Talk:Croatia–Slovenia border disputes/Archive 2

Issues
There are several issues with this article. First, it presents the problem from mainly Croatian point of view. Second, it includes factual errors. Third, it includes original research or draws conclusions from only partially accurate information. Also, it has weasel words on several places. A radical rewriting of some sections is required if this article is to present a balanced view on the whole problem. --Tone 12:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, let's take these issues one by one. And analyze them. "First, it presents the problem from mainly Croatian point of view." When Croatia is under blockade, whose problem is it then? Its definitely not Slovenia which is suffering under the blockade. But Slovenian arguments are also represented in the article (the Račan agreemenet, for example).

"Second, it includes factual errors". OK, name few.

"Third, it includes original research or draws conclusions from only partially accurate information". All the claims in the article have links. Which means it is not "original reasearch", but draws its conclusions from several sources. You should be more specific if you want to sway me. As for partially accurate information, name it, so it can be dissccused here. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Tone on this. The very use of the word "blockade" smacks of POV. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So, the word "blockade" is forbidden? And how else would you call it then? Article Berlin Blockade also isn't called "Temporary reduction of supplies to Berlin". Whether you call it "blockade" or "supsension" or whatever, its just a matter of semantic difference, but its real, while the blockade of 13 chapters is still happening, 8 months and counting.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead, it would be better to incorporate the whole article in the Slovenia-Croatia relations. But this is just my opinion. Factual errors among other include Zavod 25. lipnja (that is actually Zavod 25. junij, it would be amusing if this particular institution to be using a Croatian name), and the part I am missing the most is that the article presents the situation as if only Slovenia would be blocking some chapters - there are several countries opposing the juridical chapter because of the war diaries (topniški dnevniki, however this is translated). "When Croatia is under blockade, whose problem is it then? Its definitely not Slovenia which is suffering under the blockade." The problem affects both countries, obviously. The biggest problem of all is that it is creating a negative atmosphere between two friendly nations, that is why dealing with such articles has to be done in a particularly sensitive manner. There is an abundance of sources describing the official position of Slovenian government, they are not hard to find and incorporate in the article. Drnovšek-Račan agreement is just one episode in the whole story. I could go into details further but I am not really in a mood to do it - I hope you understand. I can help you find some sources, though. --Tone 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is simply too vast to incorporate it into the Slovenia-Croatia relations. And its not over, by far. Its a developing story and I suspect it's going to last for a long time, which is why it will probably (after all the revisions and corrections) in the end be twice as long as it is now.


 * Obviously, Slovenia would conveniently like to find support for its blockade and to hide behind the fact that some EU countries are expressing reservations (not a direct blockade) about that 1 chapter, for some war diaries which were probably lost some 10 years ago. But Slovenia is currently the only EU country which is directly blocking 13 chapters in total, and not because Croatia didn't comply with the chapters' standards, but because of a purely bilateral issue over the border which doesn't have anything to do with the EU. One thing is blockade of a EU related issue, the other a blockade of a non-EU related issue.
 * As for Slovenia's arguments for the blockade, you can add as much as you wish. Sky is the limit. Just start the section "Slovenia's view" and write.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, why was this picture of the Piran Bay border dispute removed from the article?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not really enthusiastic about writing about Slovenia's point of view but I can contact some editors with a bit more insight to contribute. Regarding the picture, it was decided at Bay of Piran article that the image was POV since it includes "claimed by Slovenia" part, which is one-sided. The area should be marked as disputed or claimed by both countries, not just by Slovenia. The present picture in that article is somehow better but I don't think it's appropriate for the top of the article since the border on the sea is not the only disputed border between the countries. Maybe something like File:Croatia Slovenia Locator.png is more appropriate for the introduction. --Tone 11:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Finland’s blockade of Slovenia’s OECD accession
What on earth is this doing here? How is this even remotely relevant? Oh, whait, it was reported in Croatia! Regards, Lagos 89.142.69.122 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It was also reported in Slovenia!--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure it was. But it does not involve Croatia's EU talks in any way. By the way, I would suggest to shorten the coverage on separate chapters since there is only one problem that is causing all this chapters to be blocked, a paragraph 14th chapter blocked looks pretty much like drama that actually is not. Also, I am missing photos of Croatian politicians in the article. --Tone 11:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically, yeah, the OECD talks do not involve Croatia's EU talks in that many ways (except for a neat karma where Slovenia had a taste of its own medicine), so I guess it can be droped. The sepearate section on the 14th chapter can be included into other sections. And I'll put some photos of Croatian politicians as well. How about Stipe Mesić?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mesić, certainly. It would be good to include Sanader as well, together with some words about his resignation - he had a speech about Slovenia after resigning. But anyway, I believe some restructuring would help the article. I believe that after the background section, there would be more appropriate to include official positions about both governments, exclude legal perspective section (since this is included in national perspectives) and afterwards write something like Timeline of events, that would cover the development. I believe that the long quotes from various players do not fit too well into the article, it is better to summarize official positions of institutions, not just the individuals. And I don't see how that interesting part of the border fits into the article, although it is interesting, this is not a problematic part. And I am still missing the detailed description of border dispute, from the article it would appear that it is only the border at bay of Piran while there are more problematic spots. --Tone 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I disagree. Sanader resigned, but he never openly said he did so because of the blockade. Right now, even today, as we speak, nobody in the World knows why he resigned except for him. During his news confference on 1 July 2009, he just said he is "leaving politics". That's it. It would be too speculative to attribute it to this event. Personally, I think he resigned with style because he realized the economic crisis is a much more crucial thing than he can handle.
 * I even disagree more with the exclusion of a legal perspective. You see, I realize we are not here to resolve this complicated issue or to tell the readers who is right or wrong, or what to think, but this whole crisis in the Croatian-Slovenian relations deals heavily with the legal perspective of the border row and should be treated as such. We can't just "erase" international law and ignore the practice around the World just because the protagonists don't want to talk about it. Pahor's actions are not your run-of-the-mill, normal actions of a modern, 21st century politician, and the readers should be acquinted with the legal stand of both countries around the border. It's not honest to do it in any other way.
 * The quotes should be shortened, but so many of them tell a lot about the situation. The interesting part of the border picture can be droped. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I remember Sanader saying something about Slovenia a couple of days after resignation but maybe this is indeed irrelevant. The problem with the legal perspective is that it is open to interpretations. You see, if everything was crystal clear, there would be a border drawn long ago and noone would bother. The problem is (at is presently in the article), that Croatian side only sticks to one part of the code, Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. In the main text, there needs to be the full quote, The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith. This is the part that Slovenia considers applicable in this case so it is not all so clear as some people may think. That is why we are not here to interpret the legal issues but just state them clearly. Saying one country's position is legally weak is therefore not a good idea. --Tone 20:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith. Sounds somewhat blurry. What exactly does it mean?

I don't mind including that in the text. As well as the 12 nautical miles from the shore, while the international waters are 15 miles away from Slovenian shore. And the border is 98 % clear - I have "The Times Atles", published, indicativelly by Cankarjeva založba, where in 1989. it clearly shows the Piran Bay split through the half by Croatian and Slovenian Republics in Yugoslavia. And Slovenia does not have an access to international waters there. Some border villages which are claimed by Croatia may indeed be a part of Slovenia, or stuck in "no man's land" during Yugoslavia, however. Yet this is exactly the reason to pose the question why Pahor is avoiding an international arbitration by a third side, which would painlessly resolve the issue once and for all. Maybe precisely because the thing is 98 % clear and he doesn't want to accept it, and thus tries to "resolve" the issue by other means.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what exactly it means since I am not an expert in marine law (where do you get 98%?). Slovenia claims that those special circumstances are met in this case and that's all. But it is not on us to interpret anyway. Maps in some atlases are not really a relevant source, these are not official documents issued by the government. If I recall correctly, the preferred way to resolve the dispute would be if the countries could sit down and talk but they are apparently unable to do that. Time will bring the answer, it's pointless to pose questions what is the motivation behind people's actions. --Tone 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Where do you get 98%?". I seriously doubt there are some 1.000 km2 of "grey area" which are are unknown to both countries (after all, this is no Kashmir case). "Maps in some atlases are not really a relevant source, these are not official documents issued by the government". The map was *based* on official documents of the government. Since it was the 9th and final revision of the atlas, it's futile to deny that it represents some fantasy borders of republics which are not there in reality. How would Yugoslavian authorities allow maps which show, for instance, Boka Kotorska as part of Bosnia or Priština as part of Macedonia? Unfortunately, precisely such selective perception and bias caused this situation in the first place.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tag removed
I've removed the tag, as I could not detect any major problems with accuracy. Please: for all problems with accuracy and neutrality, use inline or section tags and (preferably) specify the nature of your objection here, on the talk page. GregorB (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment remarks
I've assessed the article as B class for WP Croatia. Also, I'd like to congratulate Justice and Arbitration on his work. I have two slight objections: Finally, on a side note: I'd really like to see Croatia-Slovenia border dispute (or rather Croatia-Slovenia border disputes?), which would, of course, overlap with Slovenia's blockade of Croatia's EU accession, but would have a wider scope and significance. GregorB (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) While I don't see a major problem with POV, I feel there are still minor infractions. E.g. caption under the Borut Pahor image reads "The first move that Borut Pahor made when he came to power was the blockade of Croatia", which seems to imply a some sort of malicious haste. Also, we learn Zmago Jelinčić "provocatively and publicly states that Slovenia should sabotage Croatia's EU accession unless it gets what it wants"; "provocatively" and "sabotage" are POV, and this might also be a factual problem (did Jelinčić actually use the word "sabotage" in his statement?).
 * 2) A bit too much quoting, especially given the article's size. It's better to summarize quotes, and trim down whatever is redundant. The exception is Mesić's "20 km" statement, where exact wording is important and can't be adequately rephrased.
 * Do you have any comments on the title of the article? The word blockade sounds a bit POV to me and I wonder if we could come up with something more neutral. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many neutral sources use the words "block" or "blockade", including some Slovenian ones, so I don't see it as a problem. GregorB (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, I realised that just after making the comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "E.g. caption under the Borut Pahor image reads "The first move that Borut Pahor made when he came to power was the blockade of Croatia", which seems to imply a some sort of malicious haste. Also, we learn Zmago Jelinčić "provocatively and publicly states that Slovenia should sabotage Croatia's EU accession unless it gets what it wants"; "provocatively" and "sabotage" are POV, and this might also be a factual problem (did Jelinčić actually use the word "sabotage" in his statement?)". You're right, I can see the lack of neutrality now that you took your time to explain it. I'm going to correct that.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Title of article
Is the word "blockade" really the most correct and/or frequently used terminology? Under international law, a blockade is an act of war... AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See the discussion above. I think we can put that question to rest.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the situation is different now than it was back in August. The blockade is lifted and there are things underway to define the border. I believe it would be reasonable to expand the article to reflect the situation and change the title correspondingly. --Tone 17:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is over now. But that doesn't change the fact that a blockade existed from December 2008 until September 2009. The situation regarding the border deal and/or arbitration is now a completely different topic. If you want to write about, you can create you own article, Slovenia-Croatia border deal. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Colon
This article seriously needs to be shortened. 109.182.34.116 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think this article is long, just take a peak at GPS, New York City or Moscow. And believe me, there are even longer aticles than that!--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC).