Talk:Vukovar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Was Sotin completely absorbed by Vukovar

Much is said about Vukovar, and so often the Village of Sotin is largley overlooked as it is a bedroom comunity with not alot of things going on. Was Sotin completely absorbed by Vukovar? In the earley mid 1800's to the early 1900's many Germans lived in Sotin, Tompojevci and Lovas. This is rarely talked about even though many of the residents who had family back in Sotin in the 1800's have German roots. What was life like back in the 1800's? What happened to Sotin in WW1 and WW2? Where did the Germans go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtmccrary (talk • contribs) 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence

Added reference to Serb paramilitaries as this is historically significant, particularly with the ICTY indictments for war crimes after the fall of Vukovar in 1991.

Reversed the change from "Croatian War of Independence" to the obsure reference "War in Croatia". There have been many wars in Croatia that the obscure term can cover - hence no reason to change a term that already covers accurately and in NPOV terms the nature of that war. croatian_quoll 11:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Added link to film footage of the siege and bombardment of Vukovar. iruka 08:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote section to make it sound more natural and fixed up grammar/punctuation Also included mention of ICTY indictments and related link, and the fact that Vukovar is notorious of rthe destrutctionit suffered as well as the comparison to the Stalingrad siege. iruka 08:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Change water tower pic to be on the left side.

Serious Neutrality Issues

There are serious neutrality issues especially when it comes to the blame game of vukovar during the war.

I dont understand why it is so difficult for you people to write an unbiased fact and leave the bickering out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlatko (talk • contribs) 11:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"There are serious neutrality issues especially when it comes to the blame game of vukovar during the war. I dont understand why it is so difficult for you people to write an unbiased fact and leave the bickering out of it."

Bull. Show me anything in the article that is untruthful, and I will prove you wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuislafete (talk • contribs) 06:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Coat of arms?

Check it on official Vukovar city page

• Vukovar Coat of arms

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.115.177 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

History is incomplete

The article states that Serbs took Vukovar, yet today Vukovar is in Croatia. How and when did this happen ? Battle of Vukovar also fails to note how did Vukovar return to Croatians ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defufna (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Peaceful reintegration. UN, Jacques Klein, .... various agreements, two year transition period. If I encounter on the text of the agreement, I'll post the link here. Sincerely, Kubura 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Twin cities

Is this unilateral twinhood (Bač with Vukovar, at least they say so on the page of the city of Bač)? Many twinhoods between cities from Croatia and Serbia, as well as twinhoods between cities from Croatia and Montenegro were abolished the moment Serbia and Montenegro started with theirs aggression on Croatia in 1991.
Razvrglo se bratimljenja nakon srpsko-crnogorske agresije na Hrvatsku 1991.. Kubura 14:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Expanding?

Does this article still need expanding? It looks ok to me now...will anybody object if I remove the tag at the top? --Jesuislafete 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Twinning

Are we sure that this city in Croatia is twinned with the Dalmatian city of Dubrovnik?

Official names

I notice that the Serbian name of the city was just removed from the infobox. I am going to restore it. We just had a dispute about this sort of thing at the Srbobran article; I think that if there are two official languages in a city, both of the names should be in the lede or the infobox or both. If you look at articles on cities in other bilingual areas of Europe - for instance Gdansk, Geneva, or Marseille - the names in the various languages and their pronunciations are usually listed in the lede and the infobox. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Serbian is not official in Vukovar. Second, 1 year ago on WP Croatia was agreed that minority names will not be in infoboxes, only under paragraph Name, as it is done on article Vukovar. --IvanOS 15:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that this is a political hot topic now, but this is a common practice across Wikipedia. Decisions by Wikiprojects can be only guidelines, if they conform with best practice. True enough, official status of Serbian language in Vukovar is not mentioned in the city statute [1] yet, but my understanding is that the recent decision by the Constitutional Court mandates it. Still to be discussed... No such user (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a court decision, it's the constitutional law:

Članak 12.

(1) Ravnopravna službena uporaba jezika i pisma kojim se služe pripadnici nacionalne manjine ostvaruje se na području jedinice lokalne samouprave kada pripadnici pojedine nacionalne manjine čine najmanje trećinu stanovnika takve jedinice.

Ustavni zakon o pravima nacionalnih manjina

Par 12 in turn references another law:

Članak 24.

Ako općina, grad ili županija statutom ne urede uporabu jezika i pisma nacionalne manjine, a dužni su to učiniti prema odredbama ovoga Zakona, odnosno, ako je urede protivno odredbama ovoga Zakona, čelnik središnjeg tijela državne uprave iz članka 23. ovoga Zakona obustavit će od izvršenja statut, odnosno pojedine njegove odredbe, naložiti neposrednu primjenu zakona i podnijeti Vladi Republike Hrvatske prijedlog za pokretanje postupka za ocjenu ustavnosti i zakonitosti statuta ili drugoga općeg akta općine, grada ili županije u skladu sa zakonom.

Zakon o uporabi jezika i pisma nacionalnih manjina

So this will work itself out in real life, and then the article will simply do what encyclopedia does - document that. Right now it should document the real-life controversy, and I've added text to that effect. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

So, per this, we should use it in the same way as we did before revert. It is over one third. --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again, no, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It describes, it does not prescribe. It is also not a crystal ball. If the Cyrillic name of the city is not actually widely used, it shouldn't be displayed as prominently as if it was. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, but that is not logical. By croatian constitution and wiki guidelines, it should be in this article. Only questionable thing here is actually national politic of Vukovar government. There is no other actual reason not to add this. In normal civilized world, this should be minor, non controversial edit. With over one third of the population, Cyrillic IS widely used. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of wide. It wasn't used widely before 1991 (according to local press), and after that it was used because of... yes, you guessed it, the national politics of the Vukovar government. Then it faded again when the government changed. But my main point is this - for something to be relevant under wiki guidelines, you have to demonstrate a coherent relation to such a thing, and avoid the crystal ball pitfall (that should be obvious by now... let me know if I have to elaborate some more on that). For example, a compelling argument for Cyrillic would be if it would make the article more verifiable and notable, e.g. if there was a substantial body of reliable sources written in Cyrillic that provide significant coverage of the topic. Is there? Indeed, in toponymy, the unwritten standard on alternate names is even lower - if there are a lot of maps or signposts where readers will see an alternate name, it should be included to make it easier to find. Are there? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I think that this discussion is a bit pointless. I think we need to wait for publication of next "Izvješće o provođenju ustavnog zakona o pravima nacionalnih manjina" or some other official document like Vukovar statute (but not a newspaper article) to provide an explicit source that the law is actually implemented (precisely such sources are used in cases of Negoslavci, Borovo, Trpinja, Kneževi Vinogradi...). After all, it really is just a matter of time. Believe me, I'll be first one who will go to add minority language in article about any settlement in Croatia or Serbia... at the moment when I have available adequate source. We currently really still do not have it, but I am convinced that we have it quickly. In the worst case, even if something get complicated, then we can write about it in article. But I do not believe that there will be complications. I would recommend that you actively looking for amended Vukovar statute or any other official document that will explicitly confirm this thing. It is much more useful than this debate. You can, if you are interested, actively monitor other municipalities in which process is in progress (like Erdut, Gračac...).--MirkoS18 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For Erdut, see Talk:Erdut#languages. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

I've handed out blocks to three users who engaged in tediously repetitive edit warring over the summer, and protected the article for a month while, because this is now in the news (e.g. [2]). The protection happens to have come at a time when the version without Cyrillic in the intro was live, which does not in any way shape or form imply a decision on WP:Consensus, just WP:WRONG. Discuss! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, for the record, the page history says the last non-autoconfirmed edit-war edit was made from 141.136.215.100, but this was on August 20, so I went with full protection instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my original block and protection periods were a bit too heavy handed. I've reduced the durations all around. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyrillic

From september 2013 serbian cyrillic alphabet is co-official together with croatian latin and the bilingual signs have been always introduced. See first-cyrillic-sign-goes-up-in-vukovar.--Serb1914 (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have restored the Cyrillic to the lede. In the discussion at WP:Croatia it was asserted that the Serbian population in the town is large enough that it meets the (rather high) national standards for official minority language status; apparently this was at first accepted and then rejected by the local authorities. I think we should accept the national standards as a guideline - whether or not the local authorities in each municipality are implementing the standards shouldn't matter to us, they are just a good guide to where it might be appropriate for us to include the minority names. I have restored the Serbian Cyrrilic only in the lede; I think, considering how controversial the subject is, that that is good enough. But I think it should be there; if we want to have minority communities acknowledged in other areas of the Balkans, we have to do it in Vukovar too. I think Nado158 was being excessive in putting it in so many places, I don't support that. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not seem that User:IvanOS is happy with your restoration or the outcome of the recent discussion at WP:Croatia. Timbouctou (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course I'm not happy, because we already 2 times agreed minority names politics. Also, in this article, if you check section Name and languages, you will see a few minority names of Vukovar, including Serbian Cyrillic. So, I don't see reason for Cyrillic inscription on the lede, that is duplicated text. --IvanOS 11:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The lede should include relevant toponym names in other languages, and I think what a third of the population calls it should probably be deemed as relevant. Also, the government of Croatia considers it relevant, and so do Croatian constitutional laws, regardless of how the local municipality chooses to approach the subject. Timbouctou (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I blocked Timbouctou and IvanOS each over their repetitive violations of the edit warring policy. I see other familiar faces here, you all probably know that you're this -><- close to getting blocked yourselves. This nonsense has gone on for a while now. The encyclopedia must describe real life; the behavior of encyclopedia editors is not required to match it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoever is interested in actually further discussing this, please copy the relevant parts of that latest WikiProject Croatia discussion here (where it belongs if this is the actual topic), and feel free to further explain your position. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Aren't you involved here?
2. This article is not owned by WP Croatia. Editors who are not members of that WikiProject should be able to discuss their position on this talkpage, which purpose is to discuss the content of this article.
3. I think that blocking user (Timbouctou) who edited wikipedia for so many years, without any previous discussion, is against communal norms. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

1) If you think I am, go ahead and say so, and give a modicum of explanation of why - otherwise lose the innuendo. 2) That is exactly why any discussion over there being used as an excuse for edit-warring is grounds for sanction. 3) It is incongruous that you would both imply improper conduct from me right off the bat, yet expect me to also hold to an allegiance towards an editor based on arbitrary criteria. This is again simple wikilawyering - violations of the spirit of the rules, not merely their text, are what really needs to be looked at. Not the other way around! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving on...

I think the last two paragraphs in "Demographics" could be moved to "History". Also, some of the info needs to be updated - I'm sure the unemployment rate isn't still 40%, for instance (although the high unemployment rate in 2007 should still be mentioned).Brianyoumans (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I went over to the unemployment bureau website statistics section [3] where it's possible to select the municipality, and it says Vukovar has 3286 registered unemployed persons... but I can't find the number of people who are supposed to be the working population in order to calculate the percentage. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Transplanted discussion from WP:Croatia talk page

The discussion below happened on the WP:Croatia talk page; I'm copying it here as per User:Joy's suggestion.Brianyoumans (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Minority place names? Now that Croatia is officially posting signs in minority languages in certain towns, shouldn't articles on those towns include prominent mention of the minority name of the town? I think it should be in the lede, or in the infobox, or both. This is an issue in many Serbian articles, but the community has been trying to enforce a rule that if the minority language has official status, the minority name should be there. Why not in Croatian articles also? Brianyoumans (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I think minority languages are already present in infoboxes/ledes in articles about places where these are officially proscribed. Do you know of any specific ones which may have this missing? Timbouctou (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC) How about Vukovar? Brianyoumans (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Vukovar is a rather unique case, in that the official status of Serbian as co-official language is disputed by the local government, but insisted upon by the central government in Zagreb. The whole thing escalated and even led to protests, described in the 2013 Anti-Cyrillic protests in Croatia article, and at the moment there is a right-wing petition for referendum pending which (absurdly) calls for minority languages to be co-official only if an ethnic minority constitutes 50% or more of the population in any given municipality or a city, raised from the current 33.3% (i.e. only in cases when the minority is actually a majority at the local level). It is unlikely that the proposal would pass, but the fact remains that local Croats are adamant in not allowing Serbian-language signs in Vukovar, which seems even more absurd since in places like Borovo, which is maybe 1 km away from Vukovar, Serbian language has been in use for years without any problems. We already had exhausting edit wars over this and adding Serbian-language name in the Vukovar article is likely to produce more. Timbouctou (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC) While indeed we had rather extensive edit wars over place names, WP:V apparently settled them. The argument against Cyrillic tables is however not a legal, but rather a political argument ("we don't like it"). (I'm simplifying it slightly, but generally that's what it is.) So, both de facto and de iure, Serbian is co-official in Vukovar, and the fact that many people are opposed should be mentioned, but should not affect the lede. The question here is: does the potential harm from edit warring outweigh the encyclopedic concerns? I'm not sure, but I'd tend to say "no". GregorB (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I am also on the fence, but I would agree. Vukovar is actually a clear-cut case, regardless of the controversy. For our purposes, the difference between preconditions for co-official status as proscribed by law and actual use of this in practice is where some of the problem lies. The 1/3 of population is determined by census, but that does not make a minority language automatically official, since municipal government must file a formal decision to put this into practice, so they can set aside funds for installing roadsigns, etc. Vukovar city council actually did this in 2009, back when 2001 census figures applied (when Serbs made less than one third of population), but did nothing in practice to uphold the decision. Then, following 2011 census and the right-wing politicking, they backtracked, even though now the central government insists on this based on the same census. So government buildings in the city use bilingual signs (unless they happen to be torn down by protesters every now and then) whereas municipal buildings do not. Vukovar aside, there are many municipalities with one third of ethnic minority population, but who have never acted upon this legal provision, and even though they fit the criteria their local minority language was never officially introduced in public use. So do we go by what is "official" or do we just take census data to determine which articles should have minority placenames in the lede? Or both? Timbouctou (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC) On this last issue, I'd go for actual, rather than potential status of the language, in order to steer clear of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL (making it also easier to defend this position, if challenged). The trend is apparently expanding,[4] so sooner or later it probably won't matter one way or the other. GregorB (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I would say basing it on the official national rules is the right thing to do; for one thing, figuring out whether the local authorities are supporting or implementing local signage may be difficult. And, frankly, having the Cyrillic in the Vukovar infobox would mean that Serbians who keep deleting Hungarian names from articles like Srbobran wouldn't be able to raise it as an issue any more. And suddenly there would be peace and fellowship throughout the Balkans! (Well, not really.) Brianyoumans (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC) So, I'm going to say we have agreement here that adding the name in Cyrillic to the Vukovar infobox is the right thing to do? Brianyoumans (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, nothing wrong with it. Still, this is a sensitive issue so one needs to be extra cautious: it needs an inline ref, and possibly an explanatory footnote. And this is funny, since I can't find a good ref right now: the town statute[5] mentions the language issue in §61, but does not say anything on official signage. GregorB (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Now I see that Timbouctou has already added the Cyrillic to the lede; I'm satisfied with that for now, given the controversy. Brianyoumans (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In article should not be more important Cyrillic, than the history of this city. We have a section Vukovar#Minority_languages and it is enough. Vukovar is a special city and can not be compared with Donji Lapac or some village --Šokac121 ℗ 18:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What does the first sentence mean? Who is "you"? What is "Cyrillic of war crimes"? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(After the correction of the above section)

This seems to replicate real-world concerns that are based on emotions, not on the rules of an encyclopedia. A standardized mention of alternate names and spellings of a place name in the standard place of a lead section does not necessarily mean that any other aspect of the lead section or the article is less relevant. The standard way to cover history in the lead section is to summarize it. Doing that would be much more useful than trying to place apparently arbitrary restrictions on other users' edits.

Also, the comparison with other places is inherently demeaning to the residents of those other places, and doesn't appear to be based on a sober assessment of facts - because of this real-world controversy, readers are actually now more likely to look up the Cyrillic name of the city of Vukovar than they may be to look up the Cyrillic name of other places. Providing information about it in the lead informs English readers sooner rather than later, which is hardly a bad thing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree of course, as can be seen from my comment at the top of this discussion. This really should be a very simple small thing - encyclopedias should be impartial. But if we allow emotional, historical, well... frankly, ethnic arguments to control our decision, then we are opening the door to such arguments elsewhere, and in more circumstances. I believe I seen Vukovar held up as an example of why minorities DON'T need to be acknowledged fairly at least 3 times in the last year or two (and I only edit Balkan articles once in a while - I think I put a few on my watchlist after reverting edits on them that I noticed while patrolling Recent Changes). So, my purpose here was to establish a precedent that, no, really, if there is a significant language minority, the article should acknowledge that prominently, even if everyone hates each other. And if people are willing to acknowledge the facts on the ground, maybe that will help a little tiny bit. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty silent out here. Anyone else want to comment on this topic? Or do people just want to revert things once a change is made? Brianyoumans (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't assume bad faith. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Do not change anything, now is a good. At two places in the article mentioned Вуковар.--Šokac121 ℗ 10:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to post elsewhere and try to get more users to contribute to the discussion here? Brianyoumans (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

At User talk:Timbouctou, GregorB mentioned that we haven't moved towards a solution. It doesn't seem to me like anyone has actually objected to Gregor's 26 April solution, so why don't we try to do that? It's not a lot of effort, writing note refs requires only a little bit of syntax knowledge. (I don't want to be the one to add it in because that might give people the wrong impression at this point.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not something I can do, I don't speak or read any of these languages. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

After another round of edit warring and subsequent blocking, I went ahead and started fixing this myself, by adding a note. User:GregorB, does that resemble what you had in mind? Please don't hesitate to replace/improve. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The current wording of the note ("not completely official") is rather unfortunate. It appears that at some point the town of Vukovar moved to invalidate the above mentioned §61, but this was quashed by the government in Zagreb.[6] The Constitutional Law is indeed fairly clear in §10 and §12.1.

My best guess would be: 1) keep the Cyrillic, 2) provide the note that says it's official but disputed. Anything finer than that is best left for the main article (2013 Anti-Cyrillic protests in Croatia). Anyway, I'm inviting IvanOS and Sokac121 to provide opposing arguments. GregorB (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that about Cyrillic speaks in ==Name== and (or) ==Minority languages==, and it is enough. In article should not be more important Cyrillic, than the history of this city. --Šokac121 ℗ 19:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I can not really understand why we must add a note behind the Serbian Cyrillic name. Yes, its controversial, but is explained in the article. I mean, why should Vukovar be an exception to WP? Because it is a special city? That sounds like POV. Such conflicts were and are available in several cities in different countries, and I see there is no a note behind the name. I do not see any note in any city on WP in its introduction. Well, the Croatian law introduced it, OK. Well, someone could say that the Serbs there not have a significant proportion of the population and thus the add of the Cyrillic name would be superfluous or important, I would understand, but this is not the case, they make over 1/4 of the population, or more precisely 1/3. If the Serbs would not form a significant proportion in Vukovar, I would understand the whole thing, but it is not the case. If we're at it, the Cyrillic name should also in the Infoboox, like in Subotica the hungarian ect. Name. Not everywhere, but in Vukovar surely. But its good, at least we get the thing closer. Nado158 (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC) I wish only an explenation for understanding.Nado158 (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think the footnote is there in the hopes that the Cyrillic will get deleted less often. Rather than have the reasoning only on the talk page (which most IP editors might not even be aware of), it's right there.Brianyoumans (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sokac121. Few years ago on WP:CRO we agreed that minority names of settlements will be listed in special section #Name if there exist more than 2 minority names. In this article we have 3 different names from 3 different minority languages, including Serbian Cyrillic, so section #Name is OK and there is no need for Serbian Cyrillic in lede. We also agreed that transliteration is unnecessary for infobox, so minority name can be in lede together with some second minority name if that are only minority names. --IvanOS 20:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly, WP:Croatia does not "own" this article, any more than any single editor does. Secondly, the matter was re-discussed at WP:Croatia, with the result seen above. Thirdly, Serbian is not merely one of many minority languages in Vukovar, it is the language of over a third of the population, a level which, by Croatian law, means that it has official status. Fourthly, if the info above from Timbouctou is correct, this was even recognized by the local government in 2009, and in practice (despite attempts by the local government to renege for political reasons) bilingual signs are in use, although they are sometimes torn down. Personally, I think we should use the rules on the national level as a guide, to avoid a situation where we need to research what the local authorities have done in each individual jurisdiction instead of just using census figures. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The City Council of Vukovar is 4 November 2013. has accepted proposal [7] "Committee succeeded in preventing the official use of the Cyrillic script, since the town council adopted the organization’s proposal to amend the statute on November 4, saying that the only official language in the town is Croatian and the only script Latin." [8]--Šokac121 ℗ 09:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The attempt to prevent the official use of the Cyrillic script did not succeed,[9] and, contrary to what you said below, Serbian language is co-official in Vukovar. GregorB (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the respond @Brianyoumans. I dont agree agree with Sokac in many things . I think the Serbian Cyrillic should stay there in the introduction, if you wannt with the Notize, no problem. Also, the Serbian Cyrillic should be added in infobox when the Serbian portion of the population has a significant number of population, what's in Vukovar with 1/3 the case. Som it is with other articles on WP also, as well in the articles of Serbian cities with a significanten number of a minority. I do not see why we should introduce a double standart here and double moral unless someone think nationalistic. The same rights that apply to the minority here, should also apply elsewhere. If not, should the right not be greater than here, without exception, also in Serbia ect. Everything else would be vandalism or abuse of the administration. In Subotica we have for example the Hungarian name in the introduction and also in the infobox, because the hungarians are there a significante population and thats OK. So, please no double standart OK? And dont tell me Vukovar is special situation or city, thats totaly POV of the three Croatian users here in my opinion. So the same rights for all.--Nado158 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As usual, the encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe. In this case it describes a thing that is subject to a real-world dispute, so the note is not the sign of a "double standard", but of an accurate description of reality. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Nado158 removes Hungarian language in article Novi Sad [10] although according to city status Hungarian is the official language., and invites contributors here Wikipedia:Canvassing. In Novi Sad Hungarian is official, neither is in the introduction nor the infoobox. In Vukovar Serbian is not an official language.--Šokac121 ℗ 20:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The matter is under discussion on the Novi Sad talk page; the situation there is slightly different, as the Hungarian-speaking population in Novi Sad is quite small, but the language is recognized by the local authorities - sort of the inverse of the situation in Vukovar. I have to admit that one could question the motives of Nado158. But, really, this should all be fairly irrelevant to what we decide here; there are plenty of other articles to look to for examples of how to handle minority languages. Gdansk, for example, has names in the lede in the local Kashubian dialect and in German, for historical reasons. Geneva also has its name in three languages in the first sentence, Venice's name is immediately given in 5 languages (a bit excessive), and New Orleans's article gives the name in English and French in the first sentence. (French is still a minority language in Louisiana.) It is not a big deal to give the name in local minority languages, especially if they are officially recognized in some fashion. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dear Sokac, in Novi Sad live only 4 % Hungarians, so we can add the Serbian Cyrillic Names in the infoboox of every Crotian city with 4 % Serbs. So, in Vukovar it must be 100% in the infoboox, so you agree? 1/3 Serbs live there. You forgot that according to city status Serbian Cyrillic is the official language in Vukovar. Yes I invite the contributor, because i think we need more neutral users here, not 3-4 Croatian Users includin an admin. Thanks!--Nado158 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC) @Dear Joy, thats your POV, but the fact said something completely different. About many articles and topics which are available here and also in real life exist disputes, nevertheless WP will not hide information because of this, than WP it his own lord. The double moral prevails in any case, and for me the English Wikipedia is abused in favor of the Croatian side which dont want the Cyrillic in Vukovar (of course not all Croats have a problem with this, why should they), but the opposite side is totally neglected, and this is anything other thanneutral, so if you are talking already about a real quarrel, should also be treated neutrally, which is not the case here. We have a significant population of Serbs in Vukovar, so the Serbian Name should be also in the Infoboox, what you say Joy, if you dont agrre with that? 1/3 is not 4 %, so dont forget this please. Bye!--Nado158 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Who said it can't be in the infobox? Besides, the lead section is equally or even more visible than the infobox, anyway. The level of emotion you're apparently putting into this is excessive. A note placed next to a word, that puts that word in context, is hardly a sign of abuse. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

I just went through and did a general cleanup, mostly of grammar. I reworded a bit and removed a few minor bits that seemed unneeded or duplicative. In one case I removed something that had been uncited for a long time, and also seemed very minor. Perhaps someone could fix the Education and Media - History section? The English there is so poor I can't really determine what it is trying to say sometimes. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Vukovar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129153637/http://www.vktel.com/v/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1363&Itemid=40 to http://www.vktel.com/v/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1363&Itemid=40
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2129420,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/8823/1/Tens-of-thousands-gather-for-15th-anniversary-of-Vukovar-siege-1991---2006.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7016290.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101113011259/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?mm=11&dd=18&yyyy=2006 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?mm=11&dd=18&yyyy=2006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)