Talk:Venetian Slovenia

About the move
I moved the article back to its original title, Venetian Slovenia. It is a common name in English. Viator slovenicus (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I've added a paragraph on the name to avoid confusion. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that "Venetian Slovenia" is a common name in English. Can you provide any sources? I would also point out that "Beneška Slovenija" is not a literal translation of "Slavia Veneta" because, of course, "Slovenija" has never been used as an equivalent of "Slavia" (in the sense of "Schiavonia") in Slovene. The problem is compounded when the name is "translated" into English because "Slovenia" refers to a precisely circumscribed political reality and admits no other meanings.


 * "Venetian Slovenia", in English, implies a part of Slovenia that is Venetian, and is therefore misleading. "Slavia Veneta" implies a part of (formerly) Venetian territory with a Slav population, which is why I consider it a less objectionable designation.


 * I'll leave the article where it is for the time being and I look forward to seeing some sources. Rabascius (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The name
"The current English denomination, Venetian Slovenia..." is problematic. Who says it's the current English denomination? The writer of this article and who else? It may seem the obvious translation of "Beneška Slovenija" but then obvious translations are frequently wrong.

"English denomination" implies a that there is a tradition of talking about the place in English that is rooted in historical circumstances (cf. Brunswick for Braunschweig). I don't believe that this is the case here. Perhaps the best solution - if you object to Slavia Veneta - would be to leave the article under "Beneška Slovenija". It is a place name, after all, and place names are not usually translated.

"This name has been in use for almost six centuries". Are you sure about that? Given that the first recorded use of the word "Slovenija" dates from 1810, this is unlikely to say the least. I would be really interested to see a reference to "Beneška Slovenija" from before that date.

Any thoughts on the alternative name "Slovenska Benečija"?

Lep pozdrav, Rabascius (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There defenitely is a tradition of calling the region "Venetian Slovenia", as you can see here (Slovenian National Library) or here (Slavic Review, 1984). There are many articles and publications in English that refer to Venetian Slovenia, written by prominent scholars such as Lavo Čermelj (quoted in the article), Fran Zwitter (already in 1946), the Columbia University professor Rado Lencek (for example in the monograph "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay on the dialects spoken in Venetian Slovenia and Rezija"; New York: Society for Slovene Studies, 1977), and others. Modern Slovene scholars use it, too (see volume 11/12 of this scholarly journal), as does the Italian linguist Roberto Dapit (as you can see here).
 * I would also remind you of the wikipedia policies stating that the name of the article should use the most common English denomination. And as far as I know, the far most common English denomination for the region is "Venetian Slovenia". If you only google it, you will see that the term is defenitely used, and that all other denominations would be neologisms.
 * Of course, there can be no doubt that the current English name is a direct translation from Slovene; which is probably because Slovene scholars were for a long time the only ones to write about the matter in English. But this doesn't change a thing: every word or name has its own history. This history has to mentioned in the article, in order to explain how a meaning of a name developed and changed through time. What you cannot do, is to just replace it with another one because it doesn't suit you.
 * We already had a similar discussion regarding the title of the Julian March article. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, about the two other questions. About the origins of the name: as many linguists already ascertained (I think Lenček was one of them, but surely F. Ramovš), the term "Slovenia" in the name "Beneška Slovenija" developed already in the 15th or 16th century as a literary translation from the Venetian "Schiavonia Veneta". This translation is completely logic if you think that the locals used to call themselves "Sloveni" and not "Slovenci" (as it is the case in many other Slovene dialects). Just think of the name "Špeter Slovenov" for the old Italian "San Pietro degli Slavi". Until the 1850s, tehre was no specific word for "Slavs" in the Slovene language. The modern term "Slovenia" as the name for the fatherland of the Slovenes emerged in the 1840s (maybe as early as 1810, as you claim, but it was not used until much later; Prešeren did not use it even once, for example). As such, it is an intellectually constructed name, a Latinism from the 19th century (as are all names ending in -ija, which is a non-Slovene suffix). The two names, "Slovenia" in "Venetian Slovenia" and "Slovenia" as the name for the current country have two different geneses.
 * The name "Slovenska Benečija" is a construction with no foundation. It emerged in the 20th century as a mis-use (a mistake), not as a founded use. You won't be able to find a serious scholar or publication supporting its use. It was mainly used in media, by those who thought "Venetian Slovenia" is a misleading term, precisely because they ignored the history of this name and its original meaning. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, some interesting points there, let's take them one by one.


 * Googling a name and cherry-picking the hits that appear to support your argument is not sufficient evidence of the existence of a tradition. But let's look at your examples: 1. the NUK piece is publicity, not a scholarly article. It is also very obviously a translation (translator sees "Beneška Slovenija", translator types "Venetian Slovenia", translator goes to the pub); 2. I'm not going to spend USD 10.00 to read a two-page review by someone with the implausible name of Toussaint Hocevar (and he's from New Orleans! Can you believe it? I wonder if he knew Lee Dorsey...); 3. Čermelj, Zwitter, Lenček... What have they got in common (apart from being dead)? How about the fact that none of them was a native English speaker. When you say "modern Slovene scholars use it" do you mean modern scholars who are Slovene or modern scholars of Slovene? If the former, what does their choice of words have to do with current English usage? Are you beginning to see a pattern here? 4. Let me let you into a little secret about Dve domovini. Most of the English articles are translations. I have translated several of them myself. In other words you are quoting as an authoritative source something that I probably knocked off over a couple of pints in the pub (see above); 5. You seem to have got a little muddled here. The article would appear to have been written in Spanish by a Catalan and (poorly) translated into English by a Basque. Dapit is merely quoted. And what does he say? "The dialectal features of the area of Beneška Slovenija and Rezija are so that it is easier to understand them through standard Slovenian language" (Dapit 2002: 302). There are in fact 13 instances of "Beneška Slovenija" in the article, compared to just one instance of "Venetian Slovenia". Which brings me on to my next point.


 * Allow me to remind you of a Wikipedia policy: Naming conventions (geographic names). This states: "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name." This is precisely my contention: there is no widely accepted name in English. Given that Beneška Slovenija is in Italy, wouldn't that make "Slavia Veneta" the proper location for the article? If you want examples of scholarly journals using "Slavia Veneta" (in English, obviously), you might want to try Traditiones, or perhaps The Romanian Journal of Political Science, or even GeoJournal. They are certainly no less authoritative than your sources.


 * Your point about the "Slovenija" in "Beneška Slovenija" being the equivalent of "Slavia" or "Schiavonia" is very interesting and the reference to Špeter Slovenov is spot on - I should have thought of that myself. Thank you, too, for the insight on "Slovenska Benečija". On the other hand, I am not questioning the historical validity of the Slovene name "Beneška Slovenija", merely the suitability of its English translation. As I pointed out earlier, "Slovenia" only admits one meaning in English. It seems to me that the only possible English equivalents of "Slovenija" in the Slavia/Schiavonia sense are "Slavonia" – which is already taken – and "Slavia" (cf. "Yugoslavia"). Perhaps we should be calling it "Venetoslavia"...


 * To sum up: I don't accept that "Venetian Slovenia" qualifies as "the current English denomination" by any objective criteria ("If you only google it, you will see [...] that that all other denominations would be neologisms" – it's a bit weak, isn't it?). Most instances of "Venetian Slovenia" occur when Slovenes write in English or underpaid translators translate from Slovene. Scholars, on the other hand, appear to favour "Beneška Slovenija" or "Slavia Veneta" (your own sources support this view). So what do we do?


 * 1. Beneška Slovenija
 * 2. Slavia Veneta


 * That would be my vote. Rabascius (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Friulian Slavia the name is a translation into English of the Italian official name, which the Slavia is a part. Inserting references to the use of the name:

http://www.thezaurus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=9339 http://www.mercator-research.eu/img/slovene_in_italy_2nd_ed.pdf --DirkP (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unilateral moves are unacceptable. We can have a thorough discussion on the name. Even if we decide to rename the article to "Friulian Slavia", current contributions should be kept and integrated in the new versions. The last changes User:DirkP cannot but be considered as an act of editorial vandalism. Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Venetian Slovenia?????What is this?
Friuli Venezia Giulia is the name in Italian and English ... Veneto is the name in Italian and English ... Slavia Veneta or Salvia Friulana is the name in italian ... Who has invented the Venetian Slovenia name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.223.95.157 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another case of misplaced nationalism.
This entire article is written from the viewpoint of Slovenian nationalism. It bears absolutely no trace of a wider outlook.

Sad. Giordaano (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved dispute: Slovenian point of view
I am afraid that the dispute about the naming of this article is still unresolved: the POV label belongs here. Although Viator Slovenicus (yes, Slovenicus) may be certain about the rightness of the current name and content of this page, other (Italian) users do not seem to think so: therefore the readers must be aware of the existing controversy. – 62.94.178.105 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You should provide a reason for labeling an article non-NPOV, and specify which contents are, in your opinion, not neutral. Only in this way, a fruitful discussion can be carried out. You cannot just tag an article without any justification. I will temporarily remove the POV tag, until arguments are provided. As for the title: I am happy to resume the discussion any time (however, we should be aware that a naming dispute is not the same as POV: there is a separate tag for that, I believe). Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You should be able to read what Rabascius and others wrote above: those are the justifications you are looking for. As for myself, I am not going to engage in any further dispute with you: I am simply acknowledging that the dispute about the naming was never resolved, and you ought to acknowledge that too. – 62.94.130.78 (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A naming dispute is not the same as POV. As for the naming dispute: there was a tag for almost a year, but it was removed since the discussion ended and was not resumed. However, we can resume that discussion any time, and at that point the naming dispute tag should of course be re-installed. As for the non-NPOV tag, let me reiterate: you have to advance some arguments about your claim about POV, you cannot just go around labeling articles without any arguments (and without even a user account). Sorry, but I have to insist on this. Viator slovenicus (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And let me state for the record that I find your personal disqualifications unacceptable. Your ethnically charged comments speak for themselves. Here, we don't accept attacks based on users' ethnicity or nationality. Viator slovenicus (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, my dear Slovenian friend – I quit, you can have it your way. You can keep this article with its Slovenian name, you can even move Trieste to Trst; after all, I am far less nationalistic than you seem to be. However, I do hope that someone else will realise that you are treating this article as your own property and try to do something about it. (By the way, I haven't found any personal or ethnical "disqualifications" in what I wrote before. I simply pointed out that you are Slovenian, since you proudly chose to be called Slovenicus). – 62.94.130.187 (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you quit instead of engaging into a discussion. But maybe it's better this way if the only criticism you are able to formulate is based on my nationality. Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One last thing: you wrote that "there was a tag for almost a year, but it was removed since the discussion ended and was not resumed". I haven't found any trace of this in the history of this article: all I could find is that you have promptly reversed any change made by Rabascius, even if he had accepted to "discuss" and had given sound reasons. (See and then ) Could you please provide the links to those old tagged versions? – 62.94.131.189 (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be right regarding the tag. As for the discussion about the name, it can be resumed any time. I think the current title should be kept, as it has tradition of use in English. However, I'm open to other reasonable solutions. However, an agreement should first be reached in the discussion page; then, if an agreement about the change is reached, the content of the page should change accordingly. I welcome such discussion: but of course, I will defend my position in it. Viator slovenicus (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you admit that you lied about the tag. It seems to me that your only aim is to exhaust your opponents with long useless discussions... If you really want to discuss, why don't you give an answer to what Rabascius wrote on 25 May 2008? (See above). You never answered: maybe you were the one who interrupted the discussion. Until every part agrees on the name and content of this page, the POV tag does belong here (a "naming tag" doesn't exist, I'm afraid). – 62.94.130.206 (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rabaschius stated his opinion; I disagreed, and I explained extensively why. The discussion did not continue, unfortunately (mostly because no other user joined). It happens. This however doesn't mean that the article is biased. Rabaschius did not challenge the article's neutrality, he just opened a discussion on the title (a very useful one, I believe, but only its continuation can result in a consensual solution). The neutrality of the current article has not yet been put into question by anybody, at least not based on arguments. Yours, I'm afraid, are reiterated empty claims, as you refuse to enter into a fact and argument-based discussion. So far, you have only brought up innuendos regarding my nationality. This won't do the job, I'm afraid. Viator slovenicus (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'd rather talk to a brick wall. I'm not going to spend another second here. – 62.94.130.27 (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had another look at the discussion, and I agree. There is no point in wasting time and effort.Giordaano (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)