Talk:Uprising in Serbia (1941)

Contested deletion
This article should cover all events from April/May od 1941 until December 1941. Republic of Uzice was formed in September/October and lasted until end of November. --  Bojan   Talk   04:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I get it clear what you are saying? Do you consider this should have a background section, then a section covering 1. the uprising to late September, then summary sections covering 2. the Uzice Republic, 3. Operation Uzice and 4. Operation Mihailovic then an Aftermath section? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and structured it like that and copy edited it. I probably won't get to help expanding it properly for several weeks though. I've removed the speedy delete tag based on the scope outlined above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This article should mention: preparations for uprising (revisionst like to point that CPY launched uprising only when Wehrcmaht attacked USSSR - in fact preparations begun already in May), Mihailovic's opportunistic views, Partisans action in July/Augusts, joint Partisns-Chetniks attack western Serbia, Republic of Uzice, creation og Goverment of Nationa Salvation, chetnik-partisan split nad Mihailovic offer to Wehrmacht to fight agaist partisans and their decline, operation Uzice, operation Mihailovic. See Serbian article. --  Bojan   Talk   04:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would if I could read the lingo. But we seem to be in rough agreement. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Battle sections
G'day, I assume you have some sources for the large number of sections entitled Battle of...? Perhaps the sr WP article has citations? Unsourced material will get tagged fairly swiftly. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That were small fights, majority of them with few hundreds combatants, but with interesting episodes (switching sides, etc.). Battle of Šabac is one of the earliest, if not the earliest example of 100 killed civilians for each killed German soldier. Battle of Kraljevo was the last battle chetniks and partisans waged against Germans; it was trigger for Kraljevo massacre (sr:File:Kraljevo-streljanje-doubijanje-41.jpg).--  Bojan   Talk   11:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Renaming
I object renaming (diff) of this article because the scope of this article is uprising in Serbia which is in all its aspects distinctive topics from uprisings in other regions of former Yugoslavia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not surprised to see someone like you promoting a nationalist WP:POVFORK, or rather a half-dozen of them. Are you suggesting the rest of the rebellion should have a separate article so as to accommodate your love of your country? Should those parts of the central Uzice uprising that took place outside of the imaginary "Serbia" the title refers to be separately covered? How about we create an "Uprising in Montenegro (1941)" article for just some parts of this singular event, would that feel proper to you?


 * "Uprising in Yugoslavia" is more common, and I'm moving it back. Otherwise, we can handle this on WP:AE, as I'm really sick of having my edits subjected to a "customary" oversight by you. -- Director  ( talk )  16:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Deghosted search results shows there are more hits for uprising in Serbia (link) than uprising in Yugoslavia (link).
 * I contested your move of this page. Please follow WP:RM/CM, restore the original title and request its moving.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no idea whatsoever how Google tests are performed. And I'll not create POVFORKS, thanks. -- Director  ( talk )  18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLE explains that what you presented is "the "match" count estimate" which can be significantly different to the "total count of results shown on the last results page", which is what I presented.
 * I contested your move of this page with valid argument given. Your Flag-waving comments about me, Google count estimated hits or few maps you brought here can not justify violation of wikipedia rules. Please follow WP:RM/CM, restore the original title and request its moving.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no common name, a proper Google Books check shows 60 for Yugoslavia and 52 for Serbia. Quite a few of the Yugoslavia hits are obviously about the coup d'etat, so there is no clear majority of sources. On this occasion, I believe Ad is right, regardless of his motive. The move is opposed, and a RM is the appropriate course of action. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My motive? This is another article I will never edit. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Peacemaker, setting aside the fact that the current title is more common no matter how you slice it, I'd like to point out that this is really about the scope, and in that respect - we have only two choices: a) we can cover this (one) uprising in multiple articles, the scopes of which would be arbitrarily cut off at the vague imaginary border of a vague, imaginary 1941 "Serbia", or b) we can have one article about this one uprising, and define it by the real historical country where it took place, for which it took place. Not only that, but to have that sourced map up there showing the extent of the rebellion, and calling it "uprising in Serbia", can also be seen as highly offensive in implying "Serbia" refers to Greater Serbia. I mean this is one of the most obviously-necessary moves that ever got done. -- Director  ( talk )  09:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Director, it is really getting tiring your continuos accusations of "Serbian nationalism" towards other users. Even if, you encounter nationalist editors, it has nothing to do with wikipedia rules. One thing are personal beleaves, and completelly another Wikipedia rules and editing. So, if we remove your useless and disruptive blabla accusations of "Great-Serbian nationalism", what we have here? We basically have that you edit-wared instead of making a proper WP:RM/CM. Also, please stick to the content and keep nationalism out of here. FkpCascais (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And its really tiring for me to point out that I'm not making random claims but can easily show bias of that sort.


 * If we remove accusations of Serbian nationalism we have absolutely every single argument I put forward here. Since the accusations aren't my argument. Obviously.

"Uprising in Serbia" is an absurd title for an uprising which took place all over Yugoslavia. Not only is it wrong as such, its also offensive and misleading as it inescapably suggests "Yugoslavia" is somehow equivalent to "Serbia". One can interpret that as an expression of Greater-Serbianism, maybe it is, maybe it isn't - but be that as it may, its still wrong to refer to these territories as "Serbia" from a factual perspective. Then there's the issue of a-historical terminology, and the fact that no one really knows what area "Serbia" is supposed to refer to in a 1941 context (this?, this, this or maybe ?). What we do know, is that under no definition (aside from "Greater Serbia" ofc) does any part of Bosnia or Montenegro or Croatia or Slovenia(!) fall under the term "Serbia".

So that's two things. Then there's the obvious fact that if this article does retain its "Serbia" title, that automatically splits the coverage of the 1941 uprising in Yugoslavia into potentially four or five articles, each more pointless than the next - and ironically analogous to the breakup of Yugoslavia in a pretty comical way ("this isn't Serbia so we're splitting away.."). There's also the fact that these people in 1941 were fighting and rebelling - for Yugoslavia. And - on top of all this, what little can be divined from WP:SETs suggests "uprising in Yugoslavia" is more common. I mean lets discuss... sure! It isn't a "Serbia issue" with you guys around if it doesn't take at least a month. Maybe we can have an RM that takes five weeks, and spend hundreds of hours pointlessly debating over the most obviously-beneficial improvements to the project? Every suggestion carefully weighed with regard to whether its somehow anti-Serbian on some level, or part of an anti-Serbian plot? Then, if you don't manage to WP:STONEWALL everything, you can "threaten" to boycott the article like Antid's proclaiming. Now that's the proper Wiki attitude. -- Director  ( talk )  01:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But Direktor, I think you are making a conspiracy theory where there isn´t one. I don´t think no one wanted to pretend Serbia was all over Yugoslavia, it´s just that simply the editors of this article focused primarelly on Serbia and the uprising events that took place in nowadays Serbia. They simply made a more limited scope for this article. I think you precipitated a lot by accusing others of Great-Serbianism etc. and that way you create an unecessary counter-reaction. Now, regarding the matter itself, I can see valid points in your proposal to enlarge this article scope to entire Yugoslavia. I think that is a better option than creating separate articles for uprisings in different regions, but I am undecided yet. A proper RfM with a proper content discussion, without nationalist distractions, would be just ideal. FkpCascais (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, let me be clear: I think it far more likely the naming of the article was not some sort of "plot" than the reverse: it makes sense if you don't really think about it, and aren't familiar with the extent of the rebellion. I also don't think anyone here is actually trying to promote any kind of Greater-Serbianism. What I'm doing is pointing out that the layout of the article I found could easily be interpreted as suggesting the "Serbia" in the title refers to Greater Serbia (likely unintentionally), and am mentioning that as another entry in the list of serious problems that title would have. What I'm angry about is constantly expecting Antidiskriminator's "oversight" whenever I edit anything Serbia-related.


 * So if the title is indeed a product of unfamiliarity with the full scope of the rebellion, that makes it no more of a good idea. But I think it does betray a bit of "Serbian-centrism", if you will, as I can't believe anyone who's read-up on this could imagine the rebels actually stopped at the 1918/45 border of Serbia (PANONIAN's map), or that rebellion in Montenegro wasn't a huge part of this etc. -- Director  ( talk )  12:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But PANONIAN map shows only the Republic of Užice, so in that context its OK. Also, I think the Serbian border you refered as 1918/45 is actually the post 1945 one, as the border at Drina before WWII was actually right in midle of the Drina Banovina, so it was no border at all. FkpCascais (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I get sick of repeating something so self-evident, but "Serbia" didn't have a border between 1929 and 1941, because it wasn't a subdivision of Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There might be a certain bias among us "local" editors, as we were taught in elementary schools about 6 distinct uprisings, one in each constituent republic. Each republic had a different public holiday (five between 7th and 27th July, plus Macedonian on the 9th November) and the seventh was "federal" on 4th July, when the decision for uprising was brought. Indeed, there were separate provincial committees of the Communist Party for each of the six modern republics, which, as I understand, operated semi-independently. So, it is not entirely without merit to treat each uprising separately. Whether we, as editors, want to do that is another issue. As its scope is currently outlined, this article could stand the scrutiny, however, most sections are stubs. I can't find much material on Wikipedia about other uprisings in Yugoslavia; Partisan uprising in Croatia redirects to a short section within Independent State of Croatia. I suppose it would be more logical (and I would prefer that) to have an overview article about Partisan uprising in Yugoslavia in summary style, with local uprisings having individual articles where necessary, but we cannot force editors to work in that particular order. No such user (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree in all respects, there is plenty of material to populate this article, which might eventually be a content fork of the summary article you refer to. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nemci vode ustanike na streljanje 1941.jpg