Talk:Snježana Kordić

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Snježana Kordić is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women scientists (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

POV[edit]

One might say that the article in whole suffers from POV problems, but I've limited myself to the "Monograph on language and nationalism in Croatia (2010)" section. To say simply that:

The monograph has received a lot of media attention.

is a substantial distortion. The book received severe (albeit not universal) criticism and created a major controversy. Even if some (most?) of it could be attributed to the right-wing critics, the absence of this information leaves the impression that Kordić's book (and her work in general) has mainstream acceptance, which is not nearly true. GregorB (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hallo GregorB, thanks for your suggestions. I’ve now added a new passage on criticism, as you proposed. The sentence you cited has now been moved to the new passage. I’ve also added some new references. I hope that the article is now much more in accordance with the Wiki-guidelines. Best regards, Darigon Jr. (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Much better now, so I've removed the tag. Thank you for your effort. GregorB (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, the problem now is that it's in the lead!  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

POV 2[edit]

Although I agree with Ms. Kordić's sociolinguistic positions (in fact they are so straightforward and adopted outside Croatia that restating them in book form seems derivative and banal to a linguists acquainted with elementary basics of sociolinguistics such as myself), one should point out that this looks like a vanity article. We don't usually state how many interviews a biographic article subject has given, and we certainly don't list links to them all in a dedicated subsection. Subsections "Education" and (clumsily titled) "Appointments" should be merged under the title "Career" or something like that. We also don't need to have separate subsections for each of the three books she published, and we don't need seven verbatim reviews for her books from sources which are not even notable enough to have their own Wiki articles. And we certainly don't need a catalogue of 57 related links in the See also section. And there is a lot of context missing (saying that her book was "among the five titles nominated for book of the decade in the field of peacebuilding, nonviolence and human rights." is meaningless without saying by whom; the article calls her critics "right-wing sides" which is pretty vague as not even Kordić describes them as such - she refers to those as "jezikoslovci" or "kroatisti" or perhaps "nacionalisti" at best; also, saying that "an association of persons" tried filing a lawsuit is equally vague and meaningless). The overall effect is that the article looks like it was written by Kordić herself, or by somebody who has a crush on her (or the concepts she writes about) - which is probably much more likely. Can't we just stick with who she is, what she does, what she is notable for and the effect her work has had? Timbouctou (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you apply the suggested fixes yourself? I agree it's an atypical biographical article that needs to be rewritten and trimmed in parts. But that's not a POV issue but rather that of MOS. Both positive and negative aspects of Kordić's work are mentioned AFAICS.
Regarding right-wingers - purism in Croatia is not an exclusive a domain of right-wing language fascists, but purism as such is generally associated with right-wingers, and all right-wingers are either sympathetic or openly espouse it, and all of them oppose Kordić's ideas. Citations could be provided for that if necessary. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It would be very necessary, for every detail of that. If it's true, it's probably important to include, but that's a lot of nested assertions and generalizations, some of which are not necessarily easy to take at face value. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing."  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh... The article has been on my to-do list for quite a while. WP:FANCRUFT is a rather pronounced problem. Isolated POV statements are normally easy to fix, but this requires significant work. GregorB (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, but it's salvageable by focusing on tone and relevance cleanup. This is largely written like a magazine article, for people who already understand a lot about Croatian socio-politics.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

POV 3[edit]

Unfortunately, since 2012 the article has apparently attracted even more puff and fairly blatant POV. Some examples (not necessarily all introduced in this period):

  • "Each of her books on syntactic issues has got more positive reviews from around the world than any other linguistic book published in Croatia" - right away in the second sentence of the article, not moderated by the fact that most linguistic books by Croatian authors are written in Croatian and therefore do not receive global coverage.
  • "Kordic has been the target of criticism from some partisans". I don't care for sarcasm, but my first thought here was "of course".
  • Extensive use of quoting: as many as 8 blockquotes, all praising Kordić, and zero blockquotes from detractors.
  • Huge "See also" section.
  • Huge EL/Media interviews section.

The article needs to be toned down significantly. To be fair, obviously a great deal of effort has gone into sourcing. More effort should be invested into eliminating puffery and balancing points of view. GregorB (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Gregor, since 2012, only two sentences beside new references have been added, each of them is now being thematised by you:
  • Her praised books on syntactic issues Relativna rečenica (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska and Hrvatsko filološko društvo 1995) and Riječi na granici punoznačnosti (Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada 2002) are written in her mother tongue and published in Croatia. The reviews refer only to that Croatian edition (see Linguistic Bibliography for the years 1996–2008). So, there is no reason for the objection that the second sentence of the article is "not moderated by the fact that most linguistic books by Croatian authors are written in Croatian and therefore do not receive global coverage". By the way, the academician who is considered the most famous Croatian linguist, Dalibor Brozović wanted to deny this fact by listing in the Vijenac foreign reviews of his most famous book Standardni jezik, but it turned out that he had less foreign reviews than Kordić. In the introduction of the WP-article, it is reasonable to inform about such unusually numerous and positive reception of her syntactic books in professional journals worldwide, because this is an important information. It is a fact, not a POV issue. There is no single critical review on these books.
  • The sentence "Kordic has been the target of criticism from some partisans" has been written by a user from the USA. I don't see a problem. If there is something wrong with the writing style, please make a concrete suggestion.
  • All quotes are originally in English and they have been published in scientific journals. If you find a negative review published in English in a scientific journal, please feel free to add it. As I have already said, there is no critical review on her syntactic books. While on the subject, the right-wing Croatian and Serbian critics on her last sociolinguistic book has been described in the article, as you suggested.
  • The See-also-section can not be a POV: if Kordić has been mentioned in an article, "see also" refers to that article. It is the function of the See-also-section.
  • All interviews in the Media-interviews-section deal with her scientific theses and not with private matters. Therefore, this section can be usefull. Recently, its presentation form has been reduced, so that you see only a few lines, and who is more interested in interviews can still see them.
Best regards, --Darigon Jr. (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected on the issue of the language of her books. Still, the article seems to rush a bit with the praise. (Cf. Noam Chomsky, where we learn that he was the most cited scholar only in the third paragraph, not in the second sentence.)
  • It is not OK to dismiss all of her critics as nothing more than "partisans" in a sweeping, generalized statement which is rather loosely supported by the given source. Granted, many of them are partisans, but IIRC she was criticized by Mato Kapović, a linguist who shares some of her views and who cannot be even remotely described as a nationalist or a right-winger. (I have a feeling that, in Croatia, saying anything positive about her work is almost a career suicide for a government-employed linguist (nearly all of them), and the issue is fairly complex, which is why I feel that black-and-white approach does not help.)
  • Regarding the extent of critical views of her work in Croatia, I'll check if more sources are available.
  • The "See also" section is not meant to be an equivalent of "What links here" - see WP:SEEALSO. A big "See also" section creates the impression of artificially trying to inflate the importance of the subject. Again, cf. "See also" section in Noam Chomsky.
  • Regarding the interview section, the same applies regarding the impression of the subject's importance. Yet again, cf. Noam Chomsky, a public intellectual who has given a mind-boggling number of interviews. While the scrolling list is less conspicuous, my understanding is that MOS:SCROLL advises against it. GregorB (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
GregorB, I honestly appreciate your countless constructive edits and your calm personality. I agree "that, in Croatia, saying anything positive about her work is almost a career suicide for a government-employed linguist (nearly all of them)". And it must also be borne in mind that Kapović's immediate superior is the nephew of Brozović (R. Matasović). Nevertheless, Kordić only points out Kapović in a positive manner. But his classmate Aleksandar Hut Kono replied to him.
Of course, the "See also" section is not meant to be an equivalent of "What links here" – there are already some links that are not in the See also. And now I have additionally deleted a few less important links in See also. The links in the "See also" section are relevant because they refer to the topics researched by Kordić. They are also useful as Kordić deals with narrowly specialized issues and links allow users to form a better understanding of what Kordić does. In accordance with WP:SEEALSO "Consider using {{Columns-list}} or {{Div col}} if the list is lengthy", the See also section is divided into three columns. As for the mention of the high-quality article Noam Chomsky, WP:SEEALSO says that "many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section" at all. Personally, I am very sorry that editors did not bother to provide more links in See also and more interviews with Chomsky.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur with every word of what GregorB outlined above, both originally and in his response.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: does this article have a POV problem?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that there is a POV problem. AlbinoFerret 14:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There has been a bit of a dispute over whether this article has a POV problem or not, and I feel the issue is not fully settled, so I'd like to have a wider input on the following questions:

  1. Generally speaking, does this article have a problem with neutrality (POV, balance or promotional tone)?
  2. In particular, is using the {{POV}} tag on the article as it currently stands warranted or not?

For arguments for and against, I'd recommend taking a look at the earlier talk page discussion. GregorB (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes. Starting right from the second sentence. (Summoned by bot.) МандичкаYO 😜 01:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. I agree that the problems start immediately, in the second sentence. This article is full of WP:PEACOCK. Also has other copyediting issues; that "has got" construction is juvenile writing, and illogical use of grammar: Her books books are inanimate and can't go "get" something. This bit can just be entirely deleted: "It attracted a great deal of media attention: Kordić gave over forty interviews". We don't declare that things attracted a great deal of media attention. That's subjective, and original research, unless a reliable, independent, secondary source tells us that it attracted a "great deal" of media attention, and we'd need to directly quote and attribute such an emotive statement. We extract from noteworthy coverage and cite it, not remark in wonder that it happened. Whether someone gave lots of interviews is pure WP:TRIVIA; it's not encyclopedically relevant. I've given hundreds of interviews (in a professional capacity, just like Kordić and many, many academics, spokespeople, CEOs, etc., etc.) but that doesn't mean I deserve an article, much less one that goes on about the fact that I answered press calls. [rolling eyes]  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

    Revision: If "attracted a great deal of media attention: Kordić gave over forty interviews" were replaced with "generated significant controversy and media coverage", that would help the lead section a lot; the "forty interviews" bit can go in the section on the book itself. "Kordić has been the target of criticism from some partisans" is a bit vague; it's more important to the reader to explain the nature and source of this criticism than to go on about how much press she's getting. We already know she's famous/notable, or we wouldn't have an article on her, right? What the typical en.wikipedia reader doesn't know, here, is why anything about Croatian language would be controversial, and why that controversy would be focused on her.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  • No. As it reads today, I don't see an obvious POV problem. It's actually pretty dry. It is overwhelmingly positive toward the subject, but that could be because she has done overwhelmingly good things; I don't know the topic well enough (I don't know it at all) to know if that's true. The "reception" section contains only positive reception, but that doesn't mean negative things have been left out because of POV of the author. Straining to find negative things in the name of balance is just another form of bias. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes Summoned by bot. The entire thing reads like a CV, it's predominantly a WP:QUOTEFARM, and the wording choices don't seem to portray her in a neutral light. For example: "Kordić is famous outside the strictly linguistic public" first "famous" is probably non neutral, especially since I've never heard of any of her work inside linguistic circles." Lists of "Selected Publications" are inherently non-neutral as they represent what an editor thinks is best, rather than an actual look at their whole body of work. I think a POV template is waranted, but whether it is or isn't, this article is not encyclopedic by a wide margin due to its lack of WP:NPOV. I also echo pretty much all of what SMcCandlish said above and below. Wugapodes (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Hi SMcCandlish, here's one source telling us that it attracted a great deal of media attention: in the philological journal "Riječ" on page 186, [1] the reviewer says: "the book attracted a great deal of attention, not only in Croatia but also in the other post-Yugoslav countries and in other countries. This is evidenced by a great number of interviews and reactions in the mass media: newspapers, radio, television, web portals and blogs (Zarez; Večernji list; Nacional; Novosti; Dani; Danas; Federalna novinska agencija; Slobodna Dalmacija; NIN; H-alter; Dan; Vijesti; Novi list; Globus; Slobodna Bosna; Jutarnji list; Vreme; Pečat; Akter; Peščanik; Delo; Frankfurter Rundschau; Kristeligt Dagblad; Magasinet røst ...)". Similar information is provided by several sources. Some sources say that it is the most widely read linguistic book in Croatia since the creation of the state.[2] [3]

The referenced fact that she gave over forty interviews is hardly to be trivial if you consider that we are dealing with a small language (and consequently with a small number of mass media). Before this book was published, it was common for Croatian linguists to give only two to three interviews, if any, about their books. So, this fact is worth mentioning.

By the way, the Frankfurter Rundschau informs us that, since 2010, Kordić has been hiding her address because of death threats, and that street demonstrations were organized against her book in her hometown.[4] Here's how it looks when someone recognized her in her car. She accuses the Croatian Wikipedia of falsifying her views and inciting hatred against her. Furthermore, for the last four years, there has been an assertion at the Croatian Wikipedia that she is mentally ill because she is against the purist ban on the use of international month names January, February, March... Unfortunately, no one proposes using the POV-tag on that article. Some journalists note with regret that she is stylized into public enemy number one (e.g. Predrag Lucić at Nedjeljom u dva, 33-36 minute). Best regards, --Darigon Jr. (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here I tend to agree: in Croatia, giving 40 interviews about a book indeed is noteworthy, and if the secondary sources indeed take a note of this fact, it shouldn't be a point of contention. However, more often than not, POV issues stem not from statements being untrue, but from the way true statements are presented. Hopefully this discussion will narrow down the concerns. GregorB (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not useful in the lead, though. I agree strongly with your "the way'' point, and was saying the same thing in my response, which got edit-conflicted; posting it below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've brain-dumped a large block of copyediting advice for this, and some other considerations, and hope they'll be helpful.
Details...
That "book" is just a journal. Why does WP care if a paper in a journal says this? Is it a literature review? Is the author a world-renowned authority? Is the journal especially prestigious? These are all WP:UNDUE weight questions. WP has no encyclopedic interest in promoting some particular linguist's books as "attracting a great deal of attention". It's a meaningless phrase. What attention, from whom, why, and how much? It's much more meaningful to say something concrete, like "aroused controversy, according to [x], among [y] and [z], in [year], because [abc]. According to [y], her theory about [m] is supported by [reasons]. But the [z] view is that her conclusions are questionable because [different reasons]." and so on, citing sources for the specifics. "Attracted a great deal of attention" isn't encyclopedic. If I stood naked on the street corner screaming, I'd attract a great deal of attention, but we wouldn't have an article about that.  :-) It's a WP:TONE thing. Even just changing it to "generated controversy" would be helpful. The problem is the "great deal" part. It's like saying the Ford Focus is a "tremendously desirable vehicle this year" instead of "among the most popular vehicles of 2015" according to [sources].

It's not necessary for WP to include a list of media outlets that have mentioned her work; rather, these are sources we should be citing, when they satisfy WP:RS, for facts (either concrete ones, or facts about what differing views are about her work and whose they are and what they're saying) that we present in neutral language in the article. Something concrete like "most widely read linguistic book in Croatia since the creation of the state" is good, if the source for that is reliable. The "gave over forty interviews" point still seems trivial, and definitely doesn't belong in the lead; everyone who does "notable stuff" also does interviews (unless they're a secret agent or whatever). It's more important what's being said in the interviews, what the reaction has been from what [notable] other parties/organizations or the public, etc. There's probably a way to mention it in the section about the book without making too big of a point of it, by using it to lead into something encyclopedically more important, e.g. "The book generated over forty interviews, including in [most important one here], in which said [something important here]. In [another important example], she responded to criticisms that [whatever] ...". In the lead, though, there's gushing claim about "attracted a great deal of attention" followed immediately by the trivia about 40 interviews; both are making the same point, and both could be neutrally replaced by "generated significant controversy and media coverage" in the lead. That would be a true, relevant, neutral statement, and would not clutter up the lead with interview count details or excessive praise. Basically, nothing in the article should have a "Kordić is really amazing!" tone to it (nor of course a "Kordić is the devil" tone, especially given the WP:BLP concerns).

The in-hiding-from-threats point is good, if it's certain (it seems like some press about her, especially in Croatia, is repeating stuff that might not be true). The "public enemy" thing might be good, if the coverage is in a notable publication (notable enough for the hr.wikipedia, anyway), but it's hyperbolic enough that it should be directly quoted; she isn't literally a public enemy officially, of course. One might also want to provide the Croatian-language original quote with the |quote= parameter of the {{Cite news}} template, so people who are fluent can verify that the translation is reasonable. Readers are going to want to know why there's this controversy and what is behind it, more than to know all kinds of exact details about specific statements for and against her work. For that, it's more important to summarize what the sources are saying, versus quote and quote and quote. Hope this helps. The WP:Writing better articles page gives good advice. Having a linguistic background, I'm sympathetic to linguists not getting enough solid treatment in Wikipedia, but they shouldn't be "puff" pieces, or "fluff".

PS: Sorry she's getting a rough time at the Croatian Wikipedia. Hopefully we can do better, and if other Wikipedias work somewhat from our copy, a more balanced view should spread around. I don't know enough about the "politics" of hr.wikipedia to have a good idea why such a biased page would be permitted there. It cites a lot of sources, so my guess is that a bunch of them are biased and low-quality, and/or that people are engaging in original research and drawing their own negative conclusions from unrelated bits of information.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure what's going on as to why this article would still have peacock issues after so many years. This is horrible what is happening to her, but it's not relevant to her having a gushingly positive WP profile that reads like a press release. Do you need an uninvolved editor to simply clean it up? МандичкаYO 😜 18:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be a very good idea, but after the RfC closes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's very nice of SMcCandlish to put so much effort in explaining how to improve the article. It's helpful. I'm glad to hear that he also has a linguistic background. I think it's a good idea to transfer some information from the lead to other places, and I have just made this modifications in the lead.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wugapodes, "the strictly linguistic public" could be replaced by "the strictly linguistic (Slavistic) public". The list of "Selected Publications" doesn't actually "represent what an editor thinks is best", but it contains all books by Kordić and it could also be titled "Books". That list doesn't need to represent "an actual look at their whole body of work" since that is already represented in the previous chapter "Works and reception". Regarding the quotations in the article: university professors, experts in that field of research form English-speaking countries are cited and WP:QUOTE also says "Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations (...) provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words." Best regards, --Darigon Jr. (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree fully on WP:QUOTE, particularly as it also says this: Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both.
In this article, prominent quoting would, quite frankly, be a minor problem at worst if it didn't contribute to what I feel is a promotional tone that permeates some aspects of the article. (Some of which were outlined already in the earlier discussions above.) GregorB (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Some Croatian weeklies deny the existence of these reviews (eg. Nacional 14.2.2012 p. 4), therefore it is useful to provide information about them in this article, read primarily by users from the South Slavic countries.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but a significant proportion of readers are not from the South Slavic countries, so they might as well be informed about a scathing 54-page review of her book in Raspr. Inst. hrvat. jez. jezikosl.,[5] which goes as far as stating that the bulk of her book's content is "non-scientific, most often even anti-scientific", and that "her argumentation includes a number of Greater-Serbianist assumptions and interpretations" (p. 438). Or, say, an article in Jezik, titled "Snježana Kordić's Phony Linguistics"[6] (I believe further elaboration on the content is unnecessary). That is precisely my point: let's provide complete information to everyone.
Let me also add a clarification: my position here is precisely one of advocatus diaboli. What I'm definitely not doing is claiming the above mentioned views are right. As a Wikipedian with some experience (if I do say so myself...), I'm interested in sources and facts, and absolutely not - and I can't stress this strongly enough - in "the Truth". GregorB (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Truth must be the foundation of Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading lies (about a living person!). No wonder the 54-page review lacks any evidence that the book on language and nationalism "includes a number of Greater-Serbianist assumptions and interpretations", because Greater-Serbianist assumptions and interpretations have been criticized in the book, see p. 143. Besides, the book includes quotes from papers and books by 500 Western scientists criticizing the politicization of the South-Slavic linguists. That means, if these 500 Western scientists are "non-scientific, most often even anti-scientific", then she is too. The reviewer is not some neutral, uninvolved party: he has been working at the institute whose then-director and then-editor of Raspr. Inst. hrvat. jez. jezikosl. (daughter of the former vice president of Croatia) was accused of eight-year-falsifying her bibliography by including two non-existent books. Journalists and Kordić wrote about it, and the director had to step down. Ultimately, if the book were pro-Serbian, it would not receive criticism from the Serbian right-wing sides: Serbian weeklies say that Kordić’s book is "far more dangerous for the Serbian linguistics than for the Croatian"; [7] it is "destructive for the Serbs" because it "makes the language free from the Serbian tradition, it reduces the language to a symbolic-neutral communication tool, it encourages the indifference towards naming of the language and towards the number of different names given to the Serbian language".[8]--Darigon Jr. (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The foundation of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Just because you think you know the truth, doesn't mean that it is, and "truth" can be different things to different people. If you can verify these opinions with sources, put them in the article. Wugapodes (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't write "the truth without verifying" or "my subjective truth". There's no need to remind me that the truth must be verified: due to my contributions, this article is above average well-referenced, and I'm quite sure that just a few editors add references in every single WP-contribution they make, like I do. "Truth" means to me always "the verified truth". Speaking of that, here's an example of how Croatian linguists see it: in a published sociolinguistic discussion, Kordić asked for evidence and her opponent (a prominent Croatian linguist) answered "I am not going to provide any evidence" since "in linguistics, especially in sociolinguistics, as a rule, one does not use evidence".[9] (see p. 171-172) Another example: the fact that Kordić cited Western scientists caused the Croatian linguist M.K. (mentioned by Gregor) to call her publicly autorasist. Both linguists in the examples above are considered to be the most moderate Croatian linguists.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
If I understood you correctly: the editor of Raspr. Inst. hrvat. jez. jezikosl. falsified her bibliography, so everything the journal published back then is therefore biased or unreliable? Once this kind of reasoning is used for disqualifying what would otherwise be quite valid sources (professional linguists writing in scientific journals), we enter the territory of defending the truth, not facts. I already said it before: even if Kordić's detractors are 100% wrong (for all I know, they as well might be), the article needs to state their positions at least. These are facts. Kordić is highly controversial in Croatia - for whatever reason, this does not matter - but is this really completely irrelevant for the article? GregorB (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
You kept quiet that I first presented facts that prove the reviewer lied. Only after that, for a better understanding of context, I indicated that one can find a motive for his lying. A quite valid source (a professional linguist writing in his scientific book) states that Kordić is mentally ill. That is a fact. Should we put it in the article? In Croatia, labeling someone as "Greater-Serbianist" is even worse than the previous one since it puts that person in real danger. Should we include it because of validity of sources? I'm not going to put these lies in the article since I don't want to be responsible for consequences. You can put it if you want. References are a means to get the truth and the truth is the goal. WP says "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth." The core positions of Kordić's detractors have been expressed in the article, eg. "Such statements exactly demonstrate the prevailing discourse against which Kordić critically engages in her book, namely that Croatian identity, language, culture, and nation are viewed and explained as inseparable. If one tries to scientifically question one of these ‘core elements’ of nationhood, and tries to deconstruct them, she/he risks the possibility of becoming ostracized." Or: "linguistic nationalism, rooted in the fear that the nation will disappear unless it has a language of its own, and of its main features: the celebration of purism, the obsession with etymologies, the equation of nation with language, the falsification of history, revisionism, and political disqualification of one’s opponents."--Darigon Jr. (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so why is none of that in the article? Wugapodes (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel GregorB already said a lot of what I was going to say, so I won't bother repeating that. To your point about it not being a selected list: why is it called "selected" if it's not selected? Why are we including every single thing this woman has ever published without regard for its notability or importance? If you're not going to talk about the notability and importance of each work individually (or already have), why are you bothering to list it at all? All of these are things that create a promotional and non-neutral tone because these works don't need to be listed, yet they are, in their own section without any explanation giving these works huge prominence rather than the actual subject of the article. Wugapodes (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess it is called "Selected Publications" because it lists only five publications whereas the article says "She has authored over 150 linguistic publications". That means we are not "including every single thing this woman has ever published". By the way, lists of (selected) publications are common in WP-biographies of scientists. The previous section deals with tree (of five) books because they are notable, according to reviewers (some reviewers are cited in that section). In this discussion, one is asking for "notability and importance of each work", while the quotes from reviews confirming the "notability and importance" are seen as a problem. Regarding the point about giving these works prominence "rather than the actual subject of the article": one is scientist due his/her works, so that works are in the forefront in the articles about the scientists, not how many children they have or who is their spouse.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the subject of the article is her, not her books. Wikipedia isn't a bibliography or CV. If you aren't going to say something about the books or interviews, don't include them. Wugapodes (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.