Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. obvious consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josip Pečarić

Josip Pečarić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, factual accuracy disputed, no primary resources. The article written as an advertisement. For details: see the talk page Vujkovica brdo (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 18:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
David Eppstein is a professional mathematician. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
No, he is not.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is presumably paid a salary for performing as such. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
It's a borderline case. My appointment is in computer science, not mathematics. But it's very much the mathematical end of CS, and I have degrees in both subjects. And even if one disagrees with our article theoretical computer science's claim that TCS is math, a significant minority of my publications are in subjects like graph theory that are clearly math not CS. Anyway, I don't think it should matter here and I don't particularly care what Vb thinks of me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mean
    WP:WAX. Arguing about credentials of editors here is even more pointless. Anyway, I note that Todorčević is Serbian, and I really really hope that this kerfuffle has nothing to do with continuing Serb-Croat rivalry. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You're welcome to have your own idiosyncratic standards for who is a serious mathematician and who is a poseur, but the rest of us here have
    WP:IAC relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Changing to Neutral for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my response to Epstein's comment I elaborated why #C1 and #C3 are not substantiated. Now let me touch the national awards may be good enough for #C2. The Annual State Award for Sciences (1997), and the Order of Danica Hrvatska are awards given by a political body (to Pecaric), not by academia. There is no clear idea publicly given what the Award an the Order given for, 'cause we cannot see even what are original Pecaric's contributions to mathematics, if any. Out of 1000 articles he boasts with, he authored solely no more than dozen of them, all the rest are co-authored. Going back to Todorcevic, we can read inside the Stevo Todorcevic (Toronto) receives 2012 CRM-Fields-PIMS Prize clear academic explanation of his work the prize was given for. Therefore #C2 is not substantiated by strict academic means.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There may be some additional BLP and
    WP:FRINGE case here, then perhaps the situation needs to be re-evaluated from scratch. It would be helpful if the nominator stayed out of the discussion for the moment, to keep things calm and prevent another escalation. But I would really like to hear what other discussion participants think. Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If the subject has engaged in Neo-Nazi advocacy, this would make him more notable, not less. But the material should be added to the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
WP:NPOV. However, with the sources as we have them, particularly with the apparent scarcity of English language sources, it would be very difficult to write something that is properly sourced, neutral, and BLP compliant. We may be better off deleting the entire article. Nsk92 (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm glad to see that the discussion of this subject becomes focused to the facts. One of the facts is that "the international journal, Mathematical Inequalities and Applications" Pecaric founded is not the international one, rather a Croatian journal in English funded by Croatian government. Most of the 1000 articles he co-authored are published in the same journal of which he is editor-in-chief. The statement He is considered "...a great name in the theory of inequality" from the article Main work section comes from Pecaric himself. Pecaric claims, in the interview given to one of his students who authored the Pecaric's Wikipedia biography, that the statement about his "greatness" came from some unidentified reference journals from 1990-ies.

Now about
WP:FRINGE and Pecaric's Non-fiction books ( "Pečarić has authored numerous newspaper articles and books dealing with journalistic and historical topics" the article says). All his books (or better "books") are self-published. What kind of (pseudo)historic topics he handled in his books is possible to locate from the book titles: Priznajem, Hrvat sam! (I admit, I am Croat!), Serbian myth about Jasenovac, Književnik Mile Budak sada i ovdje (Mile Budak, the writer, now and here) etc. Croatian investigative journalist D. Pilsel wrote in his Sveti Ante Pavelic article that Pecaric, during his unsuccessful career in Belgrade (my words), used to identify himself as a Serb. Moved to Croatia thanks to support and help he got from his father-in-law who was an influential Jugoslav People's Army officer. In his book about Mile Budak he attacked the "haters" of the Croatian people, i.e. all those who were demanding removal of the street named after Mile Budak and the Budak's monuments erected in Croatian towns and cities. Pecaric, in order to substantiate his attacks, claimed that Budak did not sign Independent Sate of Croatia racial laws, Budak just applied them, therefore Budak is not the war criminal. Pilsel referenced the document showing that Budak signed that infamous law ( Narodne novine from 4. june 1941. with full text of the racist law titled as "Zakonske odredbe o zaštiti narodne i arijske kulture hrvatskog naroda" signed by Budak)

I've spent some short time to review his book "Zločinački sud u Haagu" (The criminal Hague Court). One of the book sections contains a short rant against the Hague Court. This rant was earlier a content of some blog, signed by 260 anonymous people, then commented by readers. Some of the comments were unintelligible or meaningless. Pecaric copied the whole blog content and pasted in his book.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
None of the things in your first paragraph is particularly relevant here. This is not about whether he is a great mathematician. It is not about whether he has issued self-congratulatory statements. It is not about whether some of his publications may be puffed up from not much. It is not about the overall strength of the Croatian academy. If those things can be sourced to reliable publications, they can be included in the article; otherwise no. But none of them addresses the question we are actually trying to consider here: does he meet Wikipedia's
our policy on biographies of living people. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd like to discuss the issues of factual accuracy disputed, no primary resources type particular to this biography with someone who is a professional mathematician as I were for 40 years. My first paragraph is all about it. Moreover the
WP:PROF#C8 is about the notability and a reason for addressing the "the international journal, Mathematical Inequalities and Applications". This is not the first case where you attacked me accusing me for not following this or that Wikipedia rule, irrelevant to the discussion. I'm going to ignore you here for good.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Given your apparent refusal to admit areas of mathematics you feel snobbish about as being true mathematics, I don't think you're going to find anyone you recognize as a true mathematician to talk to here. There is at least one Fields medalist who regularly edits Wikipedia, but I've never seen him contribute to deletion discussions and I don't care to bother him about this. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we can separately discuss his potential academic notability from his fringe politics; if he is notable for the one, we can keep the article regardless of the other. I don't have a well informed view on his political opinions other than that the article does not succeed in demonstrating their notability — merely having published books is not the same as being notable for them. If this article is kept, but no evidence for notability for his non-mathematical works is uncovered, we should consider removing the list of them from the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A difficult issue. Subject passes
    WP:Prof, but should the English Wikipedia be allowed to be used as a battleground for Balkan politics? I disregard the nominator's arguments as I do not see evidence that he has mathematical qualifications. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a Pečarić's interview "KAKO JE BILO BITI HRVAT-MATEMATIČAR U BEOGRADU" (What was it like to be Croatian - mathematician in Belgrade). A funny stuff. Read it if you know serbo-croatian. From this interview it's visible that a negative view of Pečarić's math credentials had Đuro Kurepa and his PhD student Miroslav Asic, late mathematics professor at Ohio State University when Pečarić appled for a teaching position at Belgrade University . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.78.167 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is spa 178.223.78.167 a sock of the nom? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Pečarić is a full member of the Croatian Acadamy of Sciences and Arts (HAZU) - more specifically, the Dept. of Mathematical, Physical and Chemical Sciences, which is limited to 24 members per the Academy's statute. I believe that this constitutes a membership in a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association", and that Pečarić therefore meets
    WP:GNG is met too. (Also, I'm not aware of any previous instance in which a full HAZU member's bio has been challenged - let alone deleted - on the grounds of notability.) Therefore, I'd say Pečarić is Wikipedia-notable (as opposed to just real-world-notable, which we're not discussing here and is something else entirely). GregorB (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josip_Pečarić&oldid=1077964592"