Talk:Dragonja

Territorial dispute

 * Copied from my talk page. --Eleassar my talk 17:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

please, don't play dumb. take a look at any map. look at the red line between istra and slovenia. that's the border. then look at the blue line which is almost same as the red line. that's the river, it's called dragonja. ergo, dragonja is the border river between croatia and slovenia. so, where's the problem? --93.141.103.163 (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you have not provided any source explicitely confirming your statement: "Dragonja is partly in Slovenia and partly in Croatia". This is a contentious statement. According to the Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dragonja flows only in Slovenia: "Dokument hrvaškega ministrstva za zaščito okolja, ureditev prostora in gradbeništvo iz leta 1991 jasno določa, da slovensko Primorje obsega celotno reko Dragonjo in njen izliv v morje. Meja med Slovenijo in Hrvaško tako ni potekala po reki Dragonji, kar pomeni, da je opisano območje slovensko." Dragonja is also not listed as a border river by the reference site Burger.si --Eleassar my talk 12:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * actually, i said that it is the border between croatia and slovenia. istarska enciklopedija -> "Donji tok Dragonje nakon II. svj. rata postaje granica između Hrvatske (bujski kotar) i Slovenije (koparski kotar), a 1991. i osnova državne granične crte." so, how about this for the start of the article.: "Dragonja is the river in Slovenia. It's also the border between Slovenia and Croatia". --93.141.103.163 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't consider Istarska enciklopedija to have the final word. The statement that Dragonja flows in Slovenia is undisputed. The statement that it is a border river is disputed by Slovenian sources. Therefore, to remain neutral we can only say: "Dragonja is a river in Slovenia. The jurisdiction over its lower part is disputed between Slovenia and Croatia". --Eleassar my talk 12:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * i'm sure that there are more reliable sources, it was just the first thing that i remembered, but ok, i agree with this sentence above. --93.141.103.163 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)