10% of active population is unemployed (the majority of which are considered inflexible due to uneducatedness), and there are numerous examples of the state reacting too slow or inappropriately in large state-owned companies. I think those are facts important enough to warrant inclusion in the main article which, as every other, has to be neutral. --Yerpo (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This section remains poorly worded. Because I know nothing about Slovenia, I'm not editing it. But for it to be implied that Slovenians chose a welfare state over economic freedom (as though the two were somehow opposites or mutually exclusive) seems judgmental and horribly biased. mp2dtw (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions

In the last few days, an anonymous contributor has been adding a lot of text about Slovenia. The problem is, the text is copy-pasted official public info and other text from various sources (such as the paragraph about politics from Britannica Online). Furthermore, the text isn't wikified and in a couple of instances, he removed referenced text that was previously there. Does anyone have the time to deal with this? --Yerpo (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro/Lead

The second paragraph in the intro seems odd. I looked at Germany and France wikipedia pages and those pages talk about the make up of the country.Irrito (talk)

agree slovenia article can be much better.193.9.21.15 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Freising manuscripts

I think Freising manuscripts(Brižinski spomeniki) should be mentioned in this article (not just in slovenian language article), after all they are the oldest document in Slovene and they are not just a part of Slovenian language history but also important for Slovenian history of literature, religion and culture history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.193.148 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree actually. They have not influenced the development of the Slovene language or culture and certainly not the development of the concept of Slovenia. They are just an evidence that the Slovene language appeared in the written form already in the 10th century. There is no continuity between the Slovene literature written in the period of the Freising manuscripts and the works published in the 16th century. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. I am not an expert i just read about meaning of Freising manuscripts and they are all writing about cultural, literature, religion meaning for slovenian history. For instance also dr. Mihael Glavan said :"To so vendarle najstarejši spomeniki sploh v slovanskem jeziku v Zahodni Evropi. Zato smo Slovenci lahko na to ponosni, pa ne samo kot na ohranjen dokument, ampak, ker je ta dokument priča naše zgodovine, našega jezika, kulture in našega obstoja," when manuscripts came to Ljubljana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.193.16 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)