Talk:Croatian Wikipedia

message: Željko Jovanović, Minister of Science and Education of Croatia, has called students today not to use Croatian Wikipedia. Minister described it as "not only biased but falsified" and "usurped by far-right activists", he also adviced people to use neutral projects like English Wikipedia. Well done Croatian administrators! --109.60.5.154 (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And this comment is clear example of argumentum ad hominem. --93.139.158.93 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that sounds like downplaying it, doesn't it. This was never about accuracy of articles, it was about using Croatian Wikipedia to promote hate speech and revisionism. Whether any Wikipedia could be used as an academic source is debatable, but the Croatian Wikipedia does not employ 10 percent of policies English Wikipedia has. It is barely a "Wikipedia" at all. Timbouctou (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian Ministry of Science and Education calls students NOT to use Croatian Wikipedia 

message: --93.137.174.138 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: His talkpage? There was also an article in Jutarnji list  but unfortunately it's in Croatian. Se also the discussion above. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Of course, his talk as a primary source, and a number of articles in Croatian media as secondary sources. Look at the Facebook page, I see there links to articles in Slovenian and Ukrainian, and the German Wikipedia is taking notice too: :de:Wikipedia:Kurier. Nothing in English other than InSerbia News, and Wales is not mentioned there. GregorB (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be confusing primary sources with self-published sources. Since the article is not about Jimbo then we should be able to quote his talk page as a published source. Self-published would be for his articles. If the actual posts were in question as to who wrote them (hacked account), then that would be another issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone find a RS with Wales's statements? 

message: See http://balkans.aljazeera.net/vijesti/wikipedia-historija-koju-pisu-administratori --В и к и T  14:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who don't speak the language - Al Jazeera's article talks about the problem of Wikipedia's in the ex-Yugoslav region, and describes it as a product of Wikipedia's innner workings which are set up in such a way to favor extremist positions and editors, because of the independence each edition has and because of local admins having the final say on what articles should read. It mentions a few examples of hoaxes when even English Wikipedia's credibility came into question, as well as battlegrounds on articles like the Syrian civil war or the differences between the English and Spanish versions of the article on the Falklands War. The journalist Vedrana Maglajlija then talks with a few people from the region about problems that were raised at Croatian and Serbian editions. It goes on to quote Sanja Petkovska (see below) that although greater inclusion of the local academic community might help, it itself was compromised in recent history, and even today the same topics are treated very differently in textbooks used across the region.
Here's a couple of quotes that might be useful for this article: 
*"Since articles are not signed, and since there is no visible editorial board, there is nobody who could be called to answer [for its content]. Recent events surrounding the Croatian Wikipedia is not an isolated incident - it is an expected outcome of how Wikipedia works. The global community consists of local national and autonomous editions which independently elect their members and administrators." (says Sanja Petkovska, researcher at the Belgrade Faculty of Political Sciences and author of a research paper titled "Using Wikipedia in Research".)
*"Very controversial views in articles on historical and political topics on Croatian Wikipedia are damaging primarily for Wikipedia, and not for Croatia, so sooner or later Wikipedia - in order to protect its own credibility - will have to remove propagandist messages and ideological views in articles which should contain well-known and verifiable facts." (says Đorđe Obradović, head of the department of communications studies at University of Dubrovnik.)
Timbouctou (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Jazeera Balkans 

message: Also, there were two parodies making fun of hr.wikipedia in light of recent criticism, produced by News Bar (Croatian equivalent to The Onion) and published on Tportal.hr, a popular news website:
*Satirical article titled "Hrvatska Wikipedija tvrdi da Vukovar nikada nije bio okupiran!" (Croatian Wikipedia claims Vukovar had never been occupied!)
*Faux news video segment "Hrvatska Wikipedija tvrdi da je Djed Božićnjak četnik!" (Croatian Wikipedia claims Santa Claus is really a Chetnik!)
Timbouctou (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only going to comment here, but this applies to a lot of the material above: this is not a forum about the Croatian Wikipedia, it's a discussion page for the article about it. For example, I don't see any suggestion above on whether these parodies should or shouldn't be mentioned in the article...? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can only determine in hindsight what is useful for giving an overview of the topic, so I don't see why we shouldn't put such material up for discussion here first before including it in the article. I thought this was self-evident. Timbouctou (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a slippery slope - please keep this in mind (everyone). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Parodies

message: Tim Sampson, How pro-fascist ideologues are rewriting Croatia's history, The Daily Dot, 1 October 2013 
Features comments by Jurica Pavicic, professor at the University of Split and columnist for Jutarnji list, the Croatian newspaper that first broke the story. Andreas JN466 04:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this is very useful... GregorB (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Oh, great. That person grossly misrepresented my position by cherry-picking a quote from this very talk page, and I just sent them an e-mail complaint. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: , looks like it has been fixed in the text, with an apology at the bottom. Pavicic's comments would be worth including in the article. Andreas JN466 11:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: English-language source

message: I think that this controversy deserves its own article. Crocusfleur (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

text: There is a case for splitting the article, as more than half of the content is about it. The controversy has since been resolved, and that bit of information is currently missing. I'm undecided at the moment, but if the content gets expanded, split is a real option. (Disclosure: since I was involved with the controversy, you may take my position with a grain of salt.) GregorB (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If the problem has been resolved, then that’s definitely info that needs to be added. X-Editor (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that more content needs to be added before considering a split. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

text: It will be almost two years since the split was proposed, but nothing has been done yet. The article isn't all that long with the "Controversy" section and can be basically considered a stub without it. I'll be removing the tag since there seems to be consensus not to split the article at its current length (it can be reconsidered and reproposed if it further develops). -Vipz (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I came here looking to see if Wikipedia had an article on this controversy and in particular if there was any linking of this one with the recent demonstration that the same problem exists among English language articles about the Holocaust, that have been heavily edited by other prominent Eastern European editors. I was quite curious to see if there was ever a link established between either group, given they were openly collaborating not just in WW2, but soon after in American organised forums and meetings throughout Austria, Italy etc. etc. 122.150.92.52 (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think a separate article makes sense as a layperson though. But a substantial body of text in the original article should still be dedicated to this, since it was such a good example of how regularly websites like this are vandalised by interest groups. 122.150.92.52 (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Split