User talk:Andharkhand

Gulf of Piran
Welcome.

Could you please slow a bit down with editing of Gulf of Piran, and use the talk page a bit? From your edits, I understand that you think that the article is skewed towards the Croatian point of view. However, now you introduce new pieces of text as counterarguments, but you don't reference them either. Ideally, statements (especially controversial ones, which the article is full of) should be referenced to respected, neutral sources, but we know we live in an imperfect world, and have to rely on Croatian and Slovenian press, and mutual agreement on the phrasing and used sources is necessary. For example, I do agree with your removal of the piece about Joras's trial in Croatian court, because it was poisoning the well. However, balancing unreferenced "pro-Croatian" statements with unreferenced "pro-Slovenian" statements is not a cure. If you have problems with phrasing of controversial pieces, please raise them at the talk page.

Further, tagging such as this one is not exactly nice. The whole paragraph is ostensibly referenced to Turkalj's paper, accessible online. If you think it's misquoted, please do cross-check it yourself first, before tagging; we cannot re-check old sources every time someone doesn't like the text. I placed the same tag here because I couldn't find any definitive evidence that border crossing Plavonja even exists. So I raised the question on the talk page, and please answer it, backing it up with a reliable source. Happy editing. No such user (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly for your comments, so let me shorty reply to the mentioned reproaches, one by one.

1. About the statement of the article being skewed towards the croatian point of view: the article was not skewed, rather it was citing what could be named the definition of the Croatian point of view. There were almost no counterarguments, and even those that were presented were vehemently and unfoundedly rejected.

2. To every argument, there can be an counterargument, some of which I tried to mention. It is true that the world is imperfect. But it is interesting that you did not take the action of counterbalancing the one-sided argument before I did, which is rather surprising when one presupposes your objective point of view.

3. I have read many scientific discussions about disputable border issues and am well aware of their mode of representation. Presenting the view of both sides is the least that can be done in such instances, since there appears to be no absolutely objective statements or propositions. At least there were not, to my knowledge; except if you propose Mr. Turkalj to be such unquestionable and absolutelly objective authority.

4. I accept the critique of missing citations. The mentioned statements represent the more or less unison standpoints of Slovenian government, media and public opinion as well as facts that were innumerably many times published in different sorts of Slovenian media. And I will try to support those statements with as many resources as possible.

5. Concerning the used resources in the former article: citing a one-sided reference does not make the argument more objective, so your argument is logically and epistemologically void. I do not question your citation, but the reliability of the cited statements.

6. The border checkpoint Plavonja does exist and has been a source of conflict for at least a decade. It has been cited innumerably many times in Slovenian media and it surprises me that it was not mentioned in the preceding text.

As already told, the quite generally known statements that I supplied to the article will be cited as soon as I find some (hopefully) accessible internet or other resources.

Thank you for your comment though not all statements in it can sustain the tests of non-contadictoriness and logic, no offense intended.

Andharkhand (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I will readily concede that the article was skewed towards Croatian point of view (for a suitable definition of "skewed"). If for nothing else, because majority of sources was Croatian (and larger pieces of text added by Croatian users). Also, I am not pretending that supposedly scholarly sources such as Turkalj are neutral by definition and should be trusted blindly -- rather, if we do agree that it's usable (and to which extent), then they should be cited without disclaimers.


 * I don't have significant objections to the text that you added/removed. Well, if I had, I could revert the article to the previous state, (which wouldn't be particularly nice indeed). You appear knowledgeable on the matter (far more than I am, who got involved by creating the maps, because I couldn't follow what the article talks about). But we do need some references; thanks for supplying Šmajdek.


 * Concerning Plavonja, I still cannot find anything reliable using Google. Whatever I find is either a forum, or a reader's comment such as . Is it perhaps officially called somewhat different? No such user (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. As far as Plavonja is considered, it is the term that has been repeatedly used by the Slovenian media and politics, as well as Slovenian civil society. I am still in the process of searching suitable and accessible resources for that matter and will supply you with them as soon as they are found.


 * I doubt that any other official name has been used for that border checkpoint, but it has seldom been brought to international attention.


 * There are indeed many resources about Slovenia's conception of Croatia's documentation as prejudice of settling the border conflict, but I have provided just one accessible resource, since others cannot be found on the internet.


 * About my added text: It has been removed once right after I made the first change, though I do not know who removed it. I hope I have been as objective as possible: at least trying to counterbalance the aforementioned one-sided argumentation.


 * Though it is of some concern to me and my collegues that have read the former article, that such one-sidedness is not disputed in the first place in a public resource as widely used as wikipedia. This place has, as far I understand it, never been ment as a place for propaganda, so I have attempted to strictly apply that criterion in adding my text.


 * If I find any more resources, I will gladly supply them and complement the asserted data.


 * Greetings.

Andharkhand (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)