Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Infobox issue solution

I am not going to play rhetorical games with DIREKTOR, but question of usage of proper infobox for this article looks like valid one. Article introduction says "Serbia under German occupation was an administrative area in occupied Yugoslavia", so we should use an infobox that is most suitable for "administrative area" or "occupied territory". By the way, I will now use only term "administrative area" as description of status of Serbia so that DIREKTOR have no basis to accuse me for "shifted position" or "aim to present Serbia as country". I do not see any valid reason that article about one "administrative area" do not have its own infobox. So far the only stated "reason" against existence of infobox in this article was DIREKTOR's claim that "I trying to present Serbia as country with that infobox". Regarding this accusation, I am officially stating that I have no such aims and that I consider that Serbia was an "administrative area" as it is stated in article introduction (if DIREKTOR one more time repeat these false interpretations of my aims I will ask for administrator's intervention - he also indirectly accused me that I am Nazi supporter at least two times and this behavior simply has to stop). Regarding the possible solution for infobox problem, I think that neither infobox named "Former Country" neither one named "Former Subdivision" would be best possible choice for this article. Since I think that an suitable infobox for an "occupied administrative area" does not exist, perhaps someone could create new infobox that could be used specifically for these kinds of subjects. So, since I do not know how to create such infobox, is there anybody here who know to do that? PANONIAN 18:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox country is supposedly suitable for use for a territory. However, I will ask some infobox people what they suggest.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned Fainites, please be sure, in order to prevent said inquiries to take the form of effective WP:CANVASSING, to emphasize that this template is being used just for the bare territory alone. That is to say, for a geographic area of land - not for a state or state subdivision, or any kind of political entity, as the template is indeed used for such purposes (by myself as well, for that matter).

Let me repeat once more, however, that even if Template:Infobox former country can in fact be used to represent the territory alone, it will still not make it any less grossly misleading to include within a territory template the two political entities. As I said, this creates the impression that the two were governmental institutions of a phantom "Vichy Serbia". In other words, in order to finally eliminate the Vichy Serbia slant in this article, this hypothetical "territory infobox" cannot include the German Military Administration or the Nedić government - or else it is not a territory infobox, but a Vichy Serbia infobox. For the record, however, I do not support such an infobox.

P.S. take note, for example, of the Kosovo article. There Template:Infobox country is being used just to represent the territory alone, and excludes any mention of the two political entities within Kosovo. While the Republic of Kosovo article and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija articles, with their nfoboxes, cover the political entities (I must say I'm proud this imo elegant and stable solution was my idea originally :)). However, I really can't support using Template:Infobox country, which is used on current subjects, for a German WWII occupation zone. Not even Template:Infobox former country, devoid of any mention of political entities, would be my idea of an elegant infobox depiction of this occupation zone. Once again, I think no infobox is a good solution, as well as the option of including two (rather small) infoboxes for the German Administration and the Nedić regime. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Question: article introduction sentence says that Serbia under German occupation is an "administrative area", so why would infobox reflect "a geographic area of land" when it is not article subject? PANONIAN 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So you're shifting you're argument again? First it was a "country", then when that proved plain wrong you claimed it was the "bare territory" we're talking about, when that no longer looked like it will help you have your Vichy Serbia infobox, "Serbia" became a "third political entity", when you could not find any sources for that you now claim its an "administrative area". We can obviously only go on like this until we drain the English dictionary of all such terms, but this is where I draw the line. The phrase "administrative area" in the lead refers to the fact that the area was administered by the German Military Administration. That is the "administration" of the "administrative area" or "administrative territory". If you want an infobox for the administrative area feel free to introduce the Military Administration in Serbia infobox. But mark this: I refuse to follow you on this new, fourth line of reasoning you came up with to achieve the same POV goal.

Look, you want to have an infobox with the title "Serbia" that depicts the thing as near as a country as possible, with the German Administration and the Nedić government represented as its governing bodies. That is just something that I can not accept, not because I'm intransigent, but because our project would be sporting a historical error of HUGE significance for the history of Serbia, listing that country in a list of Nazi satellites where it does not belong [1]. Why you're trying to do this I can't imagine, and I'm not usually the one that has to disassociate Serbia from collaborationism, but regardless: it is dead wrong and it will not fly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it wrong? I tend to think that the Template:Infobox former country may be appropriate. Template:Infobox_Former_Subdivision says "This infobox should be used if the state in question was always a subdivision of some larger entity. For all other cases, use Infobox former country to place articles into various "Former countries" categories that would not be suitable for subdivisions of former countries." Serbia was country until 1918 and is a country today, so that complicates things a bit. I also note that these templates are part of a wiki project for former countries, one bureau of which concerns regions and evidently they did not get around to making an inforbox for historical regions. But there I found this Historical_regions_of_the_Balkan_Peninsula and that may help inform the discussion here.

The sources I've read on this historical period pretty consistently refer to the region/territory as Serbia, and Serbia was once and is now again a country, so I think we're on firm ground using the country or the former country infobox (but I would like hear what others familiar with infobox conventions have to say). I confess I'm confused by DIREKTORS apparent insistence that we should not name the political entries in control (whatever than really means in this context) of the region, since he has put one of those entities into the infobox [2], [3] for example. PANONIAN prefers a different characterization. So it seems to me that the disagreements are about which entity to list and how to list them. I also think we can distinguish the quisling government and the military occupation force that controlled the territory. Activities of governments and of occupying forces may overlap, but generally, government functions and military ones are different in nature. I would also distinguish country/territory/region from those terms. I think we can say we're dealing with a region called Serbia by sources, which was governed by Nedic's quisling regime which was under the control of the German occupation. I suppose we could work in the YGE, but we'd have to make sure they were a government in name only. Is that something we can agree upon? If so, then the issue is to figure out how to express that in the infobox. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, some sources refer to the territory as "Serbia" mainly because it only did not exist for some 25 years between 1918 and 1943/44 (when the Federal State of Serbia was established). Its a name for that area on the map, and referring to it as such comes perfectly natural to me as well, even for the 1941-44 period.
• I have explained maybe 10 times why it is wrong, and I'm confused as to why you're confused. I stated plainly several times that PANONIAN mistakenly believes (probably because of the above) that the Military Administration and the Nedić government were "governing bodies" (his words) of a "third political entity" that he calls Serbia ("Vichy Serbia"). This mistaken belief he has depicted in his infobox, and this I am trying to correct. An infobox that uses the term "Serbia", a colloquial term for the territory in sources, and also incorporates the two political entities, in effect depicts - not a territory - but a state, a "Vichy Serbia" with two "governmental bodies".
  As I have said very frequently (and please read my posts before commenting on them) I am not opposed to naming the governing bodies in their own infoboxes - I am only opposed to them being bunched together in one infobox under the heading "Serbia" [4].
• As for distinguishing the military from the Nedić government, I think you're operating under a serious misconception here. German WWII military administrations were institutions of military occupation. Just like in any military occupation, they enjoyed supreme authority over any and all aspects of life and governance in the territory they were placed over, certainly not only the military aspects (indeed those were often separate and subordinate to military units, such as the Army Group F e.g.). The Nedić government (the Government of National Salvation) was little more than a (quote) "tool of the occupation authorities", an instrument for carrying out the Administration's orders.

What we can (and have I think) agreed upon, is that this is a territory (informally) referred to as Serbia in sources, which was governed by the German Military Administration, with the Nedić government as the latter's tool. It is PANONIAN's attempts to depict "Serbia" as another ("third") political entity, with the two real political entities as its "governing bodies", that I am trying to fix. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing what PANONIAN proposed. And I'm not confused about the nature of the relationship of the Germans and Nedic's regime--the Germans were in control, but did not handle many of the ground level government tasks, and Nedic did engage in some activities not endorsed by the Germans. I do not think it is appropriate to say the German "governed" the territory--do you have a source that says that explicitly. Occupation forces are in control, but they do not really govern (hence the need of a puppet state). And it's not some sources, really, it is most source, at least from what I've seen. For example, see Roberts, page 19, where he speaks of Serbia being carved up and the parts not annexed by other groups (that being close to the 1912 borders) being under German/Bularian control. And I do not understand why you oppose the notion of listing the quisling and occupying forces in the same infobox, since they are closely related. It might be well to list the YGE/Chetniks there as well, since the YGE was the recognized governing body for the region labeled as Serbia during the war. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeated comments are leading us nowhere. Let first establish what is meaning of which name. These sources are explicitly stating that German Military Administration was something that governed territory, and not name for territory itself:

• [5] - "He found his homeland occupied by German troops and governed by a German military administration"
• [6] - "the remainder of Serbia was placed under German military administration"
• [7] - "a Serbia under German military administration with a puppet government of its own"
• [8] - "the Banat and Serbia were put under German military administration"
• [9] - "Only one area, Serbia and Banat, with a population of German origin, was under direct German military administration"
• [10] - "in April 1941, Serbia was placed under a military administration"
• [11] - "South of the Danube, Serbia fell under German military administration. Formally, Banat was considered part of Serbia too, but effectively this area was also under German control"
• [12] - "The German military administration in Serbia, a regime of unmitigated terror"

Clearly, all these sources are in position that German "Military administration in Serbia" was an administration/regime that governed territory/administrative area named Serbia. So, DIREKTOR, if you have any source that claims that "Military administration in Serbia" was name for territory itself you should present such source here and now. PANONIAN 06:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Clearly", PANONIAN, you do not understand that you cannot simply post sentences you yourself interpret as supporting your views ("they must be saying this or that"), they have to actually say what you're saying. None of these sources necessarily imply that Serbia was anything more than an informal name to refer to the territory (or "area" if that's your new thing) of "Serbia". Indeed, some of them actually imply the latter more directly, and one of them only mentions the name of the Militärverwaltung in Serbien (what's up with that? :). As Nuujinn points out, sources also refer to Serbia being "carved up" by the occupation forces, referring no doubt, to "Serbia" in its post-1945 borders. Nuujinn, Serbia in 1918 did not include the Austro-Hungarian province of Vojvodina (though the province quickly voted to join the new Yugoslav state). Does Roberts refer to the Hungarians or the NDH as having participated in the "carving-up" of "Serbia"? If so, "Serbia" there refers to a territory defined by the post-1944 borders, not the 1912 borders. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujinn. There's no question of Nedić's status as an effective "tool" or "organ" of the Militärverwaltung in Serbien. e.g.

"But Nedić’s competence remained strictly circumscribed; indeed, his government had a largely "formal character", being for the most part restricted to ratifying decisions made previously by German authorities. The German military administration in Serbia was formidable, with a staff of 700 officers."
Sabrina P. Ramet. The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Bloomington, Indiana, USA: Indiana University Press, 2006. Pp. 130

"Nedić thus headed a government whose powers were strictly limited, one that had no international standing even with the Axis powers. Like its predecessor [the Aćimović Commissary Government], it was no more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities, doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified so that the Germans could exploit it with a minimum of effort, and bearing some of the blame for the harshness of the rule. As time went on, Nedić's powers, instead of being increased as a reward for his loyal service to the Germans (which was repeatedly noted by most high German commanders and officials in Serbia), were whittled away. His situation was always difficult and frustrating and the minutes of his conferences with and his letters and memoranda to succeeding military commanders in Serbia amply show that it became more and more degrading to him personally."
Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume II: Occupation and Collaboration, Stanford University Press 2001, p.182.

Nuujinn, I'm kind of frustrated with the word games on this talkpage. I am not opposing PANONIAN's version because it lists the two political entities in one infobox, though that also seems rather illogical to me. The problem is that they are listed together under the heading "Serbia", implying they were the governmental bodies of a political entity by that name. This implication is not really in question, among other obvious reasons also because the author of the infobox has explicitly stated this was his intent. I don't know what more to say on that subject.

I think the most logical course of action would be one you yourself suggested, to finally define this article as the equivalent to France during World War II and Poland during World War II, without at infobox and with separate articles (already actually created by PANONIAN [13]) to deal with the political entities. The other alternative is to cover the entities within this article, and using two infoboxes.

P.S. I will be leaving once again on vacation, I only got back to town for a few days. I hope we can take a break, I'll be back in a week. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, we don't have to have an infobox, but France during World War II does, just one that labels it as a series of articles and which is more free form. Like its predecessor [the Aćimović Commissary Government], it was no more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities, doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified so that the Germans could exploit it with a minimum of effort, yes, exactly, that's what a puppet state does, administrates with limited powers under the control of it's puppet master. As for Roberts, p. 19 Serbia was carved up--parts going to Hungary, such as the Vojvodina, parts to Bulgaria, such as Macedonia, and a section of the southwest even going to Italy's puppet, Albania. That part of Serbia which was not annexed, and which had essentially the old pre-1912 borders, remained under German-Bulgarian occupation. So no, it is not that he refers to a territory defined by the post-1944 borders, not the 1912 borders. As for the quotes you present, both support the notion that Nedic was head of a government, however limited its powers were which governed, however weakly, an area called Serbia, while that area was under the control of the German occupation forces. I do not agree that listing both is equivalent to validating a notion that Serbia as used in this article was a political entity--indeed, so long as the body and the lede make that clear, there will be no question as to what we are saying. I hope you have a relaxing vacation, we'll press on in the meantime. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Um Nuujinn you're making mistakes. Please read Roberts more carefully and familiarize yourself with the borders of Serbia. He refers to Vojvodina as being one part of Serbia, and the territory defined by the 1912 borders as another part of Serbia. As I said, Serbia's 1912 borders did not include Vojvodina - are you reading my posts at all or just trying to pick a fight? Roberts is without question referring to the 1945 borders (also known around here as the AVNOJ borders). Indeed, it would be strange and unusual to refer to Serbia by its 1912 borders, the Serbian province of Vojvodina is its integral part (in general perception).

It is not a question of you "agreeing" whether the infobox implies this, indeed, experience teaches there is little or no chance that you would agree to anything I say or propose. Further, I must point out the fact that you (and Fainites) are engaged in active disputes with me elsewhere, and that it appears very likely your recent arrival is due to my involvement. I.e. you seem to have followed me here, probably to oppose whatever position I might assume, and are not objective participants imho. Indeed, both of you (misunderstanding the nature of the dispute) initially actually wrote a post or two supporting my position by mistake, intending to argue against me, and later modified your stance so that it may be in opposition to whatever edits I propose. This seems to show you were more interested in opposing me, than supporting any particular course of action on this article.

The sources "imply" no more than that "Serbia" is the name for a "territory" or "area" governed, not by the Nedić government, but by the German Military Administration (and this they state unambiguously), with the Nedić government as an effective (quote) "organ" of that administration. That is to say, yes the sources call an area by the name "Serbia", but this does not justify presenting this area as a political entity. There is a difference. And using the Template:Infobox former country, with the heading "Serbia", and with the two political entities listed as its governing bodies does imply to an unacceptable degree that "Serbia" is not a name for a territory or area (as the sources imply), but for a political entity. This is plain obvious from the usage in infoboxes on other articles, and was at the time the stated intent of the user who actually wrote the infobox. So you "disagreeing" with an obvious fact like this is, to me, evidence of an inherent lack of objectivity in your dealings with myself. "Reflexive opposition", as Nsu called it.

You may "press on", as it were, but I do not see the point of arguing without the guy you're arguing against. On the other hand, that does seem an effective way of achieving "instant-consensus" :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, if I were arguing for calling Serbia in this context a political entity, you might have a point, but I'm explicitly not arguing for that. Territories and regions are generally governed. The government of the territory or region we're talking about, according to all sources as far as I know, had a quisling government controlled by a military occupational force. That's what the sources say, that's what we should say. And I simply disagree with your assertions regarding the use of the infobox being so narrowly constrained, since they are aids to navigation. Finally, as always, if you have a problem with my conduct, by all means bring it up wherever you think appropriate, but discussion of my conduct on this page seems to me to be inappropriate. Again, content, not contributor. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Let move forward

OK, I now posted an free form infobox that could be used for anything (territory, person, geographic area, animal, plant, whatever). This infobox does not imply that Serbia was country and I also did not used in this infobox anything that is specifically related either to German Military Administration or to Serbian puppet governments. I tried to make this infobox to be a reflection of territory of Serbia only with info related to things such are population, religion, etc. I see that DIREKTOR does not like this infobox either, so he should say which info in this new infobox imply that "Serbia was country"? Current infobox does not "lists the two political entities in one infobox" and it is more focused on geographical data. PANONIAN 13:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good starting point, since this infobox does not force us into oversimplifications. I expanded it a bit to reflect the various political entities with an interest or control in the area. I also pulled some of the material out of the lede, since that seemed heavy and did some copy edits. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The new infobox is bad, the subdivision infobox shown previously was better

I think the subdivision infobox shown a few days ago was overall better than the new one. The new one doesn't resemble the standard infobox for an historical territory. The previously shown one had predacessor and successor states. I support that one being restored. As for the section that says what country it is part of, it can say German-occupied territory of Yugoslavia - that is neutral. Just because it looks similar to the country infobox, that doesn't make a difference, there are many articles on Wikipedia that use that subdivision infobox for historic provinces, etc.--R-41 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Although, I was the one who included "subdivision infobox" into article, Serbia was not quite subdivision of anything and therefore such infobox would be misleading. Technically, it was also not subdivision of "German-occupied territory of Yugoslavia" because two entities (Yugoslavia and Serbia) excluded each other. Government of Yugoslavia in exile did not recognized existence of Serbia while German and puppet Serbian authorities in Serbia did not recognized existence of Yugoslavia. Anyway, I also spoke with DIREKTOR on my personal talk page and he also agreed that usage of "free form infobox" does not imply that Serbia was country. Anyway, I am not against usage of any infobox, but you have to convince other users (including DIREKTOR) why different infobox should be used. I might agree with you that other infoboxes are "better" in some aspects, but one that we currently have is least controversial and generally acceptable for most users and its usage will prevent revert warring over this article. PANONIAN 22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

R-41, does the content of the current infobox strike you as problematic? My thought is we can work with the material and get that sorted out, and then perhaps choose a more appropriate infobox, perhaps even a custom one. Does that seem a workable approach? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

*sigh..* I had a feeling this wouldn't stay dead (didn't I tell you, Panonac?). Lets not touch this one, at least for now... If we really must have an infobox for the territory itself, then the current version is one of the few available options that does not mislead or imply the thing was a historical country or political entity ("Vichy Serbia").

I would still prefer we didn't have an infobox, or alternatively, if we used the infoboxes of the two political entities covered in this article (this variant), but even if the current state isn't a particularly good version, at least it isn't a decidedly bad version. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I think that we will be never able to find solution that would be seen as best by everybody, but if current solution is at least basically acceptable for everybody then we should stick to it (I do not think that current solution is best because I think that infobox should also to contain flag and coat of arms). Also, by my opinion, usage of government infoboxes would be misleading since infoboxes should present article title, not related subjects. PANONIAN 09:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

German Population was not 500,000

Given that Nedic's Serbia only included Serbian Banat, and that that the German population of that area was 120,541 in 1931, down about 6,000 from 1921, the figure of 500,000 seems to be a major exaggeration or else confusion with the total German population of the whole of Yugoslavia.

Furthermore, the Romanian/Vlach population is not listed as a minority, as there were 62,365 in Serbian Banat in 1931 and 159,549 in Central Serbia (mainly the Timok Valley) in 1921. Given the decrease in the Romanian population of Serbian Banat between 1921 and 1931, it would be safe to assume that there were 210,000 Romanians in Serbia in 1931 and some 200,000 in 1941 based on the decline in Banat between 1921 and 1948. Prussia1231 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your observation makes perfect sense. If you could give us a source for your numbers, we could fix that. FkpCascais (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This would be a useful addition to the article, please add, along with the relevant citation. SummertimeDoctor (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nedic regime edit

If you hit the google books link, you will find ample evidence for my edit. In fact, I searched Bailey's book online and could not find a reference to Nedic's Serbia, so I suggest it needs verification. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Books are mentioning "Nedić regime" as a name for government, not for territory. Do you have a single source that says that term "Nedić regime" was used as a name of the territory? PANONIAN 22:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Enter the nonsense word games... -- Director (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

why is the citation there then? Nedic regime can only be about the puppet government.Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Régime" in this context means simply "government". "Nedic regime" is just another name for the puppet Government of National Salvation of General Milan Nedic. -- Director (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why account Peacemaker67 wrote in the article that "the territory is known as "Nedić regime"? Which source support that claim? PANONIAN 22:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"account Peacemaker67"? You mean why I wrote that? Well isn't it obvious? This is all just me trying to confuse you by posting conflicting statements. Its all part of my plan, don't you see? -- Director (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia account - I do not see anything wrong in such statement. Also, have you or have you not a source that says that "the territory is known as "Nedić regime"? PANONIAN 22:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

it seems to me that if you wan't to show that a google search on 'Nedic's Serbia' shows that sources use that term to relate to the territory, you should do that search and use the results as the citation. In the interim, I will just delete the citation, as it doesn't relate to the content. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, I will not cry if term "Nedić's Serbia" is not mentioned there. Do you agree that we then delete entire disputed sentence? PANONIAN 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR

OK, DIREKTOR, since I opened an report about you here, plase explain to people why you deleted referenced info from the article that common name used for the terrritory was "Serbia" and why you wrote that territory is named "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" when the only source that mentions official name here uses name "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia", see: [14] User:PANONIAN

I reverted info that was added without agreement. Direktor, first gain consensus, and then edit. --User:WhiteWriter

Ah yes, but when PANONIAN adds information without consensus and is reverted, he actually reports the revert because his stuff was "sourced", or so he claims (as if the others' additions weren't). Do I detect a double standard, WW? I've reverted all additions and restored the status quo ante. Of course the real victims here are the poor admins who are expected to actually read the nonsense.. -- Director (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, I provided TWO sources at the top of the section above. One is Pavlowitch, the other is Bold and Roy. They differ only in that one (Pavlowitch) uses a comma, and one (Bold and Roy) uses 'in'. The one that uses 'in' provides the German title in parentheses after the title in English. A search of the title in German shows multiple good hits on Google Books, and therefore supports the translation used in Bold and Roy. My German grammar is not perfect, but it's good enough to know that 'in' means 'in', not comma. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is my opinion about subject: 1. article title should use most common name of the territory (WP:COMMONNAME), and according to all these sources that common name is "Serbia". Of course, due to the fact that we have another article named Serbia, title "Serbia under German occupation" would make a needed distinction between the two. Regarding the name which presented source (Serbia: the history behind the name) describes as "official name of the territory", such name is obviously not widely used in English-language sources and therefore it is not in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME as far as article title is in question. 3. I think that we should mention both names (common and official) somewhere in article text or/and in the infobox (and I really do not understand why user DIREKTOR simply deleted from the infobox mention of common name, together with reliable references that mention it). Also, I think that both names should be mentioned in the main body of the infobox (not on the very beginning of it) - otherwise, we would have a dispute which of the two names should we use on the beginning of the infobox - common one or official one? I am simply proposing compromise solution: either we should use neutral title "occupied territory" either we should not use any name at all (or alternatively, current article title could be also used in the beginning of the infobox). 4. We should determine which version of official name of the territory in English language is most accurate. So, far only Pavlowitch says that it was official name and this source mention it as "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia". Other two sources that mention (somewhat different) English versions of this name are not claiming that these are official forms of the name. Source whose authors are Brian Bond and Ian Roy uses form "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia", but this source does not states that it is official name or official form of the name. We have also problem with German language sources, since some of them are using form "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien" and some other "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien". So, is there an evidence which of those is most correct form and what would be authoritative translation of the name into English? PANONIAN 04:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move of article

I propose moving this article to: Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia. My sources for this name for the territory are, in English, Pavlowitch 2002, 'Serbia: the history behind the name' p. 141 [[15]], and Bond and Roy 1975, War and Society: a yearbook of military history, Vol 1. p. 230 [[16]]. Bond and Roy state that the German name was Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien . This can be confirmed via a Google Books search for Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien or Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien.[[17]]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - firstly, it is not clear to what exactly term "Territory of the German Military Commander" refers to - quotes that you presented are pulled out of context. Furthermore, most sources are mentioning this territory as Serbia, so even if your sources are referring to name of the territory (which is not clear from presented quotes), your proposed name would fail to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME policy (sources that supporting "Serbia" as a most common name of the territory are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 ) PANONIAN 04:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you did not read your sources correctly. Check this: [18] - it says "Territory of the German military commander-Serbia". Also, your own source says "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia" (somehow, you forgot to use word "Serbia" in your quote, did you?). Anyway, my argument that title of this article should respect WP:COMMONNAME policy stands, while name supported by these sources ("Territory of the German military commander-Serbia") could be mentioned somewhere in the article text. PANONIAN 04:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, according to google translate, German name "Gebiet des Militdrbefehlshaber Serbiens" would not mean "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia" but rather something like "Territory of Serbia under German military commander", which is virtually same as "Serbia under German occupation". PANONIAN 04:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe you have misrepresented the sources I provided. First you provide a citation of Pavlowitch in another source which uses a different bit of punctuation, ie a - instead of a comma, second you accuse me of bad faith by not using the comma, when the second source I listed does not, and lastly you prefer a google translate of a phrase instead of the one from a reliable source which actually gives the official title of the territory in German! Then you invoke WP:COMMONNAME. That policy has all sorts of factors which should be taken into account, including avoiding misleading names and POV names, which are two reasons why the current title is inappropriate under that policy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC) (personal tone removed by author)Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not personal issue, so please do not comment "my abilities". Question is: do you have evidence that term Territory of the German Military Commander (in of - ,) Serbia (in what ever form) is an example of most common name of the territory that would satisfy WP:COMMONNAME policy? Also, do you have evidence that current name of the article is "misleading" or "POV"? PANONIAN 05:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@PANONIAN, do you have evidence that you have evidence for the evidence you claim is evident? :)
What Peacemaker has done is he finally found an actual name for this territory, which pretty much makes him the deus ex machina around here - so show adequate respect, please. What we currently have is a Wikipedia-invented term, so even if ONE source uses "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia", WP:COMMONNAME supports it. Do you have explicit evidence that "Serbia under German occupation" refers to this territory. Also please actually learn some German before trying to translate it :D.

@Peacemaker, could you copy down Pavlowitch and Bond & Roy? PANONIAN is absolutely married to this horribly misleading title, and has a serious case of WP:OWN. He will not change his position, but it might force him to stop repeating "evidence" all the time.. -- Director (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"so even if ONE source uses "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia", WP:COMMONNAME supports it." Am I the only one who sees contradictio in adjecto here? wikt:common provides definitions "1. Mutual; shared by more than one. 3. Found in large numbers or in a large quantity."
What we have now is a descriptive title whose subject is obvious to anyone with a minimum knowledge in history. Please leave it alone, it's just fine as it is. No such user (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

actually, two sources use this name for this territory, and of all the so-called 'names' for this territory produced so far, they are the ONLY ones that actually state what the official title of the territory was. That is because they render the title from the German, which of course is the language that the name of the territory was rendered in. Therefore, they are the ONLY sources that have been so far located in English, for this territory. None of the others state that they are are its official name, they are just convenient phrases to identify it. The current title of this article implies, incorrectly and misleadingly, that there was a pre-existing Serbia that was occupied by the Germans. There was not, even though the Territory was largely that of Serbia in its 1912 borders. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Having in mind very small number of sources that using name what you claim to be official, exact meaning and exact form of such name should be further clarified and confirmed by considerable number of other sources. Anyway, whether it was "real" official name of the territory or not is irrelevant for the question of choosing best name for this article. WP:COMMONNAME states that most common names should be used for article titles, and in this case most common name is Serbia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 Also, if you claim that current title is "incorrect and misleading", please provide a reliable reference that confirms your statements. Wikipedia does not support original research of the users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research PANONIAN 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Incorrectly and misleadingly?!" Are you trying to argue that Serbia didn't exist before German occupation? Sorry, but I don't find that line of argumentation persuasive, the more so because the proposed title reads "Territory of the... Commander in Serbia". How is that any less "incorrect and misleading"?
Let me state my position clearly: two English sources a common name maketh not. Or even five. I'm fine with mentioning that name somewhere in the lead or in the infobox, but moving it away from a descriptive title formulated in plain English into an obscure and convoluted title mentioned by two sources and nowhere else is way too nitpicky for my taste. No such user (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, let examine the provided reference: [19] - reference states that official name of the territory was "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia" and just in one of the next sentences, the source says "In the case of Serbia". So, we have there both, official name and common name used, so if account Peacemaker67 want to use this source, he should use everything from it, not only selected phrases pulled out of context. PANONIAN 13:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@No such user. Correct. Serbia did not exist between 1918 and 1944. "Serbia under German occupation" implies there was a "Serbia" for the Germans to occupy. There was none, nor was anything called "Serbia" formed by the Axis occupation. Incorrect and misleading. And also implying the association of a Serbian state with the Axis powers where there was none, so its incorrect and misleading in a potentially insulting way.

@PANONIAN, you're just POV-pushing. The official name was "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" (without "German"). It is comical and ridiculous to insist that, unless the sources should use "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" in every sentence, that fact somehow "doesn't count". That sort of POV-pushing is extremely disruptive and detrimental to the encyclopedia, and can warrant sanctions.

• @"Having in mind very small number of sources that using name what you claim to be official, exact meaning and exact form of such name should be further clarified and confirmed by considerable number of other sources."
  • Haha :), nope. Unless there's a sources conflict - we just need one (1).
• @"Anyway, whether it was "real" official name of the territory or not is irrelevant for the question of choosing best name for this article. WP:COMMONNAME states that most common names should be used for article titles, and in this case most common name is Serbia."
  • As I keep telling you, your little collection of sources is completely irrelevant with regard to actually proving common usage. So get over that fact, and do some actual research - or else stop making false claims. But even if you are correct, then we need to use a title like Serbia (occupied territory), not "Serbia under German occupation". Unless you're implying the Germans occupied an area, established a territory called Serbia - and then immediately occupied it again?

And please stop repeating "provide a reference" after anyone says anything xD -- Director (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

just a point of clarification here, so that we are all on the same page. In 1922, the state was divided into oblasts, and in 1929 it became a unitary state divided into banovine. The last time prior to the invasion that 'Serbia' existed was 1922. The Germans actually occupied parts of several banovine of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, they did not occupy Serbia, as it didn't exist at that time. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, prior to Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, Serbia did not existed as administrative unit. But, Serbia was created by the Germans in 1941, as it is evidenced by all these sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 Or you have some problem with info presented in these sources? PANONIAN 04:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

exactly which of those sources states that the Germans created a territory (or country) called 'Serbia'?Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

All of them. For example, this map comes from University of Nevada web site and it shows Europe in 1942 with territory named Serbia. All these other maps are showing same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links So, would you tell me what problem you have with info presented there? PANONIAN 13:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And most funny thing here - your own source (Stevan K. Pavlowitch) published a similar map that shows territory named Serbia on page 140: [20]. Would you now tell me that your own source is wrong? PANONIAN 13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't confuse the issue, PANONIAN. "Serbia" is indeed the term sources use at times because it would be ridiculous to repeat "Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia" or something of the sort in every sentence. That was never contested by anyone, and I'm really starting to get sick of you exploiting it to support these absurd claims of yours. Formally, this territory was not called "Serbia". And, incidentally, as far as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned, there are hundreds of sources that use the term "Military Administration in Serbia" to refer to this regime - so where does that leave your little personal collection?

The problem that needs to be solved is the current nonsense title. There was no "Serbia" that was under German occupation. And you, PANONIAN, are contradicting yourself at every turn. If "Serbia was created by the Germans in 1941" how could that Serbia, created by the Germans(!), be "under German occupation"? Its ridiculous. Did they create this occupation territory, and then declare war on it and occupy it again? The title implies there was a Serbia prior to 1941 that was occupied, no question. Is this what you're trying to push? Either way, you can either collaborate with others in solving this obvious problem, or you can continue to write "reports" and be disruptive (WP:OWN).

In addition, now that we know the official name of this entity, we can put together the appropriate, standard infobox for a German-occupied territory. -- Director (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK - this is exactly what I speak about, this is original research of User:DIREKTOR. There is no evidence that "sources use name Serbia because it would be ridiculous to repeat other name". Personal opinion and original research of User:DIREKTOR, nothing else. As for term "Military Administration in Serbia", there is also no evidence that this term refers to territory - that term simply refers to administrators of the territory, otherwise, all these maps would present term "Military Administration in Serbia" instead "Serbia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links And this users repeating that "there was no Serbia that was under German occupation" after he saw references (maps) that proving opposite. This is trolling and disruption, and I hope that administrators now see what I speak about. PANONIAN 14:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, term "occupation" does not imply that occupied entity existed before occupation. Who exactly say that it imply that? You? Serbia was created by Germans and term "occupied" means that Serbia was under German military control instead that it was fully independent from anybody. There is no any contradiction there. PANONIAN 14:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, you should probably write some more reports... Look, you don't seem to understand what original searching is, and I'm starting to doubt you have any concept of when and where sources are necessary and should be requested. In fact, you're starting to "request sources" for any statement anyone posts, no matter how simple and/or obvious. Please don't be offended, but its rather strange and absurd - since you also don't seem to be aware it works both ways. "There's no evidence that this term refers to territory"?, well there's no evidence that it refers exclusively to the administrators of the territory either. Much as "France" can refer to the "administrators" of the state ("France has announced it will participate in the talks") and the entire political entity - since the administrators represent it. You're transmitting your confusion with this onto the discussion, and since you think this is some sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND where you and your compatriots are "defending Serbia", its impossible to correct your mistaken preconceptions. Very frustrating.

But again - stop avoiding the main issue again and again. I'll copy-paste the paragraph you ignored:

The problem that needs to be solved is the current nonsense title. There was no "Serbia" that was under German occupation. And you, PANONIAN, are contradicting yourself at every turn. If "Serbia was created by the Germans in 1941" how could that Serbia, created by the Germans(!), be "under German occupation"? Its ridiculous. Did they create this occupation territory, and then declare war on it and occupy it again? The title implies there was a Serbia prior to 1941 that was occupied, no question. In short, there was no "Serbia under German occupation". Its a problem that needs correcting. -- Director (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

So, any source that would support your claim that "there was no Serbia"? No? Nobody cares for your rhetorical nonsense here, you know. Engage yourself in disruptive bahaviour and I will write more reports to admins. PANONIAN 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's start again before we get to the right margin. @ PANNONIAN, 'All of them?' What a claim, I thought. So I have just looked at a selection of your list of sources, and actually NONE of them say that. This is a deliberately misleading statement. NONE of those sources actually say "the Germans created a territory called 'Serbia'", or words to that effect. You are inferring this, it is not in the sources, and therefore your entire argument is WP:OR. Prior to the last 48 hours we had no idea what the real name of the territory was. Now we know, give or take a comma. Strangely enough, the name is in German... Who knew? And it wasn't 'Serbia'? I could render almost all the same sources out of context in the text of the same book and say the territory was called 'Serbia under German occupation' rather than 'Serbia' under German occupation, for example. The maps are a side issue, just now introduced, by you, to support your argument. How about we address the texts first, then deal with maps. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

and, I'm disruptive? Before I even started editing this article, you claimed with no substantive grounds whatsoever that I am a sock, have been rebuffed despite my plea for a CHECKUSER, continued with your accusations because you are '100%' sure I am a sock, canvassed other editors you believed would support you, and completely failed to bring evidence that what you are stating sources say is actually factually correct. And I am the one being disruptive? Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@PANONIAN. "Serbia under German occupation" is the current title that you support. And you've just stated you think this "Serbia" was created by the Germans. So, according to you, the Germans occupied Yugoslavia, created a "Serbia" - and then presumably declared war and occupied this "Serbia" again. Is that what you're saying? Talk about "rhetorical nonsense". Its incredible how you just "dismiss" all this. Maybe I should "provide evidence" for it? Do you need a source? :D

The current title (directly and inescapably) implies there was a "Serbia" to be occupied by the Germans. There was no such state or entity. If the Germans created it, then it itself was an instrument of occupation, and not something under occupation. PANONIAN, can you understand the difference? Are you capable of discontinuing a self-contradicting line of argument and acknowledging that some changes need to be done. -- Director (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record: I was against current article title few months ago when it was proposed. However, it was a reasonable compromise (as was the older title Nedić's Serbia). So, now word "occupation" is not good for you, right? Fine, I will not cry if such word is not used. So, perhaps we can rename article to "Serbia under German administration" or "Serbia under German military administration": [21]? PANONIAN 16:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also regarding the source which specifically says that "Serbia was formed by Germans", here is such source: http://www.gimnazija.mod.gov.rs/predavanja/ustanak.pdf Quotation from the source: "с обзиром да је немачка војна сила успоставила Србију, потребно је дозволити државне и националне амблеме." (English translation: "considering that the German military force established Serbia it is necessary to allow state and national emblems.") - it is quotation from official document in the time of formation of the Government of National Salvation in 1941. All other sources from this link are showing the existence of the territory named Serbia from 1941 to 1944, and therefore, such sources are confirming that territory named Serbia was established in 1941. Otherwise, why would all these history maps show an territory named Serbia if it did not existed and was not known under that name? Also, the very source introduced by you shows on page 140 a map of the territory named Serbia and map legend there says "German-occupied Banat and Serbia". Due to the fact that shade of the pattern used in the legend is same as one used for Serbia in the main body of the map (which depicting borders that were established by Germans in 1941), there is no basis for claim that term "Serbia" here could apply either to "territory of present-day Serbia" either to some "geographical area" which was different from area within the borders which were established by the Germans in 1941. PANONIAN 08:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This has to be the third time or something like that when I find myself explaining to you that what you're doing is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, so I expect you know that fully by now. Not only is it your own biased OR based on a primary source, it is also OR based on an inherently biased primary source - Nedic's government, who've been angling for years to present themselves as a "Vichy Serbia" without any success (in fact Nedic actually had his powers lessened as the war progressed). In short, a joke. Similarly, basing any conclusions on a map label is just laughable OR. When you get published, PANONIAN, then we'll talk. In the meantime, if you want to prove something, you need a source that explicitly states that. As recommended reading I would suggest this article where the logical fallacy of requesting evidence for a negative is elaborated upon.

I don't know how to respond to your first post above. Where did I say that the word "occupation" is the problem? How could anyone draw that conclusion? Just as there was no "Serbia" under German occupation, there was no "Serbia" under military administration either - this "Serbia" was the military administration. So the word "under" is the primary problem, rather. Let me try to explain again: if the Germans created your "Serbia", it is an instrument of occupation, and is not "under" occupation (or "military administration" or whichever synonymous phrase you'd care to use). -- Director (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If Serbia really is the COMMONNAME (I am not yet convinced) then what about 'Serbia (occupied territory)'?Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I know I mentioned that possibility myself, but having thought about it, its really no better than the current title. Which Serbia was it that was "occupied"? As I said, it was an instrument of occupation, not something "under occupation" or "occupied" itself. That's the gist of the problem with the current title, and my first idea doesn't really fix it. If "Serbia" is the COMMONNAME, and we're talking hypothetically here, then the part in the brackets should explain (in the simplest way) what the German-created "Serbia" was. So something along the lines of "Serbia (military administration)" comes to mind. -- Director (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I am doing original research? How so? I only presented and quoted reliable sources, nothing more, nothing less. I showed primary source which says that Serbia was established by Germans and I also showed secondary sources that presenting this Serbia as an existing entity with its own political borders. And I do not see any evidence that government of Milan Nedić tried to "present itself as Vichy Serbia". Because of what reason they would try to present themselves as such? They were members of a government that acted within the area of its jurisdiction and I do not see that they had any need to present themselves to somebody in certain light (especially because presented document that was created by the members of the government was not created for citizens or for outside world, but was only internal document in the official correspondence between members of the government and German military officials - I do not see why they would write incorrect things there. That would mean that they wanted to lie German military administrators about existence of Serbia, which would be really something unbelievable). As for maps, maps are reliable sources and they exist exactly because of the reason that people like you would not be able to twist words from the text. If presented source (Stevan K. Pavlowitch) mention word "Serbia" in the text and publish a map that shows area with borders named "Serbia" then there cannot be any doubt what term "Serbia" means in the text of this book. Regarding my compromise proposal that you rejected, I am willing to accept any other name that will not annihilate common name of the territory supported by the sources (i.e. name "Serbia"). If term "Serbia (military administration)" is what you proposing, it is acceptable to me. However, since this title could also apply to Habsburg Serbia from 1718-1739 (which was under military administration as well), perhaps more accurate and more descriptive term would be "Serbia (1941-1944 German Military Administration)" As for common name, per WP:COMMONNAME policy, term "Serbia" is one supported by most sources, while forms of the name that containing terms "Territory of the German Military Commander" (whose most accurate form was still not clearly established), even if official, are not used in prevailing number of English-language sources when name of the territory is in question (so far, only 3 English language references were presented as a support for such name). Anyway, perhaps compromise solution like "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)" might be acceptable for you? PANONIAN 12:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is perhaps some of the most blatant OR I've seen yet, PANONIAN. You're presenting reliable sources, but those reliable sources do not state anything in support of your claim, so you're "extrapolating" that they do on your own (from primary sources and map labels :)).

I just stated "Serbia (military administration)" as an elegant option (and no, it cannot possibly apply to the Kingdom of Serbia :)). Another would be "Serbia (military territory)" or something like that. We must try to keep it short. But I am still not convinced at all that "Serbia" is the COMMONNAME. You have no evidence that a territory called "Serbia" was created by the Germans.

Either way, the official name is "Territory of the Military Commander, (in) Serbia". That's the name that needs to go into the infobox, regardless of the COMMONNAME. And the infobox needs to restructured as a proper infobox for a German WWII military-administered territory [22]. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please quote exact sentence from WR:Original research policy which can confirm that anything what I said is an "original research". Otherwise (without such evidence), please do not raise false accusations against me. I also can accuse you that your goal here is to remove name "Serbia" from this page because of personal anti-Serbian nationalistic reasons, but I will not accuse you for that since I do not have direct evidence that would support such accusation. Also, which one of my claims is not supported by sources that I presented? Please quote that claim. As for evidence for info that Serbia was created by Germans, I provided sources for that, while you did not provided evidences that these sources are wrong or invalid. We can examine these sources one by one, so let start with this one - it shows territory named "Serbia" with its own political borders? Yes or no? As for infobox, I also proposed that both names used for the territory should be used in the infobox, so what exactly is problem in that proposal? Also we agreed about compromise version of then infobox few months ago, so why you now rejecting all achieved compromises and you starting same discussions from the very beginning? You by yourself was against usage of "Infobox former country", so why you now point to article German military administration in occupied France during World War II where such infobox is used? Also, subject of the other article is very different and there are certain problems with that article and with infobox used there (that article states that its subject is an "interim occupation authority", so due to that it should not have an territory/country infobox). And you cannot possibly use one Wikipedia article as a source for other Wiki article. PANONIAN 15:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

just a point of clarification @PANNONIAN. I hope this is a slip of the keyboard, but it was I that introduced Pavlowitch into this discussion. By not specifying who when responding to Direktor, you continue to imply I am a sock. Direktor and I may both have problems with this article title, but we have different views and perspectives. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

here are two more refs to add to the mix, firstly from 'Axis Rule in Occupied Europe' by Raphael Lemkin, from p. 241 onwards [[23]], and secondly from 'The language of the Third Reich: LTI, Lingua Tertii Imperii : a philologist's notebook, by Victor Klemperer and Martin Brady p. 254 [[24]]. The first ref is a detailed text on the entire Axis occupation arrangements in Yugoslavia, and refers to 'Serbia (German occupation)', although it quite clearly explains that it was not a 'puppet state' but had a 'puppet government' (p. 11 [[25]]. It also uses the term 'Serbia (under German military administration)' at p. 53 [[26]]. The second ref relates to a map used in German schoolbooks with the label 'Region of the Military Commander in Serbia'.

here are two more refs to add to the mix, firstly from 'Axis Rule in Occupied Europe' by Raphael Lemkin, from p. 241 onwards [[27]], and secondly from 'The language of the Third Reich: LTI, Lingua Tertii Imperii : a philologist's notebook, by Victor Klemperer and Martin Brady p. 254 [[28]]. The first ref is a detailed text on the entire Axis occupation arrangements in Yugoslavia, and refers to 'Serbia (German occupation)', although it quite clearly explains that it was not a 'puppet state' but had a 'puppet government' (p. 11 [[29]]. It also uses the term 'Serbia (under German military administration)' at p. 53 [[30]]. The second ref relates to a map used in German schoolbooks with the label 'Region of the Military Commander in Serbia'.

I am happy that we know the official name for the territory, as we now have a reference to it (Pavlowitch 2002). I'll leave the exact punctuation for later. As far as the WP:COMMONNAME for the occupied territory is concerned:

• Tomasevich (2001) introduces the occupied territory as follows: 'The Germans established a military government of occupation in Serbia proper, ...' (p. 175). His reference to 'Serbia proper' is a clear reference to Serbia in its former boundaries before the Balkan Wars. (ie in 1912). On the following page is a map labelled 'Occupied Serbia 1941-1944'. He then goes on to use the term 'Serbia' frequently in the following pages, including with reference to the 'military commander in Serbia'. He also uses 'Serbia proper' with a reference to the 1912 borders, on p. 95 of his 1975 work. In this work he then refers to 'occupied Serbia' then uses 'Serbia'.
• Milazzo introduces the territory as 'rump Serbia' (p. 10) then uses 'Serbia'.
• Roberts refers to 'That part of Serbia that was not annexed, and which had essentially the old 1912 borders, remained under German-Bulgarian occupation' (p. 19) then uses 'Serbia'. He also has a map on pp. 32-33 which uses the label 'Serbia under German military command'.
• Pavlowitch (2006) uses the term 'residual Serbia under German control' (p. 22), then 'Serbian Residual State' then 'Serbia'. In his 2002 text, he uses the term 'Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia', then 'Serbia'.
• Bond and Roy use 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', provide the original German name (Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien), then use 'Serbia'.
• Judah has a map labelled 'Serbia (German occupied)' p. 116, on the same page he observes, 'What was left was Serbia, more or less within its 1912 boundaries'. He basically then uses 'Serbia' throughout.

My point with putting all this up is that key authors (a representative sample of ones I actually have a copy of, plus the ones I located online in the last week and have linked above) use a whole range of terms to refer to the territory we are talking about, including:

• Serbia proper
• Occupied Serbia 1941-1944
• rump Serbia
• That part of Serbia that was not annexed, and which had essentially the old 1912 borders
• residual Serbia under German control or Serbian Residual State or Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia
• Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia
• Serbia (German occupied)
• Serbia under German military command
• Region of the Military Commander in Serbia
• Serbia (German occupation)

That there is no WP:COMMONNAME among these WP:RS is clear. Google Books searches are no good in this case due to the frequency of the use of the word 'Serbia' AFTER they have introduced it with another term or phrase in the text. Saying that they all use 'Serbia' is no good unless you look at each hit to see what the author calls the territory when they introduce it. From that point in the text, they nearly all revert to 'Serbia' eventually. This is common in English, not always so in other languages. Frankly, it is easier to use the shorter term once they have introduced what they are talking about, rather than use the name 'rump Serbia' or one of the other names on every occasion in the text. But given that they bothered to use a different term to introduce the territory in the first place, the later uses of the term 'Serbia' are not relevant to the case for 'Serbia' under the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Therefore, based on the references referred to above, it seems to me there isn't a WP:COMMONNAME.

If I knew nothing about this period of Yugoslavian history and I was looking for information about this period in this part of Yugoslavia, I would naturally search for 'Serbia'. It is also the only word that is in all of the names used by the above authors. For that reason I think it would be natural for the word 'Serbia' to be retained in the title. To me, it is an issue about how the word 'Serbia' is presented in the title so that anyone looking at the title would not think that this 'Serbia' was a country. Given the number of different names used by the above authors, I think the solution here is a combination of adding an appropriate adjective to Serbia AND appropriate disambiguation in parentheses. I would be comfortable with a title that clearly shows that 'Serbia' was a German administered occupied territory. Some possible solutions for discussion include 'Occupied Serbia (German administered territory)', Occupied territory of Serbia (under German administration), or 'German-administered territory of Serbia'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I must insist on is that the title does not present "Serbia" as being "occupied" or "under occupation". We cannot imply that WWII "Serbia" was a country, but we also cannot imply that Serbia was a country in the Interbellum that was occupied by the Germans. I can hardly see the difference between the two.

As I've been saying for a while now, there are two distinct meanings of the term "Serbia" in a WWII context:

• 1) An author can use the term in a purely geographic sense.
  • You have "Serbia proper", which usually means post-WWII Serbia without its autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina (that term rarely/never means "1912 Serbia", which was rather large and also included what the authors call Macedonia). "Serbia proper" can also be called "rump Serbia" (particularly by Serbs) or "residual Serbia", and the interesting thing is that, geographically, the post-WWII Serbia proper very closely corresponds with the German WWII "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" (though not completely, as the latter was rather smaller). In fact, as an interesting note, Serbian nationalist groups often like to point out the similarity, now that Kosovo has seceded (or tried to secede) and Vojvodina has increased its autonomy ("the Americans are Nazis and want to reduce Serbia to what the Nazis had etc..").
  • The term "Serbia" itself can (and is) also used in a geographic sense. Now this can mean 1912 Serbia, that doesn't include Vojvodina but does include Macedonia, or it can mean post-WWII Serbia, that does include Vojvodina but doesn't include Macedonia. I found that authors more frequently use the post-WWII definition of Serbia when using the term in a geographic sense, which is logical after all.
• 2) The author can use the term "Serbia" to refer to the German "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". In other words, as a collective term for the Military Administration, along with its subordinate Nedic government, and the territory it controls.

-- Director (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think an author is using the word 'Serbia' to mean. We know, because the sources I've listed tell us when they introduce the territory into their text, and I've listed what they say. We are talking about a geographical area here. It must be, it starts with the word 'Territory'. The 'Territory' was under the full jurisdiction of the German Military Commander in Serbia. Within the 'Territory' operated a German Military Administration in Serbia, German and Bulgarian occupation forces, the two puppet governments etc. This article is about a geographical area isn't it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's another book using the term 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' [[31]], and one with a map that shows 'Serbia Territory of the Commander Serbia' [[32]] Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Think"? Where did I say "think"? :) I'm just trying to lay out all the uses of the term "Serbia" (and variations) that can be encountered in the sources. Its not a matter of opinion, they're usually quite obvious. -- Director (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at. What I am saying is that at least one source (Tomasevich 2001) is inconsistent with your summation of how the sources usually use the term 'Serbia' in a geographical sense. See p. 63. He clearly equates 'Serbia proper' with 'Serbia, essentially in its 1912 borders, but also including a section of the Kosovo region'. Not quite as obvious as you 'think'? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Serbia in 1912 and its expansion during the First Balkan War

Peacemaker, what are we arguing about? I hope you're not trying to start some spat to show Panonian you're not me? :)

Now for the record, I'm not opposing anything that you stated. But let me get this straight. According to Tomasevich, "Serbia proper" is "Serbia, essentially in its 1912 borders, but also including a section of the Kosovo region". That's practically equivalent with the extent of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (which included northern Kosovo). "Serbia proper" is usually not defined as including parts of Kosovo, because, well, that's Kosovo and that's Serbia proper (its defined in the way its defined in its article). I don't have the book with me at the moment, are you sure he's not referring to the German occupation territory rather than "Serbia proper"? Or does he consider those two equivalent? -- Director (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely considers them equivalent. In full, he says: "Serbia, essentially in its pre-1912 borders, but also including a section of the Kosovo region and the Banat, was occupied by German troops and put under a military government. The Banat was administered by the local Volksdeutsche. Serbia proper was administered by the German army of occupation, first with the help of a group of Serbian administrators-the Commissioner Administration-and then from August 29, 1941, with the help of a quisling government headed by General Milan Nedić." My reading of this is that the territory included two administrations, a Volksdeutsche one in the Banat and a military administration in 'Serbia proper' which was assisted in its work by the Acimovic/Nedic regimes. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I don't see him equating Serbia proper with the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. I thought he said so explicitly. Since this is a controversial issue I'm touching upon, I want to be clear: I myself am of the opinion that Kosovo is a region of "Serbia" in the wider sense. However, Serbia proper is practically defined as Serbia without Kosovo (and anything north of the Sava and Danube). Northern Kosovo simply isn't "Serbia proper" or "central Serbia" - its Kosovo. "Serbia proper" is basically "Serbia, essentially in its pre-1912 borders", as the image caption states here [33] (the "1912 borders" or the "pre-1912 borders" were acquired in 1878).

In addition, the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia included the autonomous region of Banat (which is today a part of the wider province of Vojvodina). Again, that cannot be considered a part of "Serbia proper" under any circumstances. To be more precise, I wouldn't seriously consider anything of the sort without explicit support.

So what we have in this area is:

• Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (with its government, the Military Administration in Serbia), and its subordinate "civil" institutions
  • Government of National Salvation, governing Serbia proper + parts of northern Kosovo
  • Volksdeutsche government in the region of Banat

The unanswered question that poses itself is whether the Government of National Salvation had any formal (or informal) authority over the Banat and its governing body? My guess would be that Germans would never subordinate Volksdeutsche to a Serbian government, but I'm not 100% certain. Reading Tomasevich, I'm even more inclined towards that position. I think we would need a source that explicitly states the GNS had formal authority over the Banat.

-- Director (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We already had discussion about meaning of term "Serbia proper" in World War II several months ago, and I showed evidence that "Serbia proper" in presented source (Tomasevich, 2001) was description for "Serbia without Banat": [34] (i.e. for main part of WW2 Serbia without autonomous Banat, which was theoretically part of Serbia, but was governed by its local German minority). I see no evidence that Tomasevich used term "Serbia proper" to refer to anything else (i.e. either to pre-1912 Serbia either to post-1945 Central Serbia). If there is a claim that Tomasevich used term "Serbia proper" to refer to pre-1912 borders of Serbia in his 1975 work, then we would need to see clarification of that source (link please!) and exact quotation of the sentence from that source where this term is appearing. I also disagree that the "post-WWII Serbia proper very closely corresponds with the WWII territory" since there are very notable differences between these two areas. Second thing, from all presented sources, it is clear that term "Serbia" is used for the territory (in what ever form), so attempts for deletion of name "Serbia" from the article title are contrary to the sources - it is irrelevant in which form exactly is name written (Occupied Serbia 1941-1944, Serbia under German military command, etc) because there is always term "Serbia" in all variants, as well as in all history maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links Therefore, deletion of name "Serbia" from the article title would not be in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME since name is commonly used in all presented references. I will say again: for me, any article title that describe the article subject as "Serbia of any kind" is fully acceptable. What is not acceptable is title that would refer to this area as to "something in Serbia", since that would not be in accordance with the sources. Also, we can conduct a research to see which of the presented name variants is most widely used in English language sources in google books and then we can pick that name for the article title. Regarding the claim that term "Serbia" can be "also used in a geographic sense", I agree that there is such possibility, but if we have sources that showing an territory with borders named "Serbia" then it is obvious that we deal with an political and not with geographical area with this name. Also, I do not see a map in this link (where it is supposed to be located?). PANONIAN 13:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Panonian you are not helping with these blocks of text. "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)", simply means that "Serbia proper" does not include the Banat. That's all. Stop misquoting sources already. "Serbia proper" can only mean one thing, and that is - Serbia proper. No scholar in his right mind would state that parts of Kosovo or Vojvodina are part of "Serbia proper". That's its very definition.

That said, these parts of Kosovo (northern parts around Kosovska Mitrovica) that were included in the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" are pretty damn small and insignificant. Its a technicality, so I guess it is possible an author can simply disregard them and refer to the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" as being composed of Banat and "Serbia proper". Either way, "Serbia proper" in general does not include parts of Kosovo, and can in no way be considered to have included the Banat - and the term is NOT synonymous with the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia".

Its really these little "simplifications" that the sources use that confuse this issue more than anything... Panonian, what do you think about "Serbia (occupation territory)"? I'm trying to think of as elegant a title as possible. But there must be no question that the article, named thusly, will have "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" in the infobox and the lede (among others, in the lede, of course). -- Director (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" means that "Serbia proper" refers to main part of occupied Serbia, whose peripheral part was Banat. If this is not true, then the source would not use phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" but rather phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Vojvodina and Kosovo)", if it referred to post-1945 Serbia proper or "Serbia proper (in pre-1912 borders)" if it referred to pre-1912 borders. Phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" fully resembling official administrative system from the time of WW2 German occupation in Serbia. Anyway, since I think that nobody here would advocate renaming this article to "Serbia proper", it is pointless to discuss about this term any more. Regarding the "Serbia (occupation territory)" as a proposal for article title, while it is not unacceptable, it is too simplistic. So, why we should not use my compromise proposal "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)?" Is there some problem with this title or not? As for infobox and the lead sentence, I have this compromise to propose "Serbia or the Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia". A fair compromise? PANONIAN 14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

ARGH.. No, PANONIAN, that is NOT what that means. Please improve your English/German language skills before entering into these arguments. And stop interpreting the sources. If the source does not say "Serbia proper refers to main part of occupied Serbia, whose peripheral part was Banat" - that is not what it says. Not only are you doing OR, you're doing bad OR because you don't quite get what the source is saying. And frankly, this is a complicated issue Peacemaker and I are having trouble getting to grips with - and we actually read some of the sources. Its annoying to have to correct you constantly, let alone deal with your suspicion-driven refusal to accept that you're making a mistake. That is forgetting about the fact that you're continuously insulting us both by referring to us as the same person, and are using confusing terminology out of POV reasons. You're also writing blocks of text in not-so-perfect English that are very difficult to read. Could you please do something about all this? We're trying to fix this article here.

Enough "compromises", we do this by the book. IF the COMMONNAME is "Serbia" as you claim, then the part in the brackets is supposed to be as simple as possible. So I'll take "simplistic" as a compliment. The exact layout of the lede will be written in accordance with specific instructions at WP:LEDE. The infobox will use the official name, as is also general practice.

HOWEVER, I'm starting to lean towards Peacemaker's position. I don't think "Serbia" is the COMMONNAME, and I think we should start thinking along the lines of his proposals. I'm sorry you don't like the word "in", but the Germans apparently liked it a lot. -- Director (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I cannot have been any clearer about this. I am not interested in removing the word 'Serbia' from the title of this article and have never suggested it. So far as I can see, neither has Direktor. I don't know why you keep banging on about it, PANNONIAN. The second thing is that it is absolutely clear from several sources that the Military Commander in Serbia was responsible for an area of occupied territory, that included Serbia proper AND the Banat. It was the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' or 'Territory of the Military Commander Serbia' or 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' according to the sources. Under his authority, administrations were set up in Serbia proper AND in the Banat to help him do his job of governing so resources could be exploited. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I still think "Military Administration in Serbia" is descriptive, and more common and elegant than "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". Though I would prefer the latter to any user-invented alternatives, and there is no question that "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is what we need for the infobox and the lede. -- Director (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe more elegant, but we are talking about a territorial unit here, not an administrative one. It was a territory, that was its official name (give or take a comma etc), and frankly, I'd be happy with any one of the three that are sourced. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not move this ridiculous dispute to article about Banat. I tell you here and now that I opposing renaming that article to "Veliki Bečkerek District" (if you want to support that name as "official") - common name used for that area in most sources is Banat, as well as common name used for subject of this article is Serbia. Now about term "Serbia proper" again: phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)" used by Tomasevich clearly describing Axis political division of the area and therefore there is no evidence that such term referring to any political territory from other time periods. In fact, if we watch this with "post-WW2 eyes" then we would say that Axis Serbia included "most of Central Serbia, northern Kosovo and the rest of Banat". Note that one part of Banat (Pančevački Rit) was located in post-WW2 Serbia proper, so if we describe post-WW2 Serbia proper we would not exclude Banat from it. There is also a question why Tomasevich did not used phrase "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat and Kosovo)". The fact that he did not used such phrase would mean that he considered north Kosovo to be a part of Serbia proper (as it indeed was in the WW2). Or to put it like this: Tomasevich speaks about WW2 and his usage of term "Serbia proper" clearly corresponding with political situation from WW2 and there is no evidence that he used this term anachronistically and that he referred to territories from other time periods. Regarding claim that if the source does not say "Serbia proper refers to main part of occupied Serbia, whose peripheral part was Banat" that is not what it says, I can say that if the source does not say "Serbia proper refers to post-WW2 or to pre-1912 territory" that is not what it says. And again, do not accuse me for OR without evidences since I did not accused you for much worse things. In fact, aims to annihilate WW2 Serbia were aims of Croatian Ustaša fascists from WW2. Ante Pavelić hated so much that Axis Serbia exists and wanted from Germans that they abolish her and divide her territory between neighboring Axis states (Croatia included). Maybe some people would more like that Hitler destroyed Serbia completely and killed all Serbs, but it is not what happened. So, even if we again have to argue here for months, implementation of Croatian Ustaša POV into this Serbia-related article would never be acceptable. This article could be written only in accordance with NPOV policy of Wikipedia and existence of 100 revert-warring Croatian accounts could not change the policies of Wikipedia. In fact, whether you two are sockpuppets, meatpuppets or two Croatian users who coordinating their anti-Serbian campaign in Wikipedia is completely irrelevant. You will not "defeat" presented sources by unsourced empty rhetorics because your rhetorics would be always countered with sources from my side. So, if you again want to argue here for months, so be it. Of course, if you give up POV pushing and if you show willingness to accept info from presented sources and to achieve compromise, I would be here. Regarding the compromise, you did not gave me answer to my question: is there a reason for this article not to be named "Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)"? As for term "Military Administration in Serbia", there is no single evidence that such term was used for territory - it was used for governing body of the territory and therefore, article about territory cannot be named like that. As for infobox and the lead sentence, we have to use compromise solutions there too and you also did not said is there something wrong with compromise that I proposed: "Serbia or the Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia"? PANONIAN 10:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I would rather have civil discussion about this issue than lower myself to your level. But, I've had more than enough of your incivility, harassment and accusations of being a sock or meatpuppet of Direktor, Ustase POV, 'Croatian user' rubbish etc. I AM AUSTRALIAN. I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO YUGOSLAVIA, NOT ANY POV ASSOCIATED WITH ANY FACTIOBN, COUNTRY OR WHATEVER. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT I DO. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY AT SPI THAT I AM NOT A SOCK. YET YOU CONTINUE. Frankly, Direktor frustrates the hell out of me at times, and your constant reference to socks and meatpuppets is insulting on more than one level. I am reporting you, despite my earlier pledge to rise above it, as I am sick to bloody death of your crap about socks, meatpuppets etc. You behave incredibly badly in this space, and it is time that your behaviour was brought before some non-involved admins who can take some action about it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Now, Peacemaker, I may be frustrating, as you say, but I would appreciate it if you didn't actually go out and insult me for the sake of proving to User:PANONIAN, of all people, that you're not me. PANONIAN isn't very picky about his accusations. -- Director (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying you're frustrating (at times) isn't insulting, Direktor. Everyone around here seems to have a hairtrigger... :) Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not buying that, dear Warmaker67. Your general contributions in various articles are so anti-Serbian that it is simply impossible that you do not originating from former Yugoslavia and that your ethnicity is most likely not Croat (even if you indeed live in Australia today). Yes, I have no evidence for that to present to Wikipedia community, but other Serbian users in Wikipedia absolutely agree with me about this. And there was no proof that you are not sock either - declined request for conduction of checkuser is not an evidence (although, I am not 100% sure by myself anymore that you are sockpuppet due to the timing of your appearance here, but you cannot convince me that you do not coordinating your edits with DIREKTOR and that you do not originating from former Yugoslavia). And feel free to notify admins about my behavior - I stand behind everything that I said, I did not directly insulted you in any way, and I have right to express my suspicions about your identity especially due to the fact that you are involved in revert warring with various Serbian users in various articles - scope of your interest in Wikipedia absolutely does not correspond with something that would be expected to be the interest of an "retired Australian Army officer" (which you claim you are). PANONIAN 11:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully, WP policy does not require me to sell you anything. Anti-Serbian hey? So what am I doing editing articles on German units and operations, Serb and Croat units, Serb and Croat politicians and leaders, Australian POWs escaping from camps in Slovenia, etc etc. I'm on an anti-Serb crusade? This is absolutely delusional stuff. How many retired Australian Army officers do you know? Maybe I wrote my doctoral thesis on civil war in Yugoslavia during WW2? How do you know that my grandfather wasn't a POW in Slovenia and went back there many times. Maybe my grandfather was a RAF bomber airman who parachuted into Yugoslavia when his bomber was shot down. Maybe all of those things are true, maybe none. Frankly, it's none of your business. You are very quick to make assumptions about what a retired Australian Army officer's interests might be. Just because you are here on WP focusing on articles to do with Serbia, doesn't mean I have to do the same regarding articles on Australia. If you want to edit articles on Australia, you go right ahead, you have my permission... Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Most recent revert warring of DIREKTOR

Now, let discuss this most recent revert warring where you replaced sentence "was organized as a German-administered occupied territory" with "remained German-administered occupied territory". Word "remained" imply that there was some Greater Serbia before the war and that then these territories "remained within Serbia". It is factually inaccurate description. So, if there is no evidence that phrase "was organized as" is wrong in any way I will revert article to that term. Also, is it a bit hypocritical to tell me in your edit summary that I should not "alter text without consensus" while you exactly altering the text without consensus? You do not own this article, you know. Final thing, please describe here the difference between sources in "Bibliography" and "Further reading" sections. Does the distinction mean that sources in "Further reading" section are less valuable and that Croatian author Tomasevich is more valuable than Serbian authors. Such distinction is absolutely POV and unacceptable. PANONIAN 11:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please move this post to the appropriate noticeboard or archive/delete it. I will not be bullied in this manner on an article talkpage. If you do not do so, I'll post it and the previous such thread myself - but in a different context. -- Director (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

try WP:MOS. I was in the middle of improving the way citations and refs are presented in this article, but you know what? My timezone and yours aren't similar, and it was getting late last night when I started. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you refusing to discuss the issue? Fine, I will ask administrators for help again. PANONIAN 11:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was I that made that edit, and in its context, it is correct. The paragraph is talking about what happened in the carving up of Yugoslavia after it was invaded and occupied by the Axis. It says 'the territory that was not annexed by Germany or given to the surrounding Axis neighbors,...' and then refers to the occupied territory we are referring to in this article. It does NOT imply that there was some Greater Serbia before the war, and that was not my intention and is not consistent with the meaning of the sentence as it stands. It appears that your understanding of English expression is not helping in general in this discussion, and specifically in your understanding of this paragraph. I am happy to discuss wording that you believe will more clearly explain what happened, but my view is that it is now clear. As far as the 'Bibliography' and 'Further Reading' issue is concerned, I suggest you read WP:MOS. It is not my job to reproduce it here, but suffice to say I was in the process of attempting to improve the quality of the layout of this article, and started by moving the sources that are clearly used for inline citations in the article into a Bibliography section with ones that are not cited in Further Reading. I obviously have not finished doing that, and the formatting of the cites are pretty ordinary and need work as well. It has nothing to do with the origin of the sources. You really need to read WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible primary references etc

I am working my way through the citations in the article to identify pages where I can and check (if Google translate allows) that they are properly cited etc. I have a couple of questions about three of them that I was going to move back from 'Further Reading' to 'References' as PANONIAN had expressed concerns that I had moved them to 'Further Reading' on the basis of some perceived bias against Serbian sources. However, it appears they some are primary sources with a high likelihood of bias, or secondary sources written by possible relatives of the primary sources. My concern is that they wouldn't meet WP:RS. Wasn't Boško Kostić the personal secretary of Dimitrije Ljotic? What relation to Boško Kostić is Lazo Kostić? And isn't the book written by Aleksander Nedić actually a collection of Milan Nedić's papers? I assume that the common family names are not coincidences? I am happy for them to stay in 'Further Reading' if this is the case, but if I am right they really have no place in the 'References' section. Can I ask those here who read Cyrillic to confirm one way or the other? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I recommend removing them. Indeed many of the books are written by people within the regime or by people directly related to them: Lazo M. Kostić was the transport commissar and Aleksander Nedić is the grandson of Boško Nedić, brother of Milan Nedić. Wikipedia:Further reading suggests that the books included in the further reading section be topical, reliable and balanced. Given that this is English Wikipedia they should also be in English. As a side note I have noticed that some references used in the article are images and unreliable websites. They should be also removed and, if possible, replaced by reliable sources. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a read of the guideline, and agree. I've deleted them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Let start again

Now, let start again. I have one nice source to introduce here: http://www.helsinki.org.rs/serbian/doc/Ogledi07.pdf This is a book about WW2 Serbia and the important thing about this book is that it contains a very large number of primary sources, i.e. quotations from official documents and newspapers from 1941-1944 Serbia. We have no time and space to examine all of these documents, but one very important one is found on page 247 under the title "REGULISANJE DRŽAVNIH DUGOVA BIVŠE KRALJEVINE JUGOSLAVIJE" (or in English: "REGULATION OF PUBLIC DEBT OF THE KINGDOM OF THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA"). Note that this was originally published in "Službene novine" ("official Gazette" of Serbia) in September 15, 1942. Here is the quotation from the source: "Sva državna imovina bivše Kraljevine Jugoslavije i njenih banovina, koja se na dan 15 aprila 1941 nalazila na području koje je konačno pripalo jednoj od država-sticateljki, postala je od toga dana vlasništvo ove države-sticateljke. Države-sticateljke u smislu ovog Sporazuma su: Nemački Rajh, Italija (uključivo Albanija i Crna Gora), Mađarska, Bugarska, Hrvatska i Srbija." (or in English: "All State property of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia and its regional units, which on 15 April 1941 was in area that eventually went to one of the state-successors, became from that day the property of the state-successors. State-successors in terms of this Agreement are: German Reich, Italy (including Albania and Montenegro), Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia and Serbia.") (Google translate page for users who cannot read Serbian: [35]). What we seen from that? We see that Serbia was seen as a de jure separate country within the Axis Europe (unlike for example Albania and Montenegro, which were Italian protectorates, as it is accuratelly described by this document). We also see that name "Serbia" is also commonly used for the country and not only in this document on page 247, but in other documents that were presented in this book. These are official documents of the Serbian puppet government from 1941 to 1944 and it is fact that these documents are using name "Srbija" ("Serbia") to refer to the territory and that they also using term "država" ("country") to refer to political status of the territory. Furthermore, from all these documents it is evident that Serbian puppet government did not had so small jurisdiction. For example, there is document on page 155 named "UREDBA O PRAVNOM POLOŽAJU NEMAČKE NARODNOSNE GRUPE U SRBIJI" ("DECREE ON THE STATUS OF GERMAN ETHNIC GROUP IN SERBIA"). From that document we see that status of the ethnic Germans in Serbia was regulated by the official decree of the Serbian government (not by the decree of German military administrators) and that territory was here called "Serbia" (and not "Territory of the German Military Commander"). This source is a clear evidence that term "Serbia" was commonly used for the territory in official documents from that time. Note that these documents were monitored by the Germans administrators and there would not be name "Serbia" in these documents if German administrators did not approved usage of the name. PANONIAN 04:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugh... not another useless thread, and another block of text full of nonsense WP:OR. Did I not anticipate the response accurately, Peacemaker? As we say in Serbo-Croatian, "someone must be stupid here". And its probably me, since I have a record of dozens of useless head-against-the-wall posts where I explain, time and time again to PANONIAN, that he cannot draw his own conclusions from sources. Period. Now policy strictly prohibits any synthesis of any published material, but the most obvious one would be where some guy (like PANONIAN) actually thinks he should do his own research on primary sources, and present his "conclusions" here for us. And not only are these primary sources, they're primary sources from the Government of National Salvation, which we know was doing everything it can to present itself as a "country" - whereas it functioned as "nothing more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities" (Tomasevich p.182). And I said all this dozens of times before, but here we go, "starting again".. -- Director (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not my own conclusion. Primary text of the mentioned source also using term "Serbia", so usage of that name is choice of the author of that book, which is a secondary source, not primary one. PANONIAN 05:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Yes your own conclusion". The source can use any term it wants - its still WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH if you try to "interpret" something from that that (such as "Serbia was a puppet state"). Do you understand? Please say you understand... -- Director (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not have need for any original research. Only thing I have to do to counter your words is to present a source that says that Serbia was a puppet state: [36]. PANONIAN 06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh that's right, your googled contents entry from some book. At this point I'm convinced you must be joking... -- Director (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not start again

For the fifteenth time: enough with the ORIGINAL RESEARCH, PANONIAN: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material". Sources must directly support you, or to put it in simple terms for you: when you have to "explain" what (you think!) sources say or indicate - you shouldn't. Nobody needs you to post your nonsense "interpretations" of the facts and documents. When you get a diploma, and get published - then we'll talk.

The (real) sources are very clear on what exactly was the name of the this territory. I think this would be a good time to put an end to all this damn disruption. You have shown no basis whatsoever on which to disregard them. You have agreed to "Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia" as an acceptable title, but since WP:TITLE discourages commas - we can use the other version "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" - which is besides that more common anyway. This farce no longer even resembles productive discussion, its WP:DISRUPTION and WP:POV PUSHING - and it needs to stop. This article must no longer be held hostage by one personally-motivated, POV-pushing user without any kind of understanding of the subject matter, or even Wikipedia policy.

Believe it or not, this WP:OWN nonsense you've got going is against policy, and can get you sanctioned. Please STOP ignoring policy (in spite of it being pointed out in every other post) and ignoring sources. You need to stop with this now. Do you, or do you not, finally agree to use the sourced official title for this territory? -- Director (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Only bunch of personal insults addressed to me - no source and no evidence for anything stated. PANONIAN 05:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Also name that you proposing is supported only by one google books hit, so it is not quite example of common name: [37]. Article should keep current title, due to prevailing number of sources. PANONIAN 05:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would however agree with usage of two names ("Territory of the Military Commander of Serbia" and "Serbia") within the lead sentence and the infobox. PANONIAN 06:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Evidence" he says.. "Evidence" for what? That you're doing OR? There's a direct quote from the policy, and its just beyond any question. That you're contradicted by (non-"interpreted"!) sources, also presented - and presented numerous times before. You "demand evidence" after anything anyone writes as an excuse for dismissing the post.

I personally would not mind "Territory of the Military Commander of Serbia" since I'm pretty sure that's the accurate translation (incidentally my cousin from Graz agrees with Google Translate :)). But that does not matter since its not used in sources, and Peacemaker is right in opposing it on those grounds. We cannot invent titles. -- Director (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

with respect to your cousin in Graz AND my former colleague who is a NATI translator who doesn't agree with your cousin ('of' is 'des', 'in' is 'in'), we have a source (Bond and Roy) for 'in Serbia', we don't have one for 'of Serbia' and it doesn't mean the same thing.Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright alright, as we agreed before, it doesn't really matter. Who cares, its not used in sources anyway. Its only important to PANONIAN who is desperately trying to salvage something from the situation and have the version of the title that most suggests there was a puppet state called "Serbia". As strange as it sounds, "commander of Serbia" is (for some weird reason) probably to him more suggestive of a Serbian puppet state than "commander in Serbia" - and therefore the opposition. Whatever the case may be, catering to fanciful demands is simply out of the question. -- Director (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Common name per google books

Let now examine google books hits:

• Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia - 1 google books hit: [38]
• Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia, 1 google books hit: [39]
• Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers Serbien - 47 google books hits: [40] (in English: Area of the Military Commander of Serbia - [41], no google books hits for English version: [42]
• Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien - 3 google books hits: [43] - in English: Area of the Military Commander in Serbia - [44], no google books hits for English version: [45]
• Serbia under German occupation - 179 google books hits: [46]
• Serbia under German military administration - 7 google books hits: [47]
• Serbia, 1941-1944 - 24 google books hits: [48]
• German-occupied Serbia - 3,890 google books hits: [49]

So, what is the conclusion? Terms "Serbia under German occupation" or "German-occupied Serbia" are favored by most English-language sources, so current article title should be kept due to WP:COMMONNAME policy. PANONIAN 05:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And another thread, moving on to the second nonsense argument: raw Google hits. Following your logic "Serbia" is probably the most common name. Why don't you check how many hits "Serbia" gets? ;)

We've been over this many times as well. "Serbia" is a term used to refer to a geographic region, not as a name for an fantasy science-fiction country that you are relentlessly trying to push unto this project. That is evident from the very phrases you bring up. "Serbia under German occupation" - is this your supposed "country"? A puppet state created by Germany - and then promptly "occupied" by Germany as well? "German-occupied Serbia"? If those terms refer to a military or state entity, how can this "Serbia" be "occupied"?? Those phrases use the term "Serbia" not to refer to a military-political entity, but to refer to the region commonly known as "Serbia" - which was "German-occupied". Much like "Slovenia" was "German-occupied" [50] - but there was no puppet Slovenia. Do you finally understand that your own claims make no sense whatsoever, and are so contradictory they refute themselves? -- Director (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

this is just getting ridiculous. As I explained a long way above, raw Google hits are of absolutely no use, because, as I explained, they don't capture the way the author describes the geographical area the first time they mention it in a given book. Many of the hits on the first page of those results are used as a descriptive phrase, not as a name for the geographical area. There is a clear distinction in English. We have an official name for this territory. Now we can either use that, or a Wikipedia-invented title that properly describes the territory and the fact that it was not only occupied, but under the direct authority of the German Commander in Serbia. I've made some suggestions above, but no-one seemed interested, so I reverted to the official name. Happy to re-visit the invented title if anyone is interested. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder, they were 'Occupied Serbia (German administered territory)', 'Occupied territory of Serbia (under German administration)', or 'German-administered territory of Serbia', and the one that Director suggested and PANONIAN stated was 'not unacceptable' (ie acceptable), 'Serbia (occupied territory)'. For the record, my preference is for 'Occupied Serbia (German administered territory)', because it covers all the bases, but I can live with 'Serbia (occupied territory)' if only we could get consensus on it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally, term "Serbia (occupied territory)" is acceptable, but there is a slight problem: term could describe some other time periods in the history of Serbia. Therefore, I would rather support something like "Serbia (World War II occupied territory)". All other proposed titles in last post are acceptable as well. PANONIAN 14:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that sources are using term "Serbia" to refer to geographical region, I do not see source that can support such claim. I also do not see similarity with term "German-occupied Slovenia" since we all know that political entity named Slovenia did not existed in the time of German occupation, while political entity named Serbia did existed. Therefore term "German-occupied Slovenia" indeed referring to geographic area only, but term "German-occupied Serbia" referring to political entity whose borders were defined by Axis occupational authorities. Otherwise, DIREKTOR would be obligated to define what were borders oh his "geographical area with name Serbia", i.e. he should say is this "geographical area" identical with political borders of Axis Serbia or perhaps with borders of modern Serbia? DIREKTOR should say are Syrmia, Bačka, western Sandžak, southern Kosovo and southern Serbia parts of his "geographical Serbia" or not. DIREKTOR should also provide a source that support view about "geographical Serbia" and sourced evidence that term "Serbia" was used in 1941-1944 to describe areas that were outside of Axis Serbia. For example, we would require source that would say that western Sandžak and eastern Syrmia were parts of "geographic Serbia" in 1941-1944. Finally, if "geographical Serbia" is identical with modern Serbia then sources would not describe it as exclusively "German-occupied", since this area was occupied by other Axis states as well. PANONIAN 14:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. All you do is "request evidence" for anything anyone says, regardless of whether that makes sense or not. It appears to be a tactic that you think might allow you to dismiss arguments easily. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that these hits refer to a country, which is your claim, not on others to show they do not. That's your first mistake.

As for you "requesting evidence" that the term is used in a geographic capacity - you provided it yourself. All sources using the phrase "German-occupied Serbia" can only use the phrase in a geographic sense, since there was no country or state called "Serbia" that was occupied by the Germans. Hopefully you are not confusing your own claims, and are aware that you advocate the idea that the Germans created a country called "Serbia" - not occupied a country called "Serbia". And hopefully you are aware of the difference between the verbs "to occupy" and "to create".

The exact territorial extent of a the area a particular source refers to by the term "Serbia", is also completely irrelevant. Even if it would hypothetically correspond perfectly with the Territory of the Military Commander, it still would not support your claim that the thing was a country. So just one nonsensical argument after another... -- Director (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

@Peacemaker. Actually I suggested "Serbia (occupation territory)", provided PANONIAN could prove that is the commonname. However, since he cannot show anything of the sort, I am strongly in favor of simply using the official name and getting this over with. I'm against "occupied territory" since it really wouldn't solve anything. Provided PANONIAN could show that "Serbia" is the commonname, it would still be an instrument of occupation, not something that that was "occupied" or "under occupation".

At this point I think we should introduce the official name into the article (with sources), and bring this whole matter up on WP:AE should PANONIAN revert it. I won't pretend I would not like to see him sanctioned for the "sockupuppet" harassment and for all this WP:OWN disruption and nonsense POV-pushing. -- Director (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Germans created country called Serbia and held that country under occupation. There is nothing contradictory there. In fact, the full description of events would be this one: Germans invaded Yugoslavia, occupied Yugoslavia, created country named Serbia from part of Yugoslav territory and then continued their occupation of the country that they created. Of course, I agree that from the point of view of international law, Axis occupation of Yugoslavia was not legal or recognized, so, according to the International law, Serbia, Independent State of Croatia and Montenegro, did not existed. However, it is only a point a view and it does not mean that these 3 puppet states did not existed at all. They existed de jure according to the point of view of the Axis Powers, and what is more important, they existed the facto. In fact, of these 3 de facto states, Serbia had the largest part of its claimed territory under control of its institutions (Large parts of the Independent State of Croatia and Montenegro were in fact controlled by the partisan resistance movement during most of the war, while this movement was mostly defeated in Serbia in autumn of 1941). We are not here to discuss international legality or to say which of the points of view regarding the jure existence of Serbia is correct, but we are here to determine the subject for an Wikipedia article. De facto states are valid subjects of Wikipedia articles, no matter what anybody thinks about legality of their existence (see: Somaliland, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria). As for my "request of evidences", it is legal action in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Users are obligated to support their claims with sources. So, I can present sources that saying that Serbia was a puppet state (check this one: [51] - it says "the other puppet state, Serbia". And guess what, that book is written by your favorite author - Jozo Tomasevich. It is clear evidence that Tomasevich does not think that Serbia was only "geographical area". Can you explain why that source says that Serbia was a puppet state? Also you did not answered the crucial question: which territory is included into your fictional "geographical Serbia": the Axis Serbia or modern Serbia? (the question is very relevant). Also, can you quote any sentence from any source that could be seen as a description of "geographical Serbia"? Also, if you claim that sources using term "Serbia" for geographic area only, why you object the usage of that term in article title? If your claim is correct then name "Serbia" in article title would be: 1. completely neutral, 2. would refer to geographic area, and 3. would not imply that subject of the article was a country. It is the exact thing that I am proposing here: usage of neutral title "Serbia". I am not advocating that titles "Country of Serbia" or "Puppet state of Serbia" are used. I am also not advocating that term "under occupation" is used, but unless we find better title, I will support current one, since it is supported by most google books hits. Also, political entity of Serbia is certainly not different subject from the geographic area that it including, so the article title should accurately describe both: the entity and the geographical area of the entity. I am insisting on 3 points: 1. usage of name "Serbia" in some form, 2. accuracy of the title, 3. NPOV title, especially without any kind of anti-Serbian POV (claim that Serbia was an "instrument of occupation" is a bit anti-Serbian, you know). So, what about title "Serbia (1941-1944)"? I say that this one is fully neutral without any implication of the status. PANONIAN 18:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Or to put it like this: I support usage of term "Serbia" in the same way as your favorite author Jozo Tomasevich used it in this map on page 62: [52] - on that map, name is simply "Serbia", nothing more. PANONIAN 18:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

-That book does say on page 64: "Serbia proper, approximately within its pre-1912 frontiers, was the only area of dismembered Yugoslavia in which the Germans established a military government of occupation." What I don't understand is why the names Serbia (1941-1944) or 'German occupied Serbia (1941-1945)' aren't acceptable.Using a term like "Territory of the German Military Commander in/of Serbia" would be far too confusing for a casual reader not immediatly familiar with the topic. It's not clear at all. That doesn't mean we can't put the name 'Territory of the German Military Commander in/of Serbia' in the infobox, but we all have no objections to the word 'Serbia' (as at least a geographical expression) to be used in some form as the tile of the article.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

what about Serbia (occupation territory 1941-1944)? Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)