Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-01 Sveta Gera/archive001

This is an archive. Please raise any further points or continuing issues on the main mediation page.


 * What is the origin of the dispute? How are the different names typically used in the real world?
 * AFAIK, the dispute started with the independence of both countries in 1992; the border wasn't very accurately determined when both were a part of Yugoslavia, and when Yugoslavian army retreated, the Slovene forces occupied the barracks near the top, where they remain stationed today. On the other hand, Croatian cadastre shows that the parcel including the peak belongs to a Croatian owner, but it should be noted that it doesn't include the information how exactly the parcel became Croatian possession. The peak was renamed from "Sveta Jera" to "Trdinov vrh" by the local community (from both sides of the border) in 1923, but according to Admiral Norton and Zenanarh, Croatian officials haven't adopted this name. It has been a subject of bilateral negotiations about the border issue since the two countries have decided to try solving this issue. --Yerpo (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the origin of the dispute?
 * SR Croatia and SR Slovenia were 2 republics of former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Contrary to Yerpo’s comment above, the borders of every former Yugoslav Republic (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia,…) were very precisely determined. Every republic had its own government which contributed with the representative to the federal government in Belgrade. Territory of every republic was politically divided to the Municipalities (Cro: "Općine") and smaller local units (Cro: "Mjesne zajednice"). The territory was divided by cadastre surveys to aerially smaller "Cadastral Municipalities" (K.O. - Katastarska Općina). Topographic measurements and cadastral surveys existed in Yugoslavia as well as elsewhere in Europe. Especially in case of Croatia and Slovenia, where cadastre documents had continual tradition beginning in the Austrian Empire ages, practically contributing to the pioneership of Land registration in Europe. Even today the huge majority of the land parcels in both Croatia and Slovenia are unchanged and based on 1st topographic measurements from 19th century.


 * Disputed peak was comprised by 3 land parcels always registered with the Croatian owners and within Croatian territory, which I’ve presented in RFC at the article talk page . It’s important to notice that 3 parcels registered within the Cadastre Municipality of Sekulići (K.O. Sekulići) was impossible to be in Slovenia, otherwise Sekulići would be in Slovenia too, which it never was. Cadastral surveys primarily show property and governmental boundaries. Borders of former Yu republics were precised which was reflected in the cadastral surveys. Land parcels didn’t/don't lie over the local boundaries and especially not republic borders, since the land register (cadastre) documentation was the main criteria to determine where border lies between any 2 republics in Yu in all cases where there was no natural barrier (like river or other) to form it.


 * Both Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence on June 25th 1991. Question of borders was conducted by Badinter Arbitration Committee in 1991. See Opinion No. 3 (borders)


 * Slovenes have just a short strip of the Adriatic coast between Italy and Croatia. They noticed very soon that Italian and Croatian Territorial Waters (according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) close down Slovenian territorial water, so they had no direct passage to the International Waters in the Adriatic. In the smaller gulfs like Gulf of Piran territorial sea is determined by method of equidistance: distributed out of the both coasts equally, until both sides reach 12 nautical miles, where the International Sea begins. In the world there are only a few cases where another logic was used but all of these cases are results of some sorts of agreements and/or disputing or ignoring of the International Law.


 * ‘91-‘03 Cronology of the dispute (important moments taken from: Kristijan Turkalj, Piranski zaljev - razgraničenje teritorijalnog mora između Hrvatske i Slovenije/ISBN 953-6007-56-8 .):


 * (1991)
 * In the first draft proposal of delimitation, Slovenia proposed to establish the borderline in the center of the bay (which is the position of Croatia today) by method of equidistance. On 29th June 1991 an agreement was officially delivered by Slovenia to the Croatian delegation, it defined a border following the river of Dragonja, channel of St. Odorik and the center of the Gulf of Piran to the Italian territorial sea border. This offer was accepted by Croatia as logical and self-understandable since it was based on former continental border between 2 republics and concerning delimitation in the sea it respected the usual international Law of the Sea Convention established by UN in 1982 (especially 15th item of the Convention).
 * In September there was already war in Croatia, Serbs took control of JNA and attacked Croatia, occupying almost 1/3 of its territory, while Croats blocked JNA forces in the city barracks. In October Croatia negotiated with Serbs about JNA retreat from all barracks in the unoccupied Croatian territory. An agreement was made in in Jastrebarsko and JNA retreated its forces, leaving the barrack in Sveta Gera too.
 * Serbian attacks escalated at the end of the year and while Croatia was in real trouble, Slovenes sent a small military unit to occupy an empty barrack at Sveta Gera peak.
 * This Slovenian action can be considered as an introduction to the change of the Slovenian position concerning borders based on International law. It was immediately followed by diplomatic notes from Zagreb.
 * (1992)
 * New Slovenian politic was confirmed very soon in 1992. On 27th March 1992, Ljubljana sent new agreement proposal to Zagreb, Slovenia demanded 4 villages to the south of Dragonja river on Croatian territory (Mlini, Škudelini, Bužin and Škrilje). In June Slovenian Foreign minister came out to the publics propagating the Slovenian sovereignty over all Gulf of Piran.
 * (1993)
 * On 7th April 1993 Slovenia presented Memorandum with new demand which encompassed all Gulf of Piran and additional sea territory to create direct passage to the International Sea in the Adriatic. All these demands from 1992 and 1993 were refused by Croatia and defined by its jurisdictional experts as territorial pretensions of Slovenia.
 * (1994)
 * The experts of the Croatian Commission for Borders announced missing of any possibility for 2 sides to reach an agreement.
 * (1995)
 * Croatia liberated the most of its occupied territory and war in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina ended. In the same year Slovenes accepted the UN’s Convention of the Sea Law in their Declaration to the UN’s Secretary-General.
 * (1996)
 * Slovenian Foreign Ministry Law experts Iztok Simoniti and Marko Sotlar declared an official position of their government that Slovenia "doesn’t have direct passage to the open sea, so therefore neither conditions to proclaim Exclusive Economic Zone".
 * (1997)
 * In Ljubljana, Croatia and Slovenia signed "Agreement of the border trade and collaboration", by wich Croatia gave rights to Slovenian fishermen to use a part of Croatian territorial sea for fishing (in an area 4 times larger than Slovenian Territorial Sea).
 * (1999)
 * Croatian Parliament had discussion about relations with Slovenia and brought Declaration, concerning delimitation in the sea for use of equidistance method in the bay, and to use the centre of the bay until an Agreement is achieved.
 * (2001)
 * Contrary to the decision of Croatian Parlamient, Croatian and Slovenian Prime Ministers Ivica Račan and Janez Drnovšek (old political friends from former Yu) negotiated and made an agreement which gave the most of the Gulf of Piran to Slovenia and corridor to the open sea. [[Image:Bay-of-Piran maritime-boundary-dispute.jpg|thumb|230px|right|Sea border between Slovenia and Croatia according to the [[Drnovšek-Račan Agreement]] which was never ratified]] This proposal was relatively modified Slovenian Parliament Memorandum of 1993. It was completely refused by all Croatian experts and publics, described as opposite to the International Law and very harmful for interests of Croatia.
 * (2002)
 * Croatia officially informed Slovenia that Agreement was not subscribed, neither ratified by the Croatian Parliament, so it was inexistent.


 * Up to now, Slovenia has used any kind of political pressure to force Croatia to sign this Račan-Drnovšek Agreement. It used position of EU member to condition Croatian EU candidature.
 * During last year (2007) Slovenia held presidency of EU, trying to spread conflict to the higher levels, presenting it as problem of EU and Croatia, which was not accepted by the EU parliamentarians who insisted on bilateral Slo-Cro resolution (no EU involved).


 * Recently Cro and Slo politicians negotiate about technicalities concerning an international arbitrage process. According to the recent interview of Croatian negotiator Miomir Žužul, Sveta Gera is placed ad acta in whole matter as undisputed Croatian territory. Zenanarh (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, another prime example of Zenanarh's tactic of diversion. I suggest removing most of his comment, as it is completely irrelevant for this debate, and taken from a completely politicized one-sided source. Therefore, it's nothing more than a waste of disk space. As for the last paragraph, I already linked the article in which there was Slovenian foreign minister's statement that the area is disputed (contrary to your unsorced statement). --Yerpo (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm a diversant, I'm all mad of special tactical education. It's not irrelevant. Problem of this peak cannot be observed solely, since it's just a part of overall Cro-Slo conflict. I suggest you to write your two-sided story. I'm very interested to understand what Slovenes dispute about Sveta Gera. Based on what? From the very beginning of this discussion we didn't receive any specific information. Zenanarh (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter! This is not a forum for resolving an international issue, we're just determining whether it's disputed or not. It is, according to the Drnovšek-Račan agreement. Which exists, eventhough it isn't legally binding. I'd love to present hard evidence, but the Slovene officials don't publicly reveal their arguments for negotiation. And even if they did I wouldn't write stories because they don't belong here. --Yerpo (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's matter, it's matter :)
 * After 16 years of disputing something, there is still no "The Agreement" about anything. No arbitrage commission procces started yet. No demands of the dispute known. Why do you want to prejudice renaming of the article when Slovenian dispute is not recorded yet by an institution authorised to resolve it finally? Practically you prejudice official Slovenian dispute. Zenanarh (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From the beginning '92 until now '08 Slovenian demands are perceived in Croatia as Slovenian territorial aspirations for Croatian territory. From the beginning '91 until now '08 Croatia didn't change its position based on the valid international documents, signed by both sides in '91. This is very sensitive matter. We should not rename any toponym (Gulf of Piran, Sveta Gera) in the dispute, before it's officially confirmed. Wikipedia can not trade with territory (Gera) registered only as Croatian in last 150 years (land register), just because Slovenian politicians are claiming something. Zenanarh (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * About Drnovšek-Račan agreement, do you understand that it was a Bill (proposed law) refused by the Parliament? Without subscriptions and seals it's not even a document, it's just a paper with some text. Zenanarh (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From the beginning '92 until now '08 Slovenian demands are perceived in Croatia as Slovenian territorial aspirations for Croatian territory And vice versa; this doesn't prove anything beyond you trying to make this issue emotional. About Drnovšek-Račan agreement, I understand that it isn't legally binding (which doesn't stop Croatian politics from implementing certain solutions that suit them out of it), but if the aforementioned politics suddenly came to their senses and ratified it, it would become binding (because Slovene government did ratify it). So you cannot claim it's non-existent. Incidentally, the ratification would mean that the peak belongs to Croatia, but until then, this fact is disputed. You cannot prove that the territory was registered as Croatian for the last 150 years based on the Croatian land register, because it's not clear on what basis it was registered as such (the cadastre office doesn't keep the old documents). --Yerpo (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No Yerpo, you are playing with our inteligence. There's no vice versa! In all this conflict there's nothing disputed by Croatia. There are no legal and valid documents, International Law or Sea Law Convention disputed by Croatia. It's all disputed by Slovenia. That's how this conflict was born, that's how it exists up to now. I didn't write "dispute history" above for nothing. We cannot observe this problem realistically if it's not placed in the realistic context and environment.
 * What Slovenia disputes is Croatian jurisdiction on the specific Croatian territory (don't forget that it still IS Croatian territory per unchanged '91 international documents). It's Jurisdiction we're talking about! It's not something that you can play with! To remind you how it usually goes in the courts: a suspect is not guilty until the jury/judge say so. Just because Slovenia disputes legal situation frozen in position as in '91, doesn't give it right to show it as already changed position!
 * You cannot prove that the territory was registered as Croatian for the last 150 years based on the Croatian land register, because it's not clear on what basis it was registered as such (the cadastre office doesn't keep the old documents). LOL, this is really ridicilous. Who are you to question reliability of the Croatian Cadastre? Neither Slovenia did it in this case! Slovenia doesn't have any cadastral data about Sveta Gera nor Trdinov Vrh at all! I thought we've settled this detail in the talk page of the article. Especially (the cadastre office doesn't keep the old documents) one! Cadastre registers ARE the records. In fact you have no idea what Land Register is, do you? Documents that change something in process of reparcelization, renaming, changing "attributes" given to the parcel (building site, wooden area, agriculture parcel,...) etc, can be saved for 1, 2 or 10 years, it's unimportant, These documents never become the part of the particular cadastre parcel register. These documents are only a part of some "legal process" related to the particular land parcel and as such are saved for some period in the "legal proccess" record by an institution (not Cadastre) which has authorisation for conduction of these processes. In former Yu these institutions were certain Communal Committees (Komitet, Sekretarijat) for urbanism and land planning. In modern Croatia and Slovenia there are the institutions with changed names, decended from the Yugoslav ones. What is recorded in the Cadastre is final result of "legal process" conducted by these institutions. Cadastre is an archive which legally saves the parcel history records, not documents used for the proccesses. In Cadastre office in Ozalj (Croatia) there are 147 years long history records of 3 land parcels of Sveta Gera. In Slovenia there is none!
 * Adequatelly to your conclusion I could say that "it's not clear on what basis the territory of Republic of Slovenia is registered as such". Zenanarh (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there, now? Where can I see them? Or did you get this information from Croatian mainstream media as well? Since I don't have the means to check your statement in person (and you didn't provide any link to relevant documents besides the parcel numbers), I'd have to take your word on this. Which I won't, because I seriously doubt your good faith (eventhough I assumed it at first) and your neutrality. --Yerpo (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No Yerpo, you are playing with our inteligence. There's no vice versa! In all this conflict there's nothing disputed by Croatia I understand you get this feeling from the Croatian media which is heavily influenced by the government in Zagreb, but please, don't drag it here because it's completely irrelevant. I'm finishing this pointless debate with another reminder: cadastre isn't the only relevant source. --Yerpo (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really awesome to have you here, claiming that I didn't provide any link to relevant documents and speaking about my good faith... Why don't you simply go to Talk:Sveta Gera, False renaming section, there you got a link to the page of "Croatian Cultural Council" institution, where these land parcel were cited, also a little bit lower you have a link to Katastar.hr (official Croatian cadastre page), where you can easily get information about actual ownership from the cadastre register. However if you want to see history register for a specific parcel, or former owners, other changes about these parcels, you must go to cadastre office in Ozalj (Croatia), fill a small formular, pay a symbolic tax and you can get documents.
 * Now, since you're exploding of your good faith and since your discussion here and in Talk:Sveta Gera is full of sources and links, I invite you to dispute anything I wrote here with all those relevant sources, jealously hidden by you from the rest of us, so we can finally understand all your comments up to now: you are not even sure what Slovenia disputes, territory? Croatian documents? UN documents? something else? nothing? I like especially yours: I'd love to present hard evidence, but the Slovene officials don't publicly reveal their arguments for negotiation. And even if they did I wouldn't write stories because they don't belong here. Is it something about Agent 007's special codes and "Licence to dispute"? Zenanarh (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How are the different names typically used in the real world?
 * Traditional name of the peak was Sveta Gera (St. Gera coming from St. Gertruda) in Croatian, while Sveta Jera (from St. Jertruda) in Slovenian. In land registry, so therefore in any valid official document, it's recorded always and only as Sveta Gera or Gera, during last 147 years (from 1861). Trdinov Vrh IS Slovenian exonym. This name originated in 1926, when a group of Slovenes gave that name to a peak (of a mountain shared by the both countries), symbolically, in respect to a Slovenian writer. There's nothing wrong about it. Adequately Croats could attach any Croatian name to any geographical spot in Slovenia, but it would be Croatian exonym then. This peak was probably never so much mentioned in the publics like in the last 16 years, when it's mentioned mainly as the subject of political argue. That's why we cannot discuss about any "normal" typical use, since distribution of the used names in sources reflect how often a political problem is present in media, rather than how often different names are "typically used". Zenanarh (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are any of the proposed names especially common in reliable sources? Can you provide some examples?
 * See Talk:Sveta Gera. None is especially common in reliable english sources. CIA World Factbook, for example, lists both names. Both appear very rarely, as the peak isn't very notable outside of this dispute. --Yerpo (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First, CIA World Factbook does not reference the subject of the article. Second, I noticed that, out of the first ten Google hits for Trdinov Vrh, five are in Slovenian language and further two originate from Slovenian websites. Of the same Google results for Sv. Gera, only one is in Croatian language and I haven't found any other hits from Croatian websites. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * CIA World Factbook mentioned the subject in the international disputes section in the articles of both countries until recently, but has removed it for unknown reasons (I've seen it some days ago while searching for arguments regarding this debate). See for 2002 snapshot where it remains. Second, we've been through the Google hits and your invalid search phrases on the relevant talk page. We're talking about reliable sources here. --Yerpo (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * CIA probably removed it because they don't feel it's an actual dispute. Also, the snapshot you pointed out says "Sveta Gera (Trdinov Peak)", both on the page about Croatia and the page about Slovenia, using Sv. Gera as the more representative name and writing the Slovenian exonym as an exonym. Also, it does not say "Trdinov vrh," but "Trdinov Peak," using a third, partially translated version that is, while not unique to the factbook, almost unrepresented on the Web. Also, I did not put this search phrase as another evidence of Sveta Gera trumping Trdinov vrh (I have valid search patterns that accomplish this goal), but to show that Trdinov vrh tends to be used mostly in Slovenia only and that Sv. Gera shows worldwide web results. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Another two of your speculations/guesses which we could really do without. Karbinski's search method described at the bottom of the article's talk page is more representative. --Yerpo (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As the Google searching method has proven to lead to inconclusive results in this case, we should focus on reliable sources, such as the CIA Factbook. As you yourself have demonstrated, it uses Sv. Gera as the primary name and Trdinov vrh merely as an alternative name. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about what they consider official/unofficial (as already said, we won't solve an international dispute here), but what they use. And they use(d) both. "Vrh" is a common Slovene word meaning "peak" and if they translate it, that doesn't necessarily mean they consider it an exonym, just as they don't consider "Jadransko mor(j)e" (literally translated as "Adriatic Sea" from "Mare Adriatico") a Slovene and Croatian exonym. --Yerpo (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that they wrote the Slovene name in parentheses leads me to believe that they consider it an exonym. Also, Saint Petersburg is a translation of Санкт Петербург, but the widespread use of Saint Petersburg doesn't advocate using the Russian-language version. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact is also that they acknowledge the peak being a disputed territory, subject of an international agreement. --Yerpo (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do they? That's an obsolete version you're talking about. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do (until they say it's resolved). The situation in real life is still the same since this information was removed somewhere at the start of this month (AFAIK, the agreement hasn't changed, although Croatia still doesn't acknowledge it). Unfortunately, the text of the agreement itself is very hard to obtain, I'll try to find other sources. --Yerpo (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Until they say it's resolved. And what are they supposed to do then? Write "The country had a dispute over Sveta Gera peak with Slovenia, but it's resolved now"? This is not Wikipedia page history. Also, Slovenia does not exercise its claims based on the agreement (Slovenian cadastre?) and there is no evidence that Sveta Gera even appears there (we really need a copy, I'll try to find it). Admiral Norton (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And what are they supposed to do then? Write "The country had a dispute over Sveta Gera peak with Slovenia, but it's resolved now"? What I was trying to say is that the fact they removed this information from the webpage doesn't mean the dispute doesn't exist anymore. It would mean it if they said that explicitly or if we had other sources saying so. I agree that a copy of the document itself would be the best. --Yerpo (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If we would rename every article regarding slovene exonyms in Austria, Hungary, Italy and Croatia this would be a mess. Nowhere, on no Wiki we could find such requests. Both Croatian and Slovene language have little effect on the English language. The title of the article should be the one which has been in use for a longer period in time, which is Sveta Gera. Each of the Catholic, Jewish and Muslim nation(s) call(s) Jerusalem by a different name, should all of these names be listed as the title of that article. Should we list at least three names for that city as the name of that article? Should we list both the Arabic name for that city in this English encyclopaedia? -- Imbris (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop diverting attention! This is not an exonym, this is one side's name for disputed territory (as the paragraph in the CIA factbook mentioning it clearly says)! The other examples you and Admiral Norton mention are names widely used in English sources, so they are completely irrelevant for this debate. If you don't intend to prove a) that this isn't disputed territory (which you unsuccessfully tried already) and b) that one of the names is more widespread in independent, reliable sources, then please refrain from making irrelevant comments. You are deliberately trying to derail this debate according to some nationalistic ideals (I can't see other explanation for your comments) and Wikipedia is definitely not a place for promoting such ideals. Especially considering that one of you intends to become an admin shortly. Remember, we are not trying to rename the article to "Trdinov vrh", some of us are prepared to make compromises until the dispute is resolved internationally. --Yerpo (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not diverting attention by stating my oppinion that the current name is in use longer than what you propose + that both Slovenes and Croatians use the name Sv. Gera. -- Imbris (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)