This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tone (talk | contribs) at 04:29, 22 June 2015 (fix archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:29, 22 June 2015 by Tone (talk | contribs) (fix archive)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Slovenia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | A news item involving Slovenia was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 May 2010. |  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Slovenia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
 | Guidelines for editing the Slovenia article
|
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 25, 2005 and June 25, 2006. |
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 ) --Eleassar 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 (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 13:37, 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 (
- I'm not sure which date regarding the name change is to be cited. According to , the correct date is actually 7 March 1990; per , it is 8 March 1990. --Eleassar 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 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 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 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 "Biodiversity" section still needs reworking. I plan it, but don't know when will I have time. — Yerpo 09:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree - several section (also e.g. economy, culture) need a thorough rewrite. --Eleassar 10:01, 5 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)
- 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 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; ] 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 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 12:42, 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 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 16:11, 5 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)
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 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 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 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 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 14:16, 4 January 2013 (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 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)
Yugoslavia in the lead sentence
I removed a mention of Yugoslavia from the lead sentence (" 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)
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, 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." --Eleassar 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 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 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 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 07:26, 4 May 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 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)
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? 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 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.. --DancingPhilosopher 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 21:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Istrian exodus and some Italy's "little" secrets which preceded it
Fascist Italianization
|
| 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, 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
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 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)
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=monthly&dataset=Debt+to+GDP+-+Slovenia&dataset=300&dataset=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
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)
- "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=