Talk:Sveta Gera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CIA Factbook[edit]

As I have not found it in the source mentioned, I've removed the following potentially controversial sentence: "The CIA Handbook states that "Slovenia and Croatia have not obtained parliamentary ratification of 2001 land and marine boundary treaty, which cedes villages on the Dragonja River and Sveta Gera (Trdinov vrh) to Croatia, and most of Piran Bay to Slovenia but restricts Slovenian access to the open sea". --Eleassar my talk 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sveta Gera → Trdinov vrh — Even map on references says Trdinov vrh; or to be moved to Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh? And, while border is disputed, where is true border line? --AndrejJ (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC) — Eleassar my talk 13:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose. per evidence I listed below. Trdinov vrh is as much Slovenian as Savudrija Bay. I know I have just touched a hive full of wasps (I don't know the English expression for this), but as a Croatian peak, this should bear the Croatian name. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. First, the references cited are Croatian, which makes them inherently biased. It's not hard to find Slovenian sources to confirm that Trdinov vrh is in Slovenia. Second, it's not upon Wikipedians to decide where is the true border line. This would amount to original research. Third, while it is not possible currently to say which side has it right, according to Google, the much more common name is Trdinov vrh. Per Wikipedia:Naming dispute#Proper nouns: "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name." --Eleassar my talk 08:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, Slovenian sources are no less biased than Croatian and I wasn't able to find any map that puts Sv. Gera in Slovenia. If you have sources saying otherwise, you have to show them here. Second, the border line is defined in the evidence I have shown. It's OR only if you consider using Google and sources from the article itself "original research"! Third, a Google search shows that Trdinov vrh gets 16,300 results, but also that Sveta Gera gets 22,300, clearly showing that Sveta Gera is the more common name. I don't know where do you get your results, as even google.si shows more results in favor of Sveta Gera than in favor of Trdinov vrh. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just list two sources that show Trdinov vrh is in Slovenia, to prove you there is a controversy.[1][2] Now, saying that Trdinov vrh is Croatian in spite of that contradicting maps is your original synthesis and biased conclusion, believe it or not. As for the Google search, "Trdinov vrh" gives 18,100 hits[3] and "Sveta gera" gives 5,280 hits[4]. Why have you decided to exclude all the hits including both Trdinov vrh and Sveta gera in your first search[5] remains a mystery to me. On the other side, "SV Gera whose football department joined Blau-Weiß Gera" (etc.), which you have included in your second search[6], does not qualify as a relevant hit in my humble opinion. --Eleassar my talk 15:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research, it's what sources say. Now, your sources say Sv. Gera is Slovenian, but that doesn't mean I made my souces up. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR before accusing. Concerning Google, I don't think the 429 hits using both Sveta Gera (Sv. Gera) and Trdinov vrh matter, since they do not help determine the more prevalent usage. Adjectives "Sveta" and "Sveti" are often shortened to "Sv." in Croatian and this has spread to other languages, as documented in the example of Sv. Marko vs. Sveti Marko. Although the former does not outweigh the latter, it still makes up for quite a large percentage of total hits (about 45%) and your count for "Sveta Gera" results from not taking the "Sv. Gera" version into account. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated why I believe Trdinov vrh is the commonest non-English name and I stick to the following: per Wikipedia:Naming dispute#Proper nouns: "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name." - in this case Trdinov vrh. --Eleassar my talk 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. per evidences presented. Slovenia tries to dispute legacy of R. Croatia on some territories, but this question is still not started on some international court. Until it's decided differently it stays what it is - Croatian territory. Anything else would be unserious in an encyclopedia. Zenanarh (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC0)
I won't argue who tries to dispute whose legacy; it's enough for me to say that per evidences presented, until it's decided differently, Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera stays what it is - a disputed territory. Saying anything else would be unserious in an encyclopedia. As I have already stated, per Wikipedia:Naming dispute the most neutral way of dealing with this would be to use the commonest non-English name (which as demonstrated above is Trdinov vrh). --Eleassar my talk 08:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see Admiral Norton has already started canvassing his Croatian friends!![7] Per WP:CANVASS: "Messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." --Eleassar my talk 08:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So let's kill off WP:DELSORT, wouldn't that be nice? I invited Zenanarh of the discussion, I didn't say "You must vote on Talk:Sveta Gera", nor did I say "Oh please oppose on Talk:Sveta Gera, some Slovenian maniac claims it's Slovenian." WP:CANVASS is written to discourage people from mass invitations like on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir, not to discourage inviting someone knowledgeable of the subject to discuss and find new evidence which might be instrumental for the outcome of this discussion. Either way, real canvassing is likely to be caught and noted in the discussion and it's up to the closing admin to determine whether the canvassed vote is useful or not. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELSORT is one thing, but "Could you please lend me a hand at the dispute on Talk:Sveta Gera?" sounds very similar to "Oh please oppose on Talk:Sveta Gera" to me. I also don't think Zenanarh has brought anything new to the discussion. He has just repeated that Croatia claims this territory for itself - just like Slovenia does. --Eleassar my talk 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in the future I'll make sure I request Wikipedia Signpost to be delivered to me by a disposable e-mail account to evade nitpickers like you. Also, it's hardly my fault if Zenanarh chooses to oppose per evidence rather than once more contradict your alleged proof. BTW why aren't we talking at all about Zenanarh's arguments, but discussing this problem only? Admiral Norton (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Quote: Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Well, I didn't alert the whole WP:CRO. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said all that I wanted to say about Zenanarh's arguments even before he came here. It's a pity you have now resorted to personal attacks and wikilawyering. The spirit of the guideline, as written in the nutshell: "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." --Eleassar my talk 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, stop discussing policies here. Instead, try to find a solution. I suggest Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh or Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera since the area is claimed by both nations and both names appear in international sources. There has to be some compromise here. --Tone 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You probably meant: stop discussing the behavior of users? I mean, what else can be more fair than to stick to policies in such controversial cases? No personal offense, but WP:NCGN states the following: "Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first." It also states a solution I have offered several times already: "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems."--Eleassar my talk 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Using multiple names raises move requests and it's also detrimental to the article formatting, making Wikipedia look unprofessional. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleassar. Canvassing? Hm, and what's this?
Another Croat? Please state reasons for your opposition. The originally mentioned reason has been refuted.
As for the canvassing, in contrast to the post by Admiral Norton, the post by Andrejj has not influenced this proposal. It has nothing to do with me. As you may see from the article's history, I have edited this article a lot and did already move it once. I have had it on my watchlist. My arguments regarding Wikipedia:Naming dispute#Proper nouns and WP:NCGN are still as solid as they were before. --Eleassar my talk 12:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's okay, then lemme post a notice on WT:CRO or on hr.wiki Village Pump. It'll just help create more fuss and bring more new editors who had little interaction with the move process and little knowledge of English language. On the other hand, I invited Zenanarh, not only an experienced Wikipedian, but a person who has more than average layman knowledge of this naming problem. Yes, he's Croatian, but if you find that a criterium to dispose of his reasoning, you also shouldn't be participating in this discussion since you're Slovenian. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What matters here is not whom you hold in high esteem and whom you don't. It's also not about credentials (which are not evident from Zenanarh's page at all), nationality or votestacking. It's about arguments and policies. Till now, all the arguments for the opposition to move the page, including the Zenanarh's, have been refuted. --Eleassar my talk 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CIA Factbook is most neutraly source, IMHO. --Suradnik13 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already written above, I have not found any claim regarding Trdinov vrh in the CIA Factbook.[8][9] Even if it would be actually included (it is not), this factbook is only one of the sources and most surely not the authoritative one. --Eleassar my talk 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What claim? I didn't refer to the territory dispute. I just said that in CIA Factbook is written Sveta Gera (Trdinov Peak) [10] --Suradnik13 (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in other words, does this mean that Eleassar denies his claim of a territory dispute between Croatia and Slovenia by arguing that it's sourced in a non-important source? If that's the case, then I agree, Sveta Gera belongs to Croatia. That's what I have already proven here (look at evidence and other links of mine). Admiral Norton (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I dispute that the CIA Factbook could decide whom the territory belongs to or the name of the article. --Eleassar my talk 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Imbris (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Even in former SFRY this peak has been considered Croatian and, belive it or not, by the Yugoslav People's Army [11]. -- Imbris (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to do all the necessary research to properly answer this question nor access to all the documents and even if I would, I'm sure many people would disagree with my ascertainments. However, it is undue weight to draw conclusions on the basis of one or two sources as you and Suradnik13 try to do. For example, this page cites several reliable references according to which Trdinov vrh belongs to Slovenia. The fact remains that the sovereignty over this territory is a matter of dispute[12] and Wikipedia policies are very clear in such cases:
  • WP:NCON#Proper nouns: "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name."
  • WP:NCGN: "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems."
As already stated above, according to Google the commonest non-English name is Trdinov vrh. --Eleassar my talk 09:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sveta Gera 173,000 and Trdinov vrh 28,300. According to my google, Trdinov vrh isn't the commonest non-English name :) --Suradnik13 (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have to put Sveta Gera and Trdinov vrh inside the quotation marks to get relevant results. Sveta Gera (5,000); Trdinov vrh (18,100). :D --Eleassar my talk 09:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's 22,300 for Sveta Gera to 15,800 for Trdinov vrh. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your results are flawed as Sv Gera most often refers to the German sport club SV Gera. I've tried to exclude that (12,500 results now), but many hits are still irelevant for this dispute. Regarding your count for Trdinov vrh, it's also flawed as you have for no reason excluded all the results including both Trdinov vrh and Sveta/Sv Gera. I already explained this to you once. --Eleassar my talk 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I explained to you that 429 hits featuring both names are too few to influence this. Also, I found many hits for "Trdinov vrh" like this and there are absolutely no English-language hits among the first ten Google results.
BTW, removing Slovenian sources for "Trdinov vrh" and Croatian sources for "Sv. Gera" (they don't play a role here) returns 12,400 hits for Sveta Gera and 9,180 hits for Trdinov vrh. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are not only 429 hits but 1,540 hits that include both phrases.
Also, there's no reason to exclude everything published at .si or .hr domains. You have to filter the hits for those written in English. That way I get 214 hits for Sveta Gera and 1,940 hits for Trdinov vrh. --Eleassar my talk 15:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't see a way how can WP:UNDUE be applied here, since this is a move discussion and the fact that a user doesn't bombard us with ten sources that list ten more sources by themselves, doesn't mean his sources are ineligible. In fact, he has presented a source showing that Sveta Gera has a history of being on Croatian soil even during the former Yugoslavia. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see why should we rely on this single source when according to another reliable source (also printed during the former Yugoslavia) Trdinov vrh has a history of being on Slovenian soil: Krajevni leksikon Slovenije (Lexicon of places in Slovenia) II, Ljubljana 1971COBISS 14403117. That's what I'm talking about. --Eleassar my talk 15:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder it says "Trdinov vrh" when it's Slovenian: written in Slovenian, made by Slovenians, printed in Slovenia, sold to Slovenians. This is far from a neutral source, since Yugoslav countries that can be neutral to the problem obviously had very little influence to it. Also, there are numerous sources pointing to Sveta Gera being Croatian. You can read my and fellow opposers' statements and the Evidence section, or I can again create a summary. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably there are other sources to support Slovenian position, which I don't know about. In any case, facts are: a dispute remains, we have certain guidelines to be followed in such cases and Slovenian name is the more frequent one. --Eleassar my talk 19:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your place to announce the more frequent name and the statement about Trdinov vrh being more frequent is disputed at best. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I find your patronizing tone uncivil. As for the frequency, you may dispute whatever you want, but your arguments are void. Everyone can have a look at the numbers listed above. --Eleassar my talk 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slovenians would very much like to insist that Trieste is in fact Trst even if the founding father of Slovenian Geography Peter Kozler wrote in his famous map the name Terst (Zaliv Teržaški). Udine would be Videm, Klagenfurt would be Celovec, Villach would be Beljak, Völkermarkt would be Velikovec, Bleiburg would be Pliberk. But those places are not in Slovenia - thus named in the official language of the land. This list is amazing Slovene exonyms, but I do not see that the EU27 would do anything for the Slovenian interests, Russia perhaps but still it would be more probably that Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia would do far much more for Slovenian interests than any of the EU27.
In any possible way either the Slovenian language or the Croatian language have little or no impact on the English language and if they do have some impact I am sure that the old name is better, Slovenes have used Sveta Gera (as a name) up to 1923 also.
Furthermore Serbian Wikipedia, English Wikipedia and French Wikipedia use Sveta Gera and not some combinations.
Imbris (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence[edit]

In favor of Trdinov vrh:

In favor of Sveta Gera:

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.

RfC: Title of the article[edit]

I dispute the decision to retain this article under the title Sveta Gera. Here are some facts (some of them being refutal of the claims in the previous section):

  1. Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera partly belongs to Slovenia and partly to Croatia. The dispute concerns only the sovereignty over the summit of the peak.
  2. What matters are not names that were used in the past centuries but those that are used now (actually, Slovenes used the name Sveta Jera, not Sveta Gera, till 1923). I also don't care about what French or Serbian Wikipedia articles use. You should read them and have a look at their history to understand why.
  3. The guidelines state: "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name." (WP:NCON#Proper nouns) and "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems." (WP:NCGN)
  4. According to Google results listed above Slovene name of the peak is the prevalent one. Everyone can have a look at them to verify that.
  5. There is no substantiated reason to disregard the guidelines in this case. In addition, the proposal was concluded when the discussion was still ongoing.

--Eleassar my talk 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I come to this issue as an outsider, knowing nothing of the problem, except that there is one. Sveta Jera and Sveta Gera are obviously the same name, and I would suggest that one of these ought to be a neutral name. I suspect that re-naming it after an individual was a nationalistic act of the side that did it, and thus represents a sort of nationlistic POV, as opposed to the NPOV required by WP. However, what ever the solution ultimately adopted, all other versions should exist as redirects to that version. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both names are equally nationalistic in the context of current times. The renaming in 1923 was not a nationalistic act of one side. It was supported by both Slovenes and Croats. People from both sides of the border came to the peak when it was solemnly renamed.[13] Trdina was a grammar school professor in Rijeka for some time and one of the streets in the city is named after him. Therefore, I can't agree any of the names would be more pov than the other. It's simply that one is Croatian and the other Slovene and we should choose the more frequent one. --Eleassar my talk 08:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that 1923 Trdinov vrh isn't a nationalistic rename is sheer nonsense. This name was never supported nor used by Croatia. On the other hand, Sveta Gera is the historical name of the peak, following the Slovenian-Croatian tradition of naming mountain peaks after saints (have a look at any geographical map of either country to see the pattern). Exactly your statement proves how little Trdina had to do with the peak itself, as the renaming was just an act of Slovenian nationalism against the Serbian government (see Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes for the political situation). Admiral Norton (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference provided says both nations supported the rename: "Takrat se je na vrhu Gorjancev zbralo številno ljudstvo s slovenske in hrvaške strani." (meaning: People from both the Slovenian and Croatian side gathered on the peak at that time, i.e. when it was solemnly renamed) [14] Also, please provide a reference for your claim about the rename as an act of Slovenian nationalism against the Serbian government. --Eleassar my talk 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this, specifically this quote "Na prijedlog predsjednika SPD Novo Mesto Ferdinanda Seidla 1923. su Novomeščani Sv. Geru preimenovali u spomen književnika Janeza Trdine (1830. - 1905., "Bajke in povesti o Gorjancih", 1904.) u Trdinov vrh." (English: According to the suggestion of Ferdinand Seidl, the president of SPD Novo Mesto in 1923 the residents of Novo Mesto changed the name of Sv. Gera to Trdinov vrh in the honor of writer Janez Trdina. -- emphasis added). Note it does not say that Croats agreed to the change. The next sentence also corroborates it: "Tako je predio najvišega vrha Žumberačke gore i Gorjanaca dobio dvojaki naziv jer je za žumberačko područje i dalje ostao naziv Sv. Gera." (English: That way the area around the summit of Žumberak and Gorjanci got a double name, because the name Sv. Gera still stuck for the Žumberak area.) It would be hard to find an online reference for the nationalism claim (it's probably deliberated in detail in some history book), but the rename was still made without the consent of Croats. It should also be noted that "Trdinov vrh" is found in the article only in the quote above and "Sv. Gera" is used instead all the time. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source I have provided not only residents of Novo mesto, but people from both sides of the border gathered on the summit to witness the solemn renaming. Your source does not explicitely deny this so it is solely your own conclusion that "the rename was still made without the consent of Croats". This page casts further light on this: "Bradati uniatski svečenik iz hrvaških Sošic je opravil cerkveni obred" (English: A bearded Uniate priest from the Croatian village of Sošice performed the ecclesiastic rituals). Therefore, I stick to my claim that the renaming was supported by both Slovenes and Croats and that both names are equally nationalistic in the context of current times. It's simply that one is currently perceived as Croatian and the other as Slovene and we should choose the more frequent one.
Another thing: Trdina had quite a lot to do with the peak as he was a fervent describer of the Gorjanci region. He travelled it all across observing and writing about the life and customs of local people. --Eleassar my talk 09:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slovenians can claim whatever they want, but there is no Croatian source saying the Croats supported the rename. It's purely a Slovenian-only thing and more Slovenian sources won't change it. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source I provided is not a partisan one. Saying that only Croatian sources are eligible is obvious POV-pushing. --Eleassar my talk 15:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not POV pushing, it's common sense. If Croats supported something, I bet they have some record about it. I wonder why don't we use Zulu websites to list Azerbaijani presidents? Admiral Norton (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove the renaming was a Slovenian unilateral nationalistic act, which Croats opposed to at the time? Perhaps they were mostly oblivious to it, but at least some supported it. I see no reason to doubt the factual accuracy of the references provided simply because they are in Slovene. --Eleassar my talk 20:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proving it by the fact that there is no recorded use of "Trdinov vrh" name in Croatia by Croat sources. Also would you please explain this? Admiral Norton (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't prove that Croats opposed to the renaming, but simply that they viewed it as a Slovene thing irrelevant to their language. It didn't bother them much as otherwise there would be Croat sources about that. There are many Croat sources that cite both names.[15]
How come I only see some lists on that Google search, most of whom aren't in Croatian anyway? Could you point me to one reliable Croatian source which cites Trdinov vrh as the name of the summit (not the TV tower). And explain, how can Croats oppose or be indifferent to the Slovenian name? They can either use it or not use it. In this case, the name "Sveta Gera" was used by both countries until 1923, at which time Slovenians seceded with their new unilateral name "Trdinov vrh." While they claim Croats also use their name, they provide no proof of that. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should explain how does the added source support the sentence "claimed by both Croatia and Slovenia". I've readded the relevant source that was removed by mistake. --Eleassar my talk 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shows a map with Sveta Gera in Croatia. Is that a source? I bet it is. Just take a look and stop including only the sources you like. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a source, but on a wrong place as it does not support the sentence "claimed by both Croatia and Slovenia". As I have already said, anyone is welcome to describe the arguments of Croatia (or Slovenia) provided they are properly attributed and referenced and there's where this source could possibly be used. Perhaps we should organize the article in two sections: Croatian claims, Slovenian claims in the same manner as it has been done in Gulf of Piran. --Eleassar my talk 08:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't follow your discussion last days, but I must admit that I'm shocked that it still going on here. To Elessar concerning Admiral Norton's alegged "canvassing" in voting up there: you was angry to see comment of a Croat? You shouldn't be. Yes I'm a Croat, but only a half. My mother is Slovenian, born in Ljubljana in Bohinj origin family. So I have "Gorenjska" blood in my veins too together with my Croatian Dalmatian. My mother was one of the establishers of Slovenian minority association in my home city in Dalmatia. You should hear what Slovenes in Croatia, not bombarded with Slo politicians propaganda, think about Slo-Cro disputes. You wouldn't like it, I guess. Back to agenda. Sveta Gera was/is definitely Croatian territory. 15 years ago JNA forces retreated and left the barrack there, which had been officially within SR Croatia territoy earlier. Slovenian army was very opportunistic and "conquered" it which was followed by many protests from Cro government. There were many negotiations between Cro and Slo authorities and offices in the meantime and what is the most funniest, many Slovenian highly positioned administrators, the most of the experts from Slovenia as well as Slo-Cro mixed group of experts (1996) concluded that Sveta Gera undoubtly belongs to Croatia. Conclusion of this mixed expert group was based on Badinter's arbitrage commission "Opinion nr. 3", so borders between 2 former Yugo republics automatically became borders between 2 modern sovereign republics. Well, the real problem here is that Slovenian politicians didn't accept opinion of the experts and Sveta Gera is used as a sort of "blackmale" concerning other similar disputes between 2 republics. So dear Elessar, your contribution here is highly politicized and opposite to already conducted expertise. Since this is an encyclopedia we ought to work here as documentary editors, not politically biased warriors. Sveta Gera is Sveta Gera according to the existing documents (those valid) and as I said earlier, until some international court decides opposite, it can't be anything else. BTW I really enjoyed climbing on Triglav, Jalovec and Mangart. Hope to visit Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh some day. Cheers. Zenanarh (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera partly belongs to Slovenia and partly to Croatia. The dispute concerns only the sovereignty over the summit of the peak and remains present no matter what the experts say or do not say. The disputed name of the article concerns the name of the entire peak, where both names are valid. Therefore, it would be best to follow the already several times quoted Wikipedia guidelines, which recommend the usage of the most frequent name (see rationale). As long as the opinion of the experts is not properly referenced and given its proper weight in some international court, I see no substantiated reason to take it seriously (in Wikipedia), as that would go against WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. --Eleassar my talk 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute the use of Croatian bureau of statistics reference as argument in favour of "Sveta Gera". Croatia has invented at least one toponym since (and has been using it exclusively in official documents) for the purpose of prejudicing the outcome of a territorial dispute - see [16], [17] and [18]. --Yerpo (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You dispute Sveta Gera which was both Slovenian and Croatian name with this "invention - accusation"? OK, you obviously don't know that there was a few geographical names attached to the Gulf of Piran in history. The most of historical maps presented by your source were made by Italians who always called it "Gulf of Pirano". So Piran instead of Pirano is Slovenian invention? Savudrijska vala is not invention it's just one of the traditional names of that gulf for inhabitants of Buje region. But in 16th century this gulf was Dragogna or Gulf of Dragonja, since it was called so by domestic population (not Italians) from both sides of the gulf. We've all excepted foreign name of that gulf (shame, isn't it?) and used it officially during Yugo ages. Why Slovenes like that name so much is obvious. It's certainly not because Slovenes "primorci" descended from Italians. These Slo-Cro territory disputes are already childish enough. Don't make it even more childish with "dispute" like yours ;) Zenanarh (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, Slovenes used the name Sveta Jera, not Sveta Gera, till 1923 (already said before). As for Savudrijska vala/Gulf of Dragonja, I'd expect you to present a source or two for your statements. The historical maps shown above say either "gulf of Piran" or "gulf of Sečovlje" most of the time. --Yerpo (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zenanarh, you said a lot of things, but did not provide even one source. Why should we take your statements seriously then? Another thing you should consider: None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as the "truth" (from WP:NPOV). Wikipedia does not take positions. Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves (by "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.") --Eleassar my talk 12:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need sources to show how Yerpo misses agenda. Otherwise it would be possible to discuss about an apple using a source about a banana. Or I could write a "mirror" of his comment, one about how there's no international law concerning sea borders which can transform all mentioned gulf to Slovenian property. All of it doesn't have place here - Sveta Gera! Or better to say Sveta Jedrt, no Gera, no Jera.
Concerning "facts about opinions" - you're right. I should present sources. Uostalom, zajednička hrvatsko-slovenska komisija za granice svojedobno je uspješno identificirala 663 od 670 kilometara države granice (suglasje je postignuto i o tome da se Sveta Gera nalazi u Hrvatskoj). Za Slovence je ostalo sporno samo sedam kilometara uz Dragonju, odnosno kanal Sv. Odorika pri utoku u more. Međutim, i to je ostavljeno kao problem više zbog moguće trgovine s Hrvatskom u vezi slovenskih zahtjeva za koridorom do otvorenog mora kroz hrvatsko teritorijalno more [19]. This is about work of mixed commission in January 1996. Do you need translation? Zenanarh (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My (much newer) source says: Pomembnejših spornih točk je po oceni zunanjega ministra šest (strokovna skupina za mejo jih je evidentirala 19, a večinoma gre za lažje rešljive probleme). Sporna je razmejitev na območjih ob Muri pri Hotizi, pri Sekuličih pod Gorjanci, na vrhu Trdinovega vrha, pri Tomšičevi parceli pod Snežnikom in ob reki Dragonji v Istri. [20]. Do you need translation? --Yerpo (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your source there's personal opinion of a politician involved - so completely politicized. How can it be relevant? Zenanarh (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's official opinion of a politician. Much more relevant than a personal opinion of a journalist (which is also completely politicized, but inherently much less informed and without the responsibility of a position in a government office). --Yerpo (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False renaming[edit]

User:Prevalis made renaming to Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh after poor argumented RFC.

Cadastre office Ozalj (Katastarski ured Ozalj), Cadastre plan nr. 3 of k.o. Sekulići (k.o. = cadastre district) made in 1861 during 1st cadastre measurement in Austrian monarchy. Parcelizaton of that map was made in 24th November 1969 for expropriation of the land. Expropriated properties were lands owned by Janko Badovinac, Novaki 42 from Karlovac; Dragutin Badovinac, Dučić 6 from Radatović; Marta Badovinac Keser kbr.7 from Radatović; Janko Periz, Sošica 69 and Drago Cvjetišić, Cvjetišića kbr 7 from Radatović (according to prilog nr.1.) [21].

So all owners of the land (peak Sveta Gera) before 1969 were from Croatia, also a cadastre plan made in 1861 was archived and documented in cadastre district Sekulići (Croatia) in office in Ozalj (Croatia). Mentioned 5 people were the owners of 8 cadastre parcels marked z.k.č. br. 82/2, 91/2, 84/2, 79/2, 92, 85/2, 93/2 i 81/2 all k.o. Sekulići (Croatia), according to the documents in 1969.

Here is whole text of a document "Klasa: 940-01/99-06/06; Urbroj: 5030109-99-2" (29th April 1999), by which the Government of R. Croatia gave these parcels and a building to Hrvatski planinarski savez (Croatian Alpinist Association).

VLADA REPUBLIKE HRVATSKE
Na temelju članka 10. zakona Vladi Republike Hrvatske (Narodne novine. broj 101/98), Vlada Republike Hrvatske je na sjednici održanoj 29. travnja 1999. godine donijela
ODLUKU
o prijenosu nekretnina u vlasništvu Republike Hrvatske
u vlasništvo Hrvatskom planinarskom savezu
I.
Mijenja se namjena nekretnina oznake z.k.č. br. 82/2, 91/2, 84/2, 79/2, 92, 85/2, 93/2 i 81/2 sve k.o. Sekulići, ukupne površine 12.195 m², u naravi objekti sa zemljištem na Sv. Geri, u planinarski dom, te se iste u cijelosti prenose u vlasništvo Hrvatskom planinarskom savezu, bez naknade.
II.
Ovlašćuje se dr. Mate Granić, potpredsjednik Vlade Republike Hrvatske i ministar vanjskih poslova da, u ime Republike Hrvatske, sklopi ugovor o darovanju nekretnina opisanih u točki I. ove Odluke.
III.
Ova Odluka stupa na snagu danom donošenja.
Klasa: 940-01/99-06/06
Urbroj: 5030109-99-2
Zagreb, 29. travnja 1999.


PREDSJEDNIK
Zlatko Mateša
(seal Vlada RH)
Source: Hrvatski planinar, Zagreb, June 1999.

Dispution of this Croatian territory is only an act of zeal Slovenian politicians. There is no legacy to support it, but there is huge propaganda in Slovenia. Changing of name Sveta Gera to Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh is irrelevant prejudice. Only an official agreement between the republics of Slovenia and Croatia or decision of an international court can change the name of the peak. Slovenian government must prove that this territory doesn't belong to Croatia, first. It cannot be decided by User:Eleassar or User:Prevalis! Alternative name can be mentioned in the article but not in title. Zenanarh (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian land registry, Cadastre plan No. 3 & 4 of the Cadastre municipality Sekulići (Croatia) provided by the State Geodetic Administration of Croatia

No. – Land register plot Name – Land register plot (turf) Usage – Land register crop Area / m2
79/2 Gera Meadow 255
80 Gera Infertile land 719
81/2 Gera Meadow 1.057
82/2 Dol Meadow 2.798
84/2 Prisjeka Meadow 2.690
85/2 Prisjeka Meadow 155
91/2 Prisjeka Meadow 2.269
92 Gera Meadow 777
93/2 Dol Meadow 2.194
Imbris (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As said, the peak was renamed by both Slovenians and Croatians, and the decision doesn't have anything to do with the ownership, which is correctly listed as disputed in the article. BTW, the propaganda on the Croatian side is just as pervasive, so I'd rather not drag this subject into the debate. Also, please refrain from making subjective judgements about the political decisions, as they will not contribute to the topic at hand. --Yerpo (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What relevant proof have you presented that the peak was renamed by both Slovenians and Croatians? None. I can rename it to any name I can imagine, it doesn't work like that. It can only be officially renamed, which didn't happen. In the cadastre documents its name was just "Gera" - parcelization was made in 1969, there's a lack of Sveta only because communist authorities removed all "sveta" (holy) from the toponyms. Peak Sveta Gera is within a territory comprised by mentioned 8 parcels (82/2, 91/2, 84/2, 79/2, 92, 85/2, 93/2 and 81/2 all k.o. Sekulići).
So parcels 82/2, 93/2 were named "Dol"; 91/2, 84/2, 85/2 were "Prisjeka"; while parcels 79/2, 92, 81/2 were "Gera" (this is a peak precisly) [22].
Obviously there was only Gera in Yugoslavia, no Trdinov vrh, Croatian authorities restored all "Sveta" adjectives to geographical places in 1990 and after. In a document from 1999, cited above, you can read only "Sv. Gera", no "Trdinov vrh", so this story of yours about how the peak was renamed by both Slovenians and Croatians in 1926 can be true, but not officially, nor reflected in reality or documents. You can write about it in the article, but you cannot rename the article.
Once again, Sveta Gera is Croatian territory (according to an original map made by the Austrian authorities in 1856 and parcelization by Yugoslav authorities in 1969), but disputed by Slovenia in the 2nd half of 90's. It was "Sveta Gera" in 1856, "Gera" in 1969 and "Sveta Gera" again after Croatian seccession (if you type ie 81/2 in [23] you will still see only "Gera" since it was name attached to the parcel together with a mark 81/2 in 1969). Slovenes use irrelevant renaming (1926) to enrich their dispution, but neither that dispution nor renaming was recorded officially anywhere! It's the only fact which can be counted here, anything else is propaganda and prejudice of possible (potential but not realized, not even started yet) international court decision. Zenanarh (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slovenian official sources use Trdinov vrh. As for the cadastre, it is one way of solving this dispute (eventhough Croatian authorities have been doing funny things with it around the Dragonja river, where the situation doesn't suit them as much), but until that's decided upon by the politicians, we are in no position to use it as an argument. The peak is still disputed, any way you turn it. I'll be the first to support renaming this article to Sveta Gera if they decide it belongs to Croatia. --Yerpo (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point and you don't want to understand that it already belongs to Croatia according to the documents from last 150 years. Slovenia must prove opposite in the court, and only in that case, if it ever happens, what Slovenian official sources use would become relevant. You also doesn't understand that the marks and names of the cadastre parcels can be officially registered only in the cadastre office, not in the political pamphlets! Zenanarh (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the cadastre isn't as unambiguous as you want to show here. There are several cases in the disputed areas in which a parcel near the border is registered in Croatian cadastre, but is listed in Slovene land registry as well. Also, the Croatian land registry doesn't keep the documents for before the year 1994, so it's unserious to claim the parcels from 150 years back are the same as in today's registry. If it was as clear as you think, then there would be no dispute. Contrary to your belief, Slovenia doesn't have expansionistic aspirations any more than Croatia does (or, as editors of Croatian WP have put it, Slovene iredentism). I'd really like to keep this debate above nationalistic arguing (under which the attempt of discrediting the other nation's leaders' comments as "political pamphlets" surely falls), please do the same. --Yerpo (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not discussion about - several cases in the disputed areas. Also, the Croatian land registry doesn't keep the documents for before the year 1994 - Every cadastre parcel in Croatia has its history record which goes back to the 19th century. That's purpose of the cadastre. Documents that change something (marks, names, ownership, possesion, existance of a new building, reshaping) can be saved for some period like to the year 1994, but it's not really important since any change per specific document is saved in the parcel history record. First parcelizations were made in 50's of 19th century, both in Croatia and Slovenia. 3 parcels that cover a peak Sveta Gera were not changed in 1969, only owners were changed. There are several cases in the disputed areas in which a parcel near the border is registered in Croatian cadastre, but is listed in Slovene land registry as well - it's about a few parcels in the Dragonja basin. Not several cases in the disputed areas. This is Sveta Gera article and discussion. If it was as clear as you think, then there would be no dispute. - actually I expect you to know what you're talking about if you contribute here, but it seems that you don't. At least you could find some data to support your general thoughts. The only real problem in Sv. Gera case is presence of Slovenian soldiers in the barrack on Croatian territory. Zenanarh (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, that the Croatian cadastre cannot be trusted on such delicate issues, if it's known that it's being manipulated (here or elsewhere). See also Eleassar's comment below. --Yerpo (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if it's known that it's being manipulated (here or elsewhere) - said by you. Are you a relevant source? Are you a document or an international court? manipulated (here or elsewhere) - so you actually don't know whether it is manipulated or not and where. You cannot push such irrelevant accusation to gain something here. I can throw a few tones of such accusations concerning Slovenian administration (Slovenia agrees with Badinter, but actually doesn't follow it in the same time, soldiers on the border,...). This "manipulation" is usage of the land, it's not connected to the cadastre (parcels on the eastern bay of Dragonja river registered in Croatian cadastre with Slovenian owners - Croatia built something there - 2 bridges - but didn't inform the owners - according to words of Slovenian minister). But all of it is not important in our discussion here. There's a lack of argumentation from your side on all this talk page concerning this Sv. Gera issue, so now you generalize things, like satanization of Cro administration. It's all you can do, isn't it? Did you forget that you are trying to rename this article? To support it you've presented only sentence from a Slovenian source (not a document!) where it's written that in 1926 Slovenes renamed Sv. Gera to Trdinov vrh in presence of some Croats. I've shown you that this rename had no any reflection in the legal documents where it was still Gera after WWII. BTW these documents also show where Sv. Gera belongs, but it's not really the main issue of this RFC. Zenanarh (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly see a consensus to rename here. RFC is not a replacement for a move request. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see a consesus, so i revert renaming. --Suradnik13 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus for the current title either, so I've tagged it with {{disputed title}}. What Zenanarh and several other contributors do not understand is that Wikipedia does not take part in disputes and that we have certain guidelines to be followed in such cases: the most common name takes precedence. RFC may be a replacement for a move request, as may also be WP:MEDIATION and WP:ARBITRATION. --Eleassar my talk 14:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, I've created a dispute...joy...:(. Ok, let me set the record straight, for all of you. If the Žumberak/Gorjanci mountain can have both its Croatian and Slovene names in the title since it is part of both countries, why not Sveta Gera, which according to the very same article (Sveta Gera), is on the BORDER of Slovenia and Croatia, thus it belongs to BOTH countries. If this is not the case, then I am sorry for renaming the article the way I did and try not to use confusing phrasing! --Prevalis (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mountain Žumberak/Gorjanci is in the both countries, but the peak is in Croatia. Zenanarh (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually I expect you to know what you're talking about if you contribute here, but it seems that you don't." Please refrain from such presumptuous statements, as they are nonconstructive. As for the peak being in Croatia, every map will tell you that the peak is in both countries, the dispute concerns only its summit area (kota) which is currently under Slovenian jurisdiction and will remain so. It will become part of Croatia if and only if it is decided so by some international court or bilateral agreement. --Eleassar my talk 07:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read jurisdiction. It's not Slovenian jurisdiction, there are no legal documents to support Slovenian jurisdiction there. It's Slovenian occupation. Slovenia keeps soldiers there, which is not usual practise in Europe, there are always police units in the borders, not soldiers. Show any document to support Slovenian jurisdiction of the summit area (kota). I've shown you that it's within Croatian territory for 150 years, according to the legal documents. If you can't show any, and I know that you can't since there's no any such document, what do we have to have to discuss about? This is not forum. Zenanarh (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: this is not a forum. Call it whatever you want, jurisdiction, occupation... This territory is currently disputed. It is controlled by Slovenia and the Slovenian name is the most common one. Wikipedia does not take sides and we have to follow the guidelines. I categorically refuse to search for historical documents. They are irrelevant here as it's not up to Wikipedia to determine the truth and to settle historical wrongs (would there be any). What yet do we have to discuss about? --Eleassar my talk 09:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not computer strategy game either. So all your argumentation comes from this last comment of yours? Google hits vs. documentation legacy? No comment. Discussion over. Bye, take care of yourself ;) Zenanarh (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly as he said - Wikipedia is not a place for settling historical wrongs. If Slovenian government disputes the documents you mention, then we (including you) are in no position to assert their validity. Or vice versa, we can not claim Slovene ownership of the territory by the fact that Slovenia currently controls it. We can only determine that it's disputed and use the most common name. Maybe you should propose yourself as an arbiter to both countries' governments if you're so certain you're right (although I can imagine the reaction), but we'll not solve this here. I'll stop disputing the Croatian cadastre eventhough I could demonstrate some interesting facts, because I agree it's irrelevant. You, on the other hand, can stop trying to prove Croatia's inalienable right to this territory, and, more importantly, patronising Eleassar and myself, because it's uncivil. The fact alone that you resort to such borderline insults speaks for itself. --Yerpo (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's guidelines regarding naming conflicts stem directly from WP:NPOV and clearly state:
  • Per WP:NCON: "Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy."
  • "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the most common non-English name."
  • "Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
    • Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
    • Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
    • Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
    • Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?"
  • Per WP:NCGN: "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems."
What of this do you not understand? You may dispute the rules but this talk page is not the right place to do so and till they are changed, we have to follow them in their current form. You may also dispute Trdinov vrh being the most common non-English name, but that has already been done and refuted. Legal and moral rights are disputed and should not be used to determine usage in any case. What else are you left with then? Therefore, I propose once more this article is moved to where it belongs.
Anyhow, remember consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. --Eleassar my talk 13:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the Google hits part is also disputed. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments have been refuted. Otherwise I propose mediation or arbitration to help us resolve this dispute. --Eleassar my talk 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no most common name. Your Google searches prove that neither Sv. Gera, nor Trdinov vrh, have a clear lead in Google hits; it all depends on what expression do you use. Also, excuse me for being rude and for my failure to continue assuming good faith, but IMHO your responses are starting to draw a WP:IDHT allusion. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As is evident from the links posted above, Trdinov vrh has a clear lead. IMHO your responses are starting to draw a WP:IDHT allusion. --Eleassar my talk 21:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridicilous. Dear Eleassar you are completely lost in all this discussion from the begining. Am I uncivil to notice that?

Your first argument - google hits - was completely eliminated by Admiral Norton here [24], there's no any lead. Actually in this moment it shows this: Sveta Gera (211.000), Trdinov vrh (29.100) in all languages. When you realized that you lost your point in that part of your discussion you accused Admiral Northon this way: First, I find your patronizing tone uncivil. [25].

Whatever, I don't think that Google should be criteria in this particular issue, because it's too sensible on propaganda, it can simply reflect the amount of propagandistic material, we all can see how much of these Google hits come from blogs and forums.

I've presented you legal document and cadastre data. You tried to dispute it, unsuccessfully, after what you concluded: I'll stop disputing the Croatian cadastre... because I agree it's irrelevant. Irrelevant? Unbelievable. It's the only relevant in this case and it's the only way to determine where borderline lies, according to the international law. What do you think why I've used cadastre data in this discussion? Just accidently? Cadastre is service and institution which makes some geometric measurement to become official. It's impossible to draw an official geographic map without cadastre data! Neither you Eleassar neither User:Yerpo were able to find a way out from that part of discussion, so once again you (Yerpo) concluded, about me this time: You, on the other hand, can stop... patronising Eleassar and myself, because it's uncivil [26] ?!?! Deja vu?

He used phrase: borderline insults to describe my conclusion about a lack of any argumentation from your side!!! In the same edit Yerpo wrote: Wikipedia is not a place for settling historical wrongs?!?! What does this mean? Is it the only level that 2 of you can reach here? Playing with phrases like "historical wrongs" so adequately "historical rights" too? Am I uncivil again?

Yerpo wrote: If Slovenian government disputes the documents you mention, then we (including you) are in no position to assert their validity. It's true. I'm glad that one of you wrote this because it hits the point: Slovenia disputes Croatian territory, not opposite, so we (including you) are in no position to prejudice an international court decision. Until then we can not use another name, only the official one! You wrote several times "Wikipedia does not take part in disputes" but you actually want Wikipedia to do it here! Up to this moment there's only one official name, any other mentioned in the title would be exactly "taking part in dispute"! Is it so hard to understand? Oops I'm uncivil again.

You Eleassar quoted Wiki policy [27], but do you understand that it's not self-sufficient? In discussion you must come to the point to use some policy, not opposite!

You wrote: Anyhow, remember consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Honestly I didn't notice any good faith from your side: you were not able to fight my argumentation and simply slipped into generalization and irrelevant uncivility accusation. You were not able either to accept any other argumentation than your own shaky one. Does it make you reasonable editors? Am I uncivil again?

Finally, after 63.000 bytes long discussion, in which you started move request and RFC, you were not able to present any relevant argument but still act like you did, you think that we should start to draw a WP:IDHT allusion (?!) and not you ?!? Am I uncivil this time too? Zenanarh (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several points:
  • Your first argument - google hits - was completely eliminated. It wasn't, because Admiral Norton used an invalid search phrase, as shown by Eleassar (Sv. Gera in A. Norton's case includes a lot of hits for a German sports club).
  • It's true. I'm glad that one of you wrote this because it hits the point: Slovenia disputes Croatian territory, not opposite. Did you deliberately misunderstand me? I said that Slovenia disputes Croatian documents, not territory.
  • The phrase borderline insult was used to describe your uncivil patronising attitude.
  • Wikipedia is not a place for settling historical wrongs?!?! What does this mean? It means that both Slovenians and Croatians obviously think that they've been wronged regarding this territory in the past (which is why it's being disputed) and no matter how many documents you find on the internet, you won't settle this. Clearly there are other documents, agreements, et c. that make Slovene officials think that those you present aren't proof enough and what they think is a bit more relevant than what you think.
  • The only relevant argument here is that the territory is disputed. Nobody "clearly" owns it or there would be no dispute.
  • You're right, I couldn't find my way out of the debate, and deeply regret letting myself getting dragged into it for two reasons: because it's irrelevant, and because of your glorification of Croatian official sources and despising of Slovene ones (including two maps and an official statement from the Slovene minister of foreign affairs).
--Yerpo (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to Zenanarh's and Norton's manipulation of Google results, their uncivil patronising and sarcastic comments, their glorification of Croatian official sources and despising of Slovene ones, their imputations on my knowledge and character, and their explicitely stated lack of good faith assumption I think this discussion has become unconstructive. Outside assistance is needed to reach a consensus. I'll post a request for it as soon as I find some time to do so. --Eleassar my talk 12:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (This is an reply to the RfC) I see a lot of quabbling over who has the better claims and where the border lies. Which is besides the point. Wikipedia uses the most common name, not the official one. And this means the most common name used in English (and not in all languages). The name of a page is not meant to endorse one side or the other, but to allow readers of the English-language Wikipedia to quickly look it up. Averell (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that this is a relatively obscure peak that is unlikely to be known in the english-speaking world aside from being the object of this dispute. In english sources I have seen both names are presented simultaneously. --Yerpo (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. That's exactly my opinion too. As has already been demonstrated above, filtering Google results just for those published in English gives 214 hits for Sveta Gera (of which many are still totally unrelated as they refer to the sports club SV Gera) and 1,940 hits (eight times more) for Trdinov vrh. --Eleassar my talk 07:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Phrase Sveta Gera (not filtered with "football-club-sport-verein") in English language:
anywhere: 1.090 [28]
Croatia: 71 hits [29]
Slovenia: 3 hits [30]
USA: 846 hits [31]
UK: 8 hits [32]
Australia: 9 hits [33]

2) Phrase Sveta Gera (filtered with "football-club-sport-verein") in English language:
anywhere: 997 Google hits [34]
Croatia: 72 hits [35]
Slovenia: 1 hit [36]
USA: 776 hits [37]
UK: 7 hits [38]
Australia: 9 hits [39]

Important to notice: Google picks sites with "sveta gera" phrase anywhere in the site and eliminates all sites with any of "football", "club", "sport" or "verein" mentioned anywhere in the site, so this filtering is not helpful. It's easy to check it this way:

3) Phrase Sveta Gera plus any of: football, club or verein in English:
anywhere: 69 hits [40]
Croatia: 4 hits [41]
Slovenia: 1 hit [42]
USA: 10 hits [43]
UK: 0 hits [44]
Australia: 1 hit [45]

4) Phrase Sveta Gera still superficially but probably more accurate than 2) would be 1)-3):
anywhere: 1.021 hits
Croatia: 67 hits
Slovenia: 2 hits
USA: 836 hits
UK: 8 hits
Australia: 8 hits

5) Phrase Trdinov vrh in English:
anywhere: 1.580.hits [46]
Slovenia: 372 hits [47]
Croatia: 6 hits [48]
USA: 933 hits [49]
UK: 20 hits [50]
Australia: 7 hits [51]

6) All of Sveta Gera Trdinov vrh (but not in phrase) in English:
anywhere: 584 hits [52]
Croatia: 6 hits [53]
Slovenia: 5 hits [54]
USA: 596 hits [55]
UK: 2 hits [56]
Australia: 5 hits [57]

I already said that this Google criteria is useless for one simple reason: it doesn't reflect real objective usage of the names, it probably nicely reflects the amount of propaganda in conflict. Some statistics (all sites in English, Sv. Gera per list 4):
24% of all "Trdinov vrh" comes from Slovenia
7% of all "Sveta Gera" comes from Croatia
0,9% of "Sveta Gera Trdinov vrh" comes from Slovenia
1% of "Sveta Gera Trdinov vrh" comes from Croatia

Observing only names that come from out of Croatia and Slovenia is not helpful too, since US or UK sites are often taking and rewriting informations coming from Croatia and Slovenia, so Slovenian propaganda works really well in that case.
Also there's another very interesting point:
82% of all "Sveta Gera" comes from USA, while 0,8% comes from UK.
59% of all "Trdinov vrh" comes from USA, while 1,3 % comes from UK.
Both UK and Slovenia are in European Union, Croatia is not. UK sites use "Trdinov vrh" at 20 sites (1,3%), while "Sveta Gera" at 8 sites (0,8%), they take Slovenian sources much easier than Croatian.
On the other side, US sites use "Trdinov vrh" at 933 sites (59%), while "Sveta Gera" at 836 sites (82%). This can be the easiest explained with much frequent relative usage of the official name (Sveta Gera) than more propagated one (Trdinov vrh). It seems that Slovenian propaganda can not swim Atlantic Ocean easily. And Pacific or Indian Ocean makes it even more harder:
0,8% of all "Sveta Gera" comes from Australia.
0,4% of all "Trdinov vrh" comes from Australia.

Now I'm sure that our Slovenian friends will say that I'm uncivil because of "Slovenian propaganda" but it can be easily checked in Croatian and Slovenian language sites. In Slovenia there's huge anti-Croat atmosphere on all levels pumped up in the last 10 years and fired by their politicians - more or less it's all about some alleged historical rights, enriched with new maps published with changed borders (?!), etc. After seccession Slovenia (indenpendent state for the 1st time in its history) is faced with its own rapidly rising nationalism.
In Croatia there's enormous anger of journalists and civil people towards Slovenia but actually much more towards their own Cro politicians because of their inertion, people can't understand why Croatian government let Slovenes to blackmale them offering Croatian territory for Croatian territory. Cro politicians speak about patience, since Croatia has valid documents and Slovenian actions only work against Slovenia.

Introducing of name "Trdinov vrh" here would be very offensive for the Croats, I've already shown that Sv. Gera peak, owned by Croatian families until 1969, owned by SR Croatia until 1991 and administratively still Croatian territory at the moment, also continually registered as Croatian territory in last 150 years, is the only official geographical name. Slovenia disputes it in last 10 years. Result is still unknown. Name should stay the same until (if) something changes. Zenanarh (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Slovenia there's huge anti-Croat atmosphere on all levels pumped up in the last 10 years and fired by their politicians Zenanarh, your attempts at discrediting everything you don't like are pathetic, so I kindly recommend you to stop them. Where did you get the idea about the huge anti-Croat atmosphere among Slovenes? From Croatian media, I'm certain. It is interesting to note here that every independent analysis of media freedom in Croatia stumbles upon an unhealthy amount of government control over mainstream Croatian media (such as [58], [59] and [60]). Then, when you consider who profits the most from this situation of hostility towards the other nation and provoking nationalism, the picture suddenly becomes a lot clearer. If the problem was only on the Slovene side, there would be a significant improvement in the last 4 years when there was a change in government. I think this debate would really benefit from you obtaining a broader view of this situation and stopping with the irrelevant and biased accusations of the opposed party. Thank you. Your friend, --Yerpo (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would redirecting both Sveta Gera and Trdinov vrh → Sveta Gera / Trdinov vrh put the dispute to rest? Karbinski (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say that Sveta Gera is the more frequent name but the ratios between the two names overall and for particular countries do not show that. Thanks for having demonstrated that Trdinov vrh is the more common name not only overall and in Slovenia, but also in the USA and in the UK; in Australia the number of hits is the same (I get not seven but eight hits for Trdinov vrh), but anyway we simply can't make serious conclusions on the basis of such a low number of hits; in Croatia Sveta Gera is understandably much more common. That's all that can be said beyond reasonable doubt.
Your explanations of the statistics are false. You're mixing apples and oranges. One cannot expect to reckon the same proportions comparing Slovenia/Croatia-based and abroad-based pages if in Slovenia it had been written and published about this peak much more than in Croatia. You also have to consider that the Croatian diaspora in the USA and UK is much larger than the Slovene one and still, the Slovene name prevails also in those countries. Your claim that Google results "reflect Slovenian propaganda" actually is not uncivil, but similarly ridiculous as conspiracy theories. I challenge you to prove it. What about Croatian propaganda? Also, how have you measured "huge anti-Croat atmosphere" (I suggest you read WP:PEACOCK)? I don't think that's the sentiment of the Slovene nation as a whole, so prove this too. To be sure, it's neither my sentiment.
You have to know that as long as there is no consensus (not in Wikipedia, but in the real world) about whom the disputed territory belongs to retaining the name Sveta Gera would be against the neutral stance of Wikipedia no matter what historical analyses you make. Your claim of Sveta Gera being the only official name is false and misses the point: 1) In Slovenia, which owns at least some part of the peak, the official name is Trdinov vrh; 2) As said also by Averell, Wikipedia uses the most common name, not the official one. If you (or any other Croat) feel offended by this, we really can't help you much except by saying you should not take this personally. We have some principles to stick to here no matter what does anyone think about us. --Eleassar my talk 11:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: The solution proposed by Karbinski was implemented already, but later reverted by <sarcasm>our Croatian friends</sarcasm>. --Eleassar my talk 11:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was reverted as it was an unilateral decision, implemented with a total disregard of WP:CONSENSUS. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sveta Gera / Trdinov vrh[edit]

How about a quick survey of opinion on redirecting both Sveta Gera and Trdinov vrh → Sveta Gera / Trdinov vrh. The idea here is to reach consensus and this proposal seems to be a compromise. Would it be okay to re-implement this? Karbinski (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We may have it although you have to know that the most vocal Croatian users have already rejected it (Zenanarh, Admiral Norton). I was opposed to the idea at first but see no other way to make a compromise. --Eleassar my talk 17:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a Danzig vs Gdańsk issue and if Karbinski knew that Slovenian Social Democrats won the elections with huge consequences for better relations between two countries he would realize that attempts of our Slovene friends intended to disturb previously meet criteria on the establishing a name for this article. The Right - has lost. :) -- Imbris (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about. First, the Croatian Prime Minister Sanader praised the work of the Right regarding the Slovenian-Croatian relations.[61] Second, Slovenian Social Democrats have promised no drastic changes here nor are they expected by Croats.[62] Third, I don't really understand how do the Slovenian daily politics relate to the demand that the article be put back to the most common name. Also, stop talking stupidities about some non-existent criteria. Current name is in direct violation of the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (see above). --Eleassar my talk 06:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the title Sveta Gera / Trdinov vrh until the dispute is solved on the national level. Stop mixing the politics into this, especially in such a biased way. We could argue which government profits the most from this issue being unresolved... --Yerpo (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. The actual dispute is a matter of dispute here, as it hasn't been proven yet that anyone else than Slovenian irredentists is trying to claim the peak. Read the discussion and you'll know what I'm talking about, Karbinski. Maybe we should rename Vodnjan to "Cittanova" or Sveti Petar u Šumi to "San Pietro in Selve" just because these cities are claimed by Italian irredentists? Admiral Norton (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Yes, the politicians of the Slovenian ruling parties and the ministers of the Slovenian government are all irredentists and their opinion should be disregarded as worthless. The opinion of Slovenia should be disregarded as irrelevant. Thanks for having pointed that out. How well do you understand the neutral point of view!</sarcasm> --Eleassar my talk 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Admiral Norton, if you intend to continue with this biased and unsourced POV pushing, it would perhaps be best to ignore your comments for the purpose of this debate. Your use of "Slovene irredentism", a pathetic construct of Croatian nationalists who are trying to demonize the Slovenes, supports my suggestion. --Yerpo (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slovene irredentism exists, although it isn't as publicized as the Croatian or Serbian one and I'm not trying, nor am I willing to turn this into a unnecessary political entanglement. However, e.g. Piran Bay is undisputably disputed (official territory of both countries), while Sveta Gera isn't. Judging from Zenanarh's findings, Sveta Gera is clearly claimed by Croatia (records of land sales), but Slovenia does not produce any such claims besides some politician babble (Sahalin is claimed by some Japanese politicians, but that doesn't make it any less Russian). If Heinz Fischer were to get drunk in a bar and claim Zagreb should be Agram, should we follow up with a move request? Admiral Norton (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slovene irredentism exists, although it isn't as publicized... Unless you provide an independent source, this statement isn't worth the disk space it's stored on (you can spare us Z. Jelinčič's and J. Joras' ramblings). As for officiality, I still don't know why aren't Slovene official sources good enough for you. Again, you're not in the position to judge about the validity of their arguments. If the Croatian side listens to them, then we should as well. --Yerpo (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've got our own Zmagos and Jorases in Croatia and they're much less mainstream, supported and influential than those in Slovenia, so stop pretending they don't exist. Such a notion borders frivolousness. Regarding, the Slovenian official sources, I have to ask you what sources have you presented? Records of land allocation? They don't exist. Records of land use by state? Only the abandoned army barracks and not the peak itself. Any records at all in the cadastre? Again, they don't exist. To put it simply, the presence of a dispute is wishful thinking. Also, as you inquire about my sources, I'll have to do the same on Croatian listening to them. And BTW newspapers are not government sources, at least not in Croatia. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I come into this without knowledge of the politics. Wikipedia is not a standard setting body, it simply reports on what is already out there. From what I can tell via mainstream online resources (those resources most like wikipedia) is that the subject is most commonly entitled Sveta Gera / Trdinov vrh versus one or the other. Article titles in wikipedia are not matters of official record, they are how the encyclopedia is indexed. Karbinski (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact they are! See Wikipedia:Naming dispute#Proper nouns: "If the name is that of an inanimate or non-human entity, there is no common English equivalent and no dispute over the entity's name, use the official designation applied by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the entity is predominately found." Admiral Norton (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the relevant point in that policy would be: "Where two or more names are commonly used in the present day for an entity, the names should be given at the start of an article with the article name listed first, then the alternate names in alphabetical order by name (if they are all from the same language) or in order of the name of the language (if they are from different languages). Hence a name that was most commonly used in English but with alternates in Afrikaans, German and Zulu would be given at the start of the article in the order English - Afrikaans - German - Zulu." [63]. An example of how article titles are not matters of offical records: the official name of the city of München, as a matter of record, is München. The article title, for indexing of wikipedia, is Munich Karbinski (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take Vajgl any time vs Rupel. Jerusalem is disputed land, even surrounded by no man's land. English Wikipedia use just Jerusalem. Hervardi is a real association, unlike some virtual associations that promotes Greater Slovenia (speaks about Slavonia being in fact Slovenia and such "facts". I would advise Karbinski not to promote double naming of this Slovene exonym because we should rename all things that way Gdansk / Danzig is one example. -- Imbris (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha. OK, I give you that, there is Hervardi irredentism, LOL. But I think their loudness and Croatian media made you confused about their influence. Aside from a couple of dozens of misguided Nazi-wannabe children, there isn't one serious Slovene supporting their views (not even the fringe political party representing the far right in the Slovene parliament).
As for Admiral Norton's statement - We've got our own Zmagos and Jorases in Croatia and they're much less mainstream, supported and influential than those in Slovenia Oh really? Must I remind you of a certain very strong group idolizing the Ustaša fascists and other hypernationalistic ideas (along with greater Croatia), with tens of thousands of people gathering for concerts of a certain popular Croatian singer sharing their views? And with full support of the country's religious leaders and some politicians as well? Show me one such strong group in Slovenia.
To return from this irrelevant discussion to the real issue - I presented official statements of the people responsible on our side. I can understand if they don't want to reveal their arguments to the general public until the issue is solved. Croatia on the other hand might be trying to ignore the dispute, but I'm afraid they'll have to deal with it. As it stands, the border isn't officially fixed in the area and that you cannot dispute. As for Croatian listening, how about the well known Drnovšek-Račan agreement? It is still a top-level agreement between leaders of the two countries, even though your parliament later decided that it didn't like it and you Croatians would like to make it disappear (and as I remember, Račan continued his career in foreign politics after that, so you could hardly say that this was his political suicide). --Yerpo (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a reductio ad Hitlerum. Marko Perković is not a Nazi and he did not create a cult. May I remind you that the "Greater Croatia" was an actual country and between 9th and 12th century and state between 12th and 17th century, while the so-called "Slovenia" did not exist as a free country until 1991. The current Croatia-Slovenia border was formed in 1945. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it is clear there isn't going to be any consensus to make such a move. However, the case for this move in no way implies an article such as Gdańsk (I advise remembering we are talking about naming articles, not places) requires a similiar renaming. Karbinski (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on München is called Munich because Munich is the predominant English form present in English-language texts. If there were a widely used form like Saint Gera or Trdinov Summit, it would be most correct to proceed with that name. However, there are no such names and Sv. Gera and Trdinov vrh are uniform throughout English literature, although the former tends to be more often encountered. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Trdinov vrh / Sveta Gera supports that. Karbinski (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
although the former tends to be more often encountered - I think we've shown that Trdinov vrh tends to be more often encountered. Unless you missed the subject of this debate and are talking about a German football club. See above for the reply to your wishful thinking about the non-existence of the dispute. --Yerpo (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how do we filter both searches to be english only? Then how do we filter Sveta Gera to exclude hits on the football club? Karbinski (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the football club can be filtered out easily. But if the first three pages of hits are any indication, then the phrase "sv gera" OR "sveta gera" -"trdinov vrh" gives 16 hits out of 60 for the peak. This ratio, when applied to the 22.100 hits overall, gives us little less than 5900 hits referring to the peak. You can check more pages, but it doesn't seem to me that there's much difference. Filtering out anything but pages in English gives you only 403 pages with a ratio favouring the peak a bit more, but the vast majority of those pages clearly belong to Croatians (pages on .hr domain, official pages of tourist organisations, etc.) --Yerpo (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, filtering the german and sports sites out systematically reduces the number of hits to about 90. And applying the same filter (which includes words like sports) to trdinov vrh we get about 100 Karbinski (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its clear that there is no decisive evidence of a preponderance of one over the other, once the football club is taken into consideration. Karbinski (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds logical to me, except maybe you could leave "sports" unfiltered because some of the sites mentioning the peak are devoted to mountaineering or trekking. In any case, the low number of results indicates that there is no common term for this peak in the English-speaking world. What do you suggest considering the fact that we don't agree on the "officiality" of the name Sveta Gera? Remember, we are talking about the whole hill which is undoubtedly on both countries' territory, not just its peak (and I'm not trying to avoid the issue of the peak here, I still say that its status is "disputed" - not just "claimed by Slovenia", but "claimed by both Slovenia and Croatia"). The only similar case I could find was Baekdu Mountain which follows one country's name for the peak, but that reflects widespread English use (such as in Encarta, The Columbia Encyclopedia and Britannica) which we cannot use here. --Yerpo (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you still don't prove that a formal bilateral dispute actually exists. As I said before and excuse me if I was rude, politician babble does not prove anything, formal documents do. Also, we're not talking about the whole hill; it's name is Žumberak/Gorjanci. --Admiral Norton (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Žumberak/Gorjanci is the name of the mountain range this hill is a part of. As for "politician babble", this is actually the definition of an international dispute. Will you deny that this territory was one of the subjects of the Drnovšek-Račan agreement? --Yerpo (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you provided in the article:
http://24ur.com/novice/slovenija/ne-ljubimo-svojega-bliznjega.html (1) and
http://www.dnevnik.si/tiskane_izdaje/dnevnik/264925/ (2)
are not valid as a definition of an international dispute.
First of all the source listed as (1) is a journalistic report of a "study" about how Slovene and Croatian citizens feel about each other and their respective states. That study is a joint work of Ana Tkalac Verčić (Zagreb Faculty of Economics), Dejan Verčič (private Agency Pristop - from Slovenia also from the Ljubljana Faculty of Social Studies) and Kristina Laco (Zagreb based private Agency for PR "Premise"). This "source" is not a reliable source on the existance of a international dispute.
Source no. (2) has an editorial box in which a journalist (Aleš Gaube) wrote the background note on the topic (which is a meeting of two prime ministers). The text itself is not a proof of any dispute regarding Sveta Gera.
Those two sources will be deleted as the dispute is not proven and would not be proven by journalistic texts. Interviews perhaps.
Imbris (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking evidence for a predominant english term, in my opinion it comes down to if the peak is disputed or not. If not, then whichever nation possesses it holds the proper name. If it is disputed, then my opinion is Sveta Gera / Trdinov vrh would be proper. As well, I think the burden of showing there is a dispute rests upon those asserting that there is one. Karbinski (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is only if Slovenes can show that their Cadastre (Land register) lists the "Trdinov vrh". Even in such case would exist this doesn't mean that your initiative for Sveta Gera / Trdinov vrh should be implemented. Why? The answer is very simple: Jerusalem is disputed and we use just Jerusalem (not the Arabic equivalent as well). We can go further and wonder what would happen with other Slovene exonyms items? No one answered that scenario! -- Imbris (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to establish that the first question is if there exists a predominant english reference term, then I tried to answer that question and concluded there isn't one, and so moved on to the next level of criteria. The Jerusalem example doesn't hold as for that city the answer to the first question is Jurusalem - an open and shut case. That being said, I don't see this discussion going anywhere, even if its shown the peak is disputed territory. I recommend leaving it as is. Karbinski (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imbris, I have already shown you a reliable source stating the peak was a part of the Drnovšek-Račan agreement. CIA world factbook had this information in their entries on Croatia and Slovenia until recently (and although they have removed this information, it remains on several reliable mirrors, such as FAQs.org). Now, I know that Croatians dispute this agreement and haven't ratified it which means that the countries aren't obliged to follow it, but still it's a top-level bilateral agreement about the border issue which wouldn't include Sv.Gera/Trdinov vrh if it wasn't disputed. The cadastre isn't the only relevant reference. --Yerpo (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well guess why did the CIA remove Sv. Gera from the disputed list? That's because they don't consider the peak to be disputed anymore. Or maybe you have some other logical explanation? Admiral Norton (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The situation hasn't changed since the start of this month, so you could hardly say that the peak is no longer disputed if it was before (or do you have a source claiming otherwise?). More probably they removed it because they felt that this part of the dispute isn't important enough to be mentioned specifically (which it probably isn't, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist). --Yerpo (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Article naming[edit]

Should the article be named Sveta Gera, Trdinov vrh, or should another title be used? 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Please provide sources that support a particular classification. Do not engage in general discussion in this subsection. Please stick to short quotes or concise paraphrases accompanied by full citation information. 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

General discussion[edit]

  • Just to repeat my opinion: the politicians produced this conflict, otherwise it didn't exist, and the politicians will resolve it in the future. How it became a problem was described by me in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-01 Sveta Gera, archived part. Aside of the politics there is no any other objective criteria to make any change in the title of the article. Sv. Gera is just one of a few geographical spots in Slovenian dispute of the Croatian territory (legal per valid documents signed by the both sides, but later disputed by Slovenia). If we change the title of this article, we will have to change some number of others too and I guess it will produce just new problems. Let's leave it to the politicians to set it and let's react if they change something. At the moment nothing is changed (to be honest it's hard to believe that anything will be changed in the future either, since Slovenian demands are unreal and Croatia has more international support concerning this question - this is my POV), so there are no reasons for us to invent something when it's not invented in the reality. Regards Zenanarh (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to remember thsi issue coming up before. It seesm essentially to be a boundary dispute between Slovenia and Croatia, which cannot be settled in WP. I presume that the alternative name Trdinov vrh exists as a redirect. Persoanlly, I think the old name, existing before the 1923 renaming by one side should be used for the article. What did they call it before 1923? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was Sveta Gera, coming from Sveta Gertruda (name of the saint - St. Gertrude). In fact, local Slovenes were using also name Sveta Jertruda (gradually distorted to Sveta Jedrt in local speech) for a saint, so therefore Sveta Jera for a peak. But it's practically the same thing, goes only for a slang. In documents, it was Sv. Gera. Zenanarh (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Sveta Gera wasn't an official name before that. I'd really like to see a pre-1923 document naming the peak "Sv. Gera" (instead of just taking your claim at face value). --Yerpo (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see, you are playing dumb. I'm tired of repeating the same thing for 100 times. You can find that document in Ozalj (Croatia). I can ask you to show any trace of anything opposite (like any document related to any kind of Slovenian administrative jurisdiction there ever). There is none. Absolute zero. Zenanarh (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I think it is you who need to prove your statements as well. I'm unable to go to Ozalj and see the document, as is 99,999% other Wikipedia visitors. --Yerpo (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, am I the one who started all this problematic issue? No, it was you and your colleague, and none of you 2 has ever proved anything nor sourced it. Everything that you know is that Slovenian politicians dispute something, but you even don't know what! Nor they know, in last 15 years they have changed their demands for a several times, from nothing to everything. It's a comedy. I have no time to play childish games with you. Zenanarh (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's you who is playing dumb. I already told you that you are in no position to disregard Slovene politicians' statements if even you leaders listen to them. It's comedy on both sides and everything is politics. --Yerpo (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh Cro politicians often make jokes about Slo politicians demands. BTW official Croatian position was never changed in this matter. Slovenian position is changing non-stop. That much about comedy. Yerpo, why don't you simply give up. You didn't and you can't prove anything here. If anything changes in the future, Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) should cover it. At the moment WP can cover only what is real and that's Slovenian dispute of the international documents signed by the same Slovenia previously - something which is not proccessed yet officially, although media is full of it for last 15 years. WP can not change toponyms just because some politician woke up head over heels. Do you have any idea how an encyclopedia would look like if we change any data just because someone is too zealous. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not forum. Zenanarh (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with your patronizing tone already. Who the hell cares about jokes from Croatian politicians and what pathetic tactics they use to buy your support? The facts are still the same:
  1. Slovenia has de facto control over the area
  2. Croatia claims it on the basis of cadastre entries
  3. Slovenia doesn't recognise the relevance and/or validity of those documents
As much as you try, you won't prove that the territory belongs to Croatia just by quoting documents that nobody can easily access (and even if they could, there's still point #3), neither is anyone's (but politicians') job to do it. If the agreement that Slovenia signed would be valid, then we'd have nothing to discuss and we could keep the name Sv. Gera. But as it stands, the peak is DISPUTED. --Yerpo (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "the area" is a few hundred meters inside the Croatian territory, small enough to motivate no military action from the Croatian side, as said many times by Cro authorities, Croatia didn't want to be a side to do anything opposite to the spirit of the traditional brotherhood and friendship between 2 nations (Croats and Slovenes never had any conflict in their long history), although Slovenian occupation of the peak was exactly such move - opposite to traditional friendly spirit. Whether Sv Gera had been Cro or Slovenian territory was never really the subject in negotiations, the both sides know very well where it was and where it had been for centuries. It became problem only because Slovenia wanted to use it for political trade: Sv Gera will be given back to Croatia, if Croatia agrees to give a portion of its sea territory to Slovenia, practically it would be Cro territory for Cro territory exchange. That's exactly why Cro side never accepted such trade, while Slo side tried to use all kinds of political pressure and blackmale (like conditioning of the Cro membership in EU). Now you can say whatever you want, but all of us who live here and know something about this story, are aware of this fact. Isn't cabal started by you or your friend in discussion just your hope to gain something with neutral mediator who is not (and it's hard to expect that anyone out of this space can be) familiar with agenda? In a lack of any other fact to support your position in this discussion, now you are using the only one which really penetrates into the heart of this problemacity - Slovenian occupation of the small part of Croatian territory. It's exactly how the highest Cro politicans described it many times - millitary occupation (12 Slovenian soldiers in Croatian barrack is a joke, but still enough to use word: occupation). Now I have a question for you: do you really think that Wikipedia should officialize this funny millitary occupation? Are you ready to push encyclopedical toponym changes in all other examples in the world where some territory occupation took a place? Going to extremes but with the same logic, would you be ready to vote for change of the name Ljubljana just because it was ocuppied by the 3rd Reich in WWII?
  2. Croatia doesn't claim anything, it doesn't have reason to do it. According to the documents signed by the both sides in '91 it's Croatia, as well as disputed sea territory. There's no problem about it. Croatia claims only enforcement of these documents and UN international law and nothing else. Croatia doesn't have to claim its own territory! As more as you are trying to ignore this fact, you can't hide it. You can't find anything else in any source on the net or elsewhere. It's the only thing that you can find in any Cro politician or institution official statement. If something is really claimed by someone, it's Slovenia that claims the territory of the neighbor state, it's Slovenia that disputes the international law documents signed by its own representatives in '91. And it's Slovenian political structure which initiated the whole thing, Croatia just reacts. Nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't need high IQ to understand it. It's enough to check dispute history. It needs only a little bit of "good faith", that you previously mentioned a few times in our discussion, but you were never ready to show it yourself.
  3. Slovenia doesn't recognise the relevance and/or validity of those documents - and you've meant Croatian cadastre, which was practically the cadastre of former Yu too as well as former Austrian Monarchy (where Slovenia and Croatia were provinces with precisely determined borders). You concluded this part for a several times until now, but you've never covered it with a source. Please find some serious official source where it's seen what Slovenia disputes concerning Sv Gera. And on what basis.
You can use whatever tone you like, including patronizing one. I don't care about your tone. I care about what you write here and I simply cannot find any reason for any compromise. Did you think about what can happen here if Sv Gera gets dual naming? Imagine new name for the Gulf of Piran: Gulf of Piran/Gulf of Savudria/Gulf of Radonja. Do you want more such examples? Do we need something like that?
This is probably the most unuseful discussion I've ever had in Wikipedia. Almost impossible to understand that we still lose our time with it. You really don't have to reflect political circus in an encyclopedia, just because the politicians already created it in reality and they never made step forward from the initial point until now, at the moment 16 years long comedy. Even if you want Wiki to reflect some official situtation concerning disputed territory, you have no base to do it, simply because this matter never became proccesed in reality, and actual situation is completely identical to the initial one, when it all started. I'll be perfectly straight: I don't understand on what basis you want a toponym change here! Just because Slovenia disputes something? So if I understand well, we should react on every G damn dispute in the world by the same logic? Whenever some politician say something we should immidiately change the content of some article or its title? Whenever some person is suspected for a crime we should immidiatelly define that person as a criminal, although it's not proved yet? Is it because of 12 Slovenian soldiers there, which is defined as occupation by the Cro offices? Do you have any idea how hot is that potato that you are playing with? I don't know how old are you, but try to be an adult, sorry if it bothers you but I really do perceive you as a child, after all written here. I really have a feeling that I'm discussing with someone who is playing the Age of Empires. Tired of this, bye bye. Zenanarh (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should ask your leaders why they don't stop making fun and take Slovenia to international court if they're so certain that this is occupation and that they have all the arguments on their side. Actions (or lack thereof) speak louder than words. And don't try to sell us fairy-tales about them wanting good relationships with Slovenes. Croatian politicians are commonly known in Slovenia for implementing only those parts of agreements that they find suitable and ignoring the rest (such as those outlined in this document from Slovene ministry of foreign affairs). And don't try to drag the name of Gulf of Piran into this, because it's been (officially) named like this since anybody can remember, only in 2002 a bunch of Croatian fishermen started implying that it belongs to them. I don't know how old you are, but certainly not enough to grow out of idolizing your leaders. I'm afraid it's not possible to discuss such a sensitive issue with a person like that. So spin as you like, I'm through with this debate as well. --Yerpo (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yerpo you are right and wrong. In my thinking we are not having Gulf of Piran but, only Gulf of Trieste. Again in my thinking (maybe I am wrong ?) name Gulf of Piran is created because of Yugoslav nationalism after WWII. Now in Croatia we are having Croatian nationalism which has created name Savudria bay.
About Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh it is possible to see on this Yugoslav army map that hill is on Croatian side of border and because of that we need to use croatian name for this mountain peak (Sveta Gera).
About Zenanarh statements that old mountain name is Sveta Gertruda my only comments is that he must write name of document, page in which this name is used and year of publication. If he can write all that his source is declared wikipedia reliable source (wikipedia rules). Because of my other wiki discussion I support your (Yerpo) thinking that this is not OK, because you and 99.99 % other users can't check this data, but we are having wiki rules. --Rjecina (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rjecina I didn't say that peak was ever called Sv. Gertruda. It's just a name of the saint and church in the mountain, from which Sv. Gera and Sv. Jera names developed for a peak. It's history. I've pointed to an official name of the peak saved in the documents. Take a look at the beginning of the "False renaming" section [64]. There's a link to "Croatian Cultural Council Portal", this one: [65]. I didn't show the documents from the cadastre office in Ozalj directly, because it's something that needs going there, filling a formulary and paying a small tax. And I'm not sure is it legal to copy such documents for the internet use. How many land parcel history record documents are free to approach in the net anywhere? But I did show a source where history record of discussed land parcels is described: cadastre plan nr. 3 of the cadastre district Sekulići (Croatia) was made in 1861 by Austrian authorities and saved actual situation of that moment which was Croatian possesion. Next record (and last parcelization drawing) was expropriation of the land by Communist government of SR Croatia on 24th November 1969, land (a peak) was taken from (names, addreses): Janko Badovinac, Novaki 42, Karlovac; Dragutin Badovinac, Dučić 6, Radatović; Marta Badovinac Keser kbr.7, Radatović; Janko Periz, Sošica 69, and Drago Cvjetišić, Cvjetišića kbr 7, Radatović; all Croatia (according to prilog nr.1. of the original document). From 1969 up to now there were no changes in the history record nor new objects were drawn in the map, built in the meantime. Both in 1861 and 1969, as well as in 1999 (Croatian documents concerning possesion in the court), the peak parcels were Sv. Gera or only Gera (in SFRJ document).
Yerpo criticizes me for no showing an original document, but in the same time he never proved that Slovenia disputes these documents or that Slovenia has some other related documents, or that Croatian cadastre is disputed concerning Sv. Gera solely, isolated from the whole dispute circus. It's his own words vs my source and he discusses here like it's opposite. :) Zenanarh (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the PDF I linked to above. --Yerpo (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Croatia doesn't have much confidence in Slovenian politicians either, I must say. Acutally, I'm LMAO (no offense intended) at your argument as I'm reading this: [66]. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It gets even better: [67] Admiral Norton (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Since this article is in English, consider the value of this dispute to most readers....Probably close to zero....other than to illustrate how the term "Balkanize" came into the (English) language. Really, y'all are making yourselves look silly. Clearly both names must be noted, but other than that, don't really care a whit. Please don't start a war......

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a reliable English source on the existence of this dispute, or indeed that these names belong to the same mountain?
  • If so, what does it use?
  • As a modest proposal, if agreement cannot be reached, I am tempted to propose the official name before 1918; why should 1918 be any worse than 1923? Doubtless both sides will accept the Austrian administrative name as neutral ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sveta_Gera&oldid=1210596067"