Talk:Sveta Gera

CIA Factbook

As I have not found it in the source mentioned, I've removed the following potentially controversial sentence: "The CIA Handbook states that "Slovenia and Croatia have not obtained parliamentary ratification of 2001 land and marine boundary treaty, which cedes villages on the Dragonja River and Sveta Gera (Trdinov vrh) to Croatia, and most of Piran Bay to Slovenia but restricts Slovenian access to the open sea". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sveta Gera → Trdinov vrh — Even map on references says Trdinov vrh; or to be moved to Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh? And, while border is disputed, where is true border line? --AndrejJ (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC) — Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. per evidence I listed below. Trdinov vrh is as much Slovenian as Savudrija Bay. I know I have just touched a hive full of wasps (I don't know the English expression for this), but as a Croatian peak, this should bear the Croatian name. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. First, the references cited are Croatian, which makes them inherently biased. It's not hard to find Slovenian sources to confirm that Trdinov vrh is in Slovenia. Second, it's not upon Wikipedians to decide where is the true border line. This would amount to original research. Third, while it is not possible currently to say which side has it right, according to Google, the much more common name is Trdinov vrh. Per Wikipedia:Naming dispute#Proper nouns: "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name." --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

First, Slovenian sources are no less biased than Croatian and I wasn't able to find any map that puts Sv. Gera in Slovenia. If you have sources saying otherwise, you have to show them here. Second, the border line is defined in the evidence I have shown. It's OR only if you consider using Google and sources from the article itself "original research"! Third, a Google search shows that Trdinov vrh gets 16,300 results, but also that Sveta Gera gets 22,300, clearly showing that Sveta Gera is the more common name. I don't know where do you get your results, as even google.si shows more results in favor of Sveta Gera than in favor of Trdinov vrh. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I just list two sources that show Trdinov vrh is in Slovenia, to prove you there is a controversy.[1][2] Now, saying that Trdinov vrh is Croatian in spite of that contradicting maps is your original synthesis and biased conclusion, believe it or not. As for the Google search, "Trdinov vrh" gives 18,100 hits[3] and "Sveta gera" gives 5,280 hits[4]. Why have you decided to exclude all the hits including both Trdinov vrh and Sveta gera in your first search[5] remains a mystery to me. On the other side, "SV Gera whose football department joined Blau-Weiß Gera" (etc.), which you have included in your second search[6], does not qualify as a relevant hit in my humble opinion. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research, it's what sources say. Now, your sources say Sv. Gera is Slovenian, but that doesn't mean I made my souces up. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR before accusing. Concerning Google, I don't think the 429 hits using both Sveta Gera (Sv. Gera) and Trdinov vrh matter, since they do not help determine the more prevalent usage. Adjectives "Sveta" and "Sveti" are often shortened to "Sv." in Croatian and this has spread to other languages, as documented in the example of Sv. Marko vs. Sveti Marko. Although the former does not outweigh the latter, it still makes up for quite a large percentage of total hits (about 45%) and your count for "Sveta Gera" results from not taking the "Sv. Gera" version into account. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've stated why I believe Trdinov vrh is the commonest non-English name and I stick to the following: per Wikipedia:Naming dispute#Proper nouns: "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name." - in this case Trdinov vrh. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. per evidences presented. Slovenia tries to dispute legacy of R. Croatia on some territories, but this question is still not started on some international court. Until it's decided differently it stays what it is - Croatian territory. Anything else would be unserious in an encyclopedia. Zenanarh (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC0)

I won't argue who tries to dispute whose legacy; it's enough for me to say that per evidences presented, until it's decided differently, Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera stays what it is - a disputed territory. Saying anything else would be unserious in an encyclopedia. As I have already stated, per Wikipedia:Naming dispute the most neutral way of dealing with this would be to use the commonest non-English name (which as demonstrated above is Trdinov vrh). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see Admiral Norton has already started canvassing his Croatian friends!![7] Per WP:CANVASS: "Messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's kill off WP:DELSORT, wouldn't that be nice? I invited Zenanarh of the discussion, I didn't say "You must vote on Talk:Sveta Gera", nor did I say "Oh please oppose on Talk:Sveta Gera, some Slovenian maniac claims it's Slovenian." WP:CANVASS is written to discourage people from mass invitations like on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir, not to discourage inviting someone knowledgeable of the subject to discuss and find new evidence which might be instrumental for the outcome of this discussion. Either way, real canvassing is likely to be caught and noted in the discussion and it's up to the closing admin to determine whether the canvassed vote is useful or not. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

DELSORT is one thing, but "Could you please lend me a hand at the dispute on Talk:Sveta Gera?" sounds very similar to "Oh please oppose on Talk:Sveta Gera" to me. I also don't think Zenanarh has brought anything new to the discussion. He has just repeated that Croatia claims this territory for itself - just like Slovenia does. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, in the future I'll make sure I request Wikipedia Signpost to be delivered to me by a disposable e-mail account to evade nitpickers like you. Also, it's hardly my fault if Zenanarh chooses to oppose per evidence rather than once more contradict your alleged proof. BTW why aren't we talking at all about Zenanarh's arguments, but discussing this problem only? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Quote: Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Well, I didn't alert the whole WP:CRO. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I said all that I wanted to say about Zenanarh's arguments even before he came here. It's a pity you have now resorted to personal attacks and wikilawyering. The spirit of the guideline, as written in the nutshell: "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, stop discussing policies here. Instead, try to find a solution. I suggest Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh or Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera since the area is claimed by both nations and both names appear in international sources. There has to be some compromise here. --Tone 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You probably meant: stop discussing the behavior of users? I mean, what else can be more fair than to stick to policies in such controversial cases? No personal offense, but WP:NCGN states the following: "Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first." It also states a solution I have offered several times already: "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems."--Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Using multiple names raises move requests and it's also detrimental to the article formatting, making Wikipedia look unprofessional. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. --Suradnik13 (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

@Eleassar. Canvassing? Hm, and what's this?

Another Croat? Please state reasons for your opposition. The originally mentioned reason has been refuted.

As for the canvassing, in contrast to the post by Admiral Norton, the post by Andrejj has not influenced this proposal. It has nothing to do with me. As you may see from the article's history, I have edited this article a lot and did already move it once. I have had it on my watchlist. My arguments regarding Wikipedia:Naming dispute#Proper nouns and WP:NCGN are still as solid as they were before. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's okay, then lemme post a notice on WT:CRO or on hr.wiki Village Pump. It'll just help create more fuss and bring more new editors who had little interaction with the move process and little knowledge of English language. On the other hand, I invited Zenanarh, not only an experienced Wikipedian, but a person who has more than average layman knowledge of this naming problem. Yes, he's Croatian, but if you find that a criterium to dispose of his reasoning, you also shouldn't be participating in this discussion since you're Slovenian. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What matters here is not whom you hold in high esteem and whom you don't. It's also not about credentials (which are not evident from Zenanarh's page at all), nationality or votestacking. It's about arguments and policies. Till now, all the arguments for the opposition to move the page, including the Zenanarh's, have been refuted. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

CIA Factbook is most neutraly source, IMHO. --Suradnik13 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have already written above, I have not found any claim regarding Trdinov vrh in the CIA Factbook.[8][9] Even if it would be actually included (it is not), this factbook is only one of the sources and most surely not the authoritative one. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What claim? I didn't refer to the territory dispute. I just said that in CIA Factbook is written Sveta Gera (Trdinov Peak) [10] --Suradnik13 (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in other words, does this mean that Eleassar denies his claim of a territory dispute between Croatia and Slovenia by arguing that it's sourced in a non-important source? If that's the case, then I agree, Sveta Gera belongs to Croatia. That's what I have already proven here (look at evidence and other links of mine). Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I dispute that the CIA Factbook could decide whom the territory belongs to or the name of the article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Imbris (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Even in former SFRY this peak has been considered Croatian and, belive it or not, by the Yugoslav People's Army [11]. -- Imbris (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to do all the necessary research to properly answer this question nor access to all the documents and even if I would, I'm sure many people would disagree with my ascertainments. However, it is undue weight to draw conclusions on the basis of one or two sources as you and Suradnik13 try to do. For example, this page cites several reliable references according to which Trdinov vrh belongs to Slovenia. The fact remains that the sovereignty over this territory is a matter of dispute[12] and Wikipedia policies are very clear in such cases:

• WP:NCON#Proper nouns: "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name."
• WP:NCGN: "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems."

As already stated above, according to Google the commonest non-English name is Trdinov vrh. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sveta Gera 173,000 and Trdinov vrh 28,300. According to my google, Trdinov vrh isn't the commonest non-English name :) --Suradnik13 (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to put Sveta Gera and Trdinov vrh inside the quotation marks to get relevant results. Sveta Gera (5,000); Trdinov vrh (18,100). :D --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's 22,300 for Sveta Gera to 15,800 for Trdinov vrh. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your results are flawed as Sv Gera most often refers to the German sport club SV Gera. I've tried to exclude that (12,500 results now), but many hits are still irelevant for this dispute. Regarding your count for Trdinov vrh, it's also flawed as you have for no reason excluded all the results including both Trdinov vrh and Sveta/Sv Gera. I already explained this to you once. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And I explained to you that 429 hits featuring both names are too few to influence this. Also, I found many hits for "Trdinov vrh" like this and there are absolutely no English-language hits among the first ten Google results.

BTW, removing Slovenian sources for "Trdinov vrh" and Croatian sources for "Sv. Gera" (they don't play a role here) returns 12,400 hits for Sveta Gera and 9,180 hits for Trdinov vrh. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are not only 429 hits but 1,540 hits that include both phrases.

Also, there's no reason to exclude everything published at .si or .hr domains. You have to filter the hits for those written in English. That way I get 214 hits for Sveta Gera and 1,940 hits for Trdinov vrh. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I really can't see a way how can WP:UNDUE be applied here, since this is a move discussion and the fact that a user doesn't bombard us with ten sources that list ten more sources by themselves, doesn't mean his sources are ineligible. In fact, he has presented a source showing that Sveta Gera has a history of being on Croatian soil even during the former Yugoslavia. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see why should we rely on this single source when according to another reliable source (also printed during the former Yugoslavia) Trdinov vrh has a history of being on Slovenian soil: Krajevni leksikon Slovenije (Lexicon of places in Slovenia) II, Ljubljana 1971COBISS 14403117. That's what I'm talking about. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No wonder it says "Trdinov vrh" when it's Slovenian: written in Slovenian, made by Slovenians, printed in Slovenia, sold to Slovenians. This is far from a neutral source, since Yugoslav countries that can be neutral to the problem obviously had very little influence to it. Also, there are numerous sources pointing to Sveta Gera being Croatian. You can read my and fellow opposers' statements and the Evidence section, or I can again create a summary. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably there are other sources to support Slovenian position, which I don't know about. In any case, facts are: a dispute remains, we have certain guidelines to be followed in such cases and Slovenian name is the more frequent one. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not your place to announce the more frequent name and the statement about Trdinov vrh being more frequent is disputed at best. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I find your patronizing tone uncivil. As for the frequency, you may dispute whatever you want, but your arguments are void. Everyone can have a look at the numbers listed above. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Slovenians would very much like to insist that Trieste is in fact Trst even if the founding father of Slovenian Geography Peter Kozler wrote in his famous map the name Terst (Zaliv Teržaški). Udine would be Videm, Klagenfurt would be Celovec, Villach would be Beljak, Völkermarkt would be Velikovec, Bleiburg would be Pliberk. But those places are not in Slovenia - thus named in the official language of the land. This list is amazing Slovene exonyms, but I do not see that the EU27 would do anything for the Slovenian interests, Russia perhaps but still it would be more probably that Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia would do far much more for Slovenian interests than any of the EU27.

In any possible way either the Slovenian language or the Croatian language have little or no impact on the English language and if they do have some impact I am sure that the old name is better, Slovenes have used Sveta Gera (as a name) up to 1923 also.

Furthermore Serbian Wikipedia, English Wikipedia and French Wikipedia use Sveta Gera and not some combinations.

Imbris (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

In favor of Trdinov vrh:

• I've already stated my sources above. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

---

In favor of Sveta Gera:

• Topographic map - Note: Although the map says "Trdinov vrh", but it clearly shows the peak is located in Croatia
• Croatian bureau of statistics - explicit use of Sveta Gera by Croatia, also shows that Croatia claims the peak
• Map of Nature park "Žumberak - Samoborsko gorje" - shows the peak on Croatian soil
• Yugoslav People's Army map showing the location of the peak and TV antenna
• More sources can be found in the discussion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC: Title of the article

I dispute the decision to retain this article under the title Sveta Gera. Here are some facts (some of them being refutal of the claims in the previous section):

1. Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera partly belongs to Slovenia and partly to Croatia. The dispute concerns only the sovereignty over the summit of the peak.
2. What matters are not names that were used in the past centuries but those that are used now (actually, Slovenes used the name Sveta Jera, not Sveta Gera, till 1923). I also don't care about what French or Serbian Wikipedia articles use. You should read them and have a look at their history to understand why.
3. The guidelines state: "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name." (WP:NCON#Proper nouns) and "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems." (WP:NCGN)
4. According to Google results listed above Slovene name of the peak is the prevalent one. Everyone can have a look at them to verify that.
5. There is no substantiated reason to disregard the guidelines in this case. In addition, the proposal was concluded when the discussion was still ongoing.

--Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I come to this issue as an outsider, knowing nothing of the problem, except that there is one. Sveta Jera and Sveta Gera are obviously the same name, and I would suggest that one of these ought to be a neutral name. I suspect that re-naming it after an individual was a nationalistic act of the side that did it, and thus represents a sort of nationlistic POV, as opposed to the NPOV required by WP. However, what ever the solution ultimately adopted, all other versions should exist as redirects to that version. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Both names are equally nationalistic in the context of current times. The renaming in 1923 was not a nationalistic act of one side. It was supported by both Slovenes and Croats. People from both sides of the border came to the peak when it was solemnly renamed.[13] Trdina was a grammar school professor in Rijeka for some time and one of the streets in the city is named after him. Therefore, I can't agree any of the names would be more pov than the other. It's simply that one is Croatian and the other Slovene and we should choose the more frequent one. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To claim that 1923 Trdinov vrh isn't a nationalistic rename is sheer nonsense. This name was never supported nor used by Croatia. On the other hand, Sveta Gera is the historical name of the peak, following the Slovenian-Croatian tradition of naming mountain peaks after saints (have a look at any geographical map of either country to see the pattern). Exactly your statement proves how little Trdina had to do with the peak itself, as the renaming was just an act of Slovenian nationalism against the Serbian government (see Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes for the political situation). Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference provided says both nations supported the rename: "Takrat se je na vrhu Gorjancev zbralo številno ljudstvo s slovenske in hrvaške strani." (meaning: People from both the Slovenian and Croatian side gathered on the peak at that time, i.e. when it was solemnly renamed) [14] Also, please provide a reference for your claim about the rename as an act of Slovenian nationalism against the Serbian government. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at this, specifically this quote "Na prijedlog predsjednika SPD Novo Mesto Ferdinanda Seidla 1923. su Novomeščani Sv. Geru preimenovali u spomen književnika Janeza Trdine (1830. - 1905., "Bajke in povesti o Gorjancih", 1904.) u Trdinov vrh." (English: According to the suggestion of Ferdinand Seidl, the president of SPD Novo Mesto in 1923 the residents of Novo Mesto changed the name of Sv. Gera to Trdinov vrh in the honor of writer Janez Trdina. -- emphasis added). Note it does not say that Croats agreed to the change. The next sentence also corroborates it: "Tako je predio najvišega vrha Žumberačke gore i Gorjanaca dobio dvojaki naziv jer je za žumberačko područje i dalje ostao naziv Sv. Gera." (English: That way the area around the summit of Žumberak and Gorjanci got a double name, because the name Sv. Gera still stuck for the Žumberak area.) It would be hard to find an online reference for the nationalism claim (it's probably deliberated in detail in some history book), but the rename was still made without the consent of Croats. It should also be noted that "Trdinov vrh" is found in the article only in the quote above and "Sv. Gera" is used instead all the time. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the source I have provided not only residents of Novo mesto, but people from both sides of the border gathered on the summit to witness the solemn renaming. Your source does not explicitely deny this so it is solely your own conclusion that "the rename was still made without the consent of Croats". This page casts further light on this: "Bradati uniatski svečenik iz hrvaških Sošic je opravil cerkveni obred" (English: A bearded Uniate priest from the Croatian village of Sošice performed the ecclesiastic rituals). Therefore, I stick to my claim that the renaming was supported by both Slovenes and Croats and that both names are equally nationalistic in the context of current times. It's simply that one is currently perceived as Croatian and the other as Slovene and we should choose the more frequent one.

Another thing: Trdina had quite a lot to do with the peak as he was a fervent describer of the Gorjanci region. He travelled it all across observing and writing about the life and customs of local people. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Slovenians can claim whatever they want, but there is no Croatian source saying the Croats supported the rename. It's purely a Slovenian-only thing and more Slovenian sources won't change it. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The source I provided is not a partisan one. Saying that only Croatian sources are eligible is obvious POV-pushing. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not POV pushing, it's common sense. If Croats supported something, I bet they have some record about it. I wonder why don't we use Zulu websites to list Azerbaijani presidents? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove the renaming was a Slovenian unilateral nationalistic act, which Croats opposed to at the time? Perhaps they were mostly oblivious to it, but at least some supported it. I see no reason to doubt the factual accuracy of the references provided simply because they are in Slovene. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm proving it by the fact that there is no recorded use of "Trdinov vrh" name in Croatia by Croat sources. Also would you please explain this? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't prove that Croats opposed to the renaming, but simply that they viewed it as a Slovene thing irrelevant to their language. It didn't bother them much as otherwise there would be Croat sources about that. There are many Croat sources that cite both names.[15]

How come I only see some lists on that Google search, most of whom aren't in Croatian anyway? Could you point me to one reliable Croatian source which cites Trdinov vrh as the name of the summit (not the TV tower). And explain, how can Croats oppose or be indifferent to the Slovenian name? They can either use it or not use it. In this case, the name "Sveta Gera" was used by both countries until 1923, at which time Slovenians seceded with their new unilateral name "Trdinov vrh." While they claim Croats also use their name, they provide no proof of that. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should explain how does the added source support the sentence "claimed by both Croatia and Slovenia". I've readded the relevant source that was removed by mistake. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It shows a map with Sveta Gera in Croatia. Is that a source? I bet it is. Just take a look and stop including only the sources you like. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a source, but on a wrong place as it does not support the sentence "claimed by both Croatia and Slovenia". As I have already said, anyone is welcome to describe the arguments of Croatia (or Slovenia) provided they are properly attributed and referenced and there's where this source could possibly be used. Perhaps we should organize the article in two sections: Croatian claims, Slovenian claims in the same manner as it has been done in Gulf of Piran. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't follow your discussion last days, but I must admit that I'm shocked that it still going on here. To Elessar concerning Admiral Norton's alegged "canvassing" in voting up there: you was angry to see comment of a Croat? You shouldn't be. Yes I'm a Croat, but only a half. My mother is Slovenian, born in Ljubljana in Bohinj origin family. So I have "Gorenjska" blood in my veins too together with my Croatian Dalmatian. My mother was one of the establishers of Slovenian minority association in my home city in Dalmatia. You should hear what Slovenes in Croatia, not bombarded with Slo politicians propaganda, think about Slo-Cro disputes. You wouldn't like it, I guess. Back to agenda. Sveta Gera was/is definitely Croatian territory. 15 years ago JNA forces retreated and left the barrack there, which had been officially within SR Croatia territoy earlier. Slovenian army was very opportunistic and "conquered" it which was followed by many protests from Cro government. There were many negotiations between Cro and Slo authorities and offices in the meantime and what is the most funniest, many Slovenian highly positioned administrators, the most of the experts from Slovenia as well as Slo-Cro mixed group of experts (1996) concluded that Sveta Gera undoubtly belongs to Croatia. Conclusion of this mixed expert group was based on Badinter's arbitrage commission "Opinion nr. 3", so borders between 2 former Yugo republics automatically became borders between 2 modern sovereign republics. Well, the real problem here is that Slovenian politicians didn't accept opinion of the experts and Sveta Gera is used as a sort of "blackmale" concerning other similar disputes between 2 republics. So dear Elessar, your contribution here is highly politicized and opposite to already conducted expertise. Since this is an encyclopedia we ought to work here as documentary editors, not politically biased warriors. Sveta Gera is Sveta Gera according to the existing documents (those valid) and as I said earlier, until some international court decides opposite, it can't be anything else. BTW I really enjoyed climbing on Triglav, Jalovec and Mangart. Hope to visit Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh some day. Cheers. Zenanarh (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera partly belongs to Slovenia and partly to Croatia. The dispute concerns only the sovereignty over the summit of the peak and remains present no matter what the experts say or do not say. The disputed name of the article concerns the name of the entire peak, where both names are valid. Therefore, it would be best to follow the already several times quoted Wikipedia guidelines, which recommend the usage of the most frequent name (see rationale). As long as the opinion of the experts is not properly referenced and given its proper weight in some international court, I see no substantiated reason to take it seriously (in Wikipedia), as that would go against WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the use of Croatian bureau of statistics reference as argument in favour of "Sveta Gera". Croatia has invented at least one toponym since (and has been using it exclusively in official documents) for the purpose of prejudicing the outcome of a territorial dispute - see [16], [17] and [18]. --Yerpo (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You dispute Sveta Gera which was both Slovenian and Croatian name with this "invention - accusation"? OK, you obviously don't know that there was a few geographical names attached to the Gulf of Piran in history. The most of historical maps presented by your source were made by Italians who always called it "Gulf of Pirano". So Piran instead of Pirano is Slovenian invention? Savudrijska vala is not invention it's just one of the traditional names of that gulf for inhabitants of Buje region. But in 16th century this gulf was Dragogna or Gulf of Dragonja, since it was called so by domestic population (not Italians) from both sides of the gulf. We've all excepted foreign name of that gulf (shame, isn't it?) and used it officially during Yugo ages. Why Slovenes like that name so much is obvious. It's certainly not because Slovenes "primorci" descended from Italians. These Slo-Cro territory disputes are already childish enough. Don't make it even more childish with "dispute" like yours ;) Zenanarh (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

actually, Slovenes used the name Sveta Jera, not Sveta Gera, till 1923 (already said before). As for Savudrijska vala/Gulf of Dragonja, I'd expect you to present a source or two for your statements. The historical maps shown above say either "gulf of Piran" or "gulf of Sečovlje" most of the time. --Yerpo (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Zenanarh, you said a lot of things, but did not provide even one source. Why should we take your statements seriously then? Another thing you should consider: None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as the "truth" (from WP:NPOV). Wikipedia does not take positions. Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves (by "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.") --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't need sources to show how Yerpo misses agenda. Otherwise it would be possible to discuss about an apple using a source about a banana. Or I could write a "mirror" of his comment, one about how there's no international law concerning sea borders which can transform all mentioned gulf to Slovenian property. All of it doesn't have place here - Sveta Gera! Or better to say Sveta Jedrt, no Gera, no Jera.

Concerning "facts about opinions" - you're right. I should present sources. Uostalom, zajednička hrvatsko-slovenska komisija za granice svojedobno je uspješno identificirala 663 od 670 kilometara države granice (suglasje je postignuto i o tome da se Sveta Gera nalazi u Hrvatskoj). Za Slovence je ostalo sporno samo sedam kilometara uz Dragonju, odnosno kanal Sv. Odorika pri utoku u more. Međutim, i to je ostavljeno kao problem više zbog moguće trgovine s Hrvatskom u vezi slovenskih zahtjeva za koridorom do otvorenog mora kroz hrvatsko teritorijalno more [19]. This is about work of mixed commission in January 1996. Do you need translation? Zenanarh (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My (much newer) source says: Pomembnejših spornih točk je po oceni zunanjega ministra šest (strokovna skupina za mejo jih je evidentirala 19, a večinoma gre za lažje rešljive probleme). Sporna je razmejitev na območjih ob Muri pri Hotizi, pri Sekuličih pod Gorjanci, na vrhu Trdinovega vrha, pri Tomšičevi parceli pod Snežnikom in ob reki Dragonji v Istri. [20]. Do you need translation? --Yerpo (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In your source there's personal opinion of a politician involved - so completely politicized. How can it be relevant? Zenanarh (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's official opinion of a politician. Much more relevant than a personal opinion of a journalist (which is also completely politicized, but inherently much less informed and without the responsibility of a position in a government office). --Yerpo (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

False renaming

User:Prevalis made renaming to Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh after poor argumented RFC.

Cadastre office Ozalj (Katastarski ured Ozalj), Cadastre plan nr. 3 of k.o. Sekulići (k.o. = cadastre district) made in 1861 during 1st cadastre measurement in Austrian monarchy. Parcelizaton of that map was made in 24th November 1969 for expropriation of the land. Expropriated properties were lands owned by Janko Badovinac, Novaki 42 from Karlovac; Dragutin Badovinac, Dučić 6 from Radatović; Marta Badovinac Keser kbr.7 from Radatović; Janko Periz, Sošica 69 and Drago Cvjetišić, Cvjetišića kbr 7 from Radatović (according to prilog nr.1.) [21].

So all owners of the land (peak Sveta Gera) before 1969 were from Croatia, also a cadastre plan made in 1861 was archived and documented in cadastre district Sekulići (Croatia) in office in Ozalj (Croatia). Mentioned 5 people were the owners of 8 cadastre parcels marked z.k.č. br. 82/2, 91/2, 84/2, 79/2, 92, 85/2, 93/2 i 81/2 all k.o. Sekulići (Croatia), according to the documents in 1969.

Here is whole text of a document "Klasa: 940-01/99-06/06; Urbroj: 5030109-99-2" (29th April 1999), by which the Government of R. Croatia gave these parcels and a building to Hrvatski planinarski savez (Croatian Alpinist Association).

VLADA REPUBLIKE HRVATSKE

Na temelju članka 10. zakona Vladi Republike Hrvatske (Narodne novine. broj 101/98), Vlada Republike Hrvatske je na sjednici održanoj 29. travnja 1999. godine donijela

ODLUKU

o prijenosu nekretnina u vlasništvu Republike Hrvatske

u vlasništvo Hrvatskom planinarskom savezu

I.

Mijenja se namjena nekretnina oznake z.k.č. br. 82/2, 91/2, 84/2, 79/2, 92, 85/2, 93/2 i 81/2 sve k.o. Sekulići, ukupne površine 12.195 m², u naravi objekti sa zemljištem na Sv. Geri, u planinarski dom, te se iste u cijelosti prenose u vlasništvo Hrvatskom planinarskom savezu, bez naknade.

II.

Ovlašćuje se dr. Mate Granić, potpredsjednik Vlade Republike Hrvatske i ministar vanjskih poslova da, u ime Republike Hrvatske, sklopi ugovor o darovanju nekretnina opisanih u točki I. ove Odluke.

III.

Ova Odluka stupa na snagu danom donošenja.

Klasa: 940-01/99-06/06

Urbroj: 5030109-99-2

Zagreb, 29. travnja 1999.

PREDSJEDNIK

Zlatko Mateša

(seal Vlada RH)

Source: Hrvatski planinar, Zagreb, June 1999.

Dispution of this Croatian territory is only an act of zeal Slovenian politicians. There is no legacy to support it, but there is huge propaganda in Slovenia. Changing of name Sveta Gera to Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh is irrelevant prejudice. Only an official agreement between the republics of Slovenia and Croatia or decision of an international court can change the name of the peak. Slovenian government must prove that this territory doesn't belong to Croatia, first. It cannot be decided by User:Eleassar or User:Prevalis! Alternative name can be mentioned in the article but not in title. Zenanarh (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As said, the peak was renamed by both Slovenians and Croatians, and the decision doesn't have anything to do with the ownership, which is correctly listed as disputed in the article. BTW, the propaganda on the Croatian side is just as pervasive, so I'd rather not drag this subject into the debate. Also, please refrain from making subjective judgements about the political decisions, as they will not contribute to the topic at hand. --Yerpo (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What relevant proof have you presented that the peak was renamed by both Slovenians and Croatians? None. I can rename it to any name I can imagine, it doesn't work like that. It can only be officially renamed, which didn't happen. In the cadastre documents its name was just "Gera" - parcelization was made in 1969, there's a lack of Sveta only because communist authorities removed all "sveta" (holy) from the toponyms. Peak Sveta Gera is within a territory comprised by mentioned 8 parcels (82/2, 91/2, 84/2, 79/2, 92, 85/2, 93/2 and 81/2 all k.o. Sekulići).

So parcels 82/2, 93/2 were named "Dol"; 91/2, 84/2, 85/2 were "Prisjeka"; while parcels 79/2, 92, 81/2 were "Gera" (this is a peak precisly) [22].

Obviously there was only Gera in Yugoslavia, no Trdinov vrh, Croatian authorities restored all "Sveta" adjectives to geographical places in 1990 and after. In a document from 1999, cited above, you can read only "Sv. Gera", no "Trdinov vrh", so this story of yours about how the peak was renamed by both Slovenians and Croatians in 1926 can be true, but not officially, nor reflected in reality or documents. You can write about it in the article, but you cannot rename the article.

Once again, Sveta Gera is Croatian territory (according to an original map made by the Austrian authorities in 1856 and parcelization by Yugoslav authorities in 1969), but disputed by Slovenia in the 2nd half of 90's. It was "Sveta Gera" in 1856, "Gera" in 1969 and "Sveta Gera" again after Croatian seccession (if you type ie 81/2 in [23] you will still see only "Gera" since it was name attached to the parcel together with a mark 81/2 in 1969). Slovenes use irrelevant renaming (1926) to enrich their dispution, but neither that dispution nor renaming was recorded officially anywhere! It's the only fact which can be counted here, anything else is propaganda and prejudice of possible (potential but not realized, not even started yet) international court decision. Zenanarh (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian official sources use Trdinov vrh. As for the cadastre, it is one way of solving this dispute (eventhough Croatian authorities have been doing funny things with it around the Dragonja river, where the situation doesn't suit them as much), but until that's decided upon by the politicians, we are in no position to use it as an argument. The peak is still disputed, any way you turn it. I'll be the first to support renaming this article to Sveta Gera if they decide it belongs to Croatia. --Yerpo (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point and you don't want to understand that it already belongs to Croatia according to the documents from last 150 years. Slovenia must prove opposite in the court, and only in that case, if it ever happens, what Slovenian official sources use would become relevant. You also doesn't understand that the marks and names of the cadastre parcels can be officially registered only in the cadastre office, not in the political pamphlets! Zenanarh (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the cadastre isn't as unambiguous as you want to show here. There are several cases in the disputed areas in which a parcel near the border is registered in Croatian cadastre, but is listed in Slovene land registry as well. Also, the Croatian land registry doesn't keep the documents for before the year 1994, so it's unserious to claim the parcels from 150 years back are the same as in today's registry. If it was as clear as you think, then there would be no dispute. Contrary to your belief, Slovenia doesn't have expansionistic aspirations any more than Croatia does (or, as editors of Croatian WP have put it, Slovene iredentism). I'd really like to keep this debate above nationalistic arguing (under which the attempt of discrediting the other nation's leaders' comments as "political pamphlets" surely falls), please do the same. --Yerpo (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not discussion about - several cases in the disputed areas. Also, the Croatian land registry doesn't keep the documents for before the year 1994 - Every cadastre parcel in Croatia has its history record which goes back to the 19th century. That's purpose of the cadastre. Documents that change something (marks, names, ownership, possesion, existance of a new building, reshaping) can be saved for some period like to the year 1994, but it's not really important since any change per specific document is saved in the parcel history record. First parcelizations were made in 50's of 19th century, both in Croatia and Slovenia. 3 parcels that cover a peak Sveta Gera were not changed in 1969, only owners were changed. There are several cases in the disputed areas in which a parcel near the border is registered in Croatian cadastre, but is listed in Slovene land registry as well - it's about a few parcels in the Dragonja basin. Not several cases in the disputed areas. This is Sveta Gera article and discussion. If it was as clear as you think, then there would be no dispute. - actually I expect you to know what you're talking about if you contribute here, but it seems that you don't. At least you could find some data to support your general thoughts. The only real problem in Sv. Gera case is presence of Slovenian soldiers in the barrack on Croatian territory. Zenanarh (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is, that the Croatian cadastre cannot be trusted on such delicate issues, if it's known that it's being manipulated (here or elsewhere). See also Eleassar's comment below. --Yerpo (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

if it's known that it's being manipulated (here or elsewhere) - said by you. Are you a relevant source? Are you a document or an international court? manipulated (here or elsewhere) - so you actually don't know whether it is manipulated or not and where. You cannot push such irrelevant accusation to gain something here. I can throw a few tones of such accusations concerning Slovenian administration (Slovenia agrees with Badinter, but actually doesn't follow it in the same time, soldiers on the border,...). This "manipulation" is usage of the land, it's not connected to the cadastre (parcels on the eastern bay of Dragonja river registered in Croatian cadastre with Slovenian owners - Croatia built something there - 2 bridges - but didn't inform the owners - according to words of Slovenian minister). But all of it is not important in our discussion here. There's a lack of argumentation from your side on all this talk page concerning this Sv. Gera issue, so now you generalize things, like satanization of Cro administration. It's all you can do, isn't it? Did you forget that you are trying to rename this article? To support it you've presented only sentence from a Slovenian source (not a document!) where it's written that in 1926 Slovenes renamed Sv. Gera to Trdinov vrh in presence of some Croats. I've shown you that this rename had no any reflection in the legal documents where it was still Gera after WWII. BTW these documents also show where Sv. Gera belongs, but it's not really the main issue of this RFC. Zenanarh (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't exactly see a consensus to rename here. RFC is not a replacement for a move request. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont see a consesus, so i revert renaming. --Suradnik13 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for the current title either, so I've tagged it with {{disputed title}}. What Zenanarh and several other contributors do not understand is that Wikipedia does not take part in disputes and that we have certain guidelines to be followed in such cases: the most common name takes precedence. RFC may be a replacement for a move request, as may also be WP:MEDIATION and WP:ARBITRATION. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, I've created a dispute...joy...:(. Ok, let me set the record straight, for all of you. If the Žumberak/Gorjanci mountain can have both its Croatian and Slovene names in the title since it is part of both countries, why not Sveta Gera, which according to the very same article (Sveta Gera), is on the BORDER of Slovenia and Croatia, thus it belongs to BOTH countries. If this is not the case, then I am sorry for renaming the article the way I did and try not to use confusing phrasing! --Prevalis (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The mountain Žumberak/Gorjanci is in the both countries, but the peak is in Croatia. Zenanarh (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Actually I expect you to know what you're talking about if you contribute here, but it seems that you don't." Please refrain from such presumptuous statements, as they are nonconstructive. As for the peak being in Croatia, every map will tell you that the peak is in both countries, the dispute concerns only its summit area (kota) which is currently under Slovenian jurisdiction and will remain so. It will become part of Croatia if and only if it is decided so by some international court or bilateral agreement. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Read jurisdiction. It's not Slovenian jurisdiction, there are no legal documents to support Slovenian jurisdiction there. It's Slovenian occupation. Slovenia keeps soldiers there, which is not usual practise in Europe, there are always police units in the borders, not soldiers. Show any document to support Slovenian jurisdiction of the summit area (kota). I've shown you that it's within Croatian territory for 150 years, according to the legal documents. If you can't show any, and I know that you can't since there's no any such document, what do we have to have to discuss about? This is not forum. Zenanarh (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: this is not a forum. Call it whatever you want, jurisdiction, occupation... This territory is currently disputed. It is controlled by Slovenia and the Slovenian name is the most common one. Wikipedia does not take sides and we have to follow the guidelines. I categorically refuse to search for historical documents. They are irrelevant here as it's not up to Wikipedia to determine the truth and to settle historical wrongs (would there be any). What yet do we have to discuss about? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not computer strategy game either. So all your argumentation comes from this last comment of yours? Google hits vs. documentation legacy? No comment. Discussion over. Bye, take care of yourself ;) Zenanarh (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly as he said - Wikipedia is not a place for settling historical wrongs. If Slovenian government disputes the documents you mention, then we (including you) are in no position to assert their validity. Or vice versa, we can not claim Slovene ownership of the territory by the fact that Slovenia currently controls it. We can only determine that it's disputed and use the most common name. Maybe you should propose yourself as an arbiter to both countries' governments if you're so certain you're right (although I can imagine the reaction), but we'll not solve this here. I'll stop disputing the Croatian cadastre eventhough I could demonstrate some interesting facts, because I agree it's irrelevant. You, on the other hand, can stop trying to prove Croatia's inalienable right to this territory, and, more importantly, patronising Eleassar and myself, because it's uncivil. The fact alone that you resort to such borderline insults speaks for itself. --Yerpo (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guideline regarding naming conflicts stems directly from WP:NPOV and clearly states:

• "Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy."
• "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the most common non-English name."
• "Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
  • Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
  • Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
  • Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
  • Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?"

What of this do you not understand? You may dispute the rules but this talk page is not the right place to do so and till they are changed, we have to follow them in their current form. You may also dispute Trdinov vrh being the most common non-English name, but that has already been done and refuted. Therefore, I propose this article is moved to where it belongs. Anyhow, remember consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)