Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Milorad Ekmečić/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2021 [1].

Milorad Ekmečić[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a change of pace for me. Ekmečić was a Yugoslav and Bosnian Serb historian with a previously distinguished (if slightly controversial) academic career who "went national" during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, and was one of a group of prominent Yugoslav historians who eschewed the standards of international scholarship and concentrated exclusively on sectarian myths during the period of conflict in the former Yugoslavia, resulting in the production of what has been described by several scholars of the period as "pseudohistory". He was also an advisor to Radovan Karadžić (later convicted as a war criminal) during the Bosnian War, and a co-founder of Karadžić's party in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the radical nationalist Serb Democratic Party. The article went through GAN and Milhist A-Class review last year. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Milorad_Ekmečić.jpg is missing a fair-use tag, and the rationale should be expanded. Is the copyright holder known? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria. Done, and no. It may be Vreme, but equally it could have just been lifted from an academic page of a uni or academy - the website doesn't make a claim about the photo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've swapped the tag for a different one. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

There is far too much focus on negative aspects of his career.
There is almost zero text regarding why his body of work matters and what he achieved as a scholar during his research, which led to several significant national awards. How can we have a FA without anything of

note about "30 good years" of his career?

Highly reliable "Vreme" magazine calls Ekmecic "notable representative of Serbian critical school". [2]
Street is named after him, it's not "proposed". Please do your research.
There is a 272 pages book titled "Pečat Milorada Ekmečića" (Seal/imprint of Milorad Ekmečić) which covers

his life and work in great details. It is no used nor even mentioned here.

Work by Christian Axboe Nielsen can not be used to give a general overiw of his work. She is more focused on politics in her work and is not a scholar of note. Ekmecic has more citations and greater bibliography. That aside, we need far better and stronger sources in order to present her view in Wiki voice.
Ekmečić was buried at the Alley of Distinguished Citizen
Many of his interesting views about history and geopolitics are not reprsented. In hist interview for Pečat Ekmečić, a historian and uni. professor for 40 years makes some great observations, claims and notes about history. For example - he claims that there is very little chance for WWIII and explains why. That is just an example, the point is - being adviser for Karadžić is important but his scholary work is far more important.
Claiming that he produces "pseudohistory" lacks definitive reliable sources, sorry.
According to the Serbian historian Olivera Milosavljević, Ekmečić believed that the Serbian nation "must unite to a higher degree than it is now. The rest of Yugoslavia, which would add Serbian parts from Croatia, as a separate body, is one of the closest solutions" Could you provide the quote in Serbian?
Check more on his scholary work here.
BU professor writes about his body of works and gives a possitve assesement here.
All in all, very far from Wikipedia's best work and neutral point of view. MareBG (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

I reviewed this at ACR, so I will recuse to review it again, with my expectations appropriately raised. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: can I withdraw this please? I wasn't aware of the bio mentioned above (I'm not sure of its quality, and the reliability of the author and publisher, but not having even examined it isn't good enough for FA). I don't accept quite a few of the above comments by MareBG are accurate, but that is moot for the moment, because it will take me too long to obtain a copy of the bio, and as my ability to read Cyrillic is woeful, once I've got the book it will take quite some time to work through it. I'll also have to do some searching for reviews etc of the book to help determine its quality so I know what sort of content I can use it for. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. For the avoidance of doubt, a two week pause will not apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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