Talk:Republic of Užice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Flag[edit]

I am having difficulties recollecting precisely which partisan flag was used. Anyone? El_C 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 79.101.49.23 (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Correction: Тhe first liberated territory in World War II Europe was town called Loznica which was liberated by chetniks led by col. Veselin Misita on August 31st 1941.

References[edit]

This article needs references supporting the text as given. The map shall be definitively fixed and based on the valid references. See my notes on the Banat and Nedic's Serbia talk pages.--Guivon 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Article have "References" section - the fact that you did not read these references does not give you right to claim that article is "unreferenced". PANONIAN 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference for larger area[edit]

Hello again. I take it the source is an atlas from 1975? There are a lot of sources available to support a much smaller Republic within the bounds of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Do you have any corroborative sources for the atlas, and what sort of atlas is it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Which sources are supporting "smaller area"? That atlas from 1975 is the only source that I found that have presented borders of this republic. I never saw any other source that showing map of Užice republic (I must also point that two Wikipedia maps that showing "smaller area" of the republic are completely unsourced: [1], [2]). My new map is at least sourced. As for atlas that I used, it is Yugoslav atlas for schools published in 1975. I am not in my home now, but I will later say who are authors of the atlas and which sources it used. Speaking about other sources, other history atlases are also showing that partisans controlled eastern parts of NDH and most of Montenegro in 1941, although these atlases are not naming this area "the Republic of Užice", but rather "liberated partisan territories" (but that does not contradict to atlas which using term "Republic of Užice" for that area). I did not found better online source to present here, but this map shows partisan-held territories in 1941: [3]. Also, is there a reason why partisans would respect "territorial integrity" of Axis Montenegro and Axis Croatia? There is no logic that they create a republic only in parts of Axis Serbia that they controlled, but not in adjacent parts of Axis Croatia and Axis Montenegro that they also controlled. PANONIAN 12:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Your map shows a ridiculously huge Uzice Republic spanning well over 40,000km2. That is NOT the Uzice repulic, that is all the territory held by resistance forces in eastern Yugoslavia throughout 1941 (without the massive swathes of resistance-held territory in western Yugoslavia). You have NO source as usual, not really, and you will most certainly not go around deleting content and replacing it with your home-made fanciful maps. Not without opposition anyway. The old maps, while they are not sourced either, correspond with how the sources describe the liberated territory. It is possible they are accurate. It is not possible that yours is accurate. -- Director (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Source for my map is this: Povijesni atlas za osnovnu školu, Kartografija - Tlos - Zagreb, Zagreb, 1975. (authors of the atlas were Dr Josip Lučić and Prof. Blagota Drašković; associates were Prof. Ivan Kampuš, Prof. Željka Kargačin, Prof. Ivo Makek, Prof. Olga Salzer and Prof. Tomaž Weber; editors were Prof. Zdravko Prelčec and Mr Dragutin Pavličević; reviewers were Prof. Dr Igor Karaman and Dr Ivan Jelić). As for other map named "Uzicka republika2.png", it does not list a single source that would support such borders of the republic. So, DIREKTOR, you simply removed an sourced map and replaced it with unsourced one and that is unacceptable. Either we should not have any map in this article at all either we should use all maps in some "gallery" section in the end of the article with description about origin of each image and leave infobox without map. PANONIAN 11:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Povijesni atlas za osnovnu školu? In translation the "Elementary School Historical Atlas". It is not a peer review scholarly publication. It is not an English-language publication. It is a Serbian elementary school atlas from the communist era, and one only you apparently have access to. As Peacemaker says, its contrary to what every other source we know has to say on the subject. That includes your own sources, because if you think that the territory in blue is anywhere near 15,000-20,000km2, you need to get your bearings straight. On your map, Montenegro is about that size, so compare. Its not the Uzice Republic. Face it. Use a different label or something.. -- Director (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Answer: 1. it is not "Serbian atlas" since it was published in Zagreb, 2. it is scholarly publication because it is created and reviewed by several professors and doctors, 3. Regarding the access issue, I am ready to send scaned page from the atlas via email to any good faith Wiki user that would want to see it. PANONIAN 11:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
1., 2., 3.... I see you're again employing the tactic of ignoring the most important points in another's post. It doesn't really matter if its Serbian or Croatian, and by "scholarly publication" one usually means "peer review publication", but I did not know I had to explain that. As I said several times, the problem is that it does not correspond with sources - yours included. -- Director (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
1. I see nothing in Peer review page that would undermine validity of that atlas, 2. atlas does not have to "correspond with sources" because atlas is a source, 3. I agree that some other sources are providing different info, but in such case Wiki policies are requiring that info from all relevant sources is presented and covered - you have no right to perform a censorship and to delete those sources that you dislike. PANONIAN 12:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
1. You weren't supposed to "see" anything there, the wikilink is so that you can read what a peer review publication is. Thus being able to tell the difference between such a publication, and one that is not. 2. @"atlas does not have to 'correspond with sources' because atlas is a source". Haha, no. If the source is contradicted by other sources (or every other source, such as in this case), then there is grounds for disputing its inclusion. But luckily, there is no sources conflict because your elementary school atlas is not a real source, by which I of course mean a peer-review scholarly publication.
The bottom line is that the inclusion of the map is disputed due to sources conflict, and, like I've been saying from the start, you need more sources to make it credible in the face of unanimous opposition. Please don't waste time here without one. I know I won't. -- Director (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
As proved on other pages, discussion with you is futile: you proclaim "wrong" what ever source you like (the main problem, of course, is aggressive revert warring by which you want to impose your view). Anyway, I proved validity of my source and this issue will be raised in later time when revert warring problem is solved. I will, however, focus on another issue: map that you added to infobox is not supported by any source, so we should not use any map in this article. Do you have any valid reason why we should use map with fictional borders which are not supported by any source? PANONIAN 12:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
What do you want from me, PANONIAN? If you researched something and then someone comes along with an elementary school map that contradicts everything you read - what would you do? And then that same guy brings two or three additional sources that mesh very well with what you researched - but directly contradict his elementary school map. Would you agree that the elementary school map, which disagrees with all those sources, should replace the map that agrees with them (at least in general)? Come on!
And I agree its illogical that the Uzice Republic in the maps ends at the border of the German occupation zone in Serbia - but that is a minor error compared to depicting the rebel entity as being three times bigger than it actually was. The Bihac Republic is probably accurate, I'm not sure, but seeing as how the Uzice republic is blatantly exaggerated in the same (communist) map I'm kind of skeptical of the Bihac thing as well now. To add to all this, it must be said that, while in controversial matters pertaining to Balkans ethnic squabbles Yugoslav communist publications are usually reliable, - I would never ever count on them as a source on the Partisan fight itself.-- Director (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Technically, school atlas does not contradict to any other source because I never saw any other source that shows borders of the republic. Anyway, I would also not say that textual sources are fully contradicting to school atlas. I can agree that area presented in the map roughly covers 40,000 square kilometers, but we simply have to take into count that map from school atlas is rather simplistic and that it joined together core area of the republic and area of its influence. Also, main cities and roads in that territory remained under Axis control, so if we exclude that, we might say that area depicted in school atlas could cover 20-25,000 square kilometers. Or perhaps you want to say that partisan leaders from Užice did not had any influence on partisans from eastern Bosnia or Montenegro? That history atlas is written and revived by several doctors and professors and you practically want to say that they either were stupid either aimed to create false map to deceive pupils in elementary school? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Your problem is obviously inability to make compilation of data from various sources - that is the only reason why these sources could look contradicting and confusing to you. Speaking about other map, I do not see evidence that this map "agrees with other sources" more than map from school atlas - 20,000 square kilometers is approximately size of Vojvodina, which is much larger than this area and "same border of Užice Republic and Serbia" is certainly not "a minor error" - it is big error and it shows that you practically imposing usage of an inaccurate and unsourced map. As for Bihać republic, I used another atlas for that one, the one published in 2007. Finally, if you want to say that 1975 atlas is some kind of communist propaganda, then I also do not see that Wiki policies are forbidding that we show to Wikipedia readers how borders of this republic were presented in "communist atlas". In fact, deletion of this info (and map) from the article would be example of censorship which is certainly not supported by Wiki policies. PANONIAN 16:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

15 thousand or 20 thousand. Not necessarily 20,000. But yes I think its very likely that the area depicted in the current map also extended somewhat into the Kingdom of Montenegro and the NDH, thus accounting for the slight discrepancy. That does not make the map inaccurate by itself, it just means that it depicts rebel territories only in the German occupation zone and not elsewhere. Since that is certainly the vast majority of the Uzice Republic, and since we're missing a proper map that depicts it in its entirety, we'll have to make do with this one. The territories on your map are also accurate, but the label is not. That cannot be the Uzice Republic - that can only be a map of the combined rebel territory held at any one time throughout 1941, simplistically labeled "Uzice Republic" for 10-year-olds. -- Director (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Communist liberty[edit]

The article mentions liberty brought by communist more than once. I propose to replace liberty with more NPOV term.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)