Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene)/Archive 2


 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4
 * Archive 5

Slovene vs. Slovenians
Who decided that "slovenes" is obsolete and "slovenians" is new term? "Slovenes" gives 30,000 google hits, while "slovenians" 18,00 "slovene" gives 288,000 hits; hardly obsolete. IMO "slovenians" is the inhabitants, citizeds of "Slovenia", which is the country named after "slovenes". Some Slovenes in America, some Slovenians travel to America. :-) Mikkalai 22:28, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * 'Slovenian' = 2 million google hits
 * 'Slovene' = 250 thousand google hits
 * See also the points above. The fact there are currently more hits for 'Slovenes' than 'Slovenians' is because of the historical name "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes".
 * See also the points above. The fact there are currently more hits for 'Slovenes' than 'Slovenians' is because of the historical name "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes".


 * I don't buy that. Google results can be indicative, but are definitely not definitive. It's pretty much expected that "Slovenian" would have more hits because it is a more generic term than "Slovene" (it isn't obviously limited to a single ethnicity). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I realize Im coming here pretty late, but Id just like to point out that these results prove absolutely nothing since Slovenian is the standard English adjective for anything having to do with the country, and doesnt necessarily say anthing about the people.

How is 'Slovenian' a more generic term? You clearly do not know the history of 'Slovene' and 'Slovenian'.


 * It's linguistically more generic, because it refers to the toponym. As explained elsewhere already, people can be from Slovenia ("Slovenian") without being native to it (also "Slovenian"). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

The same is true with 'Slovene', so your logic fails. -BT


 * The Merriam-Webster and WordNet dictionaries don't say that Slovene applies to non-native inhabitants of Slovenia, while the American Heritage dictionary allows for that possibility. It seems that the dictionary writers aren't quite decided on it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

And Rand McNally's World "Factbook" several years ago said eastern Slovenia was being contested between Serbia and Croatia. This wasn't even a typo as it was under the entry of facts on Slovenia. (Of course, I reported this to Rand McNally's editors and they promised to send me their next edition of the Factbook free; it never came.) --BT


 * What relevance does this blunder have on the matter at hand? Sounds like aa red herring. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   14:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You will notice that 'Croatian' is today also heavily favoured over 'Croat'. Some Croatians in North America claim 'Croat' is today a derogatory term and are insulted if you use it. --BT


 * Whatever, never heard of that. Croatian is neither "heavily" favoured nor is "Croat" a derogatory term, heaven forbid! Where do you get this stuff?! --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow, big surprise. It's always a misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or cluelessness. Not that a native English speaker needs to do this, but lets see... ah yes, 270,000 google hits for 'Croat', almost 8 MILLION for 'Croatian'. No, that doesn't mean anything either. --BT


 * That means what I have been trying to tell you all along. The term involving the toponym is more used than the term involving the ethnicity. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Neither term is toponym related.


 * Uh, of course it is. At least "Croatia" is a place name and not just a political entity name, and I would have thought "Slovenia" is too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   15:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And this has what to do with Croat vs Croatian and Slovene vs Slovenian, or Slovak vs Slovakian? Once again, Slovenian and Slovene are equivalent in terms of applicable use (i.e. as a noun or an adjective, with regards to nationals or expatriates. --BT


 * It has everything to do because it means that the people of Slovenia who do not identify with the Slovenian nation are also called "Slovenians". You are again claiming that these are universally equivalent &mdash; this is an assertion. One that is likely to be universally accepted one day, but today it's still just an assertion. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   14:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous user from 24.42.180.29 recently re-did all this saying that Slovenians is "internationally preferred". They also changed all those instances in the List of Slavs. We desperately need some sort of a rationale, either way... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. See also User talk:24.100.118.97 (also an IP belonging to the same service provider) and Talk:Slovene language. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;
 * OK, let me intervene in this silly revert war. Joy has listed the name of an anon's ISP. That's publically accessable information. BT2 objects to it being listed and has even threatened Joy (see history) to look up his public information. Since Joy has provided that information to the public himself, I don't see how that threat is meaningful. So there's nothing illegitimate about what Joy has done. If BT2 thinks that it's not appropriate, he should just explain his reasons and ask Joy to remove it. Zocky 11:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * In that sense, Joy can start posting phone numbers of Slovenian athletes (and some other celebs) and their personal home addresses. After all, these can be found on the web as well. --BT
 * BT2, please stop editing Joy's comment and provide justification for asking him to remove it. He hasn't given out anybody's personal information. He just listed the ISP that controls the IP number. That's less information than, for instance, writing that Jolanda Ceplak lives in Celje, which we bluntly do in that article. Zocky 14:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is completely non sequitur. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   15:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It's really silly. I object vehemently, on principle, that someone censors what I have already said (and what is, indeed, already available in page history and elsewhere even after the said censoring) just because they don't understand how things work. Reminds me of a recent edit where someone claimed that all webmails are inherently "untraceable"... *giggle* --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

I vehemently object to Joy posting my Service Provider. Let's be clear, just because you can find certain information on the web does NOT mean it is not private. The Slovenian phonebook is on the web and you can find home addresses and phonenumbers of some Slovenian celebs on it. Heck, the website will even show you a map image with the individual's house circled! Joy's careless exposure of my service provider to the general public serves no purpose other than infringing my privacy. --BT


 * Sorry, didn't see this part before. I didn't know this was your IP. Following that link, one can find that out, yes, because you acknowledged that IP as yours.
 * Hmm, it's a toughy. Publishing the ISP of a registered editor is definitely not nice, but it's not like he revealed your IP, you did. Saying that IP X is controlled by ISP Y is perfectly OK in itself. I suggest you ask him to remove it. Joy is a reasonable guy, I'm sure he'll consider it :) Zocky 14:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Bleh, they were not a registered editor at the time I posted this! I mean, come on, I merely posted a link to a talk page that seemed to have involved the same person claiming the same thing, and noted that it was from a related IP block to explain why. I did not reveal any personal information, nor did I in fact reveal any information whatsoever, I merely repeated already "revealed" information. It's ludicrous that I am accused of a wrongdoing and threatened with some kind of retaliation, and it only shows how the accuser hasn't even bothered to look around and see that this information isn't what they think it is (private). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Oh, BTW, I think that "Slovenian" is so much more used that it's probably better, although I do like the extra information of Slovenes vs Slovenians. Zocky 11:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although this is not the same as the language name... in this case, there's a clear point in separating the residents of the country from the members of the ethnic group. To clarify that a bit better on an example: the people who speak Slovene/Slovenian but originate in the bordering areas of e.g. Austria, Italy or Croatia cannot be Slovenians, but they can be Slovenes. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here lies your misunderstanding, because Slovenians are Slovenians no matter where they live. Similarly, Italians living in Slovenia are called Italians. Slovenians living outside of Slovenia can be differentiated from those living in Slovenia by saying 'Slovenian expatriates' or 'Slovenian nationals'. --BT


 * That's one choice of terminology. On the other hand, when ethnicity is not considered inherent to the term Slovenian (only location), this is not so straightforward. The case of Italians is slightly different because they don't have e.g. "Itals" or anything like that can be used to denote ethnicity. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   15:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * In old British English (I say old, because 'Slovenian' is a term increasingly used in the British media), 'Slovene' is the adjective and noun. In common contemporary English (used by the majority of the English-speaking world today), 'Slovenian' is both the adjective and noun. In slipshod English (listed in some American English dictionaries and the CIA World Fact book page), 'Slovenian' is the adjective and 'Slovene' is the noun. --BT


 * Can you provide an authoritative reference for that? There phrases are rather loaded and there's still no backing... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   16:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

24.42.180.29 wrote: ''Supporting the clearly less popular and dying term 'Slovene' negatively affects Slovenians. Do a google or world news search on the terms if you aren't convinced. 'Slovenian' 10x as used as 'Slovene'.''


 * I don't see this negative effect. Also, the searches are pretty indeterminate because one simply can't tell without context do they mean residents of the country or the ethnicity. Granted, the two are almost the same, but not quite. Please don't just keep repeating assertions and provide some actual reasoning. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are making something out of nothing. There is little indeterminate about the search results. Take a closer look. Further, the claim that the difference between 'Slovene' and 'Slovenian' has anything to do with ethnicity is ludicrous. Indeed, that was a notion created by some native Slovenians trying to explain what they did not understand. They did not see that Slovenians in English speaking countries outside of the UK use 'Slovenian' exclusively, while in the UK they use 'Slovene' exclusively (until recently, that is. Now Eurosport, UEFA, the Euroleague, and other European media sources use 'Slovenian' exclusively).


 * You yourself admit that both terms are used, but because of your apparent local preference want everyone else to switch to that one that you use. I can't believe I'm actually discussing this... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

What apparent local preference? The term is clearly internationally preferred. British newspapers today again used the term 'Slovenian.' --BT


 * Well, like I explicated above, I don't quite see that "clear international preference" in the modern dictionaries. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * The negative effect is confusion. Search the web, Slovenia's own government website, the Slovenia page in the world fact book, etc. You will often see 'Slovenian' AND 'Slovene' used interchangeably (as adjectives and nouns)--on the same page! However, in regular usage by Slovenians living in Australia, Canada, and the United States (and European organisations such as UEFA and British media such as Eurosport), 'Slovenian' is used exclusively as adjective and noun. --BT


 * Why do you not see the confusion caused the sudden switch to using the more toponymic variant? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   16:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No sudden switch. Basically nobody was talking about Slovenia 15 years ago. Everywhere outside of the UK (and Slovenia--whose main exposure to English was the UK), most people always used only 'Slovenian'. It's just that it was only recently that some influential Slovenians (take for example leaders in the Chamber of Commerce and Slovenian companies doing business on the international stage, and the Slovenian universities) have noticed it's in Slovenia's best interest to pick one (in this case the already vastly more common term around the world) form and stick to it. Does it honestly not bother you to see both 'Slovenian' AND 'Slovene' used interchangeably in the same article? As a quick example, take the CIA World Fact book page on Slovenia; it has 'Slovenian' listed as an adjective and 'Slovene' as a noun, but it uses both interchageably on the very same page! (E.g. "Slovene lands," "Slovenian army," "Slovenian" being the language, "Slovene" being the ethnic group, "Slovenian seal", "Slovene dynastic house", etc.) The Slovenian government page and many international newspapers do this regularly as well. Fortunately, UEFA, Euroleague (basketball), the Olympics organisation, Eurosport, and other notables all have been using 'Slovenian' exclusively for a long time from what I can tell.


 * So, because the nation finally has a state, everyone should now equate it with the state... I can certainly see why such an idea would be appealing, and it's an already fairly common nationalist concept. I was merely hoping that we'd be above that, but hey... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

No content?
Is anyone going to fill out those empty sections? The table of contents is huge, which only exacerbates the disappointment when you eventually go past it... :) --Shallot 21:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you. IMHO only the top-level sections should remain, if any. Or, at very least, subsections could be converted to text, eg. from this table of contents under "Slovenians between 1918 and 1941" ...
 * Slovenians in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia
 * Slovenes in the Dravska Banovina
 * Slovenians in the Austria
 * Slovenians in the Italy
 * Slovenians in the Spanish Civil War
 * Slovenians in the 2nd Abyssinian War

... we could produce something like:
 * Slovenians in Kingdom of Yugoslavia mostly lived in Dravska banovina - the territory that occupies most of today's Slovenia. Besides their native Yugoslavia, Slovenians also lived in Austria where they choose for their territory to remain in Austria when offered a choice, and in Italy. During the Spanish Civil War many (number would be prefered!) Slovenes fought for the losing socialist side, but gained war experience that helped them during the WW2. And yes, there was such thing as the 2nd Abyssinian War and sure enough, Slovenians were there too.

IMHO this is far by better than just the sections that obviously everyone is afraid to expand, so (s)he won't look foolish when filling only the small part. Any opinions? --Romanm 16:16, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I patched something up after seeing a small anonymous edit just now. Please feel free to improve. --Shallot 19:39, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A Call For All Slovenians (and others) To Take Notice ***draft***
Slovenian is the dominant term internationally and only increasing in popularity.

The University of Ljubljana (http://www.uni-lj.si/UoL/About/) and University of Maribor (http://www.uni-mb.si/dokument.aspx?id=8175) both favour 'Slovenian' on their websites. The Slovenian Philharmonic (http://www.filharmonija.si/), the Slovenian Tourist Board (http://www.slovenia-tourism.si/), and the Slovenian Intellectual Property Office (http://www.uil-sipo.si/) are all official names of prominent Slovenian organisations.

The major Slovenian associations in all English speaking countries outside of UK have been using Slovenian exclusively for many years. For example:

http://www.slokongres.ca/ (Canadian Slovenian Congress) http://www.cdnslocc.ca/ (Canadian Slovenian Chamber of Commerce) http://www.sloaus-inst.com/ (Slovenian Australian Institute) http://www.glasslovenije.com.au/sns-victoria.htm (Australian Slovenian network) [Can't find links for the Slovenian-American major organisations, but I know they use 'Slovenian' exclusively]

The Slovenian Chamber of Commerce (http://www.gzs.si/eng/) and most Slovenian companies (at least those that do international business) employ the term 'Slovenian' exclusively. So do the Olympics organisation (www.athens2004.com), UEFA, and most other international organisations.

In the UK, 'Slovenian' is just now catching on. But today, even the British embassy in Slovenia is using 'Slovenian' regularly on their website. The BBC regularly uses the term 'Slovenian', and Eurosport almost always uses it. http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1050510813607 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1412177.stm

New template
New template has been created (copied from Commons):. It appears like this:. It also works by using:

Cheers! --Eleassar777 17:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * template:Slovene
 * template:Slovenian
 * template:Slovene flag.

By the way, I find these arguments about Slovene/Slovenian ridiculous. Both forms should be accepted as equal, as both have been used in the past and Wikipedia has no preference over one or another form of English. --Eleassar777 17:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but in the early days of Wikipedia, let us say three years before, only a few users wrote about Slovenes and Slovene/Slovenian related subjects. And then came others, some of them think they are really polymaths and playing smart and not being clever and so on, and so on. In the begining there was Slovene... --xJaM 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As we have not reached a consensus yet, I think it's best to leave both terms as suggested by original contributors or add both forms in the text, just for the reasonings above. -- Eleassar777 [[Image:Slovenia flag 300.png|20px]] my talk 07:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slovene/Slovenian reloaded
Combined from talk pages of Eleassar777, BT2 and Slovenian language. I hope someone can make some sense out of this. -- Eleassar777 my talk 21:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Posted at talk page of Slovenian language: It is best not to make changes from Slovene to Slovenian or vice versa without prior discussion, which can be held for example at Slovenian language. There will be enough time to do so if this is the agreement reached after it. I have suggested building a list of pro and contra arguments for Slovenian there. Although after reading Nohat's posts, I even came to the conclusion that I will use Slovenian language and Slovenian (adjective) but Slovenes, as these are the preferred terms according to Google, the largest and most contemporary database of these terms available to me. --Eleassar777 my talk 16:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There has been ample discussion on the subject, but trying to reason with XJam is fruitless. I am a native-English speaking Slovenian, having been born and raised in Canada. XJam has been taught from his Slovenian-English teachers at school, using the few British-English that even mention Slovenia, that the term is Slovene. He uses Slovene for everything, yet he sees Slovene losing favour even in England (Eurosport, UEFA.com, Euroleague.net, etc) and at home in Slovenia (see www.sazu.si, www.gzs.si, www.nzs.si, etc) and is so desperate to see Slovene's usage survive he is attempting to make up new definitions for Slovene--such as Slovene having to do with ethnicity (leaving Slovenian as having to do with merely anything remotely related to the country of Slovenia).


 * As for the Oxford English dictionary, it is true that it mentions Slovene first, and Slovenian second. But British English is not international English. In fact, in Oxford's Canadian English dictionary Slovenian is written first and Slovene second. I am sure this is the case also for Oxford's American English and Australian English dictionaries.


 * I have a problem with Slovene for several reasons, namely:

although Slovenian is already much more heavily used internationally, people still often confuse Slovenia for Slovakia and even Slavonia. Having people see Slovenian AND Slovene used every (even on the same pages often) can't be helping the situation.
 * Slovenian is MUCH more appealing in sound than Slovene to native English speakers
 * Slovene is rarely used at all outside of England
 * Slovene does not naturally follow out of Slovenia. (e.g. Austria -> Austrian, Australia -> Australian, Latvia -> Latvian, Lithuania -> Lithuanian, etc)


 * As for Google, please note that searches for 'Slovenes' will return many FRENCH articles since Slovenes is indeed the French word for Slovenians. Even is you search specifically for English articles, you will retrieve these cases for bilingual pages. Further, please note that you will very, very seldom find a page employing the term Slovenes AND Croatians. (In fact, you will find more cases of Slovenians AND Croats). This is because of reference to the former state known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. But again, certainly Croatians is the internationally preferred term these days, rather than Croats. BT2 17:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I searched Google for Slovenians and Slovenes by limiting the search to English pages and have found out that Slovenes is still much more preferred than Slovenians. Slovenians and Slovenes. Otherwise, thanks for reminding me that French use Slovènes. In fact, this means that using Slovenes as compared to Slovenians is even better. --Eleassar777 my talk 17:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that French use Slovènes. In fact, this means that using Slovenes as compared to Slovenians is even better.


 * How do you figure that? The French words for Slovenia and Germany are Slovénie and Allemagne, respectively. Should we drop the English language completely? BT2 17:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, we shall use English words. Slovenes is a completely legal English word (as long as it is written without è), but is closer to French than Slovenians and this is good.

Ok, so I found out Google offers 31,000 French pages with the word "Slovènes". Of course, the majority of them are not bilingual. This means that Slovenes are still generally preferred to Slovenians in English pages. --Eleassar777 my talk 17:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also did a reseach of books using COBISS system:

Slovenes: 203 hits Slovenians: 40 hits

COBISS is a database of books, newspapers, articles and other items held by libraries of former Yugoslav republics. At first I searched in Slovenian libraries. I used this link for checking to get the results written above.

Write Slovenes or Slovenians in the line named Title and choose English language below. I hope this is clear, otherwise just experiment a little, it's not very difficult. I wonder what number would one get for these two terms searching in British or American libraries. --Eleassar777 my talk 18:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slovenes 8 of the first 20 hits are French and 1 is in Greek or something! So much for the pro-Slovene Google evident. ;) BT2 18:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know, searching for images using Google unfortunately does not allow one to filter hits by language, in contrast to general searching for text, where it is evident that Slovenes are preferred to Slovenians on English web pages. --Eleassar777 my talk 18:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The same result searching in Serbian and Macedonian libraries using COBISS COBISS.net. The same result searching in the Library of Congress Online Catalog. Also forBritish Library Integrated Catalogue. All searches were limited to English results only. Slovenes prevail, according to the references. -- Eleassar777 my talk 21:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I was most curious about your British Library source, which I obviously expected to highly favour Slovenes over Slovenians. You said the searches are limited to English only? Not even close! Of the 206 hits for Slovenes, many (maybe somebody else will bother to count them) are in either French, German, Dutch or Slovenian. 7 of the first 10 alone. Further, most are really old (at least pre-1991, sometimes pre-1900). Slovenian really only came to dominance in the international media after 1991 (i.e. when Slovenia started to make the news regularly and native-English speaking Slovenians couldn't tolerate the pain in hearing the archaic and awkward-sounding Slovene term used). BT2 03:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Already yesterday, I chose English language sources and limited searhing to words from titles. This can be done in advanced mode. I got 19 results for Slovenes and 4 results for Slovenians. -- Eleassar777 my talk 08:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slovenia, Slovenian, Slovenians

 * Another thing I want to point out is that actually it does not matter how incredibly odd the word Slovene is.

Oh, really? I think it matters quite a lot, actually. Perhaps you and XJam don't see this because you are NOT native-English speaking Slovenians. -BT


 * The only important thing is that Slovene is one form of English and is still used by some.

And it will continue to be used, alongside Slovenian, often on the same page, in the same article, even by the same author if we let this nonsense continue. The idea that Slovene is a noun and Slovenian is an adjective may seem like a clever idea to subscribe to. However, the reality is that, in practice, in English speaking countries (even England) very few use the term Slovene. I submit that this is precisely the reason why the vast majority of major widely read English language sites who OFTEN publish new articles about Slovenia and Slovenians stick EXCLUSIVELY to employing the term Slovenian as both noun and adjective. Slovenian sounds better, it follows naturally from Slovenian, and it is used by the vast majority of native-English speaking Slovenians and already by the majority of the world. Sources (and there are many, several of which I have posted earlier) will be provided when time permits.

I, a native-English speaking Slovenian, would never imagine myself or another native-English speaker telling Slovenians what is ideal in Slovenian. No matter what I might have learned from my Slovenian teachers. If I'm contributing to the Slovenian language wikipedia and find in a dictionary two supposedly equal acceptable terms (i.e. same definition), and a native-Slovenian speaker tells me one term sounds unnatural and is seldom used (basically archaic)... do I not choose the other term??? BT2 02:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't agree with this. More people whose mother tongue is English should confirm what you say. Also, as you know, there are different variants of English spoken in different parts of the world and Wikipedia does not prefer one over the other. What sounds awful for example in Canadian English, could be a very popular word in American, British or Indian English. Perhaps what you claim regarding the nouns Slovenes and Slovenians is true, but regarding how many editors use the noun Slovenes as a normal English word and regarding the references I found yesterday, you cannot reasonably expect me to believe you just because you said otherwise without providing more independent confirmations. If you did provide them, you could persuade me by citing them, if they were relevant enough. No personal thing, I am just trying to determine what's true (either could be) and this is how the world works. -- Eleassar777 my talk 08:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What you found is extremely weak evidence. Please re-read what I posted earlier:

However, the reality is that, in practice, in English speaking countries (even England) very few use the term Slovene. I submit that this is precisely the reason why the vast majority of major widely read English language sites who OFTEN publish new articles about Slovenia and Slovenians stick EXCLUSIVELY to employing the term Slovenian as both noun and adjective. Slovenian sounds better, it follows naturally from Slovenian, and it is used by the vast majority of native-English speaking Slovenians and already by the majority of the world. Sources (and there are many, several of which I have posted earlier) will be provided when time permits.


 * Heavy evidence in the form of widely read English-language sites frequently publishing articles about Slovenia and Slovenians such UEFA, FIFA, Euroleague (basketball), NBA, FIS (skiing), IAAF (athletics), etc. The Slovenian Chamber of Commerce and Slovenia's football (soccer) associations publish regularly English articles and stick to Slovenian for both the noun and verb. Eurosport (British-based!) sticks mostly to Slovenian, and so on and so on. Why do they do this? Why are you still arguing with me? ;) BT2 16:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked this. You know, you should not see this as an argument, even if it looked so in the beginning. Actually I just came by and saw people yelling at each other and decided to mediate and determine the truth, so that we can finally form a solid policy on this and stop any possible future arguments. In fact, I don't know much about when Slovenian and Slovene should be used, however I can research. It's nice that you are here objecting to me, as this enables me to test my assumptions and discover the truth.

Otherwise, as to this last post, I don't claim Slovene as an adjective is used more than Slovenian. As for the noun, I don't really understand why what I found is extremely weak evidence. Can you explain this? Thanks. -- Eleassar777 my talk 17:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nohat, I guess that you do not understand me. It is not that I do not like the term 'Slovenian' but it merely goes for that "Slovene" is still a valid term in English (should I write Englishian (as you write Slovenian)?). What is interesting is that 'Slovenian' came into English distionaries in 1844 and "Slovene" in 1883. I hope that we may rely upon your statements, Nohat. Are there no other (older) sources on this subject, because it is a little bit strange that terms Slovene/Slovenian came into English as late as in the first half of 19th century? And what bothers me is that nobody here respected older contributions which were related to Slovenes and Slovenia and which go back for 3 years. This is what bothers me. Since "Slovene" is a regular term, and first contributors used it, no other naming conventions are needed here. What goes in favour for "Slovene" is also that a founder of this great project - Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales uses "Slovene". And as I see he is an American native, born in Alabama. And BTW BT2, yes I have been taught from my Slovene-English teachers at school, but I can asure you that the deceased Mr. Ko&#353;uta, who taught me first English words was one of the best teachers I have ever seen or met. And I am not alone. You can ask every Slovene youngster what word did they learn in school, and you'll see that the majority of them have learned "Slovene". So according to you, they are all wrong, because 'Slovenian' should be used. And both terms are still taught at the Faculty of arts (Filozofska fakulteta) in Ljubljana. Igor said that now he has to look for two words, because terms are now used inconsistently. But using just 'Slovenian' here IMHO is not a consistency at all. Best regards to all the friends of Slovene culture and the nation. --xJaM 14:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Slovene is still a valid term. However, in my opinion the question is not whether they are both still valid, as saying otherwise without strong and verifiable arguments would be only a point of view that I hope shall not decide Wikipedia's policies. So I think what is important is whether one form or the other is currently preferred. Hereby, I think we should be a little less emotional in our discussion and a little more careful about citing our sources if we are to be taken serious and what we find out to have some value.

Therefore (nothing personal), I have doubts about the following arguments:
 * What Mr Wales and Mr Košuta use(-d) doesn't matter much yet, as for now these are only their personal preferences and I even don't know where they can be verified. If these claims are to be taken seriously, they should be backed up by other primary sources that will show how they decided to use Slovene.
 * What FIFA, UEFA, NBA, FIS etc. use also doesn't matter much... unless if you BT2 provide primary sources where one can easily verify not only that these organisations use Slovenian, but that they use Slovenian only or preferentially. Even then, this still remains a matter of much controversy and as such not a strong argument, as their reasons for doing so are not clear and many organizations can be found online that prefer the opposite.
 * Historical sources that you provided till now also don't help much because many words that were used in the past are obsolete now and you would have to undisputedly demonstrate the whole history of development of use of these two forms till now. XJaM and Nohat, you know that if you used the same words that Prešeren did in his letters or even which people used in 1930s, you would sound excentric and funny. English language is not a dead corpse, it's a living body and contemporary sources matter the most. By the way, Slovenian and Englishian should not be compared as Slovenian and English surely have different etymologies.

So, as far as I can tell, the only things reliable that we can use to decide for now are large statistical analyses and samples. Two are available to us, as I have shown above: Google and libraries. According to them, as anyone can check, as an adjective, Slovenian is the currently preferred, while for the noun, Slovene(s) is more often used. Nevertheless, Slovene as an adjective and Slovenian as a noun are still often used and should be part of Wikipedia in certain circumstances, as much as I understand the policy of neutral point of view. We have to accept this or find inconsistencies in my argument. On the other hand, there are surely etymologists on Wikipedia and we can ask them too.

We should also be prepared to make compromises otherwise we'll never rich a consensus. The naming conventions policy should include what we determine in our discussion if we want to prevent such arguments in the future. I hope you took some time to think about what I wrote. If I'm mistaken, I would appreciate if you explained yourself politely as a man to man. -- Eleassar777 my talk 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*What FIFA, UEFA, NBA, FIS etc. use also doesn't matter much... unless if you BT2 provide primary sources where one can easily verify not only that these organisations use Slovenian, but that they use Slovenian'' only or preferentially. Even then, this still remains a matter of much controversy and as such not a strong argument, as their reasons for doing so are not clear and many organizations can be found online that prefer the opposite.''

What are you talking about, Eleassar? What these widely read English-language sites that frequently publish articles about Slovenia and Slovenians use is extremely significant. And so is what wikipedia uses. Their primary sources are simple enough: www.fifa.com, www.uefa.com, www.nba.com, www.fis-ski.com (watch articles during winter season), www.euroleague.net, www.eurobasket.com, etc. Can you provide such sources supporting Slovene? No. What a handful of (primarily old) books use is quite insignificant. In the English-speaking world, in practice, very very few use Slovene today for anything. Especially not native-English speaking Slovenians... BT2 02:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)