Talk:Dubrovnik Republic (1991)

"Republic"

For all we know, it could all have been a prank by Apolonio, as the article offers no evidence:

• That actions of the Yugoslav Army, Šešelj, Karadžić or others had anything to do with Apolonio and his so-called Dubrovnik Republic.
• That anyone apart from Apolonio took part in this entity's government.
• That this government actually did or influenced anything.

Generally, that's why a merge would be in order, as proposed earlier. GregorB (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, bulk of the article's content (as well as sources) is about the Yugoslav Army, Karadžić and others, and not about the topic. GregorB (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the ICTY indictments against Milošević, as well as Strugar, Jokić, Kovačević... specifically mention the "Dubrovnik Republic" being designed as a means of formalization of a cross-broder land grab, where the territory was supposed to be a part of a "Serb-dominated state". (see paragraph breaking across pages 2 and 3 of this document, and this one as well). OTOH I agree that the article largely misses the mark and is WP:OFFTOPIC. The Siege of Dubrovnik article already contains everything of substance on this matter - proclamation of the republic itself - and there's not much more to report on the issue anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I lived in occupied Cavtat at the time. There was no official Dubrovnik Republic government. Territory was under military administration of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). The group around Apolonio together with some military officials had this idea, and they held one meeting, but it was not realized especially since Croatian population that remained in Cavtat did not want to do anything with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.81.35 (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The so-called "flag" posted in this article

The flag posted in this article (Serbian tricolor with Dubrovnik coat of arms on it) is a complete fabrication. There is neither a single media (or other) example of it ever being used, nor even a descriptive mention of it back in 1991. Unfortunately, this is a prime example of the type of thing that often makes Wikipedia an untrustworthy source of information. 137.82.108.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"A conflicting and biased paragraph"

I am referring to this paragraph "During the Siege of Dubrovnik, Serbian and Montenegrin irregular forces and JNA reservists went on a rampage in Dubrovnik; no one was spared in the violence: small villages and farms were plundered, homes and farms were set alight, fires were set to fields and orchards, and livestock was killed.[11] The largely Croat population of Dubrovnik fled in its entirety from the city amid the violence.[11]" It provides a pro-separatist view on the subject instead of remaining neutral. The whole book that the quote is sourced from is obviously biased as it mostly focuses on Serb "crimes" which again are poorly documented. I think that it would be best to not include this paragraph for these reasons. There also was some ethnic Croats in the JNA at that time, it makes no sense that these Croats would plunder and attack civilians of their ethnicity, the same civilians they pledged to protect on their compulsory military service, just months before the siege. Also what "irregular forces" are we talking about here? The only irregural forces here were ZNG and the Croatian MUP. The reason for this war is because ZNG separatist formations were trying to gain independence illegaly (as Croatia wasn't at the start even recognized by a single state) JNA (comprised of all ethnicities) intervened to try to liberate occupied areas. In these battles many innocent civilians were hurt but collaterally, in other words they weren't meant to be hurt and that wasn't the goal of neither ZNG nor Yugoslav forces. This book makes JNA look like barbaric chetnik greater Serbian hordes who burned everything on their way, while Croats seem like heroic fighters for freedom against foreign occupiers (Funny, because JNA operated on the only legal entity at the time with a government, called the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in which borders there is Dubrovnik territory. How they can be occupiers in their own country?) After attempting to remove this paragraph it got reverted by the user "Jingiby" since allegedly it isn't an improvement, and that it should be talked on the talk page, so I put my reasons here for removing the paragraph. Kosmar6314 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kosmar6314. Here is a book review by Damir Mirkovic who is professor of sociology at Brandon University in Manitoba, Canada. I see no criticism or obstructions there. The author Paul Mojzes is a professor of religious studies at Rosemont College, Pennsylvania, USA. The publisher Rowman & Littlefield is an independent publishing house that offers scholarly books for the academic market. I see no problems. Jingiby (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jingiby. If one book review doesn't criticize it, it doesn't mean the book itself is neutral. It obviously makes biased claims such as the paragraph I talked about. The writer Paul Mojzes was born in Osijek, Croatia, I am unaware of his ethnicity but he may very well be a Croat which would further solidify my points. Croat or not, he is very biased on the topic of Dubrovnik and his claims are highly doubtful as I explained in the previous text. I am not trying to delete all sources created by this writer, only this specific paragraph as I find it an infringement to the article's neutrality. It would be best for both sides of the argument to not include it and thus provide a neutral point of view without any "one side says this" "other side says that" problems. Kosmar6314 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Kosmar6314, may you provide any negative evaluations of a neutral researcher of this book to get acquainted with them. Thanks in advance. Jingiby (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, I don't have any researchers's criticism on the book because almost no one made a review on it... But one very conflicting source is the official SFRY policy at the time. If this paragraph can be sourced here as valid, I should thereby be able to use Yugoslav state television claims that croat forces are ustase terrorists, why shouldn't I be able to do it? If this biased paragraph can get in then this should be able too. Official state TV of SFRY said that croat forces committed the same crimes that yugoslav forces are being accused of in the book. But if I source any of it, it will get reverted because it conflicts with other claims... Kosmar6314 (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Kosmar6314, check Wikipedia:Reliable sources, please. Yugoslav state television is obviously not such one, while the cited above book is. You may check also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). Regards.Jingiby (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, Why wouldn't it be a valid source? They are both biased views, they have practically no difference in their claims. Both sources infringe on the neutral point of view. Also you should read this Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Whether the book is a valid source, that still doesn't change the fact that the information in it is highly controversial, pushes only one side of the story and makes the other side look like barbarians, in a obvious politically fuelled attempt to make the other side look bad, similar to the Yugoslav state TV, which was a official TV of a sovereign state, so I still do not see the issue here. The way I see is that both the book and the state TV have the same amount of reliability in this particular topic as they both have biased claims. Kosmar6314 (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Then check again Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What is on the first place there is Avoid stating opinions as facts. Your POV is not a fact. The study cited above is much more reliable source of information. If you may present a WP:RS (academic publication from EU university etc.) supporting your POV, do it. Keep in mind that the Yugoslav TV is far from it. Jingiby (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, EU university? You're expecting to find arguments for the other side of the conflict in a EU university? Every single book they wrote contains only propaganda against the Serb people. One person tried to write the other sides POV, Aleksandar Dorin, and he immediately got raided by the Swiss police, for supposed "hate speech" this is free speech in the west, only the winning side matters. Also why do you think Yugoslav private TVs and newspapers, as well as state run ones, are a invalid source of information, while German or American are valid? It's more logical for local TV stations to have a better understanding of the situation than some westerner far away. I would also give a few books (Serb authors) that conflict this persons book, but none of them that I read talk specifically about Dubrovnik, mostly about Bosnian war. Kosmar6314 (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Then you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There you may posting questions regarding whether this source is reliable in the context of the article Dubrovnik Republic (1991). If it is concluded that this source is unreliable and one-sided, it will be possible to remove it together with the text you are disputing. Jingiby (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)