Talk:Timeline of Slovenian history

message: *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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: "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)
thread_title: 500´s

message: 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)
thread_title:  A supposed invasion in the 6th century 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How about unblocking the article? 

message: I've removed the sentence "The Adriatic Veneti are dwelling in northeastern Italy and parts of Slovenia." as it seems dubious to me and was unreferenced. As far as I've verified (using Google), there were no Veneti in Slovenia. --Eleassar my talk 12:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Adriatic Veneti

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Timeline of Slovenian history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426081759/http://crnvo.me/docs/biblio_eng/p10.pdf to http://crnvo.me/docs/biblio_eng/p10.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified