Talk:Slovene Lands

Pre-WWII Slovenia

The notion that it is "incorrect" to refer to Slovenia before WWII (because it was the Drava province, or Carniola and other regions, etc., is POV (in any case, the usage claim cites a German source, not an English one). Plenty of scholarship refers to Slovenia in earlier times; e.g., "Beginning in the eighth century, Slovenia formed part of the Frankish kingdom" (Mojmir Mrak, Matija Rojec, Carlos Silva-Jáuregui. 2004. Slovenia: from Yugoslavia to the European Union. Washington, DC: The World Bank, p. xx), "In the ninth century Slovenia became part of the German-dominated Holy Roman Empire" (Michael Kort. 2001. The Handbook of the New Eastern Europe. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, p. 133), "In the 18th century Slovenia was strongly influenced by the baroque" (Patrick Taylor. 2006. The Oxford Companion to the Garden. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 466), etc. Doremo (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The sources you quote are not particularly relevant, since they are non-scholarly summaries of Slovene history for a wider public, and not scholarly monographs. In any case, I agree we change the term "incorrect" (which problematic, insofar as it implies a source of authority) to "anachronistic". Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Although Slovenia may refer to the territory nowadays occupied by the country named Slovenia (see Talk:Slovenia#Continuity_of_Slovenia) in texts written for wider public, I support the decision to use "anachronistic" here. Slovenia as a concept emerged only in the 19th century. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look here, where you can pick and choose for scholarly sources:

http://www.google.si/#hl=sl&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=608&prmdo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22in+the+*+century+slovenia%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=10a3f71282459c79

http://www.google.si/#hl=sl&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=608&prmdo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22in+*+century+slovenia%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=53421d688257ab80

http://www.google.si/#hl=sl&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=608&prmdo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22nineteenth-century+slovenia%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=ecc28fb56f5f136a

http://www.google.si/#hl=sl&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=608&prmdo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22eighteenth-century+slovenia%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=5e9d2b825adc6112

http://www.google.si/#hl=sl&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=608&prmdo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22seventeenth-century+slovenia%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=dacccdaba9709b37

http://www.google.si/#hl=sl&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=608&prmdo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22sixteenth-century+slovenia%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=707cb68a12271d52

Wikipedia is not the place to state what is proper stylistic usage or not in English, especially based on a German reference. If it's your personal preference, that's fine. But it doesn't make it universally correct or preferred by all scholars.Doremo (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that the use of "Slovenia" in these cases is anachronistic. That's why I suggested to use this term instead of "incorrect". However, you can add a sentence explaining that Slovenian scholarly historians consider the use of this anachronism an error/mistake (you shouldn't have problems finding the sources), although in English literature examples can be find. Another thing: I believe the explanation of how this term is used in modern Slovene (which you deleted), is relevant, so I suggest inserting it back into the article. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Btw: that the term "Slovenia" for the 17th or 28th century is anachronistic is not an opinion, but a fact. Anachronistic is not a value term, it's a descriptive term. However, I agree that the usage of anachronistic terms is not necessarily incorrect or inappropriate (many anachronistic terms are used for the description of historical periods, artistic movements, etc.) However, in current Slovenian historiography (current meaning at least since Bogo Grafenauer), this use is highly discouraged. See summaries of Slovenian history, such as Peter Vodopivec, Od Pohlinove slovnice do samostojne države, Peter Štih & Vasko Simoniti's monograph on pre-enlightenment Slovenian history, etc. I guess you can find more direct sources/scholarly discussions on the matter here: http://www.sistory.si/slovensko.html Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand (and have further clarified) the usage note now -- it's a recommendation by Slovenian scholars for Slovenians using English as a second language, right? English scholarship doesn't have a problem with anachronistic usage (even constructions like "prehistoric Germany" and "prehistoric Italy" are extremely common), but the observation is fair enough as phrased now. I'll take your word for it that "most" Slovenian scholars agree, although there's obviously variation in Slovenian usage too:

http://www.google.si/search?hl=sl&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=608&gl=si&prmdo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22Sloveniji+v+18.+stoletju%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

http://www.google.si/search?hl=sl&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=608&gl=si&prmdo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22srednjeve%C5%A1ke+Slovenije%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Doremo (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to address the usage note for modern Slovenian (above). It read "... Slovene Lands is still widely used, although almost exclusively in its abridged form in the locative case ...", which didn't make sense because English has no locative case. If you want to include a note on Slovenian usage and morphology (I'm not convinced it's really appropriate in an English article), it should read something like "Today, the terms Slovenske dežele and Slovensko are still widely used in Slovenian, although almost exclusively as Slovensko in the locative case (na Slovenskem)." Doremo (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right: I'll try to think of a more appropriate formulation. Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Kozler's map

The title "Zemljovid Slovenske dežele" seems to refer to "Map of the Slovenian Land" (singular, with an adnominal genitive), not "Map of the Slovene Lands" (i.e., not "Zemljovid Slovenskih dežel"). If so, Kozler's map is simply titled "Map of Slovenia"; cf. "zemljevid Koroške (dežele)" (Map of Carinthia), "zemljevid Štajerske (dežele)" (Map of Styria), and other possible permutations. Unless it can be demonstrated otherwise, the caption describing this map should be changed.Doremo (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Kozler's map is a rather complex issue (it has a complicated history, the name changed several times, etc.). Anyway, you're right. The caption is fixed now.Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed-inline: Slovene Lands in Croatia

The book A Short History of Yugoslavia: from Early Times to 1966 (1966), written by Stephen Clissold and Henry Clifford, pg. 20,[1] contains a map that shows the extent of the pre-1918 Slovene Lands extending to what is now Croatia. It is also worth noting that Slovenes are recognised as a minority in the Croatian constitution.[2] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, it's kinda weird that the article says "On the other hand, other areas with historically important Slovenian communities, such as the Croatian cities of Rijeka and Zagreb... were never regarded to be part of the Slovene Lands", right next to Kozler's map which includes Rijeka in the Slovene Land. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"...contains a map that shows the extent of the pre-1918 Slovene Lands extending to what is now Croatia" - I don't think it does. If you're referring to that small bit NW of Rijeka I think it's just the map not being that detailed. Zhmr (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

County of Gorizia

Was the County of Gorizia one of the Slovene lands? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Double names

I have removed double names such as "Beltinci (Belatincz)" from the article because they clutter the text and do not aid in understanding the article topic. Specifically: 1) These historical names are all already clearly available at the linked articles; 2) These historical names create potential confusion for readers, who would naturally assume that "Beltinci (Belatincz)" etc. refers to a town with modern double ethnicity, like Bolzano (Bozen); 3) None of the other names are doubled up; the article does not have Trieste (Trst), Koper (Capodistria), Maribor (Marburg), etc., which would really make a mess of the article. If you would like to explore the option of writing double names throughout running text, please take the issue to WikiProject Slovenia and build consensus for the idea there first. Doremo (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Doremo:,

thank you for your comment. I would not necessarily repeat all what I have writen in the edit logs - assuming you have read it, my reactions are:

- I don't agree it would clutter text, it is a standard applied in mroe thousand of articles, helping better understanding historical conditions, especially in may cases some names cannot be applied in the past for other reasons - surely you know famous examples

-1, this is an argument that would be fine normally, but in a specific context when the article's section or the article itself refers to former contemporary conditions, it may be aplied and it is not against any naming convention. Do not believe I want to flood every Slovenia-related article with historic names, no way, but where it is relevant, you should not have any objection, otherwise it would possibly look like something against Hungarians or Hungarian names (also i.e., in Hungary related articles, generally we don't object any historic or modern name to be shown, not at all, we're not having relevan sensitivity towards this)

-2, As per above, I disagree, it is clearly showing the former status quo, that is anyway referred when the context is relevant

-3, Well, it is considerable, but I work with mostly former Hungary related locations, if I have more time or possibility also care with other historic names, but it should not be an opposition for improvement, other's may imporve it later

-4, Of course, gladly, we should build a fine consensus similarly with other cases regarding the former Kingdom of Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC))

Initiated consensus proposal in the Wikiproject. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC))

I think historical names are interesting and that they always should be available at articles where what they refer to is the primary topic. However, sprinkling them inconsistently through running text when they are not the topic of the article (and are already clearly available at the links) simply degrades readability. Thank you for taking the discussion to WikiProject Slovenia. Doremo (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doremo:, as you may notice, on the contrary I am hyper-sharply consistent and careful, and only apply it when it is about the topic. I have to reinforce, that in such cases, only the link would not be enough, since a few people check and even not necessarily now the former status quo or identified there, because sometimes anyway a location has more historic names because of a mixed population. With this it makes clear in proper environments what is it about, otherwise it the whole meaning ofd the concept would loose. Of course, I suggest we should continue there the discussion and close here.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC))