Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:48, 2 May 2014

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Croatia C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Etymology

Is there any connection with the Seriban вук or Croation vuk, the words for "wolf"? Interlingua 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to mess in, I'll leave that to somebody who knows how to do that, but "var" is actually spelled "vár" in hungarian, and it means castle, or stronghold (a fortified place of defence to be exact). "Város" (in hungarian meaning something with a castle) is town. 14:07, 9 March 2007 (CET)

Interlingua, the city is named after the river Vuka.
Is river Vuka named after the wolf (vuk), that's the other question. Kubura 14:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is."Vuk,Vuka"etc is ancient Serbian name. There is no Croat ever named "Vuk"

Was Sotin completely absorbed by Vukovar

Much is said about Vukovar, and so often the Village of Sotin is largley overlooked as it is a bedroom comunity with not alot of things going on. Was Sotin completely absorbed by Vukovar? In the earley mid 1800's to the early 1900's many Germans lived in Sotin, Tompojevci and Lovas. This is rarely talked about even though many of the residents who had family back in Sotin in the 1800's have German roots. What was life like back in the 1800's? What happened to Sotin in WW1 and WW2? Where did the Germans go?

Croatian War of Independence

Added reference to Serb paramilitaries as this is historically significant, particularly with the ICTY indictments for war crimes after the fall of Vukovar in 1991.

Reversed the change from "Croatian War of Independence" to the obsure reference "War in Croatia". There have been many wars in Croatia that the obscure term can cover - hence no reason to change a term that already covers accurately and in NPOV terms the nature of that war. croatian_quoll 11:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Added link to film footage of the siege and bombardment of Vukovar. iruka 08:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote section to make it sound more natural and fixed up grammar/punctuation Also included mention of ICTY indictments and related link, and the fact that Vukovar is notorious of rthe destrutctionit suffered as well as the comparison to the Stalingrad siege. iruka 08:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Change water tower pic to be on the left side.

Serious Neutrality Issues

There are serious neutrality issues especially when it comes to the blame game of vukovar during the war.

I dont understand why it is so difficult for you people to write an unbiased fact and leave the bickering out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlatko (talk • contribs) 11:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"There are serious neutrality issues especially when it comes to the blame game of vukovar during the war. I dont understand why it is so difficult for you people to write an unbiased fact and leave the bickering out of it."

Bull. Show me anything in the article that is untruthful, and I will prove you wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuislafete (talk • contribs) 06:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Coat of arms?

Check it on official Vukovar city page

• Vukovar Coat of arms

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.115.177 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

History is incomplete

The article states that Serbs took Vukovar, yet today Vukovar is in Croatia. How and when did this happen ? Battle of Vukovar also fails to note how did Vukovar return to Croatians ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defufna (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Peaceful reintegration. UN, Jacques Klein, .... various agreements, two year transition period. If I encounter on the text of the agreement, I'll post the link here. Sincerely, Kubura 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Twin cities

Is this unilateral twinhood (Bač with Vukovar, at least they say so on the page of the city of Bač)? Many twinhoods between cities from Croatia and Serbia, as well as twinhoods between cities from Croatia and Montenegro were abolished the moment Serbia and Montenegro started with theirs aggression on Croatia in 1991.
Razvrglo se bratimljenja nakon srpsko-crnogorske agresije na Hrvatsku 1991.. Kubura 14:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Expanding?

Does this article still need expanding? It looks ok to me now...will anybody object if I remove the tag at the top? --Jesuislafete 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Twinning

Are we sure that this city in Croatia is twinned with the Dalmatian city of Dubrovnik?

Official names

I notice that the Serbian name of the city was just removed from the infobox. I am going to restore it. We just had a dispute about this sort of thing at the Srbobran article; I think that if there are two official languages in a city, both of the names should be in the lede or the infobox or both. If you look at articles on cities in other bilingual areas of Europe - for instance Gdansk, Geneva, or Marseille - the names in the various languages and their pronunciations are usually listed in the lede and the infobox. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Serbian is not official in Vukovar. Second, 1 year ago on WP Croatia was agreed that minority names will not be in infoboxes, only under paragraph Name, as it is done on article Vukovar. --IvanOS 15:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that this is a political hot topic now, but this is a common practice across Misplaced Pages. Decisions by Wikiprojects can be only guidelines, if they conform with best practice. True enough, official status of Serbian language in Vukovar is not mentioned in the city statute yet, but my understanding is that the recent decision by the Constitutional Court mandates it. Still to be discussed... No such user (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a court decision, it's the constitutional law:

Članak 12.

(1) Ravnopravna službena uporaba jezika i pisma kojim se služe pripadnici nacionalne manjine ostvaruje se na području jedinice lokalne samouprave kada pripadnici pojedine nacionalne manjine čine najmanje trećinu stanovnika takve jedinice.

Ustavni zakon o pravima nacionalnih manjina

Par 12 in turn references another law:

Članak 24.

Ako općina, grad ili županija statutom ne urede uporabu jezika i pisma nacionalne manjine, a dužni su to učiniti prema odredbama ovoga Zakona, odnosno, ako je urede protivno odredbama ovoga Zakona, čelnik središnjeg tijela državne uprave iz članka 23. ovoga Zakona obustavit će od izvršenja statut, odnosno pojedine njegove odredbe, naložiti neposrednu primjenu zakona i podnijeti Vladi Republike Hrvatske prijedlog za pokretanje postupka za ocjenu ustavnosti i zakonitosti statuta ili drugoga općeg akta općine, grada ili županije u skladu sa zakonom.

Zakon o uporabi jezika i pisma nacionalnih manjina

So this will work itself out in real life, and then the article will simply do what encyclopedia does - document that. Right now it should document the real-life controversy, and I've added text to that effect. --Joy (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

So, per this, we should use it in the same way as we did before revert. It is over one third. --WhiteWriter 17:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again, no, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It describes, it does not prescribe. It is also not a crystal ball. If the Cyrillic name of the city is not actually widely used, it shouldn't be displayed as prominently as if it was. --Joy (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, but that is not logical. By croatian constitution and wiki guidelines, it should be in this article. Only questionable thing here is actually national politic of Vukovar government. There is no other actual reason not to add this. In normal civilized world, this should be minor, non controversial edit. With over one third of the population, Cyrillic IS widely used. --WhiteWriter 20:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of wide. It wasn't used widely before 1991 (according to local press), and after that it was used because of... yes, you guessed it, the national politics of the Vukovar government. Then it faded again when the government changed. But my main point is this - for something to be relevant under wiki guidelines, you have to demonstrate a coherent relation to such a thing, and avoid the crystal ball pitfall (that should be obvious by now... let me know if I have to elaborate some more on that). For example, a compelling argument for Cyrillic would be if it would make the article more verifiable and notable, e.g. if there was a substantial body of reliable sources written in Cyrillic that provide significant coverage of the topic. Is there? Indeed, in toponymy, the unwritten standard on alternate names is even lower - if there are a lot of maps or signposts where readers will see an alternate name, it should be included to make it easier to find. Are there? --Joy (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I think that this discussion is a bit pointless. I think we need to wait for publication of next "Izvješće o provođenju ustavnog zakona o pravima nacionalnih manjina" or some other official document like Vukovar statute (but not a newspaper article) to provide an explicit source that the law is actually implemented (precisely such sources are used in cases of Negoslavci, Borovo, Trpinja, Kneževi Vinogradi...). After all, it really is just a matter of time. Believe me, I'll be first one who will go to add minority language in article about any settlement in Croatia or Serbia... at the moment when I have available adequate source. We currently really still do not have it, but I am convinced that we have it quickly. In the worst case, even if something get complicated, then we can write about it in article. But I do not believe that there will be complications. I would recommend that you actively looking for amended Vukovar statute or any other official document that will explicitly confirm this thing. It is much more useful than this debate. You can, if you are interested, actively monitor other municipalities in which process is in progress (like Erdut, Gračac...).--MirkoS18 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For Erdut, see Talk:Erdut#languages. --Joy (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

I've handed out blocks to three users who engaged in tediously repetitive edit warring over the summer, and protected the article for a month while, because this is now in the news (e.g. ). The protection happens to have come at a time when the version without Cyrillic in the intro was live, which does not in any way shape or form imply a decision on WP:Consensus, just WP:WRONG. Discuss! --Joy (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, for the record, the page history says the last non-autoconfirmed edit-war edit was made from 141.136.215.100, but this was on August 20, so I went with full protection instead. --Joy (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my original block and protection periods were a bit too heavy handed. I've reduced the durations all around. --Joy (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyrillic

From september 2013 serbian cyrillic alphabet is co-official together with croatian latin and the bilingual signs have been always introduced. See first-cyrillic-sign-goes-up-in-vukovar.--Serb1914 (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have restored the Cyrillic to the lede. In the discussion at WP:Croatia it was asserted that the Serbian population in the town is large enough that it meets the (rather high) national standards for official minority language status; apparently this was at first accepted and then rejected by the local authorities. I think we should accept the national standards as a guideline - whether or not the local authorities in each municipality are implementing the standards shouldn't matter to us, they are just a good guide to where it might be appropriate for us to include the minority names. I have restored the Serbian Cyrrilic only in the lede; I think, considering how controversial the subject is, that that is good enough. But I think it should be there; if we want to have minority communities acknowledged in other areas of the Balkans, we have to do it in Vukovar too. I think Nado158 was being excessive in putting it in so many places, I don't support that. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not seem that User:IvanOS is happy with your restoration or the outcome of the recent discussion at WP:Croatia. Timbouctou (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course I'm not happy, because we already 2 times agreed minority names politics. Also, in this article, if you check section Name and languages, you will see a few minority names of Vukovar, including Serbian Cyrillic. So, I don't see reason for Cyrillic inscription on the lede, that is duplicated text. --IvanOS 11:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The lede should include relevant toponym names in other languages, and I think what a third of the population calls it should probably be deemed as relevant. Also, the government of Croatia considers it relevant, and so do Croatian constitutional laws, regardless of how the local municipality chooses to approach the subject. Timbouctou (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I blocked Timbouctou and IvanOS each over their repetitive violations of the edit warring policy. I see other familiar faces here, you all probably know that you're this -><- close to getting blocked yourselves. This nonsense has gone on for a while now. The encyclopedia must describe real life; the behavior of encyclopedia editors is not required to match it. --Joy (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoever is interested in actually further discussing this, please copy the relevant parts of that latest WikiProject Croatia discussion here (where it belongs if this is the actual topic), and feel free to further explain your position. --Joy (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Aren't you involved here?
2. This article is not owned by WP Croatia. Editors who are not members of that WikiProject should be able to discuss their position on this talkpage, which purpose is to discuss the content of this article.
3. I think that blocking user (Timbouctou) who edited wikipedia for so many years, without any previous discussion, is against communal norms. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving on...

I think the last two paragraphs in "Demographics" could be moved to "History". Also, some of the info needs to be updated - I'm sure the unemployment rate isn't still 40%, for instance (although the high unemployment rate in 2007 should still be mentioned).Brianyoumans (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I went over to the unemployment bureau website statistics section where it's possible to select the municipality, and it says Vukovar has 3286 registered unemployed persons... but I can't find the number of people who are supposed to be the working population in order to calculate the percentage. --Joy (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• C-Class Croatia articles
• Mid-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages
• C-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages