Talk:Croatian Wikipedia

2013 controversy
"Since 2013, the Croatian Wikipedia has received attention from international media". So is this a continuous state now? Or should the article read, "In 2013...". Also if it is still a state, what is being done? And what is the exit criteria for the scandal? Or is it just a fact that Croatia was and will always be a fascist nest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.39.185 (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Dispute resolution will begin in 5, 4, 3, ... or I'm handing out free instant WP:ARBMAC blocks to absolutely everyone involved. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not dispute, this is vandalism done by editor IvanOS. He delete whole section covered by sources just because he do not like it. Such behavior should be sanctioned, especially when we consider continuity of inappropriate actions of that editor.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't condone censoring, but you don't have to be a wizard to see the need to reassess the tone and weight of this new section against WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ATTACK. There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that the same people who started this whole complaint festival on Facebook posted the same here as a means to further this outside conflict, which is ever so clearly a violation of decorum. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think someone has done something contrary to the Wikipedia rules or immoral you should definitely take steps against those editors since you are administrator and it is your "duty". However, you should not equate editors that make constructive changes (agree with their views or not), and examples of ruthless censorship. If you and IvanOS have justified doubts about whole scandal around Croatian Wikipedia you should work on that (write to other administrators or I don't know). I apologize that I compare your and IvanOS work, but here you are biased. I do not have a lot of information about whole scandal, but objections against Croatian Wikipedia seems valid to me, and your suspicion of "conspiracy" looks somewhat paranoid. Even if you believe that there is some conspiracy behind this scandal I don't think you have any evidence that user Kolega2357 is part of that. So, until otherwise proven, you should make decisions based only on what you know and see-and that are those users edits on this article.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not biased, I'm calling it as I see it. I've been aware of these hr: wiki-related feuds for a while now, and I have personally been on the receiving end of abuse of one of the implicated editors in the past over here. None of this changes the simple fact that some anonymous people generated an online controversy and then immediately latched onto whatever media coverage of it in order to promote the same controversy on Wikipedia. This is exactly why we have the policy that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The fact that these kinds of shenanigans happen all too often in this topic area is exactly why the Macedonia arbitration case resulted in such harsh rules being imposed on it. Administrators who apply these rules aren't biased because they do, on the contrary, they're doing it to make sure the encyclopedia follows the letter and spirit of the neutrality and other policies. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Joy: Be that as it may, a Wikipedia Project received coverage and ended up on the front page of a country's biggest newspaper - and for all the wrong reasons. This does not happen every day and it sounds like it merits some sort of inclusion. Btw I see IP edit warring continued.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 19:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and that's another piece of puffery that was a clear red flag - Jutarnji is not the biggest newspaper in Croatia, according to referenced information right here on en:, it's third largest. Using these kinds of terms to promote a source in the first place is in itself a sign that the editor has an axe to grind. Again, I'm not saying that the issue does not merit inclusion, but the way it's included now does not rise to the challenge, and edit warring over it is plain wrong. I applied semi-protection and blocks. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:SpeedyGonsales, this edit is still entirely biased, merely in the other direction. Because I understand you were the target of these articles, and you didn't edit here before since this started, I'm not going to immediately follow through with my earlier warning - but please do fix this. User:BokicaK, you too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What about me? I haven't edited the article prior to his contribution. -- Bojan   Talk  09:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Joy, can you point out what exactly needs to be fixed?- В и к и  T  11:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought I already did. The sources that describe this incident are hardly even trying to be neutral themselves, one of the three in there now isn't even signed (h-alter), and the Jutarnji one is making various exceptional claims involving living people while explicitly attributing them to anonymous sources. That's just not encyclopedic coverage. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for our sources to be neutral.


 * Let me stop you right there. Yes, yes there is. Please read WP:RS etc. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no there isn't. Did you read WP:RS lately?-- В и к и  T  20:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you? What part of "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." - did you fail to understand? There is no carte blanche to use whatever biased source indiscriminately. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliability ≠ neutrality. Yes, there is no carte blanche to use whatever biased source indiscriminately, but my point that "there is no requirement for our sources to be neutral" is supported by policy. From WP:RS: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you feel that Jutarnji list is not reliable source, you can raise that guestion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.-- В и к и  T  06:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're wikilawyering by cherry-picking a single statement from WP:RS as if it can somehow excuse the glaring tendentiousness of the story at hand. Implying that I think that JL is a generally unreliable source, when I have referenced them on en: probably hundreds of times, is downright bizarre. In any case, the problem remains: the description we have is more akin to a news story than an encyclopedia. We're referencing news stories and using their style, and that isn't encyclopedic coverage. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The banner looks very ugly and implies a content issue, when it's merely a presentation issue. Quoting the statements directly is a neat way to escape the accusation of making synthetic or OR-ish edits. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The banner looks very ugly and implies a content issue, when it's merely a presentation issue. Quoting the statements directly is a neat way to escape the accusation of making synthetic or OR-ish edits. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a content issue, quote farming is not the way to write an encyclopedic article. Articles shouldn't be written mainly with escaping accusations in mind. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Guardian and New York Times are clearly liberal/left-leaning newspapers, and everyone knows that. Similarly, Fox News and Daily Mail are clearly conservative/right-leaning, and everyone knows that. Sources used on Wikipedia don't have to be neutral, but our presentation of what the sources say must be neutral. Do you have any objections to current phrasing in the "Controversies" section?-- В и к и  T  09:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I realise that times change, but I just want to chime in and say that I would categorically reject the presentation of the NYT or Guardian as left. The former advocated strongly in favour of the Iraq War on behalf of the Neo-Con White House of the time, and both seem to have made a business out of attacking left wing figures throughout the West in recent years. 122.150.92.52 (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

So, my contribution to the article was reverted, and I'm wondering why, since I tried to assume a neutral POV... Anyone care to elaborate? Maybe my attempt to diffuse the situation belongs to the talk page?: "
 * The issue itself is prooving to be quite difficult to handle, due to the administrators of the Wikipedia being the ones in charge. Since Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation with no "higher-ups" except for the administrators, there is no way to turn Croatian Wikipedia into what is should be - a non-biased internet encyclopedia which equally and fairly states both sides of the argument, glorifying and demonising neither. There are people in Croatia willing to make Wikipedia a reliable source of information, especially since in recent years more and more students have been using it for school projects, and due to the right-wing bias, a lot of young people have adopted right-wing nationalist sentiment, all too visible in Croatia nowadays, and the conflict between the left- and right-wing sentimentalists seems to have continued from World War II, when it's high time to forget the past and move on to a brighter future.

" What I have written is true, and if anyone claims otherwise, (s)he is lying. I live in Croatia and I know the state of things here. Therefore, I would like to know why my edit was reverted, with the explanation of "good faith", because when I clicked the wikipedia good faith (here), it said that many new contributors believe they write in good faith when they don't, but I honestly can't see why the aforementioned section wouldn't count as "good faith". Looking forward to hearing a response. --Tvrtko26 (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your contribution is original research, please see WP:NOR.-- В и к и  T  11:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, how should I write this if I myself know a bunch of my peers (a majority, in fact) who are extremely nationalist? Here are some sources (a lot of my peers and other people listen to Marko Perkovic Thompson, a singer on whose concerts Ustaše insignia are a regular sight, regardless of whether or not he says he approves or disapproves of this, I'm talking about the people listening to his music, his fanbase, not the singer himself):
 * Sources:
 * http://dnevnik.hr/showbizz/glazba/koncert-u-cavoglavama-100-000-ljudi-ustasko-znakovlje-i-napad-na-novinare.html
 * Pitamo se što je radila hrvatska policija dok su određeni pojedinci prilikom proslave jednog od najvećih državnih blagadana u Čavoglavama javno veličali ustaštvo. Sramotna je i činjenica da je napadnuta i jedna novinarska ekipa. To je naprosto nedopustivo i za svaku osudu. (We're wondering what the Croatian police was doing while certain individuals during the celebration of one of the greatest state holidays in Čavoglave were publically worshipping the Ustaše regime. Also shameful is the fact that a news team was assaulted. It's simply unacceptable and deserves every condemnation.)
 * http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/ustasko-znakovlje-sve-vise-onih-koji-ga-nose-ni-ne-znaju-sto-simbolizira.html
 * Zabrinjava, tvrde stručnjaci, što ih nose sve mlađi koji uopće nisu svjesni što to ustvari simbolizira. Za jedne marginalni problemi, za druge osuda. No, policija nikog nije privela. Svaki put ista priča, ustaške kape, majice s parolama, znakovlje i ikonogorafija na razmahanoj masi. Policija kaže da nije ništa vidjela (...) Gledali su kažu i štandove, ali rakiju s likom Ante Pavelića očito su primijetili svi osim plavaca. (...) Da stvar bude gora, u posljednje vrijeme u takvim incidentima sve su mlađi i mlađi. Koji gotovo ni ne znaju što nose na sebi i kakve zločine opravdavaju. (It's worrysome that, claim the experts, even younger people are starting to wear them, people who aren't at all aware what it actually signifies. For some those are marginal issues, for others it's worth condemning. However, the police hasn't detained anyone. Every time it's the same story, Ustaše hats, shirts with mottos, insignia and iconography on the swinging mob. The police says they haven't seen anything. (...) They claim they were watching the booths, but it seems just about everyone except for them saw the rakia with the image of Ante Pavelić.(...)To make matters worse, lately in such incidents younger and younger people are involved. Those who almost don't even know what they're wearing and what crimes they're justifying.)
 * http://www.vecernji.hr/sport/vijesti/hho-navijace-je-ujedinio-samo-poklic-za-dom-spremni-clanak-451130
 * Jedino što je ujedinilo gledatelje, osim povremene snažne podrške nacionalnoj momčadi i radosti zbog postignutog zgoditka, je zajedničko skandiranje (u 61. minuti), fašističkog poklika za dom - spremni, što je bio službeni pozdrav u vrijeme Pavelićeva fašističkog ustaškog režima, a postao je uobičajena pojava na nogometnim utakmicama hrvatske nogometne vrste.
 * (The only thing which unified the spectators, accept from the occasional strong support for the national team and the joy for the scored goal, was the common chant (in the 61st minute) of a fascist cheer "for home - ready", which was the official greeting during Pavelić's fascist Ustaše regime, and which has become a regular occurence on the football matches in Croatia.)
 * http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Hrvatska/tabid/66/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/12846/Default.aspx (interview with the current Croatian PM)
 * Taj koncert bio je štetan i na Thompsonovim koncertima uvijek se događaju štetne stvari, a on bi, kada vidi ustaško znakovlje, trebao prestati pjevati. Ali od toga nikada neće biti ništa.
 * (That [Thompson's] concert was detrimental and there are always bad things happening on Thompson's concerts, and he should, when he sees Ustaše insignia, stop singing. But that's never going to happen.)


 * Enough sources for you? --Tvrtko26 (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tvrtko, this is not an article on Far right in Croatia, and this talk page is not a forum. Please just stick with what is directly relevant for the Croatian Wikipedia.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 12:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I perfectly understand that. I simply meant to state that a lot of admins on Croatian Wikipedia possess far-right ideologies, and that (hopefully not through the influence of Wikipedia here) this ideology seeped into a major portion of the society here. Myself, I'm neither left-wing, nor right-wing, I only believe that glorifying crimes on any side is wrong, and that is what is happening on the Croatian Wikipedia and this nationalism and commending of fascist (basically Nazi) regime is why many of the admins from Croatian Wikipedia have been banned on German Wikipedia. Cheers. --Tvrtko26 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see...
 * 1) Is there a controversy over Croatian Wikipedia?
 * Various media are reporting about the complaints against right-wing bias on the Croatian Wikipedia. Whether those complaints are justified and there is right-wing bias is irrelevant when trying to establish whether there is a controversy. Media are reporting over those complaints, so there is certainly a controversy of some kind.
 * 1) Do those sources have left-wing bias?
 * If voicing alert against the right-wing bias constitutes the left-wing bias, as many right-wing biased people would like to define, then yes. However, such definition would be either inherently have right-wing bias, or voicing alert against any kind of bias would be another, opposite kind of bias. This wouldn't make any sense.
 * So, let's see what do they actually say:
 * 1) They report over rise of complaints. Complaints had indeed risen, so there should be no problem in this part.
 * 2) They report some examples of the complaints. This should be also unproblematic, because they don't make up the complaints, they only report what has been said.
 * 3) They present comparisons of articles on Croatian Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. Quick glance over those article (unfortunately, only for people who understand Croatian) reveals that comparison is fair in sense that reported content is really there.
 * So, there doesn't seem to be any bias in the reports by the cited sources.
 * 1) Does the section about the controversy have the left-wing bias?
 * This section could do with couple of copyedits in order to improve the style and grammar. Also, in addition to yesterday, some new articles have been published today (on 12 September), so maybe there could be also some expansion and organization of the content into the paragraphs of appropriate size. But this has nothing to to with the alleged left-wing bias, so let's get to the point.
 * The section seems to be reporting, more or less, what has been reported by the media. Maybe it is not clear enough that it is more about the complaints about the right-wing bias and not about the right-wing bias itself. Other than that, there seems to be no real issues.
 * After the quick glance at the edit history it is clear that there has been and edit war, mostly reverts, as some people misinterpreted this section (and the cited sources) as some kind of "attack" on the Croatian Wikipedia. It is interesting that some of them almost openly indirectly admit having right-wing bias, and some of them might have been in the conflict of interest because they are part of the administration on the Croatian Wikipedia or have close ties with it.

In conclusion, the existence of the questionable section seems to be clearly justified, cited sources also seems to be alright and neutrality of the section is more or less okay, only it could do with some copyediting for grammar, style, expansion and clarification for improvement of the neutrality. --93.142.240.75 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The conclusion above that there isn't any bias in the sources is patently false. For example, the Jutarnji article points out Tamo je stradala 481 osoba for Sabirni logor Jasenovac but a trivial look shows that the claim is both unreferenced inline and the first in a list of thirteen other claims, and a clear outlier. Granted, the placement, tone and even the spelling errors of that sentence (481 broj žrtva koji je jedini empirijski potvđen u tzv. antropološkim istraživanjima prilom prekopavanja radnog logora Jasenovac) warrant its immediate removal, but cherry-picking that bit out of 25kb of text is really just picking on the Croatian Wikipedia. At the time, there was no obvious recent administrative dispute/abuse with regard to that claim (unlike in the case of hr:Ustaše). Given that they see a pattern, this may well be perfectly acceptable for a news article to include, but it still does not bode well for its usability as a reliable source. It should be used primarily as a source for the fact that a public controversy had ensued, not so much as a source for a sober assessment of what were its precise causes. Just imagine if we used this standard of coverage about the assorted crap that gets posted on the English Wikipedia... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a brief comment: my concern about the article is chiefly WP:UNDUE. I know it might not be possible to balance the existing content with the neutral, non-controversy-related content (simply because the sources do not offer much in this department), but e.g. Željko Jovanović does not need to be quoted at length.

The admins deny the accusations - yeah, it's a kind of a non-denial actually, but the article needs to mention this. GregorB (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Ministry of Science and Education calls students NOT to use Croatian Wikipedia
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)

Beside Novi list, it was also published by Tportal, Jutarnji list, Index, 24sata, RTL and many more. --109.60.5.154 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Željko Jovanović is person with big mouth (figuratevely, not literraly, unfortunately! :

he was notorious for using hard words while he was just a deputy, and his behaviour did not improve during his mandate as minister, look at his words towards Zdravko Mamić and Vlatko Marković  So, his opinion here about bias and decency is clear example of The_pot_calling_the_kettle_blackThe_pot_calling_the_kettle_black]] and Unclean hands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.67.4 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And this comment is clear example of argumentum ad hominem. --93.139.158.93 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing new. Around 72% of American colleges do not accept Wikipedia as an academic source. The Wikipedia big fault is the lack of editorial board and the idea that everyone can edit and write Wikipedia articles.--96.255.26.152 (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

Content to be added
There are few things that could probably be added.

Administrator(s) of Croatian Wikipedia issued the open refutation letter against the article in Jutarnji. Sources say something about this letter and about the admin who wrote it. They/he also declared that the Jutarnji's article is yellow journalism (there is a notice on the Croatian Wikipedia which says Službeno i javno opovrgavanje novinarskog žutila Jutarnjeg lista). This letter and admin are notable parts of this affair.

Sources that could be used are following two:

Also, in section of this talk page, Tvrtko26 said something about difficulties in attempt of ousting current administration. At the time of his writing this wasn't properly sourced, but now this and some backstory can be found in the second source provided. Thank you. --93.142.214.74 (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The links provided do not corroborate the statements in the paragraph that was removed. The  and   parameters to the template  both in the edit and above seem to be made up. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, wrong  parameter in the first example. It should have been  . Sorry, my bad. --93.142.214.74 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this "letter of refutation" mentioned in other media outlets? The article in JL mostly quotes it verbatim, and at parts subtly belittles it (u odgovoru zapravo ne demantiraju ništa nego se, među ostalim, upuštaju u političke analize trenutne situacije u Hrvatskoj, a sve optužbe na svoj račun nazivaju “degutantnim besmislicama i klevetama”.) It doesn't seem relevant that much. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. Mentioning this desperate and epic-failed attempt by this guy would be giving the undue weight to his whining over negative media attention. --93.142.214.74 (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would this do? http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/jovanoviceva-poruka-ucenicima-i-studentima-ne-koristite-hrvatsku-wikipediju/700302.aspx Also, the user 93.142.214 said that "there is a notice on the Croatian Wikipedia which says Službeno i javno opovrgavanje novinarskog žutila Jutarnjeg lista (official and public refutation of the yellow journalism Jutarnji list)". Isn't this statement shown on every page of Croatian Wikipedia in clear violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view? Publically denouncing a newspaper? I'd understand if it were The Onion, but this? (And while we're on that note, some admins of Croatian Wiki actually used the Croatian satirical portal 'News Bar' similar to The Onion which posts mock-news as a real reference to support their claims (http://news-bar.hr/news/nakon-clanka-na-news-baru-reagirala-i-hrvatska-wikipedija-hrvatska-pod-napadom-kroatofoba/).) --Tvrtko26 (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's NPOV, misleading the public (it cannot possibly be "official" refutation since it not issued by the Foundation), and furthermore legally imperils the Foundation because they've apparently sent it to several state agencies, including DORH (Croatian State Prosecution), and sprinkled it with colorful (=actionable) terms and accusations, and not signed by their names but vaguely as "administrators of Croatian Wikipedia". At any case, Jimbo has been informed and and a discussion page created on Meta. Feel free to add your two cents.
 * That Index.hr article actually quotes Čokor on different issues and doesn't even mention the refutation at all. Perhaps when more sources appear and a timeline is established we can mention it, but now seems a bit premature. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. I was actually thinking of the line "Darko Čokor, jedan od administratora Wikipedije, u razgovoru za Index rekao je kako ga "mediji kleveću i razapinju bez razloga"." (Darko Čokor, one of the Wikipedia's administrators, told in a conversation for Index that "the media were calumniating and crucifying him for no reason.") Maybe this could be classified as a "refutation", or would that be pushing it? Does the refutation have to be explicitly stated or does this "for no reason" count as refuting? Cheers. --Tvrtko26 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That line cannot be refutation - that line can be classified as denial. Refutation implies good arguments (to refute: 1) to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge; 2. to prove (a person) to be in error.). If you want to classify something as refutation, you should cite lines where he actually lays down good arguments (if there are any). Marekich (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia: Serbs and Croats shouldn't have separate Wikipedias
So, this happened. http://www.jutarnji.hr/jimmy-wales--srbi-i-hrvati-ne-smiju-imati-odvojene-wikipedije/1126205/ Comments? --Tvrtko26 (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh God. This is going from bad to worse.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 21:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Included it in the article.--Tvrtko26 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Croatian_Wikipedia_controversy --94.253.151.225 (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a train wreck... Let's hope something good comes out of it, although I'm not an optimist, and Jimbo's faux pas is not going to help.
 * Note how Jutarnji distorts his words: he said that having separate Wikipedias "was always a mistake", which somehow becomes "Serbs and Croats must not have separate Wikipedias" (Srbi i Hrvati ne smiju imati odvojene Wikipedije). That's sensationalist writing at best, deliberate falsification at worst. That's not going to help either. GregorB (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is turning into a complete clusterfuck. I will have to buy tomorrow's papers to read the entire article, but this does not bode well. Also, in today's edition Jutarnji published a short interview with Čokor (aka SpeedyGonsales) and Jurica Pavičić devoted a column to the whole issue. Perhaps this should be included as well.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 22:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I missed the HRT evening news on Saturday - was there anything on the the topic? GregorB (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no mention of it in Dnevnik 3.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 23:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a somewhat copyedited translation, I will leave it here IF we decide to put it in the article:
 * On 15 September 2013, Jutarnji list published an article titled "Serbs and Croats shouldn't have separate Wikipedias", quoting Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, who reportedly told the paper that "Wikimedia Foundation should seriously consider the current media allegations against Croatian administrators." Jutarnji also reported that Wales said he had heard about problems with Croatian Wikipedia before, but the complaints were usually from Serbian sources, so he, as a neutral party, couldn't determine if the accusations were true. The problem became clear after the Minister decided to react. "It is concerning when a Minister makes such a strong claim. It has been my opinion for a long time that it is in fact wrong to have separate Wikipedias in that part of the world.", Wales was reported as saying.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 21:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article's body quotes him correctly, but the title was tailored to attract attention. GregorB (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You have completely misunderstood the article. According to Jutarnji List, they contacted Jimbo via e-mail and he said to them: "We are closely monitoring everything that happens on the Croatian Wikipedia, and we will need a few days to ascertain all the facts"


 * All other quotes in that article are from Jimbo's talk page. Jimbo did not say "Wikimedia Foundation should seriously consider the current media allegations against Croatian administrators.", I said that.-- В и к и  T  22:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Wikiwind, I know Jimbo did not say that, but the article attributed that comment to him. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 22:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The comment was not attributed to him, but that subheading in the middle of the quote can be very confusing. What the article actually says is this:

"I'm not interested in running any kind of "war" or crusade against Croatian Wikipedia, but I think that Wikimedia Foundation should seriously look into the current media allegations against its administrators [...]" 'wrote one of the users. Jimmy Wales replied...' -- В и к и  T  22:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From the online version it does not look that way. But fine, we'll wait for the print edition and see how it turned out. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 22:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with . It's confusing because Wikiwind was quoted at such length, but there is a clear "Jimmy Wales replied ..." after that long quote. For reference, here is what Jimbo said: I agree with you on every aspect of this. I will make sure the Foundation sees your notice and will ask them to look into it. To me it seems particularly damning that the Croatian Minister you reference has made such a strong statement - if the complaints were coming only from Serbian sources, it becomes more complex for an outsider to evaluate it.  My long held view is that it was always a mistake to have separate Wikipedias in this part of the world, since the language would be regarded as the same language under any objective standard.  (The way it is written is not relevant - there is nearly perfect machine translation because it is just a change of script between Latin and Cyrillic.) However, I ask your help as well.  Could you please help me to find English speaking people from Croatian Wikipedia to have a thorough conversation about the situation?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC) I hasten to add that I am relying on Google Translate here, but the quote seems to be accurately summarised by Jutarnji list. You can't even quibble much with the subheader, as that was the clear implication of what Jimbo said: My long held view is that it was always a mistake to have separate Wikipedias in this part of the world, since the language would be regarded as the same language under any objective standard. --Andreas  JN 466 01:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, here is Jovanovic's doctoral thesis, on the website which his Croatian Wikipedia biography (locked by an admin in that version) claims contains nothing authored by him: http://bib.irb.hr/prikazi-rad?lang=en&rad=385960 Andreas JN 466 02:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I found six other works on that website whose author or co-author is Jovanovic:
 * Efficacy of healthy weight loss program in obesity treatment: Croatian experience
 * Left ventricle diastolic dysfunction in obese patients with newly diagnosed arterial hypertension
 * Science and higher education in Croatia at the verge of entering the EU
 * Inhibitori neuraminidaze - nov pristup u prevenciji i liječenju influence
 * Upravljanje marketingom u farmaceutskoj industriji
 * Priručnik o virtualnim pokusima iz farmakologije-- В и к и  T  08:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, in that case, I apologise for editing the article prematurely. I have only read the online version, which doesn't mention "said one of the users" after the quote.--Tvrtko26 (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

there are actually THREE croatian/serbian wikipedias, not just two. there is the Croatian wiki (hr.wikipedia.org), Serbian wiki (sr.wikipedia.org) and Serbo-Croatian wiki (sh.wikipedia.org). As a Croatian and a student I can confirm that Croatian wikipedia is a mess, some history articles (from all fields not just 20th century history) include pseudo-scientific claims that are backed by pseudo-scientific sources. --Adriatic HR (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually FOUR including the Bosnian wiki (bs.wikipedia.org): four wikis in the same language. Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * All of them are a mess in that sense. As well as German and Russian - those are the ones I used from time to time (not edited though). Even this, English wiki, is not immune to such articles. If you think, you'll probably remember a couple of media discovered hoaxes, and if you edit regularly applying WP:V, you must have concluded that there are some information which are not necessarily verifiable (let alone true). What sets English wiki apart from all those I mentioned (and probably all others too) are well established peer reviewing mechanisms employed to apply relevant policies of verifiability and a multitude of editors. I have no experience with admins outside English wiki (except for occasional request for help in recruiting a wiki editor to photograph a road and share the image at the Commons) but I hope they are capable of discharging their duties. Still, the editors are supposed to constantly review, edit and hopefully improve articles. On the other hand there are two crucial problems: Let's face it, there are more admins in English wiki than active editors in Croatian (or Serbian for that matter) wiki. Non-English wikis have grown in scope considerably with very few active editors to improve the wikis. To make matters worse, there seems to be some sort of race to see whose wiki is bigger, with great exposure given to achieved milestones in terms of quantity - which is nice, but I fear quality might be at stake there.
 * By "there", I don't refer to Croatian wiki only - neither German, nor Russian nor Serbian wiki seem to have any quality rating in place, while featured articles seem to be voted upon rather than peer reviewed (and frankly most of them would fail referencing (B1) criterion required for B-class on English wiki - equivalents of Today's FA in Croatian, Serbian, German and Russian wiki would fail B1 criterion). Heck, right now there is even an article writing competition with an iPad given away to the most prolific editor at one of those. I'm afraid the "race" to expand non-English wikis might have caused admins to turn a blind eye to such shortcomings. I gather that at least some complaints about hr.wiki dealt with alleged reverting and protecting of article contents. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of those activities, but looking at state of the FAs, it is clear that hardly any article is fully referenced and therefore an excellent field for edit wars, which usually end up in mass reverting and page protection. I suppose none of that would happen if the articles were referenced.
 * There is no easy solution to the situation which seems to be widespread, but I trust peer reviews and quality ratings are the way to go. If I were a student picking a printed source of information on a given event and was given a choice between a reputable, peer reviewed or journal with editorial oversight in place and a tabloid, choice would be obvious. If I look up an English wiki article and discover it is an FA, I feel quite confident it was carefully reviewed by several editors and that each sentence there is verifiable. The same should apply in other wikis. Except it cannot function properly without significant number of editors contributing their time - it took several months for a couple of editors here on English wiki to review approximately 100 articles and determine if they meet B-class criteria properly, but it was done in the end.
 * Faced with choice of endless complaining that this wiki or another is lacking in quality or rolling up your own sleeves and doing something about it (improving articles, rather than stating the obvious) it should be clear what is the proper course of action. Neither Croatian nor Serbian nor German nor Russian wikis should be abolished but improved.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * JFTR I assume good faith in this. However it would be truly saddening to see these events exploited (as one might surmise from the above bolding and all-caps in counting numerous languages) to push the point of view that Croatian and Serbian are not two languages rather than use this to constructively improve content of all wikis (Serbo-Croatian included).--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very good analysis, and it parallels my impression of Croatian Wikipedia. Their referencing falls significantly behind en wiki standards. I have a degree of understanding for this though, as it reminds me of early en wiki, with sharp expansion and few hands. However, en wiki matured and raised the bar, which means that it introduced new policies, refined the existing ones, and applied them in an increasingly stringent manner. This did not happen in the hr wiki, unfortunately. And I've noticed that they have a defensive attitude about it: they say "Well, this is not English Wikipedia, this is Croatian Wikipedia".
 * In the end, what that means is: few policies, very lax attitude towards copyright violation and plagiarism ("fair use" images, biographies from moljac.hr copied verbatim, hr:Antifašizam now simply lifted from LZMK, as if that will actually help), no meaningful article assessment or review at any level, rubber-stamped FAs, no clear way to lodge complaints against the administrators, etc. And these are just moderately bad things.
 * However, one should be cautious with the perennial advice of rolling up one's sleeves and putting in more work to save the day. It is both trivially true, as articles don't fix themselves - and also possibly a completely doomed approach. When there's systemic chaos (as opposed to just content chaos, against which we all fight every day), putting in more work is not going to help. Hr wiki needs a different framework, a different focus (towards policies, peer review, assessment and quality, rather than quantity - agree 100% percent on that), and - as far as admins are concerned - different people, probably. GregorB (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Article in Novi list
Article in Novi list (Hr.wikipedija pod povećalom zbog falsificiranja hrvatske povijesti) is perhaps the most extensive and most balanced overview of the current controversy. We should also quote politician and historian Josip Jurčević, who defended Croatian Wikipedia in that article.-- В и к и  T  11:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jurčević should be quoted, of course. (Still, I'd generally prefer summaries of people's positions rather than direct quotes, unless the exact wording is important.)
 * In the meantime, things get progressively nasty: http://www.niktitanik.com/2013/09/13/1258/. GregorB (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Translating Jurčević's incoherent passage into English is a challenge by itself, and quoting it verbatim would make a good example of Poe's law. It should be explicitly mentioned that he's a voice of the far-right (he was apparently officially awarded that title in 2009, according to the en.wiki article). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Jurčević is saying either. He did not address a single point of criticism against Croatian Wikipedia - he merely questioned the critics' agenda, as if that somehow makes all their arguments void. Like many of the other hr Wiki defenders in this case, he tends to stick to the lower reaches of the pyramid, and that is telling.
 * Still: while Jurčević is a voice of the far right, the source does not say it, and I see no way to introduce this fact without violating WP:SYNTH and/or implicitly inviting the appropriate qualifiers on Jovanović and other critics. I'm not sure this is the way to go. GregorB (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason why I suggested that Jurčević's political background be mentioned is because otherwise his entire comment might easily be construed as a satire. Think about it: Historian Jurčević claims on the other hand that we're dealing with a an organized attack by Communists who want to impose their totalitarian practices into free-thinking and liberal Croatian Wikipedia. It would sound as a joke unto itself without proper context (Poe's law). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it now... :-) Indeed, while scanning the discussion at hr:Wikipedija:Kafić today, I had a suspicion that some of the comments were actually posted by provocateurs, but it is nigh impossible to be tell them apart. GregorB (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (But nevertheless: shouldn't the bluelink do the talking and resolve the dilemma?) GregorB (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. Feel free to add his opinion, I can't make heads or tails of it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There were two historians interviewed, and in the article added are quotes from only one as if the other one wasn't interviewd at all.-- Rovoobo   Talk  02:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Jutarnji on Sep 16th
Just a heads up - Jutarnji seems to be determined tom milk this story as much as possible. Today's front page features a headline from an opinion piece by Inoslav Bešker, a long-time columnist of the paper (who btw occasionally edits here as well as User:Inoslav Bešker). In his opinion piece on pages 14-15 he criticises all parties involved, says Jovanović is not qualified to say whether "most out of the 140,000 articles" are forgeries. Then he goes on to describe the atmosphere on Croatian Wikipedia, testifying that indeed admins are irresponsible, and that there are serious issues with topics that talk about WW2, Ustashe movement and anti-fascism, and even says he had also ran into problem when he tried correcting them (his edits were reverted and he was warned by admins - he adds he never had such problems on Italian or English Wikipedias). In the end he criticises Jimbo for hinting that a possible solution would involve merging Croatian Wiki with Serbian and Bosniak and Serbo-Croatian versions, saying this is ignorant of him and that such statements only fuel more chauvinism. That's pretty much the gist of it. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 09:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * GregorB asked me to translate some of Bešker's opinion piece. Bešker's style is a bit convoluted and he likes to intellectualize everything so I left out some bits where he talks about anger and ignorance as concepts, some bits where he quoted a reader's comment he had seen on Jutarnji website about the whole matter, and a few bits at the end where he compares the idea of merging B-C-S-SC Wikipedias with the idea of merging Danish and Bokmål editions, Hindi-Urdu, and so forth. For those who don't know, Bešker is a well known Croatian journalist based in Italy and is a long-time correspondent for Jutarnji and other Croatian newspapers. He mostly writes on matters of Italian politics and Vatican affairs, but also often pens opinion pieces and columns. He also occasionally edits several language Wikipedias. Words in brackets were inserted by me to clarify the train of thought, and I've left a few wordings in the original form for Croatian speakers' reference. Feel free to improve the translation if you can. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 19:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Boris Dežulović also wrote an opinion piece on CW dated Sep 16th. Nije, naime, hrvatska Wikipedija jednostavno ksenofobna, šovenska i filofašistička, već je, još gore, jednostavno ignorantska i nepismena "Croatian Wikipedia is not only xenophobic, chauvinist and filo-fascist, it is, even worse, simply ignorant and illiterate". Since both Dežulović and Bešker are simply journalists (although well-known ones), I don't know if their opinions merit inclusion in the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure either, that's why I've put Bešker's piece on the talk page. They were disseminated by a major newspaper so I guess we can assume they did influence public opinion. I suppose that merits a mention. And since Dežulović is ideologically more left-leaning than Bešker, whom I regard as conservative, these two in combination present a good assessment of the state of CW for interested outsiders. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 10:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bešker is not "simply" a journalist, for two reasons: 1) he is a scholar with a Ph.D. in Comparative Slavistics (I'm quoting his en wiki bio, which happens to be created by yours truly, so I do hope it's correct :-) ), and 2) is an editor who contributed to several Wikipedia editions, including the CW. That carries some weight.
 * Dežulović's comments, are, on the other side, rather generic; that some articles are amateurishly written due to someone's lack of education and general competence is not exactly a piercing insight. GregorB (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Mr. Bešker missed a point regarding Minister Jovanović. Asking for Jovanović to provide an exact number of unreliable articles from hr.wiki is unecessary.  Also, I think Bešker wanted to discredit Jovanović criticism, but ends up not working that way.  The fact is that Jovanović noteced that a particular POV is defended by admins on hr.wiki on several sensitive issues, and as such, numerous articles contain this POV.  One doesn´t need to go and count all related articles and confirm if the extremist POV is also found there, the simple fact that the extremist POV is found on important articles is enough to conclude that probably the same POV is imposed by those same admins in most related articles, and as such, hr.wiki looses credibility as hole when dealing with those subjects. So, pardon me for saying this, but Mr. Bešker asking for quantification regarding the exact number of unreliable articles doesn´t change at all the valid point of Minister Jovanovic about the reliability of hr.wiki for academical use. FkpCascais (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm too lazy to explain so I'll quote myself :-) (from the Timbouctou's talk page):
 * Bešker's argument about 140k articles is technically correct but muddles the issue. Surely one is not bound to find bias in articles on marine life and such (although, after what I've seen lately, all bets are off). He spends a good quarter of the article berating Jovanović, not exactly known as a cautious communicator, merely for not being precise. Well, I've seen worse.
 * When I say "I've seen worse", I hope you understand what I mean. So, I've just invited Mr Bešker to read what is posted in Kafić. GregorB (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem at all :) I just found curious Bešker´s words about the quantfication of "affected articles", as if they were some excuse. Btw, I found excellent Timbouctou´s ideia expressed at Jimbo´s talk page regarding a "cross-wiki mediation board".  That would definitely help to get consensus over the polemical topics, help to include all sides, and help neutral editors against the extremists which are unfortunatelly found in all regional wikies.  Best regards to all, and lets hope all these discussions help to improve all regional wikies. FkpCascais (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the "cross-wiki mediation board" is an excellent idea, among the best I've seen in this discussion. It could be construed even more broadly, as a "cross-wiki advisory board", as it could deal with e.g. policies and organizational issues too. GregorB (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can anyone post the full original text of Bešker's article, for us native speakers outside who live far away? I can't find a link online, and if a scan is the only practical possibility and there's a fair use issue, one could post it on the "Exposing the shameful..." Facebook group and provide a link.  Thank you! – MirancheT C 03:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as much as I'd like to do it here, there are copyright issues unfortunately. Asking the Facebook group might be the best avenue. I'd do it, but I don't have a Facebook account. GregorB (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We have scan of Inoslav Bešker article but we dont have permission to publish it--DobarSkroz (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Jutarnji list also published an opinion piece written by dr. sc. Pavle Močilac, the author of the FaceBook initiative - I don't know whether it is from the edition on September 18th or 19th. At any case, it has some juicy parts: "It is impossible to count the number of potential editors that have given up on the project because of aggressive right-wingers whose back are being watched" and "the extremist right-wing ruling clique is suppressing the rest of the community with dissenting opinions". The statistics on the sharp drop of editors in 2010 that were removed from the article per WP:SYNTH are also mentioned by him and can now be restored in the article with a citation (and context). Since the whole FB initiative that got this rolling seems to be a brainchild of Močilac, perhaps his opinion merits inclusion, more so than that of Bešker or Dežulović. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone find a RS with Wales's statements?
--93.137.174.138 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Al Jazeera Balkans
See http://balkans.aljazeera.net/vijesti/wikipedia-historija-koju-pisu-administratori -- В и к и  T  14:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:

<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 13:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "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.)

Parodies
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: <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 15:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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!)


 * 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 &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 20:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a slippery slope - please keep this in mind (everyone). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

English-language source
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 JN 466 04:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this is very useful... GregorB (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , 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 JN 466 11:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced section
The section is unbalanced because it does not mention the views of people who think that hr wiki has no problems (Josip Jurčević), or that problems are minor (Inoslav Bešker, per talk above, or Neven Budak). GregorB (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note also that the corresponding entry in List of Wikipedia controversies has the same problem. GregorB (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Jurčević didn want to comment problematic qoutes from hr.wiki, he only attacked those who have exposed the problem as radicals (and "jednoumne" whatever that means). Also he is pseoudohistorian who denies the existence of Jadovno camp, talk about Jasenovac as a myth and believes that the Ustasha were responsible for 0.13% of crimes in WW2 --DobarSkroz (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While his position is crass and intellectually dishonest, the point here is not about Jurčević or anyone in particular, but rather that there are quite different views on the issue - Bešker's being perhaps the most pertinent, even if I feel he more or less missed the point - and the article does not reflect that at all. GregorB (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the template could be reasonably removed then, with what we have here. The opposition seems to have low notability. A few rows about them could be added though, but the issue with the fringe views should be clear to the reader if that edit is done. Anonimski (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't remove content, but add the other side's view. That is, if you can't actually show the former is fringe (which seems to be the case). <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 23:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Judging by his excessively low NDH deaths figure, Jurčević's views verge on holocaust denial. So he should be excluded as an unreliable and fringe source. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not by our judgement alone. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 04:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, Jurčević is really not important here so we might as well leave him out, but what about Bešker and Budak? GregorB (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What about them? I myself don't oppose you adding their views, but I do oppose any removal of content on grounds as spurious as expressed above. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 09:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Bešker edits CW so he is in a conflict of interest. Budak's statement that Nitko nije radio ozbiljnu analizu hrvatske Wikipedije is false in the light of a recent study that has been added to the article. Budak's statement that dojam je da je taj broj devijantnih članaka vrlo mali u odnosu na ukupnu hrvatsku Wikipediju i da to nije neki ozbiljniji problem Wikipedije is subjective and thus worthless. What is small according to him? Even few % amounts to thousands of articles. The argument was never that CW was in general unreliable and revisionist - only in articles dealing with problematic parts of Croatian history and identity. Given that Budak doesn't seem to have inspected the issue thoroughly or even read the disputed articles, and that his remarks are in vague and general terms, his opinion should be discarded as well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bešker's CW status does not give him any benefits, which precludes a possible conflict of interest. And yes, Budak's line of reasoning is similar to Bešker's, it misses the point and we all know why. But this is all irrelevant because surely you as experienced Wikipedians know WP is about verifiability, not truth. I'm against removal of any content on these grounds: I'm merely pointing out the fact that, when hr wiki is concerned, people do disagree, reliable sources attest to that, and the article should reflect this fact. I believe you are all familiar with my position on the hr wiki controversy, but the article is supposed to say how things are, not to reveal the "truth". GregorB (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @"..which precludes a possible conflict of interest." Nonsense; if the person has invested effort in the project its in his interest to see it valued as much as possible. I did not know the man was an editor, but if he is, that's clear WP:THIRDPARTY.


 * I'm not sure re Budak. In-line attribution ("Budak's personal opinion is that..") might be ok. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 16:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, but all of the sources are subject to scrutiny and contextualization. If the only support that CW can muster are a holocaust denier, on of its own editors and a person who has barely taken a cursory look at the issue - then the controversy section should be left unbalanced. I remain unconvinced. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If Bešker genuinely believed hr wiki had a pro-fascist bias, then his interest in the project being valued as much as possible would make him criticize it (which is what many actually did, having the same goal) and not defend it. He has just 569 edits there, so it's not as if he's become one with hr wiki.
 * Anyway, this more or less exhausts what I had to say. I have no opinion on keeping or removing the POV section banner. GregorB (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrator vote controversy
During the current vote for new administrators on the Croatian Wikipedia, there has been controversy regarding some of the users who voted against new administrators.

There is ample reason to believe that many of the users who voted against the proposed admins (they voted in alignment with the opinion of all the current - controversial - administrators) are actually sockpuppet accounts of current administrators. Apart from very similar observed behavior of those alleged sockpuppet accounts (from very similar patterns of editing, similar patterns of interaction with other users and long periods of inactivity just to come out of hibernation when a vote is taking place), there is also the fact that one of the alleged sockpuppet accounts mistakenly copy-pasted content from an email wherein he/she were instructing his/her friends "how to vote". The alleged sockpuppet account mistakenly posted the message on the page of a current administrator, a person with whom he/she has not had any interaction on Wikipedia thus far.

Although the wrongly pasted content had no private information relating to real-life people, the content was not only reverted, but also deleted by an administrator of the Croatian Wikipedia, suggesting that the content was indeed incriminating - as was obvious from the moment the user posted it - and that it was an attempt at damage control.

What is the proper course of action if one wanted to raise attention to the behavior of the administrator of Croatian Wikipedia? Or if one were to request a CheckUser on them? 93.136.21.246 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, this topic is more suited for the Metawiki project, I believe. - Anonimski (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a link to the old discussion - but you can try asking someone who's been active there, for example Miranche: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/2013_issues_on_Croatian_Wikipedia

Neutrality ′n′ stuff
This article is just spitting on the Croatian Wikipedia. You can only read negative stuff and nothing positive! MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * kind of, yes, we are giving random Facebook trolls a voice here. But some of it is reported by reliable sources so it may be included. w umbolo   ^^^  16:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , you're quite right, the article does generally follow what the sources say (as it should), but I believe what is objecting to is a lack of balance. See my earlier remarks in  above. GregorB (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear and ! :)
 * Compare the article to others, you can't read anything about the users, the community or most topics! You can only read something about the stuff that happend back in 2013. --MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Croatian wikipedia is facist and article Jasenovac is perfect example of that. They just reduced number of killed by factor of 80. And administrator Željko on his facebook page is Ustaša and saluting to image of ante pavelić. 5.133.145.51 (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Croatian Wikipedia really makes me doubt about the whole project. They describe Auschwitz as a camp site and Nazi collaborators in Croatia as a force for good. It’s shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A01:2400:F9C6:A52B:3D8C:46F8 (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, administrator and bureaucrat of hr.wiki, got globally banned, see m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Kubura. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Split
I think that this controversy deserves its own article. Crocusfleur (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think that more content needs to be added before considering a split. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)