Talk:Sveta Gera

Sveta Gera / Trdinov vrh

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)

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)

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)

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.[1] Second, Slovenian Social Democrats have promised no drastic changes here nor are they expected by Croats.[2] 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)

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)

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)

<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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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." [3]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree that Trdinov vrh / Sveta Gera supports that. Karbinski (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RfC: Article naming

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

Sources

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

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [4]. There's a link to "Croatian Cultural Council Portal", this one: [5]. 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)

See the PDF I linked to above. --Yerpo (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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: [6]. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It gets even better: [7] Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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)