This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Croatia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia 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.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mathematics Low‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Very interesting and challenging note on his biograpy here: It was not easy to convince to contemporary fellow mathematicians that inequalities are worthwhile for researching as an independent subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-56435-9 (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

1. False: He is a professor of mathematics in the Faculty of Textile Technology at the University of Zagreb

Correct: As a professor of mathematics Pecaric was retired by the Croatian Ministry of Science and Education in 2013. See here [1]

2. False: He studied at the University of Belgrade's Facultyof Electrical Engineering for his undergraduate and master's degrees, which he completed respectively in 1972 and 1975.[3] The supervisor of his master's degree, mathematics professor, Dobrilo Tošić

Correct: Pecaric's Master degree thesis: "Theory of Magnetic Earth field on surface of layered model with inclined base" (see [2]) was supervised by Dragoljub B. Stefanović at the Faculty of Mining and Geology, Belgrade University. For the facts check with the Faculty of Mining and Geology

3. False: He has founded several journals, all published by Element in Zagreb: he is currently Editor-in-Chief at Mathematical Inequalities and Applications[7] and at the Journal of Mathematical Inequalities,[8] and also founded Operators and Matrices.[9]

Correct: All above mentioned journals are founded by the Croatian Ministry of Science and Education. The same Ministry retired him as the Editor-in-Chief in 2021. Reason – academic dishonesty: arbitrarily adding his name and name of his daughter to the authors list of the articles published in the journals he was Editor-in-Chief. If you want to read his explanation of this punitive retirement read here [3]

4. False: In addition to his mathematical work, Pečarić has published more than 20 books and 40 articles on history and politics.

Correct: First of all, Pecaric never ever wrote an article on history and politics in the strict academic sense. To get an insight into Pecaric's "articles" see here [4] He used to publish his opinions, personal attacks directed to others, open letters, etc. at internet portals or at his personal pages. All these opinions, personal attacks, etc were later copied and pasted in one or more of his 210+books he self-published, mainly online. Yes, 210+ according to him, see here [5] and read the last sentence on the book last page: "Akademik Pečarić poznat je i po svom publicističkom radu. Objavio je više od 210 publicističkih knjiga. Ožujak 2025.

His journalistic, non-fictional work looks extraordinarily voluminous and versatile. Pecaric sees himself as a leading Croatian intellectual, a political dissident, and an ultimate Croatian patriot. At the same time he is judge, prosecutor, attorney for defense. He is historian, political scientist, social scientist, biographer, autobiographer, memoirist, chronicler. He has little or no knowledge about the topics he writes about but has a strong opinion of everything. Every one of his 210 books has, at its end, his autobiography of 4-5 pages in length. The autobiography is all about his career and achievements in mathematics and the last sentence of his autobiography is like this: "Akademik Pečarić poznat je i po svom publicističkom radu. Objavio je više od XXX publicističkih knjiga. <Month> 20YY.

PS. I did not provide a translation of the Croatian text found above. Just use the Google translate which is good enough to get a sensible translation of the Croatian texts. 2A02:AB88:C14:D980:B87F:7081:B76B:FA1D (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]