Talk:Slovenia

Template:V0.5 To read or comment a convention on using the terms Slovenian and Slovene, see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene).

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:

• List from the slovenian tourist board
• List from the world gazetteer

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: Template: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)

Removed links

I removed the following links from this article:

• Centreurope/Slovenia - general information on Slovenia and on tourism in Slovenia
• Holiday homes in Slovenia
• Weather forecast for Slovenia
• GeaBios, interactive maps and aerial orthophoto, scale from 1:2.500.000 to 1:2.500
• Fast Addresses On this page you can find all the addresses in Slovenia (GeaBios GIS Public Service)
• Sinfo - Slovenia Information On this page you can find information about Slovenia - tourism, business, etc.
• Public Libraries
• The Government
• The Prime Minister of the Republic of Slovenia
• State Portal (e-Government)

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) Template:NavigationNetherland

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).

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)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

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

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

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

New Disambiguation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slovenia during World War II

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

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

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

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

References

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

not slovakia

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

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

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

Omann

Has anyone heard the last name Omann in Slovenia?

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

New European vector maps

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

Frankolovo

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

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

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

Recent edit warring

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

Map caption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrative regions

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

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

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

History (invasion in the 6th century?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carantania

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

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

"...595 AD is the date that the Slovenian State, the later Carantania, also called Slovenia, appears for the very first time in historical records. The mentioning of "provincia Sclaborum" in "The history of Lombards" by the lombard historian Paulus Diaconus, is one of the first books to bear witness of its existence. He explains that in this year Tassilo I, the Bavarian duke, made an incursion into Slovenian territory, defeated them, and returned home with great booty. He quotes: Qui mox cum exercitu in Slaborum provinciam introiens, patrata Victoria, ad solum proprium cum maxima praeda remeavit. ("Historia Langobardorum" IV, 7).

Particularly eye-catching is the denomination "provincia. Today it means the basic administrative unit of a State and not the State itself. Anyway, we have to take into consideration that the author was a Lombard, and that the Lombards called their own kingdom in Italy a provincia. Thus, the mention made by Paulus Diaconus refers to an independent State at the level of a kingdom, which belonged to the Slovenian (Sclaborum) people. In Europe only a few nations, as for example the Irish, Bavarians, Basques… can refer to a State tradition of such an early period in history. This alone was very likely reason for envy toward the Slovenians. Their neighbours (Austrians, Bavarians, Croats, Serbs, Friulians), it is true, concealed the historical identity of the Slovenian people. Perhaps their more distant Slav "brethren" like the Czechs or Russians simply ignored the date 595 AD, the historical mention of Carantania. In Czechia, for example, Great Moravia, which appears as late as ca. 830 AD, is quoted as the "first" historical State of the Slavs.

The ancient- new distortions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manipulation of the Public Mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yugoslav unitarism

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

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

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

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

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

Under the Communist regime

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

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

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

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

Undermining the scientific level

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

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

Under the Yugoslav Communist regime, the University of Lublana was exposed to ideological terror. Consequently, its scientific level wen gradually down. After the declaration of independence of Slovenia, this situation did not improve. Today, the University of Lublana did not make the list of the top 500 most serious academic institutions, quoted in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. Thus, it is high time that the prevailing ideological line of this university changes into a scientific one! To this purpose, the underground Yugoslav ideological control must cease. The freedom of scientific research must be secured. Not at least, the freedom of recognising the Slovenian State (595 AD) and its historical tradition." By by Dr. Jožko Šavli. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)