Talk:Josip Pečarić

Regarding the phrase "Theory of inequalities"

The phrase mentioned above is used quite persistently in this article, but appears neither here, nor here. Does such a theory exist in mathematics? EDIT: also see List of mathematical theories and Mathematical theory.

I propose using just "Inequalities" instead of "Theory of inequalities". Notrium (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You can put "theory of" in from of just about anything in mathematics, and I think the usage is fine. It's a little bit clunky, but I only see it used twice in the article (once in the infobox). Perhaps remove the line from the infobox (where it doesn't seem so helpful anyway), but keep the phrase in the article? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe: I am dissatisfied by the fact that the phrase is wikilinked to just Inequality (mathematics) in the article, which to me seems confusing, but also kind of feels like one's been deceived after clicking on the link, on accord of no such theory being mentioned in the article on inequalities. What do you think about that, is the fault in the wikilink in this article, or in the article on Inequalities? Notrium (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's generally ok for "theory of foo" or "foo theory" to link to an article on foo. But perhaps you would like it better if it read "theory of inequalities" in the article? That seems like a perfectly reasonable adjustment. We could also rephrase as "Pečarić is known for his work on inequalities", though I like that less well. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Banach Journal of Mathematical Analysis Pečarić interview

The article currently relies exclusively on the above mentioned source for a couple of statements.

WP:BLP says: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source."

How is it then acceptable to rely on the source so heavily considering that it is a primary source and an interview, so all or almost all the information comes from Pečarić himself, and that Moslehian is very plausibly biased, considering he writes that the interview was written over the span of three conferences all over the world, and the fact that the journal is not well known. Actually, in any other circumstance if somebody were the only one to publish such praise on somebody else, suspicions of bias would be heavy. One particular point of contention has been the "a great name in the theory of inequality" quote that Moslehian does not attribute to anyone.

Please discuss to what extent is the source usable. Notrium (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY, it's ok to use a primary source like the interview or his faculty profile page for routine biographical details or easily verifiable factual statements. See especially WP:PRIMARYCARE. I think that the thing you're concerned about in the current article is "Pečarić is known for his work in the theory of inequalities." As Moslehian says that about Pečarić, for that purpose the interview is secondary; anyway, the statement is backed by his publication and citation record. I don't see any problem here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

TODO: some integration of sourced content is needed from Stjepan Razum

About their joint Holocaust revisionism work. Notrium (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikilinks in book titles

Notrium, you've been adding wikilinks in the title of books to the subject of the book. I'm a little concerned that it might violate the "principle of least astonishment": someone clicking on the link might expect to be taken to an online copy of the book, rather than a wikipedia article. (We also should not link to online copies of the book, per WP:FRINGE and WP:LINKSTOAVOID.) What do others think? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Those aren't links to the books' subject, but rather links from a word or phrase in the title of the book to the English Wikipedia article on that term. It's meant as an aid to persons who are not speakers of the language or are not accustomed to some terms from culture. I'd say there is no astonishment (at least in my case) because the links are just in titles, rather than covering the entire title.

Suppose I or somebody else tried to translate entire titles to English, do you think the links would then be appropriate in the translated titles? Notrium (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_be_linked agrees with me that those links are useful, but I guess the "intuitiveness" section is under dispute. My links are not really intuitive, in the sense that the reader may not know where they will take her, but that's kind of the point, to redirect to English if the reader does not speak Serbo-Croat. I think this quote in particular communicates permissibility of my usage: "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense." Notrium (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I would not link words in book or article titles for the same reason I would not link words in direct quotations (MOS:LWQ). I am also puzzled by the link [[Marko Perković|Thompson]] since we do have Thompson (band). --JBL (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Notrium, I see your concern. What do you and JBL think about the following suggestion: Right now the article has a list of 29 political publications of Pečarić, of uneven notability. I think we discuss about 4 of them in "Political views and historical negationism" section of the article. Why don't we trim the list down to those 4 or so, and improve their presentation? One aspect of improved presentation might be to include translated titles. And then presumably key words would be already be linked in the article section, making links in titles unnecessary. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. --JBL (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability - new and old unanswered questions

Boring sockpuppetry. --JBL (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pecaric hailed as a great Croatian mathematician. Field - inequalities. The ICM does not list inequalities as a field of mathematics, no one was ever invited to represent their research results at any of the ICM, the most prestigious research institutions (Fields Institute, Princeton IAS, etc) never ever had a research positions about inequalities. In short - inequalities are a marginal field where number of works grows twofold every ten years. Now, back to Pecaric. He co-authored 1200+ articles and books and authored only five articles. His contributions to that field cannot be judged from any of the articles and books since it is not possible to separate it from the works of the other co-authors. Also, there is no detailed appraisal of his academic achievements in the named field. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. In addition, many of his articles are published in a journal he is editor in chief of. Most recently, I noticed that his co-athor of some articles is his daughter Djilda, a person not educated in mathematics at a four year college level. So, which way Pecaric is a notable mathematician? Moreover, he wrote cca 100 books covering Croatian contemporary politics, history and life. Four of these books are about convicted war criminals (Praljak, Kordic, etc) where those criminals were hailed as highly human,honest, patriotic people - perfect candidates for the Nobel peace prize. Another several books are about the Ustashe and Independent State of Croatia. All books mentioned above are flatly rejected by the leading Croatian historians (Klasic, Jakovina, Jareb, Goldstajn son and father). Then there are three books titled "Pisem pisma, odgovora nema" where he formulated his dissatisfactions with Croatian government, Croatian parliament, Academy of science and art, Zagreba university. Bottom line - all his great ideas how to fix the burning problems of the Croatian society were ignored by the above mentioned bodies and institutions - he complains. Then a number of other books of autobiographical content where he portrays himself as a politically persecuted person: his daughter not promoted into assistant professor at Zagreb university, his research project in inequalities ranked 19 out of 25 financed by the Government, his access to the national level media blocked, etc. All his non-math books are self published or published by the Element Publishing Company financed by the Government, previously dedicated to inequalities only. The bottom line is marginality which is in some way notable. 2A0D:3344:15D1:AA00:70A5:E85B:8FA2:58E5 (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Between full membership in the Croatian Academy, a solid citation record, the conferences and festschrift in his honor, and some reasonably solid looking awards, I am confident that the subject here passes WP:NPROF. (You can feel free to register an account and nominate for deletion if you disagree.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Well, if they're the repeatedly-blocked sockpuppeteer who initiated the previous AfD, they are not actually welcome to register another account. But otherwise, yes. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC) A solid citation record of what? What is the list of Pecaric's research achievements in mathematics? Solved a long time standing math problem? Proved a math hypothesis validity? Introduced a new math object? Or anything else? I am not aware of any detailed appraisal of his research leading to the Academy membership. Some reasonably looking awards? There is only one given to him for his math teaching achievements (?) for over a 6 year period. The award was given to him by Croatian government what for? Wrote a textbook widely used at many universities? Established an effective math teaching approach? Or something else? I was able to find only a few negative appraisals of his mathematics. A detailed review of his initial version of his PhD thesis what led to the thesis rejection. In an article review S. Dragomir accused Pecaric and co-authors for plagiarism. His first attempt to get an assistant professor position at Belgrade university was failure. Then, what about his daughter Djilda co-authorship of his math articles? Could you, please, use the list of the selected books and articles given in this biography to point at Pecaric's academic breakthroughs (research, educational) in mathematics? If any. Or tell us about the list selection criteria. 2A0D:3344:15D1:AA00:F597:1F00:560B:E35D (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Pecaric's 200th nonfiction book!

Akademik Pečarić napisao dvjestotu publicističku knjigu: ‘Thompson – najznačajniji živući Hrvat’

Translation:

Academician Pečarić wrote the 200th nonfiction book: "Thompson - the most significant living Croat"

Hahaha!

More at

https://narod.hr/hrvatska/akademik-pecaric-napisao-dvjestotu-publicisticku-knjigu-thompson-najznacajniji-zivuci-hrvat

Even more at

https://direktno.hr/zivot/zabava/akademik-izdao-knjigu-o-glazbeniku-thompson-je-najznacajniji-zivuci-hrvat-356984/

Također, Pečarić smatra da pozdrav "Za dom spremni" mora biti proglašen službenim u Hrvatskoj vojsci, ali i zaštićen kao "nematerijalna kulturna baština". Pečarić je u ovu knjigu uključio gotovo sve svoje kolumne, komentare i tekstove, što na portalima, što na društvenim mrežama.

Translation:

Also, Pečarić believes that the "Za dom spremni" salute must be declared official in the Croatian Army, but also protected as "intangible cultural heritage". Pečarić included almost all his columns, comments and texts in this book, some on portals, some on social networks.

Hahaha!