Jump to content

Talk:Slovenes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Slovenians as a national minority in Croatia

>> The states of Italy, Austria, Hungary and Croatia officially recognize Slovenians as national minorities.

Well, as far as I know, Croatia DOESN'T officially recognize Slovenians as a national minority. Any comments on this ??

regards Wayfarer-Talk

on November 6, 2005 at 0:38 GMT

No. Croatia does not recognize Slovenes as a minority, but then again, neither does Slovenia recognize Croatians. The Slovene constitution only recognizes Italians and Hungarians officially. They are tiny minorities relative to Croats, Bosnians, Serbs and, even, Albanians. Metulj 05:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Slovenians used to be recognized in Croatia as a minority, as they (like Italians and Hungarians in Slovenia) are indigenous to the small areas they live. After independence, Croatia asked for Croatians (NOT indigenous in Slovenia) to be a recognized minority in Slovenia but were rebuffed. In spite, they dropped Slovenians from their list of recognized minorities. BT2 16:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, I didn't say anything about that (i.e. about Slovenia recognizing Croatians as a minority); that's a completely different subject that should be posted elsewhere.
regards Wayfarer-Talk | , on April 7, 2006
You asked for comments and you got them. Now you know why Slovenians are not officially recognized anymore as a minority in Croatia. BT2 02:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, but don't you see that I've originally quoted the text that states that they are recognized as a national minority in Croatia? So what I wanted to say is just that this particular piece of information is not correct. I was not trying to start an argument on why they are not recognized as a minority. Get it now ??
regards Wayfarer-Talk | , on May 9, 2006

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Slovenes in Carinthia (figures)

"Most of Carinthia remained part of Austria and 14,000 Slovenians ([17]) in the Austrian state of Carinthia were recognized as a minority and have enjoyed special rights following the Austrian State Treaty (Staatsvertrag) of 1955."

According to the 1951 Census, there were around 42.000 Slovenes in Carinthia - 14.000 is actually the figure from the 2001 Census. Viator slovenicus 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


And i have to dispute the line "..have enjoyed special rights following the Austrian State Treaty (Staatsvertrag) of 1955." all you realy have to do is read any newspaper in Slovenia or Carinthia to see that the situation of the Sloven minorety in Austria is any thing but good. MaticMan , 14:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


The following article cites 40,000 Slovenians in Canada (2005 est.) http://www.theslovenian.com/magazine/2005/glasilo07082005.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.123.134 (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, let me quote the 'Slovenian Americans' article.

"In the 2000 US Census, 176,691 Americans declared that they were of Slovenian origin (of those, 738 have attained the Ph.D.). The number of reported Americans of Slovene descent undoubtedly is an underestimate. Some Slovenians coming from the Austro-Hungarian Empire avoided anti-Slavic prejudice by identifying themselves as Austrians. Many others were recorded as Slav, Slavic, Slavish, or Slavonian (see above). The true number of Americans of Slovenian descent is probably between 200,000 and 300,000."

History

Slovenian National Liberation Struggle should be mentioned in WWII history survey. After all more than 30.000 partisans died fighting Axis forces and their collaborators. In general 8% of population vanished in the war.

Shouldn't there be atleast a mention of the venetic theory as an objective article? And the history is supposed to match the one in Slovenia so if it's marked as disputed there shouldn't it also be here? See Talk:Slovenia. 86.61.30.53 (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovenians → Slovenes — Seems to be general consensus. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene). The article Slovene language has already been moved. —Eleassar my talk 09:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
This article describes the people, not the citizens. It should be evident from the discussion that the preferred term for the people is Slovenes. That's why the convention has been marked as disputed and historic. --Eleassar my talk 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I'm not convinced that the naming convention needs to be revived before we move this. Any such NC will consist of

  1. Assertions of fact about what usage actually is.
  2. Instructions to follow "common usage" and other general practices.
  3. Specific exceptions.

Judging by the WP:MOSMAC disaster: (1) is not so complex here that we need a guideline page to explain it; the dictionary definitions of Slovene and Slovenian are enough. (2) is redundant. (3) is probably undesirable, since, even if we can agree on the language of such exceptions, the various factions will then proceed to read their preconcieved notions of the The True Way back into them.

RIP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • If there is consensus to deprecate the guideline, then that would fall under my suggestion of updating it. I'm just skittish about ignoring the prior dispute, which was resolved only by the cobbled-together guideline you see. --Dystopos (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've looked at the discussion. It includes a great deal of patent unfact (Slovenian was not invented in 1991), and I do not see anything there worth paying much attention to. If there is still dissent over this distinction, it should be mentioned here and now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Slovenian People

Why are some articles ______ people (Lao people, English People) and some articles are _____s (Poles, Slovenians)... isn't there some convention for this??

Because you can't pluralise Lao (Laos?) or English (Englishs? Englishes?), but you can easily pluralise Poles and Slovenians. --212.158.134.242 08:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Because with some nationailities such as French, British, Swiss, Dutch, Japanese, we can only use the definite article. 85.160.199.167 (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Improper synthesis: the number of Slovene Australians

The infobox cites 20,000 as the number of Australians of Slovene descent which is the number copied from Table 1 in this article. However, the text says: "The ethnic strength totals in Tables 1 and 2 do not represent separate individuals but the 'strength' of any particular ethnicity in the total population." --Eleassar my talk 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I have provided another reference. --Eleassar my talk 19:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for expansion

After having inserted the subheading 'History' it has become apparent that the article describes more or less only the history of Slovenes. It could be expanded with sections 'Terms and etymology', 'Distribution', 'Language', 'Culture', etc. (see articles on large ethnicities/nations, like Han Chinese, French People, Germans etc.) I'll try to find time to contribute here but if anyone else is interested too, you're more than welcome. --Eleassar my talk 19:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Ethnic Groups has a template that might generate more ideas. I had used it to work on improving the Tuvans article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_Groups_Template. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great people

Ehhh, why are there no links to "great people" in this article? You know the pics and links you usally find above the nationality name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.72.172 (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. --Eleassar my talk 12:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Carinthian Slovenes

Most of Carinthia remained part of Austria and around 42,000 Slovenes in the Austrian state of Carinthia were recognized as a minority and have enjoyed special rights following the Austrian State Treaty (Staatsvertrag) of 1955.

The figure of 42,000 Slovenes here refers to the Austrian population census of 1951 (the exact number is 42,095). The full chronological sequence of census results is available in the Carinthian Slovenes article. --Jalen (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

I just don't find this number in the reference provided so I tagged it with {{failed verification}}. Another citation is needed for the 1951 census. --Eleassar my talk 21:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Why do you change references, the number of Gremany is diferent from Swiss census,Germany census shows 21,109, and Swiss shows only 2,000 Slovenians.If you don't mind i'll put them back. The neutral source is more important then the home one.Also i think that nacional census of Slovenia is more neutral then COBISS.--Makedonij (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I found one more link showing 21,000 Slovenians in Germany.I will inser bouth of them.--Makedonij (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What COBISS? Ethnic Structure of Slovenia and Slovenes in Neighbouring Countries (Slovenia: a geographical overview) is not COBISS, but a reliable and neutral article written by an expert. It clearly explains why the census number is an underestimate. The same for Slovensko izseljenstvo: zbornik ob 50-letnici Slovenske izseljenske matice edited by Milica Trebše-Štolfa and Klemenčič Matjaž - it is a reliable and neutral work.
As for the Germany, the first link you inserted was 2005 Figures of Statistic Schweiz (your diff). It has nothing to do with Germany, so I removed it. For the references you provided, they show solely the number of foreign citizens of Slovene descent, but neglect the German citizens of Slovene ethnicity. Therefore, they do notequalify as relevant sources. On the other hand, I don't know what makes you think Zbornik is biased. --Eleassar my talk 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Acctualy i insert this one, 2006 figures, that above is a diferent on, and i also insert this one Foreignes in Germany and it saies this "At the end of 2003 one third of the foreign population had been living in Germany for more than 20 years, more than two thirds of the foreign children who live in Germany were born in Germany, since 1970 about 3,2 million foreigners have attained German citizenship". Bouth of them shows same nubers 21,000 Slowenians in Germany, and like administrator you should know what is neutral point of view. I would be very pleased if we find compromis here. Also the number of Slovenians in Slovenia, you are traying to ignore national census which shows 1.640,400 Slovenians while the first refernce ZBORNIK shows only Slovenian national point of view.
I dont want to be engaged in edit war, so it will be nice if you change it.--Makedonij (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You may look this one to. --Makedonij (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Two factual mistakes in the article

Two comments on this article

1. The fact box states that there are about 2000 Slovenes in Italy, the text states 100.000 Slovenes in Italy. Makedonij (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Surely there might be different sources around, but such a big difference has to be wrong.

2. The heading about Slovenes during WWII is currently mostly about a group of Germans, not Slovenes. What is more, the text is word by word the same as in the article on the Gottschee. It is very interesting and should remain in that article, but could be removed from this article.

Third Opinion

I was invited to help offer a neutral opinion. Does anyone mind if I contribute in such a capacity? I have no leanings on way or the other on this subject. I will bookmark this page, and wait to hear yes or no whether I can be of assistance. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is about refernces are they good enaf to beet Slovenian point of wiev, i mean is that book Ethnic Structure of Slovenia and Slovenes in Neighbouring Countries maded by Slovenian authors more neutral then national census of Slovenia from 2002? And about refernces which shows Slovenians in Gremany. --Makedonij (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What do other folks say about this? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Makedonij's assessment of what sources are neutral and reliable but lack time and as long as the facts remain unclear I'll leave the article alone. I ask people more knowledgeable in history and social sciences than me (User:Viator slovenicus and User:Jalen) to solve the dispute. Otherwise, I have no objections to Arcayne contributing a neutral opinion. --Eleassar my talk 15:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Okay, so would either of you describe the source of the snag being one of reliable/neutral sourcing, or is there something else complicating matters? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it is about reliable/neutral sourcing. --Eleassar my talk 14:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, are folk disagreeing with the reliability/neutrality of the sources? Specifically, what sources? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Who were the alpine Slavs?

I disagree with the term "Alpine Slavs" for the Slovenes of the Middle Ages, it is a peyorative term mainly used by pangermanist historians. If they were slovenes, so let´s call them Slovenes, and if they weren´t slovenes they don´t have to be in this article. But if anyone consider that they weren´t slovenes please provide evidence that they were russians, any kind of extinct slavs, chinese or whatsoever. I believe they were Slovenes, if not, someone can describe me the languagge, culture, and ethnicity of those people--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is true that the "Venetic theory" is the most widely diffused notion of national identity in Slovenia, it must be mentioned under "Identity". If it isn't true, the Venetic theory article should be deleted. We cannot keep the article and not link to it from this one. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a fringe theory without support from academic circles. This was discussed countless times, the current agreement is not to include it in the mainstream Slovenia-related articles such as this one. So I am removing it. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Carantania, History of Slovenia and related. --Tone 14:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

this is about national identity in politics, not "academic circles". Nobody is suggesting the "Venetic theory" has any factual merit, don't be silly. --dab (𒁳) 21:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Symbols

As far as I know, these (CoA, Triglav) are symbols of Slovenia, not Slovenes. I plan to remove the section unless it is attributed to reliable sources. --Eleassar my talk 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, i think that we should leave them, becouse many Slovenians declare them self with them. If you like you can add unoficial simbols like BLACK PANTER (Črni Koroški Panter), see Macedonians article for example. It is the same problem.--Makedonij (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but unless you find a reliable source citing these symbols as the symbols of Slovenes, this remains original research. --Eleassar my talk 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I would remind you that the issue is solved already by the Slovene constitution. In the deffinition of the symbols is said that "the flag of Slovenia shall be the Slovene national tricolour with the coat of arms of the Republic of Slovenia." Which means that the plain flag is considered (and recognized) as the national symbol of Slovenes. As it has in fact been since 1848. Other widely accepted national symbols are the linden leaf (also symbol of the Slovene Union in Italy and innumerous Slovene associations) and the carnation flower (also symbol of the Carinthian Enotna Lista and framed as a national symbol since even before the national revival in the mid 19th century). As to the black panther, I'm sorry, but it first appears in 1983 in an article by the author Jožko Šavli; since then, it has gained huge popularity, but - unfortunately - it is used almost exclusively by nationalists. Young nationalists, I may add. If you want a reference on that, you get it on Monday or Tuesday. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to add this kind of info to the article (properly attributed, of course) so that there will be no misunderstandings. --Eleassar my talk 15:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The flag is wrong. This is not Slovenian Flag!! P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.32.43.159 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

The World directory of minorities and indigenous people states that there are between 50.000 and 183.000 Slovenes in Italy so i am adding this in the article. Here is the source http://www.minorityrights.org/1616/italy/slovenes.html The number is based on a research by the slovene institute of Italy called SLORI. Rokpok (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The upper ceiling (183,000) is IMO exaggerated. Jernej Zupančič, a geographer specialised in Slovene minorities, estimates the number of Slovenes in Italy to be in the order of 83,000 - 100,000. --Jalen (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Population figures

Discuss, don't edit war. The page itself is now protected. --ajn (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the figure should be changed to 2.2 - 2.5 million. Since count of "Slovenians", or any other ethnicity is subject to scrutiny. I personally feel that those that define their mother tongue as Slovenian, should be counted as Slovenians. And as far as descendants go, currently there are over 150,000 Americans that stated Slovenian roots. However, that figure is more commonly believed to be around 300,000 (by Slovenian scholars). Similarly, Albanians can claim up to 5 million descendants in Turkey (even though there is very little Albanian affiliation in Turkey). So I kindly ask for you to at least change the overall account to app. 2.5 million. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.218.219 (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of Slovenes realy should be 2,2 - 2.5. In Slovenia is probably 1,8mil Slovenians (in census officially 1,631,363 but we dont know nationality for 9,5% of population but 153.683 of them were born in Slovenia) In border countries are c. 200.000 Slovenes ( we all know that 25.000 Slovenians in Austria is laughable and total unreal) In USA is probabbly c. 200.000-300.000 Slovenians. And "btw" see it: "The period 1870 to 1924, when most of the Slovene emigrants came to the United States, was the classic period of development of industry and mining in the United States, especially after the end of the Civil War. According to US census data, which are believable, in 1910 the United States was home to around 180,000 Slovene immigrants and their children (judging by mother tongue). According to the Census, by 1920 there were already 228,000 Slovene immigrants and their children living in the United States. On the basis of a 5% sample in 1990, American statisticians estimated that there were 123,000 people of Slovene descent. Based on the earlier counts, this number looks too low. A more reasonable estimate is 500,000 people of Slovene descent in the United States," http://www2.arnes.si/~krsrd1/conference/Speeches/Klemencic_slovene_settlements_in_the_unite.htm Data is incorrect also for some other countries (Belgium, Sweden etc. ). If we just look censuses, 2,2mil is maybe correct number but we should look also estimations. Kgh1111 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine as far as you provide reliable and verifiable sources. And don't forget, making calculations from some sources can be regarded as original research so try to avoid it. Regards. --Tone 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone else besides me pointed that out. & thanks for changing the estimate to at least 2.4 million. I would suggest that maybe next to these "official" numbers (for instance next to Austria and the US) estimates could be given. For Austria an est. of 50 - 80,000 is commonly believed, and the U.S 300,000 strong. Although the arnes.si article is also rather interesting (claiming up to 500,000). After all, the "Irish" and "German" American(for example) populations were counted in a similar way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.218.206 (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


PS: The following article cites 40,000 Slovenians in Canada (2005 est.) http://www.theslovenian.com/magazine/2005/glasilo07082005.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.218.206 (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Also, let me quote the 'Slovenian Americans' article.

"In the 2000 US Census, 176,691 Americans declared that they were of Slovenian origin (of those, 738 have attained the Ph.D.). The number of reported Americans of Slovene descent undoubtedly is an underestimate. Some Slovenians coming from the Austro-Hungarian Empire avoided anti-Slavic prejudice by identifying themselves as Austrians. Many others were recorded as Slav, Slavic, Slavish, or Slavonian (see above). The true number of Americans of Slovenian descent is probably between 200,000 and 300,000." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.218.206 (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


In addition, "an investigation carried out in 1991 in bilingual parishes, in the process of which there was a question about the colloquial language used by members of the parish. The results of this investigation (50,000 members of national minority groups) differed significantly from those of the census that took place in the same year (about 14,000)." The above refers to Slovenes in Carinthia.


Regarding US figures

Regarding the number of Slovenes in the US, I've left a comment at Talk:Slovenian_American#Some_feedback_and_criticism, which may be of interest here. If it is not of interest, then please ignore this note. I would not refer to the article Slovenian Americans for reliable information of any kind, as someone has done above (indeed, no one should even read that article in its present form, IMHO). A few additional notes that may be of interest to editors of the main article here:

I highly recommend the Trunk writeup that I cite. It is excellent and unbiased background information, and a primary source, though it doesn't specifically address the issue of numbers. The only other good paper I've seen on the topic is by Klemenčič, but his discussion is sometimes weak and off-target, and his emphasis on a few areas with high concentrations of Slovenes is not necessarily representative.
From my experience (admittedly OR), US Census figures from 1900, 1910, and 1920 are highly reliable. They contain entries for both "country of origin" and "language". There is no "hidden agenda" beyond a simple counting of people, as required by the US Constitution. The 1930 Census is also publicly available, but after 1920, things get fuzzy. "US born" precludes the use of other indicators, and there are more immigrant parents with US-born children. US-born children are accounted for as US-born only, as are their own children. People intermarry, they may not want to "label themselves" to the government (a circumstance that is common in many countries, perhaps your own), later censuses may not ask the relevant questions. For these and other reasons, you'll have to find an "estimate". Half a million sounds as good as any other number, but I don't really know, either.
A small annoyance, aimed at no one in particular: implications, assertions, and conclusions regarding the "Slovene-ness" of those who are of multiple ancestry can be highly offensive on a personal level. It is not said with bad intent, but it may have a bad effect. If your grandmother is a Novak (or whoever), how would you react on hearing your own relatives assert that your "Novak-ness" is considered to be only 1/4th that of a "real" Novak, and that that is probably the reason that you are different than the "real" Novaks? It would sound like your own family doesn't really consider you to be family at all.

24.178.228.14 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


That would be me. I do not suggest that there ever was a hidden agenda, and I do admire the US for that, but simply pointed out that often Slovenians were often counted as Croats. Why?

During the greatest migration waves, Slovenia and Croatia belonged to various states (Austro-Hungarian Empire, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, later Socialist Yugoslavia, etc.). Since Croats being numerically greater, were better known and was thus easy to group Slovenes under the term Croats (both Catholic, Slavic, etc). I mean, it still happens today!

Don’t worry, I have nothing against it, I myself am from a mixed background and choose neither over the other. In the end, ancestry is often a personal thing, subjective, passed on by those that saw themselves as this and that (be it forcibly or not). Slovenia as Croatia, as many other places, being historical trading/migration routes are indeed ethnically diverse.

I was merely pointing out, that Slovenia’s estimates of outward migration – notably to the US – are so vast, at times devastating to regions (as goes for Croatia mind you), that current US census statistics appear to be rather modest. In the end, it does not matter. America has an unbelievable power to assimilate (nothing wrong with that), a real melting pot – I just believe Slovenes were a greater ingredient than sometimes noted in statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.218.206 (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


In the 1990 census, 124,437 persons declared themselves to be of Slovenian descent. Among them, 87,500 (70.3%) declared Slovenian descent as their only or primary origin (the census allowed declaring one or more origins). Slovenian national awareness has risen significantly since Slovenia gained independence in 1991; consequently, during the 2000 census, 175,099 people declared themselves to be of Slovenian descent. Three quarters of these Slovenes live in six states: Ohio (49,598), Pennsylvania (14,584), Illinois (11,743), Minnesota (6,614), Wisconsin (6,478) and California.

Unofficial estimates of the number of Slovenes in the United States and their descendants are even higher, varying from 300,000 to 600,000. Over the decades and with the arrival of new generations, the majority have blended into American society, leaving only a small number of those taking an active part in Slovenian associations and cultural and other organizations. However, larger-scale events bring together hundreds if not thousands of Slovenes.

source: http://cleveland.consulate.si/index.php?id=841&L=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.218.206 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Religion

- Islamic Slovenes??? 134.3.84.160 (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

- Protestants: The city Freudenstadt in Germany was founded with protestantic slovenic settlers from Villach (Austria). 134.3.84.160 (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Celje Primoz Trubar 002.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Celje Primoz Trubar 002.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Celje Primoz Trubar 002.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Smallest South Slavic people?

Are Slovenes really the smallest South Slavic people? What about Montenegrins? Not to mention the Gorani and Bunjevci ethnic groups.

Justice and Reason (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You're correct. I also think it's dubious to describe them as the westernmost South Slavic people, considering the Molise Croats. --Eleassar my talk 20:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Famous Slovenes (Znani Slovenci)

Lets decide here:) I think Leon Štukelj, France Prešeren, Primož Trubar etc. are some obvious choices so lets find the others so we can add them to the infobox (I think we should use 16).Ratipok (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

16 may be a bit too much... but you can try. Remember that the images you use should have a free licence, as fair use images are not appropriate for such purposes. --Tone 19:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Doesnt need to be 16 (although I think that the infoboxes of articles for Croats and Serbs look quite good), could be 12 or even fewer. Obviously we could use only persons who has pics already uploaded on wiki (at least for now), the good thing is that most of them are there. Without much thinking I think good candidates could be some of those (not in any particular order): Primož Trubar, Jurij Vega, France Prešeren, Leon Štukelj, Edvard Rusjan, Rudolf Maister, Anton Martin Slomšek, Herman Potočnik, Vasja Pirc, Ivana Kobilca, Ivan Grohar, Ivan Cankar, one or two male athletes (Anže Kopitar, Peter Vilfan, Brane Oblak, Iztok Puc etc.) and also female as well (probably Tina Maze or Petra Majdič, Katarina Srebotnik). I checked all of them and all have free pics already uploaded to wiki. I have mostly refrained from chosing political figures but I think Milan Kučan should be there (first president since independence) or Danilo Türk (the current president). Anyway, there are plenty of picks.Ratipok (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Famous Slovenes are also Rihard Jakopič, Jože Plečnik, Slavko Avsenik, Oton Župančič, Božidar Jakac, Janez Drnovšek, Ita Rina, Valentin Vodnik, Boris Pahor, Janez Bleiweis, Jože Pučnik, and others. The article Germans has 25 people in its infobox, whereas French people has 29. Estonians have 4. It would be worth to look at these articles' discussion pages to find out how they were chosen and why so. --Eleassar my talk 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
There's no point in listing people without a suitable photograph. Here are the ones at Slovenia#People Commons gallery. --Sporti (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but there are more suitable profile photos on wiki then the ones on your link (just check the above mentioned articles). Unfortunatly some of the famous Slovenes doesnt have pics (Bojan Križaj, Ivo Daneu for example) so we must go with what we have.Ratipok (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I have some problems with the coice of the images. First, I disagree with putting Gregorij Rožman. What's the rationale? He is only controversial, but not in any way particularly important (what would his contribution be)? Why don't we replace him with another Catholic eccleciasltical figure (Slomšek would come to mind). Second: we have 2 politicians from the post-1990 period, both from the left-wing spectrum. Wouldn't it be more balanced and neutral if we chose to keep either Kučan or Drnovšek (my preference would be for the latter, and I can explain why in more detail), and insert one from the opposite spectrum (Pučnik would come to mind first). Third: Pregl is problematic. He was of Slovene origin, and born in Ljubljana, sure, but as far as I know he didn't really identify himself as Slovene, especially in the later period of his life. Why don't replace him with some equally important scinetist with more unambiguous Slovene identity; Jožef Stefan, for example. It would also be a good choice since we now only have Slovenes from present-day Slovenia and none from outside Slovenia. It would be appropriate to have a Carithian Slovene, and Stefan was of course one. Fourth: how come the first line of images is missing? Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, seems well thought out. --Eleassar my talk 14:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I changed as agreed, with one exception. After second talk, I don't think there's much need to put two post-1990 politcians there. So, instead, I inserted Plečnik who, without much doubt, was one of the most prominent Slovenes of the 20th century. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it's ok for now, but while editing I realized there's a rather big regional imbalance: of 16 people, 13 are from Carniola, 2 from Styria, and 1 Carinthian Slovene. (The gender imbalance is of course even more obvious, but let's say that is due to the long history of gender inequality, which has produced much more famous men than women ...). As I said, for now it's ok, but I advance a suggestion for discussion: I would replace somebody with Edvard Rusjan (so that we have at least one from the Slov. Littoral). According to my opinion, we should "sacrifice" the least famous and/or notable: in this case, my vote goes to Drnovšek. But as said, this is just a suggestion, I'm not insisting. Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking about the politicians too, but was not sure enough to mention it. As for Plečnik, I think that he is a good choice, but the image on Commons lacks sources to verify it's truly free, which means that it will probably be deleted (and I've marked it for deletion to clean up the Slovenia-related images). Can you provide perhaps any image of him that would be reliably free? This one[1] would do perhaps: it's from 1943, which means more than 70 years ago, and was published anonymously (the consensus at Commons is that images from Zbirka upodobitev znanih Slovencev NUK are anonymous if not written otherwise). It seems to be the oldest available at dLib. --Eleassar my talk 16:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I've uploaded this image here, so can you use it instead of the one proposed for deletion. --Eleassar my talk 16:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I also don't have any objection to display Edvard Rusjan instead of Drnovšek. Just make sure that the image is ok to use. --Eleassar my talk 17:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Re: "(...)so that we have at least one from the Slov. Littoral. (...) we should "sacrifice" the least famous and/or notable: in this case, my vote goes to Drnovšek."
I agree with Viator slovenicus that Drnovsek should be replaced by someone from Slov. Littoral, but I have a different proposal who the new one should be. I vote for the internationally known writer Vladimir Bartol. What do others think about the proposal? If the consensus may be reached, would this image be ok? DancingPhilosopher my talk 14:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I also had some other suggestions, besides Rusjan. One could be Srečko Kosovel, a sort of cultural icon (you may agree with me) and his image is also printed in the Slovenian passports. Other options that I had in mind were: Boris Pahor and, indeed, Vladimir Bartol. Now, it is true that Bartol is quite known, also in the international sphere. However, it seems to me that his popularity was temporary, due to the theme of one of his novels (which is, artistically speaking, of dubious quality; says not (only) me, but many contemporary literary critics); besides, the rest of his work is still very little known and hasn't received much critical acclaim nor popularity. I would dare to suggest that nowadays, Pahor is more known to the international public, although it is true that his popularity is limited to continental Europe (France and Italy especially, but also Germany, Austria and Spain). I think, however, that he is a better writer than Bartol, and he has also been named candidate for the Nobel Prize of Literature. Kosovel is also quite famous abroad (although mostly in specific literar milieus); on the other hand, I think he is still the most known of them all in Slovenia, and in the field of literature, he is more acclaimed than Pahor and Bartol. On the other hand, one should consider whether we don't already have enough men of letters; taking this consideration into account, Rusjan could be a better option, since we would take notable people from a wider range of occupations. Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
On a second thought, we don't really have that many men of letters; only 3 (contrary to the usual perception, I would not consider Trubar to be a primarily a man of letters). Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Pahor as a representative of Slovene minority seems like a good choice. I wonder why is Trubar included in the infobox, considering that his Slovene ethnicity is dubious and 'slovenski' was removed after a discussion from his article in the Slovene Wikipedia. As for the image, it isn't free for publication in Commons, because it was created after 1945 and not 70 years have yet passed since it was anonymously published for the first time. --Eleassar my talk 18:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I would still vote for Kosovel, though :) As for Trubar, I really fail to see where's the problem. I don't understand in which sense is it dubious. I'm not aware of the discussion on Slovenian wp, because I very rarely contribute there, but I would not take it a decisive argument. He 1) used the term "Slovenes", with a clear contextual implication that he himself included in this label; 2) the label meant roughly the same as it means today (i.e., people in Carniola, Styria, Carinthia etc. that spoke the "Slavic"/Slovene language), so there's no radical terminoligical break here. Saying that Trubar was not Slovene implies that the ethnogenesis of Slovenes took place some time between Trubar and ... I don't know whom, probably the next public figure whose ethnicity has not yet been put under doubt by some clumsy deconstructionist :) The question is of course when was then this break? Of course, the very thesis that this break in continuity, this ethnogenesis happened after Trubar is frankly unstustainable. (Btw, I'm also very skeptical of the popular notion that it happened with Trubar; there is no proof whatsoever that Trubar used linguistic & ethnic categories in any different way that his contemporaries and/or his immediate predecessors, or that he applied them to denote a different social / linguistic reality; everything instead points to the fact that he just used these categories in conformity with their contemporary usage; which means they had to exist prior to his intervention. There are some emphatic claims to the contrary, but so far, I've only seen rhetorics and suggestions, but no convincing argument.) I think I'll open the Pandora's Box now if I say that if anything, Valvasor is much more problematic than Trubar :) ... But I'm really against this "scholastic" discussions who does and who does not qualify as a Slovene; all this has to be taken cum grano salis. Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
As a non-historian I am not really qualified to judge whether he was a Slovene or not - I just wanted to mention that in the Slovene Wikipedia I mentioned an article by J. Kosi and another historian expressed his opinion that the descriptor should be removed and then it was (see sl:Pogovor:Primož Trubar) This means that in the scholarly world the opinions whether he was a Slovene or not are divided. Should we only have those people in the infobox that are consensually regarded as Slovenes or also those that are regarded as such by the majority? We'll have to check with other nations and ask at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups what's been done in such cases. Kosovel would be ok for me. As for Valvasor, as much as I've heard, he is usually classified as a Carniolan so should perhaps be removed too. I'm not sure about Vega and Gallus, but they also lived before the 19th century. It's better to clarify this so that there won't be doubts later, if perhaps someone decides to make this article a GA. --Eleassar my talk 22:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
If we only take those who are "consensually regarded as Slovenes", we lose half of the canon :) To be sure, I don't know of any text or quote, in which Prešeren descibes himself as a Slovene (in fact, I think that his only "ethnic" self-qualification might be when he writes, "We, Upper Illyrians" to a letter to Vraz ... which was, of course, meant as an irony). I'm just trying to show the absurdity of a too litteralist approach. Anyway, I think Valvasor is the only one there whose affiliation with Slovene ethnicity is dubious. As for the others: the thesis that Slovene ethnicity only emerged in the 19th century, when it was articulated in the terms of nationhood, doesn't hold water; and as far as I know, it is defended only by a handful of historians (I have serious doubts, whether in Slovene one could even use the plural form for them :)), non of whom, to my knowledge, is an expert on the 19th century. As for Kosi: this is not meant as a disqualification, but I warn you that he is also not an expert on the Early Modern period; nor is he, as far as I know an expert on identity formations (not to speak of ethnogenesis, which is a sociological process); he is an expert on identity discourses and historiography in the 20th century (if I'm not mistaken). Viator slovenicus (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, let's then replace Valvasor with someone else and leave the others as is. If some reader will disagree with the inclusion of Trubar or someone else, probably they'll post here and we can review his arguments at that time and remove them if the consensus emerges to do so. --Eleassar my talk 11:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I support the life philosophy, "let's not create unnecessary problems". Let's just keep Valvasor; if we say nowadays that identities are fluid, this also means one can't fixate them once and for all ... Btw, look at the Croats page, thew have Gundulić, Bošković, not to mention all those medieval kings when, really, the term Croat had a significantly different meaning than today; or the Greeks, from Homer (lol), Byzantine emperors to Makarios, or the Belarussians with Kosciuszko. Compared to these cases, the Valvasor "issue" is, really, a petty one :) And btw, who other would "claim" Valvasor anyway? Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think other incorrect cases can be an apology. We have Valvasor described in the article and categorised as Carniolan, not Slovene. Either we should leave him out of the infobox or we should correct the article about him, otherwise his identity will be unclear and will raise questions. --Eleassar my talk 19:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not about correct or incorrect, it's that neither identity nor ethnicity are fixed categories. They both depend on various factors, and are linked to different perceptions. Therefore, one can either go the "safe" way with the risk of empoversihing the canon, or actually try to collect a significant canon (cum grano salis), even though it contains "dubious" figures. Of course, this is just my opinion, and I don't know whether it's backed by any wp policy. Nevertheless, despite the fact that it was me who raised the issue in the first place, I would suggest it stays; and if some ethnic Carniolans show up, we give him back to them :) Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I was so skeptical because there were many figures removed from as non-Slavic from Slavs, before the entire collection was replaced with the flag. I presume that some day there will be an article titled Carniolans, and it will probably include Valvasor among others. In the end, he can stay in, however it would be good if also other editors commented on this, to see if this has a wider support. --Eleassar my talk 22:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A few more women?

It's very obvious that there isn't any sort of gender balance in this section of the article and that this is largely due to the historical presence of gender inequality leading to the production of many more notable men than women. Even so, I was wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to consider replacing one or two of the current people with Zofka Kveder, Josipina Turnograjska, Franja Bojc Bidovec or Barbara of Cilli. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 13:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Periods

Years of Lead??? Svinčena leta??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.74.8 (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Slovenes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. TravisRade (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not an RfC and it doesn't follow the RfC process. It's just a collection of opinions and has no authority. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The RfC was opened correctly. please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. Dkfldlksdjaskd (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

New "Genetics" section

I've just checked the sources (actually, it's only the one source) being used for the newly created "Genetics" section, and have sincere doubts as to whether Veneti.info is a reliable source. There's no information as to the academic credentials of those involved in it, and the PDF being sourced was written by a couple of people I can find absolutely nothing about. In fact, the PDF itself is a self-published piece that uses Wikipedia as a resource (see WP:WINARS. I think that, if anyone wants to introduce this content, it needs to go to the WP:RSN for evaluation. It rings alarm bells with me, so I'm removing the section altogether pending further discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I am surprised I cannot find information of Slovenes in England/UK. As far as I know the population is significant but I cannot find a primary source. Any wikipedist has better information? 88.200.94.129 (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

One source I know lists Slovene researchers working in the UK. See Slovenski znanstveniki in znanstvenice po svetu (Slovene scientists around the world). If you select "Velika Britanija" (Great Britain) in the "Država" (Country) menu just underneath the second map, you get 36 names. The list is regularly updated. I know it's a small subset of what you need, but maybe as a start... — Yerpo Eh? 08:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Slovenes. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Slovenes. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slovenes. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

2010s: Slovenian disillusionment with socio-economic elites

Wouldn't this section be much better on a History of Slovenia page? I'm not sure it's relevant enough to merit it's own section on the ethnic group page...--Yalens (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Slovenes. Krakkos (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slovenes/Archive_1&oldid=1251182145"