Talk:Prevlaka/Archive 1

Archive 1

Border dispute etc

People I just came back from holidays in Croatia including a visit on Prevlaka and there are Croatian flags everywhere, plus You have to cross the croatian border and show Your passports to Croatian border control in order to get there. It is beautiful to see the Croatian flags on the last part of the Boka Kotorska which remains in Croatian posession. -Vatroslav Utjesenovic-

Avala and others: there doesn't appear to be one single document saying that the border has been changed. The border from 1991 stands and Prevlaka is still Croatian territory. There has been a demilitarization treaty, but that makes it a *security* issue, not a *territorial* issue. All that stuff about a "neutral territory" has not, to the best of my and Google's knowledge, actually been implemented in practice. --Shallot 15:52, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look at [[1]]! It is disputed teritory. I don`t see any problem in here(for wikipedia not in solving the problem). If it is definitely Croatian than there is no dispute. The problem is - It is territory between two countries and it is hard to say which country it belongs to. Every country has good enough reasons. Probably this teritory was not so much important in history so it belonged and to Croatia and to Montenegro look at [[2]]. So the only reasonable way to give a life to this territory is to make it neutral.

                              --Avala

Sure, there are perfectly valid reasons to join it with the rest of Boka, but the borders aren't changed and it's unlikely they will be. The first link you quoted doesn't talk about anything like border changes. There's perfectly good reasons to do all sorts of border changes, but they nevertheless stay put. It wouldn't be right if someone from Croatia wrote an article about Neum and stated how it's really part of that country, or if someone from Spain wrote an article about Gibraltar and concentrated on how it should belong to that country. The encyclopedia needs to state the facts, and it does that: it describes the current state of borders, and it describes the dispute about it. --Shallot 19:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So where is the problem? There is no dispute over Neum or Gibraltar because wveryone knows their borders. But still I repeat if Prevlaka is Croatian then there is no dispute but croatians talk about sandalj hranic and montenegrins about punta dostro maps. My personal opinion that nobody ever drawn the border so precisely , they didn`t worry about this little peace of land but today it causes lot of trouble. Agreement which will say Prevlaka is Croatian or Serbian or whatever will never see the day of light! The only solution is neutrality.There is nobodys land between countries but here it is just going to be a little wider that is all!

--Avala

I'm not sure about the exact borderline, but this seems to be some new twist, I didn't hear about this before. The .hr position is described here -- the page includes a 1980s map on which the whole of the peninsula named "Prevlaka" on it is marked "Croatia". That is the border from SFRY and by the conclusions of the Badinter arbitration commission, that is the border now. Anyway, even if the border would pass at the cape Ostro (that's what you meant above, right?), I don't think the navy in Boka could be content. --Shallot 21:33, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I should also note that one can't invoke some old territory deals and at the same time claim that Gibraltar and Neum are indisputable. If they are indisputable according to the last known border drawing event, then Prevlaka is too. --Shallot 21:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I also don't see why there was any need to litter the article to make it look like it is now. Or be offensive in the commit log, for that matter. --Shallot

I must say that this map is outrageous! I am sure that red line was definitely put there after printing because it seams that it was drawn by by some kind of red pen! You can find some maps on Montenegrin pages whuch show borders like it Ostro is part of Montenegro so please take a look at Neutral_Territory_of_Prevlaka to see the agreement. I AM SO SORRY IF YOU DON`T LIKE IT! THAN I THINK YOU SHOULD TALK WITH TONINO PICULA CROATIAN MINISTER WHO SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT WITH SVILANOVIC(mfa)! Avala 12:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The point isn't that someone replaced a normal line with a red one, the point is that this was back in Yugoslavia. As far as the page about the neutral territory on Wikipedia is concerned, I don't see any external resource that confirms it. And surprisingly enough I mean /none/, I googled for various terms regarding the topic and I couldn't find such a text anywhere. If you could paste some URLs that corroborate it, it would be most appreciated. --Shallot 22:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

here- [[3]]. if you dislike it you can call tonino picula and ask him. Avala 16:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's a circular argument. Please try to read more carefully. --Shallot 06:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[[4]] this agreement on croatian language Avala 20:51, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You could try reading what you linked to... article 2 says very clearly:

Stranke protokola suglasne su da odredbe Protokola i njegovih aneksa, kao i njegova provedba, ni na koji način ne prejudiciraju razgraničenje između dviju država.

Translation:

The parties to this protocol agree that the rules of the Protocol and its annexes, as well as its deployment, do not in any way presume the border alignment between the two countries.

The temporary jurisdiction delineation described in article 4 is at cape Konfin (also called Kobila), and that almost exactly matches the map that I found (linked above). The agreement goes on to define (temporary) solutions some real-world issues, and has nothing that resembles the conjecture laid out in the article at Neutral Territory of Prevlaka. Hence, I really don't see why what the whole argument is about... --Shallot 15:52, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

serbian minister answers here on the question about prevlaka [[5]]

I couldn't find anything about Prevlaka there, though I only grepped for some keywords, didn't read everything. --Shallot

I've modified the article to avoid ever categorically claiming that the territory is Croatian, and tried to balance all the descriptions. Therefore I'll now remove the NPOV marker because this is just about as far as we can go within the limits of the truth. If you disagree, please explain, don't vandalize. --Shallot 16:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For the record, the article "Neutral Territory of Prevlaka" has been removed, cf. Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/June 12#Neutral Territory of Prevlaka. --Shallot

the word

The word prevlaka has the meaning of isthmus (related to the application of the words prevući and prevlačiti), and it's applied here presumably because this small peninsula has an isthmus (in a functional sense) which connects a rather narrow strip of land to the mainland. The cape at the end is even called sharp :) Dunno, it makes sense to me. --Shallot 17:36, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

stuff

Google found me prevlaka.hr where I found another map: http://www.prevlaka.hr/mapa_pv.gif which shows the borderline on a reasonably detailed map, at least as far as this Prevlaka Park organization is concerned. --Joy [shallot] 14:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

prIvlaka prEvlaka

There are two towns in the former Yugoslavia with simular name. 1. Privlaka is in Zadar region in Dalmatia...near the old Croatian capital Nin. 2. Prevalka is in Boka region of Croatia/Montenegro/Serbia. I know in the former Yugoslavia mail would often be sent to wrong town due to the name sounding the same. People often mis-spelt the town, which adds to confusion. ...Another examaple... In Croatia you have Biograd and in Serbia Beograd so often under Yugoslavia you would call Croatian Biograd town "Biograd na moru" (Biograd on the water). Evergreen Montenegro1 03:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)