Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Reorganisation of article

I will wait until the move request has been closed, by I will flag now that if this article remains with its current title and scope, I will be reorganising it so that the issues that have been raised above are clearer. Why the section entitled 'Initial occupation' starts by mentioning Acimovic is beyond me. After the background to the occupation, the Germans reasons for keeping the territory under military occupation need to be covered along with why this area was defined in the way it was, then German military government structures need to be laid out, commander, administration, economic and police, then a chronology covering the first puppet government, commencement of the resistance, second puppet government, and major military operations in the territory with other changes as they occurred, with some administrative sections at the end. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be wrong to reorganize the article to match wrong title.

Besides the current consensus that it is wrong to rename this article from territory to administration this move proposal showed another consensus. That existing name should be changed.

I think it is best to start a new section in which all interested editors could suggest more approriate name for this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? On this page? And wrong? The article title isn't wrong, I've explained in detail how it conforms with WP:TITLE, you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Its almost nobody likes it. Just check the above discussion. Please don't continue with unjustified accusations. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The accusation is completely justified. So the consensus is that everyone just doesn't like it? It is not about liking it, it's about whether it conforms to WP:TITLE. You have yet to refer to any aspect of WP:TITLE (the relevant policy). I have tried to draw you into a discussion of how the title conforms with the policy but you won't engage. The only editor that has is DIREKTOR, and he has only referred to the principle of consistency. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No your accusation is not justified. It is not about liking. It was explained in above discussion that the existing name is not COMMONNAME.

Your claim that I did not want to engage in discussion is also incorrect. I wrote four comments only today.

The problem with discussions like that is that a few people end up aguing among themselves and generate huge walls of text that drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. In order to prevent that, I propose to all editors to refrain from further discussion, unless it is really necessary.

Don't perform major changes before proposing them and gain consensus first.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Taking in consideration Wikipedia:Editing policy and its section about the major changes: Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first the issue within this section can be considered as solved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That is not correct, The policy in question says 'With large proposed deletions or replacements'. I would be developing the article within its current scope, and am not proposing large deletions or replacements. The scope is the occupied territory, in fact, given that is the scope, the content shouldn't be an issue as long as I am using WP:RS and not making large deletions or replacements. It is the title you don't like, isn't it? Unless you really don't think the article should be about the occupied territory, and want to change its scope so that it is only about the military administration? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Reorganisation of the article is in fact "large proposed replacement". Please follow Wikipedia:Editing policy.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

After all this nonsense about me 'refusing to answer questions', how about you answer mine re: the scope? Good for the goose, good for the gander. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• This is not the first time you write unnecessarily harsh comments to me. Please respect WP:CIVILITY and don't refer to my comments as nonsense.
• Your scope question was not directed to me, so you can not accuse me for not replying to it.
• There are 83,575 characters on this talkpage which contains discussion between 11 different editors. Two of them (one is you) generated huge walls of text by writing 57, 251 characters (68,5%) making it very difficult (if not impossible) for other editors who actively participated in this discussion to track all comments and almost impossible to maintain feasible discussion. Please see my above comment about "... huge walls of text that drive away any outside editors ..." Taking that in consideration I don't think it is a good idea to start "the scope" discussion because it would additionally disturb the current discussion and lead it in an unproductive direction. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Name issue

Peacemaker67, I do not think that current name of page that you defend conforms to WP:TITLE. This is what conforms to WP:TITLE: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Name that you defend have only one source to support it and it is do not conforms to WP:TITLE. We can ask confirmation of this from administrators on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles Nemambrata (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The page conforms to WP:TITLE, and you do not have consensus. This has all been discussed at huge length, and you folks lack understanding of the subject matter. There. That's putting it bluntly. There is only one other name I've seen for what this article covers, and that's "Military Administration in Serbia". I'm reasonably certain there's no other legitimate name in sources. When the RM closes, we'll have ourselves a general discussion on the naming of German military occupation territories at WP:MILHIST, there we will establish a (non-imaginary) WP:CONSENSUS, hopefully with the participation of other knowledgeable users. Until then, folks, lets not butt our heads against a brick wall.

Incidentally, Nemambrata, all your non-consensus edits have been reverted. Should you restore them, you will be reported as yet another in a growing line of suspicious WP:SINGLE PURPOSE ACCOUNTS, edit-warring across a wide range of articles to push a distinct POV. I'm not necessarily opposed to a title change, but await a consensus on the issue. -- Director (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is better to focus on the content of comments instead of the person making them. There is actually consensus on the issue. Almost all editors that participated in the above discussion agreed that the name of the article should be changed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

so you say, but to what exactly? And more importantly, on what policy basis? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. There is important section about Reaching consensus through discussion. "

And it works. Until now, there is an important consensus reached in the above discussion. It is that the name of the article should be changed.

Now it is necessary to reach another consensus. To what name?

If above discussion does not result with consensus about new name then I think it is best to start a new section in which all interested editors could suggest more approriate name for this article." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@"It is better to focus on the content of comments instead of the person making them." Yes, Antidiskriminator, but I'm really getting sick of these strange accounts appearing out of nowhere instantly supporting various points of view on this article. If this goes on I will be posting a thorough report on the matter. It has to stop. -- Director (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Srnec and WhiteWriter are here since 2005, Dicklyon since 2006, me since February 2010... --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator and I were, I believe, discussing the Nemambrata SPA. -- Director (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is article's talkpage. One editor brought very serious name issue and presented valid arguments for their position. He gained support of almost all editors who participated in the discussion. That is all what matters here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it also matters that he's a rather obvious SPA POV-pushing across two dozen articles. As I like to say: this will not fly, Antidiskriminator. -- Director (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If multiple editors agreed that name IS a problem, and that must be changed, editor who started discussion is irrelevant. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Nemambrata is an experienced editor and largely a SPA, but probably not anyone's sock. He says he was editing previously as an IP, which may be so (I've been here since 2005, as an IP before I made an account in 2006). Anyway, I agree he's problematic. But so is the title here. I didn't realize what a mess I was stepping into, and I think I'll just go away and let the fights go where they may. Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, no, Dicklyon, you are very welcomed! Don worry, nothing bad will happen to you! :) :) :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Dickylon. You need to be involved here on Balkans-wiki at least a few months before random Serbian-nationalist sock accounts begin threatening you [1], just ask Peacemaker. Chicken.. -- Director (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This comment is far below your level, Direktor. If you follow wiki rules, Dicklyon, and if you are not stubborn in your own POV, nothing will happen. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

See, Peacemaker and me were - but if you're not, it should turn out just fine.. -- Director (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm both too stubborn and too chicken to try to break up this fight. Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

O, damn, then, welcome to the club. :) Well, i can tell only, try and you will see! All best, going to sleep... --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Welcome to the club"? "Club" indeed.. -- Director (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The conventions of Serbian language for the name of the topic of this article.

There is a consensus that the name of this article is not COMMONNAME and that it should be changed.

The topic of this article is of course notable, but its official name has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.).

It is necessary to follow wikipedia naming conventions and to determine what are the conventions of Serbian language for the name of the territory which is a topic of this article. I will approach to WikiProject Serbia for help about this issue.

Any proposals?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah so that's the angle, I was wondering when it will finally materialize. No, there isn't a "consensus". You saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Any changes to the article name will be reverted.

Nonsense, there are established names in the English language. You obviously do not understand the convention. Though your "interpretations" are fascinating :D..

Forget about it. Here's a proposal: give it up. The only way you're changing the title of this article is through an RM - and not by way of any SPA vote-stacking either, rest assured. -- Director (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are established names in the English language then it is even easier to resolve this name issue. After the COMMONNAME is determined it is easy to start RM. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There are: "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", and "Military Administration in Serbia". Those are the only two we've seen thus far that we know apply to this Wehrmacht occupation territory. -- Director (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• The English-language literature does talk a lot about "Serbia under German rule", or administration, control, occupation, military rule, military administration, etc. Pick one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Correct Dicklyon, and thanks for pointing it out. There are many phrases used to describe this territory in English, I actually listed more than half a dozen on a previous talkpage. Perhaps I should cut & paste them and their sources here? Unfortunately, because of the number of them, we don't have a WP:COMMONNAME from WP:RS used in the article, and I have got to say that for very good reasons we chose not to accept Google Books hits, and that is why we went with the English translation of the official name in German 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'. However, I think it is worthwhile re-visiting the WP:COMMONNAME issue and might start a new section to deal with it. Good pick-up. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Again: that is nonsense. Those titles do not apply to this Wehrmacht occupation territory, which is something you will have to show before even considering them as titles. Its like saying we should rename the General Government article into the "Poland under German rule" article. They're vague terms that denote a period in the history of a (badly-defined) area. I know of only two names which certainly do apply to this territory: "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", which is often referred to by the name of its administration - "Military Administration in Serbia".

The reason why we have this title in the first place is the incredible complexity of the subject matter and the vagueness of the sources. The sources use all sorts of terms to talk about the history of the territory that became Serbia after the war, or was Serbia before 1918.. but before the war - there was no Serbia (since 1918), and this article is about the German occupation territory specifically. Not about the history of a vaguely-defined area of ground.

Incidentally, Dickylon, I believe you are right when you say you're not quite on sure footing here. I don't want you to leave - I want you to read the discussions that brought about this title in the first place. These three Serbian accounts are good buddies, that coordinate their efforts in order to push the Serbian-nationalist POV that a state called "Serbia" existed during WWII. It didn't. The history of WWII Yugoslavia is incredibly complex, and Peacemaker and I have read the sources and understand them to some extent. All you apparently see is an unwieldy title - we see a complex title for an even more complex subject. -- Director (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

List of names used in English language sources

List submitted by Peacemaker67

If English language literature does cover the topic of this article editors are invited to submit names below this comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd certainly be interested to see any new names for the German military occupation territory. Though you will have to show that they do refer to the German military occupation territory, and not just a period in the history of a (vaguely-defined) area of land, like "Serbia under German rule" or some such nonsense. -- Director (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as the WP:COMMONNAME for the occupied territory is concerned, I have looked first at a selection of English language sources (most of which I have a copy of) as a start point:

• 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'.
• Tomasevich (1975) uses 'Serbia proper' with a reference to the 1912 borders, on p. 95. He then refers to 'occupied Serbia' then uses 'Serbia'.
• Tomasevich (1969) (in Vucinich, ed.) uses 'Serbia (basically in its pre-1912 limits, but with some additions from the Kosov-Metohija region with important mineral resources) and the Banat were occupied by German troops and put under German military Government', p. 76
• 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 (2008) uses the term 'residual Serbia under German control' (p. 22), then 'Serbian Residual State' then 'Serbia'.
• Pavlowitch (2002) 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.
• Cohen (1999) titles one of his chapters as 'The Serbian State, 1941-1944', p. 28
• Lemkin (1944/2008) uses 'Serbia (German occupation)', p. 591
• Redžić (1998) uses 'Serbia (occupied by Germany)', p. 11
• Ramet and Lazić (2011) (Ramet & Listhaug, eds.) refer to it in the following way 'Serbia was occupied by German troops and set up as a bogus state.', p. 19
• Lumans (1993) uses 'Serbia-Banat', p. 232
• Cohen (1996) uses 'Nedić's Serbia', p. 83
• Kroener et al (2000) uses 'SERBIA Territory of the Commander Serbia' on a map on p. 86, and 'residual Serbia' in the text on p. 93

My point with putting all this up is that key authors 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
• Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia
• Serbia (German occupied)
• Serbia under German military command
• Region of the Military Commander in Serbia
• Serbia (German occupation)
• The Serbian State, 1941-1944
• What was left was Serbia, more or less within its 1912 boundaries
• Serbia-Banat
• Nedić's Serbia
• residual Serbia

That there is no WP:COMMONNAME among these WP:RS is clear. Google Books searches are no good in this case unless we run searches on all of those phrases (and any others that editors locate) but due to the frequency of the use of the word 'Serbia' AFTER they have introduced it with another term or phrase in the text, this will need to be done with care. We need to look at each hit to see if it is a WP:RS then 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. In fact, in English it would be very strange if they didn't. I'm open to conducting a Google Books search on each one and using that to guide discussion, but I consider it highly likely that we will find there isn't a WP:COMMONNAME or 'WP:COMMONPHRASE'. This encapsulates why we went with the official name in the first place.Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there was a concisely defined area whose official name was Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien to replace it with a vague title would change the scope of the article and make the current content irrelevant. Therefore any new title proposal should be neither general nor descriptive.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the key issues here is exactly that, there is a high need for precision, one of the principles of WP:TITLE we considered important when this title was put in place. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Serbia under German occupation

Serbia under German occupation. That is descriptive, quite clear and was already proposed and accepted before. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think ZjarriRrethues just wrote it should NOT be descriptive, and it is not precise at all. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed title is very precise. It follows WP:TITLE and "indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles".

There is nothing wrong if it is descriptive. On the contrary. Per WP:TITLE:

• The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic.
• Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic,
• In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title
• Even descriptive titles should be based on sources - This name is more widely accepted English name supported by many sources "serbia under German occupation" - 31 hits including Jozo Tomasevich who is extensively used on wikipedia.

Based on above mentioned policy I think that this name is much better than existing one. If nobody proposes better name within reasonable period of time, say 7 days, this name should be put to RM discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, here it comes. PANONIAN's pals finally bring up PANONIAN's old title while he's banned. What a shock..

Quite simply, the title is unacceptable and completely ridiculous. 1) There was no "Serbia" under German occupation, so its not even descriptive. 2) It does not refer to this Wehrmacht occupation territory, but addresses the history of a vaguely-defined area of ground ("what 'Serbia' is he talking about? this 'Serbia'? this 'Serbia'? this 'Serbia'?"). 3) Its a-historical, in that it retroactively imposes past or future borders on a period where they have no place (unless the 'occupied Serbia' is supposed to be the Government of National Salvation, which is the nonsense implication PANONIAN was actually aiming for). And 4) when it was introduced it was an ad hoc temporary compromise, the shortcomings of which were recognized by all parties involved. We discussed the matter further at length, and finally came on the current title.

As I like to say, this will not fly. -- Director (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Serbia under German occupation is confusing. Which Serbia would that be? Modern Serbia, pre-WWI Serbia or pre-Balkan Wars Serbia? The only Occupation of X title that can be regarded as somewhat correct is Occupation of Yugoslavia.-— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR. Yes there was territory referred to as Serbia. The subject of this article is the part of territory of Serbia which was occupied by Nazi Germany. That is exactly what this title refers to.

Before you write another comment with claim that territory referred to as Serbia did not exist please check the existing title. The last word. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)Which Serbia would you say that was? When was that state/administrative unit created and which were its boundaries? Occupation is a legal status that only states can have.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Occupation of some territory is also notable subject. This is not article about the state. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary: correct. There is no "state" here hence there is no "occupied Serbia", and such a title would be vague and misleading (which was precisely its purpose, ironically). "Serbia" in the current name of the title denotes a vaguely-defined geographic area within which the Territory of the Military Commander was established. The term in that context is equal in meaning to, say, "Bosnia" or "Slovenia" or "Macedonia" or "Herzegovina" or "Dalmatia" as used to vaguely denote an area of land. Its not indicative of a state or military-administered territory or political entity of any kind.

So to recap:

• 1) PANONIAN's title you're pushing does not match the subject of the article (namely the German military-administered territory), but rather refers to a historical period of a vaguely-defined area of land.
• 2) It is misleading in that it implies that Serbia was a country immediately before and during WWII. And there was no such state ("what 'Serbia' is he talking about? this 'Serbia'? this 'Serbia'? this 'Serbia'?...").
• 3) It is a-historiographical, as it retroactively applies borders from the past or future that have no place in that period (unless the 'occupied Serbia' is supposed to be the Government of National Salvation, which is the nonsensical POV implication PANONIAN was actually aiming for).

The title is inappropriate to the point of absurdity. Its only purpose is to push PANONIAN's POV about a WWII (quote) "Vichy Serbia" (meaning the GNS). Now, I know you're perfectly capable of "discussing" here in perpetuum, but I will certainly not be expending much effort on going through the exact same disruptive squabble we've had with PANONIAN all over again - now with you. After a while this whole suspicious SPA/MEAT/POV-pushing affair will most likely simply wind up on WP:AE. -- Director (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. Look at Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany, Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Japanese occupation of Guam, Japanese occupation of Kiska .... or read the definition of occupation or look at the name of the category "Category:World War II occupied territories"[[Category:World War II occupied territories|link]]. Or just look at the last word of the current title. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not wrong.

• Ever heard of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic? The one that was occupied? Or did you think it was founded in 1991?
• Bessarabia/Guam/Bukovina etc. = Dalmatia or Herzegovina or Bosnia. They're names of territorial regions, areas of land. For the fourth and definitely last time: this article is not about the history of a geographic area. Its about a German military-administered territory. In addition to that, allow me to elaborate upon further differences:
  • Bessarabia was never a state, Belarus was always a country (for our purposes). It is not possible to misleadingly imply Bessarabia was a state. Or that Guam was a country. Serbia, rather uniquely, was a country practically all the time - except between 1918-1945. Thus, "Occupied Serbia" implies there was a state (where there was not one), while the others you mentioned do not.
  • Furthermore (and this is important), there was no occupation entity that corresponded near-perfectly with the territories you list. This is not the case with Serbia, where the history of the territory that is generally understood as "Serbia proper" or the "Serbia region" - almost perfectly corresponds with the history of an occupation territory, hence rendering any such hypothetical ("Occupied Serbia") article an unnecessary POVFORK next to this article.

-- Director (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Serbia is also a name of territorial region.

If any mention of Serbia in the title implies there was a state then current title would be wrong according to the same logic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I never said that. Not any mention, obviously. A title like "Military-Administered Occupation Territory of Serbia" certainly does not imply that Serbia was a state. Your proposed title - does. -- Director (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This issue of other articles that were only vaguely defined 'toponyms' in 1941-1944 and occupied during WWII (with clearly defined occupation boundaries) is the issue that I raised on MILHIST here. As you can see, four disinterested experienced MILHIST editors effectively said that creating such articles is ahistorical and effectively rewriting history, and that the contemporary name of the territory should be used. The example I initially gave them was the idea of creating a Occupation of Malaysia in WWII article, and they responded that the more appropriate article would be an Occupation of Malaya article (probably with a year range disambiguation of 1941-1945), as Malaysia didn't exist in 1941, and the relevant clearly defined territory in the area of modern day Malaysia was Malaya. Here are some excerpts of their comments - 'Where relevant, the articles should note differences in the territorial composition of these entities from other entities of the same name though to avoid confusion', 'Because of these difficulties it's worth paying extra effort to make sure that the title and lede are accurate/neutral in other respects; we have to make it clear to readers exactly what we're discussing', and 'We shouln't rewrite history. It was Constantinople until 1922, Danzig until 1945, and Newfoundland was separate from Canada until 1949. The Libya of 1936 is not the same as the Libya of today.' I will shortly be raising this issue in a RfC (as a first step) regarding all the articles that have been created in this ahistorical way, including Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941–1944 and Occupation of Serbia in World War II articles, so thanks for pointing out the other apparently ahistorical ones, I'll take a look. As the MILHIST editors also pointed out, there were different occupation systems, laws etc in relation to each partitioned area of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and grouping them in a modern context is ahistorical etc. Examples of appropriate contemporary handling of articles and titles are therefore ones like Governorate of Dalmatia, Province of Ljubljana, Independent State of Croatia, Banat (1941–1944) (which really is a fork of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia), Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944 and Albanian Kingdom (1939–1943). Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You gave wrong example. The name "Malaysia" was adopted in 1963. The name "Serbia" was adopted many centuries before German occupation.

It is best to follow WP:COMMONNAME and apply the name of this territory used in thousands of sources which cover the topic of this article. That name is also used in the existing article title.

It is wrong to support the current name (which actually contains words "in Serbia") and in the same time to be against the proposed name because it contains word Serbia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying we should just call it Serbia (1941-1944) or something? LMAO. Albania existed before WW2, so did Dalmatia and Banat, but we have very specific titles for those articles so no-one could possibly get confused what they are about. We having a saying here in Australia 'it's the vibe'. Is it the 'vibe' that bothers you, or is there a policy-based reason it's 'wrong'? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No. I did not want to say that. What I wanted to say is what I wrote. I will try to rewrite the main point for better understanding:

• "there was no Serbia" argument against the proposed title is incorrect and not valid. It is maybe even disruptive if used by supporters of the current title which actually contains words "in Serbia".

Please respect WP:CIVILITY.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets not do straw men here. Serbia is a country. When people say "there was no Serbia", they're talking about a country. And the whole gist of the "there was no Serbia" argument is that your title implies there was a country there. And there wasn't one. So lets not misrepresent other people's arguments. There was an area/region vaguely referred to as "Serbia", but that does not mean a title like "Occupied Serbia" would be any less POV and misleading (nor does it make this article about the history of said geographic region, etc. - this is just one valid reason among the three or four).

So in short, if you don't deliberately twist and misrepresent it, the "there was no Serbia" argument is completely correct and 100% valid. The implication that its somehow "disruptive" or "uncivil" is nonsense. (And again, please, cut down on the wikilawyering: its not likely to impress anyone.) -- Director (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

German-occupied Serbia

"German-occupied Serbia"

• Tomasevich in his work Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Vol. 2. San Francisco: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-3615-4. extensively (19 times) uses "German-occupied Serbia" when he refers to the territory which is topic of this article.
• in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural
• This title also respects WP:TITLE because it is:
  • recognizable
  • conveys what the subject is actually called in English "German-occupied Serbia"
  • something that readers are likely to look for or search
  • precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise
  • concise, and not overly long
  • consistent because it follow the same pattern as those of similar articles (i.e. German-occupied Europe, Allied-occupied Germany). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

well if you think that does the job, you go right ahead and put in an RM for it then. You might have to wait for Nemambrata's to be dealt with first (unless he/she withdraws it to give you the running). I won't support it for the reasons outlined above and elsewhere, mainly due to ambiguity/lack of precision as I have explained ad nauseum. Which Serbia, etc? However, can I ask that you please read WP:TITLE again before you do, especially WP:CRITERIA (given that you appear to have given up on WP:COMMONNAME) and please, when you put in the new RM, put it in WP:TITLE policy terms like you have above (although you might want to add that you don't believe there is a WP:COMMONNAME if that is now the case). Can I suggest you attempt, in the RM to address the issues of inconsistency of your suggestion with other German-occupied territories such as Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France etc, the ambiguity associated with not knowing which Serbia we are talking about in terms of its boundaries, and address all the other flagged objections to it, so we can discuss each point in terms of policy, hopefully in a succinct way? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. Even more POV, misleading, non-descriptive, inaccurate, inappropriate for this subject, and generally unacceptable. I could literally copy-paste the objections from above. You're apparently not reading the responses to your posts.

By the way, if and when you do post an RM, please make sure there aren't any good ole fashioned out-of-the-blue vote-stacking WP:MEATPUPPETS and/or SPA accounts. There's already evidence of canvassing at srWiki and of a WP:CLIQUE, such an occurrence would bring matters to a head. No gaming the system, please. -- Director (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

List of non-consensus names that do not refer to this subject

Unbelievable POV-pushing.. -- Director (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

who is going to determine which names go here? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They should all go here, imo :) -- Director (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for descriptive titles

I feel it is necessary to further explore some descriptive titles that might have the potential to satisfy all perspectives on this issue. The key for me is it needs to include the word territory or zone or something similar, as not including such a word implies that there was a pre-existing entity called 'Serbia' that was placed under occupation. Clearly the Germans occupied Yugoslavia and kept part of it under occupation, with a military government. That is the bit we are talking about, it sort of corresponds with the borders of the Kingdom of Serbia pre-Balkan Wars, with some notable bits hacked off here and there, or added on here or there. There is only one 'Serbia' that exactly corresponds with this 'Serbia', and that is the bit of Yugoslav territory the Germans kept under military occupation.

My suggestion is 'Serbia (German occupation territory)'. I could live with that.

Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I could not. I believe the term "Serbia" as used in the sources refers to a geographic area (possibly corresponding with "Serbia proper") - not the German military-administered territory itself. In addition, there's still the problem of misleading the reader by referring to this territory as "Serbia", just with disambiguation brackets. Pretty soon you'll have "[[Serbia (German occupation territory)|Serbia]]" listed as an Axis combatant, and confused with the Government of National Salvation. Also, you can probably expect subsequently a quick declaration that the "Government of National Salvation" is the government of "Serbia (German occupation territory)" etc. Not a good idea imo. -- Director (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns Director, but I'm just trying to move this forward. Do you have any descriptive titles you could live with? I know we've discussed others in the recent past, but now? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Move this forward to where? I don't mind the current title. As far as I can see, not only is it descriptive and in accordance with policy - its the only such title. The only other one that comes close is "Military Administration in Serbia". The one remaining issue that I can see is the lack of consistency in covering territories of this sort. I propose a general discussion at WP:MILHIST to address that problem, and when that's done as far I'm concerned we're finished with this damn title. -- Director (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm fooling myself that we could get some consensus here. You're probably right. Never thought of myself as a glass-half-full sort of guy, this just reinforces it. I agree we need to get all the military occupation-type articles listed at MILHIST and try to get some consistency across them all as far as possible to minimise the ahistorical approach to article titles and scope that some editors seem to favour. I actually don't like 'Military Administration in...' because the title itself is not readily construed as being that of a territory (the 'in...' is the territory bit, if you know what I mean, and some just were not states). It needs 'territory' (or zone, or region, or something like that) in the title, so that we don't have any POV-backsliding (which we already know is a danger here). It is just ahistorical, and I just can't accept that the WP community, particularly the history section, would rubberstamp this revisionist approach. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Whichever one fo the two is agreed-upon, I'm basically fine with that. -- Director (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What about German Military Command in Serbia (9 hits), German Military Command of Serbia (2 hits), these are supported by "German Command in Serbia" (13 hits), "German military commander in Serbia" (11 hits), "German military commander of Serbia" (8 hits). The article name should not be "Serbia (X)", as per Director.--Zoupan 13:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The language appropriate to the subject (ie the territory)

It has been suggested here and elsewhere that WP:TITLE indicates if there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of what it was called locally. But that is NOT what WP:TITLE says. What WP:UE(Use English) actually says is, 'If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on)'. I will flag now that if that is the case, I consider that the language appropriate to the subject, a territory occupied by the Wehrmacht, is in fact German. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please find below what WP:UE really says:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)	Peacemaker67 WP:TITLE#English-language titles
follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns...	follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns...

I will repeat what I already wrote to you today: Please keep in mind that an honest wikipedian Does not say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument.

The guideline suggests to use Porgugese for Brasilian towns, Turkish for Turkish rivers.... so it is Serbian for the territory of Serbia (toponym).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, you're not very good at WP:WIKILAWYERING, and I suggest you give it up. You do not understand policy, all you do is misquote and misrepresent it, and people here aren't likely to fall for it. Peacemaker, in spite of your offensive table, is actually quoting WP:TITLE verbatim.

Your problem is that this is not a territory of Serbia. Its a territory of Germany (that is to say, not annexed by Germany, but German-occupied, controlled, and administered). Tehre is no reason whatever to summarily conclude that the Territory of the German Military Commander in Serbia is most talked-about in Serbia.

And to top all this off: there is no Serbian language. What you refer to as the "Serbian language", is in fact a (quote) "standardized register of the Serbo-Croatian language". You may like that, or you may not, but that is what the sources say and I will not debate it here, nor with you of all people. -- Director (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong. I thought that Peacemaker67 quoted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which contain very similar text as WP:TITLE#English-language titles. I apologize for my mistake.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And I apologize if I responded too harshly to said error. -- Director (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted, although it would help if you clicked on the link. I cut & pasted direct. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate my contention that German is the correct language for any German occupation territory, including this one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean when there's no commonly used English term for the topic? So is it your contention that English terms like "Serbia under German occupation" typically refer to something different from the topic of this article? Like in this book? Can you explain? Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there are lots of them, see my long list above. I should add that my view is that there are plenty of English language phrases used, but nothing is common enough to satisfy WP:UCN. The reason we have the current title is that having gained consensus that there wasn't a common name, we decided that the official name should be used. The reason for my post above is that Antidiskriminator appears to think that lack of a WP:COMMONNAME means we use the local name for it used in Serbia. My contention is that as there is no WP:COMMONNAME, ie 'no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources' we should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering WP:CRITERIA. I tried to do that at the beginning of this long and winding road, but we have been waylaid, as no-one except Direktor has engaged with the criteria. They keep running (misguided in my view) arguments about WP:UCN, WP:UE etc. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea where that beginning was. But why are you now proposing German instead of choosing from among the many commonly used English terms? Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised! I challenge any editor who hasn't been here from the beginning to follow any of this! I'm not proposing German, I'm just pointing out that IF we had to go to foreign language, it should be German. What I am saying is that without a 'single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources', we should be attempting to achieve consensus (hoho) using the WP:CRITERIA. Here's the link to where I originally discussed the criteria. I'm interested in your views, please stay engaged if you can. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have criteria: we should use some name which have support from many sources and not name which have support from only one source which is 40 years old and which have no support from any new source. Nemambrata (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But the question is whether the name that is mentioned in (slightly) more sources is valid in referring to this subject. -- Director (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So the German terms are Militärverwaltung in Serbien (27), Militärverwaltung Serbien (24), Serbien unter deutscher Militärverwaltung (8), Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien (4), Serbien unter Militärverwaltung (2), and which else? It seems these support German Military Command in Serbia.--Zoupan 13:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt it Zoupan, but they are references to two different things. The 'Territory' Gebiet and the 'Military Administration' Militärverwaltung. As I've pointed out a few times, the Territory was under German military government, the military administration was one part of the military government, which also had police administration and economic administration branches. BTW, in this context I believe 'commander' is Befehlshaber, and 'command' is Befehlsgewalt. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea... If there are too many ambiguous terms (military government vs. administration etc), isn't the best to simply merge them into one article, into sections, and add a flawless intro clarifying everything. I mean, why would this article have an unique name? I am only against "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" as it is unused in English sources. What do Serbo-Croatian sources call it? Perhaps a RFC would be the best, to include more views, I'm getting out of here though.--Zoupan 13:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

How about an RFC then?

Can we try an RFC? I'd like to start with a brief neutral statement of the question and have others here respond with one statement each, link prior discussions if you like, limited to 1000 words, no rebuttals or arguments, then wait for comments from others, at least two days before any reactions. The neutral question would be "Should the title of this article be Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, or Serbia under German Occupation, or something else; consider the prior talk sections above." I will not be making a statement myself, but I may respond after two days, or sooner if others decide not to respect the proposal. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No. An RFC while there's an RM going on? Just list the RM on various noticeboards. And an RfC for what exactly? If someone wants to move the article - let him post an RM, that's what its for. We'd probably go through the whole annoying song and dance to no effect. And where's the sense in having an RM for a move to one title, while posting an RfC (of all things) for a move to another title??

I'm sure Antidiskriminator & Co. will jump at this, since for them whatever you (their perceived new-found ally :)) propose and I oppose must be a good thing. But it makes no sense. I certainly won't accept any title that has not been agreed-upon in a proper RM, whatever the outcome of the RfC - indeed, if any. Additionally, an RfC may not be the most useful and effective means of DR here, since the dispute is immensely complex, obscure, and thoroughly bogged-down in misleading rhetorical nonsense. A "vote on-the-fly" would not be very helpful, and would probably be drowned in far-more-knowledgeable retorts from long-time participants. -- Director (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

At User talk:Dicklyon#I propose to wait, Anti also proposes to wait, and says he has opened a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia#Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. I'm not sure I agree it's as immensely complicated as you say, but I do agree that I don't understand the issues that are motivating you guys to be so dug in about it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The current RM should be expect to close soon, as there's no support for it. But there is support for finding a new name, which is why I proposed the RFC. I think that comments like "you haven't read the 7 pages of discussion..." miss the point; we can't expect to reach any kind of consensus when we're making the question too complicated this way. A clean RFC with clearly stated positions and links to supporting evidence should be enough to get some outside opinions on how the various title proposals relate to title policy, and to help pick one. Dicklyon (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @I don't understand the issues that are motivating you guys to be so dug in about it" Believe it or not - neither do I! Obviously "Serbia's honour is at stake" here somehow, but I honestly do not see how. And I've said so on numerous occasions. Personally I think the '90s educational system is to blame. Its history classes, wherever they touched on local history, were absolutely steeped in (wartime) propaganda. I myself went through part of that, and it took me quite a while to find out what the actual history of my country was. They talked about Croatia like it always existed and always will exist, and I imagine (I'm guessing here), that in Serbia something similar was taking place. The history lessons probably don't talk about the German occupation territory, they talk about "Nedic's Serbia" or just "Serbia" for short, and when someone says "hey... what Serbia" or "what Croatia-Hungary?" (an imaginary state invented by Croatian '90s historiography) people think someone's "attacking their statehood" or something along those lines. And the state of this article was such that it was becoming difficult to cover WWII in Yugoslavia objectively without finally bringing this thing in-line with the sources.

I propose we discuss the matter at WP:MILHIST and come to a general agreement regarding whether "Military Administration in XY" or "Territory of the Military Commander in XY" are the more appropriate titles for the half-dozen articles like this one. -- Director (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of this, because we are not comparing apples and apples. Particularly here. So far as I am aware, none of the other German military occupation territories had a puppet government. Although there are hits on Google Books for Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Frankreich and Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in NordFrankreich and Belgien. Happy to be proven wrong regarding the puppet governments issue, but this one was a quite unique set-up which was cobbled together by the Germans on the run as the resistance developed. However, we did manage to get some help with this on MILHIST last time. I am imagining that it will be hard to get an experienced MILHIST editor or two to dip their oar into these turbulent waters again given we were only there a short time ago, but it's worth a try. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. technically Vichy France was the sort of "puppet government" for two of them. While there's no question of comparing their status, Vichy's functions in the occupied area were rather analogous to Nedic's. We also have the Hellenic State in Greece (a puppet government in spite of its name), and Quisling in Norway (though that was a Reichskommissariat). The territory in Poland was rather short-lived. I think there's grounds for viewing them as a group, and since it isn't a Balkans matter I think people might get involved :). -- Director (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, initially just in the Zone occupée, then after the German occupation of the Zone libre in both. I think we keep the Reichskommissariats out of this, as they were civil governments. But I was thinking more about Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France than German military administration in occupied France during World War II. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes in Belgium there was the Flemish National Union, but, exceptionally, there wasn't a local collaborationist civil government. But in France there was, in Greece, and in Serbia. The Netherlands and Belgium were exceptions, possibly because they were slated for direct annexation. -- Director (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

point taken. We still have a consistency problem though. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Scope of article

Just wanted to check with interested editors what they think the scope of this article should be. Should it be what went on in the territory of Yugoslavia that was occupied by the Germans and placed under German military government, who appointed puppet governments led by Nedic and Acimovic etc etc (ie what is currently summarized in the lead, leaving aside the title for the moment) or is there a view that the article scope should be different? I have attempted to get an answer on this a couple of times, but perhaps it has been lost in the walls of text. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing hey? Interesting. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Then what is decision about name?

I think that most editors who agree that current name is bad can agree about better name for this page. New name that was my proposal was opposed by most. OK. I will not propose it here more. I see that most editors also do not support current name. Can anybody then propose new vote about any other name and we will vote for it. If majority of editors support some other name we should rename page to that name. Something else: name of this page is not obligation for editors to use this name in all other pages. If some editors think that name of this page should be used in some other pages they should discuss that on relevant talk pages and not on this talk page. If we do not agree here about name that is acceptable for everybody then disputed name should not be promoted in all other pages. Other pages should keep neutral description that do not support POV of any editor if that POV is disputed by others. Nemambrata (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus that current name of page is bad

We should vote here to see is there a consensus that current name of page is bad. Please vote with Agree if you think that current name of page is bad or with Do not agree if you think that current name is good. Nemambrata (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. Nemambrata (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 please post your comments here, not in voting part, thank you very much. Nemambrata (talk)

The consensus to change the current title has already been reached. There is no reason for this poll. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

When was that consensus to change this title achieved?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

there is no consensus, except in Antidiskriminator's mind. And RM's are decided by consensus, not a vote. The support/oppose views of involved editors are taken into account by the closing admin along with their policy-based arguments, not WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. We don't discard article titles perfectly acceptable under WP:TITLE because some editors think the title is 'bad' or 'wrong' due to their personal views. Also Nemambrata, the WP convention with geographic names is to use the article title. Please read the policies, you are not being constructive with this constant banging on about POV.Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

When several editors agree on something, that is consensus. We do not need a gods signature, or admin approval for that. I think that we do have consensus that this title is bad, and that we have few editors that deny that. So, if (at least three, in this case) editors agree that name is wrong, we should propose new one, start RM, and see what will be. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

there is still an open RM. We need to wait for it to be closed or withdrawn, then anyone can put in a RM. It doesn't need a vote to put in a RM. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Start a move discussion if you think that there's a consensus against the current title and then the rationale of the editors who dispute it can be judged, but don't expect to change it by starting a section about your perception of consensus.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I solemnly declare there's consensus that there's no consensus :). WhiteWriter, Antidiskriminator, please just leave the WP:WIKILAWYERING out. You can repeat it however many times you like, but you do not have "consensus" for anything. Least of all a title change. And I apologize if this offends you, but I have to point out you're pushing the exact same position PANONIAN had been pushing before he was topic-banned. And Nemambrata is an obvious SPA that seems to be somebody's sock ("HuHu"?, PANONIAN?). Let me be frank: you have no sources. Lets please put this to bed before it really gets annoying. -- Director (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously not from you, at least... After this rm is over, we will start new one. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hah, well you two certainly have "consensus" if that's what you mean. Alrighty then, it looks like a simple lack of sources isn't about to stop ya.. -- Director (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, can you show which WP convention with geographic names say that we have to use this article title everywhere? I read page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and this is what page say: “All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects”. That mean that any name of this area can be used in any other page and that editors do not have obligation to use existing name of page in every redirect. Nemambrata (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It is argued that the name isn't applicable, Nemambrata. And if you want policy, I can show you quite a few about SPAs edit-warring to push a POV without consensus. -- Director (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I do not accept critics from users blocked for revert war like you. This page show that you have no consensus to have this article title here or in any other page. You are some WW2 fanatic, but you should not include POV about WW2 German occupation in every page about Serbia. Keep your disputes here or in page History of Serbia. Other pages about Serbia should not see promotion of German occupation and promotion of "official" German names that were not accepted and recognized by most in the World. Nemambrata (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of Tomasevich as a source for the use of the term 'Serbia' to relate to this territory

User: Antidiskriminator has used the citation 'Tomasevich (2001) pp. 1-789' to support the contention that Tomasevich refers to this territory as 'Serbia'. I contend this is a misrepresentation of the source on the following basis-

a. When Tomasevich first introduces this territory in the book in question (on p. 64) he does so in this way-

'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'

b. His reference to 'Serbia proper' is a clear reference to Serbia in its former boundaries before the Balkan Wars. (ie pre 1912). He then goes on to use the term 'Serbia' frequently in the following pages.

c. Tomasevich, like many other authors, after describing what he is talking about (ie Serbia proper etc), then uses 'Serbia' to refer to this area. To claim that because he uses the term in the book (100 or more times apparently), does not mean that the whole book refers to this territory as 'Serbia'. Tomasevich first introduces it as 'Serbia proper', and that is what this book can be used to support.

Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That theory is a bit a OR to me. If he use term Serbia, he meant to use that term. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is standard practice in English. If I write Australian Rules Football in a book, after that I would write 'football', not 'Australian Rules Football'. Of course that would cause confusion with football, wouldn't it? A bit like the problem we have here... But I'm happy to take it to reliable sources noticeboard to get a community consensus. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, noticeboard is useful, just please wait for Antidiskriminator's explanation of the same info. But i am still not convinced that he would use only "Serbia" if he thought that word would be misleading for the reader. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using Tomasevich as source for Serbia alternative name. He extensively uses term Serbia (together with a couple of other terms) when he refers to the territory which is subject of this article. Anybody can check that here. Tomasevic is also supported by RSN discussion. Peacemaker67 first deleted the source based on just one comment on RSN. Now he ignores the same RSN discussion although it shows that both Tomasevich and the source he initially deleted are RS for Serbia assertion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, why do you always link and cite these things as if they support you? Of course Tomasevich is RS, but you're misrepresenting the source, as Peacemaker has explained to you numerous times and above as well very nicely. -- Director (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect, Antidiskriminator. I did delete the ref on the basis of the original response, but my action was still in line with the consensus there once all the votes had come in. The consensus on RSN remains that it is unscholarly and not a RS (are you reading a different post?). As far as what the RSN said about Tomasevich as source for 'Serbia', you did not point out to the community when you jumped in there that he introduces the territory as 'Serbia proper' then uses 'Serbia' and other terms. That is what WW is suggesting is OR, and what I will be taking back there for clarification. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, i said that your conclusions are OR. Tomasevich would use correct therm all the time that he tough that "Serbia" would be misleading. Serbia is of Serbia proper, sure, that does not mean that we should not use Serbia as Tomasevich did. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh for goodness' sake.. the manner in which he uses the term isn't misleading - your proposed use of the term is misleading.. -- Director (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I agree with you that Tomashevic "uses 'Serbia' and other terms". Besides RSN that is exactly why there is nothing dubious about using him as the source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on this insightful comment by User:Fifelfoo at RSN, I agree that your use of Tomasevich (as a book) as a source for 'Serbia' in the Names section is in fact misleading and used out of context, and therefore inappropriate. I have tagged it appropriately so interested editors can have some time to locate a verifiable source for 'Serbia' as the name of the occupied territory (ie used in context, as distinct from the way it is used now). Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Other uses of Serbia may or may not be referring to Occupied Serbia in the text ... It needs to be read in context." - This is what "insightful comment by User:Fifelfoo at RSN" actually says. He did not write "use of Tomasevich (as a book) as a source for 'Serbia' in the Names section is in fact misleading and used out of context, and therefore inappropriate."

@Peacemaker67, it is absurd to claim that Tomasevich is not reliable source taking in consideration that he is the most extensively used source for this article. And many other articles you write. This is not the first time you use his work selectively, only when it matchs your pov. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

my mistake, I did not read it carefully enough. Apologies. However, it is ridiculous to use every page of Tomasevich as a reference when the word 'Serbia' does not appear on every page. It's tendentious. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

However, I find your accusation very offensive. If you have evidence of my using any source selectively, put up or shut up. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was drawn here by a comment drawing attention to the (temporary) misinterpretation of my comments at RS/N. 800 page "passim." citations are not appropriate. Citing the page where Tomasevich first makes an in context link between Occupied Serbia, "Serbia proper" and the use of the term "Serbia" is sufficient. p64 and ff. should be sufficient as this is a significant discussion of occupied Serbia and contextualises the elements. Even where a term is used passim. it is appropriate to cite a decisive or characteristic use. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, my apologies for (temporarily) misrepresenting your comments (I need more sleep). I've added p. 64 as a citation for the use of 'Serbia' in the context of Tomasevich's use of 'Serbia proper' and 'Occupied Serbia' to describe the occupied territory. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move to "German-occupied Serbia"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. Editors involved should cool down and comment on the content, not the contributor in the future. Please refer to the appropriate venues for dealing with suspected sockpuppetry, canvassing, and disruptive behavior. If you don't know where to go, contact me on my talk page and I'll direct you. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia → German-occupied Serbia –

I believe that the name I proposed is based on policies and guidelines of wikipedia. Precisely WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. The current title does not have characteristic requested by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. I also added "there was no Serbia" argument brought by some editors in previous RM related discussions.

Title/Guideline	WP:COMMONNAME	WP:TITLE recognizable	WP:TITLE - conveys what the subject is actually called in English	WP:TITLE - something that readers are likely to look for or search	WP:TITLE precise	WP:TITLE concise	WP:TITLE consistent	"there was no Serbia"
Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Included
German-occupied Serbia	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes/No	Included

• Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia 1 GBS hit

• German-occupied Serbia: (28 GBS hits also including Tomasevich who in his work Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Vol. 2. San Francisco: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-3615-4. extensively (19 times) uses "German-occupied Serbia" when he refers to the territory which is the topic of this article).

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• Support per above presented explanation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Wow, great proposition! This name is neutral and far netter then this one by sources and everything else already presented. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "Wow great proposition"? :) Look, you two are acting in concert and you've been pushing the same title for ages here, so drop the transparent pretense. -- Director (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I meant "Wow, great presentation of the proposal." I said above that i support different name since long time ago, so i dont see any problem with that now. If the rest of editors here agree, title will change, if not, it will not. Simple as that, there is no massive conspiracy or organisations here, DIREKTOR, only simple proposition. Please, keep it simple, as i will try. Following the great father: "As an uninvolved editor, I just wanted to say good work, everyone, and try to relax, what you are arguing about isn't that important. --User:Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)" --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. In spite of the pretty colours, the entire table up there is complete nonsense. WP:COMMONNAME does not support the proposed title, and seeing as how that's been established over and over and over again - and explained to both these two users carefully - the table up there amounts to deliberate misinformation of the reader on a complex subject - as does, ironically, the proposed title itself. The current title is not particularly "elegant", but it is necessary for such a complex and sensitive subject, and its certainly vastly superior to the absurdly inappropriate cherry-picked phrase above.

This RM is, essentially, POV-pushing based on clouding an issue that's about as complex as it gets. "German-occupied Serbia" is a misleading title that attempts to push the nonsense view (initially espoused by the t-banned User:PANONIAN) that "Serbia" somehow existed during World War II. This is to be done by way of misrepresenting the sources' usage of the term "Serbia" in the WWII context. In reality, of course, there was no entity by the name of "Serbia" to be "occupied". The term is sometimes used in sources to denote a vaguely-defined area - never a separate entity of some sort (as anyone who read the source understands).

• The phrase that's been put forward here is not the commonname. It has been established over and over and over again by way of detailed research that there is no prevailing COMMONNAME for this subject.
• But that hardly matters since the proposed phrase does not even refer to the subject of the article (the military-administrative entity).
• Rather it refers to a vague term, denoting an undefined area of ground.
• This is due to the fact that there was no "Serbia" to be "occupied" at all. This a-historical phrase would superimpose borders from the future onto a period where they do not belong ("what 'Serbia' is he talking about? this 'Serbia'? this 'Serbia'? this 'Serbia'?...")

But, that's the whole point. From a Serbian-nationalist perspective "Serbia always existed", and that's the POV that's being pushed: the idea is to use a 1) misleading, 2) vague, 3) a-historical phrase that retroactively applies borders from the past or future that have no place in this period. -- Director (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2012‎ (UTC)

• But Antid presented sources about that... --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• No, he did not. As has been explained to him before in great detail - he is only misrepresenting the source. -- Director (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "What 'Serbia' is he talking about?" The same Serbia current title talks about.
• The real question is:"What territory and what military commander current title talks about?" Nobody knows. Thousands of military commanders existed in Serbia. All of them controlled certain territories. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's not an answer. The point is the vagueness and misleading quality of the term "Serbia". The current title denotes a carefully-defined area the Wehrmacht chose to call "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". What precisely the word "Serbia" denotes there is vague - but irrelevant, as unlike your phrase the current title does not hinge on that term.
• Nonsense, that is actually a completely irrelevant question. The "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is well defined; but your title does not refer to it - instead choosing to use a thoroughly undefined term ("Occupied Serbia??") for POV reasons. That means two things: 1) its inapplicable to this subject, 2) its vague and unclear.

There's also numbers "3" through "6", of course, each individually sufficient cause to dismiss the above proposed phrase.. but at this point I'm getting used to you focusing only on those objections can think of an answer to. -- Director (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Let me point out in advance that we will likely see Serbian users suddenly appearing to support this move. It has been established (with numerous diffs) that WP:CANVASSING campaigns often take place on srWiki or by way of e-mail when these sort of issues come up. Please note, in addition, that WP:SPAs participating in the poll will be tagged appropriately with an {{Spa}} template. -- Director (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As per nominator's explanation, Tomasevich is also the most used reference in the article. "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is confusing and virtually nonexistent in historiography. --Zoupan 23:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Zoupan, I've read all Tomasevich's publications on WWII Yugoslavia front-to-back more than once, I introduced him on enWiki as a widely-cited source on the subject in the first place. Antidiskriminator used a Google Books find tool. The term is misquoted as referring to this subject, its cherry-picked out of context. Plus its not the most common (see the actual research above by Peacemaker), its vague, its a-historical (what "Serbia"?), its highly and purposely misleading in that it implies the existence of a Serbian state during the WWII period and before. -- Director (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I sincerely thank you for introducing Tomasevich and for your work on WWII Yugoslavia. The context is German-occupied Serbia, and the list provided by Peacemaker clearly shows that it is exactly that name that is most common in one way or another. And please tell me "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" doesn't imply any existence of a Serbia? If the official name indeed was "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" or "German Military Command in Serbia", that information will stay in the intro. As per WP:TITLE, German-occupied Serbia is the most suitable article name.--Zoupan 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME is not a straightjacket. That aside, it's clear that the current, specific name, which refers to a specifically defined and organised geopolitical entity, is far more preferable than the generic term - especially since the territory in question includes areas not in Serbia - "The territory included central parts of present-day Serbia, the northern part of Kosovo (around Kosovska Mitrovica), and the Banat." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • But, to add to that, - its not the COMMONNAME at all :). And Antidiskriminator knows this full well, he's seen the research. As I said, its deliberate misleading (also known as lying). -- Director (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Nazi-occupied Serbia" (33), "Serbia under German occupation" (28), "German occupation of Serbia" (28), "German-occupied Serbia" (27), "German administration in Serbia" (15), "German command in Serbia" (14), "German military command in Serbia" (9), "German occupation in Serbia" (7), etc. @The Bushranger: "German-occupied Serbia" refers to a specifically defined and organised geopolitical entity - parts of Serbia under "direct" German occupation, as opposed to Italian-occupied [southwestern] Serbia, etc. The territories you quoted were before, during, and after, part of Serbia. --Zoupan 09:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@Zoupan. Thanks for proving there is no WP:COMMONNAME. Can we strike through Antidiskriminator's first column now? But seriously though, those results haven't been checked for context. For example, most of these ones relate to the actions of the command, not the territory. [2] But look at this one for example, included in the "German military command in Serbia" results! Second hit from the bottom, the book 'Genocide of the ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia, 1944-1948'. It is actually about the territory. The full entry reads 'Territory under the jurisdiction of the German military command in Serbia'! A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... And really seriously Zoupan, these misleading statements have got to stop. The Banat did not become part of the Kingdom of Serbia until 25 November 1918. The Kingdom of Serbia itself became a part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (which itself later became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia) a week later. The Bushranger might not know that, but I and others do. All the references for this territory relate to its similarities with the boundaries of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1912, which didn't include the Banat. That is probably why a few sources refer to this occupied territory as 'Serbia-Banat'. Please acknowledge the facts as I have described, and that your comments are potentially misleading. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose.

a. Antidiskriminator’s table above explains nothing about how his preferred title meets the criteria in each column, and is therefore is deliberately and highly misleading. It fails the WP:NPOV test, and does not follow the clear guidance of WP:TITLE at all. Dismissing the current title with that table does nothing to advance the proposed title and only demonstrates lack of understanding of WP:TITLE and/or the requested move policies, and flags an intention to ignore all information that is relevant to the discussion but does not conform with the requested move title.

b. WP:COMMONNAME. It is crystal clear from the discussion on this talkpage that there is no WP:COMMONNAME for this territory. It couldn’t possibly be any clearer. I listed some 16 separate names for this occupied territory in the 'List of names used in English language sources' above. That alone is sufficient evidence that there is no WP:COMMONNAME, but just to demonstrate the rank dishonesty of the table above, I point out (yet again) that when Tomasevich (2001) refers to this territory for the first time in his book, he refers to it as follows: 'The Germans established a military government of occupation in Serbia proper, ...' 'Serbia proper'! Not 'German-occupied Serbia'. He might use that later in the book as a colloquial way of referring to it, but that is a misrepresentation of the source, as that is not how he defines it when he introduces it. He also uses ‘Serbia proper’ in his 1975 work, referring to the 1912 borders. Other key texts use ‘rump Serbia’ (Milazzo), ‘residual Serbia under German control’ (Pavlowitch 2008) etc, see above ad nauseum.

c. I won't rehash Director's well-made point about which 'Serbia' we are talking about. The proposed title lacks the necessary precision and does not define what 'Serbia' we are talking about, whereas the current title is exact and precisely defines a particular territory.

d. I almost didn't respond to Antidiskriminator's tendentious point about which military commander we are talking about, and that there were 'thousands' in 'Serbia'. That is just another example of ignoring or misrepresenting all information that does not conform with his preferred title. There was only one German general that performed the duties of the Militärbefehlshabers Serbiens (Military Commander in Serbia) in the occupied territory at any given time. And they were Forster, von Schroder, Dankelmann, Bohme, Bader and Felber in turn. That’s it.

e. Tomasevich may be the most used source in the article at present, but I would be happy to add many other sources. Basing it on what sources are used in the article now would be improper and misleading, as the article needs a serious overhaul.

f. This idea that the German's use of the phrase 'in Serbia' in the current (and official) title meaning that 'Serbia' existed immediately prior to the occupation is absolutely misleading and illogical. The fact that the German word Serbiens is used in the title does not mean that a 'Serbia' existed at the time of the invasion. What it does mean is that the occupied territory established under the command of the Military Commander in Serbia was in some way similar to a previous 'Serbia' that had existed in the past (as Tomasevich points out, similar but not precisely the same as the Serbia of 1912), and the so the Germans referred to the territory by the title of its commander, ie he was the Military Commander in Serbia, and they named it the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'. Per User:The Bushranger, this was a ‘specifically defined and organised geopolitical entity’, organised by the Germans for a specific purpose and placed under German military government within those borders.

Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support – while I agree that the colorful table is not that useful, I don't see the arguments against this title making much sense. The territory that the Germans referred to in their language as something like the present tilte is referred to in hundreds of English-language books as "German-occupied Serbia". There is no confusion about "what Serbia" in the literature, as far as I can tell. And if there is, it would only be evidence that the territory as defined by the Germans is not that relevant to the topic as discussed in English-language histories of this region/time/people. We don't need to make this a fight about whether Serbia existed as a national or political entity at that time. Director claims that "WP:COMMONNAME does not support the proposed title, and seeing as how that's been established over and over and over again", but I'm not familiar with how it has been shown that COMMONNAME does not support "German-occupied Serbia". I'd need at least a summary or a link to one of those explanations to consider that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Dicklyon, but I have to pull you up there. It's 28 Google Books hits for that term, not hundreds of English-language books. Can we just keep a lid on the hyperbole? Cheers. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, regarding WP:COMMONNAME, there are over 20 context-specific hits for "rump Serbia" [3], about 20 for "Nedic's Serbia" [4] and even good old "Serbia-Banat" gets 8 or so context-specific hits [5]. According to WP:PLACE when looking at Google Books hits, 'If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted'. Therefore none of these names are widely accepted, which is another reason to use the precise official name, which appears in three English language sources, as well as two more English language sources where it is rendered in its original German. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My, "hundreds" now, is it? I must tip my hat to Antidiskriminator for his nice table, apparently it "dazzles the audience" quite effectively. Peacemaker, I suggest you copy your above research on the terminology used in the sources down here, so as to minimize the said "dazzle" effect with the citing of actual facts. -- Director (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We are here to vote and reach concensus, and I doubt the "research on the terminology for minimizing the dazzle" will work, as I've already said - it clearly shows that it is exactly German-occupied Serbia that is most suitable.--Zoupan 09:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We are really not here to vote, Zoupan. We are either here to gain consensus (which is not going too well at present) or the requested move discussion will be closed by an uninvolved admin at the end of the 7 days or so, and they will determine the outcome based on applicable policy arguments of the participants. Like the last requested move. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Zoupan.. exactly the opposite. We're not here to WP:VOTE, we're here to do the research. And no, the research actually shows this phrase is inappropriate to the point of absurdity. -- Director (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Direktor.. Maybe it's bad English, but I said vote and reach concensus - that's what we're doing aren't we? We choose Support/Oppose with arguments and eventually there will be an outcome. I think we all understand that there is no concensus at this point and that's why we're still here. I favour "German-occupied Serbia" over "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", plus the Administration-section says "The territory of Serbia was the only area of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in which the Germans imposed a military government of occupation", thus there is no ambiguity (absurd, right). Is it unbearable if the name would be "German-occupied Serbia", and the intro would still explain the status of this entity, which again is in accordance with "German-occupied Serbia"? Btw, I've not found any sources regarding the name in Serbian (Територија војног команданта у Србији), and again, what is the most used term in Serbo-Croatian? --Zoupan 15:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I was falling for the estimate "About 764 results". Actually it turns about 30+ hits, and not all of those are obviously correct, so "dozens" would have been more like it. Still, are there other terms that have been proposed with that much usage? I think the current title is found in about 1 book. Dicklyon (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that's the problem. There are "dozens" of different terms used in the sources, some more appropriate, some less, and this cherry-picked phrase does not even fully apply to the subject of the article (a German military-administered territory). There are several separate "levels" on which this title is POV and does not really work, not when you think about it. But, Bushranger got me thinking... -- Director (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@Dicklyon. ::: I've listed two above, 'Nedic's Serbia' and 'rump Serbia' (both about 20 context-appropriate hits). The point I'm trying to make is that there is no WP:COMMONNAME, I've said this from the beginning. I doubt I'm going to convince you, but please read the comments. Also, the current title is a translation of the German, the official name for this territory. It appears in almost identical form in English in four publications actually, one of which is easily the most comprehensive set of volumes on Germany in WWII (Kroener et al), but also in Hehn, Pavlowitch and Bond & Roy, it also appears in its German form in at least two of those publications. Peacemaker67 (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this is could all basically be about Kosovo. WhiteWriter and Antidiskriminator both spent, and do spend, a lot of time on that article (generally not having their way) before they joined us here. This German territory included a significant chunk of Kosovo: I think the point here might actually be "Kosovo is Serbia". That is, the semantic difference between something that is "Serbia" and something that is "in Serbia". PANONIAN found that point strangely important as well. -- Director (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

you cannot be serious... Could it be about the Banat? Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell knows, could be both. The Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (wherein Banat lies) probably won't secede, but it did these last couple years get a significant increase in its autonomy. I'd imagine whether its actually "Serbia" (as compared to "Serbia proper") is a significant issue over there as well. PANONIAN is from Vojvodina, this is his title, and we here are talking about the period immediately before the two autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina were actually formed for the first time and given borders. -- Director (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

O, for god's sake, Direktor. What are you talking about. This opinion of yours actually makes me sad. Is that really what are you thinking? --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be sad, WhiteWriter. -- Director (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, save us from your philosophies... This German territory was called Serbia, and nothing else, while the bureaucratic name was "Territory of ... Serbia". --Zoupan 11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - the current name refers to a very clearly defined subject, while the proposed name is extremely loose, and would be much harder to focus an article around. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you just tell me what is that clearly defined subject, please? --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • You mean the fact that four people have repeated it about a dozen times doesn't suffice? -- Director (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
      • In case it isn't: "the territory defined by the occupying power as the political entity known as the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', which included areas that are not inside Serbia proper as commonly/modernly defined, making 'German-occupied Serbia' misleading at best and dishonest at worst (as the area being occupied was known, before and after the occupation, politically as Yugoslavia anyway)." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

1. The subject of this article was not "known as the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia'". That title is just translation of the official German name which does not conveys with what the subject is actually called. It is only mentioned in couple of works. Not extensively. Probably once per each work.
2. The current name does not meet rest of WP:CRITERIA. Nobody would ever recognize the topic of this article behind that name. Check yourself. Ask anybody: Hey, do you know what is known as "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". Nobody would know. Except, maybe Hehn. And it would not be strange, because this title is not used in sources to describe the subject of this article. Nobody would ever use existing title to search for it. It is not precise (there were probably thousands of military commanders and their territories in Serbia).
3. 'German-occupied Serbia' is neither misleading or dishonest. Otherwise it would not be so extensively used by many scholars including Tomasevich whose work is most often used work in this article. And many related articles.
4. "Serbia"-related arguments are not valid to oppose to the proposal because the word Serbia exists in the current title too.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Nope. The subject of this article is the German military-administered territory. Your proposed phrase does not apply to the subject of this article, but rather to a vaguely-defined area of ground applied by introducing anachronistic borders into the World War II period. It is NOT the WP:COMMONNAME, that is just a lie (since you've seen the research). It is one of a great many terms none of which meet the necessary requirements necessary to be called the COMMONNAME. This title is thus te most appropriate for this subject. Your cherry-picked out-of-context phrase - is about something else.
2. The fact that you do not understand policy and do continuously misquote it is not something others should be forced to contend with.
3. 'German-occupied Serbia' is misleading and dishonest. It is dishonest precisely because you (mis)quote Tomasevich in support. That source does not use the term to refer to the subject of this article (the German military-administered territory), but rather he generally speaks of a vaguely-defined geographic area.
4. Nonsense. Of course they're valid. The current title denotes a carefully-defined area the Wehrmacht chose to call "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". What precisely the word "Serbia" denotes there is still vague - but irrelevant, as unlike your phrase the current title does not hinge on that term. Who cares what they meant by "in Serbia" there - we still don't really know, but who cares: we know what the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' is. What's your "Serbia"?

I mean this has all been explained to you numerous times before - yet you keep repeating the same stuff over and over and over again to muddle the issue and try and "keep the confusion going". Classic WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You also pick and choose which part of the other user's post you reply to, ignoring the numerous problems with your proposed phrase and just focusing on those you can think of a reply to. Please cease this WP:DISRUPTIVE pattern of behavior, respond and adjust your position with respect to sources and arguments put forward by other users, or it will eventually be reported in the appropriate venue. -- Director (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• What Wehrmacht chose is not necessarily relevant for the title of this article. (see Wikipedia:Official names essay)
• I already replied to your question what is Serbia in the proposed title. The same Serbia current title talks about.
• 50% of users who participated in this discussion support the proposed name.
• You "keep repeating the same stuff", not me. The consequence is that generated huge walls of text (using statements that needlessly personalize the issue) that will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion.
• I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my proposal, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with their opinion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, 50% does not equal consensus. I will await the arrival of a surge of 'patriots'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am reminding you (again) to appropriately thread your posts on talk page. Failing to do so may be interpreted as inexperience with Wikipedia conventions at best, and as inconsiderateness or arrogance at worst. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how wide your screen is, Antidiskriminator, but can you please stop WP:WIKILAWYERING about rubbish and stick to the subject? And Eureka! I discovered the outdent template! So far (in eight months and 4,500 edits), no-one else has accused me of arrogance (or lack of consideration) because I didn't know about it. But there is always one isn't there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A user can post wherever he/she likes, Antidiskriminator, and you calling another participant "ignorant" and "arrogant" because of where he posts his responses can and will be interpreted as a breach of WP:NPA and reported accordingly. -- Director (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. per arguments provided by DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67. The current article name has been established to be the most appropriate time and time again. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support – because that name have support from more source and that was not illegal name invented by Nazis. Current page name promote illegal Nazi name that was official only in mind of Nazis. That name had no recognition as official from most in world. Nemambrata (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Nemambrata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note - please note Nemambrata (talk · contribs) is an SPA at best, and somebody's SOCK at worst. -- Director (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Note about note You are welcome to ask for SPI or to report at AN/I, but as you don't have any evidence then personal attitude, this is not allowed to say and note. Please, dont try to downgrade users you disagree with. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually its pretty easy to downgrade Nemambrata to a single-purpose account, a cursory glance at his contribs will reveal that whenever he did make edits somewhere other than here, he posted them in connection to this topic - such as changing the name by which this article is wikilinked to. He's been on Wiki for two weeks and there is no question he's been recruited, or created as a sock, in relation to the continuous and unending Serbian-nationalist POV pushing campaign on this article. -- Director (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support - This teritory was occupied! This is like for "concentration camp" to use official name "working camp". --Alexmilt (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Note. Peacemaker and myself both stated we were expecting this. Two days have passed with no comments here, and now two highly suspicious accounts (one an obvious SPA) vote within the space of an hour. No doubt more "Strong Supports!" are to come (perhaps now with a more pronounced time interval). After a cursory look at User:Alexmilt it appears his userpage has actually been created by WhiteWriter, and that he's WhiteWriter's acquaintance, probably from his "Kosovo campaigns". There's sure to be "denials", and it is impossible to really prove e-mail canvassing, but in my opinion its about as obvious as these things get.

In addition, User:Alexmilt's post seems to indicate he has no idea whatsoever what this proposed move is about, or that the current title quite unambiguously indicates military occupation. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY would seem to apply. -- Director (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

concur. The patriots have arrived. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Shameful attempt! I could say that for each and every "oppose" i dont like. Shameful attempt to discredit normal RM process. And i will really report this accusations, as i cannot stand your attack anymore. Remove these direct accusations, or i will ask for admin assistance. Now i can control who will show up here? Remove! --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

not shameful at all, WW. I am not accusing you, I am suggesting that Alexmilt is a POV warrior. One of this accounts earlier edits was to deny that Croats that opposed the Ustase were sent to Jasenovac. This is a fact, and any one who denies it has got serious problems. All sorts of people were sent there, but some want to believe or promote the idea that only Serbs were sent there. Of course, some editors don't like facts that conflict with their POV. I'm afraid that the sudden arrival of Alexmilt here is highly suspicious, and rightly so. I have already reported Nemembrata at ANI, and Alexmilt suddenly appears here, having not shown interest in this article in 9 months, but wants to 'vote' on this RM, and we shouldn't be suspicious? Feel free to report this, happy to have this discussion in front of the wiser community. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't, but DIREKTOR is. I didnt do anything. Dont know for Antidiskriminator, but i didn't do anything. It may be possible that someone points to here, but that is not the question here. I didnt send anything to anyone! I do know user Alexmilt, but in the same way as i know you, or any other editor. Dont want to listen this false rude accusations anymore. Instead of searching trough users past, deal with current users opinions. Therefor, i have removed trolling and direct personal attack per WP:TPOC. And, as you may see on several occasion, i am the first one to point about SPA's and canvassing. But i never attack users, even when i have evidences and link. Bad wiki behavior. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Cut down with the "outrage" please WhiteWriter, noone's buying it. You called in the Nemambrata SPA and that pal of yours yesterday, and they both voted within the hour. It would take a complete moron not to find your two friends voting here one after the other suspicious. I find your implication that Peacemaker and myself are so stupid rather insulting. -- Director (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You can conclude what ever you want, i dont care. I told you that i didn't participated in that imaginarium of yours, and that is the end of it. Get off me, please, with your "obvious conclusions", you are pushing to the edge of personal attack. --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

incorrect info

Peacemaker67, you are one who insert factually incorrect info. discuss this on talk page, do not revert. Nemambrata (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• User:Nemambrata, your post above does not qualify as discussion of the matter, all it comprises is an unfounded attack on my integrity, and your reversion is contrary to WP:BRD. You have effectively vandalised this article with a number of the edits you have done recently, including
  • you changed the text so that it did not reflect the source (Tomasevich 2001) regarding the territory being under a 'military government of occupation', changed the underlying links so they were less precise, and changed Tomasevich's use of the 1912 Serbian borders as one of the areas included, along with North Kosovo and the Banat, instead inserting your own version, linking to a more modern province of 'Central Serbia'. This is ahistorical and incorrect. You should not change the meaning of sourced text, if you have an alternative source, contrast it with Tomasevich and provide the inline citation.
  • you changed the text so that it indicated Turner was the Military Commander in Serbia. This is either a failure to read the sources (which are crystal clear on what Turner's role was, he was the Chief of the Military Administration and as the head of one of the staff branches of the Military Commander, was under the direct command of the Military Commander in Serbia), or blind disregard for what the source says. It is an indisputable fact that Turner was not the Military Commander in Serbia.
  • you removed entries in the infobox template that showed that this territory was in the Balkans and Europe (which it clearly was)
  • you removed a map which is contextually relevant to the territory as it indicates who the occupant was in the adjacent territories later in the war
• You have been warned, asked nicely, reported twice as an WP:SPA and once for editwarring and yet you continue to edit disruptively, edit war, and fail to respect sources. You are continuing to behave inappropriately (such as your unfounded attack on my integrity and reverting my reversion with the edit summary, 'rv vandalism'). I will escalate my reports of your poor behaviour to the appropriate fora if you continue. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks against me: Peacemaker, you are disruptive user that was blocked for revert warring in the past and “warning” that you (as disruptive one) send to someone is joke. Your “reports” to admins are just personal attacks against me, continue with attacks and I will ask admins to protect me from you. It is not true that I do not respect sources. Peacemaker, you abuse sources and place your own opinions into pages. I was try only to change obvious errors on this page and you must stop with your reverts.

About this page:

This area was not ”equivalent to the borders of the Kingdom_of_Serbia in 1912”. Everybody can see that in simple history map that show borders in 1912: [6]. Tomasevich maybe say this but it is obvious that he is wrong. Authors can be wrong, they are not Gods. If you know that he is wrong why you insist that this page use obvious wrong citation?

“government of occupation” is too strange term that is untranslatable into Serbian. This is about history of Serbia and people from Serbia will come to read this so page should use some better term like “occupational government” or something similar.

Continent and region lines must be removed from infobox because they place this page into category “Former countries in the Balkans”. This was no country and do not belong there.

This area was not under Nazi Germany, but under German army. Link to German army should be in infobox instead Nazi Germany. Nemambrata (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your problem is that Tomasevich says it was. I don't know it is wrong. It doesn't matter if the government of occupation doesn't translate into Serbian, because this is English WP. The term is the one used by Tomasevich. Again, you have no source. It was a territory, and territories are included in former countries in the Balkans, and they do belong there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

in exactly what respect is Serbia in its 1912 borders not included in this territory? Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

this article is on English WP, not Serbian WP. If Serbian people come here they need to be able to read and comprehend English. The wording from Tomasevich is very particular and should be used verbatim, not modified for Serbian readers. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Nemambrata. Here [7] is a university library map which shows the borders of Serbia in 1912, please tell me in exactly what respect these borders differ from Tomasevich's citation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Answers:

About borders of Serbia in 1912: This is map of Serbia in 1912 with more details. This is map of occupied territory in 1941. There are very big differences between borders in two maps. For example cities Vranje and Pirot were part of Serbia before 1912, but in 1941 were annexed by Bulgaria. Cities Novi Pazar and Kosovska Mitrovica were not part of Serbia before 1912, but in 1941 were under German Military Administration in Serbia. Borders in 1941 and 1912 are not same and Tomasevich is wrong. There is no doubt about it.

About Tomasevich: why you insist that page use citations from this author? There are many more authors that can be used. I am sure that other authors will provide accurate citations. I will search for some by myself.

About category: This parent category say that it is for Former countries and point readers to page Country. Why you think that territories also belong there? Which policy of Wikipedia say that?

About language: There is no reason that we use any term only because it is used by Tomasevich. Who is Tomasevich anyway? Your favorite author? Who say that this author is only one who should be used here? I will search for better quotations from other authors. For example this book say “Serbia proper became a protectorate of the Germans“. this book say “In Serbia proper, a puppet regime was installed“. It is better that Wikipedia use name “Serbia proper“ instead “Serbia in 1912“. this book say ”The commissioners were various agencies of the German occupational government” (instead “government of occupation”). Nemambrata (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Tomasevich clearly states that the Banat and north Kosovo were additional to the roughly 1912 borders, not included in them. Please read the text. However, I accept your edit re: Serbia proper for now, although it would be good if you would cite properly instead of using Google books links. On the issue of the terminology, 'occupational' has a different meaning. It is a pretty poor usage in English, 'occupational' is almost exclusively used to refer to vocational matters, such as 'occupational health and safety' and this is a very uncommon usage in this context. The point about 'military government of occupation' is that the terms are wiki linked, your formulation is simplistically linked, and factually incorrect. 'Military occupation' by 'Nazi Germany' explicitly means the occupation was by the German military (actually the Wehrmacht, not the German Army (Heer)). I use Tomasevich extensively for several reasons, I have a copy of both books, among others, he is one of the most influential and frequently cited and comprehensively researched pieces of work on WW2 in Yugoslavia available in English, etc etc. He is highly authoritative on these topics. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with page

Problem with this page is that very aggressive editor Peacemaker67 push his POV here and do not allow to anybody else to edit page and do not want to achieve consensus with anybody about anything. This must stop. Peacemaker67 must stop with his reverts and must stop to include sources that do not support his position. There is only one source in English that support name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” and that is Hehn (1971). Peacemaker67 do not like that only one source support name that he push and he abuse sources and place fake sources as support for this name in page. Other sources do not support name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” and this is then nothing but forgery and violation of WP:VERIFIABILITY. Peacemaker67 must stop to fill page with fake references that do not support name for page that he push. Nemambrata (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Other thing is map: Peacemaker67 continue to include two same maps into this page. Why this page should have two same maps? It is ugly and stupid. This territory looks same in both maps of occupied Yugoslavia: one for 1941-1943 and one for 1943-1944. Can Peacemaker67 give any reasonable explanation for his revert warring? Nemambrata (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Last thing: Modern region of North Kosovo is not same with north Kosovo in 1941. Link should point to Kosovo region instead, Why Peacemaker67 revert me? Nemambrata (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nemambrata, how about we both take a deep breath? I will do my best to discuss with you here, but you also must be willing to achieve consensus and try to understand what I am saying.

• I ask that you withdraw your insulting personal attacks about me 'forging' sources. I have not 'forged' any sources, they all exist and say what they say. If they need verification that they support what I am using them to support, fine, we'll go through that discussion and I have started that conversation over at WP:RSN, where User:Fifelfoo has made a number of observations about the sources I have used. Where he has indicated they cannot be relied upon due to their age or whatever other reason, I hereby undertake not to use them. But your insulting and unfounded personal attacks on my integrity must stop immediately.
• As far as the maps are concerned, I do not think the second map is 'stupid and ugly'. What the second map shows is that the territories that surrounded this one were occupied or controlled by Germany after the Italian capitulation in 1943. This is a significant difference, in Montenegro for example, which had impacts on the territory this article is about. For example, the Military Commander in Serbia took operational command of the territory of Montenegro after the Germans occupied it in late 1943. Albania likewise was a German not Italian protectorate after late 1943. I was restoring it for the reason that it adds context for the later period when the Italians were not involved on the borders of this territory, and I actually said that in my edit summary on at least one occasion. I think that is a good reason to include it, so please read the labels on the map which clearly show it is different from the 1941-1943 version, and please respond to my suggestion it be restored again.
• And I'm fine with the 'north Kosovo' linking.
• BTW, I have moved the term 'and military administration' after the Tomasevich inline citation because that citation does not support those words. When you make edits, please make sure your edits have a source, it is inappropriate to add your edits onto information that is sourced, because it makes it appear that the inline citation supports your edit, when it may or may not. In this case, it does not. I'm not saying that there wasn't a military administration, just that your edit isn't covered by the inline citation. Do you understand?

Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Consistency - Commissioner Government vs Commissioner Administration vs Government/council of Commissars

The Acimovic administration is referred to by a variety of terms in sources, as follows [8]

• 'Commissioner Administration' - Tomasevich 2001, Circle 2004, Karchmar 1973, Deroc 1988, Sedlar 2007
• 'Commissioner Government' - Tomasevich 1975, Donlagic et al 1967, Singleton 1976, and strangely Karchmar 1973
• Ramet 2011 uses 'Council of Commissars', Cohen uses 'Government of Commissars', Milazzo uses 'Commissar Administration'.

I propose we agree on one formulation for this short-lived entity, so we can use it consistently across all relevant articles. The only concern I have with some formulations is that they are potentially misleading, for example, anything with 'Commissar' in it (like in Ramet, Cohen and Milazzo) tends to make the reader think of communism, and I am aware that other sources use the term 'commissary', which has a very specific meaning for our US editors and readers (it is a shop on a military base), is not widely used outside the US. I would be prefer 'Commissioner Administration', as 'Commissioner Government' probably is overblown (it really didn't have much in common with a government), and all the sources that use it are older than nearly all of the 'Commissioner Administration' ones. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Due to the lack of interest, I have changed all references to 'Commissioner Administration' for consistency.Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This is nonsense.

It shouldn't matter if some of the editors are serbian nationalists or not, this title argument is ridiculous, the current title can not be sourced correctly. If I knew the header tag for 'this title is fucking retarded' I'd use it. And no, I'm not serbian, I'm not a sockpuppet, or single purpose....I've never edited anything at all to do with Serbia that I recall:I'm neutral - this title is fiction. 92.15.79.29 (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, although your rudeness is not appreciated. A bit of civility would be appreciated in what is an already heated talkpage at the best of times. I would be interested in your policy-based arguments for an alternative title. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between using swear words as.....I forget the word....kinda synonyms for 'very', and using them as insults, no rudeness was intended, merely intensity of disagreement on what I percieve as a nonsense argument, from the combatitive way in which some are defending the current title I guess they're involved in many serbia conflicts and have got caught up in a certain mindset, but current regional politics have no relevance here. I can see no real objection to 'German-occupied Serbia' suggested above. The argument against raised is that it implies that an official nation state of Serbia existed directly before & after (& during?) that time, I can see how that could be read by some people, but I don't think it matters even if it didn't matter (see for example....Prehistoric Scotland)...when I say even if it didn't matter, I mean arguments like that are completely irrelevant in the face of sources, none of which suggest the current title is used in English, the name of this article in English is...certainly not set in stone...but a variety of terms along the general lines of 'German-occupied Serbia' are used. The current title simply does not exist in English usage beyond being a translation of what the 3rd Reich officially called it. I am willing to accept that 'German-occupied Serbia' may not be an ideal title, but there's no way in hell the current one is better. I think anyone who knew, if asked about Yugoslavia under the axis, would say (after annexations) it was divided into croatia montenegro and serbia....in good faith I cannot understand why some editors are so against describing this area as Serbia. 92.15.79.29 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

so no policy-based argument at all? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I tend to make all my arguments under IAR, after being driven mad by wikilawyering many years ago, though I guess if you wanted to be more specific I was going for WP:commonname, or whatever the link is. However I'm not familiar with the specifics of that guideline, mebe it says that since there isn't an exact majority term amongst the general variations of 'nazi occupied serbia' there is no commonname. I don't really want to get dragged into what seems to be a kinda dodgy dispute, I just saw some wikilawyering going on for this article on the reliable sources noticeboard, and thought it'd be helpful to come in with a neutral opinion, but apparently not...especially as this seems to be part of a larger 'war' at times involving sockpuppets (which I'm not, honest) I saw an alternative title suggested by you, and remember thinking it was better.....but I can't exactly remember what it was, or find it in amongst that mess up there....whatever it was, I'm sure it would be an improvement, because pretty much anything would be an improvement. IIRC it was something like 'Serbia under German Occupation'. I dunno though. I'm kinda getting a lotta hostility from here, so I'm going to stop replying and leave you lot to it...I just hate to see a "don't fix it even if it is broke, because they have won if we do" attitude. From experience I'd advise you to step back, these sorts of ridiculous arguments just aren't worth it....when people start making coloured charts of the wikipedia guidelines? That's when to walk away. Anyways, tl;dr - policy was commonname & common sense, but I'mma leave 'n watch the footie, good luck :) 92.15.79.29 (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruption

I've just popped-by to make a note of my incredulity over the continued POV-pushing on this page. I wish to make no implications, but one cannot help but notice that all three editors cooridinating their efforts here against Peacemaker are - from Serbia. In spite of the fact that two RMs (with substantial participation) had turned out against a title change, already Peacemaker is again being singled out as somehow "problematic", and subjected to personal attacks. His position is one based both on thorough sources research and significant user support. Sanctions had already been doled out for POV-pushing and disruption here, and constantly rehashing the same, rejected, nonsense arguments - in spite of sources and policy - is a pattern that will eventually become obvious as trolling.

That's it from me (don't expect a quick reply), but in any future discussions you fellas may count me as supporting Peacemaker's position and this title, regardless of whether I'm currently active or not on this (frankly marginal) article. The matter has been discussed at sickening length, and I can't even hypothetically imagine a convincing argument against the research we have seen. Regards, and so long for a while. -- Director (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Title, again

Stuck

This seems to be a running sore on this page, partly because of the politics inevitably involved but also because, simply put, the current title is awful. As an outside with hopefully some objectivity, I feel entitled to say this and would have said as much in the RM if I'd seen it before now. WP:TITLE says -

• "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable".

This title is lengthy yet explains nothing. At first glance, one would assume it to be about some technical modern-day administrative division or government complex. Most similar pages about other parts of occupied Europe have much more explicit and clear titles, see the table on this page. Google searches, both in books and in general search (doing one's best to ignore WP and WP mirrors) reveal "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" to be pretty much a made-up term, based on translation direct from German. It does not appear in serious, original English language sources. It has ONE hit in Google books. By contrast, "[German/Nazi] occupied Serbia" - or even "German/Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia", although this seems to be used a little loosely to refer to a wider area - has large numbers. It has clarity, consistency with other WP articles and sourced backing. The issues about Serbian/Yugoslav borders and whether Serbia existed immediately prior to the German invasion are both red herrings. If that is what this area/thing is called in the real world, that is what we should call it. Addressing the point nonetheless, all countries and areas shift their borders and status: Serbia very definitely did of course exist in one sense as a region, even if not a sovereign entity; and the fact that at some times and in some definitions Serbia might or might not include Kosovo - indeed in this context it doesn't anyway, at least most of it - and/or Vojvodina is also irrelevant. All the debates above seem to have got mired in political wrangling, and the simple questions about what something is actually usually called and how to title a page with clarity, seem to have got lost in that. N-HH talk/edits 15:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i agree with your reasoning. What would you propose as a solution to correct this made-up term? --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I do not see the problem with "Nazi/German-occupied Serbia". That should be the default, assumed title, per common use in reliable sources, and people need to come up with strong policy-based reasons against it. I can't see any in the debates above other than vague theorising about Serbia and its borders/constitutional status. Equally, I can't see that there's ever going to be an RM that gets any consensus other than that people are bored of discussing it. N-HH talk/edits 16:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

By my count proposed new name "German-occupied Serbia" had support from 6 editors and 5 editors opposed it. It look that majority supported this name. Why move request was closed with no consensus conclusion? How many votes are required for consensus? It also look that current name of page was introduced by DIREKTOR on 7 May 2012‎ and I see no vote process from that date that can show that DIREKTOR had support from majority of editors to move this page to that title. Nemambrata (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OMG will this ever stop? 10/10 for persistence guys, but we have had two RfM's in a month that did not achieve consensus for a move. The current name was subject to a fulsome discussion, superintended by an uninvolved admin over at MILHIST talk, as I have pointed out several times here. Take a breath... Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with persistence on my part, as I've never even been on this page before now. I saw the title and said "wtf is that?", which is part of the problem. Just as the debate is foggy with politics, most of the comments above are a little misleading. The MILHIST discussion involved three or four of the same long-standing contributors plus ONE local milhist project member, who happened to think that title was not a problem, at least not the main one. It cannot be said to have been definitive or decisive. As to consensus, 6 to 5 may be a majority, but WP consensus is not about voting - that's the problem with all these kind of debates. You get about 10 people commenting, often mostly with a serious investment in the topic, and once as many as three or four insist on a dubious status quo for whatever reason, that acts as an effective veto. Also DIREKTOR'S move in May was not from the more obvious "German-occupied ..." but a minor reformulation of and improvement to the existing title. Anyway, I acknowledged there's never going to be consensus for change. That's the problem. N-HH talk/edits 07:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

With respect, the reference to persistence was to my editorial colleagues who jump at any chance to say 'me too' whenever anyone who has not been involved in the past ventures a view that coincides with their preferences. I appreciate outside interest, but 'German-occupied Serbia' is not the WP:COMMONNAME, which I and others have demonstrated time and again. And the discussion at MILHIST was at least done in front of the whole MILHIST community over a number of days, and any interested editor could have been involved. I'm not sure what you mean by a local project member, the editor you seem to be referring to was a MILHIST admin I believe? Here all we have is two groups of editors repeating the same arguments over and over. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I spent some time reviewing the talk page and could find no evidence presented that "German-occupied" is not a common term of reference, in respect of Serbia/Yugoslavia as much as elsewhere during WW2. I certainly didn't see here, or find elsewhere, any evidence whatsoever that "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is a common name, let alone that it meets the other requirements of WP:TITLE re clarity, consistency etc. Yes we have two groups arguing over and over, but that makes "your" side no more right than the other; and from where I'm sitting, some of the arguments seem to me, as an outsider, to in fact have more weight than others. Also, my experience with "bad" titles is that those familiar with them and with debating them become inured to them.

Btw I meant the outside contributor was a member of that "local" WP project on military history. There is no such thing as a project admin as such - admins are site-wide and may or may not happen to be members of specific projects. Either way, admins certainly have no additional authority or expertise than any other editors, beyond the tools they have. As I said, that discussion cannot be taken as definitive - and the "me too" criticism of the response to my observations applies as much, surely, to your "me too" in respect of that MILHIST discussion. N-HH talk/edits 09:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There is important discussion at RSN connected with the title of this article.

Two important conclusions:

1. None of the sources presented by Peacemaker67 indicates that the current article's title is:
   1. "the common name amongst scholars in English"
   2. "what the common English referent is for the territory directly occupied by Germans containing a large Serbian population in WWII"
   3. "an English translation, or a German loan word"
2. What is suggested is mediation on an appropriate forum and a close friendly discussion of title naming policy.

Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. ("me too, says WW, me too, says Nemambrata, reappearing out of the woodwork...) Some of the above doesn't even make sense. It's not "an English translation, or a German loan word"? That is patently ridiculous, it's obviously an English translation of a German official title. And they weren't 'important conclusions'. Fifelfoo was asked about the reliability of sources and strayed outside their remit. RSN has no additional authority other than what editors give it (and its largely moral authority anyway). However, as Fifelfoo had suffered from 'mission creep', I pointed out there (once again) that I have never said this was the WP:COMMONNAME, I have always said there isn't one, which is one reason we are currently using the official name. The RSN comment was cursory at best, Fifelfoo did not respond to my reasonable questions, or even confirm what was meant by several comments that were made. We've had a close discussion of WP:TITLE about half a dozen times already in the last couple of months. If you want to get mediation and can find someone neutral and willing to do it you go for it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not "close friendly discussion of title naming policy"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not mediation on an appropriate forum? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Two solutions were suggested. You supported one. The purpose of my question was obviously to learn why did you support one suggestion and not another one.

I don't have anything against mediation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you just go ahead and fill your boots [9] old son. I've already stated that discussion of 'title naming policy' (ie WP:TITLE) has been done to death with the group of editors that are commonly here (including the support act of 'me too' editors who have no policy-based argument to back up their heartfelt yelps of support). Given the way you approached the last RfM with your colourful yet fallacious table, I have no basis on which to WP:AGF that another such repetitious discussion will be of any value at all. I would rather use my time productively contributing to WP than banging my head against a brick wall. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Will you please clarify your position. Would you take part in mediation process?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have already said, IF you can find someone neutral (and therefore acceptable to all parties) and willing to do what is going to be required. That's a tall order in itself. Given what I observed during the Draža Mihailović mediation, I doubt anyone would be interested in mediating (most would rather stick a fork in their eye), or that any editors that participated in that farce would even agree to it, let alone be able to agree on a mediator. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What I had in mind is Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Now I am uncertain if it can be applied here. There is a guide which says that:

1. "The dispute must not relate to the behaviour of a Wikipedia contributor"
2. "Some attempt at utilising the other components of the content-dispute resolution process must have been made,"

I am afraid that mediation is maybe not applicable in case of this issue because:

1. this dispute is very much related to the behaviour of a Wikipedia contributors "three or four insist on a dubious status quo for whatever reason, that acts as an effective veto." This group of editors ignores RSN and "insist on dubious status quo", frequently violating wp:civility and generating huge walls of text that drove away many outside editors. The main argument of this group is "there was no Serbia" argument although word "Serbia" is used 180 times in this article and although even the existing title uses it.
2. the successful attempt at utillising the other components of the content-dispute resolution process have already been made and resulted with very important conclusion at RSN regarding the sources for the current title

I am afraid that under this circumstances it is impossible to resolve this issue. Am I right?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it is your opinion that the dispute relates to the 'behaviour' of a WP editor. The 'behaviour' of 3-4 editors is not the behaviour of 'a' WP contributor. That much is self-evident. You might like to read WP:FOC, because you constantly focus on editor conduct when you don't get what you want. You also act like there is some time imperative on achieving your goal, but there isn't. Secondly, you need to look up the components of the WP content-dispute resolution process, there is obviously more to it than Fifelfoo's suggested options of discussion here (which has been an abject failure due to non-WP policy arguments and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) and mediation. This matter hasn't even gone through the informal process of WP:DRN or had any WP:ASSIST (for example). Thirdly, in any case, as I have already explained, Fifelfoo's comments at RSN (re: the sources for this title) were not 'very important' (except perhaps to you), they were unclear in many respects, and (on the Ante Pavelic article talkpage) User:Br'er Rabbit has criticised User:Fifelfoo's opinion on reliable sources (Cohen), which also needs to be taken into account. I attempted to get clarification from User:Fifelfoo through supplementary questions to which I received no response. I do not even believe that the matter was properly examined at RSN, and I certainly won't be accepting the inadequate responses at RSN as a basis for anything much. The ball is firmly in your court here. I have not refused to engage in dispute resolution, I just refuse to repeat the same arguments here again (which I consider is a most reasonable position given the utter nonsense that has gone on here in the past). Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Fifelfoo's comments at RSN (re: the sources for this title) were not 'very important' (except perhaps to you)" I know at least three administrators who would immediately ban me if I would write such comment about RSN. Fifelfoo's comments at RSN are, of course, not very important only to me. They are also very important to you. Here is your edit about '"insightful comment by User:Fifelfoo at RSN"'. You did not request any clarification from Fifelfoo when you rushed to misinterpret Fifelfoo's comments here. But you refused to accept RSN regarding the sources for the current title and tried to justify your refusal with your attempt "to get clarification from User:Fifelfoo through supplementary questions". Now you complain because you "received no response". Maybe Fifelfoo will not take your bait. Unlike some other editors.

Conclusion: Here is how I see the current situation:

1. Dispute resolution process - Impossible. There is already RSN which is ignored by the above mentioned group
2. Mediation - Impossible. Not only because one party refuses to participate but also because the mediation guide says that in this case, when dispute is 'related to the behaviour of Wikipedia contributors', mediation is not the place to solve the problem.

Since in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution mediation is mentioned as the "last resort" I don't know what else can be done to resolve the problem here. The ball is indeed firmly in my court. But I don't play football (don't have much experience with situations like this) so I need someone's help. Can someone help? What is the right place to apply for solution of this problem? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that we do need a mediation. It looks like to me that opposing side does not listen, but only repeats the same questionable arguments, unrelated to the core problem. Probably they think the same, so mediation would solve that, i guess... --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on above explanations, guidelines, and opinion:"I doubt anyone would be interested in mediating (most would rather stick a fork in their eye), or that any editors that participated in that farce would even agree to it, let alone be able to agree on a mediator" mediation is probably impossible. Is there any other place to apply for solution of this problem?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WW, and the feeling certainly is mutual. If you won't drop the WP:STICK, then mediation or ARBCOM appears to be the only option. However, just for an example of the complete intransigence of the 'opposing' side (see WP:BATTLE) not one of you have even accepted the core issue that there isn't a WP:COMMONNAME for this occupied territory, which is as plain as the nose on your face (and the long list of names used by various sources). Your motivation for refusing point blank to accept even the most straightforward question posed by WP:TITLE is unclear, but I have to say it smells of wanting to impose a Serbian POV title to me. At this stage it is very hard to WP:AGF in the face of this complete intransigence and lack of engagement. I am happy to discuss the principles of WP:TITLE (which kick in once there is an acceptance that there is no WP:COMMONNAME), but you just don't appear to be able to accept that basic fact. Acceptance by all parties that there is no WP:COMMONNAME, that's how I see us moving forward. It would be the first thing discussed in any mediation/ARBCOM anyway. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mediation: In this case mediation is not possible because according to the mediation guide it is not aplicable in cases like in this dispute which is very much related to the behaviour of Wikipedia contributors "three or four insist on a dubious status quo for whatever reason, that acts as an effective veto." and the successful attempt at utillising the other components of the content-dispute resolution process have already been made and resulted with very important conclusion at RSN regarding the sources for the current title.
• Arbitration: "The Arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither community discussion, Administrators, Bureaucrats, nor Mediation have successfully resolved."

Is this again cul-de-sac?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Repeating the same POV comments about other editors' behaviour on a talkpage almost no-one else even looks at is completely pointless. I've suggested a way ahead, but you're not interested, because it doesn't suit your likely objectives. This stuff reads as if you are writing it to yourself. Please do your thinking off this talk page. If you want an opinion on your personal musings on the appropriateness of one form of dispute resolution over another, ask at a relevant forum, ask an admin, ask someone else. You haven't even tried taking this to one, because you're 'convinced' it won't work because it is all about other editors behaviour, not yours. Give me a break. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't attribute objectives to me. Please don't refer to my comments as my "personal musing"

I try to follow RSN advice and to determine appropriate forum which can help resolving this title problem. It is not true that this talk page "almost no-one else even looks at". There are 57 editors watching this page. There was no need for your unnecessarily harsh comment "Give me a break." My questions were not aimed to you, but to all 57 editors watching this page. And to any other uninitiated editor. I hoped that somebody can help, but you again generated huge walls of text that drove away outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion and maybe help resolving this problem. Therefore I will start new section with resume of the current position.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't wait to see how you render the 'current position'. Do I get a right of reply or would that drive away other interested editors due to my walls of text? Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)