Talk:Zoran Janković (politician)

Title of the article
Is "economist" really the most appropriate designation for Janković. Isn't "Manager" much better, since is that what he is? Viator slovenicus 09:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well now he's president-elect of Slovenia and has been mayor of Ljubljana for the past 5 years, so maybe (manager) isn't the right term, either... --Ioscius ∞ 20:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I'm thinking of moving the article simply to Zoran Janković, as he is the most notable of all of them. --Eleassar my talk 21:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Article moved in a proper manner. --Tone 10:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Zoran Janković (manager) → Zoran Janković – The subject of the article has been elected the mayor of Ljubljana twice and according to preliminary results of the early Slovenian presidential election in 2011 the prime-minister of Slovenia. I think he is much more notable than other people with the same name so should be moved to Zoran Janković. See also the discussion in the previous section on this talk page. Eleassar my talk 21:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. --Tone 21:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, once confirmation of the parliamentary election results are in. Head of Government clearly a primary topic above these other more minor figures. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (just undid copy&paste move). --Sporti (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aftermath
The political story did not unfold as predicted, and Special:WhatLinksHere/Zoran Janković does not support claim of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - too many exceptions to dismiss, it's a very generic name, so I'm thinking of reverting this move in good faith. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Having a quick look at the links, almost all of them, save two or three, point to him. Prime minister or not, he is still much better known than the other people with the same name (at least those with the articles). Article traffic statistics support that fact, though this is not a definite guideline. --Tone 08:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Zoran_Jankovi%C4%87 shows a total of 1129 views, with a one-day spike on the 2012-02-26 (195 views that day), mostly averaging around 40 views a day
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Zoran_Jankovi%C4%87_%28footballer%29 says a total of 360, with no spikes, mostly averaging around 12 a day
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Zoran%20Jankovi%C4%87%20%28water%20polo%29 says total 68 hits, averaging around 2 a day
 * This is with the politician on the primary position - so all ambiguous hits first reach this article. So, that clearly indicates to me that the politician is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC already - 1129/(1129+360+68) => 72.5%, already below typical consensus threshold. When we lose the one-day spike, the daily comparison is 40/(40+12+2) => 74.1%.
 * I think it would be good to move this article to have the " (politician)" suffix at this point, leaving the redirect pointing here, so that statistics become clearer - that will give us a better overview of how many people came to the politician through unambiguous links. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that we can count some of the ambiguous ones - http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Zoran%20Jankovi%C4%87%20%28disambiguation%29 shows 101 views. So there's a definite 101/1129 (including the one-day spike...) = 8.9% loss at this point. I'd wager it's actually higher. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost six months later, the same statistics are: 771 hits here (a few spikes 36-38 per day), 362 hits at the footballer (one spike at 24 per day), 208 hits at the water polo player (one spike at 21 per day), 75 hits at the disambiguation page. It's pretty clear now - the politician isn't really the primary topic. They're the most popular entry, so they should be listed first on the disambiguation page, but they aren't WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversies section
I completely agree with the edits made by User:Eleassar, inserting the information from the "Controversy and charges of nepotism" in the previous sections: when I opened this section, I was unaware of Wp policies regarding the issue. However, several information could still be put there: here I mean those which don't logically fit elsewhere. For example, does it really make sense to mention Jure's matura exam controversy in the "Manager" section, since it doesn't have anything to do with it? Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Also: why was the mention of his controversial statement when entering into politics ("My wife told me: 'Make sure things like this don't happen to the kids any more'") removed? I think the fact that his nepotism is a recurrent theme in Slovenian public life (including in satire) is important and has encyclopedic value. Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What about Janez Janša? That article should have the section 'Charges of autocracy' then. Due to WP:STRUCTURE, I don't think this is the way to go. There are two aspects that should be fixed IMO:
 * The section heading 'Charges of nepotism' - 'charge' is a legal term - a formal accusation. A more neutral heading should be used. Probably it would make sense to create another section called 'Personal life' and put the things related to his family and his hobbies there (including him being a subject of allegiations of nepotism and of satire).
 * Mayor of Ljubljana - the majority of the section is negative, and more information about the projects he realised etc. should be given. --Eleassar my talk 10:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the controversial statement you mention, I've tried to find it in the history of the article using WikiBlame, but was unable to. Perhaps it was formulated differently? --Eleassar my talk 10:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss Janković's article on this page and Janša's on his (and btw, there's plenty of harsh criticism included in his article). I have nothing against deleting the section "Charges of nepotism", if all of the content is meaningfully included in other sections. The problem is how to do it in a meaningful way ... I don't think the "personal life" section would do. Accusations of abusing power to benefit family members is not exactly personal life, is it? The issue is precisely that these issues are part of his public role. If the majority of the section on "Mayor of Ljubljana" is negative, the way to go is to add information about his achievements (although, mind you, many of the achievements were accompanied by criticism). As for the statement: unfortunately, I haven't found it transcribed, but you can listen to it integrally in the video in the sources (the very last part of the documentary intro, before the studio discussion). For the time being, I think we can change the title of the controversial section. I hope we can resolve other issues a.s.a.p. I don't think the divergences are so big as to justify the non-NPOV tag. Best wishes & happy New Year, Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I misunderstood what you meant with the quote. Anyway, don't worry, I've reinserted it in a different phrasing. Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tried to merge the contents of the disputed section with this and this edit, but you have reverted me twice without a proper rationale. Anyway, leaving this aside, my opinion is that the "influence as businessman" sentence should be merged to 'Career as manager', the "what made him decide to run for the Slovenian Parliamentary election" sentence should be merged to "Entry into state politics", and the "Janković's alleged nepotism has become a source for political satire" sentence could be included into a new section "Public image and perception", or to the lead as part of a longer paragraph on the public perception of Janković (for both possibilities, see George W. Bush). --Eleassar my talk 11:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A Public perception section makes sense here, as most of the above things fit there. --Tone 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, the George W. Bush article seems to offer a good example on how to do it. I also agree with Eleassar's proposals as where to include the sentences, with one exception: the controversy around Jure Janković's matura exam doesn't really fit th ine "Career as Manager" section - sure, it fits chronologically, but it doesn't make much sense, as it is not connected with Janković's business career. It is, however, connected to his public image. So I'd suggest to include it in a "Public Perception" section, which should be expanded as to include both positive and negative evaluations. Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we've reached an agreement, so I've removed the POV tag. I've added the section "Public image and perception": most of the accusations of nepotism are still there, in a special sub-section, but of course you can insert the information there in the other section as we have agreed in the discussion. Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Large Serbian minority
"Nevertheless, Ljubljana's mayor enjoys considerable electoral support, principally from the large Serbian minority in Ljubljana, due to his own Serb heritage"

The citation for this claim is from a German news article. Is this a reliable source? Did anyone care to check it? There is also a problem with it. The Serbian minority in Ljubljana couldn't vote for him, even if they could, since they're not Slovenes and only Slovene citizens have voting rights. Maybe it should say he has support from Slovenes with Serbian heritage?

In any case, the statement is unwarranted, adds no information to the article, was probably written by some bitter Slovene who hates Serbians in Ljubljana (as many do) and should be removed.

If nothing else, I'll remove the citation and add a 'citation needed' tag. Because if you agree with nothing that I said, you should at least agree that a German news article from Die Presse is not a valid and reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.58.58.201 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)