Talk:Carinthia (Slovenia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Slovenia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Title[edit]

The present entry "Carinthia (province)" has a wrong title which is definitely misleading and not of WIKIPEDIA quality standard. My move to correct this title has been undone.I propose a move back to the correct title that I suggested, i.e. "Carinthia (statistical region in Slovenia)".
Reason:
By definition a province is an "administrative division of a country or state".
Slovenia is not divided into provinces.
In the text Koroška is described as an "informal province". But how can an "administrative division" function "informally"?
There were 3 historic regions in Slovenia - Kranjska, Prekmurje, Primorska -, to which were added in 1918 the Slovene-speaking territory of the former Austrian Duchy of Styria under the name of Štajerska, and the small purely Slovene-speaking parts of the former Duchy of Carinthia, Slovene: Koroška, which now under the misleading name of Koroška form only a part of a statistical region of NUTS 3 level*) in the European Union. The name is misleading because this NUTS 3 statistical region (no.4 of 12 Slovenian statistical regions) comprises a much larger area including municipalities that were part of the Duchy of Styria, not of Carinthia (Slovenj Gradec, Radlje, Mislinja, Vuzenica, Podvelka, Ribnica na Pohorju), whereas one of the three originally Carinthian areas that fell to Yugoslavia in 1918, Jezersko, is no longer included in the NUTS 3 statistical region of Koroška.
New states such as Slovenia ought to be eager to make their territorial names known in their own language, therefore I suggest that the reference to "Carinthia" as part of Slovenia be removed altogether.

*) NUTS: Nomenclature des unités territoriales statistiques. Level 3: 150,000 - 800,000 inhabitants Marschner (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the title is wrong too but for other reasons: the article defines its topic as a state of Austria? Why then is the title "province" - Carinthia never was a province of anything! It was first a duchy, then a duchy within the Habsburg empire and then a state of the Austrian Republic. But never a "province"! Str1977 (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, I see: there is an article on the state as well as on the Duchy. I will restrict this article to the Slovenian region (as its other-language counterparts are) and move it to the Slovenian name, allievating any concerns about the title. Str1977 (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the proposal was No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


That is, I would move it if I could but Koroška already exists. It should be either under that name or under Slovene Carinthia. Str1977 (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the reasoning again:

This is a NOT "province" but a historical and statistical region within modern Slovenia. It should be titled by its Slovenian name for disambiguation. The Slovenian name is also used by five of the linked other-language articles. The other use the alternative "Cartinhia (Slovenia)" but none use anything about a "province". Str1977 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that we're trying to cover completely separate topics in one article - a historical province on one hand (which is most more often referred to as Carinithia in English sources in my experience) and the formally-defined NUTS1 region on the other (which is almost certainly always referred to as Koroška as in the legislature). The disambiguation term "province" is entirely inappropriate for the second of these, so I'd say split the article, using the title Koroška for the current administrative unit. The title for the remainder should go at Carinithia (Slovenia), as it is not immediately clear from the current title that we are not talking about Carinthia in Austria. Any other names should be listed so that redirects can be made. Knepflerle (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That might be a problem. But the current false title solves neither. And no, it is not a "historical province" - it is not a province at all and hence the term inappropriate for all cases. (And because of this inappropriate use it is indeed not clear from the title that we are not talking about the Austrian state - however, the term would be even morre inappropriate in reference to the state, it would be an insult.)
Splitting up might be a solution but we will create only two stubs. Since the two entities are partly coextensive, I'd suggest keeping them together. If you insist with one of the entities (I guess the current, statistical one) ruling the article. After all, the historical region is only a remnant of the actual historical region, the whole Duchy of Carinthia. Str1977 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
PS. "Carinthia (Solvenia)" is no solution as there is no such place, at least not in distinction to the place "Koroška". Str1977 (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Most articles start as stubs, and at least each of these will have a clearly demarcated purpose and can develop over time. It doesn't matter if they are (very largely) geographically coterminous - the names most commonly used to refer to each differs in their different purposes and time. Carinthia (Slovenia) is as suitable as Slovene Carinthia for the historical in this respect. Knepflerle (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
But these articles would never go beyond stubs, at least if they are divided. This article is an article about the present entity called Carinthia in Slovenia, so it is about the statistical region. The historical region is just that: history. It is the history of this region. Large articles merit having separate "History of ..." articles but this stub surely does not.
"the names most commonly used to refer to each differs in their different purposes and time." - says who?
Str1977 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"But these articles would never go beyond stubs, at least if they are divided" - says who? Knepflerle (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Now we going beyond discussion to mere contradiction!
My statement was one of a reasonable expectation which however is still subjective. You may prove me wrong any time.
Your statement uttered a supposed fact ("The names most commonly used .. differs (sic!) in their different purposes", for which you have not brought any evidence at all. Str1977 (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
And one more thing: we might disagree on whether there should be two articles or one but do we disagree on the move? Str1977 (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment: I see that one editor elsewhere has defended this move on the grounds that Koroška is a new name which may well come into use in English. So it may, and when it does (if it does; Dalmacija has not displaced Dalmatia), we should move the article; but until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's a fact that neither the Carinthian part of Yugoslavia nor the present-day Slovenian region has ever been a province.--Marschner (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move: Carinthia (province) > Slovenian Carinthia[edit]

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

The result of the move request was page moved. @harej 13:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)



Carinthia (province)Slovenian Carinthia — The article covers a traditional region of Slovenia, which has never been a province (by definition: a province is an "administrative division of a country or state"). The name Slovenian Carinthia (Slovene: Slovenska Koroška) is an established English (and Slovene) name for the traditional region. Also, the statistical region part should be covered in a separate article (in the same manner as for other Slovenian statistical regions). Due to that, the names 'Carinthia (Slovenia)' or 'Carinthia (Slovenian region)' would still be ambiguous and are therefore less appropriate. See also the preceding section. Eleassar my talk 06:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball says SeptentrionalisPMAnderson about "Koroška". Well, in WP there is Mumbai now with a Redirect from centuries-old Bombay, and even Yangon with a Redirect from???
Hey, you crystal ball readers, from???
I fully agree with Eleassar's argumentation and support a move.
However, I should favour - and thus propose - the title "Koroška (Slovenian Carinthia)", which might speed up understanding of that "new term" for a mere fraction of old Carinthia and which might also suit better the disambiguation page.
In a Lonely Planet volume you read the following nonsense:
In stark contrast is tiny Koroška (Carinthia in English), to the north -sic!!!- of Štajerska and a mere shadow of what it once was. Indeed, until the end of WWI, Carinthia included an area much larger than the three valleys in now encloses."
Maybe a clearer distinction of
  1. Koroška statistical region
  2. the Slovene share of the former Duchy of Carinthia, i.e. "Koroška (Slovenian Carinthia)", and
  3. the Austrian State of Carinthia (which is about twenty times the size of "Koroška (Slovenian Carinthia)", and about nine times the size of Koroška statistical region
might assist in preventing such an erroneous concept in the future.--Marschner (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we should the most simple title: Slovenian Carinthia. It is recognizable, precise, easy to find and to link to, concise (short) and consistent - as demanded by WP:NC. Everything else can be explained in the lead. --Eleassar my talk 07:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the title Slovenian Carinthia. It is somehow misleading: we mustn't forget that between the 1880s and 1950s, this name (Slovenska Koroška) was used in the Slovene public sphere to refer to the southern portion of the Duchy of Carinthia. To complicate things, such denomination even entered diplomatic correspondence between 1945 and 1949, when Tito's Yugoslavia advanced its territorial claim on the State of Carinthia. Thomas M. Barker, in his monograph entitled "The Slovene Minority in Carinthia" (University of Columbia Press, 1984) claims that "the only success of the Yugoslav dilomacy as regard to Carinthia was to introduce the name 'Slovene Carinthia' for the southern zones of the State'.
My proposal would thus be to move the article to Carinthia (Slovenia): simple, accurate, and non-ambiguous. Viator slovenicus (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If I correctly understand you, 'Slovene Carinthia' may also refer to the whole Carinthian (Slovenian and Austrian) area where Slovenes are present. This could easily be solved by putting a hatnote (Template:Redirect) at the top of the page saying "Slovene Carinthia redirects here. For other uses, see 'Slovene Carinthia (disambiguation)'."
Hereby, I was cautious to propose the name 'Slovenian Carinthia' instead of 'Slovene Carinthia'. As has already been established elsewhere (see Talk:Slovene language and Talk:Slovenes), it is increasingly common today to use the adjective 'Slovenian' for the country and its inhabitants, and 'Slovene' for the ethnicity and language, and this is also the current practice in Wikipedia. Also per Google, 'Slovenian Carinthia' is more common than 'Slovene Carinthia' .
On the other hand, I think 'Carinthia (Slovenia)' should be a disambiguation page, for it can also refer to the 'Koroška statistical region' or the proposed 'Koroška' administrative region. --Eleassar my talk 10:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I have to admit that Slovenian Carinthia does seem the best of the proposed options. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
And btw, we could make an analogous move for the article Lower Styria by redirecting it to Slovenian Styria, since nobody in Slovenia refers to the Slovenian portion of Styria as 'Lower Styria' anymore, at least not since 1945. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
@ Viator Slovenicus: "In Slovenia, the historical denomination Lower Sytria has fallen into disuse already after 1918." -
I refer to your argumentation about Lower Styria: "Nowadays, it is an absolute anachronysm. Nobody in Slovenia would say 'Lower Styria' to refer to the Slovenian portion of the region." - Doesn't your argument by the same token apply to the corner of Carinthia that was ceded to Yugoslavia, just the other way round? Nowadays nobody in Austria would ever identify the English word "Carinthia" or the German name "Kärnten" with the parts that in 1918 were lost to Italy and the SHS-State. Or do you yourself ever speak or think of an "Italian Carinthia"?
Carinthia once covered probably more than 50 ooo sq.kms and through the centuries got smaller and smaller and smaller. It lost Styria, it lost parts which are now in Lower Austria, it lost what's now the Eastern Tyrol, it lost Carniola, if you like, etc., etc., and last century it l o s t the Val Canale, the Meža Valley, the Jezersko, Dravograd - the same fate as befell Austria. Clemenceau's cynical word, "The rest is Austria" can thus well be modified: "The rest is Carinthia" --Marschner (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hereby, I wish to point out that while "Slovenian Carinthia" and "Slovenian Styria" are established terms in English, "Italian Carinthia" is not. --Eleassar my talk 08:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course not, I just wanted to point out to Viator Slovenicus that the fate of "Carinthia" was the same as that of "Austria": The (Austrian) rest IS Carinthia.
And forgive me, please, if I have serious doubts that "Slovenian Carinthia", if applied only to the area that fell to the SHS-state, is really an "established term" with non-Slovenes. The Carinthian area that was ceded to Italy was of about the same size, wasn't it? With quite a considerable number of Slovene-speaking Carinthians, but does it form part of the Slovene (public) understanding of Carinthia/Koroška?
And what might be the real reason that in Slovenia so much weight is given to that name Koroška? Whereas the name "Štajerska" has disappeared from Slovenia's statistical regions, tiny Koroška was expanded by adding Styrian territory, areas that for 9 centuries had not been Carinthian. I wonder! And the effect is: you/we have the naming problem :) Why, the deuce, didn't they choose another name for the EU-region, Korotan for instance, which means the same and, as a word, would be easier in English and, as a name, would be an even better reference to Karantania, which all of the new stat. region was part of. --Marschner (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Slovenian Carinthia[edit]

@Eleassar:
You ought to go over the new article once more:
1.)There is still material in the article that refers to areas NOT part of the historical region:

  • Economy: "There are five hydroelectric plants in the Koroška stretch of the Drava valley, with a total capacity of about 60 megawatts, and metal products are produced in different places. In the 1990s, European automotive industry started a production of plastic foam and seat covers for cars in the Mislinja Valley. Fiberboard, plywood, and furniture produced in both valleys make good use of the expansive forests."
  • Environment:"... the Šoštanj Thermal Power Plant (i.e. Termoelektrarna Šoštanj) and... There are four landfills for municipal waste, and two thirds of the industrial waste was recovered."
  • Education: "... the Carinthian Regional Museum, the Carinthian Gallery of Fine Arts and the regional radio station are located in Slovenj Gradec (traditionally part of Lower Styria), which is thus gradually establishing its position as a regional centre.[1] ... high school in Muta"

2.)What about mentioning the change of names after 1945: Guštanj > "Ravne na Koroškem" and Črna > Črna na Koroškem?

3.)The external link Koroška.si describes the area of the Statist. Region, not the one of "Slovenian Carinthia" (Radlje, Slovenj Gradec, Mislinjska valley, but no Jezersko) .
By the way, it doesn't mention a Carinthian Regional Museum, but speaks - in good English - of the "Provincial museum of Koroška, (which) with its two divisions – one in Ravne, the other in Slovenj Gradec – provides public services with all the fundamental museum departments for keeping and preserving the mobile cultural heritage of the region, with many collections scattered across all the communities of Koroška."
And Google translates Ravne na Koroškem into "Straight in Carinthia", isn't that gorgeous? --Marschner (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

At first I thought Slovenj Gradec should be excluded from this article, but after having read this post (you may Google translate), Slovenj Gradec and the Mislinja Valley should also be discussed under the Slovenian Carinthia. It was officially part of Lower Styria, but has been from the economic, traffic and geographic point of view always deeply connected to Carinthia. Now it is also part of the Koroška statistical region. As this article discusses Slovenian Carinthia not only as historical but also as traditional region of Slovenia, I believe it should also include the description of the Mislinja Valley and Slovenj Gradec.
The change of names could be mentioned in my opinion, provided this is done in an appropriate context.
The link is ok imo even though it doesn't cover the whole Slovenian Carinthia. The official page of the museum uses 'Carinthian Regional Museum'. --Eleassar my talk 07:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: "this post", piše: politkomisar - Well, I thought politkomisars are no longer taken seriously in Slovenia...--Marschner (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Anyway, we can say in the article that although from the strictly historical point of view, Slovenj Gradec is part of Lower/Slovenian Styria, it has been economically and culturally connected to the Slovenian Carinthia and is regarded by the Municipality of Slovenj Gradec as part of the Slovenian Carinthia. The municipalities of Ravne na Koroškem and Dravograd regard it as part of Lower Styria. Of course, we have to find a reliable source for this (which should not be too difficult). --Eleassar my talk 09:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought the purpose of splitting the original article was to achieve a clear distinction between the new Koroška Statistical Region and the Carinthian area that fell to YU in 1918. And I thought that one line referring to the new situation as described in the Koroška Statistical Region article should suffice. No, I forget another reference to the Gorenjska Stat. Region article because of the Jezersko.
All the websites from Slovenia on Koroška now include Slov. Gradec. The townspeople are probably pleased with their town's elevation to a sort of county town. But after the Lurngau had become Tyrolean (East Tyrol) and the Carinthian March had become the Duchy of Styria, "Carinthia" began with "O b e r drauburg" (i.e. "Upper Dravograd") and ended where the Meža flows into the Drava with "U n t e r drauburg" (i.e. "Lower Dravograd", now Dravograd), no Mislinja valley there, no Slovenj Gradec.
Being one of the numerous "German-/Slovene-" pairs of place names - e.g. Deutsch-Griffen vs. Windisch-Griffen (Grebinj), Deutsch-Bleiberg vs. Windisch-Bleiberg (Pliberk, all 4 in Carinthia), Deutsch-Matrei vs. Windisch-Matrei (older names, both in the Tirol), Deutsch-Feistritz vs. Windisch-Feistritz (Bistrica, both in Styria) - the German name of Slovenj Gradec also points at its Styrian relation: Windisch-Graz or -Grätz vs. Graz (19th cent. spelling: "Grätz"), Styria.
If Slov. Gradec had been considered a Carinthian place, don't you think they wouldn't have renamed it "na Koroškem", too, in those days after WWII - (see ref. to Thomas M. Barker by Viator Slovenicus on 17 Sept.)? --Marschner (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Slovenj Gradec was part of Carinthia in the Middle Ages, and later transferred to Styria. The dialect spoken in the area belongs to the Carinthian group of dialects. After 1945, the Carinthian regional identity took roots there. Now it's generally considered to be part of Slovenian Carinthia. One can clarify this in the article. I don't see where's the problem. Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to add this. Just find reliable sources (which is where I've stuck). --Eleassar my talk 06:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Slovenian/Slovene Carinthia[edit]

The second paragraph appears to be attempting to introduce a distinction between "Slovenian Carinthia" and "Slovene Carinthia". Unfortunately "Slovenian" and "Slovene" are interchangeable in English, as has already clearly been established elsewhere (see Talk:Slovene language and Talk:Slovenes). Desirable as it may (or may not) be to have one word for the country and its inhabitants and another for the ethnicity and language, this is not a distinction that can be introduced artificially. The interchangeability of the terms is amply demonstrated by the fact that "Slovenian minority in Austria" returns twice as many results as "Slovene minority in Austria". Rabascius (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph is not introducing a distinction between Slovenian and Slovene Carinthia: it only notes that the term Slovene Carinthia can also be used (mostly in Slovenia, to be sure) for the areas in the Austrian State of Carinthia, traditionally inhabited by the Slovene-speaking minority (see Thomas M. Barker, The Slovene Minority in Carinthia, Columbia University Press, 1984). Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph contains the terms "Slovenian Carinthia" and "Slovene Carinthia". If you refer to the archived discussion of the requested move (above), you will see that at least one editor believes that these terms mean different things. My point is that they mean the same thing and, for the sake of consistency and in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene), one of the terms should be removed. Oh, and suggesting that the English term "Slovene Carinthia" can be used "mostly in Slovenia" is nonsensical. Rabascius (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
First, please don't cite Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene), as it is only of historical interest and has been designated as such. The two terms don't mean different things of course and can be used interchangeably. However, as has already been established elsewhere (see Talk:Slovene language and Talk:Slovenes), it is increasingly common today to use the adjective 'Slovenian' for the country and its inhabitants, and 'Slovene' for the ethnicity and language, and this is also the current practice in Wikipedia.
Second, I'd like to see reliable sources cited for all the sentences of the second paragraph. Only then the discussion makes sense. --Eleassar my talk 08:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
1. It is disingenuous to suggest that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene) is of historical interest only and should not therefore be cited. That is not what "retained for historical reference" implies. More to the point, you cite it yourself when you add your support to SloveniansSlovenes at Talk:Slovenes, which is one of the pages you refer me to.
2. You accept that the two terms have the same meaning and can be used interchangeably, yet in an earlier discussion on this talk page you appear to believe that they mean different things ("I was cautious to propose the name 'Slovenian Carinthia' instead of 'Slovene Carinthia'").
3. The entire second paragraph is a clumsy (and poorly written) attempt at justifying the name of the article, which probably belongs at "Carinthia (Slovenia)", as suggested at different times by Knepflerle and Viator slovenicus but rejected by you as ambiguous. You say that "Slovenian Carinthia" is an established term. It certainly is, and one which has at least two possible meanings – see the current second paragraph! – and is thus no less ambiguous than "Carinthia (Slovenia)". On the other hand, I don't think you will find many sources that use "Slovenian Carinthia" as the English name for that part of Slovenia commonly referred to as "Koroška" by Slovene speakers in contexts (are there any?) where there is no need to distinguish it from that part of Austria commonly referred to as "Kärnten" by German speakers. The fact that a name ("Carinthia") is ambiguous doesn't mean that we should pretend it doesn't exist or use the main namespace as a kind of pre-emptive disambiguation.
4. What evidence do you have for the claim that it is increasingly common today to use the adjective 'Slovenian' for the country and its inhabitants, and 'Slovene' for the ethnicity and language? This sounds very much like wishful thinking. Ditto the claim that this is current practice in Wikipedia – where, like it or not, usage can and does change from article to article and editor to editor. "Current practice" implies that consensus has been reached. Where, exactly? Rabascius (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok, per the above I have moved the page to 'Carinthia, Slovenia'. I think that in this moment, there is no need to distinguish the informal region from the formal region, because the process of formal establishment of regions in Slovenia has stalled and does not look promising. --Eleassar my talk 14:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)