Jump to content

Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

January 2011

User:Director is biased and does not respect the neutral point of view. We must not let this article be equal Chetniks and Ustasha. We can find ample evidence that the Chetniks were on the Allied side. Chetniks are sometimes negotiated with the Nazis, but have never been against the allies.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not contributing anything to the discussion. Please avoid personal attacks and stick to discussing article content and sources. If you have any specific complaints about another editor, make the appropriate case in the appropriate place.Fainites barleyscribs 14:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Fainites, I have not seen your comment that you wrote before me. I found it important to understand that I am not a vandal. I just want to find a neutral solution. However, I will not talk about it. I see that you understand the problem and I agree that the decision should go in that direction.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspect your point is that Chetniks were better then Ustaše? It is imposiblle to say who's better. Allies aren't better then Axis, you should know this, only diferency between Axis and Allies is that Axis lost the war. And User:DIREKTOR does not violate Wikipedia:POV, you should ask your self do you do that?--Wustefuchs (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No Wustefuchs, user Слободни умјетник was not saying that ones are "better" that others. What he is saying is that the way user direktor has edited this and other related articles does make readers understand that the level of collaboration between the two was similar, and that obviously the level of collaboration of the monarchists (again, ocasional and oportunistic) isn´t by any chance comparable to the one that Independent State of Croatia (a German allied puppet state) and Ustaše (its forces) provided to the Germans. FkpCascais (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding direktors violation of NPOV, all I can say that for me personally is better to wait to the end of the mediation process to express my opinion regarding that, but from my experience I can tell you that this user editing is quite problematic and I already had my share of complains regarding the intentional missinterpretation of sources by that user. FkpCascais (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


Will someone pls remove this nonsense thread? I can't believe noone was sanctioned for this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Who would you propose to be sanctioned and why? FkpCascais (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I should start a "POV and bias of User:FkpCascais" section? and elaborate extensively on your editing? I assure you I can do a better job than the SPA, not least because I'd have more to work with. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough already. Fkp - you complain about DIREKTOR being uncivil and disruptive but don't like it when I say at ANI that both sides are barely civil to each other. How can this user editing is quite problematic and I already had my share of complains regarding the intentional missinterpretation of sources by that user be described as civil? I am not inviting a discussion here - I am just pointing out that there is a general lack of respect for other editors and a general willingness to assume bad faith on this page. Now one or both or more of you may be right - but specific allegations need to be made in the proper place and dealt with properly. There is no point making vague allegations part of the general discourse on this page. If you think someone is mis-interpreting sources, set out the source, page numbers and paragraphs and we can look at that specific instance.Fainites barleyscribs 12:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Name

"People's Liberation War" was earlier name of the war in Yugoslavia in Croatia. Google.hr has 15,200 results with "Narodnooslobodilački rat", while "Drugi svjetski rat u Jugoslaviji" has 20,000 results (not 117, as I stated). And Serbo-Croatian is not official language anywher any more, why to use it? It's dead like Latin, even though Latin is more oftanly used.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I already proposed the change in the lede section of other languages namings. The Yugoslav Front obviously doesn´t translate to Liberation War in the languages numbered in the lede section. Opinions? FkpCascais (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

For me, translation is not such a big problem like the name of language, I don't know any state, region or town wher Serbo-Croatian is official language, it's dead.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As I can see at Serbian Wikipedia it is named "Други светски рат у Југославији", at Croatian Wikipedia it is "Drugi svjetski rat u Jugoslaviji", and at Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia also "Drugi svjetki rat u Jugoslaviji". The fact is only the books from communist era call it "Narodnooslobodilački rat", while new books avoid this name...--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what Serbo-Croatian has to do with this article's title. GregorB (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I understood something else, and that is what I was talking about, I understood, and I propose, the other languages section in the lede to be changed. The problem is that direktor purpously edited that all other languages name "Yugoslav Front" as "People´s Liberation War" and he did that so he can support the move request that was donne in that direction. What I propose is to correct that section in all languages, whatever the language is. Regarding Serbo-Croatian, the fact that the language is considered "dead" or not by some, has nothing to do with it, and it should be corrected anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, here's my two cents... I must say I don't like "Yugoslav Front" as a title. What "front", exactly? One might even speak of Yugoslav fronts, but there was guerrilla warfare and even underground resistance, so this is dubious too. My suggestion would be: use whatever name the (modern) English-language sources use. (Of course, if that happens to be "Yugoslav Front", then that's it...)
Also: it is incongruous to say that "Yugoslav Front" is called "Drugi svjetski rat u Jugoslaviji" in Serbian - the former is a term, while the latter is a description. PLW is today seen as an ideologically charged name, even if it's essentially on the mark. Still, regardless of interwiki links (which should correspond to whatever titles are picked by respective Wikipedias), one cannot say that "Yugoslav Front" (or what have you) is called anything else than PLW in languages of former Yugoslavia. (Although, for reasons I've described, correspondence Yugoslav Front <=> PLW is also weak.) GregorB (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I touth in the meanwhile just to make a correct translation of "Yugoslav Front" (exemple: Jugoslovenski Front") just until several request moves that are announced get over (I beleave Thewanderer and some other users sugested "Yugoslavia in World War II" and direktor "People´s Liberation War (Yugoslavia)" or something symilar). FkpCascais (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

English-speaking authors who wrote about WW2 in Yugoslavia call it Yugoslavia druing the WW2, or War in Yugoslavia 1941-1945. We won't include translations from communist era. And if I may leave a note, if you would translate in all those languages "Jugoslavenski front", for Croatian language it is "Jugoslavensko bojište".--Wustefuchs (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I only said "Jugoslovenski Front" as an exemple, each language would obviously be translated correctly. So we agree on this? FkpCascais (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know that I do.--Wustefuchs (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, as you can see, this is an issue where an agreement seems to have been reached, or at least no oposition to it has been provided. A change to do? FkpCascais (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. Can I make sure I understand this. This is about what words are used for the translation in the lead? I would have thought if the lead says "Yugoslav Front also known as People's Liberation War" then both need to be translated. If the lead is changed to call it something else then change the translations. This seems to me to be a separate issue to what the article is called. Fainites barleyscribs 21:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No, we keep only Yugoslav Front and its translations. FkpCascais (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously as the article is currently called "Yugoslav Front", the first line should say "The Yugoslav Front is......" and include the translation of the term. That is the minimum. However, if it is agreed that it also commonly known as the Peoples Liberation War or whatever, (even if that term is gradually falling out of use following the end of communism,), then i do not see why also translating PLW is a problem - unless it makes the first sentence look very messy because there are so many languages. Fainites barleyscribs 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So the first line would go;

Currently it says serbo-croat rather than Serbian and Croatian - but let's not reproduce linguistic wars here. The point is to give a translation of what the title means, whether it is called something else in the Balkans. Is Југословенски фронт correct? I don't speak any myself. Fainites barleyscribs 09:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct. FkpCascais (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian is a (very much existing) macrolanguage that encompasses Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin). Listing all four or five of them would be redundant (not to mention another Balkans-nationalist absurdity). A quick glance at Talk:Serbo-Croatian language might clarify matters. I admit I'm not entirely familiar with these sort of linguistic issues, though, kwami might help. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have seen these wars and my understanding is that from the linguists point of view, serbo-croat is the language spoken by serbs, croats. bosnians etc. From the Croats and Serbians point of view they are speaking Serbian or Croatian which are different languages. I think we have more than enough to worry about here without adding language disputes as well. Fainites barleyscribs 20:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that the reason why "Serbo-Croatian:" is there in the first place is that its kind of silly to enter Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin, and Serbo-Croatian, alongside Slovene and Macedonian. Mind you, the term is identical in all four "languages" (the only difference is that Serbian, apart from the Latin alphabet, also uses the Cyrillic alphabet). Indeed, the four languages themselves are all completely mutually intelligible and virtually identical :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The correct translation was in question here. Serbo-Croatian is not a problem at all. So, can we agree that at least for now, Yugoslav Front (and not People´s LW) is what we should have translated there? FkpCascais (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Both translations can be posted, Fkp. But the point is moot: the article will be renamed one way or the other ("Yugoslav Front" is almost completely unused in sources). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
At the present time it is called Yugoslav Front so that should be translated. I have no problem with also including translations of PLW aswell as it is at least a common name. The first sentence may not be the place to it though as it may look very messy to have too many translations in the first sentence. If serbo-croat could be used with just latin and cyrillic versions this may reduce the clutter.Fainites barleyscribs 12:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yup, like I said: both translations can be posted, where's the problem?
It seems the proper term is "National Liberation War" rather than "People's". It really blows everything else out of the water. Its the problematic English translation of "Narodnooslobodilački rat": it can just as easily mean "People's Liberation War" as "National Liberation War", though it seems that "National" is quite decisively more common (it also has a far less "communisty" sound). The translation depends on the author, but there's really no question that the most common term is indeed "National/People's Liberation War" --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well that's a separate proposal, not yet decided. Can we stick in the translation of Yugoslav Front please? The page is unprotected in 1 hour's time today.Fainites barleyscribs 12:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, there's no reason not to include both translations. I'm not sure about the Macedonian and Slovene translations of "Yugoslav Front", but here it is:

  • The Yugoslav Front, ([Jugoslavenski front] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help) or [Jugoslavensko bojište] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), Југословенски фронт; [insert] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Slovene: insert), also known as the National Liberation War (Serbo-Croatian: Narodnooslobodilački rat, Народноослободилачки рат; Macedonian: Народноослободителна борба; Slovene: Narodnoosvobodilna borba), was fought in occupied Yugoslavia during World War II (1941–1945) between the Yugoslav resistance forces, primarily the Partisans, and the Axis Powers.

It should be noted that the term "Yugoslav Front" ("Jusoslavenski front") is never ever used in any of those languages to refer to this conflict... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No but it is in English and this being en-wiki we then have to translate it. I agree -it's weird, but for example the beginning of the French Resistance page is The French Resistance (French; La Résistance française). Of course they just called themselves "the Resistance". I couldn't find a detailed policy on this. maybe we're all missing something.Fainites barleyscribs 15:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you people agreed the translation of Yugoslav Front needs to go in? Can someone who knows the languages do that? Fainites barleyscribs 10:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a good idea what the Macedonian and Slovene translations might be, but I'm not sure. Perhaps someone else of "we the people" is more knowledgeable? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
After all that discussion - nobody wants to put in the translation of Yugoslav Front?Fainites barleyscribs 14:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey I didn't start this thread. :) We should get ourselves some Slovenes and Macedonians to provide their translations. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We Have a Winner

As promised, I did some further research into the proper scholarly terminology surrounding this war. It would seem we have a winner. "National Liberation War" is three times more common even than "People's Liberation War" with cca. 6,500 hits on Google Books [1] and 86,000 on Google. It is also used by high-quality sources like Tomasevich (which was Wanderer's objection, I believe). Both the current title, "Yugoslav Front", and generic names such as "World War II in Yugoslavia" or "Yugoslavia in the Second World War" render negligible Books results in the hundreds. The article should be moved forthwith to "National Liberation War (Yugoslavia)" per WP:COMMONNAME.

P.S. It should also be noted that the two terms ("People's Liberation War" and "National Liberation War") are interchangeable, being the two (equally valid) translations of the Serbo-Croatian adjective "narodno" in the Yugoslav term for the war, "Narodnooslobodilačka borba". As such their hits should probably be combined (some 8,700 Books hits, approximately) when considered against the current title (354 Books hits) and the previous "generic", user-invented titles (cca. 200-350 Books hits). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to start a specific debate on this. I have been looking at the WWII war on the eastern front because the Soviets called it "The Great Patriotic War" ( thus neatly sidestepping what they were up to for the first 2.5 years). In that article they meet the issue of different names head on thus, The Eastern Front of World War II was a theatre of World War II between the European Axis States and co-belligerent Finland against the Soviet Union, Poland, and some other Allies which encompassed Northern, Southern and Eastern Europe from 22 June 1941 to 9 May 1945. It was known by many different names depending on the nation, notably the Great Patriotic War (Russian: Великая Отечественная Война) in the former Soviet Union and Russia, while known in Germany as the Eastern Front (German: die Ostfront[4]), the Eastern Campaign (German: der Ostfeldzug) or the Russian Campaign (German: der Rußlandfeldzug)..... etc etc. The words "the eastern front of WWI" are descriptive. An editor above suggested something similar for this article. Fainites barleyscribs 11:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of the fact that "Great Patriotic War" was the Soviet term for the Eastern Front. The difference being that "Eastern Front" is a far more common term than "Great Patriotic War" in English-language sources. On the other hand "National/People's Liberation War" (cca. 6,500+2,200 hits) is practically the only real name for this conflict in use (in English-language sources). That is to say, not only is it "the most common" - there is no comparable alternative. Sure we Wikipedia users can think-up a "generic"/"descriptive"/invented term such as "World War II in Yugoslavia", but those are simply not names used in English sources (note e.g. 270 hits, all of which are simply sentence fragments "Despite the ethnic cleansing of World War II in Yugoslavia", etc.). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Fainites? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
See Truce terms. Fainites barleyscribs 22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No I know about that :), I meant "Fainites, response?" --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
A lot of people expressed cogent views about the last name change proposal. They will no doubt want to opine again. best stick it up for formal consideration. Fainites barleyscribs 23:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Will do. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image and result

For the Germans. Although the one with Hitler overlooking Maribor should also be seriously considered.
For the Italians.
How's this for the Ustaše pic xD --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe a new image should be created for the infobox in order to better depict the war in its entirety. One that is split into 6 sections like in the World War II article should be enough. IMO one for the Partisans, one for the Chetniks, one for the Ustase, one for the Germans and one for the Italians should be fair.

Also, should a more detailed "Result" description be given? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 19:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind a collage, but one that includes Filipović's famous "Yay! I'm being hanged!" photo :) (Its easily the most famous photo of the war, they built monuments about it :P). I thought about this myself: the problem is there are no really good photo's of Chetniks or the Ustaše, and the one about the Italians is pretty lame too. Now that we have FkpCascais's attention we may get our Chetnik photo soon enough (they get deleted frequently, though, so wee need one that's actually free this time). We need good pics of marching soldiers, or actual combat, for the Italians, the Ustaše and the Chetniks.
Also I was thinking more along the lines of a more complex collage: four pics, two of which take-up two out of six slots (tall pics, like Filipović), with two other ones taking each one slot. Something like the old Yugoslav Wars article collage, if you remember PRODUCER. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed this while looking for pics for the montage. I tried to find something in the Bundesarchiv but it's void of pics of Ustase soldiers. Perhaps the picture of Pavelic with Ribbentrop would suffice. The montage would look a bit dull if every pic was of infantry simply walking around or standing. The Yugoslav Wars montage you created was deleted so a new one should be created or my old one should be used. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this. [2] Fainites barleyscribs 00:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good pic but I doubt the license given actually applies to the image. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 01:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Well it's 68 years old. Copyright in Serbia is 70 years after death of author or creation if unknown. I don't know what the situation was in 1943 though. May have been 50 years as it was in a lot of places. Fainites barleyscribs 11:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a correct picture of the Chetniks. 1 Fainites, I think you understand why. It is a smaller fraction of Kosta Pecanac who was loyal to the Nedic regime. They should not represent all the Chetniks.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pećanac Chetniks were a very small force. There is no indication whatsoever that those are Pećanac Chetniks. Please show that they are. No trouble fixing the image if they are... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever, we have to find an image that will objectively show the participation of the Chetniks in the war.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
"Whatever"? So they're not Pećanac Chetniks? I thought as much. :) As for a Chetnik image, I see no reason to alter the current one. It is a very objective fact that the Chetniks played a major role in the war as Axis collaboration forces. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think they are Pecanec Chetniks Слободни умјетник? Is there any way of identifying this? Fainites barleyscribs 23:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
They're not Pecanac Chetniks, Fainites. I've never even seen a photo of Pecanac Chetniks, they're a tiny group. The reason why User:Слободни умјетник thinks they are Pećanac Chetniks is that he believes all Chetniks with Axis forces must be Pećanac Chetniks - simply because they're collaborating. The idea stems from a pro-Chetnik propaganda line (repeated by the radicals in Serbia) intended to use the Pećanac Chetniks as scapegoats thus "absolving" the vast majority of WWII Chetniks, or at least to muddle the issue ("oh yes some collaborated, but those were Pećanac Chetniks, the real Chetniks did not collaborate..."). I wouldn't be surprised if the nonsense was in schoolbooks (we're still being fed similar post-war-propaganda regarding controversial issues in Croatia as well, for the record). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Fainites, see this change 1 and you will understand why I thought so. I must mention that I have no sympathy for any of the warring parties. The allegations of user:direktor are ridiculous, but I will not waste my time on them. Regardless of who is in this picture, that picture is not representative. Would anyone complain that we put these pictures 2 3 in place of this? Of course it would. So I suggest to reach a compromise. --Слободни умјетник (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There are no "allegations" being made here, User:Слободни умјетник, which is why I support your not wasting any time on them.
The image was added to the Pećanac Chetniks article by User:Свифт a week ago [3]. When yesterday at 21:25 you stated here that this image shows Pećanac Chetniks [4], I paid a visit to the article, noticed User:Свифт's edit, and removed the image from the Pećanac Chetniks article at 22:06 [5] (because, of course, there is no indication at all these are Pećanac Chetniks). And that's the edit you are linking to. What are you trying to say? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I only wondered if it was possible to tell from their cap badges or something. If it isn't possible to say then they should not have been represented as Pecanac Chetniks. Now look - obviously the selection of a photo of the Chetniks is very emotive issue. Given that they started as resistance, collaborated with Italians and Germans but actually wanted the Allies to win, it's difficult to select a photo that represents their complexities. That's why I suggested the one that was a picture of the column of Chetniks in the mountains with no Nazi's, no jolly smiling Americans, no nothing. Just Chetniks. Fainites barleyscribs 14:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the image pd? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't know. I contacted the uploader to try and resolve this and he posted a response which is copied on my talkpage. It needs somebody who understands serbian I think.Fainites barleyscribs 14:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
What rotten luck... I don't speak Serbian. I only speak Croatian, but considering that the languages are completely identical I might have a chance. :) Can you post a link to your commons talkpage? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. I have asked on ORTS about it but too early for a response. Fainites barleyscribs 14:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It's on my commons talkpage. Here is the link to the copy of the permission. It contains an e-mail address. I think someone needs to e-mail them again in the correct language. Fainites barleyscribs 14:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
(I was kidding above, if you can speak Croatian you can speak Serbian, they're essentially the same damn thing :))
It seems to be the permission by Miloslav Samardžić, editor of a website (and/or magazine?) called Pogled ("view") for use of materials from their website under GNU FDL. However, nowhere can I see evidence as to the origin of the image, its (real) author or original copyright status. The text makes no reference as to this specific image. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I know - I intervened in an edit war there too - nationalists -v- linguists with isoglosses thrown in. No clue as to who owns the pic but I wondered if the people at the website might know as in my uncle took that or it's in the state archives or something. Fainites barleyscribs 15:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what website that is. The image itself is not referred to in the text. If this image is not free, it is very likely there are other images under the same fraudulent license. This should be brought to the attentions of the guys at commons. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree that we put this file? The source is the same as at this picture.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Who's in the picture? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Draža Mihailović confers with his men--Слободни умјетник (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, it seems Serbian scholars have researched the matterof Chetnik collaboration in detail, The Collaboration of Mihailović's Chetniks with the enemy forces of occupation: 1941-1944 by historians Jovan Marjanović and Mihailo Stanišić is indeed locally published, but since the subject is so specific it may be worth checking out. raw facts clearly supported by primary sources may well be eligible for inclusion. Regardless, its an interesting fact that there are actual Serbian books entitled "Collaboration of Miihailović Chetniks", when we heard here the claim that there was no collaboration. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is unrelated. On a related note - what do you think of the picture? It's got Mihailovic and Chetniky looking Chetniks and most importantly, they are not posing with either Nazi's or Americans and it therefore might last more than 5 minutes in the infobox.Fainites barleyscribs 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Draza_confers_with_his_men.jpg --Слободни умјетник (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. How about you DIREKTOR et al ? I prefer the one of Chetniks marching through the mountains but I haven't heard back from OTRS yet. Also - it might come up a bit small. Still - if it gets approved by OTRS it might look good on the Chetniks page.Fainites barleyscribs 19:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sry for my absence everyone, I assure you it was unavoidable. As for the image... it seems kind of POV to include Draža Mihailović and Ante Pavelić for the Axis and not Josip Broz Tito... I suggest we repace the generic tank image with his photo, the man was something of the "main protagonist" of the War (the tank image also seems to be related to the Invasion of Yugoslavia, not the Yugoslav Front. It seemed fishy that the Germans would send Mark IV tanks to the Balkans when they had a plethora of perfectly useful light tanks). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Fainites barleyscribs 13:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I like the current version. We've got Mihailović, Pavelić, and Tito, the main characters all on the left, we've got the Ustaše massacre pic, and the (locally) famous "Yay, I'm getting hanged!" photo. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Infobox image is OK now.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well there's a thing. Fainites barleyscribs 19:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
...of wonder. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that last image in the infobox image is not appropriate for the infobox. This image has nothing to do with the front (front is contested armed frontier between opposing forces), but with the politics of NDH.

This image would be fat better because it shows a combat unit not a camp guard with civilian corpses

.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Two problems:
  • That image is not public domain, it lacks vital information, and is likely to be deleted once someone finds the time (unless of course the Ustaše cut the author's throat right after he took the photo :)
  • The photograph seems to have been taken in the early 1930s, most likely in Italy.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, very inappropriate joke. I'm not sure when photo was taken, I have to sources for it, not important now. But, the point was, combat unit is needed, not concentration camp guard. Like I said - nothing to do with a front, but with politics.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

I attempted to sort out the casualties section:

  • I removed the 1946 figures as no reference was given and I couldn't find any sources mentioning 1,703,686.
  • I fixed a few figures of Kočović and Žerjavić that didn't correspond with this table (3) [6].
  • Removed the "Victims by SFR Yugoslav federal unit" table as no source was given.
  • Titled the 1964 list and added the omitted "Unknown" section.

-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The 1,700,000 figure is a demographic figure. It includes people who fled and who weren't born. Fainites barleyscribs 23:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I know the Yugoslav government gave a general figure of 1.7 million in 1946. I couldn't verify that the specific figure of 1,703,686 or any of the figures given for the 1946 column in the "Victims by ethnicity" table actually came from the Yugoslav government in 1946. I had the same problem for the figures given in the "Victims by SFR Yugoslav federal unit" table. These numbers could simply be bullshit since who knows how many IP's added, deleted, or messed with the figures (I noticed inflated Croatian figures, deleted Albanian figures, etc. when verifying the Kočović and Žerjavić figures given). -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 01:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Those are HUGE casualties... almost double the combined US and UK war deaths. Its the fourth place in Europe, I think: 1. Soviet Union, 2. Germany, 3. Poland, 4. Yugoslavia, about 7% of the total population (if I'm not mistaken). World war isn't enough for us, nooo, we'll start a few civil wars too, get things interesting... show those sissy Nazis who invented ethnic cleansing... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Well the US didn't join in until it was nearly half over. Ramet has the figures but I spilt a cup of coffee over it yesterday and I can't remember where I put it to dry. Hang on a mo. Fainites barleyscribs 09:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ramet says the 1.7million was announced by Tito and therefore those charged with working it out for reparations purposes in Yugoslavia already "knew" waht the figure had to be. However, when examined, this figure was a demographic loss figure including deaths from typhus, emigrations and lost births. More recent calculations show the loss through war casualties and war crimes was closer to 1,027,000. That includes about 530,000 Serbs, 192,000 Croats, 103,000 Muslims. Most of all three groups died in the NDH. However, Ramet then mentions subsequent claims of 700,000 Serbs in Jasenovac alone but doesn't say whether these claims have been validated. Whatever it is - it's still so huge as to be almost incomprehensible.Fainites barleyscribs 15:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the way I remember it too... 1,000,000 to 1,200,000... I also first heard the 1,700,000 figure, only to find out later on it was rather a clever way to get more indemnities - just quote the demographic figure. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Pećanac Chetniks

These poor fellas keep being brought up. A disclaimer seems necessary regarding them. They seem to have come in very handy as scapegoats for distorting history. Faced with the undeniable fact that Chetnik troops did, in fact, collaborate, the official line seems to be that the "Pećanac Chetniks were the collaborators", while the rest were "good guys". Nothing could be farther from the actual facts.

The Pećanac Chetniks were only a significant force at the start of the war, but were at all times much smaller than Mihailović's Chetniks, which grew significantly while they did not. They were an incredibly small force of just a few thousand men, and only got weaker until, in 1943, they were disbanded. On the other hand, the Mihailović Chetniks were a large force, who's addition to the military forces e.g. of fascist Italy alone numbered at 20-30,000 men - and later increased. The bottom line is that the Pećanac Chetniks were negligible compared to the numbers of Mihailović Chetniks in Axis ranks. I've never met anyone who's even heard of them who was not trying to feed people the above propaganda line. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

This discussion Talk:Ustaše#Invasion_of_SFR_Yugoslavia_in_1941_.28.3F.3F.3F.29 may be of interess of editors of this article. All inputs are welcome. FkpCascais (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


Yugoslav Front → National Liberation War (Yugoslavia) — Requesting move to the most common name in English-language sources (per WP:NAME). Extensive Google testing shows that "Yugoslav Front" (351 hits) is almost completely without sources usage (most of those few 340 or so hits do not actually refer to this conflict [7]). "National Liberation War" (5,960 hits) is the most common term in use, followed by "People's Liberation War" (1,900 hits). It should also be noted that the two terms ("People's Liberation War" and "National Liberation War") are interchangeable, being the two (equally valid) translations of the Serbo-Croatian adjective "narodno" in the Yugoslav term for the war, "Narodnooslobodilački rat". As such their hits could probably be combined (some 7,800 Books hits, approximately) when considered against the current title (354 Books hits) and any suggested "generic", user-invented titles (cca. 200-350 Books hits on average, e.g. [8]).

The proposed term is in extensive use in high-quality professional publications [9][10], and, in all sources, refers to the entirety of this conflict. It is, in fact, the only name I could find for the war in anything like significant usage. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an open-and-shut case of "overwhelmingly more common name" vs. "completely unused, user-invented name". This is not just me saying so, Google test are available. It is simply Balkans politics that interferes once again to cloud the issue. And unless an (agenda-driven!) user is to be taken seriously when he simply arrives and "declares" that the term "National Liberation War" somehow does not apply to some imaginary unspecified aspect of the conflict, based purely on him saying so over and over and over again, then the article should be moved. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Poll/discussion

  • Support, as nominator. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Again??? - Aren´t RM´s limited in the number of SAME renaming attempts? FkpCascais (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • No. And how is this the "SAME", exactly? The previous move was for "People's Liberation War". This one is for "National Liberation War (Yugoslavia)", which is three times more common (18 times vs. the current title) and is in much more widespread use in high-quality sources. Please read the RM more carefully, and limit your posts to more constructive comments. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
      • This is just a word game People´s/National to what actually is the translation from the Titoist autonominated Narodnooslobodilacki Rat. Many western bibliography followed the trend, but time has indicated that it was wrong, and that the autoproclamed sole liberation of Yugoslavia by the Partisans was just an illusion. That title would be for an article dealing with Partisans and their actions during the WWII period, and this article is not limited to them. Why don´t you write that article, instead of trying to rename this one and limit the content in it? That would certainly be more constructive from you. FkpCascais (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
        And stop missinforming: in Yugoslavia and in none of its languages the war is NOT named Narodnooslobodilacki Rat, only former Partisans name the war that way, and they refer to "their" war when mentioning it. FkpCascais (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
        • The two terms are interchangeable, I agree, and together yield some 8,700 hits in Google Books. I say so in the propsal. Your point?
          The idea that the term "National Liberation War" does not refer to the whole War is your own personal claim. Not a single solitary source uses it "only to deal with the Partisans". In fact the very idea of a name for a war that "only deals with one side of the war" is utterly ridiculous - a POV construct of your own. The actual case is simply that the most common name in English language sources originated as a wartime Partisan term. That does not mean it "only deals with one side of the war". I would really appreciate it if you supported that claim with some kind of reliable source that says so (as opposed to you saying it over and over and over again), because I cannot not find one.
          For the record, I will not repeat the mistake of muddying the issue by replying to your every personal concept and "communist conspiracy". The move is proposed per WP:NAME, and is required by policy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. What precisely is this article about? I mean - in the UK it's just called World War II. In Yugoslavia it is like several conflicts in one. Axis invasion/occupation. Chetniks pursuing Greater Serbia. Partisans pursuing social revolution and communist dominance after the war. If this article is dealing with all three, then something like Yugoslavia in World War II might be more appropriate.Fainites barleyscribs 20:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly Fainites, but because of it, the current title is more acurate and NPOV than the proposed by direktor. I wouldn´t mind at all having an article named as direktpr proposes, it will be more precise on the specific conflict and could deal with the Partisan situation during WWII. It´s just that this one, Yugoslav Front, is a different article, dealing with all that happend in Yugoslavia in this period. Basically, direktor wants to make this move so he could start: "People´s (or whatever) Liberation War, waged by the Y.Partisans against Germans, Chetniks and all enemies (then infobox with Partisans on one side, all others together on the other),..." I think the point is clear, and all this direktors action here is pure forging of POV. FkpCascais (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
      • (The Axis Invasion of Yugoslavia is a separate conflict, a part of the Balkans Campaign. It is not part of the scope of this article. "World War II in Yugoslavia" has some 250 hits on Google sources search. We, Wikipedia users, would be inventing a name - in spite of literally thousands of published professional historians that use another. That is blatantly against Wikipedia policy.)
        This is a sub-conflict of World War II, like many others, and its called the National Liberation War (Yugoslavia). I don't understand how listing all the very different individual goals (and non-combat activities) of the warring parties proves the idea that this conflict is "several in one". If someone wanted one could easily write something like this for WWII on the whole:
        "It is like several conflicts in one. The Allies trying to defend themselves against aggression and maintain economic dominance The Axis pursuing the establishment of a New Order. The Soviets pursuing social revolution and communist dominance after the war."
        It seems World War II itself, by your line of reasoning, is also "three conflicts in one". :) I mean sure, you can look at any war from the perspective of an individual warring party, that does not somehow mean that each perspective is a "different war". This is in essence a completely bogus line of reasoning, and I will not waste much more effort refuting it, since that is unnecessary. Not a single available source, not a single one, uses the term "National Liberation War" to refer to something other than this conflict. Even if an exception is hypothetically presented, something I'm still waiting for, it would be just that - an exception. And any Wikipedian worth his salt should not present such personal ideas and conceptions without supporting sources. If you're saying that the term in question is the name for this war that "only deals with one side of the war", or if you are claiming that there is some imaginary new "sub-conflict of a sub-conflict" the term refers to, please present a source that says so. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment why is the nominator using NON-ENGLISH Google? When I click on those links Google isn't in English; "Povijest | Opcije pretraživanja | Prijavite se" most definitely not English. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Its the language settings on Google Books. I did not bother to change them, apologies. It makes no difference, though. If you want to verify the search results, please do copy-paste the search parameters (and of course set the search for English language results only in the advanced options). I assure you the search is in order. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I found, at Google Books that "Yugoslav Front" has 357 results, while "Yugoslav People's Liberation War" has 69 results. Also, "People's Liberation War of Yugoslavia" has 120 results; "People's Liberation War in Yugoslavia" has 59 results. If we would follow results of Google Books, then the most optimal solution would be "Yugoslavia in World War II", because under such title, it has 411 results.--Wustenfuchs 15:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • This is essentially a straw man. Thank you for you comment, but: what's your point? The proposed move is not for "Yugoslav People's Liberation War" or "People's Liberation War of Yugoslavia" or any of the titles you searched. I researched them all and they are indeed not very common. The most common name with 6,500 hits is simply "National Liberation War", without any other adjectives (though of course it is necessary on Wikipedia to disambiguate between other national liberation wars by adding "(Yugoslavia)"). The 6,500 sources hits all refer to this war.
    • "Generic" titles such as "Yugoslavia in World War II" or "World War II in Yugoslavia" are virtually without sources usage altogether. The few hundred hits they render are, upon inspection, owed entirely to sentence fragments, not alternative names for this war used in sources. Which is obvious upon even a superficial glance (e.g. "Military Units and Formations of Yugoslavia in World War II"). That is irrelevant though, since, even if they were not fragments, they are vastly outnumbered in usage by the 6,500 hits for "National Liberation War", or especially by the combined 8,700 for "National" and "People's Liberation War". As I said before by using such "titles", we, Wikipedia users, would be inventing a name in spite of literally thousands of published professional historians that use another, perfectly normal name. As I'm sure most of us know, that would be blatantly against Wikipedia naming policy.
    • P.S. You get 357 hits, slightly more than I, because you did not refine the search to include only English language publications (as I did in all searches). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, DIREKTOR, I'd say you searched wrongly. It should be "Yugoslav National Liberation War" because this "Yugoslavia" is, often, writen in other context. Not valid.--Wustenfuchs 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Quite simply: no, I did not. And the search is clearly valid. You are demonstrably wrong in your assertion, and obviously did not even bother to check the search out. The search is refined for Yugoslavia-related subjects:
          "National Liberation War" Yugoslavia (6,500 hits)
          Virtually every single hit there refers to this particular conflict. I myself tried to find some that do not and was not successful. There could be a few false hits, theoretically, but it is obvious that the vast majority are spot on. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
          • "Every"? Not every, I founded a number of unrelated cases in just a couple of pages I looked, as expected anyway in any sort of google search. Don´t be too pretentious in saying "every". FkpCascais (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
            • You could count them on the fingers of one hand. And, again, we are talking about several thousand hits vs a few hundred - even if only 30% of those hits were valid (and virtually all are spot on), "National Liberation War" would still be far more common than any other proposed title. This is a very standard, very reliable search method. There is really no contest, and once more I do not see your point.
              Post the wrong hits (you claim to have found) on my talkpage if you want. We can refine the search. The goal here is to find the most common English name, Wustenfuchs, not to oppose for opposition's sake. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Let me just say that, so far at least, this RM sounds like a "How Can We Avoid Following Naming Policy?" contest. I must say I'm almost looking forward to hearing what other fascinating theories might be out there to justify opposition to what is clearly by far the most common name for this article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment to comment, no, this is actually how can you turn this article by any mean to be renamed by the name Partisans gave to it, thus making the article more adequate for having pro-Partisan content and to be concentrated around them. Pure and simple POV forging. FkpCascais (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh nice to see you again, Fkp. More evil communist conspiracies I see. Those damn communist sources flooding Google Books, eh? In English no less.. xD
        Anyway, have you found your sources? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Do I need a source that says that the Partisans used the People´s Liberation War naming their struggle to "liberate" Yugoslavia? I think we all agree on that. P.S.: Your "communist conspiracy" critique has no argument whatsoever. It´s like some regime naming its country "People´s Socialist Wikidonia" and then saying "Oh, no, Wikidonia is not socialist. That is anti-Socialist conspiracy talking!" No point... FkpCascais (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
          • You know exactly what I mean, cut the wordplay. You need a source for all your "only deals with one side" "theories" above. The term "National liberation War" originated as a wartime Partisan term, yes, and by all appearances it is now the most common name in English language sources, and seems to have been accepted by the scientific community far more than any other term. Should we ignore that fact because you personally "dislike" the name on the count of its origin? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - How other articles deal with similar cases: I decided to see this, and I found the Eastern Front (World War II) article. The case is pretty much the same since different intervenients named differently the same conflict, Russians named it "Great Patriotic War". Is that the name of the article? No. And we need to have in mind that in this Yugoslav case, the naming "People´s liberation War" was not even accepted by all Yugoslav intervenients, only the Partisans (1 of at least 5 important intervenients). So, by seing this exemple, the title "Yugoslav Front" is actually good, and the "People´s Liberation War" is just part of it. Renaming the "People´s" into "National" would be even further irrational and wrong. "People´s Liberation War" existed within the WWII Yugoslav Front, and it was a conflict among others in the Yugoslav Front. Many has been written on the Partisans struggle to liberate Yugoslavia, so obviously has many Google hits. Renaming the entire conflict in Yugoslavia by the name Partisan struggle had is something the winning side (Partisans and Tito Yugoslavia) tryied to do by ignoring the other intervenients. Yugoslav historians and Yugoslav education after the war had to name the conflict that way. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia the name was abandoned, and currently is properly used for what really was, the name the Partisans gave to their struggle, just a part of the entire conflict in Yugoslavia, important yes, but just a part. FkpCascais (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes its true, "Eastern Front" is on because it is the most common name in English. If "Great Patriotic War" was more common it would be on. That is Wikipedia policy, Fkp. With Yugoslavia "National Liberation War" is the most common name. Alternative names virtually do not even exist as far as English language sources are concerned.
      Yes, the most common name in English language sources originated as a wartime Partisan term, that is correct. So what? You dislike the Partisans and we should therefore ignore the fact that it is in use with professional historians, what? And don't give me that completely invented "only deals with one side" "theory" of yours without sources that support it (those are the sources I asked you for above). Or better yet, don't bother. Since even if you did find such an exception it would still be just that - an exception, with some 7,000 sources that disagree in usage. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I "dislike Partisans"? Are you joking? Did you checked all my edits all around? I usually describe Partisans very positively, after all, my grand-father was a Partisan. But there are limits, and when someone goes too far, as much as I like them I can´t stand by it. Regarding the name, yes, sources do sometimes (not allways) describe the entire conflict in Yugoslavia in that period by that name, but nowadays we simply know it isn´t apropriate. And I honestly doubt any historian uses the sentence "...and the Chetniks in their actions in the "People´s Liberation War" while decapitating German soldiers..." Find recent sources and renamed historians, not Yugoslav sources, or sources that just followed the naming tendency. FkpCascais (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Lets just say you are looking out for the Chetniks' interests here. That is what I meant. That is what you said. And that is why you invented the bogus theory above. As for the sources that use the term "National Liberation War" in describing Chetnik actions, how about I just Google "National Liberation War" Chetniks and let you take your pick of any of those few hundred sources? (rhetorical question) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


As User:Wustenfuchs was saying [12], even if the title were somehow "not neutral" (and it most certainly is), it is important to note the following about Wikipedia naming policy:

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


I think the point people are trying to raise is, what is the PLW? World War II doesn't have a separate name in the vast majority of countries though specific battles might. Why did the Russians call it the Great Patriotic War? Bet you the Ukranians don't call it that. Why did the Partisans call it the Peoples Liberation War? Because to them it wasn't just about WWII and defending their country from the nazis. It was a social revolution against the forces of reaction. Being the ultimate winners and having consolidated their position after the war in classic communist fashion they got to write the history. I'm not saying it isn't called the PWL or NWL but if this article covers the whole of WWII in yugoslavia we need to be clear about this. We can't not name it the NLW just because people may not like the ideological implications of that - but are we clear that that is the name for the whole of WWII in yugoslavia rather than one aspect of it? Fainites barleyscribs 13:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We are clear. The National Liberation War is a conflict in occupied Yugoslavia during World War II. The term encompasses the entirety of the conflict and its every aspect.
Yes, the most common name in English language sources originated as a wartime Partisan term, that is correct. Yes, the reason why it is in use is that the Partisans won the war. Yes, one of the aspects of this war is the social revolution one side carried out throughout the war in the areas that they held. Ok, so now we know where the term originates, we know why its in use, and we know that a social revolution was taking place as an important aspect of the war. Excellent. So what? The point is that it is in use. Overwhelmingly. In fact it is the only significant term out there.
As for the completely invented claim that the term does not cover some imaginary aspect of the war, I reject it utterly and challenge you to provide evidence. Sigh... Fainites please see how the term is used. It does not exclude anything. That is a completely fake argument Fkp invented due to his personal dislike for the origins of the term. It is his own perspective, his own idea, no sources in evidence, all sources against it - I still can't believe you took it seriously. One thing is for certain: the term most certainly does not cover only the social revolution, I can assure you of that. In fact it can be debatable whether the social revolution is included in the term at all when compared to the warfare. The social revolution mainly took place AFTER the war.
And if the fact that it uses the word "war", and is still a part of another "war" confuses you somehow, then you should realize that this is primarily because the conflict was nearly completely isolated from the rest of the war, and that it is certainly not alone. In fact similar examples of relatively isolated conflicts abound: e.g. Second Sino-Japanese War (1939-45), Great Patriotic War, Chinese Civil War, Winter War - and that's off the top of my head, and just for World War II. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not confused DIREKTOR. I would like editors to be able to define the ambit of the disagreement so that it can be resolved without another 6 feet of wrangling. This argument has taken place more than once before. No doubt it will come up again. What is needed is a clear statement, with reference to sources if possible, of the various viewpoints, in the hope that consensus can be reached or the case put fairly for the consideration of others.Fainites barleyscribs 22:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You know I meant no offence :). The argument will likely not come-up again unless Fkp brings it up. It is entirely his own idea, and so far you're the only one who gave it credence. The first RM was rejected because "People's Liberation War" did not seem to be in use among reputable sources (my mistake for not checking "National Liberation War"), not because Fkp personally believes this term is limited in some mysterious, unprovable way.
The ambit of the disagreement is clear enough. Fkp personally believes the aspects of the war concerning the Chetniks are not covered with the term "National Liberation War". Actual Chetnik conflicts that had nothing to do with the Partisans are rare and meagre in scope, as Draža Mihailović made no secret of his policy of avoiding conflict against the Axis at all costs (so as not to get wiped-out by the time the British land). And indeed, the Partisans (and later the Yugoslav authorities) that coined the term tended to de-emphasize the Chetniks' conflicts with the Axis (an easy task). This much I grant. However, what Fkp fails to realize is that the term itself has nothing to do with all this, it covers-up nothing. He fails to realize that, due to its widespread use in Yugoslavia, "National Liberation War" has caught on with international, world-class scholars who have absolutely nothing to do with what he considers communist propaganda in Yugoslavia. Therefore I ask him for sources where this neglect for the Chetniks may be seen in some way, and provide 200 sources that deal with the Chetniks and use the term [13] (including the most comprehensive work available on the subject, Tomasevich's The Chetniks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
By watching the almost 6.000 results direktor found on the google books research, all I see is that most really refer to the Partisans part of the war and many even go further analising the social revolution and the communism and socialism, etc. I think direktor should create an article named as Yugoslav People´s Liberation War and write in it what that subject really is about, and stop trying to rename this one which is a wider and more objective article. I think we really can´t say more about this. The two concepts are different and this entire debate is somehow pointless, like trying to rename the Solar system by Mars only because Mars has more google entries... The Yugoslav Front (or WWII in Yugoslavia) and PLW are two separate things, and the sources that deal the subject differently, as direktor claims that authors name the entire war as PLW, are simply wrong and not contemporary. Much new information has been discouvered recently, and many miths and beleaves have been destroyed in the last 25 years, so we can´t continue ignoring these new facts. Direktor also knows this but is trying to find any way to turn this around, futher making us loose time on crystal clear issues. By "crystal clear" I mean that is crystal clear that PLW isn´t adequate name for this article and it would eventually be an article that would deal with different contnt fom this one. FkpCascais (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Then all you have to do is show me a source that proves Mars and the Solar System are two different things. Sounds incredibly easy.
You read 6,000 sources? :) Well, while you finish off the remaining 1,800, please be sure not to miss any of these sources again. And yes, any publication about this war is bound to be more about the Partisans than the Chetniks, since the Partisans did ninety percent of the actual war-fighting.
Be sure that your word or "solemn oath" will not suffice to present an argument here. Your personal impressions and subjective interpretations would be rejected even if they were not based on an entirely unlikely premise of you researching 6,000 sources in detail within the space of two days. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


Here is the link to the earlier change of name discussion. Fainites barleyscribs 23:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

@direktor, it´s not personal impression, look at the sources yourself. And, it is obvious that Chetniks are mentioned in (Partisans) "People´s Liberation War", what´s the point of that? My point is that Chetnik actions against Ustasa, Germans or any other forces are not part of the People´s LW, just as the war actions between any intervenients other than the Partisans, and unfortunatelly for your case, we had many intervenients in WWII Yugoslavia. FkpCascais (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Have I not just demonstrated that it is indeed your personal impression? And that its flawed to boot?
"Fkp personally believes the aspects of the war concerning the Chetniks are not covered with the term "National Liberation War". Actual Chetnik conflicts that had nothing to do with the Partisans are rare and meagre in scope, as Draža Mihailović made no secret of his policy of avoiding conflict against the Axis at all costs (so as not to get wiped-out by the time the British land). And indeed, the Partisans (and later the Yugoslav authorities) that coined the term tended to de-emphasize the Chetniks' conflicts with the Axis (an easy task). This much I grant. However, what Fkp fails to realize is that the term itself has nothing to do with all this, it covers-up nothing. He fails to realize that, due to its widespread use in Yugoslavia, "National Liberation War" has caught on with international, world-class scholars who have absolutely nothing to do with what he considers communist propaganda in Yugoslavia. Therefore I ask him for sources where this neglect for the Chetniks may be seen in some way, and provide 200 sources that deal with the Chetniks and use the term [14] (including the most comprehensive work available on the subject, Tomasevich's The Chetniks."
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, let´s name the things as they really are: direktor, stop lying, "widespread use in Yugoslavia", you mean, the already 20 years non-existing SFR Yugoslavia, right? And stop your lies about Chetniks, enough of disrespect from you. Every sentence of yours is manipulated and close to 100% LIE. I´m done with this POV circus. FkpCascais (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Btw, you should be banned from this topics. You are not even capable of leaving out your prejudice even in discussions. And btw, I am not talking about Chetniks, I only gave them as exemple of non-Partisan combatants, you have many other... And forget Tomašević (and not Tomashevictch, or whatever), he wrote his work long time ago while still in SFR Yugoslavia, so he is no contemporary by any mean... And another thing, if we are naming the article by what is the original naming you pretend to insert as title, it is People´s, so forget forging all alternatives each time one MR of yours fails. The Solar system/Mars exemple is just perfect for this, so you can either write your People´s article, or accept things. FkpCascais (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You're going there again? Did I say "ex-Yugoslavia" or did I say "Yugoslavia"? What can I possibly mean when I say "use in Yugoslavia'"? The same Yugoslavia that is "already 20 years non-existing". I'll give you some more time to think about it.
User:FkpCascais is never going to accept the more common title is one that he does not prefer. In fact he never ever budges or accepts he may be wrong on.. any issue whatsoever really. He will continue to simply ignore (such as ignoring the other 240 sources on the Chetniks), or raise the bar on sources and evidence regardless of what someone might find. Notice: he does not specify which other factions or conflicts are supposedly "not included" in the term, so that his claims may never be verified. He made the mistake of being specific with the Chetniks, but now he yet again floats safely in the airs of vague (and violent) opposition.
He is not here to help determine the most common English term, but to continue inventing new reasons why the title is "wrong". His political views demand it. He might suddenly raise the bar and say "only sources from the last 20 years count", upon which I might post some 50 or 60 sources from the last twenty years that discuss the Chetnik movement as a part of the National Liberation War [15] - but then he would surely find another issue. :) I probably should not indulge him with his theories, but as nominator I felt I should respond. Even though the user did no more than simply "declare" the term invalid based on his own personal views - and so vague are his claims that they are as unassailable as they are imaginary. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Anyway the sources are there, the Google tests are there, and the policy is clear. I am confident the closing admin will notice that the opposition, such as it was, has generally failed to produce even a moderately convincing excuse to blatantly ignore Wikipedia naming policy, and keep the current non-scholarly, non-used title. Least of all the utterly vague, completely invented and non-supported personal musings of User:FkpCascais, who, paradoxically, is never satisfied by any amount of contradicting sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Regardless of the outcome, I am confident the closing admin will regard comments by heavily involved editors like the one above as exactly what they are, namely comments by heavily involved editors. I am also confident that he or she will, upon reading the discussion, recognize the false dichotomy in framing this as merely a scholarly vs. non-scholarly issue and act accordingly. Regards. Timbouctou 22:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • User:Tim here bears a personal grudge against me from Talk:Croats, he is not involved on this article and is here merely to try to "get under my skin", as it were. While his denouncement is indeed characteristically "eloquent", it really makes no sense. Almost as if he did not read the discussion at all. What false dichotomy is he talking about? I fear we shall never know. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary - we reached a satisfactory consensus on Croats. No need to get personal. Fainites barleyscribs 23:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As I said, its a personal grudge. There may be no need for it, but there it is. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Nothing I said here has anything to do with the discussion at Talk:Croats. The false dilemma presented by Direktor here has been pointed out by other editors as well and whoever closes this poll should take that into account. I for one do not think that merely invoking WP:COMMONNAME here will solve the issue. Timbouctou (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
We are not here to solve any "issue", we are here to find which name is more in accordance with Wikipedia naming policy. As I said, we shall probably never know what this false dichotomy is that you found here. I mean that comment just plain makes no sense. As for you just "accidentally" arriving here to oppose my move proposal at the same time we started an argument on Talk:Croats, well.. if you say so. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Direktor, you don´t need to be so egocentred over this issue. Timbouctou has usually been involved in many articles regarding Yugoslavia or Croatia. Btw, it was not nice at all to say that he is revengfull towards you, so that is why he voted that way. I know Timbouctou as an excellent editor with a very apurate sense of NPOV, and from what I know he wouldn´t ever say something he doesn´t beleave. FkpCascais (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, its "not nice at all" to be vengeful like User:Timbouctou. And I'm sure you, as usual, absolutely love everyone who happens to agree with you, but loathe and attack anyone who disagrees. And again, as usual, all you have for your wild claims and "theories" is your own amazing ability to write them many, many times in different ways. A very typical discussion this. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR this is absurd. There is nothing remotely unusual in editors being involved over a range of yugoslav articles - you yourself being a prime example. In fact it is difficult for any editors to discuss any topic in this area without the page being filled by aggressive and insulting posts by you. This must stop now. Fainites barleyscribs 10:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, this is an open-and-shut case of "overwhelmingly more common name" vs. "completely unused, user invented name". This is not just me saying so, Google test are available for all to see. And unless an (agenda-driven!) user may simply arrive and "declare" that the term does not apply to some imaginary unspecified aspect of the war, based purely on him saying so, then the article should be moved. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Direktor should stop addressing the closing admin as if he owns the article. It is no secret that the proposed article title was and is ideologically motivated and that it considerably fell out of use in this part of the world since the early 1990s. Several editors have voiced concerns over this in the past discussion in January. It is clearly not an open-and-shut case of adhering to WP:COMMONNAME. Direktor is neither as knowledgeable nor methodical as he presents himself to be and any admin closing this discussion should take that into account. Timbouctou (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an open-and-shut case of WP:COMMONNAME. "National Liberation War" is the most common name used in all publications, including modern scholatly publications. The past discussion was for a different name, only the three times lower (yet still more common) usage of the term "People's Liberation War" was considered, while "National Liberation War" was disregarded.
In reposnse to yet another inventive "theory", this time seasoned with political slander, I can only once more post sources. "National Liberation War" renders 650 English language sources from 1992 up to this date. This is still double the hits of any other proposed name - without any time or language restrictions. If we add "Peolple's Liberation War" that's another 130 hits. User:Timbouctou is here WP:STALKing my contribs because of the conflict at Talk:Croats. He, once again, has not even bothered to check the sources, or the proposed name in teh previous RM, before posting his copy-pasted claims here.
I can only wonder which other name User:Timbouctou has in mind, when attacing the proposed one. I would like to see you find more than 650 (or 780) sources for any other specific name. Indeed, even fake searches with generic names such as "Yugoslavia in World War II" render incomparably smaller results even though they are virtually all sentence fragments and not actual names for this conflict. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you even bother to look more closely at the results you came up with? The majority of the results you got are either direct translations of documents and quotes circulated in the Yugoslav media before the 1990s, when the term was in wide use, OR direct quotes from speeches and letters produced by Josip Broz Tito in the 1940s, when the phrase was invented in the first place. Furthermore, some of them are in direct contradiction with what you are saying here:
  • Jozo Tomasevich's book War and revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945 uses the term once in the form of "National Liberation War (the Partisans)", thus indicating that the phrase does indeed represent a side in the conflict, not the conflict itself.
  • Bernd Jürgen Fischer's book Balkan strongmen uses the term once and only as a direct quote from a letter written by Josip Broz Tito in 1942.
  • John Phillips' book Macedonia: warlords and rebels in the Balkans uses the term once, again, as the translated title of a "widely published article" written by Tito.
  • Branka Magaš's book The destruction of Yugoslavia uses the term once and not even the body of the book but in a footnote in which she cites an article published by the official Communist Party newspaper Borba in 1945.
  • Christopher Bennet's book Yugoslavia's bloody collapse uses the term once, in a paragraph which describes indoctrination in former Yugoslavia.
  • Dunne and Fraser's Europe and Ethnicity mentions the phrase once, and again, in a footnote which directly translates the title of a Yugoslav book published in 1985 which they used as a source.
  • The book State-society relations in Yugoslavia 1945-1992 uses the term once, and it even puts it in quotation marks - again, indicating that the very term was an ideological construct.
  • Redžić's book Bosnia and Herzegovina in Second World War uses the term once and even explains it further by adding the following: "The socialist propaganda machine developed a series of acronyms with meanings that are almost universally understood in the former Yugoslav lands: NOB (the National Liberation War) and NOP (the National Liberation Movement) being the most commonly used."
  • Stojanović's book The Fall of Yugoslavia uses the term twice, both times in reference to the ruling regime in communist Yugoslavia.
  • The book Yugoslavia, former and future uses the term once, in an article written by Vojin Dimitrijević which mentions it only in a section which is a translation of the opening paragraphs of the Yugoslav constitution, along with the phrase "Socialist Revolution." In fact many hits you came up with use the exact same phrase "National Liberation War and Socialist Revolution" for exactly the same reason.
I could go on. But seriously - do I need to? I can only repeat that this has nothing to do with WP:COMMONNAME. Yes, scholarly publications clearly print the term, but- as evidenced above - they use it in a very specific context exclusively. Unlike what Direktor would have us believe this is clearly not a term merely used for World War II in Yugoslavia in English-language publications. It was an ideologically motivated and state-sponsored phrase invented by the communists in the 1940s and inscribed in the Yugoslav constitution. It seems to appear in books only when discussing the post-war ruling regime and its ideological foundations. It is clearly not used by scholars when merely referring to the war itself - so we shouldn't use it either. Timbouctou (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You could go on? Well coming from you I believe that. Then please do. :) Because there are still some 641 hits and some 7,700 altogether. So carefully cherry-picking half a dozen only proves you probably have experience in cherry-picking. Nice try. I would not advise getting into all that though, since even if you did actually write all that up here, there are the other three problems you face:
  • 1) Where exactly in WP:NAME does it state there is a time limit for notability research? Or are we just supposed to accept your "demands" and ignore 90% of the published sources on this subject because you claim they are "communist"?
  • 2) Even if they were communist (and they most certainly are not) WP does not really care. WP:NAME:

When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title. Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment. This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgemental.

  • and 3) Even if I were to go insane and pretend all of the above isn't there O_o, "Yugoslav front" is still virtually without any usage at all, let alone after 1992. The same goes for any other generic, user-invented name that I researched and that were suggested here. The few hits they reneder are simply sentnece fragments, the vast majority of them, very far indeed from being used as an actual scholarly term for this war. (And for us Wikipedia users to invent a name with another, perfectly normal name in widespread use with over 7,500 published sources, would of course be entirely unacceptable and a blatant breach of naming policy.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. Examples I listed are not cherry-picked - far from it. They all come from a random sample taken from the first four pages of the search link you provided. I'm sure hundreds more could be found if one was insane enough to believe that constructive discussion is what you are after here. However, I will leave further research to naive editors like Fainites who seem to have an endless capacity for putting up with your bullshit.
  • 2. Your "argument" about a "time limit" and the phrase being "communist" makes absolutely no sense. The phrase "National Liberation War" is simply not a common name for the conflict this Wikipedia article is talking about, as evidenced above. There are enormous books written by scholars out there about Yugoslavia in World War II who mention the phrase only once or twice - and even then, they do not use it for what this article is talking about. They use it only as direct translations of the term when discussing the post-war political system in Yugoslavia. Claiming otherwise is misleading. You are outright lying to us all, Direktor.
  • 3. The idea that I used the adjective "communist" as a derogatory term exists in your head only. I happen to actually know a number of people who call themselves "communist" and/or "Marxist" and most of them happen to be perfectly reasonable people - unlike yourself. But if you want to debate the origin of the term then yes - it was coined by communists, it was used by communist, it was literally inscribed in the constitution of a communist country, it was promoted by the communist party's newspaper, there are whole volumes written on its origins and how it fitted into the post-war supra-national communist ideology. Claiming otherwise means that you either have no idea what you are talking about or that you know perfectly well but choose to behave disruptively on purpose. And I don't know which is worse. In any case, saying that a duck is a duck is not "passing judgment" - it is a statement of fact.
  • 4. The poll you started is about the move to "National Liberation War", just like it states in the header. It is not about debating the merits of the article's current title. Personally, I'd rather have this article exactly where it is as it seems scholars have never agreed on a specific term for it - nor do I see why they should. Do all wars in a specific geographic area have their names or nicknames? In this poll you have purposefully wasted a huge amount of time on what turns out to be your failure to present any reason to move it away from the current title - other than insisting on your own misplaced ideological inclinations by pretending to follow wiki policies. I couldn't care less about your political views but it seems that you yourself care about them far too much. Timbouctou (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Look, Timmy, I know you're angry with me, and I'm real sorry for hurting your feelings, but the above just makes no sense at all. :) 1) You did not "evidence" anything, and you do not get to discredit 7,500 sources by posting 9 books you (in your own words) cherry picked from the first forty, and then also invented all sorts of (in your words) "bullshit" theories how they all somehow "do not count". For example who the hell cares if the source quoted another source, the scholar still used the term!? And for every one source you try to twist up there, one can read another 30. 2) You're the one who demanded the time limit, and I agree that is "bullshit" too. Your "bullshit" ("It is no secret that the proposed article title was and is ideologically motivated and that it considerably fell out of use in this part of the world since the early 1990s"). No it didn't, and who the hell cares even if it did? 3) Again, your idea - your "bullshit". 4) This poll is about debating the merits of the current title - as opposed to the proposed one, and vice versa. We are comparing them to see which is more in accordance with WP:NAME. But the funniest bit of all is where you actually admit you are supporting an invented, unused name, essentially so you can mess with me. Should we ignore 7,500 sources, Timmy? Do tell. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your accolade Timbouctou. I cannot see any prospect of this name change succeeding because as usual the page has descended into a TLDR series of rants. No outside editors have commented. Why should they? Who would want to read this lot? Anyway - it's not my decision. Fainites barleyscribs 18:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, Fainites, I know. Its a fact of life. When I oppose a move I must remeber to simply post a lot of huge chunks of text to discourage any closing admins. Its far easier to simply write "no consensus" and move on with your day.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It was obvious that this discussion will not end up Direktor's way before I joined the discussion. Regarding your question "Should we ignore 7,500 sources, Timmy?" - the answer is "I don't see 7,500 sources. I see 7,500 Google hits." Not quite the same thing, is it. Timbouctou (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This discussion will end up the way Wikipedia naming policy requires. Eventually. Though you yourself are indeed just a troll that wants to make sure the people you WP:STALK and insult all over Wikipedia don't "have their way". That's your goal here, you've made that clear enough.
The Google test is a well established (and alomost exclusively used) method of determing English language usage on Wikipedia. Shall we ignore 7,500 Google hits then? Surely not because you posted those 9 books alongside altogether fake theories on how they "don't matter" to you? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You are personalising the discussion per usual. What you call "theories" are actually facts. Not quite the same thing. And the examples I listed above show that at least a quarter of the first 40 results are unacceptable. In fact I challenge you to list any 10 quotes in which authors used the term as a synonym for what we currently call "Yugoslav Front" in their own words, without quotation marks or without additional explanations in parenthesis. Find me any 10 examples in which authors did not print the term as a direct translation from the Yugoslav constitution or a quote from Tito, Borba or some such source. Hell, find five. And btw yes - we are allowed to analyze hits more closely precisely because they are not sources. Btw do you not find it strange that there is not a single book dealing with this topic which uses the allegedly common term in its title? Surely you must have some theory as to how historians managed to avoid titling their book by the most commonly used phrase for the topic they are writing about :-) Timbouctou (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II_in_Yugoslavia/Archive_3&oldid=1257978902"