Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Geography section

WW just attempted to move this newly created section to Axis occupation of Serbia. This material I have added in the Geography section only relates to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, and is an important addition to this article. The attempted move tends to indicate a lack of understanding about the borders of this Territory. Please read the material and the linked source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Syrmia and Sandžak are not part of this territory and should be removed from here. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

this is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. You are wrong, again, please read the reference, it was published by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure, Peacemaker? To my knowledge Syrmia was in the NDH and Sandzak was a part of Montenegro. -- Director (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am speechless... PMaker, please, check some map again... --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again: take it easy please, WhiteWriter. -- Director (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

O, yeah, baby, lets dance! :))) --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely, positively sure. Eastern Syrmia was part of the occupied territory until October 1941 because it included Zemun, About a quarter to a third of the Serbian Sandzak was included for the duration. If you read the source you will understand what I am talking about. How many times do I have to ask? Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

the Sandzak part is obvious from the map in Tomasevich Vol 2 as well [1]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That only a part of the Sandzak was assigned to Montenegro is clear from Ramet p134 [2] and Banac p4 [3]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The map on page 86 of Kroener et al (2000) [4] also shows the area of eastern Syrmia that was initially part of the occupied territory but was transferred, and this is mentioned in the text on pages 94-95. It can't be any clearer. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. must've been some tiny chunks then. -- Director (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

including Novi Pazar, I believe. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the obvious POVFORK Axis occupation of Serbia should be finally AFDed or merged here, if there's anything to merge. It is obviously anachronistic, as it deals with territory of Serbia as it became defined in 1944, after the event. The better candidate for merging is Invasion of Yugoslavia#Aftermath, which is too short now (do we actually have an overview how the Yugoslavia was partitioned anywhere? -- Partition of Yugoslavia redirects to 1990s Breakup of Yugoslavia). However, this discussion probably belongs elsewhere. No such user (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's a POVFORK and anachronistic. It should not be merged here because this article is just about the area under German rule. I personally think that almost all but a couple of small slivers of post-war Serbia are already covered in the NDH, Banat (1941-1944), Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944, Kingdom of Montenegro (1941–1944) and Albanian Kingdom (1939–1943)/Independent State of Albania articles. I also think the Axis occupation of Vojvodina article is a POV amalgamation of Banat (1941-1944) and Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944, but that is a secondary matter. I also agree we need a Yugoslavia under the Axis summary article to pull everything together. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose its ok as part of the series on the history of Serbia. The problem is the continuous effort to have this article fit as part of a nice neat collection outlined in the section titles there. This article is part of a series on German occupation authorities. Real, non-retroactively-imposed historical entities. Not primarily the history of Serbia as such. -- Director (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't work standalone, it shouldn't be part of a series either. But again, this discussion belongs to an AFD. No such user (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Military Administration in Serbia

In hopes of having a more stable title, I propose a move "in good faith" to Military Administration in Serbia. In the most recent RM, the title seemed to enjoy a bit more widespread support than the current one. I like it because its shorter and less clumsy, and because its similar to other articles on this same kind of territory (aiming for some consistency). Its also a lot more frequent in sources.

I emphasize this is a good faith move, not an RM proposal. Just trying to find out if there would be any active opposition to a move to that title at this time. If there's opposition, never mind, the current title is imo acceptable as well. Just not as stable, I fear. -- Director (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

To my mind it will be no more stable than the current one due to the motivation of the majority of those that have been supporting moves here for several months. I prefer the current title because it describes the territory, and I don't believe the administration does that as effectively. I oppose a move before the AE matter is dealt with. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" does describe the territory, that much is certain. And this article is about a territory. The title is definitely Precise^TM, and that's one of my primary concerns as well. The problem is people have expressed concerns regarding its Naturalness^TM, Conciseness^TM, and Consistency^TM.

I think "Military Administration in Serbia" is undeniably more Concise^TM and Consistent^TM. And possibly more "Natural^TM", though its hard to come to conclusions there on a subject as completely obscure as this. And while it is less Precise^TM than the current title, I contend it is reasonably precise, not being suggestive of complete a-historical nonsense (such as the "puppet Serbia" titles).

All that said, I agree we should probably first wait for the venerable admins of WP:AE to conclude their deliberations. -- Director (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This is beyond great! Yeeey, one more good faith proposition! No, this one was already proposed in the section above, and we do not have consensus for this. We should wait for a year, and try again, and some admin should ban any new "good faith" by you, me or your team. This would be second time that you move this article by your own will, despite consensus and finished RM. Just to mention that it was you who moved this article to this questionable title, also in good faith.  Disagree to this proposal per arguments directly above. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Take a breath, WW. Your allegation about the move to this title is just revisionist nonsense. I disagree with Director on this one too. Our reasons might not be the same but we agree the move is not appropriate. Be thankful for small mercies. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, that's settled then. We keep this title. Thanks for hammering it home, WW. I had my doubts, but seeing as how you're still here, not getting the message, then I guess we have little real choice other than this formulation. Maybe you can suggest "Puppet Serbia" in the next RM? -- Director (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Military Administration in Serbia is about Administration, and this article is not about administration, but about the territory under that administration. That is very easy to grasp... --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. "Military Administration in Serbia" can also be understood as referring to the territory, i.e. the occupation entity, the occupation as such. No such user commented on this ambiguity, and practically all articles like this one (3/4) use that term.

Honestly, if I were in your shoes, with the same POV - I wouldn't oppose this. Its certainly a step in your direction, however small, and leaves a lot more "wiggle room" for various word games and twisty turns. "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is very unambiguous indeed. Of course, now after this post you couldn't change your position (on this proposal) even if you realized what I'm saying is correct, as you'd lose face.. ah, the subtleties of Wiki discourse ;) -- Director (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Military Administration means Military Administration, and it CANNOT mean territory. Administration is Administration, and that is anyway not common name for this entity. All other articles use this name as you have personally moved most of them to correct your POV. Dont lecture me, i was not born yesterday, my dear director. :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no commonname. Can we all just relax and drop the stick? If we could get 10% of the effort that goes into attacking or defending this article title into actually improving it, it would be FA by now. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Lets keep it wrong like this for some time, and try to first solve several other question. Then title will be easy to clear... Anyway, please, dont start any self-sufficient actions. This is TLDR page for a long, long time... --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The title isn't "wrong" - its about as accurate and precise as it gets (in fact over-accuracy is its only possible problem). For the record, if you or your buddies start yet another RM here it will be stricken and your actions reported appropriately. I think its probably time you forget about titles referring to this territory as "Serbia" (rather than something "in Serbia"). I don't know when you were born, but I hope its been long enough for you to realize any further POV-pushing in that direction on your part will be viewed as the final straw in a pattern of disruption on this article. On my part at least; and probably with others as well.

If User:PANONIAN's "puppet Serbia" nonsense (of the kind you were pushing above) comes up yet again in some of its iterations, I assure you it will be discussed on noticeboards, not here. It will be clearly presented for the continuous nationalist POV-pushing campaign that it is. I don't know about Peacemaker, Producer, or ZjarriRrethues, but I've had quite enough. Its officially less bothersome to write reports on this abhorrent abuse than the hundreds of useless posts on talkpages. -- Director (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, you are not the one who should talk about buddies here... Following your logic, you should struck your own good faith move proposition. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No. This is not an RM, its not even a discussion about a possible move. Its just me finding out if anyone would actively oppose it. You and Peacemaker do, so - not much more to talk about.

And yes, I am the one who who should talk about "buddies". I never canvass people. To be frank: I have to say I myself am reasonably certain you and Antidiskriminator were alerted to this article by the topic-banned User:PANONIAN (the "Serbia under attack" alarm was sounded). And there's good evidence for this. You support his position exactly, and only after he was banned; Antid and yourself appeared here simultaneously, you post PANONIAN's sources, you and PANONIAN support Antidiskriminator at his WP:AE report, Nemambrata appears from srWiki basically just for this issue etc..

So, I hope I was clear up there in my preceding post. This WP:DISRUPTIVE charade has gone on long enough. In my opinion it can easily be shown what's going on here, and if after years of stupid discussion and four RMs this still doesn't turn out to be over (as you suggested above) - we will continue the discourse on the appropriate community noticeboard, not here. Its time to focus on article improvement. -- Director (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No. I just didnt want that you, after panonnians ban change everything only as you want to, without community agreement. As you started. While panonnians report was still active and not archived, you already started with the removal, rename and deletion of the material in question. I was just not that much into it before, as Jimbo Wales told us, "only one POV is wrong POV". --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for being honest, but did you ever coinsider that Peacemaker and I might simply be right here, and that PANONIAN might have been wrong? Or did you just oppose out of opposition's sake? I'm not your typical Croat nationalist idiot, WW. I actually arrived here because I was startled that the Axis powers article included "Serbia", which is a serious historical error and injustice. PANONIAN just had this "weird" (imo WP:OWN) position that the Nazis created a Serbia - and then occupied it.. or something. And this "Serbia" of his own had Nedic's flag and coa, and was somehow an amalgam of the Nedic regime and the German occupation authorities.. its just the weirdest concoction imaginable.

See this, for example. Or this. Its complete nonsense and fantasy. -- Director (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Bloody hell. I had no idea this article had been such a nightmare in the past. The first one is an absolute doozy! The second one is just severely deluded. I think I am seeing more of what has been behind this for so long. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It has indeed been "bloody hell" wrenching this article from what were, I dare say, essentially the personal ideas and fantasies of one user. Antid and WW are basically here making sure "I don't change everything only as I want to". Its not so much that I cared about this article, its about as obscure as it gets, I was bothered that people had some non-existent "Serbia" included everywhere representing this occupation zone, such as in the Axis powers article or the Yugoslav Front article (which still needs serious work if its ever going to be really informative on this war). And not because "Serbia" bothers me as such, or I have something against the word "Serbia" - but simply because I know its way, waay off. This is a complicated area, and the language and terminology need to be crystal clear, or else its even more an incomprehensible mess. -- Director (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

change what, exactly? Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

O, c'mon, What? Article. And not you, but DIREKTOR.. Doesn't matter anymore, we agreed that temporarily we will stop with everything, and that will happen if you ask me. Good bye, i am going to sleep. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead may be a little long at present, and could probably be edited down a bit, but the article itself still has significant expansion ahead, and I don't we should be getting too excited about its length at present. However, I will do some trimming over the next couple of days. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, could someone with the requisite language skills have a look at this thread [5] and respond to my queries about the sources for the translations? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done some trimming to make the lead compliant with MOS, BTW the translations of Military Administration in Serbia are now in the Administration section if you are looking for them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominally a monarchy?

I know this has been raised before (by me; no less), but I've read on several websites (including Ben Cahoon's 'worldstatesmen.org' and Bruce Gordon's 'regnal chronologies', as well as 'rulers.org'.) that Nedic's government acted in the name of Petar II as 'King of Serbia'. (although the King himself did not recognise this title nor recognise the legality of the Government of National Salvation.) Now; whilst these websites cannot be considered to be reputable sources; nonetheless I took the liberty of asking the owners of these websites where they obtained their information from. Altogether; I was able to find the following sources:

'The East European Revolution' by Seton-Watson, page 79:

"Nedić considered himself the temporary representative of the exiled King Peter until the war was over."

http://books.google.com/books?id=gb4OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=Milan+Nedic+King+Petar&source=bl&ots=FzGr0gvGRN&sig=0q2BuKkcJU3PS4HDRmBdg7GSNmM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6j_CUPy0De200QG5wYGoDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Milan%20Nedic%20King%20Petar&f=false

and here:

'The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building And Legitimation, 1918-2005' By Sabrina P. Ramet , pg 130:

" Thus, Nedic, aspiring to convey the impression of loyalty to King Peter II, hung a portrait of the king in his office and ordained that police recruits swear an oath to Peter II."

http://books.google.com/books?id=FTw3lEqi2-oC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=Milan+Nedic+King+Petar&source=bl&ots=Flva3MX0b6&sig=bWe6_u0arNhLPIOqhujwD_fdyx8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MEHCUM_bCqXf0gG58oG4DQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Milan%20Nedic%20King%20Petar&f=false

'Tito, Mihailovic and the Allies, 1941-1945', by Walter Roberts, pg 258:

"There is even some evidence that in 1943 Nedic secretly sent a declaration of loyalty to King Peter." http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=43CbLU8FgFsC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=%22in+the+name+of+king+peter%22%22nedic%22&source=bl&ots=hRn83AtO2C&sig=ZLsOpqUWyuG-7sbRE97sjgE9JyM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkPHULa3GdSp0AWSoYCQBQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20the%20name%20of%20king%20peter%22%22nedic%22&f=false

'Hitler's New Disorder, World War Two in Yugoslavia' by Stevan K Pavlowich, pg 58:

"he was allowed to use Serbia's old flag and coat of arms, and even King Peter's portrait"

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R8d2409V9tEC&pg=PA58&dq=%22king+peter%22%22nedic%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bUTHUIWIK-es0QWYjIGYDw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22king%20peter%22%22nedic%22&f=false

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wednesday 12th June 1946; article: 'The Mihailovich-Tito Duel At Close Quarters.':

"On the contrary, Rootham points out, Mihailovitch's men and Nedich's men regarded one another as essentially on the same side-the side of King Peter"

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17987270

The Milauwakee Sentinel, August 8th, 1945. article: 'King Barred, says Tito.':

"Tito said the decision was based on the grounds that Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19450808&id=V2RQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kQ0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4579,5186282

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that actually states this was the official state of affairs there? What Nedic "considered himself" is a different matter altogether. -- Director (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

-Greetings, DIREKTOR. What would be acceptable? JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about Director, but I'd want to see a reliable scholar source that explicitly stated that the GNS was "nominally a monarchy" or words to that effect. I don't see anything like that above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to reference system used

G'day all, just wanted to see whether we could get consensus for a change to Harvard referencing for this article? The currently used system is pretty clunky and unforgiving if we move text around. I prefer the Harvard system because it automatically groups multiple citations. Your views? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I've commented here on the title issue, if not much else, I will pass comment on this .. if you mean the system where reference details appear in running text in parentheses, I'd be very much against it (apologies but I'm not an expert on academic referencing formats). To these eyes it's incredibly visually disruptive; plus not common at all on other WP pages. Where I have seen it, it has seemed to prove very unpopular with generalist editors and readers. N-HH talk/edits 09:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe Peacemaker is referring to the SFN format which looks visually identical to what we have now. It makes referencing easier and less tedious for editors behind the scene. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

correct, PRODUCER. Sorry about the vagueness of my initial suggestion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I had in mind this. If it's not that, but effectively a technical thing that makes editing easier that has no impact on aesthetics, go for it. Introducing and working round references can be a pain in the WP editing system. N-HH talk/edits 23:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully converted the article's references into the SFN format. I've also removed unreliable or unused references. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Freeze on move proposals for this article

Per a decision at Arbitration Enforcement, a ban has been placed on initiation of new move proposals for this article for a period of one year. This is under the authority of discretionary sanctions. The freeze expires on 2 November, 2013. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. Article stuck at obscure, unclear, rarely head of and utterly confusing title for a year. Well done WP's dispute resolution process yet again. N-HH talk/edits 22:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you'd like to post a few more RMs? Why didn't you say so... Its always the WP:WRONG title.

@Ed, could you clarify one thing please: does this mean even if we reach talkpage consensus we still can't move the page, or are we simply not allowed to post RMs? -- Director (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's just leave it alone and work on the content? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, you're the only one (so far as I know) that's completely happy with this title. Don't take this the wrong way, but I am still hoping folks might agree "Military Administration in Serbia" is a shorter and more appropriate title, from everyone's perspective. Including your own: I doubt this issue is resolved and really over. Imo its just been given a year's holiday. I'd still like to find out whether we can move the thing if we all agree. -- Director (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not even slightly interested in discussing the title for 12 months. I've wasted hours of my time on it already. By the time the freeze expires the article will be FA if I have my way, and any move discussion can be conducted on the basis of the content. It is also clear WW will not agree with that move. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker take it easy, I'm just asking the man to clarify the admin action. Alright? -- Director (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The ban prevents any new move discussions from being started for one year. In the past, the same thing has been done at Senkaku Islands. That is another article that has been troubled by excessive move proposals that seemed to be motivated by national loyalties rather than encyclopedic concerns. If you disagree with this ban, you can appeal at WP:AE. Surely the title of this article is not of earthshaking importance anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. -- Director (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed, that totally mischaracterises the problem with the title. Most people who have issues with the title are not motivated by "national loyalties" and the problem is not a Senkaku vs Diayou one, where you have one proper name favoured and used by one country, and also by the broader English-speaking world, and another proper name favoured and used in multiple, though fewer, sources by another country. It's simply a bizarre aggregation of words, which is neither a commonly used term in the real world nor accurately descriptive. It's stuck because it was chosen by one Wikipedia editor and has since been vigorously defended, and all rational discussion vetoed, by probably one and a half people in total, against a succession of passers by looking at it and scratching their heads. As for the hours "wasted" discussing it, indeed. Might that not indicate that there is a problem that needs to be solved, rather than squashed? And the idea that an article could gain FA status while it has such a glaring and basic problem as its title, or that what you might call something is not of "earthshaking importance", are both two of the sillier suggestions I have seen in my years wandering around WP pages. N-HH talk/edits 09:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of equally absurd situation with Fixed-wing aircraft, which ended there because of the heated debate whether to use Airplane or Aeroplane, and neither were technically accurate enough. So we ended up at an technically accurate, but convoluted and unrecognizable title. Oh well, I'm not going to beat the dead horse anymore... whoops, horse hybernated for a year. No such user (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And it's not even clear that this one is "technically accurate", since not only is the phrase barely used in the literature but there's very little evidence it's even the official name. I can't help but think that if this issue was resolved, and the page moved to a more common, descriptive term such as "German-occupied Serbia" or "German military occupation in/of Serbia during WW2", which explains clearly that this page is the lead page about the over-arching thing, that we might actually put many of the problems around this topic to bed once and for all, or at least put them into sharper focus (and do so properly, rather than by diktat-moratorium on this one aspect of it). Such as the creation of POV forks such as the recently deleted Puppet State of Serbia and Axis occupation of Serbia. It would also help if people would stop suggesting – as several continued to do at that AFD – that the creation of such articles is related to opposition to this "Territory of ..." title and is motivated by the same impulse. There's a relationship, but, as suggested above, it's not that one. N-HH talk/edits 08:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

*sigh*... shall we go again? There is nothing ambiguous about sources explicitly stating the above as the official name of this territory (as I'm sure Peacemaker could tell you in some considerable detail). Not only that, but the official names of other Wehrmacht-administered occupation zones of this type are also sourced as "Territory of the Military Commander in..". The fact that you yourself aren't convinced is not of particular consequence imo.

The objections on the titles you call "descriptive" are precisely that they are not, in fact, "descriptive" at all - as they (rather obviously) refer to something other than the subject of this article. Not only that, but they are patent a-historical nonsese laden with nationalist POV, etc. etc.. I recognize that the title is unwieldy, though, and will again say that I would not object to "Military Administration in Serbia" (as a much shorter but still-accurate alternative), but I am strongly opposed to the made-up nonsense. There was no entity that can be referred to as "German-ocupied Serbia", and the sources are continuously misquoted in support of that phrase, referring to a vaguely-defined region of Yugoslavia - as was shown many times.

As regards the POVFORKS, the Serbian users/socks that insist on beating this dead horse by such various means should simply be sanctioned, and the FORKS redirected, rather than compromising a good article to fit nationalist-style pressure along the lines of "Serbia is eternal!". And I sincerely doubt you having your way here would "put this to bed", rather, if that is your goal, how about not "pulling it out ot of bed" every now and again because you aren't personally satisfied? I.e, how about respecting admin action and dropping the stick? (I'm on vacation and probably won't respond in a while.) -- Director (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? There is no evidence for your assertion, N-HH. This was a problem before the article had this title and it will be a problem again when it has another title. Those of us who wade around in this POV-morass every day aren't quite so sanguine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen any sources that confirm this as the official name (we don't do official names anyway, necessarily), any more than the official name of Essex is "Jurisdiction of the Local Authority". Virtually no sources use it a name, whether as the official one or not; plenty, by contrast, talk about "German-occupied Serbia" when they mean pretty much exactly this thing that is the topic of the page, ie that part of Serbia that was under German occupation. Denying this rather obvious fact via repeated assertions of the sort made by Direktor above about what is purportedly "obvious" does not make such assertions true. The use of that phrase has nothing to do, per se or as a matter of logic, with Serbian nationalism, and – again – repeatedly insisting that it does will not make that fiction any truer. It is also, manifestly, much, much clearer as a title and description to the average reader, and tallies with similar pages. No, it wouldn't solve nationalism issues on Balkans pages, but it would, as I said, at the very least bring it into sharper focus, since it would deter people from claiming that this page was limited in scope and that therefore we needed lots of other pages as well about puppet states and other aspects of occupied Serbia. The bottom line is that it's a crap, confusing, unheard-of title – with an obvious alternative – and that only one or two people support its retention and are wielding a veto on any sensible change, using the spurious cover of Arbcom resolutions and strawman bleating. I don't care that Serbian nationalists also happen to dislike the current title and may favour the alternative: that should not be a factor in any argument, so long as the alternative title is not, in and of itself, a sop to such nationalism. It isn't. N-HH talk/edits 20:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

My dear N-HH, thank you for this! It is important that someone else finds this ridiculous and pointless, POV-pushed title problematic as we do. Just, i am afraid that you will be marked as Serbian nationalist very soon. :) Anyway, what do you propose as a solution to this sh.t? --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm like the Richard Kiel character in Force 10 from Navarone. I'll soon switch my cap and reveal that I'm not a partisan after all, but a Chetnik. Or maybe I'll just stay what I've always been, a disinterested observer who can spot a crap title that sits in rather egregious breach of nearly every provision and principle of WP:TITLE when they see one – and I'm not the only one, recalling and looking back over the endless discussion to date. That said, I don't see a POV problem particularly with the current one either. There's far too much citing of "POV!" by opponents and proponents of every alternative. It's a bit of a red herring all round really when it comes to the title itself. Let's just look at what this thing is called, not what that title might supposedly mean or "illegitimately" imply at some existential level if you stare at it for long enough. N-HH talk/edits 08:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Per the latest AE there's a "freeze" on move discussions and I find the current title quite accurate in comparison to the official German title. For the sake of conversation, what would you have proposed if there hadn't been an AE?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

@N-HH, how about "Drop the Stick and Abide by AE or Get Reported"? Would that be acceptable? --Dir

N-HH, i am afraid that solution must be gained without several active editors here, whatever that solution is. That will be the only way to gain neutrality and normal title, and article subject, even more important then title, which is only one of the problems. Also, just to let you know that everyone are highly encouraged to talk and gain useful consensus during the freeze. That was the reason for the freeze, and not the good title as it is. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Um.. no, not really. The reason for the freeze was the disruption caused by the repeated successive RMs (which is against policy) by users refusing to accept their demands were rejected by the community. And it seems that the users you will have to exclude from your exalted deliberations are unfortunately most of the people around here. This title isn't perfect, but what we have established, over and over and over again, is that your, Serbian-point-of-view version is NOT the alternative. If I were not away, this disruption and the above provocation ("we'll have to decide without these people"), would already be brought-up for review by the community. Cheers -Dir

Um, yes. Obviously all of us are NOT CAPABLE to gain useful normal title and consensus on this page, so it is quite logic to try to solve this in some other way. If this title is sooo coool, why then N-HH raised this question? Obviously, this will not be the final solution for this article, at least, not the best... This is nothing bad, DIR, i was thinking about me also, and about you too. P.S. What is going on with your signature, i can use the template? :=% --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

@Director: "Rejected by the community" is more correctly translated as "vetoed by the page guardian[s]", who have then, as noted, deceitfully spun this as some kind of nationalist issue that needs, and has more or less won – utterly fraudulently – passing AE involvement. I'm sure you haven't forgotten that even you don't like this title. In fact, my rough maths/memory tells me that we have 1000s who've never passed comment, 5-8 people who don't understand/accept this title and about 1.5 that do. The problem is that it's the 1.5 who dominate the page. As for your latest comment "Abide by AE or Get Reported", please grow up (and also see my comment about hiding behind ArbCom).

@ZjarriRrethues: I have explained only just above what I would propose as the normal English description of this thing, as have others previously. Neither you, nor anyone else, have shown the current page title to be the "official name" of the entity or concept as opposed to an obscure localised quasi-formal description (equivalent, as noted to "Jurisdiction of the Local Council Executive", or somesuch) – and even then found in only about one source – let alone the common name in English-language sources, which is of course what WP's title rules asks for. N-HH talk/edits 22:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned N-HH, while your motives may indeed be pure, you are effectively acting as a stalking horse for the POV warriors. I'm not interested in entering this discussion until ARBMAC lift the move-ban. If you want to make a case to them to lift it early, you go right ahead. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in such back-handed compliments about what you believe my motives to be and am certainly not interested in being described as a "stalking horse" for nationalism. Your attitude to this discussion is poisonous, not only because of such pointless insults-by-association, but because, as noted, it relies on hiding behind WP's rather notably flawed dispute resolution and enforcement procedures, as well as strawman, diversionary and illogical allegations of nationalism when it comes to the substantive and precise issue at hand (when there are none), rather than engaging in rational debate. N-HH talk/edits 23:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Then you'll love me, the last time I complimented anyone was 1997. And while I personally could not care less what your motives are, what matters to me is your insulting implication that you're being attacked by others and myself as a supposed "Serb nationalist" - when that is clearly ridiculous. People don't like to be called stupid, no matter how indirectly, and they like it still less when someone tries to undermine their legitimate position by such shallow demagoguery. I doubt Peacemaker was trying to "compliment" you, he was merely defending against said accusations on your part.

And I assure you: nobody is "hiding" from you, N-HH. As I recall, this page is under restriction thanks exclusively to you and your posting yet another disruptive, repetitive, failed RM against guidelines. Kudos. Now pray tell, how has your incessant POV-pushing made others cowards?

Bah, I've had enough of this, signing off again for the next week or so. Peacemaker, the above posts by N-HH contain several personal attacks, and as I said, in light of AE this whole thing is flaming/trolling and should be reported. Should you bring this up, be sure to explain to everyone at ANI just how "notably flawed" they are. Over and out, --Dir

Just for the record after belatedly noticing the above when this page came up on my watchlist again today after a long pause: 1) my response to my being attacked "as a supposed Serb Nationalist" is not "insulting" or "ridiculous", nor is it some random "personal attack" or "flaming/trolling" but a natural riposte to Peacemakers explicit prior claim. I was indeed so attacked, as anyone who actually knows what "stalking horse" means would understand. You've seen fit to continue that nonsense, by talking about "POV-pushing". I'm not pushing any POV, I just want a sensible title here, per WP policy and real-world usage, and am fed up with page guardians wielding a veto over the topic on spurious grounds. And 2) I have not initiated any RM on this page, let alone one that led to the bar on proposing further page moves. I have no idea how that claim got into your head, let alone onto this talk page. N-HH talk/edits 23:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Title discussions

WhiteWriter keeps being bullheaded about this in other venues, so I thought I might see what is the actual problem here... and I came to a strange conclusion - the last discussion seemed to have come to a reasonable consensual compromise title that garnered no significant opposition: German military administration in Serbia. Can someone please re-read it - Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 9#Alternate proposal - and tell me if I'm missing something? Preferably someone uninvolved. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, that is agreed title, but for a different subject. Administration itself, and not the territory they administrated, as we have now. If you ask me, that may be ok, but then new article should be created about this occupied territory (not)called Serbia. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved but would just say that while it's hard to evaluate that discussion, I'd tend to agree that it was probably the least contentious of the alternatives on the table for those commenting (as discussed ad nauseam, the current title is utterly problematic on several levels – it's not the common name, there's scant evidence it's even the official name, for what that would be worth anyway, and it's bizarre and staggeringly uninformative as a purely descriptive title – as well as being only popular with about two people). I agree that "German military administration in Serbia" can be seen as only referring to the administrative structure and practice rather than the territory per se, but I'm not sure that's fatal or that it means we would have to have a separate page for the geographic territory itself. That said, I'm still none the wiser, despite acres of argument and invective, as to why it can't be some variation of "German/Nazi-occupied Serbia/Yugoslavia". N-HH talk/edits 15:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Why make that distinction? Do sources make it? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Technically I believe we are still under a moratorium on move proposals, but it would be good if we could agree some solution here. As noted, this name is virtually unheard of and never-used outside Wikipedia, there is no verifiable evidence or source that it is even the actual official name (for what that would be worth anyway) and it only has unequivocal support from one editor. Nonetheless the term is now replicating like a virus across Wikipedia on large numbers of related pages, eg this recently created one. N-HH talk/edits 18:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not technically, actually. The ban is "initiation of new move proposals", which appears to be what you are proposing. Once the moratorium has expired we can have the discussion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable and just agree to call a spade a spade. There was consensus for this title - the only people who had issues with it were WhiteWriter and RJFF, and their statements were among those with the least factual input in the discussion. Had this proposal been made in a less contentious setting, I can't see how any reasonable RM closer would have come to a different conclusion. Consensus to end the moratorium might actually allow us to move past this ugly period. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, my candidate would be Military Administration in Serbia. It doesn't have the problems inherent with various titles suggesting this is some kind of country, and its much shorter. Although I really wouldn't want us to start this discussion again unless absolutely necessary; I've been discussing this same crap (if you'll pardon) on-and-off since August 2010. -- Director (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I definitely do not want to start this all over again, especially when there is a ban on move proposals. Even after the ban expires, this article is about a territory (geographical area), not an administration (form of government), so the "Military Administration" idea would actually change the scope of the article, which I don't think is appropriate. I would like to think we could explore the neutral approach to the article title that was used with the highly contentious Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, ie a descriptive title that defines this area only. Some variation on German military occupation of Yugoslav territory. This area was the only part of Yugoslavia that was under military occupation by Germany. The Slovene bit was absorbed by the Reich and was part of a civilian-run Gau, the rest of Yugoslavia consisted of areas occupied or annexed by other Axis powers or were incorporated into puppet states. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is never going to finally go away, moratoriums or no, unless and until it gets sorted. The way to solve an obvious problem – especially one where we seem to be in pretty egregious non-compliance with some basic elements of WP naming policy – once and for all is to solve it, not for one or two editors to say "this is too boring/disruptive/whatever" any time someone tries to. As to the territory/administration distinction, as I said above, I don't see it's fatal to the possible use of "German military administration in Serbia" or somesuch as a title or this page. It would though create problems when referring to the geography on other pages: eg we couldn't say someone crossed the river into the "Military Administration in Serbia". I guess the question is what reliable sources on the history use to identify and refer to the area. But we know the answer to that already of course. N-HH talk/edits 13:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think calling it an administration is not only fatal, it is patently misleading. An occupied territory is a geographical area, an administration is a governing entity. And these sorts of issues never go away on WP, IMO. There will always be someone who doesn't accept the status quo, who says the title is the "wrong" one, who "just doesn't like it". And unfortunately there isn't just one answer to your final question, there are literally at least a dozen different answers, all from reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My reading of "administration" in this context would be that it refers to the more general process of administration as much as an actual body of people or structure. It's saying there was German control of [a part of] Serbia. As for the current title, the problem is not simply, as you suggest, of people vaguely claiming they don't like it, but the fact that is a term never heard of outside of one unverifiable source which purportedly claims it to be an official name. And the only reason it is now the "status quo" is because one editor chanced on it and moved the page here more or less unilaterally a while back. Since then, any debate has been stonewalled and was eventually locked down via AE on spurious grounds. The fact that that same person supports the status quo is hardly a surprise, let alone a reason to stick with it; the fact that people regularly turn up to say that the title flies in the face of mainstream sources, and hence of WP article title policy, is not surprising either. Please stop misrepresenting the problem as being one of trouble-making malcontents posting arbitrary subjective objections. And whatever sources use – and, as you know, they mostly say "Serbia" or "German-occupied Serbia" – they certainly don't say "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". N-HH talk/edits 15:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Overstretch and overstatement doesn't help your argument for any title change, and makes me question your motivation here. Your statement about verifiability is utter rubbish, it is a fully verifiable article published in a scholarly university journal and written by a university professor. Just because you can't get it on Google Books doesn't mean it isn't verifiable. Your credibility in this discussion is severely undermined if you haven't read and understood one of the core policies of WP. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. I obtained Hehn's article from WP:RX and you can too. I am open to a neutral and descriptive title for this article, and I am happy to re-engage with this discussion if you withdraw the claim about Hehn being unverifiable. Otherwise, I have every reason to lump you with those that regularly pull up here and make unsupportable statements to advance their case. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It is unverifiable to me, which is what I meant, funnily enough. I never said that the source per se was useless or that policy forbids using it, so less of the lectures about policy thanks. Meanwhile, in all the discussions above, no one has ever, as far as I can recall, offered a direct quote of what it actually says. Forget about demanding that I run around looking for it or "withdraw" an innocuous statement – you're the one relying on it; how about you present the quote here and now?

And even if it does say "the official name for the area was ..", there is no evidence that anyone else makes that claim. Nor does anyone else seem to use it, official name or not. And of course, we don't use the official name for things anyway, especially if no one else does. I don't know how many times I can politely ask you to stop questioning my motives. As I keep saying, the problem here is a pretty basic and objective one that the current name, now scattered across WP, virtually does not exist anywhere else in the literature. If you really don't see that as a problem, and instead are going to rely on cheap shots when anyone raises it, this is always going to be difficult. And if you think someone saying "most sources use term X", and supplies direct quotes and examples to that effect, is the one relying on "unsupportable statements", rather than the person who cites one unquoted source about a purported "official name" and then concludes that this is good enough per WP:AT, while sniping at the motives of those pointing out what is, one would have thought, a pretty glaring and obvious problem to anyone with an open mind, then good luck. I'm genuinely struggling to understand where this apparent blind spot is coming from. N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It continues to be utter rubbish (and not terribly funny) because you used the name of a core policy of WP (which everyone would assume you are referring to when you use the term), but when questioned you say it's only your version of "verifiability". Of course! I should have realised! That well known WP policy WP:N-HH VERIFIABILITY... Over many screeds of text we have established beyond doubt that there is no single WP:COMMONNAME for this territory, so in lieu of "picking a winner", we currently have the uncommon but official name. I am not a huge fan of it myself, and am happy to discuss changing it, but the aggression with which editors such as yourself attack this issue makes me (and others) query your motivation. Not surprising really given the rancour and misguided racist attacks that have accompanied these discussions in the past. The quote you have requested is from the middle paragraph on page 350, and reads as follows:

"By the end of April conditions in Serbia were chaotic. In the capital thousands lay buried under the rubble of the 6 April German bombardment and thousands more sought refuge inside the country from areas outside Serbia. Official labelled the Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens (Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia), it comprised some 4 1/2 million inhabitants, 28% of the original population of Yugoslavia. The peace treaties and boundary divisions produced a policy from which the Germans did not deviate until their final withdrawal from the Balkans in 1944. Serbia would be treated as a conquered province while Croatia became a sovereign ally, even though, in reality, it depended for its existence upon Axis military support. This became official when Pavelić signed the Tripartite Pact in June 1941."

The sentence ending in Yugoslavia is footnoted to Marjanovic, Ustanak i Narodnooslobodilački Pokret u Srbiji p. 23, but appears to refer only to the population figures. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I used the word "unverifiable", which is a standard English word outside of the WP policy. If I'd been specifically referring to the precise provisions of Wikipedia:Verifiability, I'd have said that and possibly linked to the page. In addition, and talking of aggression, stopping this off-point nitpicking might be one productive step that could be taken, as well as stopping trying to tag me by association with a charge of racism. Back on point, there clearly is a common name throughout the literature, used the vast majority in times in the vast majority of sources – which is "Serbia" or "Occupied Serbia" or somesuch. No one has ever disproved that or offered any policy-based reasoning for suddenly excluding it. Even if we could argue there are serious competing alternatives I'd particularly like to see the policy that says "where there is no single universal name, use the least common one we can find so long as one source claims it the official one". COMMONNAME of course is very much about deciding, often, between competing alternatives and finding the most common and familiar from among them – ie the one "most frequently used to refer to the subject in reliable English-language sources". It's not called "UNIVERSALNAME". Anyway, thank you for finally providing that quote. As noted, it remains one source, which simply asserts in passing that the area was officially "labelled" this way, and I can't help but noticing that the term "Serbia" is preferred even by this author, appearing three times in that short paragraph alone. N-HH talk/edits 11:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No-one has ever asked for the quote, so I didn't "finally" provide it, I provided it when immediately it was requested. It is an utter waste of time discussing this with you as you apply your own unique "policies" to your own statements, never accept that you could have been wrong, vague or unclear about anything, yet completely fail to assume good faith with me. Your propensity for broad sweeping statements unsupported by actual facts (or even Google Books search links), and obtuse failure to read or understand discussions of the past makes me even less likely to treat your suggestions seriously. You display a single-minded drive for a very narrow goal (essentially change at all costs, with a strong preference for your own solution), and display no interest in discussing alternatives that might meet the reasonable concerns of others. Good luck in your quest. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been asking for evidence and clarity on sources for a long, long time. You can take "finally" as some kind of insult if you wish, but it was meant as a fairly blank description, which of course followed a very explicit "thank you". The rest of your comment is just utterly unhelpful and borderline abusive, as many of yours have been previously (eg calling me a "stalking horse for nationalism"). The claim about "unique policies" is simply bizarre; in addition I have been more than willing to explain when you misunderstood what I said.

As for other points, I linked you to lengthy quotes on the Axis Powers page, which included at least one Google Books link, as well as page numbers from books I actually happen to have myself; I also, in the section above, was rather constructively, you would thought, looking at the "Military administration .." option. Yet you not only claim I have neither provided book details nor displayed any interest in discussing alternatives but accuse me of not reading and understanding things. You haven't addressed a single on-topic point I've made, while accusing me of doubting your good faith (when in fact of course all I have said is that I genuinely don't understand where you are coming from on this).

There's a pretty simple bottom line here. Anyone coming to this with an open mind, without any nationalist or self-declared "anti-nationalist" mindset, would look at the sources, look at WP policies on article title and say, prima facie, this page should be at "German occupation of Serbia/Ruritania during WW2" or "German-occupied Serbia/Ruritainia" or some such descriptive similar alternative. That would be a simple decision that would take all of 2 seconds, without any convoluted talk page digression. That surely cannot be a controversial observation and if I'm single-minded, it's because that seems so obvious to me. However, there's a claim that there is somehow a deeper problem here in this case and that we need to avoid this terminology. OK, fine. Can that be explained? It never has been explained, let alone justified, and believe me, despite your claims, I have read a lot of this debate. N-HH talk/edits 12:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to intercede with a timely aaaaaargh xP. Cut it out. This is not a forum and this article is RM-blocked. Give the poor horse a break... -- Director (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not initiating an RM for precisely that reason. Nor am I using this page as a general forum – I was trying to focus on questions of sources and WP titling policy, but seem to have ended up being lambasted in all sorts of tangential and diversionary comments about comments, while those doing that lambasting rather conspicuously fail to address any of the substantive points or questions. Perhaps I can just leave it with some Google Book stats, in case anyone manages to get past all the invective:

• "German-occupied Serbia" – 2,920 (with the exact phrase being highlighted in the text in all the results that come up in the first few pages)
• "German occupation of Serbia" – 1,290 (essentially the same phrase but constructed with different grammar)
• "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" – 83 (or 15 by the time you click on the second page, with only one result actually using the phrase and none at all citing it as a complete proper name)

Some fuller text from Tomasevich's War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, probably the most cited book on this page, in a subsection titled "The German system of Occupation in Serbia":

• "Serbia proper, approximately within its pre-1912 borders, was the only area of dismembered Yugoslavia in which the Germans established a military government of occupation" (he then goes on to repeatedly refer more casually in text to simply "Serbia", including in phrases such as "German-occupied Serbia" and "civil affairs in Serbia")

And then there's WP:AT:

• "some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural"

As I say, there's a prima facie case there for a page title along the lines of "German-occupied Serbia" and for simple "Serbia" in more casual mentions in the text of other articles, where the context was clear. We'd need something exceptional to override that. The only reason there's any aggravation or ongoing debate is because people seem to have spent years staring past these basic facts. N-HH talk/edits 14:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

For the literally umpteenth time: the sources refer to a (variously-defined) geographic region known as "Serbia", a region usually quite larger than this stripped-down occupation zone. The usage you cite is irrelevant with regard to the topic of this article. Either find sources that explicitly support you, or else please get off this OR ego trip. You have no sources, you are wrong, and your titles are a-historical and often absurdly misleading. after four months, please come to terms with that. -- Director (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to use Google Books, try using the WP-recommended search string and go to the last page to get the actual result, not the "estimate" on the first page which is almost always wildly off.

• your first link should be this - 60 hits
• your second link should be this - 40 hits Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Even "Serbia-Banat" gets this - 85 hits

If only things were as black and white as you appear to think they are. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As if it matters at all. -- Director (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I compared the raw searches for the three terms on the same basis, like for like. That made for an entirely valid, if broad, point and revealed a ratio of 4210:83, or about 51:1. Fine, we can do it on a tighter basis, for the three original options (btw the results for the new, fourth option of Serbia-Banat do not appear to distinguish between different types of intervening punctuation): doing so, we get 100:1. I don't quite see how this overturns the figures; if anything, it reinforces them. That said, of course raw Google numbers don't prove everything, for all sorts of reasons. However, as I said, the numbers make a prima facie case. Beyond that, looking into the actual results, and the examples quoted here and elsewhere, Tomasevich and other writers clearly prefer certain terms and are quite explicit about what they are referring to, and in what context, when they use them. I don't know where this idea comes from that they mean something different. That assertion seems to be the only OR in play here and, as for egoism, that surely applies better to anonymous WP editors who think they can better interpret, replace and improve the standard terminology used by professional writers and historians not to the anonymous editor who's insisting, per WP policy and practice, that we should defer to it. It's frankly surreal to be told, especially with quite such passion, that there are "no sources" or that when such sources, for example, refer to "German-occupied Serbia" they are somehow referring to a wider geographic area than, er, the "occupation zone" in question. N-HH talk/edits 17:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The entity which we call the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is most commonly called "Serbia" in reliable sources. There is no doubt about this. The full term "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is vanishingly rare in reliable sources, and the corresponding German term is only fractionally more common. The only obvious benefit of the current title over simpler and more common denominators is that it is, as far as I can tell, absolutely unambiguous. The question of scope is, to my mind, somewhat moot, since an article title never precisely defines an article's scope anyway. (For example, there is nothing in the title World War II to tell us what we should cover in the background section or how much we should say about diplomacy, high-level politics and local economic conditions.) But who cares what the title is, as long as it is correct, when our coverage is terribly fractured and incomplete? We have the anachronistic article Axis occupation of Vojvodina (with nice maps), but no article on anything to do with the Bulgarian occupation of Yugoslav territory! Srnec (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Srnec.. and so others arrive with even less real understanding of the problems here. On that subject, I wonder where WW and Antid are? They do kinda understand the issue, but of course they believe Serbia is under attack here so their position is fixed.. -- Director (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @N-HH. I shall endeavor to explain once more. The term "German-occupied Serbia" refers to that part of the region known as "Serbia" that was under military occupation. This article is about an actual administrative entity, whereas the sources use the term "German-occupied Serbia" to refer to the history of a stretch of land. So that's (part of) the reason why you do not really have any sources: these sources do not refer to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, the entity, as "German-occupied Serbia". Quite apart from that, due to the fact that "Serbia" almost exclusively refers to a country, an encyclopaedia article title like "German-occupied Serbia" infers the article is about the occupation of a sovereign country that did not exist at the time. I could make more points, but really, I'm wearing out my keyboard.. -- Director (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Who cares what the title is? WP policy cares. We are not here to invent or elevate obscure terminology based on our own whims but to follow what reliable sources use (and btw I dispute that the current title is clear or unambiguous at all: at first glance it could as easily refer to some military compound or area of the modern Serbian army. Due the infrequency of its use, we also have no clear exposition anywhere in sources of what territory was actually determined as being included within it). As for the explanation of why we cannot use Serbia or German-occupied Serbia, there are two responses. First, we are not meant to construct our own theses about what terms supposedly mean or don't mean, or when we can or cannot use them, we simply follow what sources use. Secondly, your thesis is simply bizarre. Your bid to force some kind of esoteric yet semantic distinction between what the terms supposedly refer to and your claim that use of "Serbia" here, whether qualified adjectivally or not, would imply it was a sovereign country of some sort during this period are, to be frank, plain nonsense linguistically and logically. Jesus, even the Hehn source quoted above – the gospel we're all meant to genuflect to for this point, apparently – slips from its one-off reference to the "label" of "Territory of the Military Commander .." to subsequently refer multiple times to simply "Serbia". The opening sentence of the article itself describes the subject as "the area" and later gives alternative names for that area, including "German-occupied Serbia". All I've been asking is that we use the most common name, not the least common one. This is not complicated stuff, despite the best efforts of other people to make it so. N-HH talk/edits 10:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And what is that, exactly? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@N-HH. The problem is your proposed terms aren't the most common or the most appropriate for the specific subject of this article. I say again: this article is first and foremost about a historical military-political entity. Its a "country article", if you will, not a period article. Its not about the region of Serbia during WWII. If you did manage to change the title to "German-occupied Serbia" or whatnot, we'd need to do away with the infobox and reorganize the article in accordance with its new scope: effectively "Serbia during WWWII". At such a point, someone would arguably be justified in creating a TMCS article. For numerous reasons (some of which I hope are obvious), I fundamentally disagree with the "period" (i.e. "period of the region") approach to the coverage of history on Wiki, and oppose such a scope modification.

That said, I do in part understand your misgivings about the current title. It is weird, it is long and unwieldy, but only when we are finally past scope issues such as the above can we hope to move forward on that constructively. My own answer, as I said, would be "MAiS", but I well may be missing something and would finally like to see a proper discussion on the question of consistent(!) naming rules for all German WWII military-political entities. That too should be kept in mind. -- Director (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There are any number of possible descriptive titles we could use that communicate the scope of this article being about a historical military-political entity. German occupation zone of Serbia for example, is unambiguous and doesn't have the "eternal Serbia" issue we have been dealing with for eons. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but the name needs to not only denote the entity, but also be used in sources. As I said, I've been at this for years now and did my research a long time ago. The term "Military Administration in Serbia" [6] seemed to me to be used quite frequently to denote the occupation entity as a whole (rather than just the government of said entity). -- Director (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. They should be based on sources, not used in sources. Per WP:NDESC. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously you're "allowed" to put together descriptive titles, but NDESC titles are supposed to be exceptions to the rule, which is COMMONNAME. It is not in accordance with naming conventions to put together an ad-hoc descriptive title where alternatives from sources are available. "TMCS" is preferable to any such title. -- Director (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that says that NDESC titles are the exception. It merely says "In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title". Our goal here (I hope) is to come up with a consensus alternative to the current title (which uses the extremely uncommon but official name). There is absolutely nothing I can see in policy that says we can't have a neutral descriptive title (for this article of all articles) if that is the consensus. If there is to be an exception, this is a perfectly good candidate to apply it to. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I say again: if there are sourced terms for the subject, they take precedence over user-invented descriptive titles. This is basic policy. -- Director (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You can say it all you want, but isn't what policy says. The policy says that we use the commonname, but there are provisos about that, particularly in respect of precision/ambiguity/accuracy/neutrality etc. There isn't a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, there are at least half a dozen contenders. So, we can achieve consensus on a winner (not likely given the history of this article), or we can go for a neutral descriptive title based on the sources (such as the one I suggested above). Another one might be German occupied zone of Serbia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be averse to a descriptive name, but I'd repeat the claim that "German-occupied Serbia", or even simply "Serbia" when the context is clear, is probably the clear winner in reliable sources. In all the books I have on the topic, in both running text and in maps, that is the term that is used. As for the period/entity distinction, I see this as a false dichotomy. Entities exist in/for a period; and, again, the above are the terms generally used for this entity in this period. Sure it's a different Serbia – in terms of status, scope and territory among other things – from what came before and what came after, but that's in the nature of geopolitics and geopolitical terminology, especially in wartime. N-HH talk/edits 12:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. I know we have done this properly somewhere in an archive talk page a year or more ago, and the standard is for common name is "significant majority of English-language reliable sources". A significant majority would need to be demonstrated, not surmised. The "period/entity dichotomy" as you refer to it, is essentially historical vs ahistorical in my view. It is anachronistic to refer to the Axis occupation of Vojvodina for example. This is different, but in a wider sense I strongly oppose the "time travel" approach to articles, particularly when there are nationalists lining up to "prove" something. The key point is what do reliable sources call this entity when they introduce it, as they place it in context, not when they are mentioning it for the 100th time in a book or article. However, I see no likelihood of a meeting of the minds on this, and fear that if we were somehow to get agreement, our strangely absent friends would suddenly return to wreak havoc on any negotiated consensus. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this is all slightly academic while we're under an RM ban. I'm sure that could be rescinded if a reasonable solution or agreement was in sight, but I also don't disagree that that seems unlikely to happen. I also, funnily enough, agree about articles such as the one you cited and also Axis occupation of Serbia – not only do historians not appear to approach the history in this theoretical-jigsaw fashion but of course it's the latter, for example, that treats Serbia as having some kind of immutable abstract existence, as opposed to being a term, like all others, with some definitional flexibility depending on exact context. Btw, my quotes at Talk:Axis Powers were very much focused on how authors refer to the entity when they introduce it as well as to later, more casual, references (and of course WP would have to deal with both too: I think the problem with the current title is in some ways most glaring in repeat mentions in running text in other articles, where it sounds impossibly obscure and formal). N-HH talk/edits 13:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Fundamentally oppose user-invented descriptive names over source-based ones, as it says in the lede of WP:NAME: "generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources". This is no article the scope of which is so vague it warrants a fake title. N-HH's terms may be inappropriate for the article's scope, but at least they're found in sources in considerable numbers.

Which brings me back to my above point, N-HH: the main reason I oppose your proposed titles, is that they are inappropriate for the article's scope and organization. In other words - they are not really WP:NAMES for this specific subject at all. This article is first and foremost about a historical military-political entity, not the region of Serbia during WWII. Its a "country article", if you will, not a period article. If you did manage to change the title to "German-occupied Serbia" or whatnot, it would be a title denoting the coverage of the history of "Serbia" under German occupation - not any entity (since "Serbia" is no entity). We'd probably need to do away with the infobox and reorganize the article in accordance with its new scope - which would effectively be "Serbia during WWII". At such a point, someone would arguably be justified in creating a "TMCS" article(!). For numerous reasons (some of which I hope are obvious), I strongly oppose the "period" (i.e. "period of the region") approach to the coverage of history on Wiki, and oppose such a scope modification as well as corresponding title changes that you propose.

So as I said, the problem is that we are really discussing the scope and subject of this article through its title. Rather than deciding on a scope and keeping titles in accordance with said scope. -- Director (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

One last time, D. My suggestions are not "user-invented", they are based on sources, which is what WP:NDESC requires. WP:TITLE does not require us to choose an inaccurate and ambiguous title instead of a neutral descriptive one. Given "German-occupied Serbia" is one of the half dozen names used in reliable sources, then German occupied zone of Serbia or German occupation zone of Serbia are clearly based on what the sources call it, and they are perfectly appropriate for the scope of this article, which as you have rightly pointed out, is a geo-political entity, because the adition of "zone" makes it clear it has a geographical aspect. Your suggestion of "German administration in Serbia" is inappropriate for the current article scope because it does not even hint at the geo- part, it clearly relates to a political entity and does not give any sense it might relate to a geographically defined area. Thus the issue that N-HH brought up regarding "Chetniks/Partisans crossing over the Drina into the German administration in Serbia". If this article was retitled to "German administration in Serbia" I would expect the scope to be reduced to just the political aspects, and I would immediately create another article using one of the two names I have just suggested to cover the geographical scope, which would clearly meet WP:GNG on its own. I believe the article scope should remain as it is, and we need a geo-political title, not a political one. This has always been at the centre of the problem here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What I mean of course is that the phrase itself is of your own invention, the fact that its drawn from sources is naturally not disputed. I really can't be bothered to seek out some NC or other but, as you can see in the lead of WP:NAME, this is generally not done (without a specific reason) while terms used by sources are available as viable alternatives. Yes, your NDESCs do match this article's subject and scope, and in that respect they are fine, but as I said, terms from sources take precedence in my book (and generally on Wiki too).

Regarding "Military Administration in Serbia" (sans "German"), I support it because to me it meets several criteria I've seen no other title satisfy: It does indeed refer to the geo-political entity, not its government alone, and 2) is, I believe, the most common such term in sources. I can source that usage if it comes to an RM. 3) It is relatively short. 4) It is consistent with other articles of this type. I have been working towards consistency in this regard for some time so some WWII German military zone articles do owe their titles to me, but not most, I believe. -- Director (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)