Jump to content

Talk:Slovenia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Map of Slovenia

PrimožAbsolute location (45`15`N/15`/10`E) the map of Slovenia is really very much primitive and I am afraid that such map won't tell to occasional reader a lot. There are "only" ten "main" cities on it, no rivers, no mountains, no lakes, no national parks and such. But I guess it would be just enough to put Slovenia on a World's map somewhere southern of, let us say, Austria. What about the famous Kozler's map of Slovene countries at the fall of 19th century. It would certalnly clearly show how nations are disappearing from a human history. And in the end its borders are just old republic's bolders from the former Yugoslavia and the history still has to do a lot of things to define (once and for all) its present, past or future borders. Cheers. -- XJam 2002.06.19 3 Wednesday (0) - 16:06, Jun 18, 2002 (UTC)

Slovene National Motto

I think you are right about the motto Zocky. "Zive naj vsi narodi" means " God's blessing on all nations" and is the first line of the National Anthem not a motto. Sannse 14:36 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. See Zdravljica for translation and related links. But since we're speaking about Slovene national motto and as Zocky said that Slovenia does not have any -- we can invent it hereby. Recently I've seen for a good one from the video of a song Od ljudi za ljudi (From people for people) of Murat & Jose and goes like this: Solidarity is mega (--is cool). How does one motto come into one nation's reality in fact? I do not know. Someone said that Slovenes are like robots. It could be Adi Smolar's Arbeit Macht Frei-like words from his song: Je treba delat. (The Work is a Must). Any positive and truthful thought might work here, I guess. There might also be Prešeren's words from Zdravljica: žive naj vsi narodi all the same, since this great poem was in the same manner invented for the National anthem. I would like to hear some other proposals. And we have to have in mind that Slovenes are not like far Eastern thinkers, philosophers, yogies and swamies. Simple peasant logic is 'the coolest' for them, ha, ha. Interesting topic, anyway. See ya. --XJam 03:24 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
Žive naj vsi narodi actually I'd prefere if there was no God in transaltion - it'd be more accurate = Let all nations live
'cause it goes like this: Žive naj vsi narodi, ki hrepene dočakat dan da koder sonce hodi, prepir iz sveta bo pregnan...
so it would go literary like this: Let all the nations which are craving to live the day whereever sun is (walking) showing, all conflicts of the world shall be banished...
I'll take the God part in consider while there is no mentioning of HIM in whole song and contents.
thnx for reading this ADDon :-)
BYE and HAPPY New Year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.161.5.191 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


I would like to support the removal of the national "motto" from the page. Since there is no official motto, it is clear that it has been arbitrarily chosen by a wikipedia contributor and bears no actual significance. In addition, it has been mistranslated, as Žive naj vsi narodi means Let all nations live or Long live all nations - nowhere does it mention God or god at all. I am aware that this is an actual English translation that has been published, however, that does not make it a correct one and might even give the wrong impression about the country. Madmatt04 12:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Poems don't get direct word-by-word translations, because you lose the artistic value. It's a poem, and the correct translation is "God's blessing on all nations". However, it is not the motto of Slovenia so it does not matter anyway. edolen1 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you change the meaning with translation, I don't find it especially artistic. --Eleassar my talk 16:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The meaning didn't change. Let me point out that Prešeren wrote the poem in 19th century Roman Catholic Slovenia, and mentioning God was not controversial back then. Besides, I doubt he ever expected it to become an anthem of a (secular) country. edolen1 16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with edolen1: Most translations of poetry are not 100% literal, word-for-word translations. The important thing is that the spirit (and meaning) of the original is preserved, and this translation does that very effectively, IMHO. However, I do agree that this isn't an "unofficial motto"; in fact, the phrase loses its intended meaning when taken out of context. WorldWide Update 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the original of Zdravljica contains the lines "Bog našo nam deželo, Bog živi ves slovenski svet," which proves that this hysteria (IMHO) over the word "God" in the aforementioned translation is totally out-of-place. After all, would translating "Živi naj Wikipedija" as "God bless Wikipedia", for example, also change the intended meaning of the phrase? Of course not. (And this is an atheist speaking.) WorldWide Update 09:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Slovenia Has No Motto

Although country/state mottoes are quite common in many parts of the world, Slovenia has none. I believe that the inclusion of the 'unofficial' motto on Wikipedia is unnecessary and misleading. There are many other slogans that could be posted instead of "Žive naj vsi narodi", however, none is correct.

I suggest it be removed.

Sgrabro 16:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. edolen1 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. Besides, you are changing the meaning of "Žive naj vsi narodi" ("God's blessing on all nations") when you leave out the rest of the stanza ("...who long and work for that bright day," and so on). WorldWide Update 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proper English names for Slovene toponyms

The city of Štore now links to absurd Store. Probably it should be redirected as [[Store (city)]] or [[Store, Slovenia]]. Why John von Neumann wasn't Slovene or whoever invented the ASCII code? :-) Lep pozdrav. --XJamRastafire 16:03 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Štore municipality is now on the Store, Slovenia. Please proof-read that article so that we can use it as a template for other statistical data for Slovenian municipalities. --Romanm 12:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

November 1st

Shouldn't "Dan spomina na mrtve" be translated as "Remembrance Day", not "All Soul's Day", which (a) is something else and (b) takes place on November 2nd? --romanm 21:41 Nov 2, 2003 (CET)

I agree. November 1st is actually All Saint's day (not All Souls' Day) and what's more, it's not even called that officially. I also think that the list should distinguish state holidays from work-free days (christmas, easter, assumption), since they're not the same thing - national flag is flown on the 26th of December and, according to law, should NOT be flown on the 25th.
Zocky 14:47, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
OK, I changed it. Any thoughts? Zocky 15:25, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

European Union and Slovenia

While Slovenia and other countries are going to join the European Union on 1st May 2004, we are formally not there yet! So we should remove the page footer that lists candidates among EU members. --romanm 19:35, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Roman you're absolutely correct - but fairly speaking this is just a matter of time. Accepting your proposal I've added EU enlargement instead of deleting the existing form, which is my invention. (Just think on that Montenegrin joke about a hydroelectric power station ... :>) We Europeans still need to learn a lot of European geography... I hope this is okay now. BR --XJamRastafire 13:30, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Initial classification

It is somewhat amusing to see littoral being mentioned before pre-Alpine in the country's description... alphabetical sorting of adjectives, I guess? ;) --Shallot 12:53, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

La Francophonie

I removed the box and added a text about the membership. It seems rather remote and not of to much importance for the understanding of Slovenia, rather would I return the ex-YU box, but that's still in discussion so let's leave it this way for now. Jakob Stevo 17:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Občine

I also removed the Občine to a seperate article, they are just in they way if you wan't to get the basic facts at a glance Jakob Stevo 17:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

SFRY

Avala, where did you reach the consensus about SFRY box? --XJamRastafire 16:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Head of state

This article has the following paragraph:

The Slovenian head of state is the president, who is elected by popular vote every 5 years. In his task as head of the executive branch, the president is aided by the prime minister and the council of ministers or cabinet, which are elected by parliament.

IMHO from above paragraph foreigners will gain wrong impression that it is the president who is ruling the country, while in fact Slovenia is parliamentary democracy and president has only representative role (unless there is a war, of course, in which case his/her role as the supreme commander of armed forces becomes important). Could this be rephrased? --romanm (talk) 11:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No need to rephrase. Head of state is a neutral expression which includes presidents and monarchs, ie. people with representative roles. Head of government is the leader of the executive branch (prime minister and in some countries the president). You can often read about international meetings of heads of states and governments. Zocky 13:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, yes, there is a need to rephrase if the Slovenian head of state is not the head of government, as Romanm has implied. I'll go check Politics of Slovenia and update accordingly. --Joy [shallot] 14:11, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Constitution says e.g. that the President only promulgates laws. This is an executive branch of a parliamentary system, not a presidential system. --Joy [shallot]
Sorry, I didn't correctly read the above sentence. Your version is of course correct. Zocky 15:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Recognition date

Although some countries (e.g. Germany, Sweden, Iceland, if not mentioning Baltic states et al.) did it before, the then EU (12 members) in December 1991 agreed to recognise Slovenian (and Croatian) independence on January 15, 1992. They did so and many other world's countries followed on the same day or very soon after the date, with the USA and PR China being among the last ones (doing so in April). So, should January 15, 1992 be added to the Recognition under independence subsection. After all that date was (and still is) printed on the first Slovenian banknotes although they were issued about 8 months later or more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.86.2 (talk) 12:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup 2005 in Ljubljana?

I proposed that the Wikimedia meetup 2005 should be in Ljubljana. Check out if interested. Zocky 18:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regions

I don't think the Slovenian regions mentioned on this page are the official ones. I found two, not completely consistent lists:

Could someone who knows more (and who can read Slovenian) fix this? Are the regions named presently the historical regions? Markussep 09:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a bit of a problem here.. On one hand, we have the proposed regionalization by the government (still in preparation, mind you), which will most likely have 12 regions (like the World Gazeeter suggests), and on the other hand there are the historical regions, which are around 8 or 9. Let me just point out that the regions suggested at www.slovenia-tourism.si are not the historical regions, they are merely regions based on tourist offer and only partially follow historical regions. For example Notranjska and Primorska are fused together, while Northern Primorska and Western Gorenjska become the Julian Alps, etc. Unfortunately there is no accurate division of historical regions. The current division in the article is based on historical regions and I think is quite accurate, except for maybe Bela krajina (separate from Dolenjska according to some), Zasavje (a bit of a disputed area, partially in Štajerska, partially in Dolenjska) and Prekmurje (the Mura River basin is called Pomurje). Edolen1 13:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The Erased"

Now that it's been mentioned in the article, I think we need to clear this up. Amnesty International states that 18,305 people were erased, so the 10% of the population (200,000 people!) is exaggerated. The UVI (Media and Public Relations Office of the Gov't) also states that around 18,000 people did not apply for citizenship and were therefore "erased". Although later on in the article it says that out of those 18,000, only around 4,000 still do not have did not regulate any status in Slovenia, others all either applied for citizenship later on or obtained a residence permit, either temporary or permanent.
Anybody want to share their view? Edolen1 18:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

New template

New template has been created (copied from Commons): {{template:Slovenian flag}}. It appears like this: {{Slovenian flag}}. It works also by using:

  • template:Slovene
  • template:Slovenian
  • template:Slovene flag.

Cheers! --Eleassar777 16:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I whod like to sugest we change the picute of the flag, the curent one makes the cout of arms look to smal, this one http://www.highwaygold.co.uk/images/downloads/flags/reduced/slovenia.jpg
on the other hand is a very nice example, and this picture is also used in the EU templates —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaticMan (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions

The article suggests, but does not state outright, that municipalities are currently the only administrative local government entities in the country. Is this true? Or is there something intermediate between the regions and the municipalities? john k 23:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is true. --Eleassar777 my talk 11:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, currently the primary and only division are municipalities. Administrative regions are soon to be established, but regionalization won't take place for a few years.. edolen1 12:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slovenia was part of: ...

I find this rather confusing. Slovenia was not the official name nor its short version of the territory more or less occupied by modern Republika Slovenija (RS) in all of the listed state entities (Kingdom of Yugoslavia, for instance, used the term of "Dravska banovina"). Plus, the list seems to start quite randomly and lacks certain entities. I guess a more detailed list, starting from the end of the WWI, would go sth like this:

- State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs (unrecognized)
- Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (since dec. 1918)
- Kingdom of Yugoslavia (since jan. 1929)
- Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (since WWII)
- Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (since 1946)
- SFRY (since 1963)

But, is this really relevant, anyway? Perhaps it shoul be stated under the paragraph "history"?

The paragraph history contains wrong info on SFRJ, check SFRJ. --Golioder 23:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following links from this article:

If anyone has any objections, please let us know here, so that we can discuss this. --romanm (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

GeaBios is a relevant source for maps for Slovenia. The service is running 200GB of data in different web applications based on maps and vector data for the area and wider (Maps of different scales, orthophoto, digital terrain model). GPS navigation is included. About 500.000 addresses (complete address coding system - updated every year). About 120 pages in session Slovenia in Brief prepared for Find Your Research and Development Partner in Slovenia in the year 2002 (10.000 CD + Internet application) for Ministry of education, science and sport. See GeaBios for more details.--User:MaNeMeBasat 15:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The day I tested GeaBios, I only saw a logo of Coca Cola when I clicked magnifier, so I assumed it was bogus. Today I see that there really is a content beside the subliminal commercial, and I no longer object including it. --romanm (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I would leave the public libraries and all government links in. Zocky 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
All of the government links are available from www.gov.si that was left in the article. Information about public libraries can be obtained by using COBISS. I substituted the old link [1] with this one. Is there some specific information that is missing in COBISS and present in the old page? IMHO we should keep the external links section as short as possible. --romanm (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I added link in this article from the "Government communication office - About Slovenia". I put it on first place because it's official governmental site giving information about Slovenia (news, Slovenia in brief, map, insignia, photo material, audio-visual material, publications, addresses and contacts, background information (culture, economy, education, environment, foreign affairs, history, internal affairs, social affairs, sport, transport and more)). --jonson22

"Portal" position

It should be higher, if not at the top, see Chess for example. --andrejj 07:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It was at the bottom in the United Kingdom article, and it didn't look good at the top of the article. The current solution is completely fine by me though. edolen1 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed image

I have removed the image Ljubljana_Franciscan_church.jpg from the section Economy; it is completely unrelated to this topic. --Eleassar my talk 20:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Added image

I've added an image of World Trade Center Ljubljana which is related to the economy of Slovenia.

Lord Rok 17:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the source of this image? --romanm (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It's from the site of Slovenian Government. Lord Rok (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Please, put the source on the image page. Also, try not to use name like Image:020.jpg, maybe Ljubljana World Trade.jpg!?. --AndrejJ 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue – you might be interested in a poll currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! Bitola | talk | 11:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Slo regions marked3.png

Slo regions marked3.png

It would be great to have this image transformed into a set of links, like it has been done for Image:NetherlandsNavigationButton.gif in the {{NavigationNetherland}} (see below). Does anyone know how to do that? --Eleassar my talk 09:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Utrecht (province)Category:OverijsselCategory:North HollandCategory:FrieslandCategory:DrentheCategory:Groningen (province)Category:FlevolandCategory:South HollandCategory:GelderlandCategory:GelderlandCategory:ZeelandCategory:North BrabantCategory:Limburg (Netherlands)

Landscape types

Is this map correct? I always thought Bela krajina (White Carniola) is of the Panonian type. --Eleassar my talk 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several versions of this division into 4 geographic regions, and as far as I know, there is not even a consensus within the scientific community about which one is the most "correct", so to say. Bela krajina is a "victim" of these versions. Some regard it as part of the Pannonian region, some regard it as part of the Dinaric region. Another area with a simiral problem is Celje and the surroundings (Žalec, etc.), which are sometimes considered Alpine (as on that map) and sometimes Pannonian. edolen1 14:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the map is correct. Bela krajina is one of the most typical Dinaric corrosion plain. But it is true there are strong Panonian climate influences. - User:Draper 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

The word for ethnicity used is 'Slovenians', both in the text and on the graph. But it should have been (I think) 'Slovenes'. Because 'Slovenian' is someone who comes from Slovenia and not the ethnicity. If you say on that list Slovenian, then we would also have to say 'Croatian', 'Serbian', 'Bosnian' ... (and not 'Croat', 'Serb', Bosniak')... Do you agree (that it should be changed to 'Slovenes')? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.135.108.157 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In the case of Serbia, there's (usually) a distinction between "Serbs" and "Serbians", the former referring to people of Serb ethnicity and the latter describing citizens of Serbia. "Slovenes" and "Slovenians", on the other hand, are generally synonymous -- in other words, both words tend to have the same inherent meaning. There have been long discussions and revert wars in the past over which one is more common; "Slovenians" emerged as the preferred form, at least on Wikipedia. WorldWide Update 17:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't Slovenians also a nationality from the former Yugoslavia?

Would someone who knows the subject give an explanation of this paragraph?

Slovenia's main ethnic group is Slovenians (83%). Nationalities from the former Yugoslavia (Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks & Muslims by nationality) form 6.3% and the Hungarian, Italian and Roma minorities 0.6% of the population.

I may be missing something, but Slovenians are also a nationality from the former Yugoslavia. In any case, the paragraph is somewhat ambiguous. I think the simplest solution is to add "Other" to the second phrase, thus "Other nationalities from the former Yugoslavia...". Though someone else might come up with a better idea. RedZebra 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's self evident that Slovenians are also ex-Yugoslav, as it is stated in the article itself. But that's IMHO, if anyone disagrees, it should be changed. (Wikingus 12:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

Administrative divisions?

I don't agree with the title "Administrative divisions" as other than municipalities all other divisions hold absolutely no administrative functions. I think something like "Geographical divisions" would be better, or if anyone has any other suggestions, they're welcome to post them. edolen1 11:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Biodiversity

I edited this section as well as I could after I saw the prompt to do so. If anyone wants it to be representative of Wikipedia in general, I don't feel that most of the material can actually remain because it doesn't seem like something an encyclopedia (or Wikipedia) would have. I'm not saying, "Axe it;" I just don't think it can get much better. I made those changes before logging in. Sorry. (~~Ejoty~~September 18, 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejoty (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct map

Well, which one map is correct? It is changed twice a week ;-) --AndrejJ 06:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Adopting euro

For those of you who are interested in making changes on 1 January 2007, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Geometric center of Slovenia

As someone has set up the "discuss" link but not pursued it - merge, and perhaps a list of "geometric centres of states/continents of the world" (I read somewhere that Kyzyl is the geometric centre of Asia) Jackiespeel 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Opposed. The GEOSS is not just some point in Slovenia, but has a wider meaning in Slovenian society. It's a popular meeting point and daytrip destination that is well-known by most Slovenians, not to mention an important monument. edolen1 16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southern Europe whose scope would include Slovenia. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Symbols of Slovenia

It has been nothiced that there is no mention of Slovenian cultural symbols.This might not be BIG and important, but i don't think it is so unimportant that we shod leave it out completly. Please reply, i want ot know what the comunity thinks about this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaticMan (talk • contribs) 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC).


There should definitely be atleast a mention of slovene national symbols like the linden leaf, the slovene hat("windischer hut"), Triglav, perhaps even the Black Panther, Duke's Chair, Prince's Stone or Carinthian Cross, but that depends on the Austrian response(since they believe it belongs to the region that is now in their country and is therefore their cultural heritage). I'm planning of putting a section together soon and any help or input would be nice. Also, should it be a separate article or just a part of "Slovenia"?195.210.248.41 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been created, although it is still going to be reworked. It is at National symbols of Slovenia. Have fun. Nerby (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes made 1-Jan-07 1500UTC

The national motto was removed since it was only a copy from the first line out of the national anthem. Also, the flag is is violation. The dimensions are wrong, correction needed. -to be deleted after corectins have been made Hekos 15:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Independence or secession ?

Slovenia did not gain independence from Yugoslavia. Slovenia was not a colony, their representatives were at the AVNOJ congress where the post-WWII Yugoslavia was founded. Slovenia seceded from Yugoslavia. And its "territorial defence" forces killed scores of unarmed Yugoslav Army soldiers, a crime that is still covered up.Sachertorte 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, if some british-french-spanish guys can go to america and kill indians and call themselfs 'americans' and say they became independent so can Slovenia!

BTW: What do you care about coverups? Do you really want the Slovene secret service on your door :D :P MihaS 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Sachertorte: stop beating this dead horse. There was no crime, even the Serbian authorities say so. If you have some solid evidence - which I seriously doubt you do - you're welcome to present it to the press and the Hague tribunal, or whatever. As far as the first part of your writing is concerned; I have never heard anyone call it secession, except for the Serbians. The newly formed countries were fighting for independence, so the current naming is appropriate. Wikingus 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

SR Slovenia / Republic of Slovenia: continuity

The article Socialist Republic of Slovenia gives the date 8 March 1990 as the date of disestablishment, however this article doesn't mention it. Why not? I think it should be mentioned here in the infobox, as SR Slovenia was succeeded by the Republic of Slovenia. (For a related discussion, the conclusion of which should perhaps be revised, see also [2]) --Eleassar my talk 23:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

We had pretty much the same conundrum with Republic of Croatia (1990–1991) - see how that's handled. I think it's a workable compromise - the change of political system to democracy isn't so critical to warrant the exclusion of the stub from the main article. Sovereignty, on the other hand, is critical enough to warrant separation. But aside from that, there remains the issue of how to name the pre-independence country article - using the one with the SR prefix looks like it matches WP:COMMONNAME. Alternatively, a simple vernacular name such as 'Slovenia in Yugoslavia' might be common enough. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The decision to merge that article to the SR Slovenia was a good one, as it was a transition period. The history section in this article needs to be polished further, I agree. It does mention April 1990 election, though. I did a significant shortening of the whole history part in a push towards a good or an eventual FA earlier this year (some help with it would still be appreciated) as the section was too long compared to the rest of the article. For the time being, a detailed account of the era is better suited for another article. As for the infobox, I think the current situation is ok, we don't want to have too many names in it (among other names, it was also Ljudska republika Slovenija etc.) --Tone 08:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I've had a look at Socialist Republic of Croatia and the date of dissolution given in the infobox of that article is 25 October 1991, unlike Socialist Republic of Slovenia, where it is 8 March 1990. I agree it would make sense to move the article 'Socialist Republic of Slovenia' to another title so as to avoid fragmentation and cover the entire period in one article. Probably, 'Slovenia in Second Yugoslavia' or 'Slovenia in Yugoslavia (19451944–1991)' would be ok. Then, also the date 8 March 1991 in the infobox can be replaced with 25 June 1991, to fill the gap. I'll also add the date 8 March 1990 to the 'History' section in the 'Slovenia' article. --Eleassar my talk 13:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure which date regarding the name change is to be cited. According to [3], the correct date is actually 7 March 1990; per [4], it is 8 March 1990. --Eleassar my talk 13:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC) According to Uradni list / Official Gazette, the amendment to the constitution was passed on 7 March 1990, but declared official on 8 March 1990, so the latter date should be used, due to "Ti ustavni amandmaji ... začnejo veljati z dnem njihove razglasitve". Agree? --Eleassar my talk 14:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Choice of images: 20th century

The images in the sections describing the history of Slovenia in the 20th century are almost solely about the war (Renče, Partisan cap, execution of a civilian, Rožna Dolina fighting), destruction (National Hall) or Communist oppression (Square of the Republic, even not depicting a historical event). Is this truly representative of the century? It seems skewed to me. What about including a photo of the proclamation of independence in 1991 and some other instead? --Eleassar my talk 09:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, the WW2 and the interwar period sections are too long in comparison to the rest of the history part. And there are too many images anyway. I did some heavy trimming last year but we'll have to do more. By the way, I see you and Viator have been working on the article recently, what about renewing that push forward a FA again? Now, the article is already in a much better shape than it used to be.

--Tone 09:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What is your argument for a claim that WW2 period section is too long, when it is still much shorter then the one about Reformation AND I think historians agree that WW2 and the active role which otherwise passive Slovenes took during the war changed the national character similarly to how it was changed during the Reformation period? This is also my argument why I think this section should not be trimmed anymore. DancingPhilosopher 14:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The WWII section is much longer than the one about Reformation (only 3 sentences about reformation, compared to two extensive sub-sections about WWII). I agree it shouldn't be trimmed at the expense of relevant information. However, superfluous information and redundancies should be removed. The name of individual Axis military commanders is not a crucial information in this article. Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The reformation section (i) spans over 400 years of history, as opposed to the WW2, and (ii) still needs to be trimmed. The whole history section is too long. We have a separate article, History of Slovenia, that needs work and is a great place to go into the details. At this point, I'd like to add that 7 links in See also are exaggeration. There should be one See also, at the beginning of the History section. Noone expects the reader to learn everything about Slovenian history from Slovenia article. --Tone 17:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The ideal would be to have one link in See for each section, but for that we would need to have good comprehensive articles (such as WWI in Slovenia, or WWII in Slovenia or History of Slovenia (1945-1990)). For now, we don't (hopefully, that will change in the future). So I think it's better to have a bit more links for now. The History section might be long, but I'd like to point out that this tends to be one of the longest sections in articles about other countries, as well. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The "Biodiversity" section still needs reworking. I plan it, but don't know when will I have time. — Yerpo Eh? 09:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree - several section (also e.g. economy, culture) need a thorough rewrite. --Eleassar my talk 10:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Yes, I've noticed this, too (although I believe I'm the main responsible of this: mea culpa). I'll try to address the issues raised from my point of view:
I don't think there are too many pictures. Every subsection has one, true, but I think they're well distributed in relation to the length of the text.
Length of the section: yes, it is very long. Too long, maybe. I try to keep it short, the thing is that there are contributors coming with accurate data - and it's difficult to just delete everything with the argument that it's too long or redundant. I think this section will always keep expanding, and then from time to time one has to go through it and delete superfluous information (or move it to the History of Slovenia article, while trying to keep a certain consistency in it).
Too many pictures about violence/war: yes, that's true. That's also the reason why I removed the image of the Congress Square with the tanks. But on the other hand, the 20th century is the century of extreme violence. I would keep an image for WWI (either a picture of fighting on Slovenian soil; but on the other hand, it's more relevant to have a picture showing the consequences of war on Slovenian teritory: thus I find the "destroyed Renče pic" a good one), and one on WWII (the execution of the hostage in Medvode is an iconic one: I would only replace it by another equally famous, or by one that is really good). I would gladly replace the pic showing the fights in Rožna Dolina by another one, representing the changes that occured between 1988-1992: a civil society event, the JBTZ demonstrations, the May Declaration, the founding of DEMOS, declaration of independence, Kučan speaking at the UN for the first time ... The problem is that I haven't found any. Also, it would be nice to find a good picture representing the Communist period: since we have enough images on violence in this sub-section, one could use a picture signifying some other feature of the regime: economic developmentalism, mass mobilization of society (some picture of Tito visiting Slovenia?), socialist consumerism, some interesting Socialist monument or Socialist-style architecture ... I've inserted the image of the Republic Square, because I find it one of the most iconic urbanist projects in Ljubljana during late Socialism (plus, it had a central symbolic role for the regime). I'm sure a better choice can be found, though. Cheers, Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Eleassar: the secitions Culture and Economy need a thorough rewrite. Especially the former: there, we have to change the whole concept. Just naming allegedly "famous" or "notable" Slovenians in culture is NOT what this section should be about: we should introduce new subsections (besides Cusine, which also needs heavy editing) - Literature, Performing Arts, Visual Arts, Architecture, Media, Customs and Traditions (wich could also be included in a larger sub-section, named simply Society). Sport should go under Culture, as well (and we should balance the images there: two images on winter sports is too much).
Also, the section Politics should be about the political system (which also includes the party system, of course) and political culture, not on recent political events (except for the really important ones - a change of government or a vote of no-confidence doesn't qualify in this category in my view). I also think the section should be renamed to Government, and Political System should be the first sub-section. In English, Politics has a narrower meaning than in Slovene.
The Demographics sections lookw OK to me, the Economy one needs editing (the Tourism subsection can stay as it is, while the Trasnport one needs to be heavily edited and trimmed; we should have a short sub-section on Agriculture). Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the Tourism should be heavily edited (it's a mixture of history, geography etc., not giving much data about tourism in Slovenia), while Transport should be trimmed (partly transferred to another article). A sentence or two about agriculture may be added of course, but I don't see real need for a subsection, as agriculture makes only for 1% of the Slovenia's GDP. --Eleassar my talk 16:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
As to the history section, it should focus imo primarily on Slovenia from the time, when Slovenia the country was discussed for the first time (1840s?). It is well written, but has to be trimmed at some points yet (e.g. I don't see the data about the first grammar as very relevant to the article) and some other things are missing (e.g. Treaty of Rapallo).
I don't see a convincing argument to rename the 'Politics' section - it's a standard heading (see e.g. Germany, France; [United Kingdom]] even has 'Government' as subsection of 'Politics').
The lead section should be reviewed. I've separated the content by paragraphs about definition, economy, geography, history, demographics, culture - they should be rewritten so that they present the very essential and summarised information from individual paragraphs. --Eleassar my talk 12:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that all the important information can be find there. Sure, some stylistic improvements are always welcome. --Tone 12:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added some material about geography; politics is missing, economy and culture have to be expanded. --Eleassar my talk 12:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, then let's leave the heading Politics. As for History, the idea of focusing on the period after the 1840s doesn't make much sense to me. First, because the notion of Slovenia is only a consequence of the emergence of the Slovenian national movement, which is in turn a consequence of the development of a specific Slovene identity (first linguistic, then ethnic, cultural, and finally national) - the term and the movement are inseparable until 1918, when a first entity with this name is (albeit shortly) formed. Second, because this section should describe the history of the territory known today as Slovenia (same goes for example for the history of Pakistan - a name invented in the 1930s - but the history section starts with ancient times). I agree the section can be trimmed: the data on the first grammar is certainly relevant (as a crucial step in the creation of a specific Slovene linguistic identity, which gave rise to Slovene national identity and thus the notion of Slovenia) - the question is whether it is has to be mentioned (I think it could be omitted). Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in the lead sentence

I removed a mention of Yugoslavia from the lead sentence ("[Slovenia is] is the westernmost and the northernmost of the former Yugoslav Republics") for the following reasons:

1.) While Yugoslavia is an important part of Slovenia's history (and is discussed in the article's history section, and even further down in the lead paragraph), it's not automatically more significant than, say, Slovenia's Austro-Hungarian past. In both cases, we're dealing with history.

2.) Describing a country's current geographical placement by referring to a historical geopolitical entity seems inherently problematic. --WorldWide Update (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Slovenia/Slovenes

What I'm thinking about is whether the article is not too Slovene-centered, putting too much emphasis on the Slovene nation and disregarding other nations in the Slovenian territory. The German perspective, history and influence seem to be entirely missing from the 'History' section. --Eleassar my talk 10:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. At least for the mid/late 19th century, a sentence or two about the Germans should be added (and in the previous session, it should be stressed that most of contemporary Slovenia was part of the German cultural sphere). Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Slavic establishment of Carantania

I think that the paragraph about the resistance against the Avars and the formation of Carantania should be revised. Per P. Štih,[5] the Duchy of Carantania was not established by Slavs: "Karantanci, za katere smo rekli, da jih ne moremo enačiti s Slovenci, prav tako niso bili istovetni s Slovani, ki so se konec 6. stoletja naselili v koroški prostor, ampak so se v novo, karantansko etnično skupnost izoblikovali tudi iz staroselcev nekdanje rimske province Norik, v ta proces pa so bili očitno vključeni še Hrvati, o katerih prisotnosti v koroškem prostoru pričajo krajevna imena, pa tudi kakšni avarski ali germanski drobci in nemara celo Dudlebi in Bolgari." ["The Carantanians, for whom we said that can't be equaled with the Slovenes, were not identical to the Slavs, who settled in the Carinthian space at the end of the 6th century, but were formed into a new, Carantanian ethnic community also from the native inhabitants of the former Roman province of Noricum, and the process seemingly included also the Croats, the presence of whom is attested with place names, and also some Avarian and German fragments and perhaps even the Dudlebs and the Bulgars.] --Eleassar my talk 09:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Carantanian ethnic identity was formed by a merger of different peoples, one of them were Slavs.

Justice and Reason (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No ethnic community is completely homogeneous. However, one can't disregard the numerous early medieval sources that equate Carantanians with Slavs (nor the earlier research by historians like Bogo Grafenauer that stressed the quite radical discontinuity in the topography of the Eastern Alps after the Slavic settlement); despite the obvious fact that there were different ethnic groups present in the Carantanian space, the Slavic hegemony and the ethnic continuity with modern Slovenes seem two rather undisputed facts. How would you rephrase the sentences/ paragparphs? Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to leave it as it is after I'd consulted further sources. --Eleassar my talk 16:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In 1848, United Slovenia was not a mass movement

"In 1848, a mass political and popular movement for the United Slovenia (Zedinjena Slovenija) emerged as part of the Spring of Nations movement within the Austrian Empire."

Incorrect. The movement was supported mostly by intellectuals. Most Slovenes were still too preoccupied with other things to be engaged in national sentiments.

A widespread national movement emerged in the 1860s. That is when the majority of Slovenes gained a national consciousness. The movement did draw a lot from the United Slovenia sentiments, among other things. But back in 1848, the movement was still limited to a relatively small circle.

Justice and Reason (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. This is also stated e.g. by Gow and Carmichael in Slovenia and the Slovenes: a small state and the new Europe (2000): "In Ljubljana, a small number of radicals even began to call for a united Slovenia (Zedinjena Slovenija)" (pg. 19). Although I think it was in Vienna. Be bold and feel welcome to correct such statements. --Eleassar my talk 20:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense. Although, there has been some research in the past decade or so that showed the involvement of wida strata of the population in the movement. I have in mind Stane Granda's "Prva odločitev Slovencev za Slovenijo : dokumenti z uvodno študijo in osnovnimi pojasnili" (Ljubljana, 1999); he found a lot of proof that there was a quite massive popular rally around the project of United Slovenia (mostly in the form of petitions). Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I've come accross a quote of the historian Fran Zwitter stating: "In the Slovenske Gorice and Prlekija, /in 1848/ the Slovene national movement had a massive support as nowehere else, due to the fact that the local landed nobility was pro-Frankfurt /i.e., for the elections to the German Frankfurt Parliament/" (O Slovenskem narodnem vprašanju, Ljubljana, SM, 1990, p. 293). Zwitter's quote is ambiguous, but it seems he wants to say that the mass movement was limited to some restricted areas in north-eastern Lower Styria. Reading his article on the 1848 revolution & the Slovenes (in the same book), one gets the impression that it was not only an intellectual movement, but it involved also a large share of town-dwellers, although this seems to have been limited to Ljubljana and some smaller Carniolan towns. The abovementioned study by Granda suggests there were some other areas where the national movement gathered a massive support (parts of Lower Carniola). So, I suggest we rephrase the sentence in the sense that it was an incipient mass movement or that it provoked some popular response. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the current version does not imply the programme was limited to a few radicals, therefore it seems good to me. Do you think we should go into more detail about this? --Eleassar my talk 21:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Not really. I just answered to the previous comment, without realizing that the text had changed in the meantime. I think that it can state as it is. I would delete the mention to Janez Bleiweis as leader of the Slovene national movement: a) that's an exaggeration (he was only the leader of the mainstream conservative camp, but only emerged as such after 1860s - to say that he was the leader of the movement prior to that is inexact); b) he is, after all, a second-rate historical figure, and I'm not sure he deserves mention with so many other more important names being omitted. I'm also sure there's still plenty of space to trim, or better said, summarize more this part of the History chapter. Viator slovenicus (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll delete the mention of Bleiweis. It would be helpful if you summarised this further, because as a historian you can better discriminate what is important. The 'History' section should eventually be of similar length as in other featured articles on countries (Belarus, Germany etc.). --Eleassar my talk 07:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

New OECD Data About Slovenia

I've found a great resource for more up-to-date data on Slovenia, and from a reputable source no less. (http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/slovenia/) --Zurkhardo (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Jože P. Damjan's op-ed

Hi, what's your opinion on the material recently added by User:DancingPhilosopher about how Janša's directors were frustrated etc?[6] I've removed it temporarily, at least until a consensus is formed about its inclusion or exclusion, due to WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." These claims were not attributed to Damjan in the article and are, according to the cited guideline, not reliable for statements of fact. In this case we should be especially prudent as they discuss a living person (J. Janša). --Eleassar my talk 09:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the choice of words (used by Jože P. Damjan) by an NPOV expression. The other statement (made in Damijan's article) is in fact critical of both groups of managers (those who sided with Janša AND those who did not) and is critical of the state-owned banks because they offered both groups loans under extremely favorable conditions while taking the overvalued acquired shares as a collateral.[1]. --DancingPhilosopher my talk 11:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What I have particularly criticised is the choice of the source, which is an op-ed. See above. --Eleassar my talk 21:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Italian occupation

The article, as it stands now, conveys the message that "The Italian occupation policy in the Province of Ljubljana gave Slovenes cultural autonomy..." "a resistance movement led by the Liberation Front of the Slovene Nation, emerged in both the Italian and in the German occupation zones" "The Italian Army reacted with brutal repression, which included war crimes against the civilian population". It seems like if the Italians were generous towards the Slovenes and their later violence, including war crimes, was simply a reaction to the resistance movement and somehow the own guilt of the Slovenes. If this is so, it should be appropriately referenced. Otherwise, the section should be rewritten to avoid such impression. --Eleassar my talk 08:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find plenty of Italian history books in favor of such account ;)) Any suggestions on how to rephrase it? Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - this sound like "When did you stop beating your wife?" kind of phrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.30.129 (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Choice of images in the Prehistory section

I think esthetic criteria should also be followed in the choice of pictures. Images with a good composition & interesting, captivating subject should be given preference. For example, the image of Potočka Zijalka: can't we get a better picture illustrating ancient history than a hopelessly amateurish photo apparently showing the entrance to a hole (I say apparently, because one can only see a bunch of dull rocks, surrounded by total darkness ...)? Viator slovenicus (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've chosen the best image at Commons available for Potočka Zijalka. The Vače situla doesn't meet quality either. It's too dark, has too low resolution, is blurry at the top, and it's a who knows how faithful reproduction of the original situla... So this seems like amateurish too. The significance of the Vače situla and depictions on it is not at all clear to the reader, and to understand this, one needs to read much more. There's not much choice actually (see also: commons:Category:Archaeological sites in Slovenia). The image of Potočka Zijalka seems mysterious to me, and yes, it's a cave (hole, if you wish). I don't know how else should an entrance to the cave look like if not as a bunch of rocks surrounding an entrance to the total darkness. --Eleassar my talk 11:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the Vače situla photo is mediocre (to say the least). The caption is laconic, but it can be expanded. I've also checked out the photos available, and I've seen it's rather poor. Of course, it comes down to a matter of taste/ judgement,... but seriously: the image of Potočka Zijalka is very bad. You can't discern anything on it. Are we sure we don't have anything at least slightly better (and not from the Littoral)? What about the Negau Helmets? What about this file: commons:File:Ptuj8.jpg? It's the remain of a Roman tomb from Ptuj ("Monument of Orpheus"). Viator slovenicus (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Although the current image of Potočka Zijalka seems ok to me, I think that an image of the Negau helmet from Slovenia or an image of the monument of Orpheus could be used as a replacement, because the section discusses the period from Prehistory to the Slavic settlement. I'd also like other editors to tell what they think. --Eleassar my talk 13:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
If the Monument of Orpheus is chosen, I can provide a better image probably, because I visited Ptuj in 2011 and made some photos. I'd have to look whether any of them is suitable. Although the monument can't compare to Potočka Zijalka regarding its significance. An image of the pile dwellings in Ljubljana Marshes would be preferred, but there is none in the Commons. --Eleassar my talk 13:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you regarding the significance: but unfortunately the photo of PZ is inadeuqate. Maybe you also should visit that soon ;)) Cheers, Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Would be good. :) --Eleassar my talk 20:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wooden wheel?

Although I missed the above discussion, I agree that none of the PZ images is really good enough to have a place in the Prehistory section. What about the wooden wheel, maybe someone can go and make a photography of it? --DancingPhilosopher my talk 14:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Istrian exodus and some Italy's "little" secrets which preceded it

Fascist Italianization, Italian concentration camps and war crimes as Italy's little secrets
Where to insert info about them in the article about Italy.

There is no mention in the article of the 'Istrian exodus', i.e. the (forced or less forced) emigration of Italians from the territories given to Yugoslavia after WWII. I think it should be mentioned as it had a significant impact on reducing the Italian minority in Slovenia to the current tiny size. The coast of Slovenia (Koper/Capodistria, Piran/Pirano etc.) was actually populated by a vast majority of Italians until WWII.92.77.101.216 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

After some "little" annoying Italy's secrets (exposed in 2001 by The Guardian,[Note 1] but that have still not entered on a big door to Italy's consciousness), namely Fascist Italianization (after First World War), Italian war crimes and Italian concentration camps (during WW II), will be first mentioned in the (article about) Italy (because they happened first, preceding the exodus), then the exodus should consequentially appear here. I, however, doubt they will enter on a big door in time so that Boris Pahor, a survivor, who is waiting almost 100 years for Italy to acknowledge them, will be still alive. Do it, expose those "little" secrets kept by Italy; wishing you luck because you will need it, eroding the self-portray of "Italy as a victim" and "a nation that has never done any real war crimes".--DancingPhilosopher (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
------
The Guardian article
  1. ^ The 2001 Guardian article was titled Italy's bloody secret, a rephrase of which you can read here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Slovenia article, and I agree, rhere is no mention in the article of the 'Istrian exodus'. --Eleassar my talk 12:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup. This is more like a subject for Talk:Istrian exodus, where just last month I was busy unraveling some pretty convoluted "sourcing" by Silvio... -- Director (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

How Can 4 Nations Annex 1 Country?

Strange statement in article: "During World War II, Slovenia was occupied and annexed by Germany, Italy, Croatia, and Hungary." What does that mean? Are you saying that Germany annexed it, then the Italians kicked out the Germans & took over, then Croatia, etc.? Are you saying the divided it up, & each took a piece? (EnochBethany (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC))

A picture worth 1000 words, remember? As I have shown here, yes, they each took one piece of present-day Slovenia, and, yes again, when the Italians were kicked out (not by the Germans), the Germans took over another piece.--DancingPhilosopher (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Slovenia during and after World War II - citations required.

Hi, came across this article and although it is well cited overall there are some parts that may need some citations. Instead of adding citation tags in the article, I thought it may be better to mention some of them here in talk:) Here are the words in the WWII section that probably need some references if a wiki-Slovenia expert can oblige: 'Some Slovenes collaborated with the Axis powers, with the German-sponsored Slovene Home Guard having 21,000 members at the peak of its power. Main part of them was part of auxiliary SS units. More than 30,000 Partisans died fighting Axis forces and their collaborators. Approximately 8% of Slovenes died during WWII in the Slovene territories.

In 1945, Yugoslavia liberated itself and shortly thereafter became a nominally federal Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Slovenia joined the federation as a socialist republic; its own Communist Party was formed in 1937. After the withdrawal of the Axis forces, the vast majority of the previously relocated Gottscheers were deported or fled to Austria and Germany.' Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Economy of Slovenia

Slovenia is a poor country and definitelly not the richest of the slavic speaking countries. The poverty, unemployment, corruption increased since the state joined the NATO, EU and Euro currency. The public debt to GDP ratio increased from 20% (2004) to 85% (source: http://www.debtclocks.eu/public-debt-and-budget-deficit-of-slovenia.html) in 2014 and keeps increasing. If the trend will continue then Slovenia will have a 100% of public debt to GDP ratio in year 2017 ( https://www.quandl.com/data/SGE/SVNGDG-Slovenia-Government-Debt-to-GDP.png?dataset[collapse]=monthly&dataset[graph_title]=Debt+to+GDP+-+Slovenia&dataset[height]=300&dataset[width]=450 , http://psn.sdn.si/sn/img/s975x650/14/093/635321447791809026_skupnidolg_975px_140403.jpg )

Here is some review from Azernews about Slovenia: "The recent financial and economic crisis in the world has further complicated the situation in a number of countries. Earlier, the economy of these countries was also precarious. Slovenia is one of such countries.

According to the reports of the international financial agencies and other authoritative international organizations, Slovenia’s credit rating has recently significantly decreased. The external debts sharply increased. Investors began to leave the country. The unemployment reached a record level. The poverty began covering a large part of the population.

According to the reports of the US Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal about the economic freedom level in the world’s countries, Slovenia has been one of the European countries with the largest economic lag for the last five years.

A lack of the national development strategy, a failure of holding the democratic processes in the society and legal reforms at the proper level in Slovenia have also created favorable conditions for the corruption. It is not a coincidence that according to the European Commission’s last year's report on corruption, around 91 percent of the population confirmed the facts of corruption in the country.

A lack of any breakthrough in eliminating of corruption in Slovenia has been stressed in various reports of the CE Anti-Corruption Group.

The recent facts of the corruption among the high-level officials in the country caused great resonance in the world.

The international experts periodically informed that the corruption cases covered almost all areas in Slovenia.

According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report for 2013-2014, the corruption has been called as one of the most serious problems for the business activity in Slovenia.

The international reports point to some problems in Slovenia in connection with the human rights. Such facts as violence against women and children, human trafficking, harsh detention conditions, social differences and other similar facts have been mentioned.

The above mentioned factors cause serious problems for the prospects of Slovenia’s future development.

This situation forces Slovenia’s senior representatives to appeal to the countries with strong economy. The main purpose of Slovenian State Council chairman Mitya Bervar’s visit to Azerbaijan is connected with obtaining financial aid from the country. It would be nice if such visits were based on mutually beneficial cooperation."

source: http://www.azernews.az/azerbaijan/78520.html

Archive

I have now set the automatic archiving of the talkpage. --Tone 11:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Great; thank you. --Eleassar my talk 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 20 external links on Slovenia. 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 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Slovenia. 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 14:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slovenia. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Melania Trump under new section "Other notable persons" ?

eg Melania Trump, born Melanija Knavs in Novo Mesto, current First Lady of the USA, married to 45th President Donald Trump.

Arguable whether her origin says much about Slovenia or is worth mentioning on Slovenia's wiki page. I think it is ... at least, it's the reason I was interested to look up this page. Presumably others will do the same. M@T arragano (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A separate section is not a good idea, IMO, as long as it mentions only her. If you find some other good section to mention here, go ahead. Culture section lists people but it's already excessively long and I have a long-term plan to heavily trim it at some point. --Tone 09:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
If people are led to the Slovenia page by reading the article about Melania Trump, that's fine, but it doesn't mean they need to be led back from that page with a link. (There is also no "Notable persons" section at United States listing her husband.) Melania Trump is already included at List of Slovenes, which is probably the most appropriate place to include the information and link. Doremo (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree, establishing a separate heading (or anything separate) for her would be an extremely messy solution. This kind of contextless trivia would not improve the quality of this article in the slightes. On the contrary. — Yerpo Eh? 10:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
She certainly does not belong under Slovenia#Film: [7][8]. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Slovenia. 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) 18:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Slovenia. 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) 15:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Slovenia. 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) 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Melania Trump was born in Slovenia

First lady of the United States of America Melania Trump is a Slovenian-born fashion model who is the second First Lady of the U.S. to be born outside the U.S.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pronsias (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent additions

I have removed the recent additions by the user Realslovenian. In addition to no sources being cited, the material was largely inaccurate and/or unencyclopedic. Among other things: 1) "massive emigration" does not cause population growth and is not in the source cited; 2) Slovenian is not an "ancient language," the dual is not "a complex phenonenon" and does not pervade all aspects of the language, the dialects vary in distinctiveness and how many are reckoned, clarity/understandability are subjective, Slovenian has no vocative; and 3) phrases like "slew of" are unencyclopedic and English capitalizes proper nouns and adjectives. All of these issues are covered more accurately at the appertaining articles. Doremo (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi , as you might be aware Slovenia is under google search as "Country in the Balkans" , however historically and culturally many people would disagree.

If we look at Scandinavian countries and Baltic ones, all of them say 'Country in Europe' when searched on google, therefore not specialised. I propose to change it to 'Country in Europe' as it is more accurante, and other balkan countries are not... It was so around 1 year ago, and culturally speaking the majority of slovenians would also view this as more correct.

Let me know what you think.


email: factsnews24@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realslovenian (talk • contribs) 13:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to discuss what happens in google search. --Tone 14:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Slovenia and the Balkans

Its part south of Sava river belongs to the Balkan peninsula – i.e. Southeastern Europe. Jingiby (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Balkan peninsula and the Southeastern Europe are in no way synonyms - the Balkan peninsula is a colloquial historical term for countries that were once dominions of the Ottoman Empire (until its eventual and gradual collapse in the second half of the 19. century). Thus, the Balkans is not merely a geographical term (with very loosely, if at all defined borders), but above all a cultural term that does indeed share some similarities with the definition of the Balkan peninsula. It is thereby unacceptable to reject differentiation between the SE Europe and the Balkans the way you have, and further so to establish Slovenia's location be part of the aforementioned entity solely based on the misunderstanding of the latter. At this point, it is paramount to touch upon the fact that the European Union considers in its definition the countries of the Western Balkans (the only definition of the Balkans provided in the international law) to be Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of North Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia for the purposes related to identification of the candidates for the ascension to the Union [9]. Slovenia was never considered to be part of the South East due to its strong cultural ties to the north, the fact mirrored in the International Geographic Union definition of the country as an entity exclusively within the boundaries of Central Europe (as defined at the 1994 Congress held in Prague). That is reinforced by the definition provided by the CIA World Factbook [10]. It is thereby irresponsible to single-handedly alter an established definition by counterparting it with one comprising the broadest existent term of the Southeastern Europe that entirely disregards the historic specifics of Slovenia, as well as directly contradicts major international standards and definitions that have seen unanimous application since the collapse of Yugoslavia (that aberrated the set definitions of the country's position within Europe for the period of forty-six years between 1945 and 1991 based upon the allegiance to the socialist federation of states formerly enthralled to the Ottoman Empire - see the initial claim on the top). The definition you provided (Encyclopedia Britannica) is for that reason unsuitable, largely due to its own uncertainty over the definition - it provides no clear boundaries of the region itself, resorting to approximations and allegations of too abstract a nature to provide any concrete determination (even contradicting itself several times, exempli gratia the uncertainty over the definition of Southeastern Europe and the Western Balkans - the latter deriving from the legal basis of the European Union above). It is for that same reason of uncertainty that I deem it inappropriate to regard Slovenia as a part of SE Europe as the region is, as stems from the sources above, too grossly undefined to serve as a criterium for the country's geographical position that was defined with far greater certainty by several other sources (also provided above) which contradict its placement in the South East (and even wholly neglect it), instead placing it solely in Central Europe (that is also the view adopted by every other language version of the article on Slovenia on Wikipedia). --Øksfjord (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The real reason in Slovenia to dispute that part of its territory falls geographically on the Balkans is political and cultural. It is a Slovenian complex and striving not to be identified with the Balkans but with Central Europe. However Wikipedia is a place for scientific knowledge. This issue is described well in the book by D. Norris "In the Wake of the Balkan Myth: Questions of Identity and Modernity", publisher: Springer, 1999; ISBN 0230286534, on p. 14 as follows: Geographically speaking, the River Sava, one of the acknowledged markers of the northern limit of the Balkans, flows by the northern edge of Slovenia's capital city Ljubljana. However, there exists a Slovenian mental map of former Yugoslavia in which they were in the north, and everyone in the south is in the Balkans. That is the real issue, not the geography. Jingiby (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
There are many sources that include Slovenia in SE Europe, so I don't see an issue with saying that in the article. Including Slovenia in the Balkans is a bit of a stretch, but I don't see that in the article currently, so it seems like that's a non-issue at the moment. Khirurg (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The issue with Slovenia is explained also in the book by Zeljko Šević Banking Reforms in South-East Europe, New horizons in money and finance, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2002; ISBN 1781959560, on p. 1. as follows: In part in response to the break-up of the former Yugoslav Federation, a more fashionable term 'South-East European countries' has emerged in the 1990s, covering the Balkan states (plus Slovenia)., i.e. Slovenia is undoubtedly a South-East European country and is located partially on the Balkans, per above citation. Jingiby (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing "scientific" about a word like Balkans. It's just a label. Originally Ottoman Europe, including Greece -- but Greece is seldom included in the Balkans today. Originally not including Slovenia, but later it did, because Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia. But arguing about whether it "is" or "isn't" is futile. You can say that it is/isn't per the definition of the Council of Europe, or National Geographic, or whatever, but absent an agreed international definition, a simple claim one way or the other is meaningless. Also, per our Balkans article, just part of Slovenia is included in the definition they prefer (and outline on the map), which means at best (worst?), Slovenia's on the northern fringe. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"Western Balkans" is an EU neologism, but it does exclude Slovenia. The CIA site classifies it as Central European, as does our Central Europe article. I've always seen Slovenia as Central European. It may be that they're trying to distance themselves from the Balkans, but so what? The word doesn't have any set meaning anyway. — kwami (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Slovenia may be classified today as part of Central Europe by political reasons, but geographically 25% from its territory lays in Southeast Europe, i.e. on the Balkans. Look the article Balkans itself, please. Moreover, in the past it was classified during Yugoslav era as part of the Balkans also by political reasons. The geographical criteria is the most accurate and indisputable: Slovenia is simultaneously Central European and Southeast European country. This NPOV stays now in this article. Keep in mind Balkans and Southeast Europe are synonyms and Southeast Europe is an euphemism designed to conceal the controversial term Balkans. Jingiby (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
PS. kwami, "Western Balkans" does not exclude Slovenia. Check for example here please: Gianluca Passarelli, The Presidentialisation of Political Parties in the Western Balkans, Springer, 2018, ISBN 3319973525, on p. 4. Table 1 The freedom Country Ranking ranking of the Western Balkans countries (2017), Slovenia is mentioned as # 1 in the table. Jingiby (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Is that the EU definition, or just a synonym for ex-Yugoslavia?
Saying Slovenia is 25% in the Balkans -- by whose definition? These regions don't have precise boundaries.
Other classifications have Slovenia in Eastern Europe. The UN places it in Southern Europe, along with Italy. There is no "is" here. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
On a contrary, the Balkans have a clear boundary there and that is River Sava, just look above: Geographically speaking, the River Sava, one of the acknowledged markers of the northern limit of the Balkans, flows by the northern edge of Slovenia's capital city Ljubljana. Jingiby (talk
A part of Slovenia is within the Balkans and the content will remain in the article - because it is a fact. Please do not edit war. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Wrong. Balkans (and for that matter neither SE Europe) does not have any precise boundaries, the fact I provided above, as well as the reasons your citation of Encyclopedia Britannica is unsuitable. The sum of the aforementioned reasons (also outlined by Kwamikagami) is the cause Slovenia has been placed exclusively in Central Europe for a period of over seventeen years on this site. Kwami's claim regarding Slovenia originally not being considered a part of the Balkans (that you equate with SE Europe) but being included in it due to political reasons (as per membership in Yugoslavia) in the past further validates my point, as does the fact that you consistently fail to provide any tangible evidence that would geographically classify Slovenia as being a part of SE Europe, instead (as noted below) referencing (often obscure) studies stemming from socio-political spheres that, due to either their age or generalisation, fail to provide a sufficient insight into the subject.
You seem to pursue your personal agenda by referencing dubious, contradicting sources - using POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL articles and books (that gravitate around the countries of ex-Yugoslavia from a political standpoint which is, as explained above, obsolete and incorrect - that generalisation was one of major reasons Yugoslavia collapsed in the first place) to support the broadest possible GEOGRAPHICAL term of the region (that is seldom even used today) is thereby unacceptable. --Øksfjord (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@TU-nor:, could you assist this debate per your experience? Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC))

I was invited to comment by Jingiby. The term Balkan doesn't even appear in the lead, so I'm not sure why this is a big deal. "Southeastern Europe" is certainly correct and should remain. Srnec (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, KIENGIR, for the invitation. I am sorry that I have not answered before, but I have been out of Wiki-circulation for some days. I am slightly confused about the title of this section, since there is not any mention of Balkan in the lede or in the "Geography" section that has been disputed. My comments will therefore not be about "the Balkans", but about the term "Southeastern Europe", which is not necessarily the same.
In my opinion, we should be very careful when using the names of regions ("Central Europe", "Southeastern Europe", "Southern Europe" etc. or for that matter "the Balkans" or "Mediterranean Europe"). None of these regions are universally well-defined, and none of them are mutually exclusive. The terms are used (by reliable sources) with completely different meanings, making it nearly impossible to use them consistently without a lot of explanation. To say that Slovenia is in Southeastern Europe is questionable, but so is also to say that it is in Central Europe. To say that it is in Central Europe and Southeastern Europe is just as hopeless, since that may be interpreted as if part of the country is in Central Europe and part in Southeastern Europe, which again would presuppose well-defined region borders.
My suggestion for the lede is simply to remove the mention of regions altogether and say that it is a country located at the crossroads of main European cultural and trade routes. The next sentence defines it precisely in relation to other states and the Adriatic.
In the "Geography" section it may be more pertinent to mention Slovenia's regional position, but that could be done in ways that do not presuppose any cast-iron definition. One possibility is to say something like "variously defined as being part of CE and SEE" with a couple of high-quality sources for each. Another "trick" could be to decap the directional adjective and talk about "in the central part of Europe" without any linking to the regional article. --T*U (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the last update of the article Balkans on Encyclopedia Britannica online, from the last week: Nov 19, 2019. Its authors are Loring Danforth, Richard J. Crampton and John Allcock (former head, research unit in South East European studies, University of Bradford, England). In the article they have stated that increasingly in the early 21st century, another pair of denominational synonyms has gained currency and among them Southeastern Europe. It reads as follows: Balkans, also called Balkan Peninsula, easternmost of Europe’s three great southern peninsulas. There is not universal agreement on the region’s components. The Balkans are usually characterized as comprising Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia— with all or part of each of those countries located within the peninsula. Portions of Greece and Turkey are also located within the geographic region generally defined as the Balkan Peninsula, and many descriptions of the Balkans include those countries too... More often than not, Slovenia is included as a member of the Balkans because of its long historical ties with its neighbors to the southeast and because of its former incorporation in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes and federal Yugoslavia, etc. Check here, please. Jingiby (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
By many, perhaps most, definitions of the Balkan peninsula, part of Slovenia is included, but again, it is not the geographical Balkans we are discussing here, but Southeast Europe. Also, in the same Britannica article it says about the term "Southeast Asia": (though, again, without universal agreement on its component states), which was rather my point.
Britannica is only one of many possible sources, but even if we stick to them, they also have an article about Slovenia. There the country is described as lying "in central Europe". Not "Central", not "Southeast", not even "southeast", just "central". Which, again, rather underlines my point. --T*U (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, T*U! I agree with everything you pointed out (our points of view seem to be very similar). I would be perfectly willing to accept the syntagm "Slovenia lies in the central part of Europe" in the basic description (as I believe it is to a point useful to provide certain geographical context - not everyone knows where the neighbouring countries are, for that matter - and that definition is perfectly aligned with the view adopted on Slovenia in other languages on this site as it is in every single one of them defined as being a part of Central Europe). Alternatively (albeit more controversially), I see no problem in Slovenia simply retaining the status of an exclusively Central European country (speaking of the hyperlink in the basic description) it has had for the past seventeen years in this article (reinforced by the aforementioned fact that in all other languages, Slovenia is defined solely as a part of Central Europe) - though I perfectly understand your objection to that specific definition. Greetings! --Øksfjord (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
It is indisputable that geographically Slovenia is partially on the Balkans, and politically it is often described as part from Southeastern Europe. That must be mentioned in the article. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
As has been pointed out time and again, there is NO indisputability regarding the definition. Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be based on INDISPUTABLE facts, especially so in the basic description provided at the top of the page. The problematic on the placement can be discussed in more specialised articles (as it actually is - for instance, in the article on the Balkans itself), but not in the article on Slovenia. The fact you all of a sudden demand to change a well established definition only insinuates you pursue certain political agenda. Øksfjord (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Central Europe, Southeastern Europe or Balkans?

The old discussion again. My idea was Slovenia is part from the Balkans and Southeastern Europe and also from Central Europe. Another editor insisted only on Central Europe and changed the article several times to this biased view. Now it was done again but in another form, i.e. Slovenia lies "in the central part of Europe". This is not correct neither politically nor geographically, moreover no consensus for such change was reached thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hinduism

200 people is not enough to have it mentioned. It's not an established religion with a long tradition in Slovenia. --2001:16B8:31CF:AA00:C1E0:C9F1:3A3B:E1D3 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2020 (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 part of 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 Slovenia. Krakkos (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Crucial info"

Dear Starangel19,

please have in mind that Habsburg Monarchy was not a country, but an unofficial apellation of the lands ruled by the Hasburg Kings. Inthese section, we list countries, and Kingdom of Hungary is apellated, which had among others as well Habsurg Kings, thus it is even more accurate since it covers as well the times before 1526.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

Prime minister

Marjan Šarec resigned on 27 January. Janez Janša is "prime minister-designate".[11] Who is "the prime minister" for the purposes of this article?

Šarec will be the acting PM until the new government is confirmed - or at least over 2/3 of all ministers. Expect this to happen in about 2 weeks, maybe even sooner. --Tone 21:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

codes in infobox

Hi guys, I can't get the iso3166code parameter of the infobox to work properly. I've asked for help at the template's talk page here, so help is coming (hopefully!) Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Slovenia in "Central, Eastern & Southeast Europe"

Regarding the unexplained anonymous edit made on Thursday - I fail to understand the basis for it. Slovenia is a country geographically, politically and culturally a part of Central Europe. There is an ongoing (and longlasting) dispute about whether or not it lies partly in the Balkans, but given the fact the Balkans has no exact geographical boundaries, it is only alternatively (even the main articles on Central and South Eastern Europe claim so) placed in South Eastern Europe (and under no conditions in Eastern Europe), with a majority of scholars giving it a benefit of doubt and placing the country exclusively in Central Europe both because of the Alps as well as its shared history with the rest of Central Europe via the Habsburg Empire. I would love to hear the explanation from the editor himself (and yes, I did read the previous discussion on this topic - I believe Oksfjord made a pretty good point there explaining it). Should there be no further explanation from the editor, I plan to revert to the previous version regarding the placement of Slovenia in Europe (i.e. to Central Europe exclusively). 93.103.162.81 (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't ignore the previous discussion on this in the archives "Slovenia and the Balkans", and establish consensus before any change. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC))
Certainly, I intend to wait a couple of days first (perhaps a week or so) as it is impossible to establish a concensus with someone who does not respond. I didn't ignore that discussion, it provides a good insight into the issue, but given the fact that prior to this recent change Slovenia was placed in Central Europe and no party in that discussion altered that, I would assume that placement was eventually wholly acceptable to everybody involved. Cheers! 93.103.162.81 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
You don't need to, I restored it, it was my mistake, your are right. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC))
Alright, great! No worries mate, glad this was sorted out. :) 93.103.162.81 (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The 'Notes' tab should be removed

In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab contained within the article should be removed unless any information can be added to it as in my opinion it is pointless having an empty tab in the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed it. It was meant to display any "note" references used in the article, but there aren't any. Largoplazo (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Italian War Crimes during Italian Fascist Occupation of Slovenia 1941-1943 and the change of British policy towards their persecution due to the possibility of Italian communists winning the 1946 general election

File:Britain and the hand-over of the Italian War Criminals - relevant quotes.png
The screenshots - except the relevant quotes - are intentionally blurred to avoid copyright infringement claims.

Foreign Office (i.e. British civil authority, but not the military) policy was indeed initially, as you say, in favor of 'hand-over' of the Italian war criminals, but the British and American military authorities in Italy were against it (p.520)[2], but the Foreign Office changed its policy (ibid., p.523), too, when in 1946 the possibility was that Italian communists would win the Italian general election, which would open Italy to Soviet influence, so they decided to drop the case and let Italy do the job (ibid., p.526) resulting in the (highly indicative) fate of Graziani and Roatta (ibid., p.525). The British concern to secure the electoral victory of the Christian Democrats "prompted Britain to drop all of its war crimes claims against Italy" (ibid., p.527). See the screenshots from the scholarly article via JStor.org

References

  1. ^ "What went wrong in Slovenia? (translation of originally German article published by Die Presse http://diepresse.com/home/meinung/debatte/1288096/Sloweniens-Krise-ein-Erbe-unbewaeltigter-Geschichte Sloweniens Krise, ein Erbe unbewältigter Geschichte". Die Presse. 10 September 2012. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
  2. ^ Effie Pedaliu (2004) Britain and the 'Hand-over' of Italian War Criminals to Yugoslavia, 1945-48. Journal of Contemporary History. Vol. 39, No. 4, Special Issue: Collective Memory, pp. 503-529 (JStor.org full article)

–– — Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 11:18 9 October 2015 (UTC)


The word for "center" is literally the same in Slovenian, so don't correct any official nouns from government ministries with "Center" in it (they use same word in English/Slovenian translations). Ex: Ministry of Science's "Science Center Ljubljana" http://www.sadarvuga.com/project/the-center-of-science-ljubljana/ Ministry of Finance's "Center of Excellence in Finance" https://www.cef-see.org/about-us DataCenter Ljubjana https://datacenter.si/#locations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.215.130 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

tagged over two yrs ago - easily fixed!

In the Iron Age, present-day Slovenia was inhabited by Illyrian and Celtic tribes until the 1st century BC.[citation needed] <--- editors who are maintaining this article could easily take references from the articles on Illyrians and Celts and supply the proper inline ref. Do so, and this can be returned to the article. Thanks. 50.111.40.110 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"For of" query

I have removed " , and has since been the largest sole energy producer, accounting for of the gross energy production in 2018" aside from something being missing between for and of, this relates to a medium sized hydro power station that is unlikely to be "the largest sole energy producer" however you interpret sole energy producer. ϢereSpielChequers 11:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Total population

In the first paragraph it says: "has a population of 2.1 million (2,108,708 people)." and cites https://www.infoplease.com/countries/slovenia as a source. However on that page it says Population (2014 est.): 1,988,292. So should we fix it and / or cite a page with another & more recent info? – Wayfarer (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I've changed the cited source to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Doremo (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slovenia/Archive_1&oldid=1154678001"