Talk:Brioni Agreement

Croatia

This article says startlingly little about Croatia's participation. -Oreo Priest ^talk 03:40, 29 June 2009 (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 moved. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Brijuni Agreement → Brioni Agreement – Reliable English-language sources, at least by the parameters I used to measure them (previewable books), overwhelmingly favor "Brioni" over "Brijuni". See also PDFs: "Brioni" versus "Brijuni". Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC) - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like a straightforward WP:COMMONNAME issue. GregorB (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with the basic premise, but when I look at those results, I see that we actually have an ambiguity - there was a separate "Brioni Agreement" in 1942, and a "Brioni Declaration" of 1991, and I'm thinking that the latter name would be better suited to unequivocally describe the topic at hand. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW your google searches are unclean. Here are some:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22brioni+agreement%22+1991&tbo=1&tbm=bks&pws=0 - there, click through to the last page to see "150 results"
• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22brioni+declaration%22+1991&tbo=1&tbm=bks&pws=0 - there, click through to the last page to see "58 results"
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&q=%22brioni+agreement%22+1991+filetype:pdf&pws=0 - click through to the last page, click through the link to show even the omitted duplicates, and finally see "151 results"
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&q=%22brioni+declaration%22+1991+filetype:pdf&pws=0 - ditto, arriving at "93 results"

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Also, I must admit I have a reservation towards the end result, which is somewhat counter-intuitive: Brioni Agreement vs Brijuni. And I have explicitly supported both of these titles using basically the same argument (see Talk:Brijuni). Go figure. GregorB (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• No, stay with consistency with Brijuni - these sources are way too mixed (Croatian name, Slovene name, Italian name) to be adopting into English an Italian exonym for a document signed on a Croatian island when we don't use the Italian exonym for the Croatian Island itself. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to give some pretty unassailable sources (rather than just searches) using "Brioni" and referring to the 1991 document: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].
  • I do appreciate your perspective, but if you want to make a really compelling case for "Brijuni", you'd have to present similar sources for that name. Remember, the current name of a locality (even the official name at the time) is not by itself an argument for using that name. Hence, Jassy–Kishinev Offensive, Battle of Zsibó, Battle of Brassó, Battle of Rymnik, Battle of Kagul, Leghorn Hills, Council of Constantinople, Canton porcelain, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Support 144x for Brioni Agreement, 4x for Brijuni Agreement in Google Scholar. Go with it. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brioni Agreement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 18:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Review will begin soon. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

A pass here.

Background

"...Croatia leaving Yugoslav federation because..." Should be "Croatia leaving the Yugoslav federation because..."
"The delegation consisted of foreign ministers of current, preceding and following EC presidencies.[1] The delegation members were Hans van den Broek (Netherlands), Jacques Poos (Luxembourg) and Gianni de Michelis (Italy)." From these two sentences, I extrapolate that van den Broek was the current EC president, Poos the former, and de Michelis the future. If so, why was de Michelis replaced with Pinheiro. If not, please alter the first sentence of the excerpt so that readers can identify which delegation member holds each given distinction. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Amended both points. Indeed de Michelis was former presiding minister in June. Since the EC changed presidency on 1 July, Poos became "new former" presiding minister. Added a bit of clarification on the issue as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Conference at Brijuni

Fine here.

Aftermath

Excellent here.

Conclusion

Once the few minor issues are resolved, the article will pass! Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Please refrain from removing sourced material, such behaviour may be interpreted as disruptive. Also, please refrain from "renaming" Croatia and Slovenia in the article as "SR" (Socialist Republic) - they were not called SRs for quite a long time before the agreement - more than half a year as a matter of fact, and were declared independent a couple of weeks before the agreement itself. Finally, I reverted name of the islands to the WP:COMMONNAME. Please do not modify it either, the name is not only common, but it is also the contemporary name. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hans van den Broek.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Border control compromise

This German news broadcast: [26] of 7 June 1991, shortly before the agreement was reached, mentions that a possible compromise solution about the question who should control Yugoslavia's external borders was being discussed, namely that Slovenians should be in charge of the border crossings but that Slovenia would be obliged to pass on any customs revenue to the Yugoslav central authorities. Our article only mentions Slovenian control of the border and Slovenians probably would have resisted giving Belgrade any say in anything concerning revenues generated in Slovenia, which would mean that this compromise solution was not pursued in the final agreement, am I right? Then the only substantial concession the Slovenians made would have been to postpone the effective date of the declaration of independence for three months. Or was there more in terms of what the central government had wanted to achieve with their military intervention? In these three months, did they maintain any overall control in Slovenia and if so, in which fields? Proofreader (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)