Talk:Timeline of Slovenian history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Timeline of Slovenian history article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Talk:Timeline of Slovene history/Archive1 - Archive of pre-13 December 2005 discussion

Contents

[edit] NPOV

  • I think the NPOV tag on this article is very counter-productive. If there's anything that people still disagree with, please either: (1) use the { { fact } } tag to mark the items that you think are not verifiable in legitimate history books, or (2) explain here on the talk page why something that has been cited in a history book is not reliable and cite your own published history book backing up your argument. I think we can discuss this for a few days, maybe until New Year's at the latest, and produce an NPOV page for once and for all. Be bold!--Mareino 22:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vlachs

I changed a recent edit by someone that (incorrectly) implied that the aboriginal Romanized population of Slovenia can be considered Vlach in the sense that they spoke an Eastern Romance language. Those aboriginal Romanized populations of Slovenia probably spoke a separate variant derived from Vulgar Latin. The Istro-Romanian Vlachs probably came into Slovenia after the Slavs, and are not a continuation of the "aboriginal Romanized population". Anyone have sources that state otherwise? Alexander 007 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood that part. What was meant there is that there are place names in Slovenia, such as Laško, Lahovče, Lašče etc., which are derived from ethnonym Lah and are believed to be the remains of a pre-Slavic Romanised population (not Vlach in the sense that they spoke an Eastern Romance language). Perhaps the term Vlah wasn't pertinent in that quotation, but Lah definitely is present in Slovenian toponymy. --193.77.49.122 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I expected that actually. But I believe the misunderstanding is on the other side. Lah is in Slovenian toponymy, but does anyone have any references that state that it is related to the pre-Slavic Romanized populations? More likely, it relates to Istro-Romanian or even Italian presence, which was formerly more prevalent. Alexander 007 09:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Laško is a city in Lower Styria, near Celje. The city's webpage, for example, has an overview of its history where it says that on the arrival of Slavs, the aboriginal population called Vlahi or Lahi, moved to elevated areas, hence the names Laško, Lahomno, Laška vas etc. The name Lah does not in any way relate to Istroromanians. For the latter Slovenian uses the name "Vlahi" or "Čiči/Čičari". Lah did however become applied to Italians, but Italian presence was formerly prevalent only in west Slovenia, elsewhere not. It seems early Slavs used the name "Volhǔ" to refer to their Romanized neighbours. Later, this name came to be applied for Italians and the Eastern Romance population. --193.77.49.122 11:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. However, two points at least: 1) A webpage for a city is often not a good source of information. I once read a page maintained by the Republic of Macedonia's Board of Tourism that stated as a fact that ancient Macedonians mixed with Slavs, which is in fact considered extremely unlikely by most historians [and no group can be called "ancient" in 500--600 AD :-) ] 2) You say that Lah never relates to Istro-Romanians; this needs verification.

Sir, I am a Slovenian and I consider knowledge of my own native language a fairly reliable verification. No, Lah does not refer to Istro-Romanians; the latter are called Čiči or Čičari (after the Istrian region Čičarija).
OK, I am not a Slovenian so I am inclined to take your word on this matter of Lah. But having references at hand for various obscure points is a must. Even a Slovenian with native understanding of the Slovenian language may be unaware of archaic or regional usage. But simpler than trying to verify all the groups that Lah may refer to is to track down a source that connects Lah and those other terms to pre-Slavic Romance populations. I would like to read such sources as well. Alexander 007 10:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I expect that the early Slavs did encounter Romanized populations when they entered Slovenia (it's more likely than supposing that they did not encounter any), but associating Slovenian names and toponyms with them needs verification from good sources. Alexander 007 21:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 500´s

"Circa 550 - The first wave of Slavs, coming from the north (Moravia) arrives to the modern Slovene ethnic territory." This is just a Theory, it is not proven such conquest. It is the predominant concept between historians from Autria and Serbia. Nostalgics of their past influence in the region. Firsts ones aiming to reach the Adriatic Sea and the second ones aiming to rebuilt Yugoslavia under serbian leadership. I think that in a liberal and democratic Republic the "Venetic Theory" must be seriously considered and not censored as I can appreciate by now, even in Wikipedia. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A supposed invasion in the 6th century

Hi! Your editions (n 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 a more important academic in this subject 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. 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) 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How about unblocking the article?

I see that the article is currently protected, which is a shame. Since the allochthonist academics and the autochthonist amateurs have both been totally incompetent in listening to each others arguments and providing a plausible synthesis of both theories during the past 20 years, the potential editors here are prevented from editing other parts of the article, that are not dealing neither with 500s BC nor with 500s.

In an attempt to provide a solution to the conflict I propose

1) Separate the Veneti issue from the settlement issue.

It is incorrect to say that the whole of academia has agreed upon the 6th century Slavic settlement, when clearly this supposed settlement is being disputed by the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, which has not yet been properly disproved and dropped from the scientific ‘arena’ so far and is unlikely to be in the near future. For this reason I suggest that a sentence be added to the 500’s section, which will present PCT’s views on the origin of Slavs, and this should result in Mr. Marcos G. Tusar’s reconciliation with this particular part of the whole article, without even mentioning the Veneti in this section of the article.

2) In the 500’s BC section change the sentence

"The Adriatic Veneti, a people who spoke a centum language close to the Italic languages, are dwelling in northeastern Italy and parts of Slovenia."

to: "The Adriatic Veneti are dwelling in northeastern Italy and parts of Slovenia."

There is no reason why the centum character of their language should be emphasized in this article, particularly in light of debates over centum-satem isogloss being 1) the original dialect division of the Indo-European languages or 2) a result of an areal feature. If one wants this particular information on the supposed centum character of Venetic, one can find it in the Venetic language article.

The same applies for an otherwise disputed claim, that Venetic is an Italic language. Since this claim is indeed disputed within academic venetology, there is absolutely no need to mention Italic languages in this particular section of the article.

This way we could expect the edit war to stop, and allow other users to contribute their tiny bits in other parts of the article. Dejte probat mal sodelovat no.

Mr. Marcos G. Tusar, if you want to support the Venetic theory here on wikipedia, you can create an article that will present this hypothesis in English, as such an article is currently missing. The Slovenian article does exist so you could start from there and translate it. If at all possible – correctly. Once such an article will exist and the allochthonists will inevitably polish it, the most you could probably hope for is creating a link from the Vistula Veneti article (which has one sentence dedicated to Venetic theory) to this newly created article of yours. Otherwise, as you see, the alleged conspirators and their apparent minister are well on their guard and they revert the changes you make and if you continue to make them, they block the articles from being edited altogether. 89.179.223.243 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It´s a good solution, I accept your idea. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)